Talk:British Isles (terminology)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the British Isles (terminology) article.
Please sign and date your posts using four tildes (~~~~). New discussion topics go at the bottom of the page; click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Frequently asked questions. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Talk page guidelines Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Don't bite the newcomers!

For previous talk see: *Talk Archive 1

*Talk Archive 2

*Talk Archive 3

This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Geography article has been rated A-Class on the assessment scale.

From the archive:
I just moved the proposed text on my user page (User:DirkvdM/British Isles - Clarification of Terms) to this new article because it was collecting dust. For my motivation and the first reactions see the talk page there (User talk:DirkvdM/British Isles - Clarification of Terms).

DirkvdM 10:49, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 Some editing for you all to get stuck into 2 Euler diagram 2.1 "A name doesn't have to be replaced with a new name in order to stop being used." 2.2 Image edited (July 15) 2.3 Proposed SVG replacement 2.4 Why is England and Wales encircled? 3 Confusion 4 Historical information in intro 5 Too long an intro 5.1 My suggested intro by Neo 6 Page Move 7 Requested move 7.1 Survey 7.1.1 Oppose votes 7.1.2 Support votes 7.2 Discussion 8 Summary style 9 British Islands 10 Irish language 11 Brittany 12 What is the basis of this statement? 13 Faroe Islands article claims that it is in the British Isles 14 Manx 15 Query 16 Definition of British Isles is Controversial 17 Vernacular usage of "U.K." 18 Terminolgy Problems in Northern Ireland 19 Problems with Terminology 20 Thule is not Iceland

[edit] Some editing for you all to get stuck into

Following an edit war on the British Isles article, the consensus for a way forward was that the article be pruned back to focus on geography and history, and the material on the original and controversy surrounding the name "British Isles" be dealt with here at British Isles (terminology). Accordingly, I have merged a load of info from that article into this one. This will require through editing to properly assimilate it, and may require splitting into a separate article.

I've tried to merge it all in together as there was a lot of duplication. --Robdurbar 22:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

---

Hi all. After a discussion elsewhere on the talk page about whether or not the term "The British Isles" could be sometimes offensive and where to mention this, I had a look around various media to see whether there was actually a universally accepted definition - taking usage and not dictionaries as the source of definition. I found that many major media use widely varying definitions of the term, or at least the way it is used implies varying and inconsistent definitions. I wondered whether an addition like the following would be useful in the section "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Isles_%28terminology%29#Geographical_distinctions".

Modern usage of the term "The British Isles" is often inconsistent and confusing. Even highly regarded major media sources like the BBC and The Times use the term "The British Isles" in widely varied ways. In some contexts the term is used as being identical to the UK, i.e. covering only a part of the island of Ireland. In other contexts the term is used as only covering Great Britain and the surrounding islands but excluding the island of Ireland entirely. In other contexts the term is used to cover the whole of Ireland and Great Britain as well as the surrounding islands, which is the traditional definition.

On a global basis, the traditional definition is almost certainly most common in contemporary usage.

Any thoughts or comments? Obviously, I believe that the additional text is verifiable as factual, although I´m a little unhappy about the words "almost certainly" in the last line. My problem is that I don´t know how to check/verify any more definite statement and my quick usage check (particularly on the BBC) doesn´t actually strongly support this assumption. Also, given the restructuring of the page that Robdurbar was trying to launch, I´m not sure that the info would be in the right place in the section I mentioned. --hughsheehy 15:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think it's fairly clear that the sources you cite have got it wrong. Have yo some actual examples? Mucky Duck 15:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Just taking a few seconds for a quick look....and then only on the BBC. The Times has similar variation which is easy to find.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/gal_coast_11.shtml is a British Isles Coast Gallery. There is no single site outside the UK. The sequence (clockwise) includes Somerset, Anglesea, Antrim, Scotland, which rather ostentatiously leaves out the parts of Ireland that are not in the UK. Unless you believe that - for instance - the Cliffs of Moher or the Aran Islands do not deserve mention then it seems reasonable to assume that they have been left out on purpose. I appreciate that there is also no mention of - for instance - the Giant´s Causeway, but the given the proportion of the overall coastline that is represented by the non-UK coastline, the fact that not a single non-UK area is included is hardly likely to be a coincidence.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/animals/features/139whales.shtml shows the British Isles as being all of Britain and Ireland, as per the definition currently given on this page.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/animals/features/137index.shtml shows the same definition.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/britishisles/ shows the British Isles as being only the UK.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/music/worldmusic/britishislesandirelandrev1.shtml uses the term "The British Isles and Ireland", and that´s the way they mean it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/voices/recordings/ shows only the UK on the map but describes it as the British Isles. (Note that this and most other pages do include the Channel Islands)

This list could continue for ages. I just did a quick sweep in response to Muck Duck´s question and only on the BBC. As to whether or not they are "wrong", I don´t know if that´s an appropriate discussion and would seem to be to be difficult to keep away from being pure POV. Besides, I´d personally hate to start a discussion asserting that the BBC and The Times are "wrong" in their use of English. These are not casual pages, but are editorial content and the fact is that the usage is clearly variable across several major British media companies. Meantime, what Mucky Duck "thinks" about whether this is "wrong" is just one POV and may not belong on WP. --hughsheehy 16:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

No, they have it wrong. You are trying to suggest that British Isles is an acceptable synonym for UK - it is not. The BBC are not the arbiters here and do not always get things right; as another example they produced a series called "A History of Britain" which was no such thing, it was a history of England. The fact that they did it does not mean that Britain is a synonym for England. Mucky Duck 09:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, once again, I don't believe that I am trying to suggest anything of the sort. I hope that Mucky Duck will read what I wrote. I am saying that usage of the term "The British Isles" is varied and often confusing. That is demonstrably true. Also, I don't suggest that the BBC are arbiters of anything. I am saying that usage needs to be looked at - and it's not just the BBC that has varied definitions in their usage. Ultimately dictionaries take usage as the arbiter, so it needs to be looked at.--hughsheehy 09:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I have reinserted the above proposed text after GSD2000 removed it with the remark "rv nonsensical edit" - which is not exactly constructive criticism. Again, the inserted text is accurate and factual and reflects an important problem with the use of terms that is not reflected elsewhere in this article. Since this article is about terminology, usage is important.--hughsheehy 10:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

My apologies - I was attempting to revert just the clause '...or that Ireland is essentially not a "British Isle".', added by what I saw was an anon IP to a sentence about why the British Isles is offensive to some, which was indeed nonsensical. I included two kosher paragraphs too by mistake, which certainly aren't nonsensical. FYI - better to do these edits logged in - less benefit of the doubt is given to anon IPs than seasoned contributors. Gsd2000 11:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I broadly agree with the edits you made Hugh. However, it does need to be directly sourced into the article - I know you have some sources here, but if you could put a few of those in? Also, the second 'paragraph' is a bit wishy-washy. I know what you're trying to say, but I don't think it needs saying. So, I support it, but source it! --Robdurbar 18:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Rob & co, I have not had time to come back and insert the links/sources, but I will. Meantime, I am deleting the item about the Irish sea not being problematical. There are an infinite number of terms that are not problematical. This section is about problems with terms, not about non-problems with terms. I saw there was already a mention of the "North" sea not being problematical, which has already been deleted. Next we'll have entries on why it isn't Womanchester instead of Manchester. Let's keep it a bit serious, please. --hughsheehy 11:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Euler diagram

I think the reader and the editing disputes would both be well-served if the diagram distinguished between terms that are universally accepted and terms that are disputed or controversial. If a term can cause offense and isn't used by a significant fraction of the people involved, it shouldn't be drawn in a diagram with scientific precision just like all the other terms. I suggest changing the solid line around "British Isles" in this diagram to a dashed line. Flying Jazz 16:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. --Red King 16:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Whether you like the term or not, it reflects a definite geographical reality, and there's no commonly-understood and accepted term to replace it. If there was an alternative term, it would be placed alongside of (or would replace) the "British Isles" caption at the top center of the image -- it would not lead to the outermost circle being dashed... AnonMoos 17:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I live in Massachusetts, grew up in Pennsylvania and I have no ancestors from that part of the world. I'm trying to help create an NPOV article and don't have an axe to grind, so "whether you like the term or not" doesn't apply to me. I neither like nor dislike the term. But I'm aware that this is a subject that other people have strong feelings about. From reading this article and the British Isles article, it seems to me that the "British Isles" reflect a definite geographical reality to those who use the term and reflect someone-else's not-definite geographical outdated term to those who don't. If there is no commonly-understood and accepted term to replace it then the alternative is for there to be no term for a geographical entity that includes these islands. No term would mean no line and no name. A term that is accepted and used by all would be a solid line and a name. I see a dashed line and perhaps a grey font as an NPOV reflection of the reality that both of these views exist, one that accepts the term as a geographical reality and one that does not. Flying Jazz 21:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

That sounds a lot like postmodernist deconstructionist ultra-relativist "there is no such thing as objective truth" ideology taken to an extreme to me... To start again at the most basic level possible -- there is a grouping of masses of above-water earth in the ocean which is in fact a rather natural grouping of masses of above-water earth in the ocean. The existence of this rather natural grouping of masses of above-water earth in the ocean is a fact which is a lot more apolitical and culturally neutral than the existence of entities such as "Wales", "England", or "Northern Ireland". To question the existence of an objective reality because you don't like the terminology used to describe that objective reality is like trying to wage war by sticking a dagger into map. AnonMoos 21:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

And what is this grouping of masses called? "The British Isles" or "Great Britain, Ireland, and Isle of Man"? Living across the pond, I don't give a damn either way (so I'm assuming you weren't addressing me with all that you-don't-like-the-terminology-war-dagger business), but I'd like an NPOV article. I wonder what will you accuse me of liking or not liking next! The debate is not about objective reality. It is about terminology to describe objective reality. If folks in Ireland like to call them "Great Britain, Ireland, and Isle of Man" and most other folks call them "The British Isles" then the diagram should reflect both views in order to be an NPOV diagram. I like the part of the article that describes high-profile faux pas, but if it is a faux pas for me, as a tourist in the Republic of Ireland, to call Ireland one of the British Isles, I want the diagram to indicate it so I know it. That way, I'll know what I'm getting into when I say this intentionally to needle Irishmen during my travels and be a typically rude and insensitive American tourist. Flying Jazz 01:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Do folks in Ireland call them "Great Britain, Ireland, and Isle of Man", or is that something you just made up? AnonMoos 14:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The statements in my last post were phrased as quetions or prefaced with the word "if" because I am coming from a place of relative ignorance and so don't even have the confidence to make something up. But I can see your point. Rather than writing: If folks in Ireland like to call them "Great Britain, Ireland, and Isle of Man" and most other folks call them "The British Isles" then the diagram should reflect both views, I should have written: If some folks call them "The British Isles" and some folks don't then the diagram should reflect both views. Flying Jazz 22:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

You tourists from the Americas are so annoying!  ;) The dashed line seems a good idea - if only because the term seems to be in common use without an official definition of what's in it. Some people get so upset about names, doesn't bother me if you say Scotch; just with water, please. ...dave souza, talk 08:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Lovely city, Edinburgh, and pleasant stuff, whisky. You know...only the best sort of people have fewer extraneous vowels in words. Flying Jazz 22:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Support Flyzing Jazz' suggestion here. --Robdurbar 15:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

"Great Britain, Ireland, and Isle of Man" could never be an alternative name for the British Isles as the former only names 3 islands of the 600-or-so covered by the latter. A more accurate term would be "The United Kingdom, Ireland and the Isle of Man" but this is clearly political, not geographic. The best alternative they could come up with for the Good Friday/Belfast Agreement was "Islands of the North Atlantic" (which, of course, could be taken to mean Iceland, Greenland, all those little islands west of the Canadian mainland, etc). Yorkshire Phoenix (talk • contribs) 15:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

You probably meant east of the Canadian mainland. The islands of the North Atlantic would also include the islands east of New England in the US. Azores too. Probably others. A name doesn't have to be replaced with a new name in order to stop being used. I'm not advocating replacing a name with anything else. It just seems that an article that says "This term can cause offence" shouldn't have a diagram that treats the term identically to 10 other terms that can't cause offense. Flying Jazz 22:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

You're right, I did. Yorkshire Phoenix (talk • contribs) 07:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "A name doesn't have to be replaced with a new name in order to stop being used."

