Talk:British Isles/Archive 11

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 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.
← Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 →

Contents

Islands of the Ocean

Hi all. Came across an early Roman reference to "Oceani Insulae" in a text of Pomponius Mela (http://ourworld.cs.com/latintexts/m306.htm), who was a Roman Geographer from around the time of the Claudian invasion of Britain. In that text he calls the islands "Oceani Insulae" and lists Britain, Ireland, etc. in that section. Oceani Insulae is his collective for the islands. This might need a re-write of the section on ancient terms, since it puts that term in use earlier than currently shown. Hughsheehy 10:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Nice find. Since I don't have the Latin, can we find a translation of "Super Britanniam Iverna est"? Also an interesting reference to "In Celticis aliquot sunt, quas, quia plumbo abundant, uno omnes nomine Cassiteridas appellant.", since some historians thought the Cassiterides might be the BI, but sources from the 1st century apparently put them as small islands off Spain, and other historians think it was a name for the tin producing areas of Spain and Cornwall. .. dave souza, talk 12:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
My dodgy latin get me this: "In relation to Britain, Ireland is almost as large in area but equally wide as it is long ..." But the ND dictionary is down so I've stopped at the colon (what's ceolum?). Didn't try the second quote you asked. I have come across a lot of references to the BIs being off Spain - the strangest being the Jordanes text (currently in the article) which is perfectly accurate ... if only the BI's were north of Spain! Was there ever a different definition for Spain e.g. encompasing modern-day France? --sony-youthtalk 12:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
It'd take me a long while to translate all that lot, so I'm looking for an english translation. Seems there's a good one from Golding in 1585. Besides, the kerfuffle over Athelstan makes me unsure of my Latin skills. Oh, it seems that Pomponius is the oldest surviving Roman geography. That's worth something! On Sony-youth's question....as far as I know Spain (Hispania) - has always been south of the Pyrenees. Catalunya extended north of the pyrenees into France but that dates to the time of the Spanish Marches in Carolingian times. Hughsheehy 14:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
One other thing. I believe his collective noun is also sometimes "the Islands of the Northern Ocean" as opposed to just islands of the ocean. Strange that the IONA term (which I personally don't think I like very much) may have classical antecedents! Hughsheehy 14:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh, great. So can we expect hot-heads from the Irish Nurses Organisation laying claim to be heirs to the British Isles via the INO (Islands of the Northern Ocean North Atlantic) connection? --sony-youthtalk 14:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC) [Edit: spotted dumb typo sony-youthtalk 16:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)]
That would be the Hibernian Order of Radical Nurses of Ireland...or something. Oh dear. Meantime, to read a more recent translation, go to http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0472084526 and search for "Ireland". The relevant text is on page 116 and 117. Page 115 is the chapter heading but is not included. Hughsheehy 16:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

<reduce indent>Now that we have a very early example of "Islands of the Ocean", it would be interesting to find some late ones. Probably best to look in Latin. Hughsheehy 12:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Neologisms

Has anyone read WP:NEO recently? Permit me to quote a section:

"Reliable sources for neologisms Support for article contents, including the use and meaning of neologisms, must come from reliable sources. Wikipedia is a tertiary source that includes material on the basis of verifiability, not truth. To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term — not books and papers that use the term. (Note that Wiktionary is not considered to be a reliable source for this purpose.)

Neologisms that are in wide use — but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources — are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia. They may be in time, but not yet. The term does not need to be in Wikipedia in order to be a "true" term, and when secondary sources become available it will be appropriate to create an article on the topic or use the term within other articles.

An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs and books that use the term) are insufficient to support use of (or articles on) neologisms because this is analysis and synthesis of primary source material (which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy). To paraphrase Wikipedia:No original research: If you have research to support the inclusion of a term in the corpus of knowledge that is Wikipedia, the best approach is to arrange to have your results published in a peer-reviewed journal or reputable news outlet and then document your work in an appropriately non-partisan manner."

According to my reading of this, much of the stuff in the modern usage section about alternative terms is in clear breach of this guideline, being original research. If we want to include the term 'BI and Ireland', we need to find articles about it in a tertiary source such as the OED, or at the very least discussion of its use in a reputable newspaper. Finding out it has been used in Twycross Zoo's Gibbon Regional Studbook, or a website on Megalithic Monuments, is original research. Ditto for other terms. I expect there are some differing interpretations of this: I would be grateful for your thoughts.--86.31.225.220 23:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Well first of all you're making the assumptiuon that 'BI and Ireland' is a neologism. With phrases such as that - and 'Britian and Irleand' - its debatable as to whether these are 'names' for the islands or just two descriptions and a conjuction. For example, if I were to say that the Low Countries are often described as 'Belgium, Netherlands and Luxembourg', I don't think I'd be describing a neologism; if I said they were described as 'Benelux' then I would be and I'd need to source it as you state.
There are some sources linked to that talk about the terminology, rather than just use it. I suggest checking the many references in the 'modern useage' section - most of these discuss the terminology, rather than acting as examples for its use. No other alternatives are mentioned here - that might be something to bring up at British Isles naming dispute. Robdurbar 09:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Rob, I think you are mistaken in two ways here.
Firstly the question of neologism. It is not "British Isles and Ireland" that is the neologism but "British Isles" as a name for Great Britain. To extend your simile, reference to British Isles and Ireland is like referring (in English) to the Low Countries and Belgium.
Secondly you say that most of the references discuss the usage rather than acting as examples for its use. In fact I do not believe that there is one that does this. Naomhain 09:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I, for one, am delighted you brought up this point. I had been thinking of making a similar post for a few weeks now but was not sure of how to phrase it. We differ to an extent. I don't think the problem ends at the use of neologisms. The entire "History of the term" is original research. Virtually all of it is reliant on primary sources. Where we may differ (maybe), however, is that I don't see any other way out.
It's clear that the community wants to include an etymology-like section. Judging also from the community’s interest, I would suspect that our readers would like one also. What is clear too, however, is that no (complete) secondary-source etymology exists; otherwise, surely, someone would have "trumped" someone else with it by now.
I think that this is one of those rare appropriate times where that most venerable of rules comes into play – ignore all rules. However, we must do so with caution. It’s good to see that the bitterness that plagued previous editing of this page is behind us, somewhat. Maybe this means that we can work with (not past) our POVs to create sometime that we can all be proud of. We're going to need to if we're going to agree to continue with the original research. (Without it that all that we can say is that the term was coined by Helwyn and is disputed by the Irish government.)
What we are doing here is important. Personally, I'm proud of the section - and I'm proud to have worked with you guys on it. No-one of us could have done it alone. I think it's valuable as it stands, I think it could be even better still. Original research, neologisms, what-have-you - I think it's true (do others?). To make sure it's stays true we need to keep working together - verifying and testing each other’s POV - otherwise, it will drift into untruthfulness, one way or the other. Surely, truth (and knowledge) is most important in an encyclopedia. --sony-youthtalk 09:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Also, no-one is defining any neologisms. All that has happened is that people have pointed out that an existing term (which is in the dictionaries) is used in widely varying ways. That is not creating a a neologism. Hughsheehy 10:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Besides, what has actually been happening, even in the History of the term section is actually compilation, not original research. I struggle to imagine how anyone could propose to do original research on what's in old texts. (Hi, I spoke to Tacitus today, he said...)
We can compile existing material from old texts, but it's impossible to do original research on it. "Original research is research that is not exclusively based on a summary, review or synthesis of earlier publications on the subject of research. The purpose of the original research is to produce new knowledge, rather than to present the existing knowledge in a new form (e.g., summarized or classified)." Since all that has happened is references to earlier (much earlier) publications, no new knowledge has been produced. Existing knowledge has been compiled. That is eminently permitted. Hughsheehy 10:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
And finally, on the notion from our anonymous editor that we should find "reputable" sources that use "British Isles and Ireland" rather than websites on megalithic tombs, the edit currently has refs from OUP (publishers of OED), Britannica and the UK Hydrographic office (publishers of Admiralty charts) that do exactly that. Sorry to burst the bubble. No neologisms and no original research. If anyone speaks to Tacitus or Pliny to do original research on what they wrote, please let me know. Hughsheehy 10:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Clearly British Isles is not a neologism. But British Isles defined as GB only, or as UK only, is a neologism, unless we can 'cite reliable secondary sources such as books or papers about the term - not books and papers that use the term.'--212.219.56.214 10:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
WP policy is that we should not make new articles on neologisms or use them in articles. Here we are discussing use of an existing term and how that varies. This is not creation of a neologism. The idea now seems to be that - even in a section specifically on modern usage - and even with reputable sources to demonstrate that usage is varied, we should not give these examples because that would constitute creation of a neologism, even where we specifically indicate each example as being an example. That's a stretch. If someone wishes to create an article on "British Isles and Ireland" then we can have that discussion there (I don't even know if one exists, but if there were maps with that title, would the page then be valid?). Meantime, if people want to start deleting refs to Britannica and OUP and Admiralty charts then we have a problem. Hughsheehy 11:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Regarding British Isles being used in contexts where it does not include RoI (e.g. "British Isles and Ireland") please look at footnote 59 on page 19 of this document where British Isles is defined as "England and Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man." Point 4 on page 35 notes that in the during drafting of this Act it was "thought better not to use ['British Isles'] as it is unfamiliar and is often assumed to include the whole of Ireland."

Actually what it actually says "it was thought better not to use the latter expression", where the "the latter expression" is clearly "the British Islands as defined in the Interpretation Act 1889". And more relevantly, we have now have British (well Scottish) statute law that explictly says that the RoI is not part of the British Isles! (interjected by --Red King 00:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC))

As a side note, since the Belfast Agreement the UK government has agreed that the name of the RoI is Ireland. Thus, "British Isles and Ireland".
As Hugh noted earlier this use of the term is very common - although not often defined - especially among clubs and associations. See for example this yach club who describe a yacht race to around "all islands (except Rockall and the Channel Islands) which comprise the British Isles and Ireland," Clearly by their description of the race when they say "British Isles and Ireland" they mean a dictionary definition of the British Isles. --sony-youthtalk 13:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Oops, sorry, didn't notice that we'd said 'British Isles and Ireland' (I'd read 'Britian and Ireland' in my head!) Yeah, still don't see how this counts as a neologism, unless we view the whole phrase as a neologism. I think its fair for us to say 'BI is defined x, but is sometimes used y'.
As for references discussing the terminology, rather than examples of usage: [1], [2], [3], [4] to name a few used in the article. In paticular, the first one does so with reference to all the terms (although its subscription, its only €2 to check it!). Robdurbar 14:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
It's the 'is sometimes used y' is what makes it a neologism. As yet we have many references that define it as x but none that define it as y. The extrapolation of a list of example uses is original research. It may well be valid but Wikipedia is not the place for this.
I assumed when you said "I suggest checking the many references in the 'modern useage' section" that you were suggesting checking the references in the 'modern useage' section! ;-). More seriously, the references you cite here refer to the perceived offensiveness of the term (which, it seems to me, is well sourced) or define its meaning as the whole archipelago. It is the 'y' meaning that is not yet well sourced. Naomhain 15:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
The UK govt. document I cited above should suffice as a definition of 'y'. It is explicit in saying that BI is not x, but y. --sony-youthtalk 15:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


And we're still not creating neologisms. What we might have is a disputed or varied usage. We don't have a neologism. Please keep it serious here. If someone starts creating pages called "The Irish Isles" or "The Rainy Isles" and/or replacing every occurrence of "British Isles" in WP with something else, then there might be grounds for complaining. Meantime, it's a presentation of usage, which is often disputed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_words_with_disputed_usage Hughsheehy 15:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Let us indeed be serious. If a word has a new meaning then it is a new word. Neologism : "Neologisms can also refer to an existing word or phrase which has been assigned a new meaning." Naomhain 16:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
While it is of limited value because it specifically limits the definition to "in this act" and the act was repealed 20 years ago, it certainly is a considerably better reference than anything that is cited in the article. Why do you not cite it? Naomhain 16:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Don't think I agree with you here. As you note it is a narrow legal definition and very much obsolete, certainly not modern usage. I prefer the references to actual use, although as with all primary sources they need to be treated with caution. Too much can be read into them. The section is much improved now that most of the interpretation layer has been removed from these although there still remains some work to be done. Mucky Duck 20:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Right. I'm done with this. This is silly. There are sufficient refs to many cases of usage to validate that this is a widespread usage. We're not talking neologisms here....and EVEN IF WE WERE we're discussing them in a section on modern usage of an existing term. Hughsheehy 16:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I could separate a few issues here. Firstly on the Origins of the Term section. I am not really sure what this section is for. It is very long, and doubtless interesting to many, but does it belong in an encyclopedia? What is essentially an etymology section surely belongs in Wiktionary – we do not usually include extensive etymological details on Wikipedia entries – why is this article different? See WINAD – we are not a usage guide.

Additionally much of the Origins of the Term section is primary research. Why is there a section on Oceani Insulae? Why is there a long quote on the identity politics of 18th century geographers? This is an article on an island group, not an article on the history of the nomenclature of that island group. At present the focus reflects the interests of editors, not readers. There seems to be a sub-surface battle between one set of editors trying to show that BI has been used since Adam and Eve so is somehow a ‘natural’ and ‘virtuous’ term and another trying to show it was only invented in the 17th century so is an ‘artificial’ and ‘imperialist’ term. None of which matters for Wikipedia purposes…

On the Modern Usage section, everything on there is true, as far as I can see, but that does not necessarily mean that it is worthy of inclusion. Take the bit about ‘British Isles and Ireland’. It meets the Wikipedia definition of a neologism. To support the use of a term we need to cite reliable secondary sources such as books or articles about the term – can anyone find any about BI and Ireland? ‘An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs and books that use the term) are insufficient to support use of (or articles on) neologisms because this is analysis and synthesis of primary source material’. This is just what editors have been doing. PS - I would be grateful if genuine concerns weren't dismissed as silly. --86.31.231.79 18:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I should have stayed away from my PC. Anonymous is back.
From the section "Wikipedia is not a usage guide". "Wikipedia is not in the business of saying how words, idioms, phrases etc., should be used (but it may be important in the context of an encyclopedia article to discuss how a word is used". In the context of a demonstrably disputed term, usage is important in understanding meaning and what the meaning includes.
Again, NONE of the Origin of the Term section is Original research. None of it. It is compilation at most.
From the section on "No Original Research". "All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia."
Are we going to have a ref war from WP policies? The content is - as you say - interesting and there is no reason to exclude it. Hughsheehy 19:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I am no more or less anonymous than User:Hughsheehy, who may be called Hugh Sheehy or Minnie Mouse. I am also known as User:Triglyph if that makes anyone happier. I agree that it may be important in the context of an article to discuss how a word is used, but where we seem to differ is that I think such discussion should be based solely on published reliable secondary sources such as journal articles about the use of a term, or tertiary sources such as encyclopedia entries on a term. You seem to think such discussion can be based on finding examples of usage on websites. I think this is far too low a threshold for inclusion in a reputable encyclopedia: the fact that a self-published website, or even a description of a book in an OUP website uses a term is not in itself significant; if there genuinely is a significant constituency for the term, it will have been discussed by linguists, journalists and academics in reputable articles, and be defined (perhaps as an alternative) in encyclopedia and dictionary definitions. And I don't mean encyclopedias of trees.
Also I make no comment on the interest of the Oceani Insulae stuff: I just fail to see how it is relevant.--86.31.231.79 21:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
If we are to decide to reject some sources like encyclopedias of trees and Admiralty charts and BBC web pages and UK legal documentation and Britannica articles and OUP refs and to accept others, who decides? 83.38.59.125 21:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
It's not a question of rejecting sources. Clearly a citation showing that the UK Hydrographic Office has used the term 'BI & I' in a description of a chart is a 100% reliable source for the claim that the UK Hydrographic Office has used the term 'BI & I' in a description of a chart. But this does not tell us anything in itself. Was the use of the term deliberate or accidental? Was it a personal decision on the part of the person who wrote the description, or a corporate decision by the UKHO? Does it reflect international agreements on chart nomenclature? Does it reflect ignorance of the dictionary definition of the term? Is it consistent with the actual description on the paper chart? Are other charts entitled the same way? Did the person who wrote it have an axe to grind? Is it indicative of a trend? Depending on the answers to these questions the statement is anything from irrelevant to demonstrative to important in the question of modern usage. Without the answers it is basically meaningless. And we cannot speculate on these questions - that would be original research. Which is why we need reliable secondary sources discussing use of the term.--86.31.231.79 22:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

<reducing indent> : The section is certainly overkill. I hadn't realised that the current state was one sentence dealing with the common usage and four paragraphs dealing with problems. It reads as POV right now - factually correct or not - unless the heading is changed to "Problems with the term in modern usage". Despite what I said before, actually there is very little original research in there after all:

* In "Ancient terms":
** The paragraph on Ptolomy
* In "Oceani insulae":
** The paragraph on Jordanes
** The paragraph on Bede
* In "British Isles":
** The clause in a sentence beginning "... although Tacitus himself had ..."
** The last two paragraphs
* In "Modern usage"
** The sentence beginning "Road and rail maps ..."
** The sentence beginning "In addition ..."
** The sentence beginning "Encyclopedia Britannica ..."
Personally, losing these would not cause me to lose much sleep - although, either they all should be removed or none at all.
As Triglyph points out (I, for one, would prefer if you signed in, it makes it easier recognize people and so to communicate) the entire "Origins of the term ..." section is disproportionately large. Shrinking it down would make a whole lot of sense, in my opinion. The issue is how to do it properly. We've collected a lot of info and I wouldn't like to loose it, I'm sure neither would anyone else. Doing so would also necessitate a narrative, which is fire for a cinder. (Narrative is also the reason for the section "Oceani insulae" at present, since without it there is a ~1,500 year gap between Ptolomy's Britannica Insula and Heylyn's British Isles - of course we can loose all of that and just start at Heylyn if we throw out Ptolomy as original research.) What think others? --sony-youthtalk 23:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Another approach could be to take the hard interpretation of "no original research" in which case we could only talk about Heylyn (maybe Dee) and then say that currently the name is disputed by the Irish government and disliked in Ireland. The main body of text we have now could be branched off into History of names for the British Isles or some other such article (we could not call it Etymology of British Isles as we do not have any secondary sources for a proper etymology). This new article could be linked to from the rewritten "History of the term" section. --sony-youthtalk 23:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Now you come to mention it, I've been rather slowly developing a sort of expanded timeline to try to get my sourced information into order: it seems to me that this combined with info from your template and further input could make a useful resource for all the articles which at present have origins of names sections. It could form a main article, and each article could have a brief summary style section of relevant info. My thought was of naming it something like Development of names for Britain and Ireland so that it could link to these articles as well as articles on Wales, Scotland etc. Comments? .. dave souza, talk 00:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
A quick rename of the "Origins" section to "Names of the archipelago through the ages" solves the whole issue. In reality that section isn't an etymology of anything, especially since the references to Oceani Insulae have been added, it's a history of the names the archipelago has been given over the last two thousand years. Deleting it is like having an Encyclopedia article on New York that neglects to point out it used to be called New Amsterdam, or an article on St.Petersburg that ignores the fact that it was called Leningrad for a while or an article on Den Haag which doesn't link the name of the place to the history of the place. All would be poor Encyclopedia entries. As has been said, there is also no original research in that section as it stands. The page is based on reference to published texts.
As for POV in the "Modern Usage" section, the edit already states clearly that the most dictionaries define the archipelago as the "British Isles", although there are differences on whether the Channel Islands should be included or not. Ignoring the demonstrable fact that several different names and descriptions are used to describe the archipelago is POV and unhelpful to the reader who may well encounter these other descriptions in the real world; talking about these common other names is not POV and denying their existence is just unhelpful, so why do it? Since the article is about the archipelago these other names commonly given to the archipelago should be included in any reasonable article on the archipelago. In any case, the issue about names for the archipelago is well attested in reputable secondary sources like the BBC style guide and other reputable sources.
As for moving the content into another page, that is just moving and doubling the problem by creating a content fork (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content_forking) since a NPOV summary would have to be left on this main page. Good luck writing an NPOV summary if the extended facts are already so controversial and good luck stopping it from expanding to its original size again. The facts as they are can speak for themselves, a summary is automatically an interpretation, and that will be difficult to sustain. WP does not need to be short. There is no need for concise articles to save paper. 83.38.59.125 07:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
An additional point. If the "Origins" section is disproportionately large, a solution is for people to write more on other sections. There was activity recently in the sports section and that has been about it. Let people add to the page rather than proposing to delete from the page. 83.38.59.125 07:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Sure. What I meant by POV in the Modern Usage section was just its disproportionate character, not individual content. It reads a little strangely, but if you read it carefully it is not POV - but just how many people read so carefully and should we expect it of people.
By moving the section to a seperate article, I certainly did not mean a content fork - just creating a new a new article and allowing this one to be about BI, with a summary explaination of it's name and current complexities of it (right now the section is large enough to merit one). Regarding, how to summarise, this would not be easy, for sure - but I don't think impossible. --sony-youthtalk 08:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Navigation Break

Ok, there seem to be two seperate issues here:

  • Length of the origins section. My personal view is that this is a dull and uninteresting section, but, I don't see any harm if others find it interesting. Equally, splitting it out is no bad thing and could allow a more general article on toponyms in the British Isles
  • Neolgoisms. I think I'm fairly conivinced that, to the letter of the law, any claims that that British Isles means the islands of the UK is a neologism. However, I think this is a situation in which we could invoked WP:IAR. As we are discussing uses of the term, any alternative uses of existing terms are worthy of mention, even if they are being used as neologisms. More pointedly - by removing a mention of this, we'd be worsening the article, which is why IAR is there. Robdurbar 12:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Nice word, Toponymy. Links lead on to British toponymy and Place names in Irish as well as Placename etymology and List of country name etymologies. None of which seem to quite cover the subject as developed here. History of toponyms in the British Isles might be a possible name for a main article which could be summarised here, as well as in other related articles – other ideas for the wording welcome.
As for neologisms, noting verifiable developing use of terms is welcome as long as we don't breach WP:NOR#Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position by collating facts in a synthesis which hasn't been made by a reliable source. ...dave souza, talk 15:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
By removing a mention of this, we'd be worsening the article. Would we, though. The point here is that a synthesis is being made that this list of references clearly demonstrates modern usage of the term. But Wikipedia is not equipped to say whether this is true or not. Who is to say, for example, that these are not simply errors (some clearly are). A reference to a reputable linguistic source that says that this is modern usage is required. That is what the original research policy is about. Naomhain 16:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Well 'British Isles and Ireland' is an error. That's what we say, isn't it? Robdurbar 08:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, we say it contradicts the definition, which is almost the same thing. --Robdurbar 08:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
"Wikipedia is not a usage guide. Wikipedia is not in the business of saying how words, idioms, phrases etc., should be used (but it may be important in the context of an encyclopedia article to discuss how a word is used: e.g. freedom)." We can say how it is used, not how it should be used. 83.38.59.125 09:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Exactly which is why we don't say this is a mis-use. All we are saying is that it contradicts the dictionary definition. This is one of those articles where it is important to discuss how a term is used (or at least, important to have a section on it).--Robdurbar 14:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Why? Firstly Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary and secondly we only have original research , no verifable sources that this is modern usage. 193.113.57.161 14:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
The edit cites Britannica, Admiralty charts, the BBC and others. These are not OR. Please read the definition of OR. 83.38.59.125 15:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
<reduce indent>I have read the defintion of OR, thank you. I quote it for you here:
An edit counts as original research if it does any of the following:
It introduces a theory or method of solution;
It introduces original ideas;
It defines new terms;
It provides or presumes new definitions of pre-existing terms;
It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position;
It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source;
It introduces or uses neologisms, without attributing the neologism to a reputable source.
Any of those, note.
This section does "introduce a theory" (that modern usage treats BI as synoinymous with the UK).
It does "introduce original ideas (as above)
It does "presume new definitions of pre-existing terms. (Britsh Isles)
It does "introduce an argument withoput citing a reputable source for that argument (That British Isles is a synonym for UK)
A list of errors (and we cannot say that these are not errors) does not constitute a reliable source as to the usage of the term. Nor does a list of publications that do not use it.
193.113.57.161 09:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Quite. And quoting from the same article:
The differences between encyclopedia and dictionary articles
Wikipedia
Articles are about the people, concepts, places, events, and things that their titles denote. The article octopus is about the species of animal: its physiology, its use as food, its scientific classification, and so forth.
Wiktionary
Articles are about the actual words or idioms in their title. The article octopus is about the word "octopus": its part of speech, its pluralizations, its usage, its etymology, its translations into other languages, and so forth.
193.113.57.161 13:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh, come on! There is a section that explains how this place came to be called "British Isles", by far the major part of the article is about the place itself. Sure, it has blown out of proportion, but is still a minority element. And it does not dicuss it "proper" usage - for example should British Isles take a verb in the singular or plural form (i.e. "The British Isles are ..." or "The British Isles is ...")? I am off the opinion that the section is long enough to merit a seperate article, and that this article would benefit from explainations of the term being reduced, but it is certainly not a dictionary article or section. --sony-youthtalk 15:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, and an article about these islands should discuss what these islands have been called through the ages. See the example of the WP pages on a few other places; New York/New Amsterdam (which was only New Amsterdam for a few decades), Mumbai (Mumbai (Marathi: मुंबई, IPA:/'mumbəi/ (help·info)), formerly known as Bombay) and where the first section in the article is about the name, Den Haag (The Hague (with capital T; Dutch: originally Image:Ltspkr.png's-Gravenhage (literally "Counts hedge"), officially Image:Ltspkr.pngDen Haag) and where the second item in the history is about the name. Again, the content in the "Origins" section is about the names of the islands through the ages and is not a grammatical discussion that belongs in Wiktionary. Rename the section to be "names of the islands through the ages" and it is all perfectly within policy and guideline to be in WP. The history of the names of these islands is interesting and merits proper discussion. It's also apparently a "hot" topic. Maybe the current presentation is slightly too long, but that is not a reason to delete it. 83.38.59.125 15:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
You're missing the context of the comment. I don't disagree with the view that an explanation of the reason the place came to be called the British Isles belongs here provided that can be properly sourced (as I believe it can). It is the modern usage section that was being discussed. 193.113.57.161 09:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Fine, so if it's OK to talk about what the island group used to be called, how can it not be OK to talk about what it's called now? Hughsheehy 17:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The introduction states that "The term British Isles can be misunderstood.." Surely any term can be "misunderstood"? Shouldn't Wikipedia stay out of the debate, remain neutral and simply state that it is not generally used in Ireland? Readers can make their own minds up about whether the term is misunderstood or understood differently.

