Talk:British and Irish Lions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikiproject Rugby union
 British and Irish Lions is part of WikiProject Rugby union, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to Rugby union. If you would like to participate, you can edit British and Irish Lions, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and view a list of open tasks
B This article has been rated as b-Class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as top-importance on the importance scale.

Question: Who owns/runs the British and Irish Lions?

Tours and management are organised by a joint effort of the four Home Nation (Eng, Sco, Wal, Ire) governing bodies (RFU, SRU, WRU, IRU).

Contents

[edit] Non International Player

Is it correct that each Lion's tour features are least one player from one of the Unions that has not yet had an International cap, thus giving a chance of recognition to potential talent? Dainamo 13:19, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

No, that'd be the Barbarians you are think of.GordyB 14:41, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In the amateur era they often took an uncapped player on tours - but this hasn't really happened for about 20 years now. (Danny 22nd June 2005)

Will Greenwood was uncapped before he went on the 97 Lions tour.GordyB

Was Andrew Sheridan uncapped when selected for the '05 debacle, or have I misremembered? -- GWO

No. He had one cap against Canada, coming on as a replacement. As close as can be though.GordyB 20:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Name of British and Irish Lions

Following the edit war between PaddyBriggs and other editors. I'm opening up a discussion on how the 'British and Irish Lions' name paragraph should look. This is obviously a very sensitive area and I think we should try to avoid giving unnecessary offence to any party.

As I see it the reference to 'arguably correct' is POV even if it tries not to be POV. It is also inaccurate, the Lions are officially known as the 'British and Irish Lions' and therefore that is their correct name.

The other statement that the original name was the the British Isles Lions AFAIK that is not correct I believe they were known as the British Isles XV and the LIons tag was added later.

Some of PaddyBriggs other edits i.e. largely those not listed above are good and I think add to the article.GordyB 12:40, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I haven't managed to find anything yet on the official reason why the name was changed but this link (http://www.sluggerotoole.com/archives/2005/04/mccausland_take.php) should show my point about NI Unionists not seeing the change as necessary. One Mr McCausland actually objected to the change.

[edit] Song

I think the song should be refered to in this article and at the very least there should be a link to it. Although it has only been used on the 2005 tour it is likely to be used in future and so should IMO be on the main page. As there seem to be differing views can we please discuss it here before deleting it again. Could those without accounts please create accounts as it is rather easy discussing things with a name rather than an IP address. GordyB 13:54, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Home nation

Ireland being described as a home nation in the context of rugby union is justified by the following sources, courtesy of Kwekubo (for full discussion see archive).

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].

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..." [http://www.rte.ie/sport/2005/1110/easterby.html GordyB 14:12, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Which doesn't stop "Home Nation" being an offensive and controversial term. Both the GAA and some Ulster Unionists would take umbrage at the usage in an all-Ireland context. --MacRusgail 15:59, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I have yet to see from you, MacRusgail, or anybody else a documented reference for any individual (of substance) or organisation (of standing) who thinks that the term is "offensive and contraversial"! PaddyBriggs 16:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

It's not offensive or controversial as far as the IRFU are concerned and it is their opinion which counts. Find a source ot stop spamming.GordyB 16:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Am I wrong for saying that one of the two (although I know this is contested) earliest formed Rugby Football Clubs was in Ireland (I believe Dublin University/Trinity College)? So, wouldn't it then be quite easy to see the whole of Ireland as a Home Nation (this is obviously in addition to the above stream of quotations already supplied from non-arguably reliable sources)? Rowlan 15:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

If they had one of the earliest RU clubs, why does that make them a "home nation"? France has some of the earliest, but is not termed such. --MacRusgail 17:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of discussion