That's exactly the problematic point here -- you're turning a more or less natural geographical grouping into a sniglet for ideological reasons. AnonMoos 23:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

heh. Me? Ideological reasons about the British Isles? Have you seen my user page or read my description of myself? You are not assuming good faith about me as an individual editor. My ancestry is Russian and German and I grew up near Philly in the US. If the term has stopped being used in official documents in the Republic of Ireland and it hasn't been replaced in official documents in the Republic of Ireland (again, I'm using "if" because I honestly don't know!) then it is a different sort of term than the other terms in the diagram. It is a more-or-less-natural-geographical grouping to you. If it were viewed as this in the Republic of Ireland, they'd still be using it. Flying Jazz 23:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure they view it as a more or less natural geographical grouping in the Republic of Ireland too -- they just don't like being terminologically subsumed under "Britain". The ideology I was accusing you of was "language creates reality", by the way -- not Irish nationalism. AnonMoos 00:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be (yet again) attributing more to me than I intend. We might acually be in agreement about many things but it's tough to tell. From my perspective, this has been a debate about whether to turn a solid line and a red font into a dashed line and a faint-red or grey font. Nothing more. I'm actually proposing the exact same language in the diagram as is there currently, so your most recent accusation of my likes/dislikes/ideology involving language issues is actually making me giggle a little. I see it as a diagram-POV issue. You have seen it as me liking/not-liking a term, you've gone on about me being involved in daggers and wars and maps and language, and now you're accusing me of being a social constructivist. What would have happened if I'd suggested a dotted line or a wavy one? I am still trying to understand your position about the diagram without you accusing me of something. As editors, it should be possible for us to focus on details of the article instead of focusing on each other. Hopefully your future posts will be able to achieve this. If not, I won't take any action against you because I don't care enough about this issue. But I'll giggle at you again. By the way, I don't think you like the dashed line idea. Hmmm...care to say why not? Flying Jazz 00:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I've grown increasingly annoyed, but I really see absolutely no merit whatsoever to denying the reality of something because you don't like the term which is most frequently used to describe it. If there is some problem or controversy with the term "British Isles", then this could be handled in many ways (from the simple and minimal alteration of enclosing "British Isles" in parentheses, for example, all the way up to substituting an entirely different term in place of it, if a suitable alternative existed) -- but graying or dashing or dotting the coresponding enclosing circle seems to me to be very obviously completely wrong and extravagantly inappropriate on several distinct levels, from the semantic/philosophical to the purely practical. AnonMoos 06:27, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

How about instead of changing the colours, etc, you just put "/ Islands of the North Atlantic" or "(AKA Islands of the North Atlantic)" after the historic, internationally understood and widely accepted "British Isles"? Yorkshire Phoenix (talk • contribs) 09:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

It might actually help clarity if ALL the geographic groupings used dashed lines. That brings to mind the point that most definitions of the BI include the Channel Islands, so I'd suggest overlapping that circle a bit with the main one and wiping out the lines between them. As for Wales, it has its own devolved government, so why hasn't it a political line round it? It's not completely sovereign, but neither is Scotland. Perhaps dotted lines for these subdivisions? Given RI is more separate than the others from the UK, double lines for it? The nuances are endless, but the dashed line idea sees a good start. ..dave souza, talk 10:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem is you're trying to show two completely different things (sets of political entites and sets of geographic ones) on the same diagram. I don't think it's ever going to work. Seperate diagrams might help. Mucky Duck 11:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

They are not at all "completely different things." Every political entity is also a geographic one. john k 17:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

AnonMoos's claim that a dashed circle "seems to me to be very obviously completely wrong" is telling. If something is "very obviously completely wrong" then it would not need to be prefaced with "seems to me" and it would not have agreement from multiple editors. Yorkshire Phoenix's suggestion would substitute a different term instead of recognizing the significant POV that the term under discussion shouldn't be used. Dave souza's suggestions about dashed lines everywhere would obfuscate this particular issue. Mucky Duck may have a point with multiple diagrams if one shows that the British Isles are used as a term and the other shows that they are not. Flying Jazz 21:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

There is a difference between a term that is nuanced/debateable/misunderstood and a term that a national government policy says should not be used. When I go to http://www.britishirishcouncil.org/ and use their search function, "Islands of the North Atlantic" or "IONA" does not appear once, and "British Isles" only appears once in an address for a location in the Isle of Man. That multinational council seems to me to have a policy to use neither term. The islands are listed on its various pages and then refered to as "these islands" a dozen times or so. No other term is used. I am not advocating this point of view. I am just saying that this point of view exists, is significant, and the diagram should reflect both views in order to be an NPOV diagram. Flying Jazz 21:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Since when does wikipedia replicate the POV of the British-Irish Council? The meaning of the term British Isles is relatively clear, except possibly the question of whether or not the Channel Islands are included. That it is not in official use seems irrelevant - it is a very commonly used geographic term. john k 23:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

It's very strange how when I write "I am not advocating this POV," your reply is to ask "since when does wikipedia replicate this POV?" I think I must be even more explicit than I've been, and so I'll take your lead John. If Wikipedia were replicating the POV of the British-Irish Council, we would not have an article or a diagram that mentions the British Isles. That would be a huge POV mistake. However, if Wikipedia had a POV entirely the opposite of the British-Irish Council, we would have a diagram that shows "British Isles" as a geographic term just like any other. That would also be a huge POV mistake. And it is the POV mistake in the current diagram. A NPOV diagram would present both POVs to the reader in a neutral fashion by presenting both a relatively clear definition to the reader and also presenting to the reader the relatively clear fact that a significant minority do not use the term. Flying Jazz 01:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image edited (July 15)

I further edited the image to put the words "British Isles" in parentheses, to reflect the fact that some dislike the term (while few deny the underlying geographic reality). Also, labels for the whole contents of each circle are now placed right up at the center top of the circle (to avoid potential problems of interpretation). I don't think that anything would really be served by trying to make the image much more complicated than it is now. AnonMoos 21:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed SVG replacement

The proposed SVG replacement image Image:British Isles Venn Diagram en.svg is inferior in visual quality to the original PNG version Image:British Isles Venn Diagram.png at this time. The SVG has mysterious variations in font sizes, and differing widths of circle boundary lines, and the red "Ireland" caption is not at the top of its enclosing circle (as it should be for consistency). Putting the Channel Islands at lower right will increase the overall compactness of the image. AnonMoos 02:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why is England and Wales encircled?

Inside the Great Britain circle, why is there a circle around England and Wales? Is there a term that is used to identify that entity (England and Wales, but not Scotland)? Shouldn't it be in red at the top of this circle? --Serge 00:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I see now from the article that England and Wales share a legal system. Perhaps there should be a red label, England and Wales, at the top of the circle that encircles England and Wales? --Serge 00:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The explanation is at Image talk:British Isles Venn Diagram.png. There can't be a red label, because "England and Wales" is not a "natural" geographic entity (i.e. its area can't be defined in a manner independent of contingent political boundaries). AnonMoos 10:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok then, how about a label of some other color to denote this particular type of association? --Serge 19:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Confusion

Anyone noticed how often this article tells us that we should find something confusing? It suggests that some people are very easily confused. In any case it doesn't seem very encyclopaedic language. Mucky Duck 08:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Historical information in intro

Personally I'm not too keen on this; I think the intro should stay as straight forward and as uncomplicated as possible. --Robdurbar 18:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you, but it's useful information which I haven't spotted elsewhere in the article, and putting it in a separate historical list would mean duplication of the list's headings. Would there be value in making The terms with technical meanings a section, and moving "These various terms can be confusing not only in themselves (partly owing to the similarity between some of the actual words used), but also because they are often used loosely or inaccurately." to what would now be a short intro? ..dave souza, talk 20:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that's reasonable. After all, as a topic, it doesn't really need the length of introduction of a 'traditional' article. --Robdurbar 22:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Too long an intro

This has happened several times before, but the intro has become too long again. I originally started this article because there will be a lot of people like me who are confused by the various terms and want a simple answer. What follows after that is another matter and I've decided not to meddle in that anymore. But the intro is still my realm, so to say. So I have added another short intro. This has been done twice before and now the article has a structure of 'overview - more detail - still more detail - various even more detailed bits', which sounds a bit silly if you put it like that, but I don't suppose that will bother anyone. :) DirkvdM 06:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on this: it's still a pretty long intro, but including terms with technical meanings in the intro rather than making it a first section does keep it together. On another aspect, it might be worth mentioning in the Origin of the term British Isles section the claim which someone has added to British Isles#Terminology that the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle uses "British" as referring to the ancient Britons (specifically excluding the English): more a tribal identity than geographical, perhaps. dave souza, talk 17:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted it, as it duplicated info already available below, only in unformatted, unlinked and less comprehensive form... —Nightstallion (?) 11:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that the intro is too comprehensive. There have to be many people like me who just want a quick answer to 'what's what'. There should be such an explanation somewhere on Wikipedia and the intro to this article is the most logical place. It is ironic that the article now lacks the very thing I wrote the article for in the first place.

This is a rather common (and understandable) problem on Wikipedia. Those who write an article are knowledgeable (or at least they should be), so it's hard for them to view things with the mindset of someone who is not so knowledgeable. But those people are the target of an encyclopedia article. As the article progresses, it may get more bogged down in details, but the intro should, as far as possible, answer the most obvious overall questions people might have. DirkvdM 08:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Just to make sure you understand my point: I'm not against making the lead shorter and more concise, but if you do this, you should also merge the section immediately following it (the "expanded" lead) into the new, shorter lead and the extremely-detailed latter part of the article; in you version, we had a short lead, a longer semi-lead, and then again the whole article in all its depth, duplicating a lot of info between those three sections, mostly unnecessarily. —Nightstallion (?) 16:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

You seem to misunderstand what I mean. I don't want to make the intro shorter, just add a short answer for those who are looking for that (as I was before I started this article). Of course that would duplicate info below it. But that's looking at it the wrong way around. First there was the short intro. Then that expanded into something less transparent, more fit for those who already know the basics. And then the original intro (the main purpose of the article) got deleted. So I put it back. Where the links go, I don't care much. It seems more logical to have them together in the following section. And what do you mean it was unformatted? It was, wasn't it? I'll put it back for now. Maybe alter it, but please leave a short intro for non-experts like me. DirkvdM 09:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I've tried restructuring it a bit. A lot of the confusion arises from mixing up the geographical and political terms which are often the same word for different concepts. How does this look? Mucky Duck 10:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

'

Not bad. I've tided it up and merged the repitions so hopefully it will be better. You deal with the geographical bits well; the political section is a bit too vague. --Robdurbar 16:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Right. Don't get carried away, though: Remember the reasoning behind the "short intro". Mucky Duck 19:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

And I suspect it's already grown much too long again. This does not have to be a full pedantic explanation of the terms, discussion of any controversy etc; that belongs later in the article or in the indivdual referred articles. Mucky Duck 08:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

No; full, pedantic meanings discussing controversy are vital here, so that they don't fill the resepctive articles. That is the whole point of this page - to give overly-anal carfeully worded techincal discriptions. As far as I can see, the only bits that could be removed from the intro now are the England/Scotland/Wales/Northern Ireland/Isle of Man discriptions. --Robdurbar 14:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

That's fine, but not in the "short intro"

-for example: Ireland = a sovereign state covering 26 of the 32 counties of Ireland and Republic of Ireland = a "political description" of the sovereign state of Ireland are too complicated for the intro - important, but for the more technical sections later. Likewise "this term is problematic". For the intro KISS should be applied. Mucky Duck 20:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My suggested intro by Neo

Hi, I haven't contributed to the debate yet, but can I offer the following as a suggestion; it basically streamlined descriptions and consolidated terms where appropriate. IMHO it *should* give people an idea of what each term means, and hopefuly lead them into the more comprehensive descriptions in the rest of the article. --Neo 21:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The various terms used to describe the different (and sometimes overlapping) geographical and political areas of the islands traditionally referred to collectively as the British Isles are often a source of confusion for people from other parts of the world, and even for the inhabitants of those islands themselves. The purpose of this article is to explain the meanings of and inter-relationships among those terms.

