Talk:British Isles

Template:FACfailed is deprecated, and is preserved only for historical reasons. Please see Template:Article history instead.

This article (or a previous version) is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination did not succeed.
For older candidates, please check the Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations.

Software: Computing Unassessed

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

the following three archives all date from June-July 2006

Note to all users

Note to all users - This is a talk page for the British Isles article. When using this page please remember Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. In paticular, a number of users have broken the following two guidelines on this page in the past; please make sure that you understand them:

Talk pages are not for general chatter; please keep discussions on talk pages on the topic of how to improve the associated article.

Talk pages are also not strictly a forum to argue different points of view about controversial issues. They are a forum to discuss how different points of view should be included in the article so that the end result is neutral

--Robdurbar 12:23, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

6000 islands

Does anyone have a source for the comment about the british isles consisting of 6000+ island and islets, it seems a lot. I'm researching this subject and I'd love to find a source.

Don't have a source - but Clew Bay alone has 365, so although 6000 does seem high, it's also plausible. Bastun 23:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've never found a definitive source on this. I think part of the problem is how you define an island. Do count every rock poking out of the water or does it have to be habitable or a minimum size and at what tide. Estimates seem to vary between 2000 and 6000. josh (talk) 11:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I too would love to know the answer to this. I think the simple definition of "A land mass, especially one smaller than a continent, entirely surrounded by water" is inadequate for this purpose until you describe the boundaries of the area (Faeroes? Sark? Irish Sea?) and the minimum land mass (? a hectare? an acre?) I can find no usefully defined number but I did find, on bbc.co.uk in a page about an Alan Titmarsh programme - British Isles, A natural history, this quote: "The UK coastline is nearly 32,000km long if you include the islands." I fear that's another unsupported comment.

DuncanGrey 14:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've just found on the www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk site the claim that "The coastline length around mainland Great Britain is 11 072.76 miles." I calculate this to be 17 819.8799 kilometers - without islands.DuncanGrey 18:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for minor change

The page is currently edit-protected. Would an admin please change "the Pale" in the section Vikings and Normans to "the Pale". The former page was just moved to the latter (after a consensus discussion). Pale is now an article on pales in general (there are several others, besides the famous one).--Srleffler 03:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done, unprotected too anyway. Let's hope people can play nicely here now. --Robdurbar 19:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected (am I mad?)

OK, so I've unprotected this article. Now let's see if people can get back to editing it without personal attacks or incivility, eh? What is the general view on how this (and linked articles shcu as Britain and Ireland and British Isles (terminology)) should progess now? --Robdurbar 20:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, when does 'some' become 'many'?

'Rejected by "some" in Ireland' Just what, precisely, is the basis for this false representation of the reality in Ireland? As has been shown relentlessly here, the term is rarely used in Ireland. It's great to see so many experts on Ireland from, well, Britain. The Empire is finished, lads. Get over yourselves. From the fields of Mullaghbawn to the hills of Ard na Caithne to the mountains of Sliabh na mBan this country continues to resist incorporation into the myths of British nationalism, myths which the very term "British Isles" encapsulates so well. Your tribe is just that: your tribe. Only at the heart of the British tribe could you mistake the terminological constructions of the British state, of your institutionalised nationalism, as being representative of the mass of people in Ireland. New word for today: irredentism. El Gringo 20:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have said it again and again and again, the term BI is rarely used in Ireland, so why do some editors go berserk over this truism? MelForbes 21:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your question, basis for that text is given by the provided citation: (Barber, Ellis 1995) "The very concept of 'the British Isles' is rejected by some Irish historians. In part this reflects the different nuances of the term within the two islands..." I took the liberty of extrapolating "Irish historians" to "some in Ireland" which would seem to be justified by the other available sources.

I take it you have no objections to the balance of the sentence, but simply wish to change some to many. If so, then provide a citation which supports such a change. Your assertion that something "has been shown relentlessly here" betrays a lack of understaning of Wikipedia's verifiability policy. Article text is supported by reference to reliable sources, these endless protestations and ancedotes count for nothing.