I think that the phrase misunderstood is in the article as a pointer to the separate British Isles terminology article, where the issues around terminology are discussed in depth, and where there are many non-controversial issues. The disagreement/controversy, again in a separate page, on whether the term should include Ireland is linked from the word objectionable. The BI article itself doesn't take any sides on either debate, simply records the facts in both cases. Recording facts does not constitute taking a side in the debate. Misunderstood is not necessarily the right word, but it was as close as could be found at the time. Have you an alternative suggestion? 83.38.59.125 11:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Simply delete the words "can be misunderstood". They add nothing to the article. At best they state the obvious; at worst they take a particular side in a debate. The terms England, United Kingdom, Ireland can be all misunderstood but this is not stated in the article. Recording facts does not of course constitute taking a side in the debate. However, if it is suggested that those (such as the Irish government) who do not accept the definition offered in the article are "misunderstanding" the term rather than interpreting it differently it, then it is clearly taking sides.

The references in the page suggest that the Irish govt understands it and objects to it, while the BBC doesn't understand it.  ;-) In any case they're different issues. As for the other terms being "misunderstood", that IS stated in the BI terminology article. 83.38.59.125 16:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
And let's not forget that Scottish divorce act, which decided that British Islands might be misunderstood to include Ireland (Republic of), whereas British Isles clearly [!] does not include it - thus saying the exact opposite of English law. Seems to me that "can be misunderstood" is beyond dispute. --Red King 20:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Other than the "British Islands might be misunderstood" bit the act did not say anything of the kind. It said (my emphasis) "In this Act "the British Isles" means the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man" and explained that it was creating this definition because it had been decided "not to use the latter expression [British Islands] as it is unfamiliar and is often assumed to include the whole of Ireland". It said nothing at all like "British Isles clearly [!] does not include it". What's more even if it had this would not be "the exact opposite of English law" since English law has nothing to say about the meaning of the term. It is a geographical, not a legal, entity. Naomhain 09:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
There are session transcripts online in Hansard where this exact same discussion is repeated...people saying "British Isles" but meaning "British Islands" and vice versa, and Lords hauling each other up to make sure they understand what the other is talking about. Same could probably said about sessions in the Dáil and Senate in Ireland, where "British Isles" often means British Isles excluding ROI. As for it being a geographical entity, that's true, but the entity is not the term and, as several (mostly Irish, I suspect) people have said in the discussion pages, they don't accept that the term is a purely geographical term. If I remember correctly, "misunderstood" was a compromise word but seemed about as good as could be got. 83.38.59.125 17:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh, on Naohmain's assertion that the Law Commission report (which was England/Wales/Scotland) doesn't say that anything that the British Isles clearly does not include ROI. I fail to see how such an assertion can be supported. That is EXACTLY what that document says - whatever its terms of reference or scope. Quoting directly; "In this Act "the British Isles " means the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man." It doesn't include ROI, France, Brazil, New Zealand or the People's Republic of China. 83.38.59.125 17:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
The act does not say (as Red King asserts) that "British Isles clearly [!] does not include it [Ireland]". It defines (rather strangely, but that's another matter) British Isles for the purpose of the act as the UK, Channel Islands and Man. That is an entirely different thing. And English law does not have a general definition of British Isles - it is not a legal entity - so this is not and cannot be "the exact opposite of English law". Naomhain 09:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

<reduce indent> English law may not have a "general definition", but it may have multiple definitions. This looks like one. Others may be in documents like "Foreign Fishing Rights and Concessions within the Fisheries Limits of the British Isles", prepared by the Hydrographer, 1965, and there are probably SI's that mention it too. Irish statutes (e.g. http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/ZZSI1Y1924A.html) suggest that "British Isles" did - at least at one time - have a legal definition in UK law, since the Irish law specifically mentions it. Again, it would be interesting if the 1889 Interpretation Act mentioned the British Isles, while the 1978 act doesn't, instead using British Islands. Has anyone got the text of that 1889 act? This article (not the best article and not good enough as a reference) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/570395.stm suggests that it used the term British Isles. 83.38.59.125 12:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, perhaps, but certainly not supporting Red King's assertions about how the divorce act said that BI "clearly" excludes Ireland or that there is any contradiction with English law. Naomhain 14:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, if it doesn't say that it clearly excludes it, it pretty clearly doesn't include it. 83.38.59.125 15:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
The act defines it for the purpose of the act as excluding it. It does not say "British Isles clearly [!] does not include it". That, especially the "[!]" is spin, pure and simple. Naomhain 16:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
You're right, that [!] is pure spin. You're so right. That's important, that is. Hughsheehy 19:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Good. So now we've established that perhaps we can move forward without the spin, distortion and personal interpretation and with the context when discussing sources. Naomhain 09:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh yes. Absolutely. I'm sure that everyone is suitably aligned now. No more [!] from anyone. I'm sure that anyone reading "In this Act "the British Isles " means the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man." wouldn't dare to use an [!] in suggesting that this definition clearly excludes ROI. That would be spin and distortion, pure and simple. Worse, it would be an unsupported personal interpretation of the source. Oh yes. Hughsheehy 10:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Well not quite. Saying that the act said that "British Isles clearly does not include it" and citing the fact that it says that "British Islands might be misunderstood" as a justification for keeping the statement that the British Isles can be misunderstood would be the unsupported personal opinion. But you're getting there. Naomhain 11:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Ah, so "British Isles" actually potentially has legal definitions that exclude ROI, and "British Islands" can only be misunderstood. Fine. Now I get it. This has been quite educational, but I'll leave the last word to you. I'm sure it'll be something insightful. From my point of view the last word is from the act, which says "In this Act "the British Isles " means the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man." Hughsheehy 13:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Exactly so - that is the last word, and all you can read into it - none of this stuff about how it says that British Isles can be misuderstood or that it "clearly means" that it excludes Ireland. Naomhain 14:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Oceani Insulae?

I have found a few problems with the interpretation of the quotes in this section. Bede refers to 'Brittania Oceani insula,' which is translated by the source as 'Britain, an island in the ocean'. Clearly the translator thought this was a simple geographic description, rather than a name for the island group ('Britain, an Oceanic Isle'), and I share this interpretation. I feel the bit on Jordanes is misleading. It says that he 'describes Oceani insulas as an island group...' The bit quoted from his book mentions that some consider two Galician peninsulas as being island of Ocean, and says that they are discounted not because they are a long way from the British Isles, but because they aren't strictly islands. To me this implies that 'islands of Ocean' is being used similarly as a general phrase for islands in the Ocean, rather than being limited to any particular islands. I cannot comment on the third source, the Life of St Columba, as it is not available online, but the fact that the interpretations of the other two quotations are, at the very least, highly debateable, does not fill me with confidence. I think this is an example of the dangers of interpreting primary sources, rather than relying on peer-reviewed secondary sources.--86.31.232.231 18:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and this is the problem with primary sources (primary sources = original research). Oceani insula is, in my opinion, a general term. I believe a previous editor expressed a similar opinion, but I cannot find a source to support this. However, its purpose in the article is to demonstrate a large gap in the etymology of Heylyn's "British Isles." He justified the term through reference to the Roman naming of the whole group as Britannica. However, this was only during the period circa the time of the Roman conquest of Britain. Before this, Britannica only referred to Albion (in time Britain), and immediately after the conquest, Britannica referered only to the area under Roman control. Thus, with the exception of the briefest periods (during which the "naming party" intended to conquer the entire group), the group appears to be essentially nameless - i.e. oceani insulae, "islands of the ocean" - until the time of Heylyn's naming of them (during which the "naming party" had conquered the entire group), which was nominally justified by this briefest of periods during the Roman conquest.
BTW if this is Triglyph, I've left a message for you on my user page. --sony-youthtalk 23:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Again, there is NO original research in the "origins" section, not unless someone now on WP actually wrote the books being quoted, which I doubt. "Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia." (my emphasis, quoted text from NOR policy page) 83.38.59.125 09:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh. Okay. My bad. Then I agree - no original research is in the Origins section. --sony-youthtalk 15:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Questionable: WP:NOR#Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position makes it clear that we need a source for the synthesis of published facts, not just the facts of the primary sources analysed in a way that puts over a particular viewpoint. .. dave souza, talk 10:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Including references that support a viewpoint is a questionable behaviour if there are other published facts - being excluded from the edit - that show that another viewpoint has merit. So far, no-one has suggested that any published facts are being ignored or in any way being excluded from the edit. If the facts happen to support one viewpoint or another, then that's something entirely different. Should we exclude published sources because another viewpoint can't find any references to support its view? That seems to be the case now. To paraphrase the current argument; "There are too many refs in the edit to support an argument I don't agree with and I can't find any sources to support my viewpoint. That's not fair!". Please, this is an encyclopedia, not a POV soapbox or election. 83.38.59.125 08:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Besides, all this recent work has corrected what was apparently a major error that had been common currency in this article (and elsewhere on WP) for a long time - that "British Isles" was a "traditional term" that went back in continuous usage to classical times. If I recall correctly that was the essence of the "Origin of the term" section for a long time and was used as a "fact" in the discussion on whether or not current objections to the term should be taken seriously. Whatever the current debate about use of "british isles", it is apparent that the OED is not far wrong when they ref its first use in 1621, making a description of "traditional" somewhat ambitious in the context of names for a major European geographical entity. Hughsheehy 08:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


Not sure where you get the info that before the Roman conquest, Britannica only referred to Albion: source? Certainly by 77 Pliny seems to be referring to Albion as Britannia, with the inference that "The Britannias" is past usage. However, in 83 Romans had defeated the whole of Britain, and Tacitus appears to be calling the people from the north of Scotland Britons. They were also pondering invasion of Ireland at that time, so it's plausible that at that point they were still claiming the whole archipelago even though some bits were yet to be conquered. Around 150 Ptolemy seems to refer to both islands as being Britannias. Hadrian had a degree of control as far as the Scottish Highlands. According to the Roman Britain page it's around 180 that there's a retreat, and in 210 the border's set at Hadrian's Wall. Then post-Roman British (Brythonic) kingdoms included Scotland south of the Highlands. Ptolemy's map apparently became widely known in Europe following Latin translation of it in 1406, so that seems a more probable source for Heylyn's naming. ... dave souza, talk 23:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
In part agree. But unfortunately its all conjecture (both of us). The Bede (a definite "Briton") source is from the 8th century and even at that time refers to "Britain ... formerly called Albion", hinting that the name was contested even up to then.
Does Strabo not refer to Britanica and Ierne seperately, Britanica being Britian only? Prior to this ref is it not called Albion? And afterwards, is Britannica not more usual for the Roman province? He (Strabo) also speaks of the Ierne saying, "Concerning this island I have nothing certain to tell, except that its inhabitants are more savage than the Britons." This would also suggest that he is seperating the islands as peoples also.
I suspect something to do with Ptolemy also - the words are too close and that map too well known - but cannot find a source to back it up. However, let's not forget Heylyn's own explaination, that "British" "always" described the larger island and could be extended to Ireland on account that ancient writers said its people were not unlike the "British" (as always in these things, it looks like everyone's forgotten Man as usual!). --sony-youthtalk 08:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
As a note, its not so surprising that the island "group" would be nameless for the most part of its history. Remember that before the modern era these islands were HUGE - the hugest known. Today the world is quite small. One evening two weeks ago, I got news of a death in my family. I live in the Netherlands - Germania of its time - but was able to be at home in the furthest known point west (before the discovery of America) by the following morning! But still we have trouble imagining the immensity of things. I live on the same "island" as Asia. I even live on the same "island" as Africa! But it’s only now that we are beginning to appreciate this as "Eurasia," and barely able to conceive it as "Africa-Eurasia." That the BI would not be known as single named "group" before the modern era is understandable for the same reason. Its members were just too big! Unless, you had ambitions to conquer it all, of course ;) --sony-youthtalk 09:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
More islands of the ocean. Isidore of Seville's Etymology calls Britain, Thule, the Gorgades (probably Cabo Verde) etc. individually "oceani insula". (http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/isidore/14.shtml). There doesn't seem to be any mention of any collective term for any of them beyond that they're all islands in the Ocean. This book was the Enclyclopedia of the dark ages "Throughout the greater part of the Middle Ages it was the textbook most in use in educational institutions. So highly was it regarded as a depository of classical learning that in a great measure, it superseded the use of the individual works of the classics themselves. Not even the Renaissance seemed to diminish the high esteem in which it was held, and according to Arevalo, it was printed ten times between 1470 and 1529" (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08186a.htm). Only partial English translation is found online....so far at least. (http://bestiary.ca/etexts/brehaut1912/brehaut1912.htm) Again, looks like there was no collective term for the "British Isles" in the texts of several major geographers/encyclopedias of the classical period and the dark/middle ages. 83.38.59.125 10:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


Here's a question. Is it correct that the Roman sources don't make any collective term but at least some of the Greek ones do? Is that right? 83.38.59.125 11:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
No, [Pliny the Elder] was a stright-up Roman. [Ptolemy] was Greek but a Roman citizen, and Geographia (where a collective name is used) was explicitly a map of the Roman world. --sony-youthtalk 12:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. Not sure that Isidore was Roman either, really. I think he's been called the last Roman and the first Spaniard. 83.38.59.125 12:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Origins of the term

I have done a draft rewrite of the Origins of the Term section (bar the Modern Usage section) and enclose it below for comments. Refs aren't shown. It is less than half the length of the current version. I feel it contains all the important info and that readers are more likely to reach the end of it than the current version. What do you think?

Origins of the term

Ancient terms

The earliest known name for the island group comes from ancient Greek writings. Several sources from around 150 BC to AD 70 include fragments of the travel writings of the ancient Greek Pytheas around 320 BC, which used the terms "Albion and Ierne" and have been described as referring to Great Britain and Ireland as the Pretanic Islands. Greek writers used the term αι Βρεττανιαι (which has been translated into English as the Brittanic Isles by modern authors) and the peoples of these islands of Prettanike were called the Ρρεττανοι, Priteni or Pretani. These names derived from a "Celtic language" term which is likely to have reached Pytheas from the Gauls who may have used it as their term for the inhabitants of the islands. Many ancient writers, including Strabo, do not refer to the islands by a group name, instead using separate names for the two islands. Pliny the Elder, writing around AD 70, describes the islands he considers to be Britanniae (plural of Britannia), including Great Britain, Ireland, The Orkneys, smaller islands such as the Hebrides, Isle of Man, Anglesey, possibly one of the Friesan Islands, and islands that have been identified as Ushant and Sian. He also includes the island of Thule, which has not been definitively identified but is most often defined as Iceland. Ptolemy included essentially the same main islands in the Britannias. He first described Ireland, which he called Hibernia. Second was the island of Great Britain, which he called Albion. Book II, Chapters 1 and 2 of his Geography are respectively titled as Hibernia, Island of Britannia and Albion, Island of Britannia. Quite quickly after the imposition of Roman rule in most of Great Britain, Britannia ceased to have any collective meaning for the archipelago. Instead, Brittania became the preferred Roman term for the island of Great Britain, and in particular the province of Britain in the south-east.

Dark Ages to the Middle Ages

During the Dark Ages, there are no known references to collective terms for the archipelago. Oceani insulae was used as a general term for Atlantic islands by several writers. Meantime, Britannia had remained the Latin name for Great Britain after the fall of the Roman Empire and through the entire Middle Ages.

The Early Modern period

During the years of Tudor rule and then with the death of Queen Elizabeth I in 1603 the idea of Britannia and the term "British" became increasingly politically important. At the same time as the Union of the Crowns in Great Britain and the effective Tudor conquest of Ireland, colonial and commercial competition began vis-à-vis other European powers. According to Frances Yates, John Dee used the term Brytish Iles in 1577 in his Memorials, a combination of a practical guide to navigation and a political polemic. Dee is also attributed as coining the terms British Empire and British Ocean (a nautical region extending north-west from Britain, encompassing Iceland, Greenland and possibly as far as North America) and for building a case that Tudor (and subsequently Stuart) authority rested on a solid historical basis. Current scholarly opinion is that "his imperial vision was simply propaganda and antiquarianism, " The Oxford English Dictionary states that the first published use in English of "British Isles" was by Peter Heylin (or Heylyn) in his Microcosmus: a little description of the great world in 1621, a collection of his lectures on historical geography. He explains his use of the term with regard to Albion (modern-day Great Britain) on the basis that "ancient writers call this island a British Island". He extended this reasoning to include Ireland as a British Island also, citing the observation of the 1st century Roman writer Tacitus, who observed that the habits and disposition of the people in Ireland were not much unlike the "Brittaines", although Tacitus himself had not used a collective term for the island group. Recent scholarly work has emphasised that political considerations rather than purely geographic ones coloured Helwyn's writings, which were part of the emerging terminology of the new British state. Description like "British Isles", or similar terms in Latin, also started to be used by mapmakers from the late 16th century onwards. Gerardus Mercator, who leant heavily on his friend Dee as a source for his maps, was the most notable. Similarly Ortelius, in his atlas derived from Mercator´s original maps, used a Latin title that translates as "A Representation of England, Scotland and Ireland, or Britannica's islands". Although other mapmakers (for example the Schagen Map) continued to use descriptions like "Angliae, Scotiae et Hiberniae", the precedent set by Mercator and Ortelius (who were probably the most influential mapmakers of the period), and the ongoing changes in the political situation in Great Britain and Ireland during the 17th century, meant that the term British Isles was very commonly used in maps by the late 17th century and quickly became near universal.--Triglyph2 18:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, it's certainly worth either condensing the arguments or making a lot of the text footnotes. There are some points in the first part that I think need attention, and I'm working on pulling revisions together from secondary sources. A couple of points: "the province of Britain in the south-east." included all of Britain except the Scottish Highlands, later drawing back to Hadrian's Wall: those Geordies would be surprised to find that they're in the south-east. The Dark Ages / Early middle ages saw Britain / Prydain being confined to Welsh usage, with that name replacing the original, as well as the Latin terms continuing in use. Will think about some other issues. .. dave souza, talk 18:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Nice work, but I would reduce everything before "The early-modern period." It needlessly clouds the later section since for the majority of before Dee/Heylin no collective term was used. I'd also add a (short) paragraph on current opinion in Ireland as it is a part of the history of the term. I would also avoid reference to the "Dark Ages" as it is a pejorative term - remember that Ireland, one of the islands in the group was going through it golden age at that time. My offering for a draft would be something like the following:
Earliest texts record the name of the major islands as Albion for Britain and Ierne for Ireland, without reference to a group name. Their earliest inhabitants are described as Priteni, a name was derived from a Gaullish description based on their practice of painting their bodies blue. By the time of the intended Roman conquest of the group, Roman and Roman-Greek sources record a group name for the islands based on this name. This first occurs in Greek as αι Βρεττανιαι and later in Latin as Britanniae or Insula Britannica. However, on the failing of successive Roman invasions to conquer any more than southern part of Albion, this name quickly became associated with the area south of the Roman frontier, the Roman province of Britannia. This practice continued so that early medieval authors, both indigenous and those from across the European peninsula, no longer referred to the islands by a group name, but merely describe each island by the general term oceani insulae (an island of the ocean). By the 9th century CE, Albion had in turn reduced to mean only modern-day Scotland, approximately equal to the area north of the Roman frontier and Britannia came to be even more strongly associated with inhabitants south of this line, modern-day England and Wales.
During the years of Tudor rule in England and Wales, the idea of Britannia and the term "British" became increasingly politically important. This coincided with the assuming by King of England (and Wales) of the title of the King of Ireland in 1542 and the personal union of the crowns of England and Scotland under James (Stuart) VI and I in 1603. According to Frances Yates, John Dee used the term Brytish Iles in 1577 in his Memorials, a combination of a practical guide to navigation and a political polemic. Dee, a counsel the the English Crown, is also attributed as coining the terms British Empire and British Ocean (a nautical region extending north-west from Britain, encompassing Iceland, Greenland and possibly as far as North America), and for building a case that Tudor (and subsequently Stuart) authority rested on a solid historical basis. Current scholarly opinion is that "his imperial vision was simply propaganda and antiquarianism."
The Oxford English Dictionary states that the first published use in English of "British Isles" was by Peter Heylin (or Heylyn) in his Microcosmus: a little description of the great world in 1621, a collection of his lectures on historical geography. He explains his use of the term with regard to Albion/Britain (at the time more commonly known as the kingdoms of England and Scotland) on the basis that "ancient writers call this island a British Island". He extended this reasoning to include Ireland as a British Island also, citing the observation of the 1st century Roman writer Tacitus, who observed that the habits and disposition of the people in Ireland were not much unlike the "Brittaines", although Tacitus himself had not used a collective term for the island group. Recent scholarly work has emphasised that political considerations rather than purely geographic ones coloured Helwyn's writings, which were part of the emerging terminology of the new British state.
Description like British Isles, or similar terms in Latin, started to be used by mapmakers from the late 16th century onwards. Gerardus Mercator, who leant heavily on his friend Dee as a source for his maps, was the most notable. Similarly Ortelius, in his atlas derived from Mercator's original maps, used a Latin title that translates as "A Representation of England, Scotland and Ireland, or Britannia's islands". Although other mapmakers, for example the Schagen Map, continued to use descriptions like "Angliae, Scotiae et Hiberniae" (England, Scotland and Ireland), the precedent set by Mercator and Ortelius, who were probably the most influential mapmakers of the period, and the ongoing changes in the political situation in Britain and Ireland during the 17th century, meant that the term British Isles was very commonly used in maps by the late 17th century and quickly became near universal.
Today, the term is generally disliked in Ireland and is discouraged by the Government of Ireland. Common practice is to avoid use of the term in political discourse in favour of neologisms or euphemisms such as "these islands." Recently, an educational publisher in Ireland announced that it would remove the term from its school atlases and the pan-island Rubgy team was renamed from the "British Isles" (more commonly called the British Lions) to the "British and Irish Lions."
--sony-youthtalk 22:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Good work - I think this is an improvement on what is there at the moment. Much more readable, and with a more appropriate level of detail. And it has a dispassionate feel, where the present section feels more like a ceasefire line. BTW - I always thought the Dark Ages was so named because we have so few sources of knowledge to shine light on it, in comparison with the periods before and after, rather than because it was thought to be dark in character. But it probably isn't an appropriate label for Ireland in the period, so you're right not to use it. --Triglyph2 22:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

<reduce indent> The information I've been finding in secondary sources did not support much of what was certain arguments in the "Ancient terms" section, so I've redrafted parts of it with references. The assertion that there was no collective term before the intended Roman conquest is on shaky ground, and in my opinion the early term Priteni with Celtic language roots either reflected a native usage, or influenced development of local terms for Britain as well as the Latin terms. Ptolemy's map appears to have had a significant effect later on. Having said that, much of the detail in the ancient section could usefully be moved to another main article, if a brief summary can be agreed. .. dave souza, talk 23:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC) revised 00:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

If all of these people were Priteni then that would make sense - but were they (straight question not retorical)? I wasn't sure what date to set for the beginning of a group name, hence only "By the time of the ..." It would need rewriting (as would the final paragraph, to soften it up a bit.) For me, the most interesting part is what follows the Roman invasion as that seems to define later meaning of what a Priteni (by that time, approximately Briton) was. Regarding Ptolomy, yes, but if so why did Helyn not just say, "Ancient people called these islands British Islands (Britannic Insulae)", instead of first starting with Britain and then expanding to British Ireland? God knows, from Ptolemy he would appear to have clear evidience.
Whether the Romans influenced the use of "Brit-"-like words is up for debate. I cited this above, but its shown in the Blaeu Atlas of Scotland in 1654:
“ "Now I could prove the antiquity of this word Britannia by many, and indeed most reliable witnesses, if the matter were controversial; and that it was not corrupted by Caesar, but handed down from older times, and pure ..." ”
--sony-youthtalk 08:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
By the time the Romans got to Britain the Priteni had seen three or four subsequent invasions/migrations, at least in Ireland. The term was potentially already a misnomer by the time Caesar landed. See the O'Rahilly model. 83.38.59.125 11:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
From the 1940s, much contested nowadays. dave souza, talk 11:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Much contested or not universally accepted? There's a big difference. 83.38.59.125 12:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Mini-break for another summary