In brief , the main terms and their simple explanations are:

• Geographical terms
  • British Isles = Great Britain + Ireland + many smaller surrounding islands (note that this term is problematic)
  • Great Britain = the largest of the British Isles archipelago (sometimes informally refered to as Britain)
  • Ireland = the second largest island of the British Isles archipelago.

• Political terms
  • The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland = a sovereign state occupying much of the British Isles. Often shortened to 'United Kingdom', and sometimes informally known as Britain.
    • England, Scotland and Wales = constituent countries of the United Kingdom.
    • Northern Ireland = a de facto constituent country of the United Kingdom, occupying the north west east of the geographical Ireland.
  • Ireland / Republic of Ireland = an idependent sovereign state in the south of the geographical Ireland.
  • Great Britain = England + Wales + Scotland

These various terms can be confusing not only in themselves (partly owing to the similarity between some of the actual words used), but also because they are often used loosely or inaccurately. --Neo 21:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Fine, except for the flame bait that I've crossed out and replaced with something less tempting. --Red King 23:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Ditto, and I correct your geography! --Robdurbar 19:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Why is Northern Ireland said to be a de facto constituent country? That qualification doesn't appear on the constituent countries page, and doesn't seem to be explained on this article. I'd strongly suggest deleting de facto, if not ^{[citation needed]} . ...dave souza, talk 19:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, that's my fault. I wasn't really thinking when I first introduced it to the article but it almost certainly falls foul of WP:OR. I used 'de facto' because I felt that it had taken the place of a 'real' country (Ireland) in the UK's set up, without actually being a country in itself. But you're right that it's both subjective and original research to say that... lazy editing on my behalf! --Robdurbar 22:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Although greatly improved, I' still not too happy about the intro. Any intro, but especially this one, should be for the clueless (mind you, that's 'clueless', not 'stupid'). There should preferably be an aha-erlebnis for as many people as possible. Any details for those with a clue can then follow. I'd rather see something like this, followed by a little mor4e detail, a short explanation of the controversies:

• Britain = Great Britain = England + Wales + Scotland (politically) = the largest island (geographically)
• The United Kingdom (political) = England + Wales + Scotland + Northern Ireland
• The British Isles (geographical) = Great Britain (the island) + Ireland (the island) + many smaller surrounding islands

I picked this one from one of the earliest versions. (Damn, I missed the anniversary! This article is now just over one year old.) DirkvdM 11:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Britain does not = Great Britain. Britain can refer to either Great Britain or the United Kingdom as a whole. john k 21:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

And England, by the illogicality of that logic, can also refer to either England or Great Britain as a whole. El Gringo 19:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Not until the UK or GB are referred to as Enlgand on the UN's website or Tony Blair starts calling the UK or GB England in his speaches are these remotely comparable. --Robdurbar 21:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

'Not until the UK or GB are referred to as Enlgand on the UN's website or Tony Blair starts calling the UK or GB England in his speaches are these remotely comparable.'- So, out of millions of sources, wikipedia now has a precise selection policy where a name for Britain only has legitimacy when a British Prime Minister uses it? Care to cite the relevant policy? And, by this logic, the British Isles do not exist because the Irish Taoiseach never used the term to include Ireland? For that matter, numerous British nationalist posters over on the Talk:British Isles and Talk: Britain discussions have argued that Ireland is a British Isles and the North of Ireland is part of Britain solely because it is perceived as being thus- regardless of how technically incorrect it is. In other words, by the logic which British posters invoke in those articles, all we need do is show a widespread perception that England and Great Britain are the same in order for us to register that in those articles. And that, as you know, is an easy task. El Gringo 18:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

PS: A simple Google for "Ambassador to England" returned 50,100 results. England has not been a political state since 1707 and therefore people are really talking about something different, like Great Britain (until 1801) or the United Kingdom. By the same logic that you apply to the above Irish-related articles, this perception should be recorded in the relevant Wikipedia articles. El Gringo 18:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

My point was that whilst reputable and educated sources use the term Britiain to mean the UK, I feel that you would be hard pushed to find more than a handful of examples of such people calling it England. I used TB and the UN just as examples of such sources, rather than for themselves in particular. What I meant, really, is that there's a big difference between Joe Blogs saying that the country is England and Tony Blair, the UN, the Red Cross, the IOC or anyone else saying that the country is 'Britain'. The policy that I was using, by the way, is Wikipedia:Reliable sources, which notes that sources should be reputbale.

British Isles, I agree, is quite - though not exactly - comprarable. As you have noted, far fewere reputable and official sources use the term. However, you will find very few users on the page who state unequivocally that the Ireland is in the British Isles and that the page should say so, without any qualifications (though I accept that some - who I agree with you are either biased or blinkered - do say this).

Meaning is not controlled by some higher nature - if Britain grew from 'Great Britain' and then came to mean UK, then fine. I feel that the current intro is fine and explains the situation well; DirkvdM's attempts are a little to brief - for an article of the current page length, WP:LEAD recommends 3/4 paragraphs. --Robdurbar 19:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't mean to replace the intro with this, but add it to it, as a first explanation. The way it is now, if I would have come here a year ago I would still be puzzled as to what's what. You can keep on expanding the intro with considerations and exceptions because there are so many here (and that has indeed happened several times already). So the most logical thing to do is to start with the basics and then slowly build it up from there. For example, Britain = Great Britain is roughly true ('great' distinguishes it from 'Little Britain' or Brittany. Any further considerations can then follow.

Let me restate: the primary purpose of the article has been lost. DirkvdM 09:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem, though, is that if we over simplify, we will be inundated with complaints such as User:El Gringo's above. If we state, unequivocally, that BI = great britain, Ireland and surrounding isles, then we will get sucked into repeated attempts to justify this and edit wars with users who think this is a non-neutral statement. I'm afraid that 'roughly true' probably isn't acceptable for an encylopedia anyway.

I think the best way of dealing with this would be to stick with the current intro. I think to state that it has lost its purpose is currently going a bit far. I wonder whether the Euler diagram could be replaced with some other form of simiplar graphic. --Robdurbar 12:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure of the British Isles terminology at all. Why do we need to clump these islands together with a name at all? The term 'British Isles' comes from when Britain controlled both islands. Now they do not - no more 'British Isles' right? As for the UK discussion I really wish they would stop including the Republic of Ireland with the UK. There are a few wikipedia articles of places and things in the Republic of Ireland that are said to be in the UK (see Castle Durrow eg). OisinT 13:52, 20 August 2006

Sorry to ruin your example but it couldn't be left as a UK-building-stub. --Red King 22:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Oisín, we need it because it is important to the national identity of very many British wikipedians that Ireland continues to be part of some greater geographical sense of Britishness, and contextualising Ireland within a 'British Isles' framework is apposite to this need. This neighbourly charm continues here in five archives (so far) El Gringo 00:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The term "British Isles" did not, in fact, come from when "Britain controlled both islands". The term is much older than that Oisin. Read up about it. :) --Mal 14:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Summary style

Fear Éireann says that extensive duplication of this material in British Isles#Terminology is inevitable, if I understand him correctly. I may not have been around long enough, but it seems to me that since British Isles (terminology) keeps surviving votes for deletion, there is some kind of obligation on Wikipedia volunteers to make Wikipedia:Summary style work. Otherwise, by default, it becomes a content fork - with the inevitable result the same facts are treated in a different way in each article - and becomes confusing to readers.

Perhaps the most neutral manner for summary style to work here is for the British Isles#Terminology to be an exact mirror of the current state of the lead section of British Isles#Terminology To survive, that lead section would need to reflect the naming dispute better than it does now.

However, the current state of affairs or any other will require constant vigilance and merciless reverts to the consensus wordings.

Right now, British Isles is 50% Geography and History, and 50% Terminology. That is unbalanced, and shows that the consensus that Robdurbar mentioned on 5 July is not working yet. There are enough Wikipedians with good knowledge of Ireland, Britain and the IOM, and good writing skills, that British Isles ought to become a featured article one day. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 18:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, I've removed that article from my watchlist - I had enough of the personal attacks on the page. However, I should point out that one of my reasons for requesting a move on this page was to clarify that this is not just a discussion of the term 'British Isles' (and its alternatives) it/themself/ves, but of all the geographical terminology about places within the British Isles e.g. this is a clarification page about a number of issues - British Isles#Terminology is intended as a discussion about the phrase British Isles and its alternatives. If anything, all the info on this page about that debate could be removed, with a link to the relevant part of that article.

As for consensus on the British Isles page - well though its not entirely relevant here - my conclusion was based on how little the page has changed, despite all the talk. It seems/seemed to me that the vast majority of debate on the article was nitpicking over senetences/single words, rather than the content as a whole.

This article has never, by the way, been nominated for deletion. Indeed, some users have found it so helpful that they have decided to copy it (if not in form, then at least in principal) at Americas (terminology). Ironically, I think that article is probably now better than this one! --Robdurbar 18:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying the history, and sorry for the false statement. Please explain this a bit more:

Following an edit war on the British Isles article, the consensus for a way forward was that the article be pruned back to focus on geography and history, and the material on the original and controversy surrounding the name "British Isles" be dealt with here at British Isles (terminology).

That was one of the reasons I sound like a stuck record on 'Summary style', and why I feel sad that the material at British Isles#Terminology diverges so much from that at British Isles (terminology). I think both articles should be even-handed about all the useful terminology, and aim to educate and inform first. Neither should go on at endless detail about the naming dispute. Explaining the naming dispute is encyclopedic, but endless analysis of the citations by both sides doesn't seem to be to me, and I admire you for trying to hold the line against such.

