Talk:British and Irish Lions/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

POV additions

Using quotations around the word "coincidentally" shows a huge POV bias as does claiming that the Lions have been misrepresented as a national team. By who exactly?

While wikipedians are entitled to their political views this is a sports page and if you have a political agenda please take it elsewhere.GordyB 16:14, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, politics does enter sports. Very much so. How else can you explain the apartheid era scandals regarding international cricket and rugby teams and South Africa? The similarity between the big lion above the four nations and the lions/leopards on England's royal ensign are a little too obvious. The Lions have caused political controversy in the past, and this is remarked upon in the article with regards to the Irish situation. The existence of the Lions themselves are part of a political agenda, i.e. to revive a sense of "Britishness", and "one nation", which has been fading since WWII. --MacRusgail 15:52, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

They also wear red and only Wales wear red. Surely this is a Welsh conspiracy. They originally wore blue and the flags of England, Wales and Ireland have never included blue. All sorts of crap can be talked about endlessly.

As for Lions if they uniquely belong to England then why did nobody tell Leinster or Gauteng? The truth is that big cat names are simply very common in rugby union hence Pumas, Cheetahs, Leopards, Tigers etc.

The Lions tag was adopted for the 1950 tour. If the selectors were in love with everything English then why were so few Englishmen selected? The tour was dominated by Welshmen and Irishmen the very same people who apparently have an aversion to Lions.

As for the Englishmen dominating rubbish, is this not unrelated to the fact that England have far more registered players than Ireland, Scotland and Wales put together and more pro teams as well. It is not surprising that more Englishmen are selected than other nationalities. However the fact remains that Ian McGeechan (a Scot) has been head coach rather a lot and twice as many Irishmen (8) have captained the Lions as Englishmen (4).

The Lions aren't a national side otherwise why would the likes of O'Driscoll play for them? Nobody treats them as a national side. In what way was the BBC's coverage of the Lions different from that of RTE?

Basically you are not interested in any of the above facts, nor Wiki's NPOV stance you just want to push your point of view. Try a debating forum.GordyB 19:34, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

However, if you can provide external, verifiable sources that political controversies have been caused by the symbols of the Lions, then that view can of course be incorporated. The important thing to remember is that the Wikipedia's viewpoint must always be neutral. --Gabriel Beecham/Kwekubo 20:16, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

@ MacRusgail Please read the following before posting again Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. You can post your POV if a) you follow the guidelines on how to change a POV into a fact b) You do so in a relevant place. Wikipedia is politically neutral which means that if you can post your opinion then others can post theirs, this effectively means that what was once an article on a rugby union team will become a politics article and not just this one. There are people who feel that a United Ireland team wearing green is a 'Feinian plot' but I don't want that on the Ireland national rugby union team page, other people might feel that separate England, Wales and Scotland teams are pandering to separatists or that England should not be represented by a red rose since that is not a symbol accepted by Yorkshiremen. If you want to put your point of view then I suggest you create a Politics surrounding the British and Irish Lions page and link it to this one.GordyB 12:54, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Your use of the term "separatist" and comparing a county with actual countries shows your own POV. It's already been mentioned that the "and Irish" tag had to be put in to avoid offence, so I think it is valid to point out the distinct resemblence of "the lion" to England's leopard. That is not "POV", it is fact. One is obviously lifted from the other. Your comment about the Irish national team is right, there are people who object to it, for that reason, and it should be noted.
As for facts, how many Scots were on the 2005 squad (as opposed to team). I seem to recall 4, one of whom was lucky to actually play. And yet the team is alleged to represent four nations. Instead, it is pandering to a British (imperial?) mentality, which is dying faster than the Austro-Hungarian empire took to fall apart. Ein Volk Ein Queen eh? --MacRusgail 19:16, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Again, if you can provide the facts to back up what you are saying, then the view can be incorporated. It is not enough to say that something is "obviously" lifted from something else etc as that is POV - can you give sources? --Gabriel Beecham/Kwekubo 20:23, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Since I lack the heraldic vocabulary necessary, this is slightly difficult, but both the three "lions" of England, and the British "lion" here are leopards ?passant. Not a lion rampant, nor a symbol connected with Wales or Ireland. --MacRusgail 20:33, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Try finding a Lion on the British and Irish Lions site. They simply do not use it as a symbol, it is just the name of the team. Their symbol is the logo attached to this article.GordyB

This logo perhaps?
Image:Lions2005.JPG - "What's above the shield?"
Image:England crest.png - "See anything you recognise?"

The English football team's nickname is also apparently the "lions", according to wikipedia. --MacRusgail 17:19, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

The lion you are complaining about is so small that it cannot be seen without the logo being blown up. In what way is it therefore important? Wiki also says that '3 lions' is of French origin in any case, symbols pass from one culture to another all the time. In any case '3 lions' represent England, one Lion represents nothing. I have never heard the England football team called 'the Lions', it is utterly obscure.