Very valid concerns – one of the red herrings worrying the author of the above atlas from 1654, at an interesting time, may have been the Etymologiae of Isidore of Seville which Snyder p12 cites as saying that Britto (an alternarive form of Britanni) derived from brutus, unwieldy or dull. Which may relate to the Brutus of Troy legend from Historia Britonum and Historia Regum Britanniae which gave an ancient genealogy for the claims of the Tudors and the Stuarts. I'll try to pull together my thoughts, but briefly:
around 50 BC both Prettanikē meaning the group (consistent with reports of Pytheas c 320 BC) and Britannia meaning what Caesar's attacked are attested. The Latin term becomes associated with the main island then with the province as it shrinks back to Hadrian's wall, while cognates of Priteni are used by the Brythons and in specific variants refer to tribes in both Ireland and Scotland. (Priteni remains in use in Roman Britain to describe their northern neighbours, according to Cunliffe and Snyder, north of the Antonine Wall according to Snyder which implies AD 144 onwards. Around AD 300 the term Picts is introduced for these people.) In medieval times Britons become known as Welsh and confined to western areas, but at the same time Britannia continues as a term for the island, with significant value in terms of ancestry. No collective term until Ptolemy's Geographia translated into Latin around 1400. The Welsh Tudors lay claim to a British identity in furtherance of claims to Scotland and possibly to legitimise their control over what had been the Lordship of Ireland, which Henry VIII makes a kingdom to retain claims to control post-Reformation. Their legal adviser introduces British Isles as part of his arguments for an English Empire to intrude on the claims of the Spanish and Portuguese Empires. James VI proclaims the claim to Great Brittaine when unifying English and Scottish crowns, but doesn't get a kingdom of GB. However the concepts remain, and British Isles becomes popular along with a British identity following the 1707 creation of the Kingdom of Great Britain. The period 1600-1700 has also seen increasing Irish nationalism and disaffection with English rule: recurring arguments and secession of most of Ireland in 1922 leads to irritation or resentment by many with Irish identity who (increasingly recently?) find the now commonplace term British Isles objectionable, and either avoid its use or promote alternatives which have yet to catch on. Don't miss the next exciting episode. .. dave souza, talk 11:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Replacement in Ireland of P-Celts by Q-Celts is relevant and not mentioned here, or in the article. While hard to date, many references describe how P-Celts, i.e. the Pretani and others, were almost entirely replaced in Ireland by Q-Celts in a later migration into Ireland. Even if the replacement was a cultural rather than population replacement, it's relevant in understanding the background to when the Pretanic Islands description was potentially a correct description for the whole archipelago and the time when it had become a seeming misnomer applied by Greek geographers based on 2nd or 3rd hand knowledge and ignoring changes in Ireland. These Q-Celtic Gaels, who took their name from what the Welsh called them, had essentially entirely taken over Ireland by the beginning of the historic period. 83.38.59.125 11:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Further reading has turned up a number of references that suggest that the Q-celts may have been the original Celtic inhabitants and that the later Brythonic P-Celts never/hardly penetrated Ireland. That is the opposite of what I have read in other books. Does anyone have any sources with good discussion of this? It seems important. 83.38.59.125 17:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

BBC Usage - changing with the breeze

Hi again. Just an interesting aside on BBC usage. One of the sites that used to use the "British Isles" in a way that excluded the Republic of Ireland but which then changed its text by replacing "British Isles" with "the United Kingdom" was the site http://www.bbc.co.uk/voices/recordings/ . I was checking these - and a few other pages - on the Wayback Machine when I realised that the updated description was wrong, since the page included the CI and IoM, which legally aren't in the UK at all.....so I wrote to the page owner to inform him....and to see what the reaction would be. Here is my note

Hi,
the above referenced page (http://www.bbc.co.uk/voices/recordings/)
says it is about the UK. Neither the Channel Islands nor the Isle of
Man are in the UK, but they are shown as such in your map.
Regards
H

Here is the response.

Dear H,
Thank you for your email and interest in the Voices website.
The text on the recordings page has now been amended.
Best wishes,
The BBC Voices Team

The page now lists the program as allowing listeners to "Listen in to the diverse voices of the United Kingdom, Channel Islands and Isle of Man". Interesting to see the struggles that the media has with the terminology. Poor BBC! I wonder if the page (and the other pages that suddenly changed their text once listed on WP) has received previous mails like this. Given the number of pages that suddenly changed, it would be a surprise to me if it was. However, at least this time it's visible. Right, that's me off again. I guess this would count as OR if I included it in the article!  ;-) Hughsheehy 12:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't put your stationary away just yet, Hugh! I see they include two recordings from the Donegal - not UK, not IoM, not CI. Oh ... could we see a return to British Isles?? "The answer, my friend, is blowing in the wind ..." --sony-youthtalk 16:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I feel they're probably about right now. Including a couple of people from "over the border" would seem reasonable, especially if they bumped into them in Derry/Londonderry, which seems possible. There are no Dublin, Cork, Kerry (or whatever) accents or recordings, just as there are no Dutch or Danes (many of whom speak better English than many English people). The issue is really illustrative of the difficulty of UK-related terminology. Ireland has the Ireland/Republic of Ireland issue, but that's trivial in comparison with England/Britain/Great Britain/United Kingdom/British Islands/(British Isles) problem. Must be a nightmare trying to keep it all straight. Hughsheehy 10:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
You bring an error to their attention; they thank you for doing so and correct the error; and you mock them for "changing with the breeze". How insulting can you get. Naomhain 09:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I don't consider that I was/am being insulting to the BBC at all, but I can certainly be extremely insulting when I try. Hughsheehy 23:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
It must be nice to have a skill you can be so proud of and which is so useful in a collaborative venture such as this. Mucky Duck 10:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Mucky, your message is so full of unsupported assumptions it's hard to know where to start. However, "Talk pages are not for general chatter; please keep discussions on talk pages on the topic of how to improve the associated article." I'm done here. Hughsheehy 11:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Chill everyone. --sony-youthtalk 11:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Diodorus/Cunliffe

A question again on Diodorus. I just removed some text from the article that ref'd Diodorus. The text seems to me to have been an almost verbatim quote from Cunliffe. However, reading the original text (in translation) of Diodorus doesn't support the quote as it was in the article (or in Cunliffe). I can't see that Diodorus ever mentioned Ireland in the relevant section...which would seem to be neccessary to qualify his text as a comprehensive description of the British Isles rather than just of Britain (unless we assert that Cunliffe or Diodorus was using an alternate definition of the British Isles ;-)) Anyway, there was also a question from long ago on a Diodorus reference to Iris being Ireland - in a different section of the book. The translation I have says that Iris is "somewhere in Britain". Interestingly, Cunliffe also has a book on Pytheas' voyage where it's pretty unambiguous that Cunliffe identifies Pytheas' Thule as Iceland. Hughsheehy 11:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, sorry to be a bit slow coming back on this. As you indicate, it's closely based on Cunliffe's book on Pytheas' voyage as cited, and while it's obviously a secondary source, precisely what is meant isn't absolutely clear. Your interpretation of the translation you have is arguably original research from a primary source in terms of WP:A, so rather than include a long discussion of the point, I'm content to have this part deleted as you have done. The discussions of Strabo allegedly not using a collective term and what Britannia meant suffer from the same problems, so taking the same approach I've trimmed them. Will shortly provide sourced statements about developments of terms during Roman rule and its aftermath. Since Oceani insulae is also an overlapping ancient term I've modified the first heading, and focussed the Oceani insulae section on that term using the reference you provided earlier: it would be preferable to find a secondary source for that point. ... dave souza, talk 18:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Saying that something isn't in a book that's existed for hundreds of years and that anyone can read is NOT OR, and besides, Diodorus is a secondary source. Ditto if Strabo didn't use a collective term. If he did, then it's easy to reference from a book that's two thousand years old. Reading and referencing existing texts is NOT Original Research. As for Oceani Insulae, Pomponius is also a secondary source. Hughsheehy 10:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Also, Pomponius called them Islands of the Northern Ocean, so the edit as it now stands is wrong. Hughsheehy 12:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

good article

congrats to everyone who has worked on this article, it is now classed as a good article. i enjoyed reading it alot and found it passed all the criteria. if you wish to nominate other articles, please see WP:GAN Themcman1 13:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

an article that may be of interest

A United Kingdom? Maybe

Thanks for the link. Interesting read - although 'jury still out' is par for the genetic studies course, and it doesn't have links to the original studies.--Shtove 00:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Highly interesting article! Suggests that the Anglo-Saxon myth in England needs to be significantly revisited. Hughsheehy 10:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Likewise with the Celtic myth of Ireland. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.72.94.45 (talk) 23:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC).
Genes. Pah! It all bogus. As the article itself says: "Dr. Oppenheimer said genes 'have no bearing on cultural history.'" All of these are myth. They're just "imagined communities." But that's what gives them reality, and will again when imagined differently once more. --sony-youthtalk 23:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, I take it that the majority of an island population will have descended from the aborigines. Stands to reason. So, the gene stuff is useful for putting the celt/anglo-saxon thing aside.--Shtove 23:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I might be wrong, but I suspect it'll be easier for the "Celtic fringe" countries (or whatever one should call them these days) to accept being Iberians than it will be for the English. There has been too much history of the master race idea in England for that to be easy. Goodbye Anglo-Saxon finance, hello Iberian business culture. Funny really! In any case, unless we can get decent historical references, which the article doesn't have (and I suspect the books don't either) it isn't really usable material here. Also, the articles are highly limited in their context and don't discuss who else is descended from the same source population - even if that idea has any validity, which is doubtful. Could be that half of the Atlantic coast is heavily influenced by the same population and anyway, you don't have to go too far back until we're all descended from the same people. Hughsheehy 08:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
"Fringe" - it always makes me laugh. Look at a map, the "fringe" is the greater surface area. But seriously, Hugh, look at the ex-pat culture in Southern Spain - its a return to their roots! Although once again words are funny - always ex-pats, never emigrants. --sony-youthtalk 12:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

<reduce indent> More to the point, I seem to recall that it was always a part of "legend" that the population of Ireland (or a large part of it) came from Spain anyway, and the scepticism about all these dark haired Irish people being descended from tall blond celts was also extensively discussed, so why are all these articles making the news...as front page news (AFAIK) on the IHT and NYT. Seems (a) hardly news and (b) hardly important. Hughsheehy 17:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Milesians (Irish) is pretty good. The "nuh-uh" POV on the Celts in Ireland has been going strong since the mid-'80s.--Shtove 19:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
English and Irish eyes are smiling :) .. dave souza, talk 15:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Except Wales smothered England's rugby team in Cardiff today, and France pipped Ireland to the Six Nations championship. Sigh. But at least Ireland beat Pakistan in the Cricket world cup - wha' the f..? Smiley smile.--Shtove 02:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Jordannes

In the same archepelogio Jordannes also put the Isle of Man, the Orkney and Thule, which this author puts as the Shetland Islands, thus fitting with other descriptions of the British Isles. The Isle of Man is put in between the two greater islands - spot on. Shetland (called Thule, so maybe Iceland) is put to the north of them - spot on. Also north of them, in an artic region, is Scandia - Scandanavia - spot on (although this is decribed as an island too, so maybe Iceland?). These facts all add up to them being the Britain and Ireland.

This part does not add up though: "And there are two not far from the neighborhood of the Strait of Gades, one the Blessed Isle and another called the Fortunate."

"... not far from the neighborhood of the Strait of Gades ..." - strange. --sony-youthtalk 14:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the original latin and at this translation (http://www.northvegr.org/lore/jgoth/001.php), it's hard to be sure that the blessed and the fortunate isles are Britain and Ireland. Other opinions have also been expressed, and those places ARE near the straits. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isles_of_the_Blest . I don't know what Jordanes meant, just it's not obvious he meant what was in the article.. Hughsheehy 14:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Further, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madeira_Islands#History, which has Madeira being described as two islands, called Blessed. Hughsheehy 14:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
And indications here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canary_Islands#Pre-colonial_times that the Canaries may also have been the places in question. I also cannot see any reference in the relevant section in Jordanes to any "archipelago" . Hughsheehy 14:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
You're right. My bad. I read the "however, it has other islands deeper within its own tides" as referring to an island group of Blessed and Fortunate. On proper reading, however, its clear that "Oceani insulas" is just a blanket term. Essentially any scrap of land in the Atlantic. --sony-youthtalk 15:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
The text isn't very clear in that area. I suspect that "within its own tides" means something about the fact of them being in internal seas, rather than in the open ocean. Not sure, but that's my take. Hughsheehy 16:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Repetition in the Classical section of the "names through the ages section"

Hi. I believe there is significant repition in the section mentioned above. I'm going to try to remove the redundancy and will ask for a quick review to check once I'm done on the section. I hope to shorten it quite a bit. Hughsheehy 11:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, I have had a go at shortening that section. I believe that it contained quite a bit of overlap between paragraphs and also - in the section on the Roman Province of Britannia - some excessive detail that was not directly relevant (although it was interesting). I hope that the editors who have contributed to this section can have a look and examine my changes. I believe that dave souza and sony youth were the most active in that area. Hughsheehy 10:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
At first glance looks good subject to a couple of minor points I've tried to clarify. The transition to post-roman kingdoms with a "Brittonic" identity expressed by Gildas and Patrick (the British saint!) is fascinating, more to do with "British" than BI so I'll try to add a concise mention. .. dave souza, talk 11:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Two more things;
1) Can someone please check the Greek text in the above mentioned section? I'm not sure that the Greek words say what they say they say, so it'd be nice for someone to check.
2) I'll try to shorten the "British Isles" section of the "HIstory of the Names" section next. I hope for more forbearance. Hughsheehy 10:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh DEAR. How does one do embarrassed faces on WP. SORRY! Hughsheehy 12:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Maps & Lily

I have found a version of the cartouches of the Lily map online at http://www.geog.port.ac.uk/webmap/hantscat/html/lily1.htm but the cartouche on Hibernia is not reproduced. Anyone got a version of that map? Also interesting to note that Thule is AGAIN included in British Isles (now in the mid 16th century) as being the "last of all" and is given a latitude of 63 degrees, which is close to the actual latitude and is in any case north of the Faroes. Hughsheehy 13:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Title of the Lily map (on the map as opposed to what people call it) translates (IMHO) as "A new description of the island of Britain which now contains the Kingdoms of England and Scotland with Ireland adjacent". Britanniae Insulae seems to me to be singular, genitive, for both words. Plural would, I think, be the wrong case for continet and for insula. A description of plural islands would take genitive...insularum. Also, why would Ireland be "adjacent" if it's included?
Is this clearly including Ireland in the British Isles? I'm not sure it is. I'm not sure it's even using a term like "British Isles", but may just be "island of Britain". It seems (like the fuss over Athelstan) to be a possible error in Latin translation. Latin scholars please?!? Hughsheehy 14:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Following on. At this site http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~genmaps/genfiles/COU_files/ENG/aaEng/lily_britannia_1548.html, the map is titled "Britannia Insula", which is "The Island of Britain", not "the British Isles". Hughsheehy 14:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
That's the site I took the title from: the heading to the page says "Britannia Insula. 1548 George Lily (the first printed map known of Britain)", but the cartouche on the Lily map itself clearly says "BRITANNÆ INSVLÆ", then in smaller lettering "QVÆ NVNC ANGLIÆ ET SCOTIÆ" followed by "REGNA CONTINET CVM HIBERNIA ADIACENTE NOVA DESCRIPTIO" on the next line – it's noticeable that the"E" parts of the "Æ" show fainter than the "A". I make no claims of knowledge of Latin, and bow to your expertise as to how this is to be translated. .. dave souza, talk 17:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
And further, one of Lily's other maps, of Germany, is called "Nova Germaniae Descriptio". This is singular genitive, "description of Germany". The same structure is in place on the map of Britain above. It's of the island of Britain, not the islands of Britain. Hughsheehy 14:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Of course Germany was multiple states at that time, but that doesn't affect the correct Latin translation, whatever that may be. .. dave souza, talk 17:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps it was, but it was still "Germania". Besides, look at the later Ortelius map that's already in the article...it's of "Britannicarum insularum", plural genitive. Lily's map is today called a map of the British Isles, but the actual title is a map of the island of Britain, with Ireland adjacent. Hughsheehy 22:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

<reduce indent> Thanks for the clarification. While into translations, can you explain De insulis Britannicis, Albione, quæ est Anglia, & Hibernia, & de cuiutatibus carum in genere? Note that the lower case "c" and "e" look very similar in the original, so "carum" might be "earum": the map image (rather low rez) is at http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~genmaps/genfiles/COU_files/ENG/aaEng/munster_england_1550.htm and the first line below the rather squashed looking map appears to read "ANglia & Hibernia apellatæ funt (or perhaps sunt) olim insulæ Brittanicæ, fic (or sic) enim & Ptolemæus (line break) uocæt eas:" Make what you can of that! Ta, .. dave souza, talk 22:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, quickly and without a dictionary... De (preposition) takes ablative (i think), which would make this something like "about the britannic islands, Albion, which is England, and Ireland, and about their cities in something". The second one is something like "Anglia and Hibernia are at that time the Britannic Islands, such as Ptolemy called them"...but don't hold me to it yet... Hughsheehy 11:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I was pretty good there! As far as I can see my original translation holds up pretty well. The "in genere" in the first translation just means "in kind" (look the phrase up on google) and the second translation seems to me to be about right too. The way it reads, it's saying "this is what Ptolemy called them at that time"...as a historical name not a current name. The Muller book was a re-issue of Ptolemy and I'm sure it called Sycthia just that, and probably didn't mention Russia at all. It was a historical document, not a current map. Hughsheehy 13:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Mercator, Dee and Ortelius

The statements "Mercator.... who leant heavily on his friend Dee as a source for his maps,[citation needed] was the most notable. Similarly Ortelius, in his atlas derived from Mercator´s original maps" seem to be contradicted by http://www.bl.uk/onlinegallery/themes/mapsandviews/mercator.html which says Mercator's atlas was put together 1570-75 using "numerous maps from an atlas published in 1570 by his friend and rival Abraham Ortelius" and "The maps of the British Isles, from his wall map of 1564, are probably based on surveys by John Elder, a disreputable Scottish Catholic priest, that – much against Mercator’s will – were intended to assist an invasion of England and the overthrow of Elizabeth." before mentioning that "One of Mercator's principal sources was almost certainly George Lily's map, printed in Rome in 1546". If we accept the earlier statement that "According to Frances Yates, John Dee used the term Brytish Iles in 1577 in his Memorials", all these map sources predate Dee's translation of the term, so this paragraph about maps logically follows on from the paragraph about rediscovery of Ptolemy's maps rather than being shunted to the end of the section. The importance of Britannia in English political terms dates back to the 12th century, and I'm currently working on a brief opening paragraph that can precede the Ptolemy paragraph. .. dave souza, talk 17:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Later comment. The Mercator map on the referenced page isn't (if i remember correctly from seeing in in other places) actually called a map of the British isles on the map itself. Again, it's called that now, but it wasn't called that then. Hughsheehy 17:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
No problem with them being also sources. Dee and Mercator went to college together and were friends. Multiple sources describe how Dee and Mercator shared information. I'll see if I can dig them up again. Hughsheehy 19:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I've tried out adding an opening paragraph (trimmed from a larger draft!) covering political usage of "Britannia", and moving the 1550s - 1570s maps to follow on from the Ptolemy resurfacing bit: the first example (from Münster) depends on translation of the Latin. None of the Mercator maps from the list of links or at http://www.bl.uk/onlinegallery/themes/mapsandviews/mercatorlge.html appear to show a collective name for the islands – is there a source justifying his usage being "similarly" to Ortelius? I've left out the reference to him getting info from Dee, which was now out of sequence. The reason for it being there is unclear, though it did hint that Mercator had taken the "British Isles" idea from Dee's usage of 1577, a possibility which seems rather out of sequence. .. dave souza, talk 01:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
It's still too long. More comments will take a while! Hughsheehy 11:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I've had a go a trimming it, your turn. :) .. dave souza, talk 13:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Where understatement becomes dishonesty

'Sometimes'? So how is it that none of the weather forecasts over in Britain use the term "British Isles" anymore? It is not just in Ireland that the term is objected to. And in Ireland it most certainly is not merely objected to "sometimes". The very absence of the term in the vast majority of references to Britain and Ireland as a group in the Irish media is, in fact, proof that the term "British Isles" is objected to on a quotidian basis: often. Consistent non-use of a phrase common in another society is a statement of rejection in itself. Whether that is the "Six Counties" for "the province"; "Derry" for "Londonderry"; "Ireland and Britain" for "British Isles" a statement is being made. Denial does not negate the widespread and regular objection to "British Isles" in Ireland. Neither do your political views. The degree to which this article is permeated by a British jingoistic agenda undermines the entire wikipedia project. There is no honesty in this article about the true degree of avoidance of the term in Ireland. 89.100.195.42 12:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually, you'll find that even RTE uses the term "British Isles" rather a lot (edited after reviewing the RTE links). You might not like it, but they use it. As for the weather forecasts in Britain, if you can find a reference that shows they don't use the term any more then that might be relevant for the article. Meantime, look at http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=%22british+isles%22+site%3Awww.rte.ie&btnG=Search . Note, many of the refs to "British Isles" on the RTE site are quotes, but several aren't. As for denying anything, I don't believe the article denies the objection to the term at all. There is certainly objection and there are references to it. Hughsheehy 13:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
'rather a lot'- I think not. Please get your facts straight first. Moreover, don't attempt to misquote me: I specifically stated that the term is conspicuously absent from 'the vast majority of references to Britain and Ireland as a group in the Irish media'. Read those words again: vast majority. That is what I have said. That is all that is needed to dispute the claim in this article that the phrase is only "sometimes" objected to. Now, let us take your standard, RTÉ, and examine this:
1. Your chosen search of '"british isles" site:www.rte.ie' gives a mere 45 results, many of which you concede are quotes.
2. Just to put the "often used" part in context, a search for www.rte.ie gives 2,230,000 results [5]
3. More comparably, and in contrast to your search, a similar Google search to yours except with 'Ireland and Britain'[6] gives 275 results, while the same one of 'Britain and Ireland'[7] gives 407 results.
4. So, how does this support your evident contention that the term is objected to only "sometimes" in Ireland when those two alternatives alone give a result of 682:45, or a ratio or more than 15:1, against the use of "British Isles" and in favour of two of its alternatives? This result is, as I said, proof of 'The very absence of the term in the vast majority of references to Britain and Ireland as a group in the Irish media'. And RTÉ is your chosen standard, not mine.
One other comment to Mr/Ms/Mrs 89.100.195.42. If you can provide references that support your feelings on the true degree of avoidance of the term in Ireland, please do so. I'm sure it could be included in the article. It would also make it un-neccessary to accuse us of following a "British jingoistic agenda". Hughsheehy 13:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
See above, and also the following Google phrase searches of Irish pages which confirm beyond doubt that the term "British Isles" is a minority usage on all Irish medium on the internet and that the use of alternatives therefore reflect the widespread and often objection to the term "British Isles" in Ireland- a fact which this wikipedia article denies:
"British Isles" = 44,800 results [8]
"Britain and Ireland"= 62,900 results [9]
"Ireland and Britain" = 36,600 results [10]
""UK and Ireland" = 87,700 results [11]
Therefore, on Irish webpages three of the alternatives alone to "British Isles" show that British Isles is far and away a minority term in Ireland: 187,200 results versus 44,800 results. By understating this reality and saying the term was objected to only "sometimes" in Ireland, this wikipedia article is being dishonest. If anything, then, the term "British Isles" is often objected to in Ireland and it is sometimes used. This article is deliberately misconstruing the reality. Why? Given this, what is the source for "sometimes" objected to? And doing Google searches is your chosen standard, it must be added. 89.100.195.42 16:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
There is no "You" on Wikipedia. There may not even be truth, there is only verifiability. See below for futher comment. Hughsheehy 16:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
The degree to which this article is permeated by a British jingoistic agenda undermines the entire wikipedia project. There is no honesty in this article... Er, that's a whole lot of British and Irish editors you've managed to attack. You might want to read up on WP:AGF and WP:VER. You might also want to change your username to a permitted one as per this policy: [12]. Bastun 14:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Then again, I might not.... When those of you wilfully denying the strength of objection to the term in Ireland can give evidence that the term is only "sometimes" (as opposed to 'often') objected to in Ireland you will stand on solid ground. Until those of you who are denying give this proof- and as the above statistics indicate, you will not be able to- you could only remain in denial of the reality regarding Irish opinions because it clashes with some cherished ethno-cultural-political beliefs of your own or, dare I say it, some historically privileged social cleavage from which you come. 89.100.195.42 16:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Then again, maybe you should...and also read the archives of these discussion pages. We've been through this before. In any case, you're only indicating that the term is not often used in Ireland (which the article clearly states in the first paragraph) and not that it is objected to. As for "wilfully" denying it, I can't speak for everyone that has ever edited this page, but I won't wilfully ignore any decent reference you find. Find a reference that shows that the term is "often" objected to and it can be used. Otherwise it is just your opinion. It might be true, but it's not verifiable. Hughsheehy 16:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Stop. 89.100.195.42, you are talking to three Irish editors. We know what the situation is, but until a reputable third party writes that it is so, we cannot put it here. If you want to help, please help us find the necessary published evidence. Our hands are tied. --sony-youthtalk 17:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, those "statistics" mean absolutely zilch. For the reasons why - read the talk page archives here. Bastun 17:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, part of 89.100's argument seems to be that we should say "often rejected in the ROI" rather than imply only sometimes as the current wording does. I seem to recall a previous version that stated as much and which no one really took issue with. There are plenty of supporting references, if not one from the article introduction (do we really need all five citations for this one sentence?), then one from here should do nicely.—eric 19:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
That's true. I had passed over it with all that came after. "Sometimes" implies rarity. --sony-youthtalk 21:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Reading the current intro, it says " is sometimes considered objectionable, mainly in the Republic of Ireland and among nationalists in Northern Ireland". Presumably the proposal would be " is often considered objectionable in the Republic of Ireland and among nationalists in Northern Ireland", since such objections outwith Ireland appear to be rare, generally coming from Irish people. .. dave souza, talk 21:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd be okay with it. --sony-youthtalk 22:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
That set of refs from EricR is new! Great refs! As for whether we need all 5 of the refs to demonstrate that the term is considered objectionable, I´d have to say "Yes", at least for the moment. There is a huge history on this page of denying that fact, and refs have been the only way that worked to counter denial. The other ref that´s great is the Nicholas Canny ref stating that "British Isles" was not a normal usage up to 1650. Hughsheehy 07:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Note that Canny is saying that it wasn't normal usage during the period of his book, which happens to extend to 1650, rather than it coming in about then. Snyder cites Linda Colley as demonstrating that it was the wars vs. France that "encouraged Britain's inhabitants in the eighteenth century – be they from Cornwall, Wales, England or Scotland – to accept the terms of the1707 Act of Union and begin defining themselves collectively as 'Britons'.", and notes Irish nationalism as paving "the way for other 'Celtic' separatist groups in the nineteenth century" . ... dave souza, talk 11:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
That's possible, but at the moment all that's there is a statement that it wasn't in common use until at least after that period. If there's a source for later, let's have it! (subsequently signed, forgot the first time)Hughsheehy 13:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
HI. I just removed the "in relation to" phrase from the intro and made it "often" instead of "sometimes". There is sufficient ref now to support "often". It's still not "always"..not by a long way. Hughsheehy 15:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