I know that is very easy for me to say until I try to put it into practice, but if no-one else feels the same way, it won't be possible (or useful) to do alone. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 12:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, that. Yeah, that's bad editing on my behalf, I went way ahead in presuming that there was a conesnsus, and then havn't really tidied it up here. As for your concern - you can always create your vision of the article on a sub-page of this talk, for people to see and for you to try; you can always list for speedy when you're done. --Robdurbar 21:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

To avoid the situation where this article has essentially an outdated duplication of the section at British Isles, I've trimmed it back to a brief summary with a reference to the other as a main article. I've also pointed out that the term Ireland is itself a sensitive matter. Trust that helps to tidy this up. ...dave souza, talk 19:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] British Islands

It might be worth updating the diagram to add one more circle, "British Islands" that includes everything, including the Channel Islands. It would be unified, somehow :) Also, anyone know if the Channel Islansd were ever considered part of the "British Isles" (especially during WWII)? I might have a dispute over a trivia quiz...:) Stevage 11:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Such a circle would not include everything: to be accurate it would obviously have to exclude the Republic of Ireland, but include the Channel Islands. I'm not sure where Northern Ireland sits in relation to this term since it is not an island. Yorkshire Phoenix 11:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Yorkshire Phoenix. British Islands definitely does not include the territory of the Republic of Ireland. The term seems to be rarely used outside diplomatic circles, and it would make the diagram messy. As regards your trivia quiz question, read the articles — the answer is buried in there somewhere. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 18:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I did read the articles, but the answer seemed to only be hinted at - hence my request for confirmation. Stevage 08:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Why didn't you say you had read them? As I recall, they say that sometimes the Channel Islands are included in the British Isles. That is the best I can do. Please don't write pub quiz questions about it. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 21:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I think a figure that included a circle for the British Islands as a political entity without the Republic of Ireland would be very useful to readers in order to indicate just how uncontrollably murky and ambiguous this topic is and how the passions it evokes are so ludicrous. A messy reality calls for a messy diagram. Flying Jazz 23:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that inclusion of British Islands would add value to the Euler diagram. Yorkshire Phoenix 09:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Irish language

According to the article, in the Irish language, Éire refers both to the Political Entity of the Republic of Ireland, and also to the Geographical Entity, the island of Ireland. Firstly, I'd like to know if this is accurate, and, furthermore, if it is accurate, perhaps there could be a note to explain this difference between the two languages. I wonder if the Éire entry at the Irish-language Wikipedia could help here, if there are any Irish speakers contributing to this article? Liam Plested 22:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The name Ireland is simply the English language version of Éire: Ireland is the English name for Éire. Consequently, Derry, Ireland, is simply the English for Doire, Éire. This logic is something which would be too much for your average British person. But it stands. As for the 26 counties, its official name is Ireland, when speaking the English language. When speaking Irish, its official name is, naturally enough, Éire. This is contained in the 1937 Constitution, which reasserted, in the form of Articles Two and Three, the native Irish right to the entire country. That is the context of the legislation. In other words, those who admit Belfast is in Ireland, but wouldn't say Belfast is in "Éire" are simply twisting things to suit their (unionist) politics. I have yet to hear any Irish speaker use Éire in the partitionist sense British people use it. See: www.rnag.ie; www.tg4.ie, for instance. El Gringo 23:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

"This logic is something which would be too much for your average British person." (El Gringo). Then again, perhaps it's the Irish who are having trouble understanding the concept that you cannot legislate for language. I don't care what the Irish constitution of 1937 might say - the fact is that when used in English, for the vast majority of people in the British Isles, "Eire" means the Irish republic (whereas "Ireland" almost always means the whole island, and not just that part of it that has appropriated the name for itself). Perhaps this is because "Eire" always appeared on coins from the republic, which had a nasty habit of turning up in handfulls of change and then proving impossible to spend, except in slot machines - quite literally like the proverbial bad penny.

And on the subject of legislating for language, what on earth is wrong with the traditional term "Irish Gaelic"? Just calling it "Irish" is open to all sorts of misinterpretation. TharkunColl 08:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Absolute and total nonsense from beginning to end. So no change there then. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 12:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

hehe, Fear Éireann. ;-) El Gringo 20:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you denying that when used in England, for example, the term "Eire" means the Republic of Ireland (and not the whole island)? TharkunColl 13:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Why am I not surprised that you are preoccupied with how terms are understood in England? Obviously Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland and indeed the island of Ireland don't matter. All that matters is what England thinks. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 14:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe that in legislation of the Republic (perhaps the constitution of the Republic) both Ireland and Eire have been defined as names for the Republic. Also, however, I imagine these definitions date from when the Republic had "constitutional" claims to the whole of Ireland/Eire. (Ireland is quite obviously and Anglicisation of Eire + land. Laurel Bush 14:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC).

When de Valera began working on his new constitution in 1935 he initially planned to keep the name Saorstát Éireann. Later on, in 1936 and particularly 1937 drafts, he dropped the term, using instead Ireland and Éire. His constitution defined two entities: a twenty-six county "state" and a thirty-two county "national territory". He never defined what name meant which. So when referred politically, the twenty-six country state is variously referred to as "Ireland", "Éire-Ireland" (in the EU), "Éire" and "The Republic of Ireland". When the island is referred to culturally or geopolitically, it is referred to as "Éire" or "Ireland". "Éire" can mean either the 26 or 32 counties, depending on context. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 14:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's where we differ in our use of the words. When used in England (which I simply cited as an example before), or indeed in most other areas of the British Isles, the term "Eire" refers to the Republic, and "Ireland" almost always means the whole country - not just that part of it that is no longer in the UK. I even suggested a reason for this - namely, that "Eire" became associated with the Republic, in British people's minds, primarily though the medium of Irish Republic coins, which turned up here regularly. There's no other particular reason for us to have adopted a loan-word from Gaelic in this fashion, and I imagine that we pronounce it "wrongly" as well - just like many other loan-words from foreign languages. In short, whatever the word might mean in Gaelic, to most English-speakers who know it, it means the Republic of Ireland. As I stated before, anyone who tries to legislate the meaning of words is a fool. TharkunColl 14:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, its dictionary meaning is clearcut. Éire (genitive case: Éireann) means Ireland. It is just that there are two Irelands; the island of Ireland and the state of Ireland. Both have the official name Ireland. As a result, in Irish both are Éire. It is simply that in the UK when people of Ireland they think of the state. So it is natural in that context to think Éire = The Republic. But it simply is one meaning. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 15:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes indeed, I fully understand that "Eire" is the Irish Gaelic word for Ireland. But in general contemporary English, when the loan-word "Eire" is used, it means the Republic. I don't, incidentally, think it's true that when people use the term "Ireland" they are thinking primarily of just the Republic (though it depends on context). In most cases, however, "Ireland" means the whole island. So in other words, there was a linguistic gap in English usage and saying "Republic of Ireland" or even "Irish Republic" all the time was a bit of a mouthful - language abhors both a vacuum and needless long-windedness - and "Eire" fitted the bill nicely (usually pronounced something like "air-a" or even "air", i.e. how people saw it written on coins). Were it not for this combination of factors, I doubt that the word would ever have been adopted into general English at all. TharkunColl 15:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes indeed, I fully understand that "Eire" is the Irish Gaelic word for Ireland. Indeed, it most certainly is not. Obviously, Ireland is the English Anglo-Saxon word for Éire. Get the historical sequence correct. Unionist revisionism is so, like, eighties, like. El Gringo 20:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be a little confused as to what I actually said. I said that "Eire" is the Irish Gaelic word for "Ireland". I made no suggestion as to which of those two terms came first. Can you not understand plain written English?

And whilst we're at it, I must take exception to your suggestion that I'm a "unionist". In my opinion the artificial division of Ireland was a terrible crime, forced on a weakened British government by German-sponsored Irish terrorism during the First World War. Both Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic are gerrymander states, that should never have been torn assunder in the first place. TharkunColl 23:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

by German-sponsored Irish terrorism during the First World War. This coming from a supporter of the murdering British state savages who took the great, noble and honourable James Connolly over to Kilmainham Gaol during this time, strapped him to a chair, and murdered him in cold blood just reflects how fucked up and utterly fanatic some of you British can still be about the natives. And how nice of you to do it all "for the rights of small nations to self-determination". You blinkered, xenophobic jingoists. The only terrorists in Ireland are the ones who believe Britain has a right to rule lands beyond Britain. Masterrace nutcases. The free Irish are a very peaceful people; the only part of the country that is not at peace is where the British have settled in large numbers. Term it the British military tradition, or the British cultural affinity with violence- it means the same thing. But I don't expect any of you to honestly face this aspect of your national values. In other words, the "Irish Problem" is, clearly, the British state's presence here. El Gringo 22:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

"The only terrorists in Ireland are the ones who believe Britain has a right to rule lands beyond Britain." Then I take it that you do not regard the IRA as terrorists? In that case, Mr Gringo, I accuse you of being a fellow traveller with repugnant murderous bastards. You are beneath my contempt. I shall not respond to any further statement that you make, as in my opinion you have forfeited the right to be heard. TharkunColl 23:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Woah, woah, woah, let's bring this back a little. We're meant to be discussing words and terms here, not bringing any of this heated nationalist/loyalist stuff up. There's a whole Internet full of forums for that sort of stuff. In English, one can refer to "The Republic of Ireland", or "The Island of Ireland", and each is a separate entity. The article implies, however, that Irish Gaelic has only one term (Éire) for the two. Doing a little research, I've found "Poblacht na hÉireann" as being a translation for the name of the RoI, and there also being a term for NI. I'll be quite honest here, and state that I find the whole thing confusing, and I'd be glad if someone could clear it up without bringing their axe to the grindstone. If it's a matter that can't be cleared up, perhaps this should be stated in the article. Liam Plested 23:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I find ElGringo's comments about Brits being unable to understand logic and having "a cultural affinity with violence" (presumably you'd like to explain the difference between those comments and saying that Black people have a cultural affinity with crack dealing for example or that Jews have a cultural affinity for being mean with money and world domination) to be about as racist and despicable as you can get and to have no place on Wikipedia - oh and I'm not a unionist, far from it, before I'm tarred with that brush. I'm sorry but as well as breaking Wikipedia guidelines on civility it also reduces the credibility of your arguments since it makes you comments on the alleged imperialist nature of the term "British Isles" seem to just be another outgrowth of your prejuidice. Frankly if I had bigoted views on other nations I'd at least be ashamed of it enough not to broadcast them in public. While there are certainly many British people who's attitude to Ireland could be summed up by the terms "xenophobic" or "jingoistic" unfortunately you have demonstrated how much in common with them. The sad fact is that there are so many people in this world who would be exactly what they currently despise if they were only born a few miles down the road since at heart they think in exactly the same way. Disgraceful. Truly disgraceful. 82.12.232.172 20:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations on making a post that contributes nothing to the discussion on the article. Your opinion is valid, but this isn't the place for it, so take it elsewhere. Liam Plested 11:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

That might perhaps have been more useful if you had suggested where to take it! I'm not new to Wikipedia but would have no idea myself where an appropriate place would be for such things. Matthew 12:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

To go back to Liam's original question. Yes Éire refers to both the island of Ireland and to the irish state in the irish language. The official position of the Irish goverment is that this also applies in the English language as per the Irish Constitution ie. Island = Ireland, state = Ireland. There is a term "Poblacht na hÉireann" in irish which is basically a direct translation of the term "Republic of Ireland". However this is not the official name of the state per the constituion which is "Éire/Ireland" (Depending on language used and as oppose to "Poblacht na hÉireann/Republic of Ireland"). The term for "Northern Ireland" is "Tuaisceart Éireann" which is a direct translation into irish. Likewise one could say "Iarthair na hÉireann" as a translation for "west of ireland" etc. The confusion is to do with the fact that use of english language is different between Ireland and Britian. Here (i'm irish) Ireland is name of both the state and the island, whereas in Britian you will more likely find usage of "Republic of Ireland"/"Irish Republic"/"Southern Ireland"/"Éire" for the state and the usage of "Ireland" purely for geopgraphic island. Hope that helps. -Paul

[edit] Brittany

Have changed a bit here. I'm tired of seeing this same line that Brittany was peopled by the Cornish! Some facts: Brittany and that region of France had a culture and language similar with that of southern Britain; the Anglo-Saxons didn't kick the 'Celts' out of England; migrants from Britain to Brittany would not have just come from Cornwall (that one always makes me scratch my head); the population of Brittany would have existed prior to British migration and would have enveloped it. Enzedbrit 09:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Interesting subject: according to Snyder Armorica was Brittonic speaking with longstanding trade and religious links to Britain, and was less Romanised than the east of Gaul. Unrest from the third century led to a series of revolts, and though Britons had travelled through Gaul throughout the Roman period, there's no indication of large groups of Britons until the mid 5th century, with the term Brittania being first applied to the area by Procopius and becoming a standard term for Armorica by the late 6th century. He mentions linguistic similarities between Cornish and Breton leading some to argue for migration from south Wales and southwest Britain from the late 5th century, and since this predated Saxon expansion into these areas have suggested they were fleeing from Irish raiders, but Snyder considers ecclesiastical and commercial links suffice to explain the language links. ...dave souza, talk 15:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What is the basis of this statement?

Quote from article;

The second largest island in the archipelago is Ireland. That Ireland is a part of the geographical "British Isles" in no way implies that all of the island is politically British.

