This is an archive of past discussions about British Isles. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Use of British Isles by Irish government ministers
Since the intro states that the Irish government discourages use of the term, in the interests of NPOV we need to counterbalance this with examples of the Irish government actually using it. As, for example, when it was used in a speech in 2002 by Síle de Valera, Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht & the Islands (and granddaughter of Éamon "I'm sorry Hitler's dead" de Valera). ðarkuncoll12:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I disagree, and your Hitler comment is wholly inappropriate. There's a difference between an official government position and a speech made at the opening of a Drama festival. --HighKing (talk) 16:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
A brief mention is not the same as notoriety, and the same editor, as part of his argument, infers that they spoke 'queens English' in 'ancient Greece'. It's sad to see what motivates some of the editors on this mage, as above with opening comment. PurpleA (talk) 20:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I think the word you're looking for is "implies", rather then "infers". It's an easy mistake to make, I know, and most certainly doesn't imply illiteracy or stupidity - though others may infer such. And no, the people of Ancient Greece spoke (what we now call) Ancient Greek, which is the language in which the term British Isles first appears. ðarkuncoll23:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
...who also tendered her resignation shortly thereafter (oops!). Better Dev any day than Winston "Let's gas those barbarous Kurds" Churchill, yes the same Winston of "Let's shoot those Paddies on sight" fame during the Irish War of Independence. Marvellous little racist altogether. 86.42.96.251 (talk) 13:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I'd prefer to watch an old-fashioned medieval joust myself where the knights used more than words to strike down their opponents.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Was Ms de Valera's resignation anything to do with her use of BI in a speech? If not, Mr IP, then it has no bearing whatsoever. ðarkuncoll15:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree that this article is far from a state of NPOV when it comes to detailing rejection or acceptance of "British Isles". There is much about its rejection but little or nothing about its acceptance, so yes, let's put in a reference to the speech by Síle de Valera. It's completely irrelevent where she made the comments. Also, there's a reasonbale comment made by David Norris at reference 28; we could include it in the interests of balance. MidnightBlue(Talk)16:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Indeed. And I also notice in the same reference that the Irish education minister had received a grand total of one complaint about the use of BI. ðarkuncoll17:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Guys we went round exactly the same arguments last time round and finally reached an agreement; the above or variants were all trotted out then. I dare say the same merry go round will start up again in the future. How about thinking and acting anew (to reference Lincoln) and looking at the ideas to make this a less controversial article with pipelinks to other material. --Snowded (talk) 23:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
It already has pipelinks to other material, at the head of each section. Just like Europe, for example. Pipelinks are fine, but removing the content of this article isn't. ðarkuncoll23:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Snowded removing some material is not going to make the few people who are obsessed with having this articles title change move on and accept it. When Sarah and others want a serious debate about content, it should be had until then once the protection is removed we need to remove some of the misleading text. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:32, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Snowded and MITH were correct to remove an attempt to introduce religion into the mix. What "misleading text" needs to be removed? Sarah777 (talk) 00:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
The sentence which claims the BBC style guide says the British Isles is confusing. The debate is above this one. When i said about removing some material, i wasnt talking about the religious nonsense from this talk page, i was talking about his comment on making the article less controersial by just making lots of pipelinks to other articles. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Is a term/is a name for a....
I'm a bit ashamed of one or two of my fellow Irish editors here not being civil and attacking editors due to their nationality without making concrete points about the proposed edit at hand. I somewhat agree with the edit being made by the ip but I think it should gain consensus first after some discussion. So therefore I am making the below proposal to make a slight change the intro to the below instead of the current wording:
"The British Isles is a name for a group of islands off the northwest coast of.....
I believe this to be a more neutral opening, as after all the "British Isles" is just a name and by declaring it as such it will makes things more obvious to readers. This newer form I think will diminish the whole 'this article is trying to suggest Ireland is British' thing and will hopefully be a more NPOV and stable intro for everyone.MusicInTheHouse (talk) 17:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Music.. I think this suggestion has already been aired (I might be wrong) and it was rejected because every description of something is just a name, so why single out the British Isles? Copper is a name for a red metallic element etc.. It's just not needed. MidnightBlue(Talk)17:56, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree with MidnightBlue, "is a name" could be used to start almost all articles on wikipedia and considering the huge number of wikipedia sources that use the term somewhere i do not think its justified. However i admit "name" is more reasonable than "term" as some seem to want. The disagreements on the naming of the British isles is not overlooked. Its made clear in the second paragraph, its talked about on two other articles including one wholy for the naming dispute. In no way are British editors trying to censor people from Ireland or the fact some people are offended by the term. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:00, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
The reason we "single out" the "British" Isles is because the title is highly contentious, disputed and objectionable to most Irish people who are not British. It is also falling out of use despite the determination of a group of British Nationalist editors to preserve British POV across a whole raft of Ireland-related articles. Sarah777 (talk) 18:36, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I do not wish to single out this article, I just thought something as harmless as adding two words might make the article a bit more stable and more NPOV. Do you have any other reason for not using it other than 'its obvious that its name' and 'it just not needed'? Is saying 'that is could be used any other Wikipedia articles but isn't' really a valid reason for not including it? What exactly is the harm in using the two extra words? The proposed edit is not directly linked to the naming dispute but does make it more obvious it is just a name and therefore would give a better context for the reader to understand the information that comes afterwards.MusicInTheHouse (talk) 18:06, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
The best contribution you could make Music is to stop apologising on my behalf when no apology is due. And revert the edit warring you have indulged in. Sarah777 (talk) 18:36, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
The opening sentence if an article should answer "two questions for the nonspecialist reader: "What (or who) is the subject?" and "Why is this subject notable?" The subject is the Isles, not the name of the Isles. We already have (two!) articles about the name of the Isles (Terminology of the British Isles and British Isles naming dispute). The "harm" is that it is not an accurate description of the contents of the article. Rockpocket18:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Actually, by addressing the term "British Isles" in the lede, the article is dealing specifically with the 'who' because "British Isles" is a term, one term of many, for this archipelago. If the real subject of this article was a simple harmless apolitical discourse on a few rocks and grass but under other terms such as "Britain and Ireland" or the Atlantic Archipelago, do you think there would be 20+ archives of discussion/fighting/resistance/insistance? This article title is intentionally provocative, and stating a political claim - that the Irish are "British" - which is firmly refuted by the vast majority of the population of the island of Ireland, a vast majority who support Irish nationalist political parties which aspire to the freedom of all of Ireland from British rule. That demographic and democratic reality is evidently hard for certain traditional British mentalities to fathom. (who seem to be having their annual online convention here on a daily basis) 86.42.96.251 (talk) 12:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
IP.86, Do you think it is possible for you to discuss this in term of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, rather in terms of geopolitics? With every mention of nationalism, political imperialism and fighting for freedom you marginalize your input here further. The bottom line is that this article is about some islands. It is not about the name of those islands. There are lots of subjects that have multiple names, these are deal with by redirects to the primary title. Under that primary title, we address the subject. If you believe the primary title is incorrect then there is a mechanism for proposing change (see the half-assed attempt above as an example of how not to do it). But lawyering around the issue with "X is a term for Y" is not the way we deal with it. Rockpocket16:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
British Isles is overwhelmingly the most common name for the islands, which is why it's the name of the article. The name of a place is what the majority of its inhabitants call it, and the UK population outnumbers that of the RoI by 15 to 1 (I'm simplifying of course, to make a point. Some people in the UK may not use the name, and some in the RoI undoubtedly do use it.) ðarkuncoll16:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't think you have it right there as far as wikipedia is considered. Surely, if there were more good references to say British Isles is not the most common name and if more than half of those refs came from outside the UK and Ireland it would be considered valid. What for example if there were 100 million chinese English speaking people who called it Britain and Ireland. Would it be excluded? Wikipedia does not count opinions of the population, they rather look at all the references provided and decide from there. Jack forbes (talk) 17:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
On the contrary, in the case of Derry for example, the justification for using that name is because the majority of its inhabitants do - and I have no problem with that at all. Not all citations are of equal worth, and Wikipedia recognises this. ðarkuncoll17:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Which is why I said wikipedia looks at all references provided. We certainly don't do a head count where there are far more heads in the UK than in Ireland. If that was the criteria there has been an awful waste of peoples time debating this subject. Jack forbes (talk) 17:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
It certainly is a waste of time, the best of it is Sarah who started this current attempt to move this article knew it would be strongly opposed by most people and so this whole excerise has been pointless. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Protected
Protected for a week, for obvious reasons. If all the edit-warring participants engage here I'll remove it. Black Kite18:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