<reduce indent> I see that Mark Thomas has reverted "sometimes", and been re-reverted to "often" my text edited on rereading the edit made by sony by sony-youth. Note, as previously on this talk page, counting refs on websites was not acceptable for the level of objection to change from "sometimes" to become "often", but what was and is acceptable is reputable secondary sources discussing the objection to the term. We now have several such reputable references from the references mentioned here above by Eric R. These clearly support that the the term is "often" objected to, leading these academic writers to try to find acceptable alternative terms. These references discuss use of the term and have been published in Ireland, the UK and the USA. Pointing out that the term is "sometimes" used by RTE does not negate that it is "often" objected to. Both could be true and apparently are. Hughsheehy 12:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Hugh, can you pass me links to those refs? I cannot see them. Just to clear it up, Mark changed "often" to "sometimes." I took "sometimes" out and didn't put "often" back in just so as to avoid the whole "sometimes" vs. "often" thing (hazy words, when does "sometimes" become "often"?). I didn't mean to imply "always" by doing so. Also when I referred to the RTE site in my edit summary, it was meant in dialog with Mark rather than as 'proof.'
Can you leave a link to the refs on this page, possibly under a different header so that others can find them? You said to look on this page in you edit to the naming dispute article. --sony-youthtalk 13:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
(response to original post)

So how is it that none of the weather forecasts over in Britain use the term "British Isles" anymore?

- this is simply not true. I've heard the term "British Isles" used several times in BBC and other weather forecasts over the last year or so. Whether that use was accidental or deliberate I cannot say, but the fact is that the term is still in use for weather forecasts (and hundreds of other uses too). To get back to the core subject though, most of the objections come from Ireland or people of Irish background rather than "elsewhere in the world" in general. Probably it's fair to say that the term is often objected to by Irish people, but only sometimes (and probably hardly ever) by people "elsewhere in the world" in general. If you're going to quibble over the accuracy of sometimes/often then you also need to tie the "elsewhere" down to something more specific. You can't have it both ways. Waggers 13:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The refs from Eric R are here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:British_Isles/References . He mentioned them a few days ago. I don't know whether he gathered them, but whoever did they're quite extensive. Those refs even include Terence O'Neill essentially saying that the "British Isles" doesn't really exist any more. As for the "elsewhere in the world", I don't know who added that. Maybe they can comment. Also, as for the BBC use, I don't doubt they use the term, although - as demonstrated - they often mean different things when they do. I don't think that point has particular relevance to this specific discussion. Hughsheehy 13:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
There has been no demonstration that the BBC "often means different things when they do" use British Isles. A list of errors does not constitute usage. Mucky Duck 21:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
How about "widely" instead of "generally" used? MarkThomas 12:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Peter Heylin

It's been some time since I have visited here and the atmosphere has improved a lot. I've corrected some stuff on Heylin. He does not mention Albion (it's consistently Brittaine), and the justification for including Ireland is in its section, and he gives three grounds.

I've commented out the stuff about his nationalism because it's not clear what point is being made. I don't think anyone would claim that Heylin (or anyone else then) even attempted to be objective in their work. In addition, there are two problems. First, the Heylin of 1652 (full-on Laudian) was not the Heylin of 1621 (standard issue Calvinist clergyman): his public views changed a great deal and can't be transferred backwards over thirty years. Secondly, if you want nationalism then it is there in spades in Microcosmus, but it is explicitly English rather than British (and it looks like that was still the case in 1652 by the quote given)- he does not use the term British apart from to refer to the ancient people, so what is the point being made?

An interesting note in his chapter is that Ireland was called by its inhabitants Scotia (named after the Egyptian wife of the last of the ancient conquerors of Ireland in mythology, or from the Scotti coming from Spain in history). No idea if this is true.

Finally, noting the discussion above, the Iles of the Ocean are part of his geography. He discusses the ancient personification of Oceanus then lists as the Isles of the Ocean all the classically known islands outside the Mediterranean, viz. those of Zealand, Denmark, the British Isles, and the isles in the Northern Sea (by which I think he means the northern Atlantic). MAG1 20:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you say where he does this so we can read it too? Thanks. Hughsheehy 16:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I put back the Heylin section to an earlier version. The version that was there had been watered down so much so as not to make sense. --sony-youthtalk 20:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The original book is available through Early English Books Online, though you will probably need to be a member of a scholarly library to gain access (though I believe Irish universities do subscribe). The Isles of the Ocean are on pages 453 and 454, the pre-Roman origins of the word Brittaine on p.455, and the bit about Ireland on p.502. If you are specific which quotes you want, I can provide as there is not that much of it (the current text reflects his arguments fairly closely). If you read the comments above you will see the original section was incorrect and incomplete, so please do not blindly revert. Quite happy for bias to go in there (which is why I only commented out that section), but the point being made should be explicit and accord with what Heylin actually wrote (again, see comments above). To reiterate an important point, Heylin's nationalism is clear and explicit (and pretty unpleasant), and it was English, not British. Not sure what you mean by "watered down": the point of the para is to report one of the first uses of the term British Isles in plain English.MAG1 23:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

It would be nice to substantiate the Heylin ref at the end of the previous section on "Islands of the Ocean". I guess that's probably page 453/454, but I don't have the book. Hughsheehy 13:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Had a go at this. MAG1 23:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
The purpose of having a more lengthy explaination of the Heylin's work was to put in context what geographic writing of the day meant. In the past its been argued on this page that Heylin/Dee etc. acted purely as mean of science, and so to say that the term was coined as having political significance would be nonsense. In fact, geographic writing of the day was concerned proving/disproving constitutional politics. Coining a term such as British Isles cannot be seen outside of that.
Regarding English/British nationalism - it was not until this time that an idea of Britishness was developing as we know it today - and developing especially in English political conscienceness. Seperating the two is meaningless during the period. "British" words at the time were directed towards loyality to the Crown (constitutional matters) - something central to English nationalism during the period, and to Heylin. --sony-youthtalk 09:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I've reorganised a little bit. Have a read through to see what you think. All of elements quoted are to do with Microcosmus and how to interpret it. --sony-youthtalk 09:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd an edit conflict with your version, but in my opinion this is too much detail for the body of the article, so I've summarised the political point in a few words and moved the detail to the reference. Note that the political perspectives started with Geoffrey of Monmouth. .. dave souza, talk 09:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh come on, Dave! "Writing from his English political perspective ..." is not a summary of the point. The point is not only bias but that all geographies from this period must be seen as political expressions concerned with proving or disproving constitutional matters.
And too much detail?? Oh, come on again!! Heylin is the source identified for the origin of the term by scholarly opinion. Nevermind Ptolemy, Pliny and all that jazz. Scholarly opinion put "British Isles" at Heylin. We cannot discuss Heylin enough! Everything else is just fudge until we get to Heylin.
And while I'm on the point, were we not going to seperate the section out to a dedicated article. The "origins of term" section takes up half the article at present (leaving out footnotes - 85% of which are to do with the "origin of the terms" section!). The wholy bloomin' thing is too much detail! And distracts from what we are supposed to be writing about - um, doh, the British Isles. --sony-youthtalk 09:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Firstly, there seemed to be opposition when the idea of a separate "origins" article was floated, so that's not been taken further as yet. My wording is a suggestion – feel free to clarify the point, but in my opinion it's something that can best be stated succinctly rather than going into enormous detail. Also, beware of original research – it's clear that Heylyn was writing in a politically loaded context, but we really need a verifiable source fot the specific assertion that the term British Isles was coined by him to lay claim to Ireland. Like the Renaissance geographers, he was referring back to Ptolemy's usage. Even at the time of the Roman conquest Britannia was a politically loaded term, and in the immediate post Roman era Brittonic was an early stirring of national identity, so political use of terms wasn't new with Heylyn. .. dave souza, talk 11:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
"Be aware of original research" - pish! Everything there was sourced, relevent and valid. There was nothing there that said that the term was "coined by him to lay claim to Ireland" - what was there was cited, verifiable evidience that modern shcholarly opinion is that Heylin's work should be read in terms of constitutional politics - if he coined a term, this is how it should be understood. --sony-youthtalk 12:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

<reduce indent> Sorry not to have grasped your intention, but it appears that MAG1 also found it a bit obscure. My attempt at a summary was "Modern historians note that Heylyn "politicized his geographical books" in the context of what geography meant at that period". Reading what you've said, my suggestion follows:

Modern scholarly opinion is that all geographies from this period must be seen as political expressions concerned with proving or disproving constitutional matters. In an era when "politics referred to discussions of dynastic legitimacy, of representation, and of the Constitution.... geography was not to be conceived separately from politics."

Does this convey the intended meaning better? The point about OR was the unpublished synthesis of published material to advance a position: as I understand it now, you're not going beyond what the sources say, so see no objection. . .. dave souza, talk 19:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

That sounds okay, but I still don't see what the objection to the whole lot going in is. I'll put it in if no-one else objects. I'll stick the rest in the footnote. --sony-youthtalk 18:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

It reads very much better. However, on the question of bias, I am with Dave here: at the time England, Ireland, and Scotland were distinct political entities that happened to have a common king. The "British" crown was top down, not bottom up, it suited James, but people subscribed to their own nations rather than to some British entity. Certainly, if you read Heylin, the only British people in his book lived 1500 years previously: he was English. Also (and Heylin was not subtle in his national politics), the discussion of names is a neutral discussion of ancient sources in a way that the then (1620) present day description is most definitely not. I don't think he would have felt the necessity of using language to lay a claim- he would have been quite happy with the force of arms and the bringing (as he saw it) of civilisation. Anyway, I don't think there is a prima facie case that Heylin was projecting a British national project in his naming, and I'm with Dave that we need a proper verifiable source suggesting that he might have been doing this.

One further point. Don't mix up the Heylin of 1620 with the one of 1652. In 1620 he was aged about 20 and I suppose a bit of an early 17th C. media don; thirty years later he was in high politics i.e. his political identity was different and Laud was still just an archdeacon. Microcosmus is a world geography btw- the British Isles only appear at p.454.

One final titbit. If you look at the OED entry for British as a plural noun for modern people was actually coined in Ireland (in 1641), not Britain. (The first British reference to a n.pl. British given is in 1708, which perhaps is not a big surprise.) MAG1 23:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC) MAG1 23:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Any more info on Heylin would be gladly recieved. As far as I'm concerned he's the crucial link. RE: one final titbit - that's great! Do you have any more information on it - if you do, or even just as you have it there, could you add it to the Briton page? --sony-youthtalk 16:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually, one of the most important things about this Heylin text and the reference is that Heylin apparently felt the need to explain his use of the term in the first place. That's how I read it now....but is that right? He had to say "i've called them this name and here's why." This would be a strong indication that the term was an innovation when he used it. Hughsheehy 11:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposed merger

I have proposed that Britain and Ireland and Great Britain and Ireland be merged into this page. My reasoning is that they are all referring to the same island group so belong on the same page, and that having different pages for each term is unencyclopedic and risks turning into a series of POV forks for people's preferred terms. --Triglyph2 16:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

And "British Isles" is not a profoundly pov term? Wakey, wakey. If there is to be any redirect it is this pathetic remnant of the British Empire into Britain and Ireland. 89.100.195.42 00:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
In case anyone is interested there is a prior merge discussion in the archives. This discussion was back in the bad old days, lots of shouting, name-calling and off-topic discussion, though i think there was one worthwhile suggestion from User:Blisco: "Pare Britain and Ireland down to something akin to a disambiguation page, with links to: a) Great Britain and Ireland; b) United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland; c) British Isles with reference to British Isles naming dispute."—eric 17:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Oppose. The terms are not always synonymous. If you merge, what will be the name of the article? Given the official and unofficial objection to "British Isles" in Ireland, would that page be merged into one of the other articles, despite the ambiguity about the Isle of Man, Channel Islands? Hughsheehy 19:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
If we merged, the name for the merged article would be the most commonly used name for the island group in English, whatever the community decided that was. I suspect that is BI, but feel free to argue for an alternative.--Triglyph2 00:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Also, I refer people to the discussion on Triglyph's proposed deletion of the "Great Britain and Ireland" page and the essentially unanimous decision to keep the page. Is there an agenda being pushed here, linked to the discussion on neologisms on this very page? Hughsheehy 19:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I would be grateful if Hughsheehy would assume good faith. My proposal is sincere, and I think it would help these 3 pages accord more closely with WP guidelines, for the reasons given above. I would like to think the discussion on neologisms above resulted in some fresh thoughts and improvements to the article, but if it hurt anyone's feelings I apologise. I note that User:Hughsheehy effectively created the Great Britain and Ireland page, which was previously a redirect, and is now part of this content fork, so a less trusting person than myself might suggest that where it comes to agenda pushing, it should be he without sin who casts the first stone.--Triglyph2 00:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I support User:Blisco's proposal. Merge Britain and Ireland with Great Britain and Ireland then trim it down to a disambiguation page. The disambiguation can refer to both states, islands, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and finally the naming dispute in a neutral manner and then link to this page. --sony-youthtalk 22:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
That sounds sensible, but don't we already have such a page: British Isles (terminology)? Its longer than most disambiguation pages, but I think that reflects the Byzantine complexity of the issue.--Triglyph2 00:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
British Isles (terminology) is not a disambiguation page. Besides, your proposal isn´t to merge the other two pages into that page, but into this one....or are you withdrawing that proposal? Hughsheehy 00:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not withdrawing my proposal, but I'll clarify. As an alternative to the two pages in question becoming redirects to British Isles, I'd be happy to see them being redirects to British Isles (terminology). I don't see any advantage in having a new disambiguation page, Britain and Ireland, that covers exactly the same points as British Isles (terminology) but in less detail.--Triglyph2 00:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Neither of the pages you propose to merge are "new" ("Britain and Ireland" has existed since 2001, and "Great Britain and Ireland" since 2005) and they don´t cover the same ground as the BI (terminology) page, which page your proposal doesn´t mention as a target for the merger. Also, your proposal doesn´t mention the IONA page...which also exists, and has done since 2001. Hughsheehy 01:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Sigh. I didn't say that either of the two pages I propose to merge were new. I implied that if GB&I and B&I were merged into one page which was then trimmed down into a disambig page, as per Blisco's proposal, it would be a new disambig page. Note not a new page but a new disambig page.
The two pages in question do cover ground that is covered by the BI terminology page, and contain the same links.
I hadn't seen the IONA page before, but I think the same arguments apply: that is merely an alternative name for an island group which already has a page, as well as pages devoted to its terminology and naming dispute, which include the term IONA, and that it is therefore a content fork.--Triglyph2 08:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
IONA is, i think, in a different category altogether. The acronym was at times proposed as names for various incarnations of the British-Irish Council, and we've got plenty of refs which discuss the term's usage in this way.—eric 15:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

<reduce indent>Again, I refer to the archived discussion on Triglyph´s already rejected proposal to delete the Great Britain and Ireland page, where the clear conclusion was that it was NOT a content fork page and the unanimous opinion was to keep the page, so please, don´t accuse me of somehow maliciously pushing a viewpoint that is apparently the shared view of many others just because I also hold that viewpoint. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Great_Britain_and_Ireland. Conversely, Triglyph is trying to re-start an argument he/she has already lost once and where he/she was the ONLY supporter of the proposal. And finally, the BI (termiology) page is NOT a disambiguation page. Hughsheehy 09:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. I haven't accused Hughsheehy of anything. Several of the commentators on the deletion proposal said that this issue would be better dealt with by merging pages. For example: "Triglyph: you misunderstood what deletion is for. Issue such as you describe are more correctly dealt with my merging and redirecting NOT with deletion. Ariel. 16:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)"
WP:MM says the following: "There are several good reasons to merge a page:

There are two or more pages on exactly the same subject. There are two or more pages on related subjects that have a large overlap. Wikipedia is not a dictionary; there does not need to be a separate entry for every concept in the universe. For example, "Flammable" and "Non-flammable" can both be explained in an article on Flammability. If a page is very short and cannot or should not be expanded terribly much, it often makes sense to merge it with a page on a broader topic. If a short article requires the background material or context from a broader article in order for readers to understand it."

I think the two pages in question are clear examples of this: this is the basis for my proposal. I would be quite happy for Blisco's proposal to be adopted as an alternative: either would be an improvement on the current situation. --Triglyph2 09:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. There's no point having several articles on exactly the same subject, just using different terminology. Ideally, in my opinion, there should be just one article on the British Isles (the geographical entity), and one for each sovereign state. There's no need for any more than that. Waggers 10:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Alternative merge proposal

To reiterate Bliscos proposal, I propse that the two pages be merged in to one, but not redirect here. Instead, they be turned into a type of disambiguation page. I propose the following text for the disambiguation page:

Great Britain and Ireland are the two largest islands in the British Isles. A former state, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, was comprised of the political union of the two. Often the entire archipelago, including the Isle of Man, which was never a part of the Union, is referred to as Great Britain and Ireland. This is often to avoid use of the term British Isles, which is seen by many in Ireland as outdated since Irish independence. Britain and Ireland, which refers to the two sovereign states in the archipelago, suffices for a similar meaning.
For an explanation of the toponyms of the region, which many people find confusing, see British Isles (terminology).
See also

I think this is an even-handed solution. At present both pages cover essentially the same thing. Why not just direct people to what the pages really want to talk about? --sony-youthtalk 11:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

That is pretty much what the Great Britain and Ireland page says now..albeit phrased slightly differently..so what is essentially being proposed is a deletion of the "Britain and Ireland" page. If that's the proposal, then the current proposal needs to be withdrawn and that needs to be made. I'm opposed to merging the (various) pages into either BI or BI (terminology). Hughsheehy 14:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm proposing a different solution. I don't think a merge with this article (or the terminology article) is appropriate. --sony-youthtalk 16:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Redirect B&I to GB&I rather than delete, maybe add an Ireland and Britain redirect also as we have at least one reference for it's use. I don't know that we need be so formal about making and withdrawing merge proposals—it's easy to redirect a page, and even easier to revert if there are any objections.—eric 16:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I support Sony-youth's proposal. On reflection it is better than my own. If protocol demands it, I now formally withdraw my merge proposal and endorse Sony-youth's proposal, which is characteristically sensible.--Triglyph2 16:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Is the proposer of the previous (withdrawn) proposal going to remove it and enter the new proposal? Hughsheehy 16:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I second the proposal to propose that he proposes to propose so. --sony-youthtalk 17:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
done[13]. I say we should just go ahead w/ the new merge, Sony-youth go ahead and insert his new text into GB&I and redirect B&I, if Hugh does not object.—eric 18:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Done. (Assumed Hugh does not object.) --sony-youthtalk 19:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for doing that. --Triglyph2 23:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi. That page had also been tagged for not having references. I had put in references and they have now all been deleted. Please put in some references, or put back the old ones, before the page gets tagged again. Also, I don´t quite agree with the phrasing of some sections, but it´s not a big deal and since there is no merge proposal it can be handled in the normal way on that page´s talk page. Hughsheehy 08:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Strange sentence

Is it just me or does this sentence read funny: "The British Isles are largely low lying and fertile, though with significant mountainous areas in Ireland, Scotland, Wales, and the north of England." Does this not mean that there are significant mountainous areas basically everywhere? --sony-youthtalk 22:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

No, England has a south as well as a north, but perhaps we could be a little more specific about the where they may be found in the other bits. MAG1 23:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Even the south of England has Dartmoor. For a useful description of the demarcation between the flat and hilly areas, see the Tees-Exe line.--Triglyph2 00:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
The sentence reads badly and is terribly vague. It´s as bad as an RTE weather forecast "sunny spells and scattered showers". It basically says "mostly flat, although there are lots of mountainous bits". Mind you, I´m not sure it´s as bad as the next line "The regional geology is complex, formed by the drifting together of separate regions and subsequent orogenic, glacial and weathering activities.". Now that´s really bad! Unfortunately I can only critique these sentences and cannot ad real value. My geology knowledge is not extensive. Hughsheehy 01:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Arguably, the Pennines aren't mountainous anyway. There are no mountains in England, but there is moorland - so the sentence not only reads badly but lacks accuracy too. Waggers 10:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Anglo-Celtic Isles

I ran across the following ballad of a southern Irish unionist in 1914. Check out the first line. Is the term less of neologism than a disused romantic term brought back to life? ... and originating with unionism??

SOUTHERN UNIONIST BALLAD
(Ennis Unionist, 1914)

The United Anglo-Celtic Isles
Will e'er be blessed by Freedoms smiles
No tyrant can our homes subdue
While Britons to the Celts are true.

The false may clamour to betray
The brave will still uphold our sway
The triple-sacred flag as yet
Supreme, its sun shall never set.