I have to agree with MacRusgail in reinstating this content, whilst I don't agree with his position on the wording concerning "Home Nations". Nevertheless, if any of this content is to be removed, it should be properly archived and not summarily deleted. If anybody feels anything needs archiving, please say so. --Cactus.man ✍ 20:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Archive it by all means but take it away. It is repetitive and little to do with the article. What has devolution and the SFA's decision not to participate in a British football team got to do with the Lions? GordyB 20:34, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I've no problem with an archive, for the older discussion, but some of other material was posted within the last week or so. I made the devolution point as a comparison (something you don't seem to be able to grasp), of a supposed problem that some would have us believe doesn't exist, in the same way that political controversy over the Lions is supposed not to exist. The SFA remark is also a comparison. The lack of a "British" Football Team shows that there are issues over sporting teams of this kind. --MacRusgail 20:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
I think you'll find I can grasp many things. Devolution has got nothing to do with the Liona. If the Lions is a geniune problem then you'll have no trouble finding sources. Wikipedia is not here for your opinion on the Lions, if it were the opinion of a major political party for example that would be different. If you ever take the time to read the Wiki principles, you'll see that what is included in an article should be sourced and be noteable. MacRusgail's opinion on the Lions isn't noteable.GordyB 20:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Nor is wikipedia here for your opinion on the Lions. --MacRusgail 21:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC) p.s. It's "notable" by the way. p.p.s. Never said devolution had anything to do with the Lions. "if you took the time to read" what I actually said.
I agree it is not. Nor have I given my opinion on the Lions. If devolution has nothing to do with the Lions then don't post it here.GordyB 21:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
You certainly have given an opinion on the Lions, aka there is no controversy. I used devolution as an example of how pretending a problem with the Celtic Fringe (for want of a better term) doesn't exist, will not make it go away. I have pointed out a number of problems with the Lions, and you claim that they don't exist, ergo no problem. Such an approach was tried with devolution, hence the reference. I am going to add a sentence about the under representation of Scots in the 2005 squad. --MacRusgail 21:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

My opinion on the Lions cannot be found anywhere in the article. All you need to do is find a suitable source and your opinions can be included. A sentence about the representation of Scots is fine as long as it is NPOV.GordyB 21:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Your opinion on the Lions can be found in your edits. --MacRusgail 15:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

My edits are based on objective facts. I don't post that the Lions are apolitical (opinion), I post that they don't represent a nation state (objective fact). Show me one of my edits that breaks a Wikipedia protocol.GordyB 16:26, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Future contributions

Could contributors please read and follow the guidelines in Wikipedia:Verifiability Wikipedia:No original research Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.GordyB 14:12, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

What original research? And as I have pointed out, you do have an opinion and it is not neutral. --MacRusgail 15:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't post my opinion I post objective facts.GordyB 16:27, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Just read the protocols they explicitly state that your personal opinion is worth nothing as it constitutes 'original research' which is strictly forbidden.GordyB 16:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

No original research Gordy, because as you can see several Irish wikipedians have been making similar statements, independent of me. --MacRusgail 20:08, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

That's also 'original research'. Read the protocols.GordyB 20:14, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Original research is a term used on Wikipedia to refer to material added to articles by Wikipedia editors that has not been published already by a reputable source. In this context it means unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, and ideas; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments that, in the words of Wikipedia's founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation".

No "original research" has been proferred, not even in the interpretation of Dumbo the Elephant or Willy the Whale. :) --MacRusgail 11:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Which part of 'unpublished theories' do you not understand?GordyB 20:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Apartheid controversy

Does anyone have any information on the controversy surrounding the 1980 games?