What took you so long! Some of the comments on this talk page genuinely scare me that such people actually exist. Who knew it would be the collective name for Britain and Ireland that would cause every nationalist from Connacht to Norfolk to come out of the woodwork? --89.240.35.87 (talk) 21:50, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Except it isn't the collective name; it is the name collectively used by the British. And if Connacht nationalists have emerged from the woodwork it is merely to protect WP:NPOV from Imperialist impositions. The elephant in the room here is British Nationalism, which most of it's adherents don't even recognise as nationalism. Sarah777 (talk) 22:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Wasn't there an Arbcom ruling concerning Sarah's continued (ab)use of the "British Nationalist/Imperialist people are disagreeing with me, it's all a conspiracy" argument? I'm pretty sure there was. Yet Sarah continues to act as if she were the sole voice of Irish nationalism. It's pretty tiresome. BastunBaStun not BaTsun23:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Bastun, while I realise you ain't the sharpest knife in the drawer I must try and explain the concept of "conflation" to you. "British Nationalist/Imperialist people are disagreeing with me", yes, largely accurate. "it's all a conspiracy" - complete nonsense. But your weaselly attempts to get me silenced are noted. Sarah777 (talk) 22:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
It is far more tiresome that certain people are in wilful denial about the blatant politics of this term (and have clearly not looked at the User Pages of the latest batch of British nationalist wikipedia editors here). 86.42.96.251 (talk) 11:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Since we are talking about the "issues" the British Isles brings up with the "Republican-Irish" i.e., they don't like it ... how about the "issues" the country of just Ireland brings up with the "Northern-Irish"? If you call your country the Republic of Ireland then you are showing respect to the people who live in the Province of Northern Ireland. Calling your country just Ireland is implicitly refusing to acknowledge the existence of the Province of Northern Ireland (within the United Kingdom). ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 03:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
"the province of Northern Ireland". Indeed. Such is the educational level of our British nationalist contributors that they don't even know that "Northern Ireland" is not now, and never has been, synonymous with Ulster. But there you have it. If they spent some more time educating themselves on things other than how to invade countries that don't belong to them/gas Kurds/massacre civil rights demonstrators they might finally have the class to stop reading those abysmal tabloids. 86.42.96.251 (talk) 11:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
The Province of Northern Ireland (its 6 Counties) has a Governor. The Province of Northern Ireland is the remnant of the Kingdom of Ireland. The Kingdom of Ireland was the successor to the Lordship of Ireland. The Province of Ulster (its 3 Counties) is actually in the Republic of Ireland. Ironic isn't it eh.::::ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 12:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi, as an aside - just noted an interesting assertion - you state that the Province of Northern Ireland is the remnant of the Kingdom of Ireland. There was a discussion about "What happened to the Kingdom of Ireland" somewhere previously (can't find it right not, doh!) and I can't recall this being pointed out. Could you point me to somewhere I can read a little about this? Thank you. --HighKing (talk) 00:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Oh well, then I suppose you are just going to have to educate all those Ulstermen in the occupied Six Counties that they are no longer Ulstermen because it doesn't suit you. Nice of you to drop by and tell the Irish who and what they are, though. 86.42.96.251 (talk) 12:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
This issue regarding Northern Ireland and Ulster is a red herring. The provinces of Ireland have changed their boundaries in the past - indeed, I believe there used to be five of them - and Northern Ireland is clearly based on the province of Ulster as it existed until 1922. It is perfectly reasonable to call it Ulster, because politically, geographically and culturally it is a continuation of Ulster. That the RoI also has a "province" called Ulster, consisting of three counties, two of which are separated from the other, must be regarded as mere obscurantism. ðarkuncoll16:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
hehe. Very funny, TharkunColl. You are making a parody of how ignorant the average British nationalist is about Ireland! Very good. Even I never thought of that "Northern Ireland is coterminous with the province of Ulster as it existed in 1922 and it's only those obscurantist Paddies who came along and invented another Ulster after 1922". Inspired! The Edmund Spenser award for English historical scholarship on Ireland is all yours this month. 86.42.96.251 (talk) 18:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
I just added several references showing decline in the use of the phrase. Quite surprising they were not there already. 78.16.63.72 (talk) 11:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Good idea! Protect the article while it's in a state of disarray. Not only do we still have that truly idiotic reference from the BBC, but we've now got it right up front in the lead paragraph. This article is now just a joke and in danger of bringing Wikipedia into disrepute. And what on earth has all that garbage about John Dee got to do with anything? We might as well just replace the lead paragraph with "The view from Ireland is that British Isles is shit and nothing else matters", and have done with it, because that's in effect what we've now got. MidnightBlue(Talk)18:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
That's a bit OTT. This should be a collaborative project, it shouldn't matter of being Irish or British or whatnot. PurpleA (talk) 18:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Of course it shouldn't matter whether one is British or Irish, and yes this is a collaborative project, but when you've got a gaggle of editors whose key objective is to rid Wikipedia of "British Isles" then you've got a problem; that's what we have here. You may, or may not, know that one of the current editors went on a crusade last year to remove all mention of British Isles from the entire encyclopedia. While the majority of editors seek to impove this article, there is a sizable rump who use it to further their own political agenda, and I'm not talking about the so-called "British" editors here. MidnightBlue(Talk)18:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Thats because there is no British bias they are just defending wiki from the Irish hoardes who are pushing an agenda, (hang on till I take my tongue from my cheek). Way to assume good faith.BigDuncTalk18:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Good faith has been missing from this article for some time, considering we have certain people accepting completly misleading and incorrect statements remaining on the article and some pushing for a name change of the entire article with no real justification. The articles a complete mess but i suppose we should all be glad the title is still correct. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
MidnightBlueMan, and there are some editors going around Wikipedia inserting "British Isles" into cultural articles contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia:BISLES. I really do not agree with your analysis on this. I do not see any editor "trying to remove" the article from Wikipedia. That's an exaggeration, isn't it? PurpleA (talk) 19:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Please point me in the direction of those editors who are "going around Wikipedia inserting "British Isles" into cultural articles ...", and if you like I'll point you in the direction of the attempted mass deletions of last year. MidnightBlue(Talk)19:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Going back to the last protection would still leave the page in a complete mess with the silly claim that the BBC style guide says the British Isles is confusing. Its a damn disgrace some editors because of their political points of view were prepared to try and defend that misleading crap from being removed. Wed also lose the fact that its an IRISH map publisher thats changed its policy on British Isles, but ofcourse some people think that makes no difference either. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
OK, but I don't know what we can do to get rid of that shameful lead paragraph. The whole anti-BI thing is now right in your face, what with that irrelevant material about Dee and the rest of the stuff. MidnightBlue(Talk)19:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, that stuff on Dee isnt needed in the introduction and looks very out of place. I also dont think it deals with the BBC Style guide quote very well, by mentioning devolution its probably going to create more confusion, however atleast its not totally misleading and incorrect like it was before. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Honestly, I'm not interested in last year, it's completely irrelevant. For the same reasons I am not going to point out the editors whom I am talking about. Also they seem to have left Wikipedia at the moment. That genre of editing seems to have a short life-span here at the Wiki. PurpleA (talk) 19:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
IM also rather concerned we go out of our way to finding sources that no longer use the British Isles but fail to list quite a lot of the sources that do. Fox News, CNN, and other media reports can be found online where they have used the term British Isles. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I think you're 'barking' up the wrong tree to be using fox to "prove" your position.
It was an example that non British organisations also use the term British Isles. We only seem to focus on organisations that have stopped using it or dont use it without mentioning the fact many still do. Besides nobody is saying Britain and Ireland isnt a term thats used, but its used as a political term not a geographical one which this article is meant to be about. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Taking a quick look at a few on the lists u provided prove this to be the case, for example...
Second on the list of Britain and Ireland "The prime ministers of Britain and Ireland"...
Some of them say "British Isles" when they are clearly referring to the UK, and there is no Ireland connection whatsoever. It doesn't say what they mean by the term "British Isles", unfortunatly. But it shouldn't affect the article either way. This sort of Googleing and special referencing has little to do with a "good" article. PurpleA (talk) 20:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
You are the one that introduced google results into the debate so i do not know why ur telling me that. Ofcourse sometimes things are used in the wrong context, but we can see from quite a few of both search results that they are used in a different way. Also how do u think all those examples of organisations that no longer use British isles were found and added to the article today? Its a question of balance and at the moment we are having to spend most of the time dealing with the name because a few editors are offended or in a foul mood. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Discuss the move here
The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the proposal was
no consensus to move, without prejudice against further discussion. I've closed this for a number of reasons, which I urge editors to consider seriously before issuing knee jerk accusations of censorship. Firstly, this isn't a proposal that can ever be enacted by due process, because there isn't a target title to be agreed on. Secondly, much of the discussion is thinly disguised soapboxing, and not about the relevant issues. Therefore it therefore clearly not going to result in a consensus for a move. What, for example, as those below actually supporting, because ? already has its own article.
If any editor wants to continue a discussion on a possible move, then this closure should not be interpreted as an attempt to repress that. However, I strongly urge you to make a new proposal only if you can address the following three issues (and desist from political soapboxing in the process):
What, explicitly, is the proposed alternative. "British Isles → ?" is not an option anyone who values policy and process can actually support.
Explain how and why that alternative is widely understood to have the same meaning as the title of the current article.
Justify why that alternative is a better option, citing the relevant policies and guidelines in support balanced against the policies and guidelines that do not support (and by "citing" I don't mean and alphabet soup of acronyms, I mean cite the relevant text of the guideline or policy).