--sony-youthtalk 20:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The site you got the song from is very interesting, although I suspect it's a tad POV. I knew that there was a severe decline in the Unionist (which the site equates with Protestant) community in the Cork area during the War of Independence and afterwards, but his presentation of it indicates it was larger than I thought. For instance "After 1919 attendance (at protestant churches) fell by 22%, with more than two-thirds of the decline taking place in a single year - 1922"...which suggests that the end of the British military and administrative presence was THE major event, but he also says ""Departing soldiers, sailors, policemen and their families account for about one quarter of the emigrants, a significant contributing factor although ultimately a minor one."...which does neglect civil servants, ships engineers, land support for the Navy, administrative support for the army and navy, etc. but still indicates that a lot of non-military people left. Areas of Cork and West Cork still have strong protestant communities but they probably went through hard times then. Of course he also says that this was "the only example of the mass displacement of a native ethnic group within the British Isles since the 17th century" ...which kinda neglects the exodus around the Famine, the emigrations in the 50's, etc...any of which was probably significantly larger. In any case, a good ref to the Anglo-Celtic Isles. You should update the article accordingly and check if there's an Anglo-Celtic Isles page too... I'm sure they'd like this ref. Hughsheehy 14:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
For exactly those reasons (and many more) the utterances of Robin Bury and The Reform Movement have been discredited for a long time. 89.100.195.42 10:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
There used to be an Anglo-Celtic Isles article. It was the subject of an AFD, with a result of Delete (I think on the grounds of being a neologism) and Redirect to British Isles. That particular ballad was the one 'early' reference that could be found for the term, IIRC, and oddly was only found on one website. Bastun 15:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

"often" or "sometimes" called the "British Isles" in Ireland

There is a dispute in the introduction about the use of the term "British Isles" in Ireland. Quite rightly, this is mentioned as controversial, but from a range of experiences I do not believe it is the case that it can be described as "often" called this, so I have reverted it to "sometimes". Just as a case in point, see the Google Search on RTE using the term "British Isles" - if the state broadcaster frequently uses the term (and it uses it even more in broadcast programmes) then it is a misrepresentation of what is essentially a minority view within Ireland that the term is "often" considered objectionable; to say that on Wikipedia is therefore POV. MarkThomas 22:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Mark, thanks for that. First up, I agree completely. Secondly, and the real reason I'm posting, is to point out that this is being discussed in the (somewhat long-winded) Where understatement becomes dishonesty section of this page too. Cheers, Waggers 23:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi Mark. I reverted your edit earlier. My opinion is that we can argue 'til the cows come home between whether it is "sometimes" or "often" - the two words are too fuzzy, one man's "sometimes" is another man's "often".
As regards the RTÉ site, take a look through the search results. There are 27 instances throughout the entire site. Not "frequent" to begin with since these pages show use of the term by RTÉ going back to 1998. Google shows that there are 41 (even 41 would not be "frequent") but 14 of these are repeated results (e.g. the same page on the normal website and on the PDA eddition), hence 27 actual instances in all - click to the third page of the search results if you don't believe me.
Now, look deeper. 18 out of the 27 results are deal with events or organizations where the organizers describe the archipelago as the "British Isles" - for example the South African or New Zealand rugby team "tour of the British Isles" - and so are indirect quotes rather than RTÉ using the term themselves. 4 more are from the the same programme - an production decision? There are only 2 incidence where the term is used in a news broadcast. One is in an indirect quote. The second is in a story describing the trial of the Lockerbie bombers in the Netherlands. The line is, "This is the first time in Scottish legal history that a court has been convened outside the British Isles." The term has not been used in a news broadcast since. That was in 1999. Seriously, is this "frequently"? My personal testimony is that I cannot remember ever hearing RTÉ use the term.
While we are on the subject of search engines, take a look at Google Trends results for "British Isles" vs. alternatives such as "Britain and Ireland" etc.. These graphs show what search terms people use on Google. See how the incidences of "British Isles" vs. alternatives reverse when crossing the sea between the UK and Ireland. See how in Belfast incidences of both are equal, yet in other UK cities only "British Isles" figures. Unfortunately there are no results for any cities in the Republic.
Honesty, it is considered objectionable. What's more frustrating however is having to explain that it is objected to over and over again. Publishers remove it, sporting teams are renamed, governments say its their policies to discourage it, and still its insisted that this is "essentially a minority view." Ugh. No-one is saying the term is invalid or objected to anywhere else. But, really, it is objected to in Ireland. This is not POV.
I've only recently been pointed to these. Have a read through. It obvious that they need to be added. This should be done as soon as possible. --sony-youthtalk 23:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Not obvious at all - that's why they are on a different article. Really, to be honest, I think your POV is clear above and that's why I'm disputing the sentence as a classic case of POV. I fully realise and understand that many in Ireland don't like the term but the sense "often" strongly suggests "majority" and until we see something more scientific like polling evidence this is pure POV. MarkThomas 00:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
From the evidence I've looked at, "often" is more appropriate than "sometimes". A possible compromise option might be "commonly". .. dave souza, talk 00:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
What evidence Dave? Surely a properly conducted poll would be the only useful indicator - do you know of one? MarkThomas 00:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Again, we've been here before. There is indeed use on the RTE site, but very little, and even if there is usage it does not counter the statement that the term is often objectionable in Ireland, or even widely. There are serious reputable published secondary sources in that reference page that state that the term is "one which irishmen reject", "increasingly unacceptable", "problematic", "very irritating to the Irish", "politically incorrect", "often offensive to Irish sensibilities", etc.. On the basis of those unambiguous references it is quite reasonable to change the edit to directly use that kind of language, which is even stronger than saying it is "often objectionable". Not a single one of those references hints at "sometimes". They either imply "generally" or explicitly state "often" and "very". Since there is no properly conducted poll for the UK or the world either, it's difficult to sustain the other statement that the term is 'generally used in the rest of the world' in the intro if this is the criterion, so it is possible that statement should be removed too (although there is reference that says it's generally used...if you accept the references). Also, there have been numerous informal polls on boards.ie (previously mentioned on this talk page) which indicated large percentages regarded the term as inappropriate/offensive. I am editing "often" back into the article. References support it or possibly even stronger language like "widely and increasingly". Hughsheehy 09:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Informal polls do not constitute a serious source. The rest is all just complete POV. Wikipedia is not a battleground for re-fighting the Anglo-Irish wars. MarkThomas 09:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

This is all very subjective. For the record, I'm ok on the use of either 'often' or 'sometimes'. But pointing at one website, or a set of Google searches, doesn't cut it. Yes, the term is rarely used on the RTE website, producing very few search results. That doesn't take broadcasts into account, though. And - is there a (publically available) MOS in existence in RTE? Perhaps it was an editorial decision made by one or a small number of people not to use the term. Maybe because they objected to it - or maybe because they didn't want the hassle every time it was used and a small but vociferous number of people called their switchboard. A mere 41 hits on RTE would certainly imply an editorial policy to me - but that's conjecture, and it works both ways. RTE is just one (albeit large) media outlet. Look at another media outlet - www.unison.ie - 558 results for British Isles. [14] Quite a difference. Until there is some sort of widespread independent poll, all we can say for certain is that the term is objected to in Ireland. We can't imply universality, a majority, or a minority. Either 'sometimes' or 'often' fits the bill. Bastun 09:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Or what MarkThomas has changed it to. :-) Bastun 10:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
LOL. I see the first hit on the Unison results is this: "God bless the poor oul' whingers jumping up and down about the long overdue removal of that insulting term, 'the British Isles'. Can they not see how insulting it is, or should be, to Irish people? Or maybe they do." :)
But I agree, let's avoid fuzzy words like "sometimes" and "often" when we don't have numbers. Just quote people or state facts. There's plenty of them to back the case up. --sony-youthtalk 10:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
The current edit suggests the that there is somehow a dispute within the Republic of Ireland on this. That is not a fair reflection. The term is regarded as offensive, objectionable, inappropriate, etc.. It is not the subject of dispute within the Republic of Ireland. Hughsheehy 10:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
How do you know - have you done the polling? MarkThomas 10:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
No. Again, as per talk page archives, I never suggested that the polls on boards.ie be used as a WP source and I doubt that you have (a) polls to suggest there is dispute in Ireland or (b) polls to suggest that the term is used "generally in the rest of the world" or (c) polls to suggest it's generally used in the UK or even (d) polls to suggest anything. However, there are serious reputable published references that make the statements I have copied above. This is not something that can be presented as if it's some fringe thing, which is what (again) seems to be the aim.
If nothing else, the published refs are mostly from outside Ireland, which makes the current edit inaccurate and contradicted by reference.Hughsheehy 10:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I tried again just for Hugh - but re-introduced Northern Ireland as presumably Republican opinion there will feel the same. MarkThomas 10:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Not presumably. There is reference to say so. Hughsheehy 10:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Fair comment. The problem obviously lies in the precise form of words, not the concept. We could try different things. Does anyone else have ideas about it? I would prefer myself we don't use anything like "many", "often", "generally" etc, but now I look at it, I don't much like my own use of "dislike"! Any more for any more? MarkThomas 10:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
How about "is increasingly recognised as problematic, particularly in regard to Ireland". It's supported by the refs and doesn't need a poll. It uses the clarity of phrasing in the references, and does not depend on the percentage of people in Ireland. Hughsheehy 13:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Why "increasingly"? Has it not been so since 1922, or at the latest 1949? Does that not give it enough time to have already been recognised - if it really existed? If not, why the sudden problematising of it? Also, who is "recognisinging" it? Clearly from this discussion not many outside of Ireland. Or maybe it is those who are "increasingly recognising" it, as opposed to those in Ireland who knew it already? Or it is the people in Ireland who a making a song-and-dance out of nothing that are recognising that this is something that can be turned into a problem?
Just throwing some question at you that I can see arising from that. --sony-youthtalk 14:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
"Recognised" by the refs, most of which are published outside of Ireland. Even where the authors decided to keep using "British Isles" they recognised that there was an issue with it. "Increasingly" because one ref says so specifically, because Folens and several other Atlases (i think Michelin, Reader's Digest, etc) that used to refer to British Isles no longer do so, because of the Embassy spokesman quotation last year, because of the renaming of The Lions, because of the Guardian article quoted in the BI dispute page, etc. In any case, "recognised as problematic" is for sure; "increasingly" seems pretty darn well supported. It's a way of avoiding "often" & "sometimes" and of avoiding a desire for polls that don't exist either for or against. (BTW, according to Webster, sometimes means "now and then" or "occasionally", which just isn't a reasonable characterisation of the situation). Hughsheehy 15:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
What you just described sounds like "and increasingly recognised as a problem outside of Ireland also." --sony-youthtalk 17:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
That's why i said "in regard to" and not "in". It's not as beautiful as it might be, so very open to suggestion. Hughsheehy 17:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I think part of the problem may be that the term is so little used in Ireland that opportunities to object to it are scarce...--Triglyph2 23:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Maybe, but that´s hard to say...or hasn´t that been the issue? If you have a ref to counter what MarkThomas is asserting, then lets have it! What can be said based on those references is that the issues with the term are pretty widely/increasingly recognised outside Ireland as well. Hughsheehy 08:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

<reduce indent> Hi... this seemed to be the conclusion of the discussion here, but when I just added the text to the page is was very quickly reverted by MarkThomas, who also deleted the reference at the top of the page - which had been compacted down to one reference from several. While removing the text may count as a difference of view, deletion of the ref is either carelessness or nearing vandalism. I am replacing the references and looking for views here on the text. Hughsheehy 11:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Although you say the multiple references had been compacted to one, this isn't really the case - there are multiple references listed as one reference, which isn't the same thing. If using several references, I think they should be listed separately. Ultimately, though, one good reputable reference should suffice. Can I suggest that you pick one and remove the others? Waggers 11:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Also, I don't think one solitary reference that says "increasingly so" justifies using the same words in the article. I think a lot of this is bordering on OR. Gsd2000 12:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm removing the references because (a) they are from very POV sources and (b) there is no need to pile reference after reference onto the lead. The basic assertion - that this is disputed in Ireland - is accepted by everyone. The problem as we all know is the question of how broad that dispute is. Sheehy reckons it's universal - nearly everyone else appears to disagree. I therefore respectfully suggest we all pack it in now and leave it as is! MarkThomas 12:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
The history on this page has been continuous denial of the issue/problem with the term, or presentation of it as the concern of a lunatic fringe. Now that there are references that unambiguously demonstrate that the issue has been recognised by serious and reputable published authors the tack seems to have changed to "it's a well known issue so it doesn't need to be referenced at all". Indeed, MarkThomas has - as far as I can see - at one time or another in the last month deleted all six of the references that demonstrated the issue and the recognition of the issue, which is - IMHO - a variety of vandalism (blanking refs is vandalism). This section of text has been in dispute for YEARS and the references are the sources that are needed. To quote from the page on "Citing Sources. "All material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a source." This material is, and has been and apparently will continue to be, challenged. I suppose we could remove the "increasingly" and replace it with "widely recognised as problematic" or similar. Hughsheehy 12:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
(1) I have never said it's a lunatic fringe. (2) Stop misrepresenting this as vandalism. (3) The sources you put forward prove nothing and are all from the Republican-oriented POV. (4) "widely" takes us back to the issue of proof. Sheehy has rejected polls as proof and is uninterested in the factual aspects of this. I think his POV is utterly clear and I ask other editors to reject it. MarkThomas 12:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Hughsheehy is correct in his assertion that the section needs to be referenced. The sentence in question says that the term is disputed in Ireland and Northern Ireland, so it follows that the source will most likely be Irish in origin. As long as that sources accords with WP:RS it should be included. But one source will suffice. Hugh seems to want to include every reference on the subject he can find whereas Mark seems to want to have all references on the subject removed. I don't think either of those stances is helpful and urge you both to stay cool and agree to the compromise I suggested above: one reliable reference, no more and no less. Waggers 12:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Fine with me Wagggers - suggest you choose the reference. I am just reverting what I regard as extreme POV. Thanks for your help. MarkThomas 12:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Although note that Sheehy has again totally ignored this discussion and plastered the refs back in. MarkThomas 12:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Again, a question. How can Cambridge University Press, Oxford University Press, etc.,etc.,etc. sources be characterised as "extreme POV"? Also, I don't want "every" reference included. The issue for me is the text, which the references need to support. The data and references support a text that says the term is disputed/disliked/etc, in Ireland (or ROI and among Nationalists in NI) and that the problem with the term is increasingly (or widely) recognised outside Ireland, which the non-Irish references support. Note, I regard blanking refs as vandalism and have put a warning on MarkThomas page about this (although he has deleted at least one such warning) Hughsheehy 12:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I am fully entitled to delete material from my talk page - Hughsheehy has even been warned recently by an admin about this! Note that Sheehy has also (once more!) changed the actual text from that which was previously agreed! I think I might speak for others when I say I'm getting pretty fed up with this. How about we revert to an earlier version and apply for page protection? MarkThomas 12:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
MarkThomas is entitled to remove material from his talk page, but removing warnings is "often frowned upon" (from policy on valndlism). Also, I am not aware of any recent warning from an admin about anything. Perhaps someone could show me where this happened. As for my POV, it is that the pages should reflect verifiable truth as much as possible and that text should have refs, especially where the text is - as this text is - highly challenged. In this case, I see someone deleting refs from CUP, OUP, Routlesge, Westview, the Irish newspapers, Irish govt and Irish embassy, etc, as being "Republican-oriented POV". Excuse me if I'm puzzled. Hughsheehy 12:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
The rewording seems allright to me, the references are excessive. There's a main article about the dispute where multiple references can go, for this introductory sentence one or two well selected references are appropriate. Both of you, be aware of WP:3RR.. dave souza, talk 12:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Agreed on excessive references. I think one to three is sufficient for this article, with, as Dave suggests, the others being included in the BI naming dispute article. With regard to the above arguments - the only one I would regard as being POV is the Myers one (he's an "opinion piece" writer, after all, and goes out of his way to be controversial). The others - certainly not. I also agree with removing 'increasingly' from the text as I do not think it is the case. Bastun 13:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry Bastun, but saying that you do not think it is the case is irrelevant. At least one ref says it is "increasingly" Hughsheehy 13:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
To quote that one reference: "the term is increasingly unacceptable to Irish historians in particular." What historians? What have they said? When and where did they say it? Was it once only mildly unacceptable, and is now very unacceptable? This single reference is not enough to justify use of the word 'increasingly'. Bastun 13:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Which wording? At the moment the only word is "disputed"...which is inadequate. Hughsheehy 13:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I come back to my point from several days ago, which went essentially unargued, hence I made the change to the page. The issue/problem with the term is well known in Ireland. (this is apparently undisputed now) There is strong evidence and unambiguous reference that the issue/problem is increasingly recognised outside Ireland, including in the UK (OUP, CUP, the Guardian, The Times, etc.) and in the US (Westview, etc.) This should be properly reflected in the article. The rest can go in the naming dispute page...in fact more of it is already there, but since we can't depend on a ref to another WP page(it's against policy), adequate supporting refs need to be here too. Hughsheehy 13:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
It's just an issue that has been raised in some parts of the media a few times. It would be very POV to state it the way Hughsheehy wants to, as it would make it appear to be widespread or even a majority opinion, which is very far from the case. We've hashed this around endlessly now and I think Hugh that you are going to have to accept that we all accept that a limited mention of this in the context of Irish dispute of the term is fine, but all attempts by you to enlarge it are not fine. In answer to your attempts to define what is the accepted text, I propose we accept the text as it stands The term British Isles, while used in the United Kingdom and elsewhere in the world, is disputed in the Republic of Ireland and among Nationalists in Northern Ireland.[2] but with fewer references. All those in favour say "aye". MarkThomas 13:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I've never advocated presenting it as a majority opinion, but it does appear to be pretty widespread and is referred to in refs published both inside and outside Ireland. References support this (and again, hard to see how OUP and CUP and others are - as MarkThomas says - "Republican oriented POV"). Also, the text as stands and as proposed is inaccurate since it ignores (for instance) any objection to it outside Ireland, which demonstrably exists. Hughsheehy 13:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Nay. *sigh* "...is disputed in the RoI..." implies some sort of universal rejection, which is not the case. In fact, I thought we'd agreed to avoid quantifying anything? We were far closer to an accurate yet neutral wording over a week ago. Something along the lines of this, from 19th March:
The term British Isles, whilst generally used in the United Kingdom and elsewhere in the world, can be considered objectionable, particularly in relation to the Republic of Ireland.[2] Bastun 13:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

This would also be fine with me Bastun. Alas, I see Padraig (who often shows up when Hughsheehy has run out of edits) has ignored the fact that there is a dispute and even referred it to the talk page in his comment! Presumably any random POV comment by Hughsheehy is now regarded as definitive support for edits? I propose we hand over the page totally to your control Hugh, would that settle it for you? MarkThomas 13:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Note...this seems to suggest that I am in cahoots with Padraig, who is supposed to "often" show up when I have run out of edits. This is near to a specific accusation of sockpuppetry or something like it. If MarkThomas wants to make such accusations, let him make them formally. Otherwise it's as accurate as his accusation that the OUP and CUP have a "Republican oriented POV", i.e. not at all accurate. For the record, that's the first time I ever saw Padraig3UK's username and from looking at his contribs I can't see that we have ever before collaborated on the same page. Hughsheehy 15:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
MarkThomas, I reverted your edit because I objected to you removing referenced sources from the Irish Government, etc as for your suggestion that I am in cahoots with any other editor on this site, I regard that as a insult, I disagreed with your edit thats it.--padraig3uk 17:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
As it currently sits with the last reversion it implies that it is found offensive to all in the Republic of Ireland, which is blatantly not the case. That has to be changed. Ben W Bell talk 14:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Mark, please see WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Bastun 14:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Good god! Are we still arguing over this? I support Batsuns edit but with a minor change: "The term British Isles, whilst generally used in the United Kingdom, can be considered objectionable, particularly in relation to the Ireland." I've removed "and the rest of the world" as it has a ring of "these people are crazy" and changed RoI to just Ireland, since its not just avoided in the Republic but also in NI. (Please don't say, "but, ah, unionists!", it does say "generally used in the United Kingdom"). --sony-youthtalk 15:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, apparently we're still arguing over it. The current wording isn't bad, but the "can be considered" is too weak...since it demonstrably IS considered objectionable. The issues are now - IMHO - twofold. (i) whether it's rarely, sometimes, often or always considered objectionable and (ii) whether the problem with the term is recognised anywhere.
On point (i) we previously had "sometimes", which Webster says means "now and then" or "occasionally", which is too soft. I supported, and support, saying it is "often" (which Webster says mean "many times" or "frequently") considered objectionable (Note, not "always" or "almost always"). The counterargument to "often" is to say that this means "mostly","almost always", etc., which is just not true.
On point (ii) the references eric found demonstrate that the problem with the term is now widely/increasingly/whatever, recognised in internationally published texts on British and Irish history and politics, and there are also several long standing references to the Irish govt, Irish and British press to demonstrate that the problem is recognised in Ireland and the UK.
Therefore, not only is the problem expressed, but books published by serious publishers are saying so and are often modifying their language accordingly. (Note, several books in eric's refs also recognised the problem but decided to keep using the term, so it's not 100% there either and I'm not trying to write anything like that).
Saying "can be considered objectionable" is too weak. Like it or not, we have to find an accurate way of expressing what the sources tell us is the truth..Hughsheehy 15:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Suggestion: "can be considered objectionable" -> "is controversial". Stronger, 'controversy' implies two sides, and yet we avoid quantifying something that we can't quantify until MRBI or whoever get commissioned to actually do a poll. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 15:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
That is a good suggestion as you can't really dispute something that is in fact commonly used, dispute doesn't seem like the correct word. Ben W Bell talk 15:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Totally agree. Can Ben make this change and underline here on the talk page that it should not be reverted after so much discussion? MarkThomas 16:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Nice to see our three most loyalist of British nationalists in agreement with each other once more. Meanwhile, in the real world, there remains widespread resistance in Ireland to the use of "British Isles" to include Ireland. This has been widely and consistently referenced here. The resistance and paranoia of this Mark Thomas chappie and others appears to get most vehement when British establishment sources are referenced to provide evidence. They'll get over this empire stuff yet! 82.198.140.23 17:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment: This would be the same anon IP who earlier removed 3RR warnings (for the BI article) from another anon IP talk page [15]. Best ignored till they're prepared to log in. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 21:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps whichever regular editor this last remark is from can have the courage to log in and say what you think when trading insults? Thanks! Meanwhile, this particular "British nationalist" (actually a US citizen living in the UK!) will continue to correct POV. MarkThomas 17:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Am I included as one of those British Nationalists? I'm not sure I've ever made my views on this clear on Wikipedia, I remain neutral in the Republican/Unionist debates. Ben W Bell talk 17:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Ben, I think this is one of those "I think he means us" moments. :-) MarkThomas 18:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, there are lots of accusations of POV being laid here and - once more - I challenge them. Saying that making ref to sources like the ones referenced is POV is just nonsense. These are serious verifiable citations. However, unless there are references to support the "opposite" side of the argument, i.e. to deny/minimise the level of objection to the term or the fact that the objections are apparently being recognised in serious publications and books by internationally recognised authors and publishers, then continuing to assert that "opposite" view seems to me to meet all the definitions of POV, OR, etc. It does not matter what MarkThomas or Bastun or I or BenWBell think we know about usage or controversy or the level of objection. What matters is verifiable citation. There is verifiable citation to support what I have been putting into the edit (except maybe once when the word "often" didn't get into the edit). I am on record in this talk page as opposing insertion of text that I am now being accused of POV for wanting to insert, but at that time the references that we have now were not available. It will continue to be necessary to reflect these references in the edit. Hughsheehy 19:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
On such a big subject, it's not difficult to find a media source to support one's viewpoint. The main concern is what the page presents to the average reader as truth, and it isn't truth that the term "British Isles" is all that widely disputed - equally we all accept that it is truth that some (mainly Irish) people object to it. Do you accept the current edit Hugh? If not, we appear to be back to an edit war, which you appear to be threatening above will resume as soon as your 3RR clock runs down? Am I right? MarkThomas 19:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
'and it isn't truth that the term "British Isles" is all that widely disputed'- Now what, pray tell, young Mark Thomas, is the source for this arrant trite? Unlike you, I am Irish and have lived all my life in the part of Ireland that is, mercifully, free from the British imperialist boot and its centuries of racism, sectarianism and bigotry towards us native Irish. That particularly noxious British nationalist phrase "British Isles" is not used by us, the descendants of the Gaeil, Normanaigh and Éireannaigh, the Irish. On behalf of us barbarian Irish I would like to apologise for not obliging in this latest British nationalist agenda. 89.100.195.42 22:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Ah! Speak of the anon IP, and he shall appear. (And, er, you're wrong. It is used.) BastunBaStun not BaTsun 23:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, 'Bastun' is such an identifiable name alright. Not the sharpest, are we? At any rate, it may indeed be "used" if you went to Wesley College or The King's Hospital. Meanwhile, in normal Ireland it is avoided at every turn. That you are abjectly refusing to accept this reality can only be because you are in resistance to the independence of Ireland from the British state. When all is said and done it really is no more and no less than this.89.100.195.42 23:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, Mr/Mrs/Ms 89.100 may or may not be right, but they certainly are obnoxious and passionate in equal measure! Hughsheehy 17:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't have a 3rr clock running as I only did 2 reverts. As for "truth", if it's not difficult to find references, please do so. Otherwise all you have is opinion, which is insufficient. Hughsheehy 19:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Please stop the bickering and mutual accusation of POV, it's not worth it. Can I suggest finding a different way of saying the same thing. How about: "The term is often avoided in relation to Ireland and is acknowledge as being potentially offensive to Irish sensibilities." For this there are plenty of references. One way for other suggestions to go is to possibly not juxtapose use in Ireland and use in the UK and elsewhere as this could appears adversarial. --sony-youthtalk 20:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