[edit] British Isles

British Isles is better than Britain and Ireland. Players can be selected from any of the British Isles territories/islands not just the two islands of Britain and Ireland. PaddyBriggs 16:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you want to nitpick, I believe that the Manx and Channel Islanders field national teams at the Island Games and Commonwealth Games. People from these places are eligible for the other teams, but do not compete for the national Manx/Guernsey/Jersey sides. Seemingly though, anyone with a granny born in the right place is eligible. --MacRusgail 20:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about the Channel Islands but I'm pretty sure that the Isle of Man comes under RFU jurisdiction (so I'd guess that the Channel Islands did as well). Neither field 'national' teams AFAIK and as far as rugby union is concerned they are honourary Englishmen. You must be eligible for one of the four home unions to play for the Lions, AFAIK you could be a New Zealander born and bred but if you qualified for say Scotland you could play for the Lions. I think it is more accurate to say that the Lions can draw from players eligible for one of the home unions rather than they can draw from players from the British Isles. A player might be from England but be qualify to play for a non-home union team and therefore AFAIK make themselves ineligible for Lions selection.GordyB 20:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

The Manx do have a national team (no inverted commas), but they don't field it much (Commonwealth Games). By the way, they are not necessarily "honorary Englishman" (that's the imperialist streak showing again), they are in fact eligible to try out for Scotland and Wales too. Matt Le Tissier for example, isn't English (or a rugby player!), but tried out for Scotland at one point. The same would apply in rugby terms. Their qualification would be different to that of a NZer with a granny born wherever. Your last sentence is perfectly true. --MacRusgail 11:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

According to the IRB who run the game they do not. 'Honorary Englishmen' imperialist good grief! Where did I say that they were English. Your last point is wrong the rules for soccer are different from rugby union. By UEFA rules anybody holding a British passport can play for any of the four 'British' teams, however, there is a gentlemen's agreement between the different associations not to abuse this rule and to restrict selection to those who at least have a grandparent from that country. Channel Islanders and the Manx are exempt from this and can play for any of the four nations. The national teams in fact represent their union which is why teams exist that don't represent nation states England, Scotland and Wales don't exist as nation states and neither does a united Ireland. THe RFU administers the game of rugby union in the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands (AFAIK) and therefore they are eligible for selection by the RFU team i.e. England.GordyB 20:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

You automatically said/assumed "Honorary Englishmen", whereas as you yourself point out, they can play for three other national teams. And that line of thinking is precisely why we've reams of long debates on this page. --MacRusgail 20:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

A Kiwi who plays for Scotland ain't an 'honorary Scotsman'? And AFAIK they can't play for three other countries re-read what I said.GordyB 21:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I removed the reference to 'British Isles' as although the IRFU may use the term 'Home Nation' to describe themselves I'm pretty damn sure they'd object to 'British Isles'. IMO this term should only be used in this article when refering to the Lions when they were then known by this name.

I also don't believe it to be accurate. For example Dallaglio (or Lol) could have qualified for England (through birth and residency), Wales (through his mother) or Italy (through his father). As an uncapped player he would have been available for one of two home nations and therefore eligible for Lions selection. If he had chosen to play for either England or Wales he would still be eligible, however if he had chosen to play for Italy he would not be. The fact that he is from the 'British Isles' isn't sufficient. All this is to the best of my knowledge, if you know better then correct me.GordyB 22:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] First use of Lions tag

The official Lions website says "The Lions name was coined during the inter-war period, when the emblem on the players' jersey and lapel badges gave them their alternative title." This is earlier that we have in the Wiki article. PaddyBriggs 11:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


The fact is, it's not that "some" people in the island of Island object to being labelled "British", it's that the vast majority do. Hence, sensitivity (and respect) is appropriate in this case.

[edit] Rugby League

The British "Lions" are a Rugby League tradition as well and the name "Lions" originated from the 1925 tour. Union copied it. I think that a disambiguation should be created between the two. Licinius

The rugby league Lions did in fact use the name 'Lions' before the rugby union Lions. I have never heard of any allegation of 'name theft' though. If you can find a source, it could be incorporated. I have thought for some time that there should be a disambiguation link between the two pages.GordyB 10:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but bosh (repeat fives times) and kick ahead isn't rugby is it? — Dunc|☺ 10:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
No, it is rugby league as opposed to rugby union. There is no sport called 'rugby'.GordyB 11:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