The remainder of your statement is simply trolling, please stop.EricR 22:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

El G and Mel - though I appreciate that most/many is probably the most accurate and truest respresentation of reality, we cannot say 'many' until we have some sort of unrejctable proof that this view is held by the majority; until then we can say 'some' only. --Robdurbar 07:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Google Fight

Interestingly, and considering the "British Isles" brigade's love for Google, Google has just fought "British Isles" out against "Britain and Ireland". Unfortunately for the British far right here, the results are:

http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=British+Isles&word2=Britain+and+Ireland

Translation: 87 million results for Britain and Ireland; a mere 19.6 million for British Isles. How ironic that the British far right here want the Britain and Ireland article to be deleted as soon as possible because it, in their unique world view, is "not in widespread use". This entire issue is an astounding reflection of British nationalism in 2006. El Gringo 22:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two things:

I resent being called far-right, and I think we'd all appreciate it if you took back that comment.
I think you meant this, which avoid Google's use of the word 'and'

HawkerTyphoon 22:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two things:

You, given your previous statements (and links), are quite clearly part of the aforementioned.
I most certainly did not. There are many isles, and even Isles, on planet earth. Try again. El Gringo 22:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See my note below. As for my comments, I admit it was a brutal outrage that I should never have let out of the back of my mind, and I apologise profusely for it. However, my girlfriend was attacked in Dublin by irish nationalists for her English accent, so I did have a slight reason for doing it. I apoloigise again, but see my comment below for reasoning on why Google fights don't count here! HawkerTyphoon 22:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, you meant this: http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=%22British+Isles%22&word2=%22Britain+and+Ireland%22 Jonto 22:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, so I did. Sorry! HawkerTyphoon

Better still, [1]. It's only 3 to 1. Therefore a very sizable population for "Britain and Ireland" MelForbes 22:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The opposite is also true - it could be argued that 75% is a mighty big percentage, especially when you take into account the appearance of sentences such as "Britain and Ireland have signed a treaty" or "Representatives of Britain and Ireland met"... The term doesn't stand up to a google search. HawkerTyphoon 22:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See this [2]. 60% of the "British Isles" pages do not recoginise Ireland! MelForbes 22:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it doesn't stand up to proof reading. Think about it! HawkerTyphoon 23:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's Google speaking, not me, sorry! MelForbes 23:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Think about it. British Isles -Ireland is going to come up with less earches by default, because you're excluding a term that isn't exluded in 'British Isles'... I could quote this at you, but it isn't really valid either! HawkerTyphoon 23:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"British Isles and Ireland" is a non-runner, for it forgets about the islands off Ireland. Rarely used. Hardly worth a mouse-click! MelForbes 23:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then you see my point - Google can't be used all the time, it can't conclusivley prove anything. We all need to stick to WP:RS for changes! HawkerTyphoon 23:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But you were advocating Google above. Were you? MelForbes 23:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only as a witty reparté. But yes, I was. Maybe we are both wrong. Knowing my track record, we probably are, my ineptness rubs off on people even over the internet:P HawkerTyphoon 23:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hehe Jaysas, Mel. I'm buying you a pint if you ever end up in Dublin. Great spirit! El Gringo 22:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about Mulligans!MelForbes 23:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crazy. Was just thinking of it when the sentence was being written. Weird. El Gringo 23:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not crazy. I have often been accused of clairvoyance. MelForbes 23:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jaysus, Mulligans, is it? Mother of divine Lord, wouldn't that now be a great place to go pinting! Could do a survey on "British Isles" — and then run before you get a glass over the head for mentioning that term! lol FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, they're not into flag-flaunting. A more down-to-earth kind of folk! Nice place! MelForbes 00:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Armagh and Derry are now in Britain, it appears