Support, as proposer. We need to get some Irish editors notified to balance the POV. How may I do that within the rules? Sarah777 (talk) 22:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
You can place it on any of the project working boards. However I think the issue here is problematic. The insistence on non-geographical use of the term is causing me to have second thoughts about continued use of the term, but denial of its geographical existence is another issue. I think this needs a different process from a page move --Snowded (talk) 23:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Support, as the term "is not" the name of the islands, and is a political. The term is avoided in Ireland, and by virtually all international governments and organisations. The term has no relevance in a modern world, and is a dinosaur term from the past. PurpleA (talk) 22:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
I must clarify my support. I will support a move to "Britain and Ireland", because that is the most used term, and it is in keeping with WP:COMMON stated policy. PurpleA (talk) 01:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Isn't the island called Great Britain? (as opposed to lesser Britain, or Brittany) and what of the other British Isles that are neither Hibernia, nor GB? 76.66.193.69 (talk) 04:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Reply; I never use the term "British Isles". Neither does anyone I ever converse with use the term. I too would be concerned about Great Britain not getting its proper title, and if I have offended anyone, my apologies for using the term "Britain & Ireland". But that's what I do call the "pair" when discussing relationships between the two countries . Other than that, I have no name whatsoever for the 'archipelago'. Maybe it's my POV, but many governments and organisations agree with me on that score. Can I turn you question around and ask you "why you would not be concerned that 'Hibernia' be called a "British isle" when clearly it is not the case". PurpleA (talk) 05:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Strong oppose - I thought we had already voted on this matter why the hell has the vote started again? The British Isles is the correct name for the location described in the article. A change of this articles name is as crazy as seeking to rename Europe. There are plenty or reliable sources to back this up. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Theres been so much nonsense on this page midnight if we all ignored it and there was just two supports then they would make the change in a couple of hours time. Safer just to vote again, although i dont see the point in going into the detail again which has been gone over and over and over again. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Oppose. I wonder if any Irish here can see the irony in continually trying to instigate a vote with slightly different wording until they get what they want (hint: Lisbon Treaty). ðarkuncoll23:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
This whole page is a mess and i wouldnt be suprised if it caused the wiki crash awhile ago. If we do have to start the vote again (although i dont know why as someone should of simply undone the IP edit which ended the last one if they were unhappy) can it please be laid out properly. The proposal is miles up the page, also can someone contact all the people who voted before so they know this nonsense is being done again. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Wow! An election is only valid if the same people vote as in the previous election! Thinking-outside-the-box or what?!!! Sarah777 (talk) 23:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Oppose the existence of this RM - it's out of process. The last one was closed because of "no consensus" (should probably have been WP:SNOW, though), not because it was out of process. BastunBaStun not BaTsun23:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Note: I debated using WP:SNOW, but declined due to two editors very strongly holding a position in favor, vs. many opposed, and felt that no consensus was better. I believe there is a related ongoing Arbcom imposed mediation going on, but was not able to find it yet the somewhat related naming of Ireland project at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 04:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Isnt the phrase something like "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me". Considering the amount of fuss u have been making over the title of this article which are just words, i dont think u should use any part of that phrase thankyou. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Sticks and stones, as I said. One wonders why a self-described "Irish nationalist" gets so worked-up about defending the term "British" as applied to Itreland,. I know very many Irish nationalists from the most extreme to the most moderate. The latter might be indifferent tio the term (though usually not) but I have never met an Irish "Nationalist" who gets all fired up about supporting the term "British Isles". Truely Bastun, you are either unique or...eh...economical with the truth. Sarah777 (talk) 00:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
<deindent>Users here are skating on very thin civil and PA grounds. Might I suggest everyone takes a deep breath before responding and think whether your post is really helpful or if it will just escalate things. --Narson ~ Talk • 00:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Good suggestion. (But I was provoked, insulted and attacked). However I will not return here for 20 hours, as per your advise. Sarah777 (talk) 00:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Maybe not. But there were a few who I consider where on the verge of bullying. This is, in my opinion, one of the reasons why so many editors are leaving. Jack forbes (talk) 00:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Strong Support: The term "British Isles" is blatantly in contravention of wikipedia NPOV and is a clear and unequivocal assertion of British hegemony over Ireland. It is rejected by the democratically elected government of Ireland, and is not used in official dealings between the British and Irish states. It is intentionally, explicitly, and openly avoided in all diplomatic contacts between these states, a fact which acknowledges the widespread Irish hostility to the term. The term is rarely if ever used in the Irish media, and its use in mainstream British media has declined in line with a greater awareness of these objections. It has been replaced with the term "Britain and Ireland" by numerous internationally respected academic and media outlets from TV5 in France to National Geographic in America, many of these changes and developments having been extensively referenced in this article before being unilaterally removed in an attempt to censor the many and frequent Irish objections to the current term. The present title is simply a reflection of British nationalist myths about the subservient position of the Irish people vis-à-vis the British. Shame on wikipedia and all fair-minded editors for dignifying those atavistic prejudices. 86.42.96.251 (talk) 00:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Ignoring all the flag waving, and unburdened by historic chips on shoulders, one can simply ask what does our policies and guidelines, such as Wikipedia:Naming conflict and Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Controversial names advise? A few things jump out: "If an article name has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should remain." So is there a good reason to change it? Maybe, but no-one in support of change has presented it yet, largely preferring to take geopolitical potshots instead. Ultimately, in the case of proper nouns, our guidelines tell us that article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize. I have yet to see any serious effort to demonstrate that the most easily recognized name is "Britain and Ireland" (or even that "Britain and Ireland" is an accurate descriptor of the subject of this article. I mean, read the first sentence replacing the proposed title for the old one, and tell me if it even makes sense. It doesn't, which should surely tell us something). In the face of ambiguity, "every wikipedian just decides for himself/herself which of the choices he/she most easily recognises." And so we are back to a numbers game. If the numbers are not stacking in your favor, it might be worth trying to convince us why this title should be changed, rather than simply tell us we are wrong (and you get bonus points if you can do so without using the words "nationalist" "imperialsm" or "hegemony"). Rockpocket02:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Oppose. What, again? In most dialects of English, including my own, which is not from the subject of this article (Northwestern European Archipelago? whatever the supporters would like to call it this week), the normal, default, and unmarked name for these islands is the British Isles. If the inhabitants cannot agree, they should listen to the rest of us. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson02:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Oppose per WP:UCN. It's not even clear what the proposed target is but I assume it's "Britain and Ireland" which seems to me to be a description of the two constituent states and not actually the name of a group of islands. I also don't quite understand the POV charge either. Is it that those who use "British Isles" somehow advocate or harbour longing for English domination of Ireland? Is that sentiment really that common in the UK? And what about usage outside of the isles themselves? — AjaxSmack 03:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Your confusion is understandable, given that the proposer didn't bother filling in a target on the WP:RM page and that (despite names obviously being extremely important to her) she got the name of one of the countries wrong in the text she added there. But it appears from the template on the top of this page that the intended target is (now, at least) "United Kingdom and Ireland". BastunBaStun not BaTsun08:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Neutral But I found a new 'BI' reference: It's from the king of BI history, Hugh F. Kearney. This is from a 2004 essay: "Histories organized on "Four Nations" lines involve taking as their starting line "The British Isles" (a term always to be used with quotation marks)..." Hmmm? I don't suppose quotation marks are permitted in Wiki titles, eh? Ahh, what fun we could have if they were? :-) Nuclare (talk) 05:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Comment: I wish people would read the wikipedia policies they cite in support of their opposition to the change. WP:UCN, for instance, 'In cases where the common name of a subject is misleading, then it is sometimes reasonable to fall back on a well-accepted alternative' and 'Also, some terms are in common usage but are regarded as offensive (Mormon Church, for example). In those cases use widely known alternatives (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints).' WP:UCN in other words provides much more support for this change than it does for maintaining the current title and its well-referenced offensiveness. 86.42.96.251 (talk) 11:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
There is no other term to describe the British Isles which are commonly used for what this article talks about. Im sorry but the people who are obsessed with getting this articles name changed need to actually make the case for it, something that hasnt been done. Its simply been put to the vote twice in less than a week and both times the majority is against the silly proposal. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Now we are getting somewhere. You are making an "Anything but..." argument; one of the reasons people are opposing change is because no-one knows what it is being proposed we change to. So what is the "well accepted alternative" you are supporting? Rockpocket16:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Oppose - British Isles is the most common name for the islands in English, worldwide. I have also to ask, why is there no rationale at the top of this proposal: "British Isles → ?" - is hardly a convincing argument. Have I missed it somewhere or did it never exist?--Jackyd101 (talk) 13:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Nobody is sure what exactly we are voting for, there was a vote yesterday which was closed to change the name to "Britain and Ireland" and the person who started this new vote claimed Britain and Ireland was most common and yet according to the tag at the top of the page we are voting to change it to United Kingdom and Ireland. The whole thing is a complete mess. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Oppose - The BI term is the historic term & the most internationally used. PS- I'm not sure how we got support/oppose votes in a section called Discuss the move here. GoodDay (talk) 15:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Comment - For those newer editors that may not be aware, a British Isles Terminology Task Force was set up last year. As far as I remember, many participants of this task force decided to wait until the "Republic of Ireland" Task Force completes. Many of the arguments appear to be similar, even though it could be argued that the topics are different. My suggestion is that this RM is put on ice for now, since the topic is very complex and generates high emotions. When we make progress on the RoI Task Force, whatever that may be, I suggest we then open this task force and follow whatever process worked for RoI. Thoughts? --HighKing (talk) 16:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Sorry Highking but there can be no sensible debate on this matter that a taskforce can resolve. The British Isles is the ONLY common name for what this article talks about, i have not heard ANY other name that fits it. UK+Ireland or Britain and Ireland doesnt include the other islands of the British Isles. Wikipedia can not rewrite history or rename things just because a couple of editors seek to cause trouble. BritishWatcher (talk) 07:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I think you're over-imagining what constitutes a sensible debate. Have you looked at what the Task Force has already discussed? If you look closely, you'll see that some very sensible discussions have already taken place. --HighKing (talk) 13:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Im sure the task force do a very good job and help resolve alot of matters but no taskforce on wikipedia is going to be able to change the fact that the most common term to describe what this article talks about is the British Isles. The term exists and has been used for a long long time, even if its no longer being used by a couple of groups it doesnt justify changing this articles title because there is simply nothing to change it to, United Kingdom and Ireland is incorrect, Britain and Ireland is incorrect, so there isnt much choice.
> On the other hand, no taskforce will change the fact that "British Isles" is the most offensive term for the archipleago that contains the United Kingdom and Ireland, a fact which makes any claims of "most common term" subservient and quite irrelevant according to wikipedia rules. It's odd how this very real fact (mentioned above and below) is overlooked in this discussion. Why? 86.42.96.251 (talk) 16:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
And this is the core problem and why we are all wasting our time. People including this IP are not seeking to change the name of this article because its incorrect, they want it changed because some people find it offensive. Sorry but the last time i checked we cant rename things because a few people are offended. There are tons of article which are deeply offensive to people, we can not change the name of a location sorry. This article goes out of its way to state its very offensive to some and theres a whole article on the naming dispute BritishWatcher (talk) 16:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
The small number of individuals who have sparked this will never be happy unless this title is changed, best to simply show they are a small minority with foolish ideas and ignore them after this vote is closed. Although i welcome the debate on agreeing the content, which is a far more valid concern than the silly moaning over the title. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment - "British" Isles is a blatantly political name, but "United Kingdom and Ireland" is worse, not only because it has the same implications, but because at least one chunk (IOM) is in neither.--MacRusgail (talk) 16:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment We'll probably have to wait another few years for a new term to come and replace 'BI' by being used commonly and regularly. For example I read in this Irish times today someone using the term 'these islands' but I've also other heard Britain and Ireland and other terms so there's no obvious alternative title to British Isles at the current moment in time.MusicInTheHouse (talk) 17:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
If the term is no longer used and a single alternative does emerge which is used more then ofcourse the article should be renamed. As you rightly say right now there is no common alternative and the ones suggested by those pushing for change are simply incorrect because they dont include everything in the British Isles, they limit it to Britain and Ireland. (the current rename is for a change to United Kingdom and Ireland) which is crazy. The only reason a few are seeking change is because they find the term offensive, theres no other justification. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Sarah can u just confirm for me what name u want this article to be? coz the other day u said Britain and Ireland was the most common term and yet u want this changed to UK and Ireland? - However u are wrong the British Isles includes islands which are not part of the UK, not part of Britain and not part of Ireland. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Oppose The most common term for the group of islands is British Isles. The present wording of the lead identifies that this is a contentious name and explains why, with citations. The proposed name change is factually inaccurate. The British Isles includes the Isle of Man, and is usually taken to include Jersey and Guernsey (and its dependancies) as well, though on a strictly geographical basis that is incorrect. The United Kingdom and Ireland does not include the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands. The earlier proposal of Britain and Ireland does not include Scotland either. Whilst I understand the desire of Irish nationalists to come up with a term which does not suggest Ireland's subservience to the United Kingdom, they should not seek to do this by trampling over the rights of smaller nationalities. Skinsmoke (talk) 22:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Oppose It is an undeniable fact that the geographical name given to this group of islands is "British Isles". The Task Force has focused on documenting groundrules for usage, not the elimination of the term. I've no problem, whatsoever, with using the term in the correct geographical context. --HighKing (talk) 23:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Oppose as strongly as possible The term people use is British Isles, I've never heard anyone use the PC term being suggested here. It's not meant as a dig to anyone, its just what its called. Mohummy (talk) 03:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
New section
Another example of political POV triumphing over WP:NPOV. Until majoritarianism it replaced by consensus, Wiki will have no more credibility than the "Daily Telegraph" in relation to Irish/British matters. Except the "Telegraph" doesn't cloak itself in hypocrisy the way Wkik does. Sarah777 (talk) 00:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Ah c'mon now Sarah I disagree with the term British Isles as much as you but you're not doing yourself or the case to change the title any good. Instead of screaming political POV all the time, make points about what you think is NPOV and back those points with references. I'm not sure if I voted, but either way I would have said oppose. It's not that I disagree with the idea its only because your campaign for change had no supporting points or well laid plan to it and wasn't really done in the spirit of what Wikipedia is meant to be about I'm afraid.MusicInTheHouse (talk) 01:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
MITH - I have been involved in these debate for 3 years and most go back to the inception of these articles when Wiki started. Same arguments; same results. The larger country with the larger number of editors imposes its usage and POV. If rational argument could change this we wouldn't still be saddled with such political names on Ireland related articles after 8 years. Time to wake up and recognise the cancer that systemic Anglo bias is on Wiki. Sarah777 (talk) 02:01, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
I can't speak for Sarah but I find any attempt that claims that I, an Irishman, am "British" by virtue of being part of what some unsavoury characters term the "British Isles" to be objectionable. The reasons for this should not need explaining, and they do not need explaining to anybody with an awareness of our history. 213.202.184.122 (talk) 01:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
But the suggested name is wrong, since the island is Great Britain and not Britain, because lesser Britain is Bretagne or Brittany. I would say that using the Roman usage would be better. 70.29.213.241 (talk) 05:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Assessment of References
In the section on Alternatives names we have this statement: The BBC style guide's entry on the subject of the British Isles remarks, "Confused already? Keep going."