How about: "It is a term used in the UK and other English speaking countries in a geographical context, but the presence of the adjective "British" to describe a set of islands that includes Ireland means that it can be perceived to have unwelcome/offensive(which is better?) political connotations (cite references)." Note there is no specific mention of Irish people there, or of north or south Ireland, or of republicans, or of increasing or decreasing usage, it just states the problem with the term and leaves it at that. Gsd2000 21:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
We've been here before. The objection is not necessarily or primarily or even often "political". As for "bickering", I'm just asking for refs if I'm to be accused of unreasonably pushing one side of a story. So far they aren't forthcoming. sony youth's suggestion isn't far from what's reasonable. Hughsheehy 21:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Sony Youth's suggestion is plagued with problems though. "The term is often (often? how do you define often? how exactly do you provide references to show it is often, rather than rarely or always, without engaging in OR by doing so with primary sources?) avoided (how is it "avoided", exactly?) in relation to Ireland and is acknowledged (by whom?) as being potentially offensive (potentially? for some the offence is actual, not potential) to Irish sensibilities (what are "Irish" sensibilities? What of the sensibilities of Unionists in the North?). The wording has to represent the facts of the matter, and not pander to the sensitivies of certain Wikipedia editors. Oh, and if the objection is not political, what on earth is it? Gsd2000 00:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
There is a preponderance of evidence that says it is "often" objectionable, not least from the recent refs, which is also where "avoided" is demonstrated because they discuss avoiding it even when a few of them decide to still use it. It is "acknowledged" by those sources and by various columnists in the British press, who also recognised that is was not universally objectionable. As for the objection not being political, read back these pages and you'll find an extensive discussion on the subject when (I think) Tharkun (who's back for the first time since his imaginary king of the British Isles in the middle ages) tried to assert the same thing you're suggesting now. Hughsheehy 07:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Hughsheehy, it may have been discussed before, but just because it was discussed doesn't mean it's forever off the table. This is not a closed debate confined to the contributors who started it. For starters, instead making me read through pages and pages of crap, please provide me with a link to the prev discussion. Gsd2000 11:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Glad to see that you view the discussion pages as crap. However, try opening this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:British_Isles/Archive_10 and using CTRL-F to find the word political...you'll see the issue was discussed twice. CTRL-F, high technology, eh? Hughsheehy 17:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
To get back to Hugh's earlier two issues, I think issue (ii) is a no-brainer; the fact that at least some people have a problem with the term is certainly recognised and there are clear references for that. With issue (i), a lot depends on personal understanding. As far as I'm concerned, sometimes can be anything from once to just short of always, so often, frequently etc. are subsets of sometimes. Sometimes is anything between always and never, and is therefore a good word to use as it doesn't go into the specifics of exactly how often the problem arises. But if sometimes isn't acceptable, I think frequently is a good second choice. Anything more specific than that requires numbers to back it up (1 in X of the world's English-speaking population and 1 in Y of the British Isles' inhabitants object to the term...) but AFAIK that kind of information is not available so anything more specific than "sometimes" or "frequently" - especially anything that implies a majority view ("often" implies "more often than not" which is not verifiably true) - should be avoided. Waggers 08:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm... I wouldn't have thought that "often" implied "more often than not", but that's not what I'm trying to say, so "frequently" would be fine by me, since that's all I am trying to get across and what seems very well supported by references.. "Sometimes", to me, implies rarity, which isn't right and isn't supported by reference...indeed it's pretty clearly contradicted by it. Hughsheehy 16:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

OK a different tack. Let's just avoid trying enumerate it. "Since the majority of Ireland broke ties with Britain the appropriatness of the term has been questioned." Just a simple fact. --sony-youthtalk 13:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Better "broke ties with the United Kingdom" rather than bringing the ambiguity of the meaning of Britain into it. Ben W Bell talk 13:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
So it was never questioned before Irish independence? Gsd2000 13:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

At 17:40 today Gsd2000 edited the intro with the comment this text links to "British Isles naming dispute" - it is disputed, that is the fact of the matter. "Can be considered objectionable" is too touchy feely for an encyclopaedia. It strikes me that a possibility might be "Although the term British Isles is generally used in the United Kingdom and a number of other countries, its acceptability is disputed in the Republic of Ireland and by Nationalists in Northern Ireland." Just my tuppenceworth, .. dave souza, talk 18:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I personally have no problem with that... I do have a problem though with Sony Youth's reversion of my edit, with the comment "(the word dispute) sounds like its being brought up before the UN or the ECHR or something - lets not blow things out of proportion". Whether or not it is a dispute, one thing's for sure: it's completely inconsistent to link to an article named "British Isles naming dispute" and yet claim that it's not a dispute! Gsd2000 18:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, we could bring delete the dispute page and bring it back here. Hughsheehy 19:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
IIRC, when the dispute page was originally being forked, I objected to that particular name for exactly those reasons. :-/ Dave's suggestion is ok with me too. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 21:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh, one other thing. I quite like dave's proposal (although I'll have to think about it) but I have a challenge...for refs to support "generally" against unreasonable opposition that suggested "sometimes". What supports "generally"? Isn't it only rarely and then often incorrectly used? Isn't it only some recalcitrant bunch of imperialists in the British press that still use such antiquated terminology and haven't most serious published authors recognised that the term is obsolete? Honestly, can anyone provide refs to counter such an assertion? Couldn't it be true? I'd expect that it might be argued not to be, or even to be a ludicrous suggestion, but on what verifiable basis? Ciao. Hughsheehy 20:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
All of which are good reasons for dropping the adverbs altogether. It is undeniable and easily provable both that it is used, and that it is disputed. Stick to that, and most of the reasons for debates such as these go away. Gsd2000 20:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree Gsd2000, but Hugh, on your last point, are you saying that the RTE weather-girl Nuala Carey, born in Monkstown and a graduate of UCD, is a recalcitrant British Imperialist? Given that only last week I heard her use the term on the weather. Strange world we do live in. MarkThomas 08:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi again, back from your 31 hour 3rr block i see! (not from this page either). Perhaps I was being ironic. Hughsheehy 10:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Hugh! I've missed your craic. It's been relaxing having some time off. For those interested in these things, on Nazism I was attempting to prevent complete pro-Nazi POV from infecting the page, as I have done for some considerable time. My "competitor" got a block too. I did over-react though and am suitably chastened and humbled. Enjoying your contributions Hugh despite disagreeing with (some of) them. MarkThomas 10:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, in light of that claim, I've just put a phonecall through to RTÉ. When I finally got the relevant guy in the newsroom he said that it is not RTÉ policy to use that term and that they do, in fact, have a manual of style (above wikipedians take note) which specifically excludes its use. That manual of style is for internal RTÉ usage. Should any of you doubt this the RTÉ News section can be contacted through 01 2083111 (353 1 2083111 from the Sceptred Isle). He gave me the number of Met Éireann who were asked the same question. The girl on the phone confirmed that the phrase is not used by them as a matter of policy and that it would not, under any circumstances, be included on a weather report from their office to RTÉ. She said it could be changed by RTÉ, but Met Éireann had nothing to do with that. Met Éireann can be contacted at: 01 8064200 (353-1-8064200). So, back to RTÉ to ask Nuala Carey did she breach both RTÉ and Met Éireann policies. She is not there at present. But it's not looking good for the above unsubstantiated claim by young Mark Thomas! 82.198.140.23 10:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Well if it's not RTE policy to use the term and they have a manual of style against it, then they may like to pay attention to it for their; Sports Reporting [16] [17] (this one is quite explicit about including Ireland in the term [18]) [19], Programme Information [20] [21], News Reports [22]. It is used on RTE, by RTE and to include Ireland, this is a fact. Ben W Bell talk 11:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, and the BBC has a style guide too and (IIRC) they've used "British Isles and Ireland" and British Isles as a country, etc.. The point (which is currently not verifiable (for casual visitors of the page), even if it's true) is that a/the major media outlet in Ireland and the national weather org may have a policy against its use. MI6 or not, that's relevant...although I get the impression it's hardly welcome news for some here. However, there needs to be a citation/reference that visitors to the page can easily access, which 82.198 has not yet provided. Perhaps he/she can do that. Hughsheehy 11:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Clearly she's an MI6 operative planted to spread propagandized imperial verbiage to naive weather-watching audience of RTÉ. This is surely a new low in the history of our islands. --sony-youthtalk 09:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps MI6 operatives are using "British Isles" implants that pre-dispose the "implantee" to mindlessly repeat the phrase but only within the borders of Eire? Since I never seem to hear it mentioned in the Imperialist Zone of Royal Brittania. MarkThomas 09:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
'Stick to that, and most of the reasons for debates such as these go away' Translation: Listen, Paddies, you most troublesome provincials, drop your objections to us rational peace-loving British wikipedians claiming your country to be British and...we will all be at peace. Logic, British nationalist style. 89.100.195.42 23:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Comments like that only serve to demonstrate how completely unsuited you are to contributing to an encyclopaedia. Gsd2000 23:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Jumpin' Jehosophat! I'm in deep trouble now! (See unsigned user on RTE weather girl policies above) I may have to resign as an MI6 operative if I'm uncovered. There goes our plan to dominate the Irish with phrases like "British Isles" and "English Channel"! MarkThomas 10:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Please, stick to discussion of how to improve the page. This isn't a general chat page. (signed late) Hughsheehy 11:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Deep breath. Well everyone, I tried to be nice. MarkThomas 11:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

First Hugh gets the Beeb to correct its mistakes, now we're cliping on RTÉ weatherpersons and blurbwriters! All very amusing, but to get back on topic, there seemed to be some possible agreement around a suggested wording, subject to "generally" being removed. So here's a revised version:

Although the term British Isles is used in the United Kingdom and a number of other countries, its acceptability is disputed in the Republic of Ireland and by Nationalists in Northern Ireland.

Let the negotiations on wordings recommence. Just my tuppenceworth, .. dave souza, talk 13:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

It suffers the same problem as outlined (a few 'Page Ups') above - it implies that it is disputed universally in the RoI (and by NI nationalists). Which isn't the case. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 16:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Saying that it is disputed does not equate to saying that it is universally disputed, any more than saying that maple syrup is made in Canada means that every single Canadian makes it. If one infers that, one is making an unjustified leap of induction. Gsd2000 16:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Can't now recall all the details of the arguments, but what then would be wrong with

Although the term British Isles is used in the United Kingdom and a number of other countries, its acceptability is sometimes disputed in the Republic of Ireland and by Nationalists in Northern Ireland.

? Unless you have the (very unlikely) POV that this opinion is universal in Eire and Republican NI, surely this is accurate? MarkThomas 16:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Despite having to agree with the anon IP troll, Mark, I'd point you at this. You don't refer to France as 'la Republique Francaise' in normal conversation, do you? Or to Italy as 'Italia'? No reason to do it for Ireland either, especially if you want to avoid causing offense. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 10:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
What a minefield. I was genuinely making an effort to be polite and thought that was a favoured name! Is your offence that as a non-Irish person I can't say "Eire"? I think that's a pretty extreme view if you don't mind me saying so. What on earth is wrong with saying Francais or Italia? MarkThomas 10:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough if you were making an effort to be polite, and I don't mean to bite. Unfortunately, its misguided in this instance. The problem is that English people using "Éire" is often perceived as being condescending or patronising. The name of the country, as stated in our Constitution, in the English language, is Ireland (and Éire in the Irish language). Wanting one's country to be called by its proper name is hardly extreme. There is nothing wrong with saying Francais or Italia per se, the point is you don't do it. You call them France and Italy - unless you happen to be speaking French or Italian. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 11:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

And do you really think the Irish are going to take seriously any person who refers to the 26 of Éire's 32 counties that are free as constituting Éire? How disconnected you really are from Irish views on these most British nationalist traits of yours.82.198.140.23 08:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC) PS: That you would propose "sometimes" in light of all the above indicates that you really are a troll.

And why not? Since Eire is also used to refer to the Republic of Ireland, not just the entire island, there is nothing wrong with it. And saying that 26 of the 32 counties are free is really putting a heavy POV on the topic rather than approaching it from a more neutral prospective. Ben W Bell talk 08:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Used by whom to refer to the 26 counties is the point. The British? The unionists? That is the point. PS: It is a fact that 26 of the 32 counties are free from British rule. It is not mere pov. Are you really in denial of this? 82.198.140.23 08:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Well it was used by the Irish Free State when it existed to refer to the 26 counties, and it is also used by the current government on occasion such as on coinage. The article on Eire says all this, unless that is open to dispute as well. Free from British Rule? Yes, but so is France, Germany, Italy, Saudi Arabia and almost the rest of the world. To say that only 26 counties in Ireland are free is implying that 6 of them are under some kind of oppressive yoke and regime that aims to keep the common man down and stop them from fulfilling their dreams. Ben W Bell talk 09:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


Wagger's suggestion of "frequently" seems to fit the bill. That is well supported by ref and now also - apparently - by the RTE style guide (although I'd prefer to see it and not just take it on trust.) "Sometimes" implies rarity, which is contradicted by reference. I accept (although am a little surprised) that if "often" implies "mostly" that we may still be short of sufficient reference for that......but only barely, especially with the RTE once it's produced. Meantime, MarkThomas is trying to bring us around in circles. Either sometimes or always are the two options he allows, neither of which is reasonable. It's demonstrably not "always" and it's demonstrably not "sometimes" (remember Websters definition of that is "every now and then"). So, either leave it as dave souza proposes - which avoids the issue of adverbs entirely - or add "generally" and "frequently", as per Wagger's suggestion. As an alternative, the word "rejected" may be substituted for "disputed". Perhaps it's often not disputed as such, just not used at all, which is more like rejected than disputed. As sony youth says below...kinda like the French. Hughsheehy 16:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Do you not see though Hugh that your use of "frequently" is going too far in the other direction since to a casual reader it strongly implies near-unanimity, something that has not been proven. I would however accept "often disputed" as a compromise. MarkThomas 16:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
'Frequently' does not imply anything like near-unanimity. It certainly suggests less opposition than "is disputed. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 10:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I might be inclined to agree if it wasn't totally clear what POV lies behind all this, as for example in your recent put-down above about using the name "Eire" where you evidently view "us Brits" as hopelessly biased anti-Irish, which is both wrong and muddle-headed. The fact remains that what we have here is Republican POV-pushing and for that reason if no other it is worth resisting. MarkThomas 10:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Heh. Accused of being a West Brit and a Republican POV-pusher in the one Talk section - is this a record? :-) BastunBaStun not BaTsun 11:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
In fact this 'near-unanimity' has been proved, and many times for that matter. Your resistance to the abundant evidence in this regard evidently proves other things. 82.198.140.23 08:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Near-unanimity has not been proved, it hasn't been proved that the vast majority of the population of the Republic of Ireland finds the term offensive. It has been proved that some do yes, but there are no figures or representative proportions provided to prove near-unanimity, and it has been proved that the term is indeed used by many in the RoI despite the claims that everyone is against the use of it, and this includes media and politicians. Ben W Bell talk 08:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Don't feed the anon-IP trolls... BastunBaStun not BaTsun 10:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
You don't seem to be too deficient in the wind-up department yourself BaTsun. MarkThomas 10:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Frequently does not mean "near-unanimity." If that is what you read into it then maybe you should pull back a little and get some perspective. By way of example: If I told my boss that I "frequently" came to work, I don't think he'd be too happy. If he told me that I frequently didn't then that would be a problem - but it would not mean that I was always (or even nearly always) absent. It could mean that every week I would phone in absent one day - so 20% of the time can be "frequent". On the other hand, if I was "sometimes" absent ... well, I don't think he'd mind too much. "Sometimes" is no big deal, not notable, not worth mentioning.
Also, leaving out a numerator does not imply "near-unanimity" or "always" either. For example, the sentence "people make personal phone calls at work" does not mean (or even imply) that that is all that people do at work, or that ALL people make personal phone calls at work, or that people do not make pesonal phone calls anywhere else. --sony-youthtalk 12:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I think this depends on the intention behind using the word. To take an alternative to discussing it with your boss, suppose someone hit their wife. The police arrive and a policeman says "do you hit her frequently?". "No, just sometimes." Now do you see the difference implication makes? Clearly, the sentence is fine as it is, and the proposed change is intended to POV-push it more towards giving the impression that everyone in (deep breath) the Republic of Ireland and the territories mis-named "Northern Ireland" by the Brits is in ferment over the merest use of the term, which is false. I really don't see any further need to talk about this. I think we've heard from everyone. A compromise of "often" has been offered and rejected. My opinion is the current sentence should stand. MarkThomas 12:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the current sentence should stand. Gsd2000 12:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I didn't see the current edit. I'm fine what that too. But please don't accuse people of POV editing. There is plenty of evidience that the term is problematic in Ireland. This alone should be noted. Be it frequently, often, sometimes, here-and-there - we'll never agree, but I suspect that we all have our reasons for wanting to say one or the other. No one of us has a monopoly on POV. --sony-youthtalk 12:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Not sure that disputed gives the correct sense of the situation, but due to a lack of alternatives I think the current version should stand. Ben W Bell talk 13:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Just to put on record that the version that TharkunColl has reverted to does NOT represent a consensus. Hughsheehy 17:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Faroes and Rockall

I was looking for information on whether or not the Faroes were considered part of the British Isles (I read in a textbook a while back that they were) and came across an older mirror of this article that menetioned them and Rockall as sometimes being considered geographically part of the British Isles. The most recent version of the article, however, has removed them. I was wondering why. Serendipodous 15:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a "hard" definition, just a generally accepted one. The Channel Islands are sometimes in, sometimes not. Ireland is generally in, despite objections. Mind you, I haven't seen a description of the Faroes as being in. If you have a specific reference, let's have it. Geographically I can't really say. I believe the Faroes are on the NW European continenal shelf, which is probably as good a geographical criteria as any other, but it is not for anyone here to say. That's up to you, or anyone else, to provide a reputable source that says it. As for Rockall, I have no idea. Hughsheehy 15:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Rockall and the Faroes are both isolated lumps of volcanic rocks thrust into the surrounding geology, and there is also a deep trench between the Faroes and the Shetlands. Rockall is, of course, just a rock, and culturally, the Faroes face towards towards Scandinavia. So, all in all, if they are ever lumped within the British Isles, I think it is perhaps just for tidiness. MAG1 23:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The Shetlands and Orkneys were Norwegian territory until what - the 15th century...so the cultural argument holds a bit, but only for quite recent times, and they still burn Viking ships in the Shetlands every year. Geographically, Rockall is outside the Porcupine Basin, but it´s still on the continental shelf, and there´s volcanic rock in Antrim too (cf. the Giant´s Causeway), so I don´t know if that´s an argument. The Faroes are outside some sort of trench too, but I have no idea what/how deep. Basically, AFAIK, it´s not common to include them but if there is a serious reference somewhere that does then we should consider it too.....but seeing the specific reference is the only place to start. Maybe Serendipodous can provide it. Hughsheehy 08:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
There are lumps of igneous rocks all over the place, but they do not form a continuous sheet; instead they push through the overlying layers. MAG1 23:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Here's a couple of images that are illustrative. http://www.ospar.org/grfx/Q.F.2.2.jpg http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/image/2minsurface/1350/90N045W.jpg Seems that the seabed would argue for the Faroes being something geographically separate. Still, I'm no expert on the Faroes. Hughsheehy 10:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Hugh, really! Are you trying to lay claim to Ireland on our precious and manly British remote offshore rocky lumps? MarkThomas 15:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Am I "trying to lay claim to Ireland on our precious and manly British remote offshore rocky lumps?". I don't know what that means, or even what it might mean. I put up some references to seabed images that show the Faroes being beyond a trench and thus looking as if there is quite a separation between them and the rest of the north west European continental shelf. Still remains that I don't know a lot about the Faroes but I have not heard them generally described as being in the British Isles. Hughsheehy 13:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Most geographers would not typically associate the Faroes with Britain, although the islands do maintain a link with the people of Shetland and Orkney, which is part of their shared cultural and economic history. They are traditionally separate in atlases for example and are regarded either as connected to Scandinavia (they are now an autonomous part of Denmark) or as part of the general North Atlantic domain. Britain has never claimed them but did use them (along with the US) as a base during WW2 and invaded them in 1940 to prevent Germany taking control there. MarkThomas 17:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The Faroes and Rockall are clearly not on the same piece of continental shelf as the British Isles, but inhabit their own detached fragments. However, this fact cannot have been known to the ancients, who presumably had no reliable way of measuring seabed depths. Ignoring the continental shelf, and just looking at the landmasses as they exist above water, it seems perfectly reasonable to include them as part of the British Isles. This may account for why Classical geographers included such places as Thule in with the British Isles, which may or may not be the Faroes for example. There has indeed been a certain amount of elasticity around the fringes of what constitute the British Isles over the millennia, but this elasticity has only applied to tiny, outlying islands. The core of the group, Britain and Ireland, has always remained constant, because these islands are massively bigger than any of the others involved. To remove one or other of these from the definition would effectively render the phrase meaningless, or at least pointless. TharkunColl 18:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Been away and missed this love fest. Just wanted to point out that this again assumes that the term existed "over the millennia". Hughsheehy 11:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
As far as I understand, Rockall was formally claimed by the UK as being a part of the UK. The Rockall article says it is administratively part of Harris in Scotland. Ireland also claims that it is a part of Ireland, but this claim is not legislated in Irish law (the UK claim is law in the UK). Also, again as far as I understand, the UK means for delineate Rockall as in their territory depended on Northern (northern) Ireland a part of the UK. In the case of a united Ireland, the same method would have put Rockall as squarely Irish.
Whether this means it is a part of the British Isles or not, I don't know. Would it be the only part of the UK or Ireland not in the British Isles, were it not? --sony-youthtalk 18:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
As a side note, where has anyone seen a geological definition of the British Isles? Talk of sea beds, in my opinion, seems to miss the mark. We already know the ambiguity of the Channel Islands - half of the definitions explicitly include them, the other half leaves it hanging. The name in self simply refers to "those people over there on those islands." These are not "the low countries" or another place named explicitly after a geological phenomenon, but a place explicitly named after a group of people. The place was named after a people, not rocks on the sea bed. It is wherever those people are - whatever they call it or, more to the point, by whatever name the describe themselves as. --sony-youthtalk 18:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
If Rockall is part of the UK (which I believe it is), then it would indeed be the only part of the UK not in the British Isles (assuming that Rockall is not in the British Isles, that is). The British Isles is not a political term, just as Europe isn't. As a British person, to me, the term British is definitely a collective term, not a national one at all. It refers to the four nations of the British Isles, England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales. And this will remain the case whatever political arrangements are in place (e.g. Scottish independence, if that is in any way likely). TharkunColl 23:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
AFAIK, at least the Irish dispute withthe UK over Rockall was settled when it was agreed that it gave no seabed rights and it is now part of the UK. Hughsheehy 11:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
However, as someone who is not British, I cannot understand why a person would persist in calling me such - and so strange that people would react so passionately to convince me that I am. What is the motivation behind this word? It truly is bewildering. Yugoslavia, anyone? --sony-youthtalk 01:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Yugoslavia (which means "Southern Slavs") was an invented term to describe a union of states formed in the 20th century. British is an ancient term that referred to the islands of Britain and Ireland. The fact that the term British was much, much later used by the British state should not cause any more confusion than the difference between Europe and the European Union. TharkunColl 09:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Tharkun on this last point in general terms, but the problem is that it has subsequently become a term heavy with political implications especially for some in Ireland. I don't think we can just brush it off as being irrelevant but on the other hand equally we shouldn't over-represent that particular view of some Irish as being universal. Like many things, it is both long-established and controversial to some. In Britain we all grew up accepting it without question, but that does not mean that others always do. Wikipedia should reflect that but not exaggerate or mis-state it. MarkThomas 10:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
You know, it might be relevant to think about whether people are entitled to have some say on what they should be called. I remember once someone asking me if I objected to the fact that many clubs in Ireland still have "Royal" in the name. The answer, "no". It's their business what they call themselves....and in any case, since almost anyone in Ireland can be Head of State the description "Royal" could apply to everyone ;-)) Hughsheehy 11:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