In a related article, Gsd2000 is still trying to claim here that the UK and Britain is the same. Intellectually breathtaking, I know. Somebody over there pointed out by way of example that on the Netherlands article it is made clear that Holland is incorrect usage, even if benighted types equate both. This simple flagging suggestion has resulted in apoplexy from the United Kingdom=Britain brigade. Time to end this silliness. El Gringo 01:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Odd, as all my friends in Northern Ireland call Northern Ireland part of Britain (I guess some catholics may not -- don't know). After all, nowadays Britain is just a short and convenenient way of saying United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in the same way that America is just a short and convenenient (but equally inaccurate) way of saying United States of America.

But the term "Britain" is indeed very often used as a synonym for the UK, especially in informal speech or writing. To say that this is "wrong" is to misunderstand how language actually works. Linguistic prescriptivists may fulminate as much as they like against double negatives or split infinitives, for example, but it won't stop people using them. If you wish to talk about the island of Britain, I would recommend calling it "Great Britain", as this is much less often used as a synonym for the UK (except, for some reason, in international sporting contests such as the Olympics, or on vehicle license plates). TharkunColl 07:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was debate about whether the usage should be termed incorrect or inaccurate - I think the latter won out. But the usage should be flagged as such - resistance to this is, ahem, eccentric. Do my words betray my misunderstanding of how language works? I thought it usually worked to say what you mean.--Shtove 08:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in answer to your question, yes and no. Of course "Britain" means the island also known as "Great Britain" - that is its "correct" meaning. But the fact remains that a lot of people, including members of the British government, have used the term "Britain" in an informal sense to mean the UK. Is this wrong? It really depends on whether you are a prescriptivist or a descriptivist in linguistic terms. But the usage is a fact. TharkunColl 10:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But Britain originally meant British Isles before England, Ireland, Wales and Scotland even existed (well Britto). The use of Britain to mean Great Britain is incorrect, but more convenient in conversation. Equally, the use of Britain to mean United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is also incorrect, but more convenient in conversation, and the most widely used meaning in my experience. Rnt20 14:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't read that Britto article before. Pytheasis is said to have named the islands after the Pretaniki (apparently, according to local usage), but then that sentence only refers to Cornwall. Diodorus clearly refers to Ireland separately as Iris. This historical point has been raised before, and not addressed. Can someone quote and cite (eg. from Loeb) the exact passages in the ancient historians from which the term British Isles is said to derive? I suspect the actual words will lead to a different conclusion.--Shtove 17:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shtove, I think the pretaniki is a bit of a supposition (after all, for a very long time "British" was supposed to derive from "Brutus of Troy"). However, you can find the most authoritative text of Ptolemy here [3], and Pliny is here [4] (book 4, para 102 onwards), but in Latin only, which is not one of my languages I am afraid. You can actually find images of pre-17th century maps which use the equivalent of British Isles in Latin and French can be seen here [5]. It's a relief to find a comment interested in sources. I think the article is reporting these sources correctly, but see what you think. MAG1 21:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, MAG1, for the links - will check them out. Brutus of Troy is interesting, because it's use in Tudor history writing and propaganda in relation to Ireland is one of the roots of the arguments on this talk page. There's been a fair amount of literary studies on Edmund Spenser, which analyse the use of the Brutus myth during the Tudor re-conquest of Ireland when English historians had ditched the myth in their general writings. Also, the political origins of the term British Isles (early Stuart) have been raised above (somewhere). It seems an attempt is made on this page to reduce the term to its geographical significance, whereas on Talk:United Kingdom the attempt is to treat the term Britain as largely political. People are choking on their cake from John O' Groats to Land's End.