Here is the entry from the Style Guide; it's in the section on devolution:
Devolution
The greatest of all
faults is to be conscious
of none.
Thomas Carlyle
The United Kingdom is made up of Great Britain
and Northern Ireland. Great Britain is England,
Scotland and Wales (although many people from
Northern Ireland regard themselves as British).The
Isle of Man and the Channel Islands are not part of
the UK.They are Crown dependencies with their
own legislative systems.
The British Isles is not a political entity. It is a
geographical unit, the archipelago off the west coast
of continental Europe covering Scotland,Wales,
England, Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland,
the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands.
Confused already? Keep going.
Devolution has made a complicated system even
more complicated, and there are specialist sources
available to guide you through the complexities:
BBC guide to devolution, The Changing UK ...
It is very clear to me that the "confused already?" question is aimed at the the complexities of devolution and not at anything to do with the British Isles". To use such a extract to support the use of alternative names is at best misleading and is arguably disingenuous. I propose to remove this particular reference. Are there any other views on this? Yes, I know I've raised this issue before, but this is such a bad reference I feel it must go. MidnightBlue(Talk)21:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
It says that devolution has made a complicated system more complicated, it does not say that the reference purely relates to devolution. It is not clear if you propose to remove the reference, or the text but I assume you are only making the reference point in order to remove the text so I for one oppose. --Snowded (talk) 21:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I suggest the removal of the extract from the reference - "Confused, keep going..", and therefore the reference as well. Apart from anything else it not good wording for an encyclopedia. However, I maintain that the reference is being misused here. What could possibly be confusing about the concept of the BI? People might not like it, but it's hardly confusing. MidnightBlue(Talk)21:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Disagree, if the article was amended as suggested earlier I would be less concerned. However the clear political aspects require qualification and it is confusing in consequence. To be honest I am getting really fed up with the ritual of unionist editors proposing changes that remove or reduce anything that might imply Ireland left the Empire and nationalist editors wanting to expunge the name BI from history. --Snowded (talk) 21:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Well go and edit somewhere else then. I'm trying to have a perfectly reasonable discussion and yet again you, like others, take an aggressive stance. I am not a unionist. MidnightBlue(Talk)21:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Midnightblue didnt sound aggressive to me, some of ur comments Sarah have been far more out of line and offensive. The point raised is a good one and totally correct, the BBC comment there is a general overview and not just talking about the British Isles. That silly statement on the wikipedia article does not put the "Confused already" into context and its just plain messy as well, stunned its been allowed to stay on there so long but i guess its no more than we can expect considering some peoples motives. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
The grossly misleading statement should be removed soon unless serious objections are raised with an actual reason why it shouldnt be removed rather than a "i like the statement so dont want it to be removed" type response). Sorry but i dont know how anyone can honestly defend the current wording, people are assuming that the confusing situation is related to the British Isles term and yet in this article it states it as fact. Such bias should not be allowed to remain. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
By my reading of it, the style guide is suggesting that the subtle differences between the geographical and political - especially when the political uses geographical names - is confusing. Island names, a name for a group of islands, and the countries/states on those islands. Some of which are part of some groupings but not part of others. Remember that Venn diagram we used to have in the article as an explanation? (Whatever happened to that, anyway?) The reference therefore seems fine to me. BastunBaStun not BaTsun23:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, this seems a very useful reference to me. The 'confused already' is meant to indicate that there are a number of similar terms which refer to different things. There are many cases where people get confused by the different overlapping terms. This is why we have the British Isles (terminology) article. Tell someone that British = of the UK but that British Isles does not mean 'Isles of the UK' - this is a pretty confusing situation. To say the terms are confusing is not necessarily to ally with an argument that they are wrong (also I'd second the retrieval of that Venn diagram). Perhaps a slight tweaking of the sentence before the reference would be beneficial ("the BBC style guide's entry on the subject of terminology related to the British Isles remarks on the confusing overlapping of terms"?) --Pretty Green (talk) 09:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
The problem is the article currently makes it sound like the BBC style guide is saying "confused already" just about the description of the British Isles which is simply not true. This is misleading because it does not place it into the context of the whole page which first describes what Great Britain is and what the UK is. Then the paragraph on the British Isles is mentioned. Then theres the gap before "Confused already, keep going" and then it goes onto devolution makes matters worse.
The whole statement should be removed or atleast put into a correct context of all the different terms being mixed up and complicated (United Kingdom, Great Britain and British Isles) which makes it confusing, right now the article only says the British Isles is confusing which is a lie. Bastun and Pretty Green, i agree with you both that with all the different terms it is confusing and thats what the BBC style guide says, but the current wording in the article does not say that. It simply says the British Isles is confusing. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
It is perfectly clear that the BBC is talking about the various different names in the BI (that it had just described), and not simply the term BI itself. Having checked the article, the citation is indeed being used disingenuously - rather blatantly so, in fact - but somehow, this comes as no surprise. ðarkuncoll12:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, when I read it, it seems to me that the style guide starts off by defining the UK and the people that identify as being British, and then remarks that the "British Isles" is made up of some places that aren't British at all. So the comment "Confused Already" refers to the usage of the term "British Isles" in relation to a geographical area that ... isn't British. Seems OK to me to use it in this context to be fair. I certain don't see what's blatently disingenuous about it... --HighKing (talk) 12:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Its blatently disingenuous because it puts it into no context at all. The current article simply says The BBC entry on the subject of the British Isles remarks" Confused already? Keep going.". It does not point out that the BBC style guide is saying there are many different terms ( United Kingdom, Great Britain, British Isles) and thats why its confusing. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
It's quite straightforward - the article currently asserts "The BBC style guide's entry on the subject of the British Isles remarks, "Confused already? Keep going." WRONG! The BBC style guide's entry on the subject of devolution remarks (on the names of various entities associated with the UK and Ireland) "Confused already? Keep going". The use of the reference to imply that "British Isles" is, or should be, avoided because it causes confusion is just a sneaky manipulation of the context. MidnightBlue(Talk)13:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, although "sneaky manipulation of the context" is being rather generous. It is infact a grossly misleading and politically motivated statement which should be reworded or removed as soon as possible. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Suggestion
Although the first English use of the terms Brytish Iles and Brytish Impire were by John Dee, [1] an advocate of imperial expansion;[2] since Irish independence, the term British Isles is deprecated by some speakers while others regard BI as a geographical or territorial rather than political description.[1] The BBC style guide's entry on the subject of devolution, in respect of the UK and the British Isles, remarks, "Confused already? Keep going." while the Economic History Society style guide suggests that the term should be avoided.[3]
^ abOED Draft Revision Sept. 2008: British Isles, n.;
The reference in question is included in the section Alternative names and descriptions, but the reference does not advocate an alternative, it merely draws attention to the confusion over the naming of parts of the UK and Ireland. If it belongs anywhere, it belongs in the British Isles terminology article. It is wholly misplaced at its current location, and quite frankly it is being abused. MidnightBlue(Talk)17:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
MidnightBlue, not one person has given a valid reason for keeping the text about the BBC style guide the same. It is clearly misleading so when the protection is changed, please remove the incorrect text from the article. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:37, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
I have removed the misleading claim that the BBC style guide says the British Isles is confusing. If someone wants to add an accurate sentence that says something like the BBC style guide recognizes the fact all the different terms make this matter confusing so be it, but its simply a lie to say the BBC says about the British Isles "Confused already? keep going". BritishWatcher (talk) 15:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Lets agree a rephrasing here before you delete it please and don;t assume that everyone agrees with your interpretation --Snowded (talk) 15:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Several people clearly do agree, and those who do not have either not read what the BBC style guide says and whats in the article or they do not care if something remains misleading. The conversation in this section died out with nobody responding to the actual problem for a couple of days. If you want it rephrased please do, but why should soemthing that is misleading remain in the article? The BBC style guide does not just say the British Isles is confusing, its taken out context. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Hmmmmm im not sure about the new version, but i wont make changes to remove the misleading BBC style guide quote again for the time being, but it really does need rewording (although i dont think we should mention devolution, which makes it even more confusing). BritishWatcher (talk) 15:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Continuing to make edits without gaining a consensus for those edits will quickly lead to the article being protected again. Nobody wants that. Some editors agreeing does not a consensus make. I've reverted your edits. --HighKing (talk) 15:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Although the first English use of the terms Brytish Iles and Brytish Impire were by John Dee, [1] an advocate of imperial expansion;[2] since Irish independence, the term British Isles is deprecated by some speakers while others regard BI as a geographical or territorial rather than political description.[1] The BBC style guide's entry on the subject of devolution, in respect of the UK and the British Isles, remarks, "Confused already? Keep going." while the Economic History Society style guide suggests that the term should be avoided.[3]
^ abOED Draft Revision Sept. 2008: British Isles, n.;
I dont think we should mention devolution, although that is the section where the confused already comment is made. I think it should just say that the BBC style guide recognizes that use of the term British Isles along with other things such as the United Kingdom, Great Britain leads to confusion. My problem is at the moment it takes it out of the context of all those different terms and misleadingly suggests the BBC says the British Isles is confusing. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I have no problems with the text, however no other text that is referenced and stable should be removed. The second paragraph must stay in.MusicInTheHouse (talk) 16:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
There are plenty of references in the alternative names section that make the point about alternative names. Some are good, others not so good, one is diabolical - and it's this one. No amount of rewording will correct it. It is clear to all right-minded people that the BBC are not specifically talking about BI when they use the word "confusing" in a section about devolution. The reference is outrageous and I've removed it. MidnightBlue(Talk)16:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Back in February I commented on this as follows:
As someone previously uninvolved in this discussion, I have had a look at the BBC style guide, which is causing some contention. It is clear to me that the 'Confused already? Keep going.' comment is in reference to the previous two paragraphs which define various terms such as United Kingdom, Great Britain and British Isles. It is a fair enough comment that it is confusing. However, the article is currently wrong to state The BBC style guide's entry on the subject of the British Isles remarks, "Confused already? Keep going." The BBC style guide entry is not on the subject of the British Isles, but on the matter of devolution. In addition, the comment quoted is in reference to the previous two paragraphs talking about the British Isles and the UK, Great Britain etc. A more accurate statement might be: The BBC style guide's entry on the subject of devolution remarks, with respect to the British Isles, United Kingdom, Great Britain and crown dependancies, "Confused already? Keep going." I can see that that may be a bit wordy though!