<edit conflict: in reply to TarkunColl>
Meanwhile, 2000 years later, back in the real world ... Tark, the same writers described the larger of the two islands as Albion. Are you an Albanian? :) The Yugoslav thing is close to my mind. I got talking to a Serb woman the other night and asked her to explain the background of the war to me. It was funny the way the story ran - I mean in light of the discussions on this page. Her story started sometime in 500 AD (she didn't say, but I suppose the close of the Roman Empire). She explained how at that time they all were one and were all called by the same name. Then, without explanation, she jumped to the 20th century, by which time they had all fallen apart. As a Serb, she was definitely in favour of Yugoslav unity and a common Yugoslav identity. But what happened in those intervening 1500 years was simple left out of her story - she wouldn't say what had happened, just that "originally" they were all together, and this is how it still should be.
Likewise, I feel there's something missing from your telling of the story. Personally, I believe that at the time you talk about "British" (or whatever variant thereof) was appropriate to us all. Its not known at what point exactly Ireland became Gaelic, as opposed to Britannic, but it was definitely such the case in 500AD (when we have the earliest written records of Old Irish). At that time, Gaelic culture appears to have spread outside of Ireland to Scotland - but it may have already been present there during Roman times. I don't think the Roman boundary, which also marks the boundary between Britannic and Gaelic sects, is coincidental. However, whether it caused the difference or whether marks a boundary that existed already at that time is simply not know. Personally, I would say the former. To me, it makes more sense. But no-one knows for sure.
But what about the intervening 1500 years? And what about today? Well, today, we all speak English (a Britannic language?) and our histories are so intertwined that we could not possibly say that we are not related. I, personally, feel a strong affinity between us all, and I think virtually all Irish people do also. But the term "British", while I understand the sense that you mean it in, means something quite different to me, as it does in dictionaries], encyclopedias, glossaries, vernacular and political usage. It would be wonderful if a new term could be coined to cover us all, but in writing this encyclopedia we must stick to the facts. We cannot not judge them and certainly we cannot gloss over 2000 years for the sake of maintaining a consistent founding myth . --sony-youthtalk 10:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Eh, regarding boundaries, as well as the position changing during Roman rule, the place name evidence seems generally accepted as pointing to the Picts being Brittonic rather than Gaelic. Pretty clearly Strathclyde was Brittonic originally, but also came under Gaelic rule and appears to have had Gaelic areas in the west in historic times. People and culture moved around a fair bit over a couple of millennia. .. dave souza, talk 12:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the evidence is that Gaelic influence on Scotland is from the 5th century onwards. --sony-youthtalk 16:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
What was the Gaelic word or name for the "British Isles"? MarkThomas 11:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, now had time to check and it is answered on Wikipedia at the Irish History article in the Celtic names section - [[23]] - where it states that "In Irish, the term Oileáin Bhriotanacha is attested as a version of the English term 'British Isles'." To my untutored ear, Oileáin Bhriotanacha sounds very like it uses the "britain" Celtic root-word "Brython" or (in Gael) "Bhriotan". The table in that very detailed article does not show any ancient Celto-Gael phrase for "British Isles" other than this one. So it seems that the ancient roots of the name "Britain" are shared in the Celto-Gael languages, which I believe is anyway fairly common knowledge amongst linguistic historians. Therefore the position is that "British Isles" or translations of that are actually the ancient and "original" (as far back as we have knowledge) names of these islands. So the rejection of the term is purely a modern political phenomenon in Ireland. MarkThomas 11:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Don't look to Irish as a window to the past, its no more of a mythical language of the ancients than English is. The cultural heritage of Irish runs in parallel to that of English and the Brythonic languages. Its not at all surprising that cognates of "British Isles" occur in Irish during the mid-1930s, especially in a book written first in English then translated into Irish - terminology may have had to stay the same for who knows what number of reasons. I notice that you passed over Dineen's 1927 English-Irish dictionary entry for "British Isles" as being "Oileáin Iarthair Eorpa" (lit.: Western European Islands). My (pocket) dictionary does not list the term but I notice an online one does. My girlfriend, a fluent speaker, was quite surprised when I pointed this out to her. What it was in Old Irish (or even older modern Irish), I don't know. It would be interesting to find out. We know the term didn't exist in Old English since the OED places in at 1621, so personally I think its doubtful that it would occur in Old Irish either. I contact some linguist friends and ask them to check it out. --sony-youthtalk 12:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
That would be useful. I am not sure exactly what point you are making above Sony-youth, I thought you were saying in your previous statement that you didn't think the term "British Isles", which TharkunColl appeared to claim was ancient across the Islands and therefore uncontestable, was not used in ancient Ireland? The available sources all confirm that the word "British" is descended from Celto-Gaelic root words such as "Brython" and ""Bhriotan". Now that I've pointed this out, you seem to be shifting ground again and claiming that it was also known as "Oileáin Iarthair Eorpa". I don't know for certain, but I suspect the latter term is a modern fabrication, much like the Welsh invent names in the Welsh language for "microchip" or "motorway interchange" which did not previously exist. It will be interesting to see if others can confirm that. All of which just goes to confirm my original point that the dispute over the term "British Isles" and it's translations is a purely modern one, which was TharkunColl's point and which I agreed with. QED. :-) MarkThomas 15:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Mark, the issue is "ancient" and "therefore uncontestable." Albion is the ancient name for the island of Britain. Is it the name today? Likewise, should we call Scotland Caledonia? Or France Gaul? Only when pushing founding myths. As for "British Isles" being used in Old Irish (if that's what you mean by "ancient Ireland"), its highly unlikely that it was. It certainly was not used in Old English. Why do you think it would be used in Old Irish? (It was, however, at least for a time, used in Ancient Latin and Greek, c.500 years before Old Irish and Old English, but relatively soon thereafter the term "British" contracted to mean only the area under Roman rule and so with it the term "British Isles" became anachronous.)
And as for likening a term like "British Isles" to one like "microchip" - one that needs to be a "fabrication" because it "did not previously exist" - what are smoking, man? Is your point here that not until 1937 was a word to describe our archipelago ever needed or used in Irish? If so, what a coincidence that it would come into Irish through a translation of an English-languge geography book! Can you not see the earlier English-Irish dictionary entry for "British Isles"? "British Isles" is translated into Irish as "Oileáin Iarthair Eorpa." That phrase is cognate the the Icelandic word for the archapelago - from what I understand, something akin to 'the Western Isles' in a language where "British" people are described as 'Westerners.'
Mark, I think you need to take stock. You're getting too wound up about this. Please, if you think that this is all made up then quote your sources. Surely, we have produced enough newspaper clippings, book quotes, press releases and politicos talking about it to convince you that it is real. If it were not then surely there would be other clips, quotes, releases and politicos out there saying, "This is all made up! No-one believes this, do they!? Its all an exaggeration!" If they are out there, produce them. This encyclopedia is not a place for your unsubstantiated POV. --sony-youthtalk 16:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Quite difficult to follow your latest extended ramble Sony, but I think (maybe) I'm getting the hang of it! Can we break it down into pieces please. (1) Are you arguing that "British Isles" and it's Celto-Gael equivalents do not pre-date c500AD? Can we start with that one please? Short answer would help! MarkThomas 17:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

On the specific issue of the name Albion, Sony seems to be saying that it is no longer used. But a moment's reflection will show that this is not true. For example, I can think of at least three professional football teams that have it in their name (West Bromwich Albion, Brighton & Hove Albion, and Albion Rovers). Furthermore, it is used in poetry, song (e.g. the Church of Scotland recently substituted the word "Albion" for the word "England" in the hymn Jerusalem - thereby perpetrating a hugely ironic travesty because Blake had a lot to say about Albion), and within the Pagan revival movement. However, "Albanian" is certainly not its adjectival form, and I'm not sure that it has one. TharkunColl 17:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Tark: Caledonian, Hibernian and such forth are also used to similar effect. But these uses are for affectation, and are not common name for the places they refer to. Clearly, "Albanian" was meant tongue in cheek, hence the smiley face after it i.e. ":)"
Mark: The Oxford English dictionary dates the term "British Isles" to 1621 in the English language. We know this for sure. It is not used in Old or Middle English. It is purely a modern construct in the English language. It's coinage at that time was influenced, for whatever reason, by Ancient Latin and Greek records from circa. the time of Roman conquest of Britain. It may even have been straight calque from the Ancient Latin/Greek. I suspect the other languages of the British Isles calqued the phrase from English. --sony-youthtalk 18:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the OED is demonstrably wrong in its 1621 date, because John Dee used the term British Isles (in English) in 1577. Perhaps he was the first, but who knows? Given his antiquarian and geographical interests, there's a pretty good chance he was. His influence was almost certainly the use of the Latin term that had been employed by geographers for the previous century or so. In other words, he wasn't harking back to a long-forgotten Classical usage, but was following contemporary geographical practice. His only innovation, if innovation it was, was to translate the term into English - but use of the vernacular was becoming more popular all over Europe at this time. TharkunColl 19:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure that's right about Dee, did you mean to say TC that "there's a pretty good chance he wasn't"? BTW. Anyway I believe there is a basic confusion here on Sony-youth's part. The term "British Isles" can hardly be either new (eg, post-1621 or even post-1577) because it uses an ancient word "British" (Celtic: Brithan/Brythain) and because it is therefore obvious that the islands must have been referred to in that way. Now the Celto-Gaelic languages are very, very ancient - I believe I read in New Scientist recently that based on linguistic and genetic comparisons, at least 3,500 years old in our islands. Therefore it is extremely likely that the phrase goes back at least that far. The other confusion you have Sony is that the word Britain and it's root words as explained are somehow "classical" - they are not. The Romans took the Celtic-language word form and slightly adapted it "Brittania". Doubtless they also used a term like "Islands of Brittania" in Latin equivalent. I think the point here is that "Britain", "British" and "British Isles" have very ancient roots. The modern argument is about the modern political meaning of "British Isles" and really has nothing at all to do with the historic meaning. Including and right up to the somewhat laughable attempts of the Irish Embassy in London to try to stop British media organizations from using it! MarkThomas 19:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
What a feast of speculative pseudo-historical nonsense. Sources please? --sony-youthtalk 19:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


For everyone's info, Sony-youth has just accused me of personal insults on my talk page. This from the editor whose comment line just now read "keep it simple stupid". There is no need for any of this anyway, because I meant nothing insulting. I am genuinely curious as to the etymology and origin of the phrase "British Isles". Calling this genuine attempt to enquire about it "a feast of speculative pseudo-historical nonsense" when beaten on the arguments hardly helps. I propose Sony-youth that you actually respond to the points calmly instead of getting worked up about nothing. I am not even trying to have a row with you. MarkThomas 20:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Mark, you asked me to "break it down into pieces" and said that "short answer would help." Marking my edit comment with "keep it simple stupid" was an obvious (I thought) reference to the KISS principle.
Why is what you said above "speculative pseudo-historical nonsense"? Because the OED put 1621 as the date first use in English of the term "British Isles." TarkunColl, with all due respect (genuinely), was able to push this date back by 44 years – truly an achievement. However, despite this, you both persist in wanting to demonstrate a continual from the time of Ptolemy. This means you having to push the date back another 1,427 years. Ask yourself, what motivates you to believe in such a clearly fantastical ambition?
Finally, for the interest of those reading this, the personal insult mentioned above is one where Mark (below) listed me as being among "one or two editors [who] persistently dictate the Republican Irish agenda." An obvious personal attack from an editor just back from a ban for personal attacks elsewhere (for whatever reason).--sony-youthtalk 07:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't thinking of you as one of the "hardline Irish editors" (to quoute others who edit here, not my remark) but if you tend to think it might mean you, then perhaps there's something in it? As regards the "fantastical" allegation above, try reading some Etymology theory - there is nothing fantastical in assuming a long heritage for root words. I would propose you debate about things you understand on Wikipedia, at the moment there's a big gap between your knowledge and what you say. MarkThomas 08:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Discussion now split between two section. Answering question from below, which was: "I note that you still haven't replied to the exact questions we asked you in relation to the origins of the term 'British Isles'. Looked to me like you attempted to get this row going when you got beaten on the other point."
Mark, I answered all of your questions. They were:
"What was the Gaelic word or name for the 'British Isles'"?" Answered here.
Are you arguing that 'British Isles' and it's Celto-Gael equivalents do not pre-date c500AD? Answered here.
In your personal attack[24][25], it was apparant that it was directe at me because you called me by name and referred specifically to my edits.
With regard to etymological theory, which you appear to know so much about, I'm reticient to remind your genius that we are not talking about root words here, but a claque. You should maybe brush up on some theory, yourself!
As for editors left waiting, I am still waiting for sources to back up your feast of speculative pseudo-historical nonsense above. Where are they? --sony-youthtalk 09:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
What the heck relevance does "claque" have to any of this? Claque is French for "clapping". In fact, what the heck relevance does any of your rambles above have to anything?? The other things you purport to be "answers" above are not answers at all, just more rambling irrelevant rants. Really, this "conversation" appears to be a total waste of time. I won't bother to respond any more as there are no relevant points here. I tried to get you to clarify in succinct sentences your rejection of TharkunColl's point about the long history of the term "British" and you have failed to do so. (1) You claimed "British" was a classical term. False. (2) You claimed it has no history. False - it at least goes back to pre-Roman times. (3) You claimed "Albion" was related to "Albanian" and then when pulled up on it claimed this was a joke. The overall thrust of your statements as far as I can divine them (which is difficult) is that "Britain" never meant what is now "Ireland" which may or may not be true - you haven't proved or disproved that either way - but it is certainly an ancient word and of Celtic origin, so it is likely, something you obviously won't accept, but since most historians do, your views on it are irrelevant. MarkThomas 09:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Apologies, typo: "calque" - although I'm surprised that someone with your knowledge of etymology did not spot such an obvious and minor error in typing. As for point 1, in English, we recieve the word "British" through Latin/Greek. On point 2, where did I claim it ("British") "had no history"? (Your first point is that I said it can be traced to the classical era and your second point is that I said it "has no history" - truely bizarre argumentation, Mark.) On point 3, making "Albanian" out to be adjectal form of "Albion" was clearly a joke as indicated by the emoticon (the link goes to the creation/intention of emoticons i.e. to mark someting as meant as a joke). Finally, what the hell are you harping on about "British" for?? This article is about "British Isles" - it is the etymology of that prhase, albeit related to "British", that we are concerned with.
Any sign of those sources I asked for? Or will you avoid having to substantiate your drivel forever? --sony-youthtalk 10:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Having read all the above... I fear we have not come to any conclusions about the Faroes and their geography and no-one has got any reliable information either way. If Serendipodous came back, would he be any wiser? Hughsheehy 11:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
We did answer this fairly comprehensively above I believe - almost nobody seems to think the Faroes are part of the (it's that name again!) British Isles. The Wikipedia article has it about right: "Location: Northern Europe, island group between Norway and Iceland in Atlantic Ocean, north of the United Kingdom." MarkThomas 12:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Europe and the EU

Having taken a back seat on this page for quite some time now, what I think we need here is a bit of perspective. I shall illustrate this with a thought experiment that captures the issue very nicely. There is a geographical entity called "Europe" and a political entity called the "European Union". The geographical term is much older than the political term, and indeed the poltical term was named after the geographical one. Many people in the UK dislike the fact that they're in the EU, and if the British government ever gains the courage to leave that particular institution, there will no doubt be many who will rejoice at having left "Europe". But the UK would not, of course, have left "Europe" - such a thing is physically impossible. However much the British may dislike the thought of being part of "Europe", they are, and they always will be. Yes, no doubt British culture is distinct from "European" culture in many different ways - being on an island will do that sort of thing - but the larger landmass to our east will always be bigger, and we will always be part of the geographical region that bears its name. We will no longer have any political ties to it, however, and will not be part of the "European Union". TharkunColl 18:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I suppose something like that might happen, but how is it relevant, unless you're getting back into a discussion of how people "ought" to feel about the term "British Isles"? (which subject is perhaps worth discussing, but not on WP) Hughsheehy 19:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, the term Europe has been around in one form or another for thousands of years. Even there, we have a "Part of the mainland? I think not!" reaction. The term British is also old. But the term British Isles? That's the issue underlying all this talk page debate - was it cooked up in the late Tudor period for political purposes, or does it have a legitimate origin in geographical description? Let's join hands and sing Ode to Joy.--Shtove 09:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
And again, the term negro (still just means "black" in Spanish) was around for a long time, and it just means "black"...but it didn't stop people becoming offended by its variations. It's not the function of this page to debate how people ought to feel about anything...any more than someone should enter a section on the WP page on Broccoli that George Bush senior shouldn't dislike it. (http://www.usatrivia.com/biobush.html). There might be an entry on the broccoli WP page about "notable people who don't like broccoli", but hard to justify a section about how they should like it because it tastes great or to indulge in thought experiments about how since most people do or don't like spinach they should, or shouldn't, like broccoli. Hughsheehy 09:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
And that's precisely the point. Many British people may hate the thought of being European, or being part of Europe, but they cannot change geographical fact. And let's face it, their hatred of Europe is probably completely justified. Every single historical invasion, or attempted invasion, of the British Isles has come from Europe. Hardly surprising of course, given geography, but still true nevertheless. And you see, I even used the term "Europe" there as if it excluded the British Isles, which is a very common usage in English, but still wrong. We could even propose a new name for Europe - how about the "European and British continent", or some such linguistic abomination, but even if we started using it ourselves, the vast majority of people in the said continent would go on calling it Europe no matter how much we might stomp our feet and say we don't like it. And if a majority of inhabitants of a place call it by any particular name, then that, by any reasonable definition of "definition", is surely its proper name. TharkunColl 13:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Well then, off you go and rename Europe. Meantime, I'll stay here and try to put worthwhile facts in WP articles. I don't see a page on "TharkunColl hates Europe" anytime soon, nor on whether I like broccoli or not. Hughsheehy 14:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
This analogy doesn't really fly. Try telling North and South Koreans that the body of water next to them is named the Sea of Japan purely for geographical reasons. In both cases it's the notion of continued possession by an ex-colonial overlord that rankles, whether in adjectival form (British) or possessive (of Japan). This is totally irrelevant to the article, but the Irish and Koreans should take a leaf out of the French's book - you don't hear them moaning about the English claiming the Channel for themselves, they just call it something else and get on with life! Gsd2000 14:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Also you don't see the UK complaining about the body of water beside them call the Irish Sea. I don't think anyone actually believes that it means that it belongs to Ireland, but rather it's just named for geographic reasons. Ben W Bell talk 14:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
We are not here to judge who's right or wrong, just to document reality. GSD: The Irish do appear to "take a leaf out of the French book" and call it something else (or nothing in particular, as the case may be). It is notable that they do. It should be mentioned, and not rankled over. --sony-youthtalk 15:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi Tark, nice to see you back again. If you know of material published reliable sources asserting that a part of the British Isles is not in the European continent then I think you should add it. At the moment the article describes the archipelago as being in Europe. If this is not true, the article should be corrected. --sony-youthtalk 15:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I think we've all missed you Tharkie-baby, but where were you the last few weeks? I think quite a few editors felt a gap in their lives caused by lack of fueding with you over points of monumental absurdity. MarkThomas 15:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Be careful MarkThomas, that could be considered a Personal Attack by some quarters. Ben W Bell talk 15:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
No need to lose our sense of humo(u)r here... Gsd2000 16:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
OK. I am sincere - I have missed your presence TharkunColl! MarkThomas 15:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

International Herald Tribune

The British Isles issue has even reached the International Herald Tribune:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/03/01/opinion/edlet.php

"The so-called British Isles


Regarding issues surrounding the singing of "God save the Queen" in Ireland's Croke Park stadium, your article "On Irish turf, God save the English," (Feb. 24) repeats one of the phrases that annoy so many Irish people — the "British Isles."

I can do no better than repeat the words of an Irish Embassy spokesman in London quoted by The Times of London a few months ago: "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 usage." Amen to that!


The Irish fought a war of independence nearly 100 years ago to be Irish and not British. And they won it.


Hugh Sheehy, Barcelona"

More evidence of increasing dislike of the term outside Ireland.--86.31.235.99 00:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

It appears to be evidence that Hugh Sheehy, regular contributor to these pages of a certain view of Irishness, also writes to the IHT. MarkThomas 10:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
And evidence that he's been in Barcelona in Catalonia! Hope you're enjoying it there, Hugh, hope you're finding time to visit the Parc Guell. Slightly surprised at your last statement – thought the Irish were still fighting over British rule up to 1998, as mentioned in the IHT. Anyway, a response to an interesting article, though surprising that they didn't pick up on the obvious objection to "God Save the King/Queen" on republican rather than nationalist grounds. ... dave souza, talk 11:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
As previously pointed out on these talk pages, user hughsheehy may actually be Minnie Mouse or any of a number of Hugh Sheehys in the world or not. It's not relevant. User MarkThomas has the same name as a comedian but apparently we should not expect him to be funny. User dave souza has a name similar to a composer of military marches but so what? User 86.31.235.99 has a name I can never remember but is just as entitled to make edits as anyone else. What counts is the integrity and verifiability of edits on WP, although that seems to get forgotton on this page more than anywhere else. In any case, views published on letters pages are views published on letters pages. If someone wants to quote them here as evidence of something, fine, but caution and restraint is needed before considering them as sources for an encyclopedia as letters are often subject to unilateral editing before printing.
Meantime, AFAIK, there was no objection to "God Save the King/Queen" seen or heard at the ground on the day, nor has there ever been. As for Northern Ireland, it's a complicated subject. IIRC, this user has only ever made one comment on a NI related subject on a WP page, and it's on the talk page about Darren Clarke where user Ben W Bell would have seen it already, but that comment will hardly please those expecting me to espouse opinions that are convenient or easy to label or easy to condemn as one-sided. Sorry about that. Hughsheehy 10:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm puzzled Hugh - is it you in the IHT or not? If it is you, your POV is pretty clear for all to see. MarkThomas 11:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Hugh's opinion was quite clear to us all long before we knew he was resident in sunny Barcelona! And this is not his first foray into letter-writing to media organisations to "correct" (whichever way you want it quoted or unquoted) their use of the term "British Isles" - in all kinds of contexts. What's your point? Except to "[use] someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views" - see Wikipedia:No personal attacks. --sony-youthtalk 12:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Personally I would hate to be labelled as writing to such a bastion of US trustfunder-abroad psuedo-liberal nonsense as the IHT, so I can see where you're coming from with the personal attack thing. MarkThomas 12:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Removal of History of Ireland from See Also

Sony-youth removed the History of Ireland link from See Also - can you explain why please Sony? I assume this is based on the view that Ireland is not part of the "British Isles"? However, everyone thought so historically and that is what we are talking about in this context - the view that it is not is a minority one and the particular way that is being interpreted by a couple of persistent editors here on WP - an extreme minority one. I therefore propose we revert that change and have done so. Please discuss points like this before just forging ahead, it must be clear by now that this is contentious to most editors of these pages. Thanks. MarkThomas 16:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, i assume the reason is that History of Ireland is prominently listed in the infobox to the immediate right.—eric 17:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I am jumpy because of the tendancy we've seen here and at many related articles for one or two editors to persistently dictate the Republican Irish agenda, so am sensitive that we don't permit that POV to dominate. If I'm mistaken on this one, then it can be rectified. MarkThomas 17:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Then maybe assume some good faith, Mark, or, if you cannot do that, read edit comments: "rm hist of ireland - updated hist of BI to reflect all british isles" Previously the histories linked to from the 'British Isles' history info box were specifically about the island of Great Britain i.e. beginning from the prehistoric history of Great Britain, via the Roman province in the south of Great Britain, to the modern history of the United Kingdom. None of them mentioned the Isle of Man, Ireland or (I put them in as a 'see also') the Channel Islands.
I did not know that seeking the have all of the British Isles represented equally was specifically an "Republican Irish agenda," which by the way I would like you to retract as it is a clear personal attack. --sony-youthtalk 20:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
My memory was that originally we had separate "History of Britain" and "History of Ireland" infoboxes, and the change Sony-youth made recently struck me as being a welcome improvement, and part of a generally fair and even handed approach though of course there are interpretations which I'll still contend – O Corrain and O Rahilly both point to Brittonic speakers in Ireland in early historic times, but that's another issue. MarkThomas, in my opinion you've misunderstood a change here which can be discussed reasonably without unwarranted assumptions about political positions. WP:AGF is well justified here these days. .. dave souza, talk 21:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, the change Sony-youth made to that bit was fine. In fact, my remark about Republican agenda was not aimed at Sony-youth at all, but using comments like "keep it simple stupid" in edit lines is hardly Wikipedian either! Anyway, I stand by my remark that there is deep Republican POV going on from some editors - they know who they are. Sony-youth is not one of them afaik. And since we are anti-POV on WP, I see nothing wrong with declaring something POV when it is. This time I was mistaken, for which I apologise. MarkThomas 21:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Slinging accusation of POV is not a good idea. We can all bandy that stick around until eventually it ends it winds up in the hands of those who we really don't want it to. The "keep it simple stupid" comment was, as I wrote above, an obvious reference to the KISS principle (it was in reply to Mark asking me to keep my posts simple).
What I would suggest, Mark, seriously and genuinely, is that you look back at the "deep Republican POV" you have been seeing and ask yourself if really that is what it is. Then ask youself, what is your POV? We all have a POV (point of view), there is nothing wrong with that, in fact its essential to the collaborative effort of this encyclopedia, but being aware of what our own POV is is worthwhile. --sony-youthtalk 08:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I note that you still haven't replied to the exact questions we asked you in relation to the origins of the term "British Isles". Looked to me like you attempted to get this row going when you got beaten on the other point. Still, I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume good faith. :-) MarkThomas 08:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Mark, I replied to all of your questions, yet find myself waiting for responses from you. My response, which I posed above was this edit.
For the benefit of other edits, a section from that reply that is pertinent to this section is as follows: "In your personal attack[26][27], it was apparant that it was directed at me because you called me by name and referred specifically to my edits." --sony-youthtalk 09:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Stop trying to fabricate attacks where there aren't any. Read what I actually said in this section above. I asked you why you had changed it and said "the particular way that is being interpreted by a couple of persistent editors here on WP - an extreme minority one" - at no time did this refer to you. I even apologised in case it did, something you evidently won't accept. Perhaps I shouldn't have since you obviously want to fabricate an offense where none was proffered. MarkThomas 09:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

But which editors have this Republican agenda? Who are the extreme minority? If you can't specify, then you're just stirring it.--Shtove 10:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Your assumptions in the first post marked by your specific references to me and my edits juxtaposed your concern over "tendencies" by editors with an "agenda" was probably simply unwise and ill-thought out, but I accept now that you probably did not mean to attack me personally. When our discussion above was getting so heated, you really should have had more sense than to use inflamitary lanugage elsewhere concerning me.
Shtove's, question is pertinent however - who did you mean? --sony-youthtalk 10:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I believe he at least includes me in this category of extreme republican POV pushers, as can be seen from the recent run of edits on Cromwell where there was a sequence of clear accusations of POV and deletions of references as being Republican POV sources (judge for yourselves...although it could take a while to read through the edits and discussion page). I think I can live with the "shame" of MarkThomas thinking I have a POV that I don't have. He's accused me of collusion/sock puppetry, POV, writing edits I never wrote, etc., As for anyone else, just disagree with him a few times and see if you can get included in the extreme category too ;-) Hughsheehy 10:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I, at a very minimum, *feel* like I am "seeing." --sony-youthtalk 10:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
On Oliver Cromwell, Hughsheehy (who does or doesn't contribute to the IHT - we are in the dark!) is pushing the line that Cromwell was a genocidalist in Ireland. That is a very controversial view, but he is pushing it as if it were incontrovertible fact. When challenged, all kinds of insults are thrown around. I am not surprised few editors dare to challenge Hugh's little campaigns because what results is tantamount to sustained bullying and aggression, which many editors either would rather not get involved in or give up on. Unfortunately, I will be doing neither. MarkThomas 11:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I am not pushing anything except accurate citation and text that reflects the references and I don't want to bring the Cromwell discussion here. However, again, I never indulged in any "aggression" or "sustained bullying". Perhaps you could give a single example of this? As for Cromwell being a "genocidalist", I went to look it up on Webster to see if perhaps I was accusing him of being a genocidalist but just didn't know what it meant. However, Webster online came back with this; The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary. Click on a spelling suggestion below or try again using the search bar above. Suggestions for genocidalist: 1. gens d'eglise 2. januis clausis 3. genealogists 4. genealogist 5.jingoistically 6. Johne's disease 7. gymnastically 8. jeunesses dorees 9. Jerusalemite 10. gyrostabilizer . Oh dear. Meantime, I will not discuss Cromwell on this page. Hughsheehy 11:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
That's strange - I thought you brought Cromwell in above in the first place? On the actual point, the refs you cite give just one side of the view. Cromwell has been declared to have committed a genocide to use terminology acceptable to you (if you believe that word "genocidalist" is never used by the way, try for example [28]) by some authors but that hardly makes it a fact beyond all dispute, as you appear to be claiming in that article, and on my talk page and elsewhere. In fact, several times you used highly tendentious references including wording that misquoted authors and made it look as if the famous Down Survey supported your view when it did no such thing; the source of this "fight" between me and you was when I challenged those dodgy references and got them removed. POV POV POV. MarkThomas 12:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
True, but just as an example of how I am seen by you...as having some superbly one-sided POV. I won't refer to it again. Meantime, on the subject of my supposed POV, your belief that I made reference to the Down Survey is incorrect. If that's why you believe I have some POV then I'm sorry, but I never made any ref to the Down survey. I don't even know what it is. Hughsheehy 12:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
<edit conflict> No need to be childish, Hugh. I took a quick look at the Cromwell page, and noticed a few editors there note that the page is baised to the favourable opinion of Cromwell. Really, the greatest argument appears to be whether a thrid or only a quater or the Irish population was lost during that war, and wether Cromwell should be held responsible for the actions of his army. Of course if you believe Marks amateur historian, who I believe is laughed at by serious scholars, both in Ireland and the UK, then actually nobody died - at all! --sony-youthtalk 12:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


Is an Irish breakfast the same as an English breakfast? Or is it really an Ulster breakfast?