--Shtove 23:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shtove, the whole use of "British" (as in "ancient") in early modern times is interesting as it specifically excludes the English. I managed to find a copy of Peter Heylyn's Microcosmus (1621) (first surviving use of British Isles in English) today in which, you may be interested to know, he takes great pains in demolishing the Brutus myth and the myth that the Irish were descended from Scythians after the Flood. He then explicitly equates British Isles to the islands occupied by the ancient Britons. I don't know how that ties in with what you know, but I think this actually may be at the heart of arguments. In the UK, the historical meaning of British has persisted alongside the eventual growth of the modern political meaning, while in Ireland it had the very definite meaning of people from Great Britain in the here and now from the early 16th century (1641, earlest recorded usage) onwards. MAG1 17:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ElGringo, I doubt you're winning many friends and influencing editors of United Kingdom by using twisted logic (and multiple reverts) to insist that England == the UK. WP:POINT. If the real issue you have is what you're outlining above, then why not include a footnote after 'Britain' pointing out that it's inaccurate, along the lines of what Shtove says, above. Bastun 10:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, there are more British Wikipedians than Irish Wikipedians. That with POV, politics and sometimes British nationalism, it makes it an uphill fight to get this sort of pov corrected. As for me, I have lost some faith in Wikipedia ever getting these edits types corrected. MelForbes 13:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing 'unfortunate' about there being more Wikipedians from one place than another. It's not a 'fight' where weight of numbers wins. It shouldn't be a 'fight' at all. We're supposed to be here to build an encyclopedia, after all. Logical arguments backed by citeable sources and verifiability are what matters. So yes - 'Britain' being used to describe 'TUKoGBaNI' is inaccurate. But editing the UK entry to then say 'England' is an alternative term for 'UK', because one objects to an inaccurate use of the word 'Britain' is achieving what, exactly? Apart from annoying the people who have to do the reverts... Bastun 13:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is that "England" is used by quite a lot of people as the name for the UK, and especially by Americans, and Wikipedia should reflect the fact. MelForbes 16:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On what authority have you unilateraly decided that Britain = Great Britain and not the UK. Both the British and Irish governments and media use Britain to refer to the state and usually reserve Great Britain for the island (although the irish consolate used has a Great Britain embassy). josh (talk) 14:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Great Britain" is the island. "Britain" is a vague and informal term which can mean either the island or the state. john k 21:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe out in the eternally benighted 13 colonies it's a bit "vague"; indeed, so "vague" that calling Britain England is very commonplace in 2006. Strangely, I don't see anybody here rushing to support that sort of "vagueness". But that's another matter. At any rate, nothing vague about Britain here in Ireland. In fact, historical, political, cultural and intellectual discourse has been quite taken by the entire British thing for some time now. Precision is everything in such a context. Only an outsider would fail to appreciate the importance of this. And only a sloppy mind would attempt to imbue the ignorance of equating Britain with the UK with the legitimacy of precision. El Gringo 23:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