I do not see how the quote fits in with the section headed "Alternative names and descriptions". The source actually defines what the British Isles refers to, and does the same for the UK etc. It does not offer any alternative description for the British Isles. The quote taken in context does not fit into where it is currently positioned in the article, and certainly needs a more adequate description than currently offered to explain what is being meant by "Confused already?".Quantpole (talk) 09:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
(Updating above comment in relation to the style guide source being used in the intro.) I am still unsure what point is trying to be made by the use of the BBC style guide quote in the intro. Surely the relevent quote, if the guide is to be used, is the bit saying "The British Isles is not a political entity. It is a geographical unit, the archipelago off the west coast of continental Europe covering Scotland,Wales, England, Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands." The current quote is unclear in meaning - what is confusing? The way I read it, what is confusing is the whole plethora of names that can be applied to different parts of the UK and Ireland, which the article does not make clear. The quote is also tacked on to the end of a paragraph that doesn't make a vast amount of sense anyway.
Overall, I think that the "confused already..." should be taken out of the article. It is confusing what it is in relation to, and there is a much better quote from that same source, specifically regarding the British Isles. Quantpole (talk) 15:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
[Great] Britain and Ireland - which variant?
From the lede: "Britain and Ireland" is a frequently used alternative name for the group.
My impression was that "Great Britain and Ireland" is equally or slightly more common as the "...and..." name - anyone else? A quick google search shows they're about the same (2mi hits apiece), though "Britain and Ireland" will pick up the various GBaI hits too, I suppose. Shimgray | talk | 12:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
It does have a rather fey quality to it, I admit. Makes me think of Scottish Highland castles in the mist; purple mountains, heather, ghosts, fairies....., romantic, but not solid enough for the name of a Wikipedia article. I would go for Celtic Isles myself.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
The truth is there is no common used alternative despite this article and certain editors attempts to over play alternative names. This was best shown was we went through the two requested move attempts last week where the main editor who strongly supports a name change, requested the name change to two different things.. It goes to show there isnt ONE alternative. We can not sit here on wikipedia and decide what is neutral or not, we shouldnt pussy foot around the fact there is only one core name for what this article describes, and that is the British Isles. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Neither should we accept improper usage of the term in articles which is the biggest problem I find on Wikipedia. Most editors don't appear to have a clue as to what constitutes proper usage of a geographica or historic geopolitical term, so I'm not surprised that some editors object to it's usage in all forms while others just use it willy-nilly without a care. That's what the task force WP:BISLES was trying to sort out. --HighKing (talk) 15:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Please add {{Cite web|url= to the beggining of the reference which currently reads <ref>http://www.nweurope.org/page/projet.php?p=&id=606|title=EMDI - Espace Manche Development Initiative|last=Thenail |first=Bruno|publisher=European Community INTERREG IIIB NWE Programme|accessdate=2008-06-24}}</ref> to fix the citation. (it's at the beginning of the second paragraph of the "Transport" section). Thanks! –Drilnoth (T • C) 14:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Could anyone upload this 1680 map[1] to wikicommons, I'm having probs with upload tags. It would be public domain at this stage I guess. PurpleA (talk) 19:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
The first few paragraphs, including those in the section "Alternative names and descriptions" amount to nothing short of a rant against the whole subject of the British Isles, and includes despicable manipulation of references to imply that they mean things that they obviously don't; it is an absolute disgrace and sheer POV of the worst kind. Are there any suggestions as to how this situation could be remedied - could this perhaps go to arbitration in an attempt to cleanse it of POV? MidnightBlue(Talk)18:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I think "cleansing it of POV" is precisely what the Irish have been calling for since the first edit. Finally, we agree to rename this article. Long overdue. 78.16.156.240 (talk) 00:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
The other section is a completely other story. Technically it is referenced material and I don't think I can comment on it being 'manipulated' or not. I am just thinking about the 'names of the islands through the ages' section.MusicInTheHouse (talk) 18:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Good suggestion, MITH. The 'Names thru the ages' section is way too long, as is 'Alternative names...' This article should be about the islands, not the names of the islands. Move it all to British Isles naming dispute. --hippo43 (talk) 01:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I think there should be some mention of names throughout history [although curiously the native Irish name in medieval times, Oileáin Iarthair Eorpa (Islands of Western Europe), is not there]. I'm not overly concerned either way. However, the other proposal - to remove the debate about the name - seems like an attempt to remove the historical and modern political realities attached to the name for reasons best known to the proposer. Not many lovers of knowledge would appreciate this sort of obscurantist act. 78.16.156.240 (talk) 01:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I also agree. There's too much text given over to the "Political" aspect of the term - it could definitely do with some pruning. --HighKing (talk)
Maybe if people are sincere - and I do mean sincere - about 'pruning' this article of its political aspects they could start with the name on this article. Otherwise such expressed "desires", for want of a better word, seem quite hollow. Meanwhile, all Irish people here who are speaking English are doing so precisely because of British political policies in Ireland since the 17th century. Please be honest about this. It's much more admirable, in my view. 78.16.156.240 (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
The last line in the lead Confused already? Keep going sounds silly for an article that is meant to be taken seriously. If phrases like that are allowed to remain, it's no wonder that most academics dismiss Wikipedia as a blog of POV not to be regarded as a true source of information.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Agreed its a stupid phrase and really doesnt belong on this article. If it belongs anywhere it belongs on terminology of the UK or British Isles. But some people refuse to allow it to be removed sadly BritishWatcher (talk) 18:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Whatever about referencing it in this article, I agree that it isn't very encyclopedic in the current article in it's current form. --HighKing (talk) 21:07, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
It is a stupid unencyclopedic aside. Remove it. I'd love to know what argument is being used for its inclusion. --Narson ~ Talk • 11:28, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Umm i think a second source should be located to back up that one (if a second one even exists). On the main page of the site it says "As you can see there are a lot of empty pages, this site was only started in March 2009 and it's still under construction. But I hope to have it finished very soon." I dont know if thats a reliable enough source, perhaps we could phone round the few hundred people that can actually speak the language and see if they know? Tax payers money going to revive dead languages, how wonderful. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Few hundred fluently, few thousand able to make decent conversation. Plus I'd bet it's a mere fraction of what we pay for expensive artwork in government buildings, ten-course meals for foreign dictators, MP's partners' porn subscriptions, a BBC that sends 30 reporters to the G20 summit, and nuclear submarines commissioned for the purpose of "deterrant". But that's a discussion for somewhere else. --Joowwww (talk) 21:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Lol @ MPs porn subscriptions, good point. :) Although on a serious note a second source to back it up would be helpful, because it was only a year ago they agreed on a written form accoridng to the Cornish language article. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
The only other thing that's barely close to a source is some kind of guitar forum [3] which gives "Ynysow Predennek", which is what British Isles was usually translated as before the Standard Written Form came along. That's the problem with a language that until recently was merely a hobby for the bearded or retired, there aren't many sources available on the Internet. I could cite dictionaries, the Gerlyver Sawsnek-Kernowek by Nicholas Williams (ISBN978-1904808060) has the translation in. --Joowwww (talk) 22:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Thats fine as a second source for me, just wasnt sure about using a single site which is very new, and a google search for the term finds nothing. No objections to it being added once protection is removed, get in quick tho coz it probably wont stay unprotected for long.BritishWatcher (talk) 22:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
It makes no real sense to say "X is the spelling for British Isles", when we can't find written reliable sources using the spelling X. All we know so far is that X was used as the spelling in one place - that is neither equivalent nor sufficient.
Remember WP:V - verifiability is the threshold for inclusion, not truth. We need verifiable evidence of usage, not one source claiming it as a true spelling. Knepflerle (talk) 12:09, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Native name is "Oileáin Iarthair Eorpa", and therefor should come first. The second Irish name is a translation of the term. The only other course is to delete 'Native name' heading. Purple (talk) 18:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Native name (in Irish) is also "Na hOileáin Bhriotanacha", which is a) referenced, and b) is in more widespread use. Compare this with this. Mere assertion in the edit summary by you and the anon IP doesn't cut it, I'm afraid. BastunBaStun not BaTsun20:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Those references to 'Na hOileáin Bhriotanacha' are all from a single source, the Collins Gem dictionary, which was only published in 2002. There is no other source. On the other hand, Dineen's dictionary in 1927 records "Oileáin Iarthair Eorpa" (as is referenced in this article already), while at least as early as 1584 the Annals of the Four Masters has this record: 'Sir Niclas Maulbi gobernóir chóiccidh Connacht d'écc i n-Áth Luain fá initt, fer foglamtha i m-bérlaibh & i t-tengtoibh oilén Iarthair Eorpa esidhe'('Sir Nicholas Malby, Governor of the province of Connaught, died at Athlone, about Shrovetide. He was a man learned in the languages and tongues of the islands of the West of Europe'). Source: Annals of the Four Masters, M.1584.2: http://www.ucc.ie/celt/published/G100005E/index.html. In other words, there is considerably more support for "Oileáin Iarthair Eorpa" than there is for this neologism from 2002, Na hOileáin Bhriotanacha". 86.40.111.63 (talk) 20:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
PS: The error on this article "CollinsHapper Pocket Irish Dictionary" (Happer rather than Harper) has 401 of your above results [5]; in other words half of your Google results are ultimately from this page (unless the same spelling error was made on another page that mentions "Na hOileáin Bhriotanacha", which is highly unlikely). 86.40.111.63 (talk) 20:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Now who's talking about "mere assertion". Show us your source for 'Na hOileáin Bhriotanacha' as long ago as 1584, or indeed another source besides Collins Gem in 2002.86.40.111.63 (talk) 20:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
These results exclude most of the WP mirrors and the term certainly does seem to be in use. Only 110 results, though, so although used, it does indeed appear to be less used than Oileáin Iarthair Eorpa (310 results). When it was first used is irrelevant. But yeah, 310 > 110, so I agree OIE should come before OB. BastunBaStun not BaTsun17:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Why All the Fuss?