This issue seems to have reared its ugly head again. I am very much a league man first and foremost but this 'name theft' allegation is a new one on me. It's also completely unsourced. League had the name first - fact, union copied the name - unsubstantiated. Big cat names are simply very common in either code of rugby.GordyB 23:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pre and Post war

Why is their a split between these 2 tables ? (Gnevin 18:42, 2 April 2006 (UTC))

I think it is because originally only the post-war tours were listed then somebody added the pre-war tours as well. As far as I am concerned there is no reason why these two tables should not be united.GordyB 20:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Willie John McBride

I took the tricolour flag out because he is from Ballymena, Northern Ireland and to my knowledge does not have a RoI passport. There is an on-going problem with Irish players, using a RoI flag to represent players from the North is nonsensical. There needs to either be a symbol used for both Irelands or use the RoI flag only for those from RoI (or those who have a RoI passport) and the NI flag for the rest. 195.93.21.40 13:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)(GordyB)

cf prior discussion of this topic at Talk:Ulster Rugby. --Kwekubo 15:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I was part of said discussion but I'd hoped that something would have been worked out in the two or three months since I last edited. It seems not.GordyB 20:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment There is no such thing as an ROI passport. There is a passport for citizens of Ireland though. Appreciate your point (and agree) but we're talking about details here. (BTW non of the English/Scottish/Welsh players have English/Scottish or Welsch passports either :) )Dodge 11:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
There was a vote held here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rugby union#Flag of Ireland, the result was that a shamrock was the popular choice.
English / Welsh / Scots players have UK passports, if they weren't capped by an national team it would cause a problem as many players e.g. Dallaglio or Charvis could qualify for more than one country. Luckily there is no particular need to have an article on a player that has never been capped or is not part of an elite squad.GordyB 12:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Possible Copyright Infringement?

I found this text on the official page which is partly identical to sentences in the first few paragraphs. Is there a rational explanation? --youghal 17:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The rational explanation is that the Lions site is one of the sources for the article. However, a couple of sentences don't constitute a copyright violation. There is a metawiki on the subject called something like 'Avoid copyright paranoia'.GordyB 13:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
OK, I'll try to stick to that motto in the future. Thanks! --youghal 13:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
No problem. You are only doing what a Wikipedian should do.GordyB 13:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PoV and IONA

I edited "However, many Irish people maintain that the term British Isles does indeed carry political overtones and prefer the truly neutral geographical term IONA to describe the British-Irish archipelago." to remove the last clause "...and prefer the truly neutral geographical term IONA to describe..." Why? Because its completely unsourced and far from reality, I imagine. I think Iona, to the average Joe Soap, means the Scottish island, if anything. If User:Vintagekits wants to revert - fine - but show us a verifiable source demonstrating that many Irish people prefer the term IONA to describe the British Isles. Bastun 15:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

  • I agree with your revert- in any case, what people use to describe the islands is not relevant for this article. Astrotrain 15:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes it is. As I have repeatedly pointed out, the Lions carry a great deal of political baggage with them. For one, they date from a time when the "British Isles" were far more united (especially amongst the anglicised upper middle classes, who were often rugby supporters), and centralised under London, and for another, their logo is an English lion (Norman leopard, if you wish to be precise). The team has increasingly sidelined three out of the four nations as time has gone on. The GAA was set up specifically to counter such anglocentric tendencies in Ireland. --MacRusgail 16:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
MacRusgail, can you provide any source for the statement that "many Irish people... prefer the truly neutral geographical term IONA to describe the British-Irish archipelago."? Bastun 16:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Offhand, I can remember an incident from last year, with a parent complaining to an Irish school over the use of "British Isles". A search on google (difficult, since "IONA" brings up "Iona") brings up some of the following:
"In 1980, Sir John Biggs-Davison, the former Conservative front-bench spokesman on Northern Ireland, suggested a loose linkage of the United Kingdom, the Republic, Isle of Man and Channel Islands to form the Islands of North Atlantic (IONA)." [3]
British Isles article on wikipedia, which suggests that the Republic's government frowns upon the term, and provides sources to back up that claim.
"The term British Isles can be misunderstood, and is sometimes considered objectionable, primarily in Ireland[1] [2] [3]. The term is not generally used in the Republic of Ireland."