El Gringo: Britain is not a formal geographical term like "Great Britain" is. It is a term which can refer to either a) the Roman province of Britannia, and its area, up to the arrival of the Anglo-Saxons; b) the entire island of Great Britain; and c) the United Kingdom. As to "England" the issue is that it is generally considered to be wrong to say that Edinburgh is in England (I think that has always been considered wrong) and since World War II or so, it has also been considered wrong to use expressions like "English government" or the general "England" to refer to the UK. "Britain" on the other hand, is a term used frequently, including by British media. It is, more or less, a back formation from "British" which is the official adjective to describe the UK. It may not technically be right, but it is also pretty clearly not technically wrong in the way that "England" has become. And note that England didn't used to be wrong. It used to be perfectly acceptable to use "England" as a shorthand substitute for the UK. Were people in the 19th century, say, "wrong" to do this, in spite of everyone doing it and there being no sense that it is wrong?

I'd add that to use "Britain" as being synonymous with the UK is different from saying that places in Northern Ireland are in Britain. The latter strikes me as on the borderline of incorrectness. The former is perfectly appropriate. "Britain, France, and Belgium were among the countries which joined the peacekeeping forces in Lower Kislavastan" That would be a perfectly correct sentence, I think. "Derry is a city in Britain" would be awkward. john k 16:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. "Baghdad is a city in the United States" would also be, shall we say, "awkward" El Gringo 23:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So Britain is a term of political art? Has Damien Hirst had a go at this? Does anyone understand what JK is talking about?--Shtove 00:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, let's go backwards for a moment. A century ago, "England" was the conventional short form for "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland." This was used by English people, by people from outside the, er, British Isles, and, in fact, by many people from Ireland, Wales, and Scotland (although I will not venture to say that everyone used it.) The way the term was used was generally not to say absurd things like "Dublin and Edinburgh are cities in England." It was to talk about, for instance, "the English government" or "England" in a general sense as a political entity. "England will not tolerate French interference in Egypt", "The Queen of England has done such and such" - that kind of thing. "England" as a geographical entity meant the same thing it does today, but as a political entity it meant the entire United Kingdom. There were other examples of this in the past. For instance, "Piedmont" was frequently used as a political equivalent for the Kingdom of Sardinia, but one of course would not have said that Cagliari was in Piedmont. Here's another example that you are perhaps aware of: "Ireland" geographically means "Republic of Ireland+Northern Ireland," but politically it means simply "Republic of Ireland." The use of terms like "President of Ireland" does not imply that Mary McAleese is also president of Northern Ireland, does it? Basically, political shorthand terms are often essentially synecdoches. England was the most important part of the UK, so it was used as a shorthand for the whole country by people who knew very well that the full name of the country was "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland". It was used in the same way that "London" can be used as shorthand for the government of the country. This is clearly a common usage of "Britain." Because of the usage of "Great Britain" for the island (or, more accurately for England+Scotland+Wales), usage of "Britain" for the UK is probably at least as common as for the perhaps strictly more accurate meaning of "Great Britain". It is not for us to say that standard usage is incorrect. john k 12:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History

I have had a go at taking up Red King's challenge and revising the history. It's not much shorter, I am afraid, but I have tried to focus it on things best done here rather on national pages. As well as a brief survey of the development of political structures, these include:

History before the national formation. Could be done elsewhere, but isn't. Only drawback is that it is very complicated, so a bit of a sketch.
Middle Ages. National entities exist, but they are being run by an international elite. I think a decent overall story emerges.
17th century. I am a complete convert here: the history of this time can only be properly understood on the basis of the entire archipelago (and even then it is a bit insular). There are some other decent articles around, such as that on the Wars of the Three Kingdoms, so I have avoided detail.
Population movements. Lots of this and very important: it could be argued that this is one of the real motors of history.

I have tried to keep the section NPOV for obvious reasons, so no moral commentary. I have also tried to minimise any Whiggishness- any sense that the past is just a long march to the glorious present. MAG1 22:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I have also tried to add just a little social and economic history to go along with the politics. MAG1 23:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History! A British Perspective - political tentacles

I notice that the history of the BI is being purely told through a British perspective. I thought that the name "British Isles" was a neutral term. Well the article seems to be growing political tentacles, and doesn't look too neutral. MelForbes 22:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well of course it has been. It was written entirely by one user - User:dave souza. It was later trimmed by User:MAG1. No matter how hard they try - and I think dave has done so - a single user can never escape his or her own background entirely. He brought it to this talk page before adding it and no one has tried to remove it.

If you're unhappy, why not either:

Remove it?
Edit it?
Propose edits?
Bring up certain sections that are particularly single viewed.