The Island of Great Britain and the Island of Ireland and its Adjacent Islands make up the Archipelago. The Archipelago historically was called the British Isles. Why should we entertain the discarding of a historical term, known by all concerned, just because the people within the Republic of Ireland do not like the term. Should we re-make the entire English Language just to suit them? I say no. NO.
Hmmmmm. Define Archipelago, and then explain the Channel islands being part of the British Isles. And round and round and round we go. (*yawn*) It's only geopolitical usage that is objected to (in the main)... --HighKing (talk) 20:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Look on the bright side HK; at least Armchair is highlighting the political anti-WP:NPOV nature of the term British Isles. If more people supporting WP:NPOV showed similar awareness we might solve this problem quicker. Sarah777 (talk) 20:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
No its not its geographical usaged that is objected to. Its funny how nationalists suddenly change their stories. If the british Isles is not an Archipelago, then why does this page even exist? sarah777 you do realise that by continually accusing others of POV, it does not hide your own nationalist motives.Ben200 (talk) 23:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Really, "Great Britain and Ireland" is a false dichotomy. If people really believed it was supposed to be about two islands, it should read Islands of Albion and Erin, because the Britains are all the islands. The Britanniae are more than Albion and whatever parts politically connected, which would also include Erin, even if Republican propagandists hate this and want to change the situation so bad, they are fighting PR battles on Wikipedia. This is supposed to be geography, but the psychological warfare over definition never stops. Catterick (talk) 20:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I suggest you read the pro-POV tracts in the archives; this is purely about politics. The imposition by majority voting of a British collective name for Britain and Ireland. (talk) 22:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
The reason why "Britain and Ireland" sits uneasily with most of the inhabitants of the British Isles is, I think, twofold. Firstly, if referring to the islands, then it omits all the hundreds of smaller islands. Secondly, if referring to countries, then it's simply wrong - the correct equivalent would be "England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales". ðarkuncoll23:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
That's no quite correct. We don't have to state the "Australian Isles", or the "Icelandic Isles", as it is a given that the smaller sourrounding islands are included. That's a red herring, and it's not germane to the recent dicussion in any event. purple (talk) 23:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
So why the objection to "British Isles" then? The island of Britain plus its smaller surrounding islands. Last time I checked, Ireland is smaller than Britain and is part of the surrounding group of islands. ðarkuncoll23:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
A very red herring! An excuse actually. The UK includes all the "countries" bar Ireland; so Britain (or some collective variant) and Ireland adequately covers the geography. But not the politics, as we see with the frantic efforts to include the Channel Isles. Sarah777 (talk) 23:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Frantic efforts to include the channel islands? At the start of your incorherent rambling, you kept crying about British imperialism and POV, now you've suddenly changed it into an argument about geography. sarah777, please accept history or get yourself a Delorean. Ben200 (talk) 23:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Technically, the Channel Islands (including non-baliwick islets) are as part of Continental Europe as the British Isles are. In the British Archipelago, I would also include the Faroe Islands, but for some reason, they are always ignored. The Faroes could hardly have any political association with other islands, but they are still relevant. Perhaps politics is what keeps them removed. Sarah's argument would perhaps apply to any bias that excludes the Faroes. By the way, usage of the word "British" is just as universal as "American". It can mean many things, but in geographic terms, it is not strictly tied to one nation, and like "British", "American" is not exactly identical to the identities used by inhabitants of the dominant nation. Consider the Home Nations and the individual identities of the States. Catterick (talk) 23:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Well I think we should either keep the status quo, or break this article into two seperate ones: "Islands of Great Britain" and "Islands of Ireland". Then have a smaller one refering to the historical connection of Ireland and the United Kingdom.Ben200 (talk) 23:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I think we have too many articles splitting hairs to please malefactors. Understand a similar situation: In the context of geography, other nations than US citizens actually get upset at US (and others') use of the term "American" to refer primarily to themselves. Imagine if Republican propagandists got as envious of the English and Scots for appropriating the term for their island, while often ignoring that the Irish just as easily fit the definition of British. How strange! Channel_Islands#Other_islands_in_the_English_Channel should be included here. Why include Norman islands and not those of Brittany? This is an example of politics having disrupted the nature of definition. If we're arguing for inclusivity on geographic terms with Ireland and indeed, the Norman Channel, then why not the Breton? It's as arbitrary and governmentally defined as the exclusion of the Faroes. Catterick (talk) 00:11, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Observers will note the 100% political and zero percent geographical content of the musings of Ben200 and Catterick above. One rests one's case. Sarah777 (talk) 08:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Ahem! So "politics" is now "disrupting" that innocuous apolitical term "British Isles" covering Ireland. The British occupy Ireland for centuries, strip the people of everything from their lives to their land to their language (and that's just the letter 'l'), build their walled settlements on the good low lying land and throw the surviving natives up to the mountainous land, impose their language, perceptions and names on every single townland in the country and then certain British editors here accuse the Irish of being "political" with geography. Jesus Christ. What sort of history are these people learning? How profoundly delusional are these particular people? This is breathtaking stuff. There is nothing geographical about the term "British Isles" covering Ireland. It is a solid claim of British hegemony over Ireland, and fits perfectly into centuries of such claims over Ireland, and over the rights of the Irish people to self-determination, self-expression, and self-representation of who they are, and the name of the place in which they live. This is like watching White Afrikaneers trying to hold onto their past dominance and accusing the natives of being "political" when the natives have the temerity to reject the coloniser's impositions. Nothing lasts forever: not the Roman Empire and not the British Empire. Please take yourselves quickly to Stage 5 of the Kübler-Ross model. 86.40.111.63 (talk) 08:42, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
British and Irish are a false dichotomy. You have an Irish strain of Whig history, an Irish form of Cromwellianism. Don't pretend you're shocked. I'm the least surprised at this ideology-driven filibustering. Catterick (talk) 09:12, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Cool! You learn something new everyday. I am a proponent of Whig history.
There is only one cure for pathetic Whig History Delusion; read that great modern English philosopher John Gray's Straw Dogs. Whiggish religious belief is the hand-maiden of Western Imperialism. It's what gave us Hitler's gas chambers. Sarah777 (talk) 14:02, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Asking permission to edit.
If we are going to have to hold hands for every edit, then I'm afraid I won't be partaking in this article's improvement. The converse principle is, to write on the talk page something you see is in error from an edit revision, then discuss it. Reverting out of hand so much stuff, without explanation, is absolutely WP:Vandalism or plainly, WP:EW. If that's the way people like Purple or Sarah want to play it, then they can be "king and queen of the Wikipedia article British Isles". There, do you feel better now? When's your coronation of censorship? Maybe Snowded and Music want to congratulate you for depressing this article's progress further, since even if it gets brought to discussion here, we are "not permitted" to be frank, such as this revision here. Whatever. Goodbye to Wikipedia:Be bold! Catterick (talk) 01:06, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
I can't help but feel that's a bit of an over reaction Catterick. There's being bold and there's being stupid. This is clearly an extremely contentious article, and the wording so far has been hammered out line by line, word by word. Equally clearly it hasn't yet reached the stage where it satisfies both sides of the argument (and it's looking increasingly likely that it never will). In those circumstances making such a large edit, which was likely to be objected to by a significant number of editors, wasn't a very wise move, particularly as some of the changes you made were altering terms which have been settled on by extensive discussion and arbitration (your change of Ireland to the Republic comes to mind). Nobody is asking you to hold hands with other editors whilst making changes, but perhaps checking out the article's history and thinking what those of differing views will make of your changes might be wise if you expect your edits to remain in place. Skinsmoke (talk) 01:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Look, nobody until you has identified what may be objectionable in my edit revision. This stands more as a personal attack than a legitimate complaint to the material, since it has not been discussed by those who keep removing it and stifling the discussion by doing so. So why is the Republic not the Republic, in difference from the Monarchy? These are two separate governments in Ireland. The Republican government in Ireland does not have exclusive usage rights to the term "Irish". Do you know what NPOV is? So, you are basically blaming the victim here and saying I asked for it, just by contributing to the Wikipedia, the encyclopedia all can edit. Catterick (talk) 01:27, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Catterick, stop being so defensive. It was not a personal attack at all but a suggestion of how you could make progress and include some (if not all) the points you were trying to include in the article. If you are considering yourself a victim simply because someone reverted your edit perhaps you are getting too personally involved. Take a break for an hour or two, have a look at the thing when you are feeling a little less incensed, and try to see what other editors may find objectionable. (The same advice could equally well apply to one or two others involved in the various wrangles on this article).
I personally couldn't care less whether the country whose government is based in Dublin is referred to as Ireland or the Republic of Ireland. However, there has been an extensive discussion on Wikipedia, and the consensus reached was that it should be referred to as Ireland, whilst that part of the island remaining in the United Kingdom should be referred to as Northern Ireland. To arbitrarily change the name in an article against that consensus is practically begging someone to revert your edit.