An Irishman's Diary Myers, Kevin; The Irish Times (subscription needed) 09/03/2000, Accessed July 2006 'millions of people from these islands — oh how angry we get when people call them the British Isles'

Debate in the Oireachtas, Written Answers - Official Terms", Dáil Éireann - Volume 606 - 28 September, 2005. In his response, the Irish Minister for Foreign Affairs stated that "The British Isles is not an officially recognised term in any legal or inter-governmental sense. It is without any official status. The Government, including the Department of Foreign Affairs, does not use this term. Our officials in the Embassy of Ireland, London, continue to monitor the media in Britain for any abuse of the official terms as set out in the Constitution of Ireland and in legislation. These include the name of the State, the President, Taoiseach and others."

[4]: "New atlas lets Ireland slip shackles of Britain: A spokesman for the Irish Embassy in London said: “The British Isles has a dated ring to it, as if we are still part of the Empire. We are independent, we are not part of Britain, not even in geographical terms. We would discourage its useage [sic].".

--MacRusgail 16:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
This is an article on the rugby team- the Irish government's opinions on what these islands are or should be called is not relevant here, and is mentioned in depth at the other articles. Astrotrain 16:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
The fact that many Irish people dislike the term British Isles is not in dispute. The statement that many Irish people "prefer the truly neutral geographical term IONA" is in dispute. I've asked for a source for this, and the only cited mention of the term at all is from a British Conservative politician. (Though if you google hard enough, you'll find Bertie mentioning it as a term he heard someone proposing. It obviously never caught on.) Removing the reference to IONA still leaves mention of many Irish people's dislike of the 'British Isles' term. I am therefore going to remove the unsourced IONA statement, but will link to the British Isles naming dispute article. Bastun 18:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
How pointless is this? The facts are that some Britons feel that British Isles is neutral and thus the name change was unnecessary whilst many Irish people object to the label thus the addition of 'and Irish'. There's no need to go beyond that.
The team aren't called the 'Iona Lions' and this isn't an article on geographic terms. There is absolutely no need to mention 'Iona'.GordyB 23:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
You guys obviously don't get it. It's not just about the Irish government, it's about the political identity of the archipelago, which also relates directly to the Lions in at least half a dozen ways. No, the team isn't called "the IONA Lions" - the point is that calling the Irish British is considered offensive to many of them. In fact in Scotland, the "British" tag is more political than geographical as well. --MacRusgail 15:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
That most Irish people don't like being called 'British' is noted. The article is not about what Irish people like being called nor the politics of the archipelago. It is about a sports team, there is a need to discuss the name change from British Lions to British and Irish Lions. There is no need to discuss whether British is a geographic or political term. That belongs in a completely different article.GordyB 11:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The article deals with this POV far more already than it should. Remove IONA, leave the fact that some in Ireland disagree with the term British, even though the name dates from the Romans and possibly derives from a celtic word. Why do people object? ignorance? hate? political gain? insecurity? Whatever it is it is not an issue for this article. Besides this, has an Irish player ever refused selection because of the name? --Bob 07:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

This debate seems rather pointless. The team is now called the British and Irish Lions. Historically it has been called the British Isles, it's not anymore so who cares. If anyone can find a match programme that calls the team the IONA Lions then let me know, otherwise this is a waste of time. I think some of the discussions mentioned here go well beyond the scope of an article about a combined team that represents the home unions. I think the major points regarding the name have been covered pretty comprehensively in the article. No point continuing this debate. - Shudda talk 08:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/r/i/Talk%7EBritish_and_Irish_Lions_f435.html"