Try as one might, there is little an editor can do to improve a situation in reaction to such general comments. --Robdurbar 22:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I tried very hard to avoid this (I have rewritten a sizable chunk). Please be explicit in your criticism and what you think should be done about it rather than throwing around wild accusations. MAG1 22:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Really, I am only trying to stop the situation deteriorating. MelForbes 22:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we could get a Frenchman, or an American, or perhaps a Scandinavian or something to have a look at the article? HawkerTyphoon 22:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe a chapter about the Gaels of Ireland, and of course another about Wales. Those cultures being the only 2 with direct links to B.C. It will take a couple of days. MelForbes 23:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

B.C.? MF, are you saying those cultures are prehistoric? Typical insensitivity! Contributions from continental WP'ers are usually interesting - they get bored with the low level of traffic on their own-language WPs and cross over to English (often bringing better skills). But no one is going to touch this. The USA contingent are mostly puzzled at the English-British-Irish conundrums. So am I. This article insists that the term BI is essentially geographic, but over on Talk:United Kingdom the emphasis is on Britain as an undefined (it's not just an island, you know), but substantial, entity in a "political context" - the unwritten ("make it up as we go along") constitution is very helpful in this way. One tentacle gives, while the others take away. My preference (stated before) is to suck it up by replacing the history section with links to appropriate articles.--Shtove 23:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dublin is 2000 years old, at least. Please read the Dublin page. MelForbes 00:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I must admit, I wouldn't mind removing the history section and replacing it with relevant links; that said, there is room for a section on the history of British-Irish relations and the history section of this page would be as good as anything for that; either way, its not a section that interests me greatly!

As for Mel's comments... I don't see how any of us can do this given that very few of the editors here know anything about Irish history. Perhaps we could ask those who have contributed to the History of Ireland page to have a look here? --Robdurbar 10:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly enough, I barely changed any of the early history as I could not see how it could be improved. There is a bit on the Celts/Gaels/Britons/Brythons in the first para of the "Pretani, Romans and Anglo-Saxons" section.