In any case just post your version onto the link I suggested. If you follow the NPOV guidelines I will not delete what you post but I will add an alternate point of view.GordyB 20:19, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I haven't heard the English football team called "the lions" either, but it appears on their article. I think that it is important, in that it is obviously the lion of the team's name, and "crowns" the shield. The three leopards are of Norman origin, but they are very much seen as England's symbol. I don't think that whoever designed the logo had Normans in mind though (nor did Baddiel and Skinner when they did that song), and I can probably guess which of the four countries they came from. I suppose it beats being named after any of the national plants though. --MacRusgail 20:51, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Especially if like me you are from Yorkshire. "England's" red rose looks decidedly Lancastrian to me.

With reference to some of your other comments. I should point out that I neither said that Scotland / Wales / England should not have their own teams nor compared Yorkshire to Scotland. These are just examples of things other people might say and exactly the sort of thing I don't want to see on sports pages. If somebody has a problem with a united Irish rugby team they should create 'Politics in Irish sport' page and link it.

I've created the page that I mentioned before and tried to present NPOV versions of what you have said along with my own views. It still needs some editing as you need to be more specific about who says what and why. The text in this page says that 'Some Celtic nationalists feel that' - it would be much better if it stated exactly which groups had opinions on this. Are we talking about the SNP, Plaid Cymru, SDLP, Sinn Fein or Fianna Fail or a pressure group? You also refered to the Lions being misrepresented as a national team it would help if you explained exactly who you thought were guilty of doing that and perhaps show how (for example) BBC coverage was different from RTE coverage.

With reference to the Scots players, there is a reference on the 2005 tour (added by me) that the selection of so many Englishmen was controversial. This could be expanded. Most people think that the Welsh were rather hard done by but unfortunately Scottish rugby just isn't very good and there weren't many more Scots that realistically could have made the trip. Selection is always extremely controversial as the Head Coach is usually a serving coach of one of the four national teams, last time around most felt that Graham Henry had selected too many Welsh players. GordyB 08:58, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

    • The funny thing is that the Rose is originally Lancastrian, and the Lion is from England (Normandy before that). On second thoughts, Kwekubo is right. The designers of the logo can't have had the English leopard in mind at all. They would have never done a thing like that. Nor would Winston Churchill have called the UK "England". --MacRusgail 19:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Edit wars

Could we please discuss things before reverting all the time? I expect this page will end up at some kind of dispute resolution. I vote that the link the the politics page should be kept. If you agree or disagree please say so below rather than edit the page.GordyB 19:17, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the link to the politics page should be kept. It is entirely relevant to the topic of the Lions and does not comment on the validity of the argument. --Gabriel Beecham/Kwekubo 19:59, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I have personally followed The Lions for twenty years. I have attended Lions matches and written on The Lions on many occasions in various media. I have spoken with past and present Lions personally. I have never once heard of the political issues that a small minority of those who seek to introduce politics on this entry seem obsessed with. In short whilst a few ignorant obsessives see a political component to The Lions, the Lions office; past and present Lions; the media and most importantly spectators do not. It diminishes the traditions of The Lions for there to be this absurd debate and for politics to be mentioned on the entry. The politics page should be deleted. Let’s keep The Lions page to sport. Paddy Briggs11 August 2005

Not commenting on the validity of the politics page: If a page does exist on Lions politics, then of course that page should be linked to from here. If it is decided that the page on politics should be deleted, then this page of course need not link to it. If you have an issue with the politics page, then edit/discuss it accordingly; if you think it is beyond use, you are free to put it up for deletion. (You can use four tildes after your comment - i.e. ~~~~ - to add a signature.) --Gabriel Beecham/Kwekubo 22:01, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

"Home" Nations! Home of what, exactly?

You quoted the article on home nations. Who says that the usage of home nations is 'technically wrong'? That's very POV, at best some people don't agree with this usage who exactly has the authority to decide what is right or wrong?

Ireland is commonly considered a 'Home Nation' in terms of rugby union as they a) send players to the Lions b) compete for the Triple Crown (France and Italy do not). I haven't come across anyone who objected to this label before. Is this your opinion or is it a common point of view?