Incidentally, just to set the context straight, I believe the article should remain under the title of British Isles in the absence of any accurate and recognisable alternatives. Skinsmoke (talk) 01:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm still waiting for a thorough explanation as to why the rest of my edits are unworthy. You tell me to not be "defensive". I was being censored for my "offensive" approach. Which is wrong in me? Quit harping on me. Let those who ripped my contributions out of the article come speak for themselves as to what is inaccurate in what was written. They revert war and hide, having no explanation for their behaviour, just blaming me for it. This is ad hominem. Focus on the specific data alone and not on me. Their behaviour is not excused by blaming me. They have to criticise what was added or removed, or changed about the article itself. To do anything else, is to make it personal and avoid the whole purpose of editing at Wikipedia. What utter crap that Wikipedia has degenerated into. I don't see the point, if this stuff is always going around, with virtually no progress on anything, because of sectarian, separatist filibustering and politically correct compromises that palliate perjuries. Catterick (talk) 02:06, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
I think you must take an oath to commit perjury, surely a precondition for palliation? I have sworn only to defend WP:NPOV. What have you sworn Catterick? Sarah777 (talk) 08:37, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Since I started formulating a reply, I note that you have changed your last comment. Thanks for that - it's appreciated. Your original response asked me to tell you what was wrong with the edits, so here goes :-
(1) such as the Isle of Man Why mention one island? Why the Isle of Man rather than Orkney or Shetland or the Isles of Scilly? Does the edit add anything to the article?
(2) Republic of Ireland / Ireland As mentioned above, the term was agreed on by consensus
(3) the Channel Islands, although the latter... Wording is messy and convoluted. Doesn’t improve on the original. Is the long piece about the Breton islands relevant to the article, as it describes the situation of islands that are not included in the British Isles? If it is relevant it needs rewriting into simpler English.
(4) After medieval dormancy... Hideous murdering of the English language!
(5) The term British Isles is controversial... The term is controversial in Ireland. Inserting in relation to the conventions of Irish nationalism comes across as trying to slant the article to a particular point of view and is unnecessary. Incidentally, what are the conventions of Irish nationalism? Do you mean that Irish nationalists object to the term? If so, why not say that instead of using that horrendous phrase?
(6) government of the Republic As already explained, consensus is to use the term government of Ireland
I am not attempting to excuse the behaviour of others and I am not blaming you. I am trying to suggest how you can get at least some of your edits included in the article. Bear in mind that some of the people who reverted your edits are on the same side of the basic argument as you. If you can't convince them, you have no chance of convincing those on the other side of the argument.
Please try and take this as constructive criticism rather than as an attack. Not everyone is out to get you, you know. Skinsmoke (talk) 03:01, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
If you think you have the mandate to edit without fear, then incorporate those things. Do you have to look over your shoulder when editing this article? If so, then get somebody else who feels "immortal" and can do things without automatic revert. You lot are nitpickers (grammar nazi stuff) and don't like outsiders. You fix it then. You at least acknowledge that there is some merit to what I put there, although I must clarify that I never, ever consider my edits to be perfect. They are simply well intentioned. By the way, nobody has replied to my points in the discussion above, like the manifold usage of "Irish", "British" and "American" and that no government has exclusive ownership of those terms. You may come up with false consensuses to please the malefactors, but why go to such lengths for appeasement? It works against the article's quality and respectability. Catterick (talk) 03:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
No need to retire. There is some merit in what you put there, but some of your editing was offensive, and soapboxish. You say that other editors are being allowed to edit, but not you. Well, your editing was tendentious at the very least. Write it off as experience, a sort of "Baptism of Fire". Welcome to the British Isles page. purple (talk) 01:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Intro
Leaving aside the whole name issue, can we look at expanding the intro to include one or two sentences on each of the history, geography, language etc of the islands? At the moment it is just a short paragraph on what the islands are, then straight into the naming dispute, which has its own separate article. If readers want info on the British Isles Naming Dispute, they can go read that article. If readers want info on the British Isles, they should be able to get a decent short summary in the intro of this article. --hippo43 (talk) 18:32, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Only a month ago we "trashed out" the 'intro' here. This was supposed to leave it stable.
I'm aware that it's been previously discussed, though that discussion focused on the wording with regard to the naming dispute. I'm not suggesting removing the material on the name, just that the intro should cover the subject of the article, not just the dispute around the name. --hippo43 (talk) 19:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
I advocate broadening the scope of the intro, and removing irrelevant info - they are not incompatible. The intro is not about the British Empire or the term 'British E/Impire'. Also, the 'although' doesn't make a lot of sense in that sentence. --hippo43 (talk) 19:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Why do we have to mention the so-called naming controversy twice in the into? I suggest that reference to the term being depracated in the OED be removed. MidnightBlue(Talk)18:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Maps
Hi, is there a list of map publishers that used to use the term "British Isles" and now appear to have stopped? For example:
That second example is actually very interesting. Click into the map, zoom in, and read the text above the "Britain and Ireland" title. "The island of Great Britain comprises England, Scotland and Wales. These, plus Northern Ireland, constitute the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom, Ireland, Isle of Man and Channel Islands make up the British Isles." So while the map is called Britain and Ireland, it is because they are saying it's a political map, but those islands comprise the British Isles (not political.) In fact, to my mind that even further strengthens the position of British Isles as an internationally used term, but not political. Canterbury Tailtalk12:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I teensy weensy disagree and mostly agree. The point about "further strenghtens the position..." is really missing the main point, which is that many organizations are re-evaluating their usage of the term to ensure that it is used correctly (and solely?) as a geographic term. --HighKing (talk) 14:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately some is a weasel word of the highest order. It means everything and nothing at the same time dependant on how you want to read it. So we only in fact have one map maker that has done so that we can reference? Canterbury Tailtalk13:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I've reverted that edit. Whilst "some" is indeed a weasel word, the refs in no way support "a growing number of ..." because they refer only to one company. Clearly, if refs can be found to other mapmakers that have removed the term, then that's not a problem, but at the moment the refs do not support the statement. Black Kite13:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Should you look, there is a quite extensive list of such removals. Michelin, Phillips, Hallwag, and the AA are all referenced. Also, the statement from National Geographic that they are abandoning its use on all future maps is explicit confirmation of its removal. Ironically, in the 'na hOileáin Bhriotanacha' search a moment ago, it appears the term has also been dropped by French channel, France 24, following a complaint: http://www.cainteoir.com/ (under 16 February 2009). Vincent Morley had this to say about the neologism 'Na Oileáin Bhriotanacha': 'Aistrítear 'the British Isles' mar 'na
>hOileáin Bhriotanacha'. Thabharfainn geall nár
>chualathas a leithéid i mbéal Gaeilgeora riamh'. (...he had never heard its like coming from the mouth of an Irish speaker)86.40.111.63 (talk) 16:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Obviously all those organisations are dropping the British claim because, unlike Wiki Anglo editors they realise it is inaccurate and offensive. And they don't even have to be concerned about WP:NPOV, as Wiki is supposed to be. Sarah777 (talk) 22:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
It's the most common term for the islands, is no more inaccurate than Irish Sea, Indian Ocean, Sea of Japan etc and is used extremely widely worldwide even by official organisations globally. Even used in Ireland, as has been proved on many occasions. Canterbury Tailtalk11:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Incorrect. It is far less accurate - totally inaccurate in fact; as has been pointed out repeatedly in the archives nobody lives in the seas - that's not an analogy. And the historical perspective clearly shows it is a political label; invented by a British Imperialist. Sarah777 (talk) 01:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
The reference to National Geographic dropping the phrase British Isles isn't really stacking up here. The map quoted is dated 2006, before they supposedly changed their policy. Despite the quote from the Sunday Tribune in January 2008 that the term is not to be used in the future, their website (linked above) currently describes the map for sale as :-
Britain and Ireland Political Map : The political boundaries of the British Isles : $10.99
As far as I can see from checking back to the Sunday Tribune article (British Isles References Leave Irish Eyes Frowning), a complaint was made by the president of the Irish National Caucus that National Geographic's Travel Catalogue 2008/09 had a page advertising a guided tour of the British Isles. The complaint was that the tour was exclusively of the Republic of Ireland, and did not even extend to Northern Ireland. The president of National Geographic replied that the organisation had changed the way it referred to Ireland and would now refer to the British and Irish Isles. The Sunday Tribune appears to have assumed that this meant that the maps would be changed. Apparently that was not the case. Skinsmoke (talk) 14:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
All this is original research that map makers have switched to using Britain and Ireland, and variants thereof, instead of British Isles. Can someone please reference where Britain and Ireland are being used as a replacement for British Isles. Just because something is using the terms Britain and Ireland, to indicate two islands, doesn't mean it's an attempt to not use British Isles, as they may not be covering all of the British Isles. It seems there is some confusion over Britain and Ireland meaning the same thing as British Isles, and it appears to be thought that someone saying Britain and Ireland is as a direct replacement for British Isles. Unless referenced (such as the Folens case), it's just original research and putting intentions and objectives to someone else. Canterbury Tailtalk15:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Reference confirmation request
I've deleted the folowing sentence from the lead section: "Since Irish independence, the term British Isles is deprecated by some speakers in Ireland while others regard the British Isles as a geographical or territorial rather than political description." Others and Some are weasel words that need supporting by an explicit reference, not by some vague allusion to the OED. For those that want this sentence please provide a good reference. MidnightBlue(Talk)15:54, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Have you got the exact text? OK if you have, but in any case the issue of Irish dislike is already mentioned up front. How many more times do you want to labour the point? MidnightBlue(Talk)16:01, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Until a few months ago this article had well cited support for 'many' Irish objecting and this appears to have quietly dropped for 'some' Irish objecting. I strongly doubt that the term "British Isles" ever attained widespread use in the English language as spoken in Ireland. It certainly did not exist in the Irish language, which remained the language of the majority of Ireland's population until the 19th century. In that sense I would disagree with the premise of Oxford English Dictionary that independence led to the term being less used. They really need to prove the term had been widely used before that. On the other hand, I am still waiting to hear a real Irish person use the term "British Isles". This article has a very strong British bent and seems to be really a group of British people agreeing with each other and shouting down the evidence for "many" Irish objections. 83.71.254.45 (talk) 11:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Thats a debatable point of view, this article goes out of its way to inform people the term is controversial and we have an entire article covering that matter. The British Isles HAS been widely used for a long period of time and a great example is included in the article, where it mentions that an Irish map publisher used the British Isles in books it published for Ireland up until a year or two ago but continues to use British Isles in books for Britain. If British Isles is so offensive to all Irish people why the hell is an Irish publisher continuing to use the term? Surely theyd refuse to print it? Before the article was locked a week ago, an entire paragraph was added to the introduction with no consensus, where it over plays the Dee guy being the first to use the term (which appears to be debatable) and the fact he was an imperialist. If this article is biased, its because of Irish nationalists not British editors. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I would agree with "page protection". but only at the stable version. If anyone wants to change the "intro", they should bring it here for discussion first. purple (talk) 16:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
It amazes me how the same arguments and edits/reverts come round again and again. MidnightBlueman, why didn't you ask for a reference before making your edit? If none were forthcoming who knows, you may have been able to make your edit without being reverted. Jack forbes (talk) 16:13, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
The current version is indefensible, and it isn't stable. As said above, it is a weasel-word bit of text that isn't needed in the intro. I'll take it out again, pending an adequate reference, but I think we'd be better off without it altogether. LevenBoy (talk) 17:39, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Why does it mention that he was an advocate of imperial expansion? These are weasel words, suggesting that the term British Isles is somehow connected with imperialism. Dee was also an advocate of communication with disembodied spirits - should we mention that, too? And then it goes on to state Irish objections, despite their having been mentioned just a few lines higher. This whole paragraph is blatant POV I'm afraid. ðarkuncoll18:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Hey, the article title is blatant POV and you support it!! Dee's imperialism is extremely relevant to his coining an Imperialist term, obviously. As for the disembodied spirits - that was usually the only way to communicate with native people after the British armies had been through a place. Sarah777 (talk) 01:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I think its important to mention that Dee was the first to use it, and that he did so in the general service of Elizabethan claims (that led to Imperium). Agree that Irish objections only need to me mentioned once. How about extracting a sentence from the paragraph and putting it in the lede? --Snowded (talk) 18:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
What evidence is there that he did it in the service of any sort of claim to imperium? His use of the term comes from a geographical treatise. ðarkuncoll20:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
As I remember it from various tortuous discussions on this and other pages over the last year, several historians (third party source) made that speculation as to his motive. --Snowded (talk) 20:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Agree - Irish objections should only be mentioned once. Also agree that we should mention that Dee used it first. Not sure that much background on Dee is relevant to the lead here, but if it leads to a more stable version, I don't object. --hippo43 (talk) 20:53, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Any changes in the intro should involve consensus, like we successfully did six weeks ago. The article should reflect the real world usage, and non-usage of the term. purple (talk) 00:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
As I had mentioned before English Ambassador to France Nicholas Throckmorton referred to Isle of Britain (when discussing Queen Elizabeth I of England and Mary I of Scotland) as early as 1560, so the term pre-dates Dee's usage. John Dee was mainly an astrologer not medium, although he may indeed have communicated with spirits.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Sarah777 is quite correct. Wiki policy says we present the facts - let the reader decide. It appears that John Dee used the phrase - fact. Any attempt to attribute a reason for his use of the term is supposition and point of view, and really has no place in the article.