As to the replace-with-a-list-of-articles idea, this was my starting point; however, there are aspects, as discussed above, which are not dealt elsewhere, and there are things which can only be dealt with on an all-archipelago basis (again, see above). Now, if people want to generate the articles elsewhere within Wikipedia, then that would be great, but until then this is probably the best place for the material. I have tried, and I think it is a good principle, not to reproduce substantial chunks from other articles. MAG1 11:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note, a history of the "British Isles" ought not concern itself solely with "British-Irish relations," which at least implies, to my mind, the history of relations between Ireland and the present-day British state. It should, I think, be about the history of the islands as a unit. There's a ton of stuff that doesn't full under the rubrik of "British-Irish relations" - the effects of the Viking Invasions, for instance, make a great deal of sense to discuss in a broad view as to their effects on the British Isles as a whole. So does the spread of Norman-style feudalism, which occurred in different ways in England, Wales, Scotland, and Ireland. Relations between Scotland and Ireland (which are, I suppose, technically covered by the term "British-Irish relations," but which, in practice are likely to be ignored) are also worth discussing. A history section seems essential to me. If the current one is bad, improve it. john k 20:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"History of the islands as a unit" - isn't this an example of Begging the question? If you're talking invasion by Vikings/Norsemen and by Normans, then the unit should include the territories of Scandinavia and France. The Norsemen had a trading empire defined by sea lanes that connected fortified ports (like the Spanish and Portuguese empires) right across northern Europe. The Normans kicked butt and intermarried from Sicily to Scotland - so eg. the rebel Earl of Desmond in 16thC Ireland was just as interested in talking up his connections with the city state of Milan in order to prove his credentials with Philip II of Spain as he was in bending the knee to Elizabeth I of England. Why cut it off at the channel/la manche? Why not see the islands from a europe-wide celtic POV? Why treat them as a unit, when the roman and germanic invasions were limited to the south of Britain? And the biggest influence of the lot - Christianity: what unit is appropriate there? The history section isn't bad - it's just hopeless, both restrictive and over-ambitious in its artificiality. Why do history editors want to treat the islands as a unit? Because the islands were united in one state at the height of the British empire, and the books we read are mostly the product of navel-gazing national historiography from that era. The state of play was different before the union, and it's different now.--Shtove 22:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is ridiculous. The British Isles form a distinct geographical unit, and also, in many ways, a distinct geopolitical one. Of course the Vikings and their Norman descendants had influence beyond the British Isles, but that doesn't mean that there's no sense in referring to the British Isles as a unit. Sure there are aspects of history limited to one part of the islands, but there are others that are fairly universal. It's also worth noting that the Kings of England were, from the 12th century onwards, the dominant political force in all four nations (they were Kings of England, their great vassals controlled most of Wales, they were Overlords of Ireland, and the King of Scots acknowledged himself intermittently as their vassal. But even if we acknowledge that such a history is somewhat artificial (as, of course, any largely political history of a geographical unit which does not form a single state is bound to be), I'm not sure why that matters. We have a section on the history of the Iberian Peninsula, which only comprised a single state during the Roman period, for a brief part of the Visigoth era, and between 1580 and 1640, we have a History of Italy article which dicusses the history of the area from ancient times. Furthermore, the idea of trying to write the history of the Isles from a non-English perspective is a recent one which is quite strong - there's Norman Davies' The Isles, for instance, and the recent fad for discussion of the Wars of the Three Kingdoms. What advantage, precisely, is gained by removing the history section? john k 09:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shtove's argument sounds like an argument against encyclopaedias: classifications never can be applied rigorously; therefore things should not be classified. Taken to its extreme, there should be just one article. There is, I believe, currently a live debate on how navel gazing were the Victorians and Edwardians; however, I do not think that it is really possible to stick the concept of the British Isles on the Victorians trying to make the world fit in with their ideas of what it should be like: it existed before the heyday of the Empire, and you would havve to be well into yopur fifties by now to have had an 'Our Island History' type of education. While there are always connections to the rest of Europe and the world, the British Isles have been seen as distinct from continental Europe: originally it was seen as being ethnically different (hence the name), and, then for better or worse, they remained out of European political structures from the Reformation until 1974, and the societies were developed by people from the British Isles or at least those who lived there. It would be difficult, for example, to describe any effect that Desmond had on Spain or Milan, or indeed the effects that Spain or Milan had on British society (with the exception of Philip's influence on Mary. During the Middle Ages, they were part of transnational feudal structures, but developed distinctively from the continent. Christianity is a particularly interesting (and neglected) part of British Isles history with the assimulation of Celtic Christianity by the Roman sort, and again while obviously it has many outside influences, but this is an area where the British Isles is precisely the right scale. Yes, it is different now and it may become even more different if Northern Ireland is ever sorted out, but that does not affect the past unless you are a fully paid-up post modernist. That the world can be described using several different scales is not an argument for ignoring them, but trying to reflect them all. I think (as I have said consistently) is that a test for this section is that it should not merely parrot what can be found in other articles, but should be introducing new material or maiking connections between existing material that have not been made. MAG1 11:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

National formation

Dublin: "Baile Átha Cliath or simply Áth Cliath was founded in 988 nearby: the two towns eventually became one." Eblana was a separate settlement. As for the High King not being weak - read the article. Maybe the mythological High Kings weren't, but the 'modern' office was certainly so; figureheads, compromise candidates, etc., elected from the fine. Bastun 00:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well if peacemakers are weak, then the High King was weak. The High Kings played more of a Kofi Annan type role, working out disputes etc between other lesser kingships. I would have thought of that as more of a strength than a weakness. MelForbes 12:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A comparison of a medieval ruler to the head of a modern international organization seems deeply anachronistic to me. john k 14:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given the complete lack of power (whatever about good intentions) exhibited by Kofi Annan and the UN in getting it's constituent members to agree anything, behave, and stop blowing each other up, I actually think it's a pretty apt analogy that serves to prove my own point rather well :-) Bastun 14:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's a very apt anlogy, thanks. Also there are many things anachronistic on the BI page. Very off topic! Only for the UN a lot of folk may not be here today editing WP. MelForbes 16:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]