The other problem is the reference to British Isles. The early touring parties were called 'British Isles XV' as in those days 'British Isles' was considered a neutral geographic term. Britain and Ireland isn't correct because I think the second tour had a Manxman along, the Isle of Man is neither part of Britain nor part of Ireland.GordyB 22:49, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Ireland is not a Home Nation in any sense of the word. End of discussion.--Play Brian Moore 18:56, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
The term is a bit redolent of expansionism and imperialism anyway. The Japanese talk about the Home Islands, and the English of Home Counties. Go figure! --MacRusgail 21:19, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
  • The whole of Ireland was an integral part of the United Kingdom until 1922, and the part of the nation in Northern Ireland still is. The page on the Home Nations needs reworking - it is entirely reasonable to consider Ireland a Home Nation in appropriate circumstances. The British and Irish Lions is one example. --Kwekubo 19:48, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
was. That is the past tense. Ireland is not in the UK anymore, for the record.You cannot go around changing wiki articles to suit your opinion as I have been shown. The Dublin-based IRFU, who provides the players, would not have Ireland knowm as a HN in any circumstances. It is not, or at least the majority of it is not, so the article would be innaccurate your way.--Play Brian Moore 20:18, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
Completely agree with Kwekubo on this, in a sporting (rugby) context. This is an article with a sporting, not political, context. --Cactus.man ✍ 12:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Name and Politics

I have re-established the entry on the name that seemed to have been accpeted by all. Can we please leave this now as it is beginning to get tedious! Any discussions here please not another edit war!PaddyBriggs 13:09, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Once again a plea to discuss here. Everytime a non political amendment (by me or others) is made to this page some Irish nationalist comes along and pollutes it again with anti British tosh! Vent your spleens here comrades and leave the main entry about SPORT! PaddyBriggs 08:59, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

No Brit Lions for football

Scottish football association say no to British Olympics - about time the anglicised Brits of the SRU followed suite. But of course, politics never enters sport does it? According to some people here. --MacRusgail 01:38, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


IMHO poltics is part of Sport as it is part of all other aspects of life. The important thing in Wiki is not to ignore any political aspect, but equally not to overstate it and certainly not to distort the NPOV (as the most recent amendment to the Lions entry did). PaddyBriggs 09:39, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Use of the term Home Nations

If you have a problem with the following statement, then let the edit wars begin. Ireland is not a home nation and I will not let ignorant non-Irish wikipedians portray Ireland as a Home Nation. So if you disagree with that statement then let the war begin Ireland is not a Home Nation and you know that full-well. You are being incredibly stubborn(IMHO).--Play Brian Moore 02:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the Republic of Ireland is not a home nation, but there was no assertion that it is in the previous version of the article. I suggest you read it again carefully. While you are at it you may also wish to read Home_Nations. The use of the term home nation was in relation to the rugby team, which can also contain players from Northern Ireland which is a Home Nation. The wording also made it clear that the term has fallen out of use. As I said, I agree with what Kwekubo wrote above and fundamentally disagree with you. And please, do not shout and call anybody who disagrees with your opinion ignorant. The only person that I see being stubborn here is you, but I am not going to bother getting into an edit war with you, lets hear what others think and we can alter the article accordingly. --Cactus.man ✍ 09:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted to the previous version which is accurate. My name should tell you that I am hardly likely to be anti Irish (!), and nor is the entry in this version which I hope will now be left alone by the prejudiced and the ignorant! PaddyBriggs 10:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Whether individuals dislike the term 'Home Nations' is irrelevant. AFAIK the IRFU has never object to the term 'Home Nations' and surely nobody has more to define whether the term is being correctly used or not than them. In any case the article as it stands does not refer to the current Republic of Ireland as a Home Nation and so what is the problem exactly?GordyB 15:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

  • On that very point, a quote from the IRFU website: "The IRFU is 'the envy of the other home nations' for the structure that has been put in place [for the Exiles branch]." [www.irishrugby.ie/htmlpage/62519.html]; and from a news item: "Woodward confirmed he will tour each of the home nations' set-ups during the tournament." [1]. It would seem that the IRFU has no particular qualms about referring to Ireland as a home nation. Nor does the Lions website: "New Zealand continued their victory march through the home nations with an emphatic defeat of Ireland on Saturday which sounded an ominous warning for the rest of world rugby." [2] From RTÉ News: "The Lions' shortcomings indicated the enormity of the challenge facing the home nations this month..." [3]. Neither the IRFU nor the public at large objects to the term "home nation", and unionist supporters would be up in arms if they chose to do so. --Kwekubo 20:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Very well put by both GordyB and by Kwekubo. I suppose that we shouldn't be so wound up by Play Brian Moore as he is clearly a well known trouble-maker! PaddyBriggs 08:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