Does someone think that it is? This is yet another sop to the POV pushers who don't like the term British Isles. Arcturus 17:40, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

"Does someone think that it is?" - From an Online Encyclopaedia I just found;

"Hostility to the term British Isles has often been caused by its misinterpretation; this was exemplified by an embarrassing and controversial faux pas by the then American First Lady Nancy Reagan during an Irish visit. The confusion caused by the term was also highlighted during a stop-over visit to the Republic of Ireland by then Soviet Union leader Mikhail Gorbachev, when he indicated that he presumed Ireland's head of state was Queen Elizabeth II, given that she was the British Queen and his officials said that Ireland was a part of the British Isles." -[1]

I'll look for a primary source if further confirmation is needed --Neo 18:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Neo, the source looks like it's a Wikipedia mirror, perhaps using a previous version of the BI article. I still wonder whether the statement is necessary in the article. Arcturus 18:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with the 'probably a Wikipedia Mirror' thing; however, returning to the point I think that a statement explictely stating that Ireland (the state) is independent of the United Kingdom does no harm, and may help clarify any queries or doubts in people's minds. As someone who appears to have spent some time on Wikipedia I'm sure I don't need to say Be Bold and edit it if you can think of a better formulation. --Neo 20:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Faroe Islands article claims that it is in the British Isles

Is that correct or not. If not, then we must correct the Faore Isles article. Chivista 18:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted that as well. It is all about an argument going on at Talk:British Isles and added to prove a point. josh (talk) 18:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

That's not very nice; it misled me for no reason... because they are almost close enough and in the old days of Beowulf the Danes did invade Britain so I thought that the Faroe Isle claim was correct. Chivista 18:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I would be perfectly happy to accept the Faeroes as part of the British Isles - both geographically and, as you say, culturally. They are, however, situated on their own fragment of continental shelf that is not joined to that on which the British Isles are situated - but this fact cannot have been known to the ancients. TharkunColl 19:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Manx

Citations were given for "Western European Islands" being terms used in Irish (Oileáin Iarthair Eorpa, Dinneen 1927, s.v. oileán 'island') and Manx (apparently Ellanyn Sheear ny hOarpey, Fargher 1979). I was noting (with footnotes) that "British Isles" occurs in Irish (Oileáin Bhreatanacha, Dunne & Ó Raithbheartaigh 1937) and Manx (Ny hEllanyn Goaldagh, Fargher 1979, s.v. British-Isles; basically the Manx called them all "foreign islands"). I do not find Ellanyn Sheear ny hOarpey in Fargher. Under Western Isles the term Ellanyn Sheear ny h-Albey occurs, obviously referring to Scotland's Hebrides. Further, 'Europe' is Europey in Fargher. What gives? POV mendacity? -- Evertype·✆ 18:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

What are you trying to prove? That the term "British Isles" is so loved by the Irish Government that they incessantly refer to "Britain and Ireland" as Oileáin Bhriotanacha. There is no doubt about the fact that "British Isles" does translate into the Irish language, but to go on and quote government sources where it was used in 1937 when Ireland was part of the British Commonwealth is mear pov, and not apt for a worthy encyclopedia article. The usual term is Oileáin Iarthair Eorpa, or the West European Isles. MelForbes 19:30, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Hold your POV horses, MelForbes. I am not trying to prove anything. I am showing attested use of a particular term in Irish. I have a NPOV about this. I am not offended by the use of "British Isles" to refer to a Britain, Ireland, the Isle of Man, and the thousands of little Islands in the area. Nor do I insist that people use the term. As a lexicographer, however, I have simply shown that Oileáin Bhriotanacha is a term which has been used in Irish. That's simply a fact, found in a book on my shelf (I have lots of maps and atlases). "Not apt for a worthy encyclopaedia article" is seriously POV. Why do I think so? For the same reason that I am unhappy that someone who edited this page suggested that Ellanyn Sheear na hOarpey is a Manx term from Fargher, which I have been unable to find in that book, while the term Ny hEllanyn Goaldagh which means 'British Isles' is attested in that book. Ths seems to me to be a POV revisionism on the part of a Wikipedian. This article is about usage. Facts are not to be suppressed. -- Evertype·✆ 20:04, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

You said: "The usual term is Oileáin Iarthair Eorpa, or the West European Isles." An bhfuil Gaeilge agat? Tá sí agamsa agus níor chualas duine ar bith ag úsáid an téarma sin, cé go bhfuil fáil air i bhfoclóir an Duinníneach. Got proof that it is usual? (And it may very well be usual, but that does not mean that a term for 'British Isles' is not attested in Irish, in use, one might think, by people who were quite well aware of what it did and did not imply. -- Evertype·✆ 20:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

A Cara, tá an Gaeilge agamsa freisin. Slainte chugat. MelForbes 21:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

"A chara, tá an Ghaeilge agamsa freisin." Soraidh. -- Evertype·✆ 22:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Sadly, to a certain breed of Irish Nationalist on wikipedia, any concession to use of the geographical term "British Isles" to include the island of Ireland is always fought tooth and nail. Tedious to those of us who prefer neutral facts, but sadly a site like wikipedia attracts disproportionate numbers of such folk. It's mentalities like this which are a large part of the reason why a certain junket was taking place in St Andrews the past few days...--feline1 20:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Sadly, to a certain breed of Irish Nationalist on Wikipedia. Unquote. The line says much more about you than it says about me. My record on NPOV at WP is exemplary. My aim is for a true and honest article, that's totally NPOV.

Eh? Your edit (mentioned above) turned an assertion of attestation into an un-supported claim about what was the "most used" term in Irish. It seems to me that this was serving a POV. -- Evertype·✆ 22:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

My spat with Evertype, who incidentally offended me in a similar style to your own, was based on my proposal of stating that the term "British Isles" did not always include Ireland. You seem to have a prejudice problem, and you have made erroneous assumptions about my edits. MelForbes 20:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I offended you in what way? I did not make edits about your suggestion that "British Isles" "did not always include" Ireland. -- Evertype·✆ 22:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually I was speaking generally, not specifically about you. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to Strasbourg to protest about the continued oppressive use of the term "Irish Sea" by the Republic of Ireland.--feline1 21:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I am sure that's a joke. The British called it the Irish sea. Better take it up with HRH or TB. Actually the analogy is lame. I notice that the English call La Manche the English Channel, and due respect is given on the page to the different terms. That's the way it should be on WP. MelForbes 21:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Um, the "Irish Sea" has not always been called the "Irish Sea" by everyone. I think in Scottish Gaelic it is either the "British Sea" or the "Welsh Sea" (and that distiinction may be problemetic in Scottish Gaelic). -- Evertype·✆ 22:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Query

"The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a sovereign state occupying much of the British Isles. Often shortened to 'United Kingdom', 'UK' or Britain." Is that last part incorrect, or is it just me? If you're talking about the collective including N. Ireland nobody refers to it as Britain, do they? DavyJonesLocker 14:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes they do. And the nationality of people born in NornIrond is generally spoken of as "British" (ie legally they are "British Citizens")--feline1 16:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Only some people do. Many people in Northern Ireland take out Irish passports, and they are Irish. MelForbes 18:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes thanks for that Mel, well you hurry off now and count them all and come back and tell us which one is in the majority, and then we can all have a huge sectarian edit war about it, yes? thanks.--feline1 14:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Definition of British Isles is Controversial

It is suggested (again) that the controversy in Ireland surrounding the use of the term British Isles should be included up front because it is the definition that is controversial. I do not believe that this is the case: There is no dispute over the meaning of the term - it means the archipelago off the north west of Europe (indeed it is the name of that archpelago). Now although to most of the english speaking world this is an entirely neutral name, some in Ireland - for reasons that are understood - would want to change the name. This should, of course, be discussed. However, this is no part of the definition and including the statement in the introduction gives quite the wrong emphasis. Mucky Duck 09:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

You're on a hiding to nothing, Mucky Duck. The Irish Nationalist communitay on wikipedia will never stand for such an approach.--feline1 10:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, in the absence of any justification for it I'll give it a couple more days and then restore the neutral version. Mucky Duck 08:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

As the controversy is mentioned later in the article could we possibly put a subdued reference to it along the lines of:

• British Isles consists of Great Britain, Ireland and many smaller surrounding islands. (NB - this term can be controversial - see [revelant section] for more details).

Would this satisfy both sides, or just antagonise both? --Neo 13:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, no. That doesn't really answer the question. In fact because it doesn't mention the very limited sense in which the term is controversial it's somewhat worse than the current wording which is not incorrect. The point is that it doesn't belong in the definition because that overstresses it - to the vast majority of the world there is nothing controversial about the term at all. Putting it up front it inroduces a POV spin. Mucky Duck 07:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Careful now, Mucky Duck! You'll be denying the potato famine next ;-) --feline1 10:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Besides, the comment does nothing more than point out the fact that the term is sometimes considered offensive in one of the two main places covered by the generally accepted definition. That isn't POV, it's fact - however much some people like to deny it. Personally, I would disagree with Mucky Duck that "There is no dispute over the meaning of the term", but that might be POV. Meantime, the term "The British Isles" is widely used and widely recognised, and that's a fact too. Previous to the additional note in the definition the only reference to the "controvery" was in paragraph 6, a strange approach in a page that is supposed to clarify the terminology and its use....especially since the page on "The British Isles" refers to the controversy above the article and sends people to the terminology page for clarification. --hughsheehy 12:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

It's a "fact" that various people have *decided* to find the term offensive. A term cannot be offensive in of itself, it's merely a word. Humans have to find the offence. The term was not invented to offend.--feline1 13:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

And as I pointed out on the first day to Mucky Duck, there are many words where exactly the same *decision* has happened. If you assert that a term cannot be offensive of itself I suggest you wander around any of a dozen major US cities using the term "Nigger". You might find that many people *decide* to take offense and I suggest that your argument is invalid and would be dangerous to test. While I would not class "The British Isles" and "Nigger" in the same universe of offensiveness, both terms have origins in classical times, both have long history where they were entirely uncontroversial and yet both are currently less acceptable than they used to be - at least in some places and contexts. Again, that is not POV, it is fact. --hughsheehy 14:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this is true. However "nigger" is almost universally used as a pejorative term, (or a reclaimed ironically-self-impowering-word amoungst the niggaz, bitches and hoes of black urban america :) ... wheras "British Isles" is generally still used by everyone still as a neutral geographical term, NOT as a pejorative. It is only Irish Nationalists who object to it on political grounds. So it is not quite the same kind of thing as "nigger".--feline1 15:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

This is not a very good analogy. The term nigger is a derogatory word to describe a black person. The term British Isles is the name of the archpelago that includes the islands of Great Britain and Ireland. It is entirely different. With regard to whether the statement is factual or not I don't dispute it and although there is some synthetic offense taken for political reasons in this area I am quite willing to accept good faith here. The point is though that placing this in the "simple explanation" puts a strong Irish Republican POV spin on it. A single sentence here cannot do the controversy justice and it should be placed where it belongs in the section on the problems surrounding the terms (which could certainly be improved, by the way). This is not a "strange approach". There is in Ireland a movement to get the name changed but other than to report it Wikipedia is not the place for this campaign. Mucky Duck 10:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually it's probably quite a good analogy. Many dictionaries (and Wikipedia) give a straightforward definition of the meaning of words like "Nigger" and insert an additional note to say something like "usually offensive" (Webster) or "offensive in most social contexts" (Wikipedia). The recent addition to this page does the same thing, leaving the definition of British Isles untouched and adding the note "sometimes offensive". Rather than restricting the comment to a cryptic few words as would be common in dictionary contexts, the comment is slightly more expansive - as befits Wikipedia's nature. Debates on whether or not the term should be offensive to some people are almost unavoidably POV. The fact is that it is. --hughsheehy 14:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