As it stands the lead is a little messy and repeats itself. The second and third paragraphs could do with merging and rearranging. Taking Sarah777's point above, how about :-
The first English use of the term "Brytish Isles" was by Welsh mathematician John Dee.[1]The term is controversial in relation to Ireland, where, since independence, the term is deprecated by some speakers while others regard the British Isles as a geographical or territorial rather than political description.[1] The government of Ireland discourages its use [2][3][4] and "Britain and Ireland" is a frequently used alternative name for the group.[5][6]
^ abOED Draft Revision Sept. 2008: British Isles, n.;
^Walter, Bronwen (2000). Outsiders Inside: Whiteness, Place, and Irish Women. New York: Routledge. p. 107. A refusal to sever ties incorporating the whole island of Ireland into the British state is unthinkingly demonstrated in naming and mapping behaviour. This is most obvious in continued reference to 'the British Isles'.
^An Irishman's Diary Myers, Kevin; The Irish Times (subscription needed) 09/03/2000, Accessed July 2006 'millions of people from these islands - oh how angry we get when people call them the British Isles'
^ "Geographical terms also cause problems and we know that some will find certain of our terms offensive. Many Irish object to the term the 'British Isles';..." The Dynamics of Conflict in Northern Ireland: Power, Conflict and emancipation. Joseph Ruane and Jennifer Todd. Cambridge University Press. 1996 Diarmaid MacCulloch, The Reformation: Europe's House Divided 1490-1700. (London: Penguin/Allen Lane, 2003): “the collection of islands which embraces England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales has commonly been known as the British Isles. This title no longer pleases all the inhabitants of the islands, and a more neutral description is ‘the Atlantic Isles’” (p. xxvi)
^British Culture of the Postwar: An Introduction to Literature and Society, 1945-1999, Alistair Davies & Alan Sinfield, Routledge, 2000, ISBN0415128110, Page 9.
^The Reformation in Britain and Ireland: An Introduction, Ian Hazlett, Continuum International Publishing Group, 2003, ISBN0567082806, Chapter 2
Quick point to Skinsmoke before we go too far off the relevant track; Dee's use of the term was not in a mathematical or geographical work; It was in a political work advocating an early form of gun boat diplomacy; imperialist hence has relevance to the use of the term - mathematician or occultist does not. Lucian Sunday (talk) 10:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
He was of Welsh family. This is presumably why he liked using the term "British" - which the English would never have called themselves in the 16th century. ðarkuncoll17:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
The current 3rd paragraph should be reworded or removed, it was sneaked in just before the article was locked for a week and its remained there since for some reason, despite no agreement for it to be added to in the introduction in the first place. The suggested merger of paragaph 2 / 3 by Skinsmoke sounds like a good idea. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I suggest we have a sentence on Dee, possibly two if we can find third party citation as to "why" he introduced the term politically. That needs to be separate from the previously agreed (and stable text) which says that it is objected to in the current lede. --Snowded (talk) 13:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
If the 2nd paragraph which i agree was stable is to remain the same, the sentences on Dee should be returned to the article, its not needed in the introduction and there was no consensus for it to be added. It was done shortly before the article was locked for a week, and its been allowed to stay there for some reason. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I noticed this while researching the pedigree of British Isles as a geographical term. Its not referenced so, hey, we can always invent something different...If it was referenced I would say, put forward other references so it can be discussed in a scholarly way. Lucian Sunday (talk) 17:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
The paragraph about John Dee should mention the year he coined British Isles. I am curious as to whether he first used the term once it became clear that James I would succeed Elizabeth I as monarch, thus uniting the Kingdom of Scotland with the Kingdom of England.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
1577, I believe. So no, in other words. He didn't coin it, either. His was simply the first recorded use in English. The Classical Latin term had been revived by European geographers some decades earlier. ðarkuncoll15:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
It was actually me who found Dee's use of the term - on a hunch - quite some time before the OED updated their reference. It's there in the talk page archives somewhere from a long way back. I have often wondered if the OED people were reading it. ðarkuncoll18:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
He did coin the term - he didn't "translate" or he would have gotten "Britannic Isles" or "Isles of Britannia". --HighKing (talk) 16:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
That's completely ridiculous. "British Isles" was the correct idiomatic translation at the time, and indeed still would be today. ðarkuncoll17:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Actually , you are completely wrong. The correct idiomatic translation at the time would have been to use "Britannic" or "Britannia", and those terms were more commonly used at that time. Surely you've even heard the song? There's a phrase that starts with "Rule Britannia"??? --HighKing (talk) 09:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
To understand why he used the translation of "Brytish Isles", you have to understand the political landscape at the time. In the earlier part of the 16th century, there was much discussion in political, academic and noble circles on the idea of uniting Scotland and England. This Anglo-Scottish debate introduced the concept of an empire of Great Britain into public thought. The concept of a new neo-Roman empire of Great Britan as the new res publica, and the concept of British was developed over this time as part of the debate. Scotland resisted. The Complaynt of Scotland is a book printed in 1549 (often attributed to Robert Wedderburn) in response to a number of books printed in England and the idea of unity of Great Britain is rejected and points out is nou callit ingland. But the concept lived on and in 1572, a Welshman Humphrey Llwyd used the phrase Britannicum Imperium to describe the pan-Britannic monarchy. This was translated into English as Brytish Empire the following year. This idea appealed greatly to John Dee who wrote about the Incomparable Brytish Empire and its inhabitants the true and natural born subjects of the Brytish Empire. Dee's conception of the dominion included the island of Ireland (which he claimed had been settled by Arthur's Britons), Iceland, Gotland, Orkney, Norway, Denmark, and Gaul. He also introduced the concept that the empire encompassed the seas around Britain even as far as the French and German coasts, and all the way to the east coast of America. However at the heart of this monarchy was still the concept of the lawful possession and supremecy of Scotland.
So the term and concept of "British" was a powerful concept being used as part of a debate to create the groundwork to establish legitimate claims of possession and supremecy over Scotland (and later for Ireland). The term "Brytish" was chosen purposefully (and not the correct translation of "Britannic") as it fitted the aims of the proponents of a British empire at the time. Check out the The ideological origins of the British Empire on Google Books for a better summary... --HighKing (talk) 09:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
"But the concept lived on and in 1572, a Welshman Humphrey Llwyd used the phrase Britannicum Imperium to describe the pan-Britannic monarchy. This was translated into English as Brytish Empire the following year." So even you accept that "British" is the correct translation? The song "Rule Britannia", by the way, is 18th century. We're talking about the 16th century here. But in any case, you still appear to be trying to conflate the terms "British Empire" and "British Isles", which in reality have about as much to do with each other as, say, the phrases "Persian Empire" and "Persian Carpet". ðarkuncoll10:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
You obviously deliberately miss the point. Humphrey didn't use the term - it was translated from "Britannicum" to "Brytish" because it was being used as a political point, to help the English establish a claim. This mistranslation was also performed by Dee because it suited his agenda too. And the only person that has consistently tried to establish that British is the correct translation of Britannicum is you, because it suits your agenda in trying to establish that the term "British" is an innocent translation from Latin, and not the politically loaded English claim word that it became in the mouths of English Imperialists in the late 16th century. --HighKing (talk) 11:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Just how, precisely, is "British" a mistranslation from the Latin? And as for them being English imperialists, the examples you have given are Welsh. Which is not surprising, because that's exactly what the word "British" meant at the time. ðarkuncoll14:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
It took a while to catch on. It wasn't popular by 1680. The 'term' seems to have had its hayday in the late nineteenth century. purple (talk) 16:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't know how you define "heyday", but the term is still a perfectly normal part of the language. I'm also not sure what showing a single example of a map will achieve, though looking at it, it is clear that it shows political boundaries, hence its title - whereas British Isles is a non-political term. ðarkuncoll16:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I think you prove my point that it is in fact all about semantics, and there is no such thing as a 'purely geographical' or 'purely political' map. These terms are geo-political in nature, and to argue that term is purely geographic is really a fallacy argument[8], and a waste of time. purple (talk) 19:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Done, thanks. --Amalthea 14:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
.jpg)
![[1]](https://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~genmaps/genfiles/COU_files/ENG/aaEng/morden_engsco_1680.jpg){kind=link}
![[6]](http://i263.photobucket.com/albums/ii154/aandresg/NGuk.jpg){kind=link}