There is absolutely nothing wrong with being an Irish nationalist. Someone has to stand up for them.--Play Brian Moore 20:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
He calls me a trouble maker even though he goes around deleting user pages he does not agree with only because they have different political views than him. That is what is has to do with me being an Irish Republican. cheers--Play Brian Moore 15:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • What has this got to do with being an Irish nationalist? Wikipedia is written from an NPOV, and the IRFU, the other Lions rugby unions, the press in Britain and Ireland, and the public widely refer to Ireland as a home nation, in this sort of context and indeed otherwise. --Kwekubo 23:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I am surprised by this very silly ongoing debate. In Rugby terms Ireland is a Home Nation there is nothing offensive or demeaning about this. I think that our Nationalist contributor has a problem which few if any in Ireland would share or even understand. Ireland doesn't need this sort of pettyness and Wiki certainly doesn't! Sports Fan 14:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Well it appears to have it. Just ask Mrs. O'Rourke.--Play Brian Moore 15:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Home nation is not a term used to describe the parts of the UK. If it was RTE and the IRFU would not use it. Would those who object to said term please state exactly which protocol they feel this term breeches in this article or leave it alone.GordyB 12:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

GordyB I have had a go at the separate Wiki entry for Home Nations and feel that it is accurate and acceptable to anyone. Have a look and let me know what you think.PaddyBriggs 12:55, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Those who are seeking to create a political connotation for the term Home Nations in relation to Ireland are wrong. It was never a political descriptor so the cessation of Ireland's membership of the United Kingdom is not relevent to this issue. PaddyBriggs 09:28, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Origin of "Home Nations"

Apart from the "British and Irish Lion" being obviously off the English royal standard (as featured in the England football top see above), the term "Home Nation" originates in British imperialism, where the local colonies are put in contradistinction to the overseas colonies. In this it's parallel to "Home Islands" which was used by the Japanese to describe their archipelago as opposed to Manchukuo etc. There's also a hint of the "Home Counties" which are all either part of London, or satellites of it. The implication is that the Home Nations are all English, or satellites of England. The English lion (properly "leopard") being called a British lion says it all. It's certainly not a Scottish lion rampant, or anything Welsh or Irish. --MacRusgail 20:02, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Home island is a translation from Japanese. Not necessarily very accurate either. Trying to prove what English words mean by using Japanese is ridiculous. No linguist would take that seriously. The 'home counties' is a region of England just as the central belt is a region of Scotland. Obvious Central America and Central Africa is simply proof of how imperialistic the evil Scots are. Kent, Sussex etc aren't satelites of London, they've never been ruled by London. This is getting beyond a joke.GordyB 21:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

  • I'd like to reiterate, MacRusgail, that you haven't established that the British Lions' emblem was/is intended to represent English superiority, nor that it was taken from the English royal standard. It being "obviously" the case is not good enough - please read Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. If you have no sources, it can't go in the article. --Kwekubo 22:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I take it then that the Lion is a completely original design, and the resemblance to any historical heraldic symbols is purely coincidental. You must also agree - from your own argument - that the lions on the English soccer shirt also have absolutely no connection with the standard of William the Conquerer.
    • p.s. Why is there nothing about the decreasing representation of other sides in the team anyway? The last squad had 4/44 Scottish players. Scottish rugby is currently bad, but not that bad. All the more reason for Scots to boycott it. p.p.s. Please establish that "Home Nation" is not a political term. No "original research" please. --MacRusgail 18:57, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
      • I never said nor implied that the Lion does or does not have a basis in the English lion, William's standard or anything else. I merely pointed out that you haven't yet provided external verifiable sources that back up what you say. If you have such sources, they would help the discussion greatly. --Kwekubo 21:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Since the English Lion (properly "leopard") has been used as a British "mark of quality" for eggs etc, for English sports teams etc... I think we're talking Occam's razor here. If they put a leek, clover, lion rampant or a dragon on top of the shield, I doubt thatit would have lasted long. The resemblence to Scottish, Welsh and Irish symbols would have been purely co-incidental of course. --MacRusgail 20:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

You've said this a dozen times. Repeating it doesn't make it any less POV. You know what the NPOV guidelines say and why you cannot add this to the article. Can you please just leave the issue alone. This talk page is getting ridiculously long and I'm strongly tempted to edit all of these discussions out.GordyB 11:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Denying it or ignoring this argument does not make it any less POV. I'm afraid I've heard this silly attitude before somewhere. The Scots, Welsh and Irish were told to leave the home rule issue alone. Didn't happen. Same here. You can't pretend there is no problem where one exists. There isn't a Lions football team - probably because football is played by the less anglicised working classes of the Home Colonies. --MacRusgail 20:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
    • MacRusgail, I suggest you read through Wikipedia:No original research. If the symbol of the Lions is so obviously representative of English influence, then surely someone else has noticed this link apart from you. But if you can't provide a single corroborating source, how can it possibly be verified that people in the real world actually do consider the Lions' symbol to be imperialistic, and how could such sourceless infomation be included in a reputable encyclopaedia?--Kwekubo 00:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/r/i/Talk%7EBritish_and_Irish_Lions_Archive_1_209e.html"