"Rather than restricting the comment to a cryptic few words as would be common in dictionary contexts, the comment is slightly more expansive". This is exactly the point. The complexity of this requires much more than a cryptic few words. There is room to be slightly (indeed considerably) more expansive - but not here where it just results in POV spin. It is far from usually offensive (even in Ireland) - in fact it is nearly always inoffensive. What's more it is the only universally recognised name for the archipelago. There is need for a section detailing why some want it changed but that needs more than this in the simple explanation can possibly give. Since you've introduced it, by the way, unlike "nigger" Webster does not say "British Isles" is offensive. Mucky Duck 16:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, the comment does not say that is is "usually" offensive, it says it is "sometimes" offensive. That's accurate and factual. I suspect that an assertion that it is "nearly always inoffensive" is impossible to support with data. Even taking fantastically unscientific sources like Kevin Myers' and polls on www.boards.ie (where the ratio of answers to questions like "Do you recognise the term 'The British Isles' when used to include Ireland" are approx 60% No, <30% Yes, and the remainder not caring) the evidence from there and from the sheer persistence of the debate on WP indicates that the term is at least "sometimes" offensive. If that fact is accepted then the question is whether that should be buried in paragraph 6 or mentioned in the beginning (with the additional discussion later). Conventional treatment would put a mention at the beginning and a fuller treatment elsewhere. In that way the facts can be recognised without getting into discussions on the definition of the term or POV discussions on why it is "sometimes" offensive or whether it should be replaced and if so, with that. Again, all those discussions are almost unaviodably POV and (IMHO) probably belong on webforums and not on WP. The current fact is that it is at least "sometimes" offensive. As for Webster, I was not using it for reference on content, but on style and treatment. If you want a source on content that indicates that "The British Isles" does not have a universally agreed definition, please look at the BBC, which sometimes excludes the area of the Republic of Ireland from "British Isles" topics and sometomes treats "The British Isles" and the UK as coterminous - thus excluding most of Ireland. While that usage would lead to an awkward definition of "The British Isles" if I'm sure of one thing in life it is that the BBC is not an Irish Nationalist media company and is not part of any "movement to get the name changed" - as Mucky Duck would seem to suspect exists.--hughsheehy 17:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you deliberately misrepresenting what I have said? As I have explained there is nothing untrue about the comment you put in there - the problem is where it is as a part of the definition and its inevitably very limited coverage of the issue. Emphasisng the existence of a minority POV with so much prominence in itself causes POV problems. Mucky Duck 19:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

<reduce indent> Mucky Duck, I was not aware of any misrepresentation. Meantime, a browse of the BBC, The Times, and some other major media seems to show that the term "The British Isles" is NOT a term with a universally accepted meaning or definition. This raise the thought that the definition section, if not the whole article, may need to be updated to reflect current major media useage instead of arguing over what may or may not be "minority POV". The BBC and The Times variously use "The British Isles" to mean all of Great Britain and Ireland, or just to cover The United Kingdom, or to cover only Great Britain and its smaller outlying islands but excluding (all) of Ireland - using terms as varied as "The British Isles and Ireland", "Britain and Ireland", etc. (Google or the sites´ own search tools will easily demonstrate this.)

In the interim, if we accept that the term does cause offense to an appreciable number of people (mostly in Ireland) and if (as far as I can see) WP and other reference sources generally reflect potential offense in or near the definition of terms, the question remains "what should this article show?". The recent suggestion seems neutral, accurate and even potentially helpful for people likely to visit Ireland. If nothing else, can we please move away from the apparent situation now where any suggestion that "The British Isles" is anything other than a neutral and univerally accepted geographical term is greeted with accusations of trying to push Irish Nationalist or Republican POV or participating in "movements". As far as I can see, this kind of view has been put by Mucky Duck and feline and it does not seem useful. --hughsheehy 01:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Well. If this statement is to remain then it needs to be expanded and improved to reduce the degree of POV spin. At the very least it needs to explain: That the term is not generally considered offensive, and is rarely if ever meant offensively; That it is the only generally accepted name for the archipelago and in no way implies that Britain has any claim over Irish territory; And given your points above that it has been used incorrectly to mean the British Islands. It's going to drift some way from being a simple explanation but would at least have the benefit of be neutrality. Mucky Duck 09:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Mucky Duck persists in saying that the recent addition is POV spin, but not why. The statement was intended to be (and seems to me to actually be) neutral, factual and about as short as reasonable. Since it already specifies that the term is only "sometimes" offensive and gives some guidance on when, it already addresses the concerns raised above. Again, I cannot see the POV content and since the assertion that there is a lack of neutrality is unsupported it is difficult to see what to change. If we add all the extra stuff about "The British Isles" being the only generally accepted name and all the stuff about there being no claim to territory etc.,etc.,etc then we might as well move the whole controversy section into the definition, which seems counterproductive. Besides, if we do that then the BBC and The Times and the fact that contemporary usage in major (British) media apparently contradicts the assertion that there is a generally accepted definition all becomes entirely relevant and then we are back to square one. --hughsheehy 12:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

"Why" is because it only states one side of the equation.

"If we add all the extra stuff about "The British Isles" being the only generally accepted name and all the stuff about there being no claim to territory etc.,etc.,etc then we might as well move the whole controversy section into the definition, which seems counterproductive" - Exactly! That is what I have been saying. Only one aspect of the "controversy" is there at present and this creates a biased view. Ideally it should be left to the section where there is space to discuss it properly, but if it must be here then all aspects must be covered. Mucky Duck 15:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Again Mucky Duck persists in saying that the recent addition is POV spin, but not why or which other POV should be incorporated to ensure NPOV. Since I believe that the addition is NPOV I fail to see what to change. Again, the statement was intended to be (and seems to me and apparently to dave souza (see below) to actually be) neutral, factual and about as short as reasonable so that it can complement the definition without overwhelming it. It is completely unclear where the addition introduces any bias and Mucky Duck is not pointing out where, simply reiterating unsupported accusations of POV. Meantime, I suggest that modern usage indicates that there is significant confusion (note I say confusion and not dispute) over the meaning of the term "The British Isles" and a treatment of actual usage seems important on a page that discusses terminology. Right now I don´t know where that should best be placed, so I am suggesting an option at the top of the talk page. --hughsheehy 15:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

<reduce indent> Point of fact, hughsheehy: the page on "The British Isles" refers to the controversy above the article and sends people to a British Isles#Terminology section specially written to justify the controversy: that section has a "main article" link to this terminology page for clarification, which is a bit confusing. Think I'll try some changes to that page to clarify things. The current bracketed statement in the lede to this page "(Note that this terminology is sometimes considered obsolete or even offensive in Ireland if it is used to include Ireland.)" looks good to me: it doesn't suggest any dispute over the meaning of the term, though the "used to include Ireland" part is rife with ambiguities. ...dave souza, talk 15:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Dave/Feline, I am trying to keep POV out of the article and my input as much as I can. Still, I come back to the simple fact that the term is not generally - or at least not universally - accepted as a neutral geographical term and this fact is of fundamental importance in laying out a definition. The Irish govt doesn't use the term, Irish schoolbooks (both past, present and future) often don't use the term and it can and does raise emotions in many people if it is used to include Ireland. This is true, whichever POV you have.

My best guess (if you will permit me to veer into POV in this discussion area) on why this is so is simple. I suspect it's because the term "The British Isles" is explicitly ethnic in its origins and however the ethnic balance has changed over the millenia it can never be a neutral geographical term in the same way as it would be if it was "The Rainy Isles" or "The Green Islands" or something like that. As currently structured the term unavoidably implies that the islands are either ethnically or politically "British" (even if the meaning of "British" then and "British" now are ethnically and politically different and even if it's not easy to assert that there is a clear ethnic dividing line between Irish and British now or then). The simple fact is that the implication is practically guaranteed to cause either offense or accusations of historical anachronism for many people in Ireland. On the point dave souza raises - basically re the use of "Ireland" in that context - it seems difficult to find a better solution. The island of Ireland contains both Northern Ireland, which is part of the UK, and The Republic of Ireland. However, since the two parts of the island also contain almost all the people likely to take offense at the term "The British Isles" it seems likely that the word "Ireland" is accurate enough and not necessarily political. Just on my own experience, I don't know anyone in Britain, not even avid Glasgow Celtic fans, that react the same way. I may be wrong, but IMHO that's why "Ireland" may be as good as anything else in that specific context. Sorry for writing so much...I blame Mark Twain. --hughsheehy 17:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

None of this would matter if the Irish could come up with a decent replacement name. But they've singularly failed to do this. Until they come up with something catchy, people will keep saying "British Isles" rather than "Islands of the North Atlantic" etc.

Hmmm...I´m afraid that the tone of feline´s last unsigned comment and use of phrases like "the Irish" sounds like we´re verging on ad hominem arguments next. I hope I´m wrong. Meantime, I don´t doubt that "The British Isles" has lots of life in in yet and will potentially never be replaced - at least in British English. --hughsheehy 23:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

---

Ok, Mucky Duck has had a go at the recent addition and AnonMoose made a reasonable go at tidying up the language. However, the newest modifictation is (IMHO) truly terrible. It´s fantastically long, demonstrably POV and is become practically an apologia of the definition within the definition itself. Mucky complained that the addition in the intro was POV, but now the original added text has been modified to make it less accurate and far more controversial. Let me point out where the difficulties are, putting my objections in italics within the paragraph.

British Isles consist of Great Britain, Ireland and many smaller surrounding islands. (In no way does this term imply that the UK owns or has any claim over any territory of the Irish state (Actually, part of the problem with the term is that it almost certainly does imply something very much like that. There is occasionally passionate disagreement over whether it should, but there is a widespread perception that it does which - where implication is concerned - essentially means that it does. In fact, it´s that very implication that upsets some people. Saying that it doesn´t imply something without having some way of showing that (which is difficult when implication can be such a slippery concept) is just POV.).

Also, although this term is the only current commonly-used name for the achipelago (it´s not the only commonly-used term, even if it is almost certainly the most commonly-used term and is certainly the traditional and most known definition. If nothing else, the examples I gave above show that the definition from usage is anything but certain and other terms are used in major media. Without substantiating that it is the only name, or without defining the meaning of "commonly-used", we´re straight into POV.), and is rarely if ever used with offensive intentions (Again, terms like "rarely if ever" are vague and POV. I have seen the term used with deliberate provacative intent and while I can entirely accept that it is rarely if ever done, I don´t know how anyone could substantiate this POV. It would be equally possible, but equally POV to assert that its use is almost always used with offensive intentions if used to include Ireland, since it is recognised that there are people who are likely to be offended.), it is sometimes considered obsolete or even offensive in Ireland. (Perhaps an area of discussion here, but I don´t know anyone who objects to the term "The British Isles" who objects to the term "The British Isles and Ireland", indicating that if the term "The British Isles" is sometimes objectionable to people - it is only objectionable to those people if it is meant to include Ireland, which point has just been deleted from the intro..)

So, Mucky Duck´s modification seems to be a badly done addition, with poor logic and despite AnonMoose cleaning up the grammar and flow it is still POV to the core. There is nothing in the text that is verifiable and it just messes up the whole thing. I hesitate to say it but Mucky Duck seems to have an agenda and not to be interested in NPOV.

Finally, here´s a suggestion that is in line with the original addition to the intro and tries to be entirely NPOV. It also tries hard to be short, which isn´t easy, even if it isn´t as short as the original and I don´t believe it´s as good. How about "Note that some people in Ireland consider this terminology to be anachronistic if it is used to include Ireland and some may take offense." That takes the "blame" off the term - which seems to be part of Mucky Duck´s problem. If there isn´t a suitable shortening of the current intro I´ll put this in place instead. --hughsheehy 23:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I've avoided this area of talk up till now because, quite frankly, I don't believe that there are any editors here who ARE attempting to game the system or put in a non-neutral point of view, and I just couldn't be bothered with all the bitchy commenting. However - and I'm not necessairily agreeing with anyone in general on the issues - that new intro is very poorly written. See WP:LEAD. This is meant to be a concise and punch summary. Say all that stuff in the body of the article - its important that we do - but that intro is not hte solution. --Robdurbar 08:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree (although thanks to AnonMoose for improving it). I do not believe that this belongs in the intro at all since I don't believe that it can be kept acceptably short and cover the issue adequately. The problem is that if it has to be there it must be balanced. By pushing it into the defintion without other views the original gives the impression that there is a general problem with the term: That is untrue. The current tries to cover all the angles but just can't get that into an acceptably concise and punchy summary and I agree it inevitably fails.

As I have said, the issue needs to be covered; but properly.

I was not aware that I did any "bitchy commenting". It was certainly not intended and I apologise if anything comes across that way. Mucky Duck 09:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to RobDurbar for a nice edit. On first look it seems better than either of my attempts and is mercifully short. I'll have a think over the next few days of where the usage issue (which is at the top of the talk page) might be covered in the article. --hughsheehy 09:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind comments. I think, MuckyDuck, what you're basically wanting is something similar to the introduction as it lies now BUT with a sense that the term is also used unproblematically and with no bias intended by many. And for this to be done in a way that is as concise as possible. OR, as an alternative, not mentioning it at all. But that the latter should only be done if the former is impossible. Am I about right? --Robdurbar 09:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Very nicely put (although I'd put it round the other way - nothing at all is better here in the intro, with the issue discussed fully elsewhere where proper justice can be given to it. But I'm quite content with your approach) Mucky Duck 10:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

First time doing this so bear with me... I'm not going to pretend I read everything that has been written on this discusion because I haven't but I scanned through it to see if anybody had already pointed out what I was going to say, which I don't believe they have. As far as I have been taught, the "Island of Ireland" is a fairly modern term and an invented one at that. The correct geographic terms to refer to the two main islands of the British Isles are Greater Britain and Lesser Britain, LB being what they will refer to as the "Island of Ireland". I don't, unfortunately, have a cite for this... anybody else ever come across this at all? 159.134.161.250 20:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm...I´m pretty sure "Lesser britain" is Brittany, not Ireland. Ireland has - AFAIK - never been widely called Lesser Britain. It has been Hibernia instead of Ireland but I don't remember ever seeing a reference with the use of Lesser Britain, and certainly not as a widespread usage. --hughsheehy 18:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

As the Origins of terms section points out, Ierne is an ancient name for the island. The map by Ortelius from 1573 says in its title box Eryn. Hiberniae Britannicae Insulae Nova Descriptio Irlandt. That gives two variants on Ireland while describing it as a Britannic island. ... dave souza, talk 21:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vernacular usage of "U.K."

When and how did "United Kingdom" or "U.K." come into general popular use as opposed to legal use?

Virtually every primary or secondary source (literary, historical, etc.) that I have seen for the period 1801 to roughly the late 1960s refers to the Home Islands of the British Empire/Commonwealth collectively as "Britain" (the most common - dropping the "Great" seems to make it greater geographically speaking) or the "British Isles" or "Great Britain" or even "England". Is there a link between the use of the more precise and sensitive term "United Kingdom" and the Troubles in Northern Ireland?

Anyone in the British/Irish/Manx/Channel Isles care to shed some light on this aspect of the subject?

Mr. Mencken, lexicographer extraordinaire

64.252.213.249 04:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why you should regard the terms "UK" or "United Kingdom" as sensitive, but it would seem that the term "United Kingdom" (if not its abbreviation "UK") came into use during the eighteenth century, as a result of the Act of Union with Scotland (1707). This act described the kingdom as the "United Kingdom of Great Britain" (though confusingly it also used the phrase "Kingdom of Great Britain"). The Act of Union with Ireland (1801) used the phrase "United Kingdom" consistently. Incidentally, don't be misled by historians who never use the phrase "United Kingdom" for the period 1707-1801 - contemporaries most certainly did use it, along with the perhaps even more common term "Union". TharkunColl 12:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

United Kingdom (or U.K.) is more sensitive because it doesn't refer to the part of Ireland controlled by the government in London (all of Ireland prior to 1922; Northern Ireland thereafter) as "Britain". Of course, this more precise language will mollify only the Unionists, not the Republicans.

As to your other point, I understand that the correct legal and constitutional terminology was United Kingdom, from 1707 or 1801 onwards. This point has been well covered by the existing article. Though I think that even here you will find official documents or political pronouncements (e.g., Churchill's wartime speeches) that refer to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and (Northern) Ireland as simply "Britain". What I am talking about is the collective term for the realm used in everyday conversation, personal letters, business correspondence, novels, films, stage plays, etc. I'm having a hard time finding usages of "United Kingdom" or "U.K." in these unofficial contexts prior to the late 1960s.

Attention to this issue, either here or in a separate article, would reveal quite a bit about the evolution of British (UKer?) national identity or consciousness, away from an Anglocentric or Britoncentric model to something more inclusive.

64.252.213.96 05:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Mencken the lexicographer extraordinaire

I think the most common way of referring to the country during the 18th and 19th centuries would undoubtedly have been "England". As late as 1928, it was still possible for Asquith to be called (on his tomb) "Prime Minister of England". Even in the 1930s Baldwin in his speeches liked to conjure of images of "England" rather than the UK. It is ironic that pretty much as soon as the English were finally, after 250 years, conditioned into calling their country Britain or the UK, those very parts of it that were not in England have increasingly decided that they want to leave. You just can't win, can you? TharkunColl 08:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Seeing as we're going off topic, one interesting thing I've always noted is that if you look at the 1966 World Cup Final and see pictures of the crowd, they're all waving Union Jacks (I'm sure someone will point out that's not the flag's proper name, but I don't care!). Go to an England football match now and you'll only see the St George's Cross. Conclusion? Either that as late as the 1960s most English people equivacated the UK with England? or that over the last forty years there has been a reawakening of English idenity as something seperate from the UK? (or indeed both?). --Robdurbar 09:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Apparently (I'm not sure where I got this from - a BC Four documentary or something) it was the norm for all the home nations (or at least England and N. Ireland) to wave the Union Flag / Jack / Whatever its called at football matches of that period. From what I understand it's only been in the last 10-20 years (Euro 96 is often cited as a stong influence) that the George Cross has re-established itself. --Neo 10:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The tendency to refer to the UK has lately been strengthened by internet pull-down lists which invariably give United Kingdom as an option, but not Britain or Great Britain. UK may have been avoided in normal speech because it's quicker and easier to say Britain or British, or indeed because of its royalist associations, but UK is less ambiguous and more official. The flag waving at football games was much commented on and subjected to some campaigning to change to the England flag at a time when devolution was a matter of hot debate: previously people just didn't seem to be so aware of the St. George's Cross flag, and sort of assumed that the Union Jack was the flag of England. Certainly during the last world cup there were many news comments about England flags on vehicles etc. – a new bookies here had a changing show of national flags, but not the England or Union Flag as far as I noticed: local sensitivities! Of course Union Flags at football games here are a sign of Rangers F.C. supporters...dave souza, talk 10:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Terminolgy Problems in Northern Ireland

The problems section includes the following:

In Northern Ireland ... unionists, when countering nationalist insistence on the territorial integrity of the island of Ireland, change the geographical frame of reference to that of the whole archipelago of what they call the British Isles.

What does it mean? The language sounds POV but perhaps it's not. What is it trying to say? 193.113.57.161 10:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I've not read the book it comes from: perhaps the CAIN report 7 puts it better with "Unionists describe themselves as primarily British and, although this does not exclude a supplementary Irish identity, the latter is firmly subordinate to a sense of belonging to a British 'national' community. For unionists, their 'imagined community', or nation, extending beyond the confines of Northern Ireland, is Britain, regardless of whether other elements of Britishness - such as the Scots-accept this in preference to a primary Scots nation. For Irish nationalists, their imagined community, extending beyond Northern Ireland, is that of the Irish nation as a distinct political community. For many unionists, Irishness is more akin to a regional patriotism." – can that be briefly summarised? .. dave souza, talk 16:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Problems with Terminology

Someone keeps reverting unexpained the addition of reference to the problems with the term Ireland. There are problems with this term just as there are with British Isles and balance demands that they are either both referred or neither. 193.113.57.161 12:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

A proper balance demands that a minority POV should be mentioned, but should not be given the same amount of space as the majority view. TharkunColl 12:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

What does that mean? It is just as much a minority view that "British Isles" is a problematic term. 193.113.57.161 12:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, to most people who use the term there is no problem associated with it. A small (but apparently not vanishingly small) minority of people - seemingly mostly Irish (though certainly not all the Irish, and almost certainly not even a majority of them) have a problem with it. To reflect this, the article should mention this problem just once, and not devote undue space to it. I have already suggested the creation of a new article called something like British Isles (controversy) which can go into more detail, and can be linked from both this article and British Isles. To put the relative figures into perspective, note that the population of the UK outnumbers that of the Republic of Ireland by 15 to 1, so even if we were being generous and assumed that every man, woman, and child in the Republic disliked the term (which is very far from being the case - even Irish government ministers use it), then they would still only constitute a small minority of the population of the British Isles. Not so small as to not deserve a mention, but small enough that such a mention should be restricted to a single paragraph within the body of the article. TharkunColl 14:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

But this is equally true of the term British Isles. A small number of people mostly Irish (though certainly not all the Irish) have a problem with it. Why does the article "devote undue space" to this but not to the problems with the term Ireland? 193.113.57.161 14:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this is indeed true of the term British Isles because that's exactly what I just said! It was the very term British Isles that I was talking about, because this article is entitled "British Isles (terminology)". I know that the term Ireland can be contoversial, insofar as it has a geographical and (a much more modern) political meaning that do not coincide, but this is a matter for another article. The term Britain, by the way, is equally ambiguous as it can be used informally in a political sense to refer to the whole UK. TharkunColl 14:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

So you're saying that the over-emphasis of one POV needs to be removed from the term British Isles? If so why remove it only from Ireland since by doing this even more emphasis is place on one POV? 193.113.57.161 14:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what you're getting at here. I'm talking about how the phrase British Isles is used and understood within the English language. The vast majority of people understand it to mean Britain, Ireland, and surrounding islands, and this is also its dictionary definition. The term, moreover, predates the formation of the British state (which was named after the islands and not the other way round) by at least 2000 years. If a minority of the people who live in the British Isles object to it on political grounds, then this fact should be mentioned, but not given undue space. If half the people in the British Isles objected to it, only then should their views be given equal billing. TharkunColl 14:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I balanced up the introduction by putting the same reference into the Ireland entry as already exists in the British Isles entry. Both terms are controversial dending on which side of the Irish divide you stand and the refered section covers the controversial nature of both terms. Why is it valid on the one POV to refer it but on the other it is "over emphasis"? 193.113.57.161 15:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Any controversy over the term "Ireland" should go in the article of that name. This article is about the terminology of the British Isles, and whilst its use may well be controversial amongst some Irish people, the term also encompasses England, Wales, Scotland, the Isle of Man (etc.) where the term is not controversial. In other words, talking about the "Irish divide" is giving too much emphasis to just one region at the expense of other places in the British Isles. The terms "Ireland" and "British Isles" do not have equivalent weight, as the former is just one part of the latter. In any case, people in Ireland use the term regardless of which side of the "Irish divide" they are on. TharkunColl 16:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The article is about the terminology of the British Isles, not the term British Isles. You seem to be arguing that undue weight should not be placed on controversy around the term British Isles and in this you are completely correct. As it stands that undue weight is in the article because the reference to controversy is applied to it but not to Ireland. 193.113.57.161 09:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

There isn't really any controversy over its meaning, is there? It just has more than one. --Robdurbar 16:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know of any meaning it has other than its actual meaning, except those proposed by people simply in an attempt to muddy the waters, whilst quoting the ignorant. TharkunColl 17:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Is that meant as an insult? My edit is in good faith. The article needs balance. 193.113.57.161 09:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

And "British Isles" has a single meaning. Controversy arises when it is used politically to suggest that Ireland is somehow owned by Britain. Equally the term Ireland is controversial when it is used to mean, what the Irish constitution used to call its national territory and now calls the Irish nation, to suggest that Northern Ireland is somehow owned by the republic. The case is almost exactly equivalent. What's more, the section to which the reference points discusses problems with the t4erms British Isles and Ireland and yet only one of these has the reference to it. 193.113.57.161 09:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

No, the cases are not equivalent, because "British Isles" is not used as the name of any state or by any state. You appear to be assuming that just because it has the word "British" in it then it must be connected to the UK, but the very opposite is true - and as editors of an encyclopedia we have a duty to point this out, rather than obscure the matter even further. Ireland is part of the British Isles because that's the name of the group of islands of which it is part, and that name is well over 2000 years old. As far as I can gather, the only people who use the term "British Isles" in a political sense are those who don't like it. TharkunColl 09:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not assuming anything of the kind. British Isles most certain does not indicate connection with the UK. BUT this is what the controversy (again, you're right, mostly synthetic) revolves around. I absolutely agree with you regarding the term British Isles, but the article highlights the controversy in the introduction. To be balanced it should also highlight the equivalent controversy surrounding Ireland and its use politically to refer to the entire island.

Tha alternative solution is, I suppose, to remove the emphasis from the "British Isles" entry. A better solution on reflection. 193.113.57.161 10:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The two meanings that I refered to are the sovereign state of Ireland and the lump of rock that lies somewhere to the west of Anglesey. The simplest thing here - if you can prove that the term Ireland is still considered controversial when referring to the state, and can source it, then its worht mentinioning in the terminology bit. As the intro is meant to be concise and chopped down, I really don't think its worth brigning up there. --Robdurbar 12:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually as I said to TharkunColl I think that on reflection I agree. The better solution is to remove it from the British Isles entry. 193.113.57.161 13:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

"As far as I can gather, the only people who use the term "British Isles" in a political sense are those who don't like it." Spot on - sums up how daft this 'controversy' is really. siarach 13:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course it's a political term. We own Northern Ireland, and the majority there want to remain in the UK. Johnox 22:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

If your interjection was intended to be serious Mr Knox (interesting username by the way, as an Englishman I have always felt the Calvinist religious attitudes of certain segements of the population of Scotland and their descendants in Northern Ireland to be wholly alien to my way of thinking), then it was ill thought out. Whether or not it is used as a political term in Ulster, it is not so in Great Britain. TharkunColl 00:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

ox is an abbreviation of my own name, nothing to do with Scotland. Britain is the biggest island, and it has the largest population. So the islands must be named British. Also we are one of the most powerful countries in the world, how would they be named anything else? Johnox 00:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Funny how I can't think of a similar common term for say, Sardinia, Corsica and Sicily. Perhaps the Italian Isles? or French Isles? These things can certainly be troublesome . . . Oh, we could just call them Sardinia, Corsica and Sicily. Windyjarhead 03:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The fact that Sardinia etc. do not have a collective name does not change the fact that the British Isles do have a collective name, and have had it for well over 2000 years. TharkunColl 14:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

And yet, we get by by simply refering to the specific island. In fact the collective noun is unnecessary. Remarkable. Windyjarhead 19:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

And again, people persist in suggesting that the view that the term "British Isles" is controversial and disliked is a tiny minority view but offer no supporting data. There is insistence that the term has only one definition, despite previous demonstration (with data) that this is not true. Some use the comparative population of the UK and Ireland to assert that even if everyone in Ireland (either the state or the island) disliked the term, that the fact that everyone (another unsupported assertion) in the UK likes the term that the majority view should prevail (a political validation of Irish republicanism if I ever heard one). <re-edit..removing poorly chosen words>.

If "Ireland" is actually controversial then reference can be made to external sources on the controvery and we can include the reference in the header. It can clearly be ambiguous, which is different. I have updated the edit in the "Problems" section to try to reflect fact, not opinion. Hughsheehy 22:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I have a compromise proposal which removes the imbalance and over-emphasis of the existing text but retains the reference to problems: The introductory paragraph can refer to the problems section. Difficult to explain here so I've editted it in. Mucky Duck 12:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The new proposal is terrible and vague, and (again) removes the text inserted by either robdurbar or dave souza a couple of months ago - this time in search of some vague thing called balance. If there is a problem with the term "The British Isles", which there demonstrably is (from external references) it is best stated in the introduction beside the definition. We have been here before.

If there is an extensive problem with the term "Ireland" then someone will be able to provide evidence of this, not just assert that it is true. Until evidence is provided, there is no imbalance in rob/dave´s edit and I will replace it. Also, I believe Mucky Duck is in danger on the three revert rule for repeatedly removing it over the past couple of months. Hughsheehy 12:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Enough with the unfounded personal attacks already. Attempted character assassination is no way to conduct a discussion. Mucky Duck 23:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Hughsheehy has unilateraly decided that my compromise proposal is invalid and removed it before there was any chance of discussion. I will therefore have to place it here after all for other to consider. I propose that the over emphasis on any problem with the term British Isles be resolved by revising the introductory wording as follows:

In brief, the main terms and their simple explanations are as follows. There are problems with some of the terms and these are considered below.

• Geographical terms
  • The British Isles is an archipelago consisting of Great Britain, Ireland and many smaller surrounding islands.
  • Great Britain is the largest island of the archipelago (sometimes informally referred to as Britain)
  • Ireland is the second largest island of the archipelago.

Mucky Duck 16:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thule is not Iceland

The article Thule makes it clear that the term could be used for all sorts of places, including many within the British Isles. Why does the article as it stands state that Iceland was intended? Is it an attempt to muddy the waters even further, to try and say that "British Isles" has no coherent meaning? TharkunColl 00:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

No "muddying" is intended. The Thule article states (correctly) that the term was used to describe many different places, often as a sort of "the ends of the earth" term. The reason the article - as it stands - states that Iceland was intended in this case is because that is the consensus scholarly interpretation of how it was used by Pytheas, Pliny, etc. This was already extensively discussed, with references, on the talk page either here or at British Isles page. Hughsheehy 12:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

In fact, the discussion on Thule as Iceland on the discussion page included TharkunColl, who now seems to have forgotten this fact. Hughsheehy 16:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• ...it would seem most probable that the island here intended was Mainland, the chief of the Shetland islands... Some authorities have supposed that Iceland is meant, and others Lapland; but these conjectures seem to carry us too far afield.Tozer, H.F. (1971). A History of Ancient Geography, p. 159.

• Scholars variously identify Thule as Iceland, Norway, the Shetland Islands, or the Orkney Islands, but no one solution is entirely satisfactory. (1998) Magill, Frank N.: Dictionary of World Biography: The Ancient World, p. 732.

• Even today we cannot be certain where his Thule is, or whether he actually visited it. Some have associated Thule with the Shetlands and the Orkneys, but more likely possibilities are Iceland or part of Norway.Deacon, G.E.R. (1962). Seas, Maps, and Men: An Atlas-History of Man's Exploration of the Oceans, p. 24.

The 2004 Columbia states: "variously identified with Iceland, Norway, and the Shetland Islands." Where do you find this scholarly or talk page consensus that the Thule of Pytheas, Pliny, and Strabo was without doubt Iceland?EricR 16:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, the majority view is Iceland then, not necessarily consensus. But it is the majority view. Also, if it isn´t Iceland then the next most likely candidate is the coast of Norway. Hughsheehy 17:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, one other thing. Thule has been identified as all sorts of places in other texts, including places in the Baltic. HOWEVER, the issue is what Pytheas, Pliny, etc., meant when they used Thule as part of their British Isles. There the clear majority view is that they meant Iceland. If you read Pliny itself it´s pretty clear it isn´t the Orkneys he´s talking about. Hughsheehy 17:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

All of the above quotes were re Pytheas and/or Pliny. I've got more if you like, or we could move them to the BI reference subpage and i'll provide fuller quotes w/ more context.EricR 17:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm finding sources describing the voyage, and Pliny's later account, which state "probably Shetlands", or "probably Iceland", or "possibly Norway". Why would a "majority view" of scholars allow us to state Thule is Iceland w/o question within the article? And what do we have to show that Iceland is in fact majority opinion?EricR 17:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

And I find the majority of sources (from notes in several translations of Pliny to the Icelandic Tourism website to 8th century Irish monks) that say that Thule was Iceland. The notes on Pliny/Strabo translations, and other similar sources, often mention that it was possible it was someplace else (from Norway to the Shetlands) but the majority view is Iceland. Reference to Thule from other writers and in other contexts can be about Southern Sweden or Islands in the Baltic, but Thule in Pytheas/Pliny/Strabo seems to be either Iceland or maybe somewhere in Norway.

Further, I ask a question back, as I wonder whether this whole question isn't based on some fundamentally POV approach. Why would Pytheas/Pliny/Strabo's Thule being Iceland mean - and I refer to TharkunColl's accusation that I was muddying the water - that the term "The British Isles" has no coherent meaning? What has that got to do with it? Hughsheehy 14:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

(unindent, responding to Hugh) A few bullet points:

• counting the references to Thule on an Icelandic tourism site cannot demonstrate some "majority view". If the documents you are looking at have been published, then they can certainly be used in the article, but does one of them tell us what the "majority view" of some group of people is concerning the Thule?
• I have no idea what any "majority view" could be, but why should it matter? All the sources i've seen so far have been qualified: probably this island, or maybe that island, or we'll never really know for ceartain, yet within the article you would like to state that Thule is Iceland. How can we make such a conclusive statement in the face of all these conflicting views, even if one is somehow shown to be the majority?
• I'm not taking any quotes out of context here, the sources provided have all been discussing Pytheas/Pliny.
• I think it's clear that Strabo did not accept the Thule of Pytheas (2.5.8), if you discount my reading of that primary source then i seem to recall a secondary source which makes the point.
• Of course this whole question of what Thule could be is transparently based on a couple of POV agendas. If you think i'm pushing one in particular, then fine, there's probably no possible way i could convince you otherwise. Still, that's no reason not to address any valid points i've raised.

EricR 16:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think it was anywhere specific, which is why my wording has left the choice ambiguous. I don't believe those Classical authors had any clear mental image of the geographical layout of the seas to the north of the British Isles, and it is preposterous to pinpoint one particular location for Thule - especially when it happens to be the one that is furthest away and least likely. TharkunColl 16:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we have to say that it IS Iceland and I don't remember that it did say it so definitely..maybe I'm wrong. It may have been been too definite on this page, but it wasn't on the other (or vice versa)..it said something more nuanced and maybe should have been more nuanced here too. It would be fine to say that it was probably Iceland, or even that lots of scholars think it was most likely Iceland, or that the place most often identified as it was Iceland, all of which are true (and no, it isn't necessary just to point at the Icelandic tourist website).

We can also mention the other places that are most often suggested - as long as it is done in a neutral way and isn't some attempt to get the potential places back into a predefined box that suits some agenda. I get the impression that TharkinColl is trying to push some POV here and migrate Thule back into the Shetlands so that it fits within the current boundaries of the British Isles.

I don't have a personal view on where Pytheas' Thule was. Strabo doubted it existed at all because he didn't trust Pytheas and Pliny might not have been sure, but TharkunColl's view that it wasn't anywhere specific is only his view..and his view that Iceland is the least likely is NOT SUPPORTED by the scholarly view. It turns out that Iceland does exist, so maybe Strabo was wrong to doubt Pytheas and as for its identification as Iceland, if we're going to have to have a war of references we can go right ahead. If nothing else, Irish monks in the post-Roman period thought Thule was Iceland, and they are a lot closer to the debate than we are. Meantime, I completely share the idea that these Greeks and Romans had very little idea where they were, or where they were describing (and I have said so on these pages before) but it doesn't change what they wrote and I will continue to insert the appropriate text to refer what they actually wrote and how that is most often interpreted, here and on the British Isles page. Hughsheehy 18:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)