The struggle for identity finds new fields of conflict [29] Does anyone here have a position on the choice of black pudding or white? And what is the punishment for referring to rashers as bacon?--Shtove 21:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this important article out Shtove. I see limitless opportunities there for disputation. Already there are hardliners of all persuasions lining up for the big fight. Gosh it reminds me of Usenet. MarkThomas 21:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
...but please remember that it's NOT usenet. The point is that it's not anyone's opinion that counts, but what's verifiable. Hughsheehy 09:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
As long as its a fry, and not continental cold meats, cheeses and croissants - I'm happy to eat it and don't care what its called :-) BastunBaStun not BaTsun 23:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I saw that a couple of years ago - its just insanity! A fry is a fry whatever country its served in, and whereever its served then that's the name it gets on the menu. One positive thing can be taken from this, whatever we fight about here, at least we don't make tits out of ourselves by insisting the "Anglo-Celtic Isles" are wholly different to the "British Isles", which are different again from the "these Isles." Maybe, they could all merge under the "Anglo-Celtic fry" or "these Fries"?
Fighting over what to call breakfast is a for the seriously bored. --sony-youthtalk 07:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I've only ever seen it called an English, or a Full English, in places and publications that cater for tourists. Down at the caff they call it "b/fast w/beans", or "b/fast w/both" (i.e. beans and tomatoes - luxury!). One can have extra mushrooms, black pudding, fried bread, etc., but sausages always come as standard, along with the bacon and egg. And it only costs a couple of quid or so. TharkunColl 07:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Amazingly, I have managed to add to the introductory sentence of that article which read "The Irish breakfast is a cooked breakfast consisting mainly of pork products" the rider It is very similar to the better-known Full English breakfast without yet being accused of English imperialism, grotesque cultural insensitivity, a rampant desire to destroy Irish manhood as we know it, etc! Do people actually read that article in any great numbers? MarkThomas 08:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I suppose you will hardly be surprised that I marked that claim as dubious, see the talk page there. Google hits suggest that internationally in raw numbers there is little difference between the two (a ratio of 54:46), while proportionately "Irish breakfast" has far more hits outside of Ireland, 89.9% of the total, while only 37.8% of "English breakfast" hits are for pages outside of the UK. --sony-youthtalk 09:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Let's take it to the relevent talk pages (Talk:Full English breakfast, Talk:Irish breakfast and Talk:Ulster fry). Everyone here has had so much experience at this kind of thing that we could solve this kind of "problem" just for fun. --sony-youthtalk 08:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I've proposed that they all should be merged into Breakfast fry up (discussion). --sony-youthtalk 10:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I am in favor of an Anglo-Irish Breakfast Agreement followed by multi-party talks as to food groups and a new concordat on use of the term in the northern part of the island of Ireland. What do you think? By the way, there is some considerable debate already building on that page, so I am hopeful it may yet turn into a fully-fledged meaningless argument in the best Wikipedian tradition. MarkThomas 11:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep persiting and I'm sure it will. --sony-youthtalk 12:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but I am a bit perturbed to see that so far Hughsheehy has not come forward to fully reference a new definition of the Irish Breakfast as the "dominant form of breakfasting" in the "lands formerly known as the British Isles" and as the "majority breakfast". MarkThomas 12:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I spotted the talk page in Lamest Edit Wars. After all the flannel, my favourite line was:

  • What's referred to as an English breakfast in England is referred to as an Irish Breakfast in Ireland and not referred to at all in Australia because we wouldn't eat that shit if you paid us.

John Howard could yet break the deadlock.--Shtove 19:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The term British Isles, whilst generally used in the United Kingdom and elsewhere in the world

This is a bit of a stretch. It's used, but generally is a bit over the mark, and is a borderline pov sentence. Personally, I have travelled the world, and have never heard it used, except on the BBC. Well that's my experience. My second point, in which I believe there is general agreement, with the editors to this article anyway, is that it is a geographical term, and not political. Is this correct? 86.42.167.48 20:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

As discussed earlier, adjectives are problematic and in my opinion the "generally" is best removed. It does seem to be used outwith the UK – see #International Herald Tribune! :) ... dave souza, talk 21:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
dave, i believe you added the ref, now ref 2. The existence of a definition isn't evidence for "generally". see floccinaucinihilipilification... [30] I'd hardly argue that was "generally" used anywhere just because it appears in Dictionary.com. (note, I pick that word specifically because it's rare and one definition says so, but the point remains) Perhaps antidisestablishmentarianism is a better example. In any case, BI gets 4 definitions, flocci..gets 3, "the" gets 54. "nigger", one of the most offensive words in the world, gets 5 definitions. Dictionary.com isn't sufficient for "generally". Hughsheehy 13:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh, BTW, here's a rather amusing ref from the NYT...one of the sources for lots of articles on IHT. [31] ."When, during one tangent, the term “British Isles” arose, Mr. Cashman was quick to correct it. “Don’t use the phrase British Isles,” he said. “It’s England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland.” He added, “If you say it any other way, he’d probably throw his glass at you.” " Now, there's a man with strong opinions. Hughsheehy 15:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
It now reads: "The British Isles is a geographical term...". This doesn't make sense. Since, in this sentence, it is no longer the islands themselves that are being described, but rather the term, to leave the definite article ("The") at the beginning renders the whole thing complete nonsense.
Also, whilst the term is primarily geographical, so are countless others in the world, and we don't say this in their articles. In any case, the term British Isles is clearly not just geographical - it describes a linguistic and cultural unit as well. TharkunColl 21:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I get the impression that the attempt to have a reasonable synopsis of the "dispute" (a term I don't like in this context) here on the main page since the fork of the dispute page is failing and it may be time to bring that text back into the main page. The synopsis has now been battered down to one word "disputed", even though there is extensive ref to show that the term is widely objected to (latest edition of the OUP textbook on the history of the british isles now mentions the controversy in the intro...the previous edition didn't). One word is not a synopsis. Also, we're still missing even a single source for "generally". Hughsheehy 09:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
It's already there. Note 2 is virtually an article in its own right. Please remember that this is an article about a geographic location. The dispute, or whatever you want to call it (what's wrong with dispute?), properly belongs in its own article. Only a tiny minority of people in the British Isles appear to object to the term, and furthermore we have seen no evidence that such an objection is even the common view in the Republic of Ireland. On the one hand the Irish government say they no longer use it, but government ministers, MPs, and parliamentary reports continue to do so. I think that mentioning the dispute right up there in the first paragraph is already bending over backwards to be accomodating, and is already on the verge of giving a false or one-sided view to our readers. TharkunColl 09:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong with "dispute"? I go with sony_youth on this...it sounds like an issue at the UN. What actually seems to be happening is a lot of people saying they don't like or don't use or don't accept a term that's used to describe the country they live in. What's happening in WP is more like a dispute because there are people who insist that they don't care that there are people that don't like it and will insist that the fact is marginal and not to be accepted. Outside WP it's not a dispute. Here (unfortunately) it often is. Hughsheehy 17:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Those refs are only a sample. There are more and they are pretty solid that it's a "common view". Conversely, AFAIK, not even a single ref has been put forward to suggest that it's anything else, and not a single ref to say that it's "generally" used anywhere. Also, as you should know because it's been pointed out many times, the term British isles is often used as a synonym for the UK when used in the Irish parliament (BTW, they're called TDs, not MPs). I find it strange to say that we should have a "dispute" article and that it's "bending over backways to be accomodating" to have an reasonable synopsis on the main page. I believe it's against WP policy not to have a reasonable synopsis of a fork page. ("not to..." added later...i hit save instead of preview) Hughsheehy 10:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps because no one can be bothered to look for those references. Be that as it may, there are many uses of British Isles in its correct sense by the Irish parliament (mostly official reports, rather than mere debates), but these have been buried in notes within notes somewhere in the nether reaches of the dispute page. To hide these away is pretty close to dishonesty, and a misrepresentation of general Irish opinion and usage. With regards to having a reasonable synopsis on the fork page, I thought we already did. Not in the intro paragraph of course, because it doesn't belong there. TharkunColl 11:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
If no-one can be bothered to look for them then no-one has the right to presume that they exist or to insist that they must exist. WP depends on verifiability, not on what you think you know. If you believe they exist then go find the refs. I think the phrase in colloquial English would be "put up or shut up", and although it's a harsh phrase it seems appropriate. You cannot assume the refs exist and without them there's no counter to the refs that have been found. Meantime, the synopsis isn't reasonable. It's one word, and it's a bad word too. Also, the synopsis belongs top dead centre, and it should be short and accurate. This discussion has been had before too. So, either find the refs or provide some other reputable and verifiable basis for your consistent assertions that the objections to the term are rare/minority, etc. There are many refs that say different and they need to be accurately reflected in the text.
I cited all those instances of Irish parliamentary reports using the term. This alone should be enough to question just how disliked the term is in Ireland. But, as I said, these have all been buried in notes within notes. What's the point of providing counter references if they only get suppressed, or argued out as a "special" case? TharkunColl 13:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
So should we bring the dispute page back into the main page so they're not "suppressed" any more? IIRC, the dispute page was your idea, wasn't it? Those refs are all there and again, please remember that I'm not - and haven't been - saying that the page should present the term as universally "disputed". I have been saying it is widely, or often, or frequently, "disputed". The refs say that very clearly. "Your" refs aren't contradictory to that, in fact they make clear that the term isn't universally disliked, but they don't counter that it is widely, often, frequently disliked. Phew, being reasonable on this page is getting tiring. Hughsheehy 13:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
The dispute page contains a whole mass load of info, and I don't think it would be desirable to delete that page and just have a short version of it on the main page (and having all of it on the main page would distort the balance of the page - and people would just keep on adding to it, finding yet more quotes proving what we already know, that some people in Ireland don't like the term). We would lose information, and I'm never in favour of that, no matter what position it happens to support. It makes perfectly logical sense to have three distinct articles - one concerning the actual place itself, one concerning the confusing terminology, and one concerning the dispute (which I have never denied is real). A case could be made for merging the terminology and dispute pages, since they're both about the name rather than the place itself, but since they're both very long anyway I don't think that would be reasonable or desirable. TharkunColl 16:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with TharkunColl on this, especially given that the "dispute" over the usage is not really anything like as important as the thing itself, and it's name is near-universal and disputed in only one small territory, namely the Republic of Ireland and a number of nationalist Irish in other places. I also don't think just continually stacking references here, there and everywhere to support one particular POV is really encyclopedic; we all know that this dispute exists within Irish and Republican opinion, and there is no advantage to be gained from yet more referencing. MarkThomas 16:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Again MarkThomas, you say things that you believe are true but you don't provide a single reference. Thark, will you read the refs on eric's page and come back and really say that - after reading those or this [32] - you still believe the objection is "sometimes" or a few people. If so, then why are you so much more knowledgeable than those authors? Can you educate me on why you know so much more than they do? I again insist that citations are needed, not your opinion. Hughsheehy 17:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, Mark that is the point. There are two soverign states in the BIs. One officially objects to the term, the other has agreed not to use it in official contexts. We can also see that Irish people tend to avoid the term that and British scholars note that they do, can see the issue for what it is, and, when appropriate, avoid use of it in turn. That's noteworthy. What's the problem with noting it? Its not a big deal. --sony-youthtalk 18:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
We do note that. What exactly is it that you think is not noted right now? MarkThomas 18:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh ... appologies, I read through this discussion far too hastily. You point is about reference stacking? I agree, there's no point to it. It would be better to just leave the sentence unnoted and to point to the "dispute" article and use the refs in better contexts there. (Not wanting to shake up a hornets nest through, since you asked I would add a sentence about the term being explicitly avoided in political discource between the governments of these islands. I sets the "dispute" in a practical context, otherwise, who are those who "dispute" it, "disputing" it with. Adding some context would also clear up what kind of "disputed" this is - i.e. not a very serious one, one very easily worked with, and one that has absolutely no concequence for relations between the "disputees".) --sony-youthtalk 18:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
MarkThomas, Tharkuncoll...anyone..again, please provide references for "generally" for the rest of the world and also references to support your assertion that objection to or dislike of the term is a minority in Ireland. (and the parliamentary refs don't do that, as above) I'm happy to have fewer refs for the introductory paragraph once we clarify that paragraph. Meantime, they're part of an ongoing discussion. Hughsheehy 11:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if dislike of the term exists only amongst a minority in Ireland - no one does, because no poll has ever been taken. In such circumstances, words like "sometimes" are perfectly correct, indeed inevitable. As for "generally", since those Google searches someone did some time ago appeared to indicate British Isles as more popular than any other term, it too seems perfectly acceptable. We don't need references for every single word in the article - we just need to use reasonable, unbiased English. TharkunColl 12:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
No poll has been taken anywhere else either. So, find a ref that supports "generally". Also, find a ref that contradicts the "many", "often", etc in the refs already produced indicating the level of objection. Hughsheehy 12:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I refer you to my earlier statement: we don't need references for every single word in the article. That's not what references are for. All the words you cite are mere filling words, essential to make the sentence proper English, but only carrying a modicum of informational content. Their use is derived from other information in the article. Please stop trying to make this whole thing impossible to write. TharkunColl 12:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment, TharkunColl, there is no one here making the article impossible to write. The term is a geo-political one and has some imperial connotations from the past. It seems to me that the term was initially imposed for political reasons. That being said, what's the problem with stating the overtones from that imposition. We are not going to re-invent history here. I do see very broad agreement on the style of the article as written now. Generally is over the top, usually these countries are respected by their proper names and the term is widely abandoned. -86.42.164.245 14:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
The term is geographical, not geo-political, except for those who choose to put geo-political meanings to it in order to reject it. It existed thousands of years before the British state. The term might be "widely abandoned" in Ireland (though not universally so), but I see no evidence whatsoever that the rest of the world has followed suit - and Google searches, for example, would strongly indicate otherwise. The best we can say, if we are being strictly fair, is that the term is no longer used (very much) in that specific dialect of English known as Hiberno-English. TharkunColl 15:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
But apparently it was not in use for about 1500 years and was then resurrected/reinvented at a period when Ireland was being conquered and incorporated into an enterprise that was increasingly being called "Britain" and "British". Remember, OED says first use in 1621 and you have a reference to somewhat earlier, and we have ref that says it wasn't in common use until at least the second half of the 17th century, so "thousands of years" is as relevant as trying to call Russia Sycthia or something. Also, you're contradicting yourself, either it's geographical or not. Again, you've often said that Google doesn't tell us much, so go and find a ref to support generally. You do need a ref to support text in WP, otherwise it's OR, and adverbs like "generally" are not mere filling words. Find a ref or stop asserting things. Hughsheehy 20:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
But you said above, "British Isles is clearly not just geographical". I think you agree somewhat with me :) -15:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
It isn't just geographical, but that's it's primary function. Secondary functions, as I said above, include linguistic and cultural factors. One thing that it definitely isn't, however, is geo-political, because there are two sovereign states on the islands. Here's a question for the anti-British Isles people. Consider a theoretical future in which England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales were all independent sovereign states. Would the term British Isles become acceptable again? TharkunColl 15:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, it's irrelevant, like broccoli was earlier. Find a ref. Hughsheehy 20:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

You refer to "anti-British Isles people". Well, I am referring to it's usage, and wouldn't call myself anti-British Isles people. Just for instance, if your name is John, well if I insisted on calling you Paul, wouldn't that call for a rebuke. The whole thing of the BI, is that of a term used, primarily by some people in the UK. It is not a universally used term, and there is a very large question if Ireland should be included or not. Because Ireland is not British, no more than France is British. And France is nearer to Britain than Ireland is. See Tharkun, this debate could run forever and never reach a conclusion. Best get the facts up on the page, and write about the real term of BI. 86.42.164.245 15:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, for a start off, part of Ireland is British. But that's not the point. You are using "British" as an adjective for the UK. But that is not its meaning in "British Isles". TharkunColl 15:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, and part of the UK is Irish. It's certainly not the point. Again, remember that Gerry Adams is British and the Provisional IRA is a British organisation, founded in Belfast and first led by a Londoner. It had an administrative address in Dublin, but it was British to the core. Please, let's not get into NI. It's complicated. (anything in italic should be read as being ironic, at the very least). Thark, find a ref. (especially to the "that is not its meaning in "British Isles"". Hughsheehy 20:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
See, this is where the fun starts. NI is no more British than the Elgin Marbles are British. We will probably agree on one thing, they are both under British jurisdiction. NI is of Ireland, and not of Britain, just as the Elgin Marbles are of Greece, and the pyramids are of Egypt. I told you that this debate could go on forever. How much time do we have? :) 86.42.164.245 17:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't have time for this sort of debate I'm afraid. To say that NI is not British seriously calls into question any other statements you have made, as it shows a clear disregard of facts. Just because you might wish it, doesn't make it so. TharkunColl 18:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I'll agree with Thark here. "British" is applied to NI. It's rather messy, as is much of the terminology around the UK because of its history, but it is certainly applied, not least by many of the people that live there who apply it to themselves and that needs to be respected. However, "British" is also rather firmly rejected by many of the people in the rest of the island (and some in NI) as a description of their country. In any case, it's also irrelevant to the current debate. Thark, find a ref. Hughsheehy 20:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
And Scotland is Irish because they speak a Gaelic language, no. You have just exposed the fallacy of your position. I get it that you are claiming the island of Ireland to be British, which is not what you were saying before. Yes, as I wrote, NI is part of British jurisdiction, but it is not part of the island of Britain. I think that you need to reassess your understanding of the whole nomenclature aspects concerning the multifaceted culture and historic analysis of the culture and geography concerning Great Britain and Ireland and the surrounding islands. Otherwise it questions your position. 86.42.164.245 19:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreement, I believe that there is general agreement that the word generally could come away from the first paragraph. I would take it out, but I'd rather avoid revert warring. ----86.42.153.154 18:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe, but there will need to be other changes too....unless some refs are found to counter the existing refs indicating the extent of objection. I´m going to give one more day and then make an edit. Hughsheehy 21:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
The word "generally" is a perfectly honest and straightforward word to use, but since it is devoid of informational content it doesn't need a citation. I can think of no better word in this context. TharkunColl 22:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, just getting back to generally. Why would that be acceptable in this context, and strongly objected in relation to the terms (bi), general non-use in Ireland. -86.42.153.154 00:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Since you now appear to be wishing to make a major contribution to this debate, I think you ought to get yourself a user name and sign in properly. This simple course of action will assuage any potential fears that you may be a sockpuppet. TharkunColl 07:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Rest assured, I'm not a sock. You know me by 86........ , and that's the only me on this page. I quite understand your position. 86.42.142.193 15:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
"Generally" is a perfectly honest and straighforward word to use, if it is supported. Otherwise it might not be accurate. It is not "devoid of informational content". It means something quite clear, it means "usually", which implies "in the majority of cases". If it's devoid of informational content how about we replace it with another word that has been described as meaning that we can't tell how often it's used..i.e. "sometimes". Would that be OK? If not, get a reference to support "generally". While you're at it, find a reference that disagrees with the extensive references that point to the level of objection in Ireland being far more than "sometimes". Otherwise we have citation to demonstrate that it is often objected to in Ireland/by Irish people, but not how often it's used anywhere else. Hughsheehy 10:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

It would be very easy to provide references that state that "British Isles" means Great Britain, Ireland, etc. - just consult any dictionary (e.g. [33]). And that one is taken from the American Heritage Dictionary, so isn't even from the UK. No mention is made of any dispute, so taking these references at face value very strongly suggests that "British Isles" is the standard term. Please remember that Wikipedia is built on references, not original research. The use of the term "generally", rather than, say, "universally", is a compromise, in order to highlight that some in Ireland do indeed dispute it. If we were sticking to our sources, i.e. dictionary definitions, then I would have to say that "universally" would be a much more accurate word to use. So I'm happy to change it to that, if you want. TharkunColl 11:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Thark, you seem to have missed the point above. Being in a dictionary says nothing about commonality of usage. This is what I wrote a few days ago, when dave souza had put a note in on this same point."dave, i believe you added the ref, now ref 2. The existence of a definition isn't evidence for "generally". see floccinaucinihilipilification... [30] I'd hardly argue that was "generally" used anywhere just because it appears in Dictionary.com. (note, I pick that word specifically because it's rare and one definition says so, but the point remains) Perhaps antidisestablishmentarianism is a better example. In any case, BI gets 4 definitions, flocci..gets 3, "the" gets 54. "nigger", one of the most offensive words in the world, gets 5 definitions. Dictionary.com isn't sufficient for "generally". Hughsheehy 13:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)". The fact that dictionaries define it like that is not challenged but existence in the dictionary means nothing in terms of usage. Please find a ref to support "generally" in terms of usage. Hughsheehy 11:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I shall simply repeat what I said earlier. "Generally" is so vague that it doesn't need a reference. It is also, I might add, deliberately vague - as it forms part of a compromise sentence. Please don't keep asking for any more citations. TharkunColl 11:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

(Reduce indent) This is getting very tiresome. And pointless. The term BI is used in the "rest of the world". Finding examples is trivial. As to how often its used - I'm sure a Google whizz can work out a way of demonstrating it. As to "generally" - leaving "generally" in (or commonly, or often, or whatever) implies fairly common but not universal usage. Taking it or another qualifier out implies universal usage. I doubt that what's you're trying to convey, Hugh? Hadn't we agreed to avoid putting quantifiers in about how often (or not) the term is used in the RoI? Seems like doing the same for the rest of the world would be a good idea too. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 12:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the word "generally" got in there in the first place to counter the apparent POV that was present in the para before all this started - at that time, it had been made to look as if "British Isles" is barely used and is essentially a defunct relic of British imperialism. Even a quick look in any Atlas will confirm this is hardly the case. The word "generally" seems a good summary of the position. It also gets foolish and ridiculous when every single word allegedly requires a reference. There are no references for many of the statements in the article, but they are still good statements. Wikipedia is not just a ragbag of individual words backed up by a zillion hard-fought references. If that's really where it has to head because of persistent POV, the reasonable editors are going to quit Wikipedia in disgust and it will become a devalued POV-fest and clearly visible as that to ordinary readers. MarkThomas 16:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
The word "generally" seems a good summary of the position. It also gets foolish and ridiculous when every single word allegedly requires a reference. There are no references for many of the statements in the article, but they are still good statements. Wikipedia is not just a ragbag of individual words backed up by a zillion hard-fought references. If that's really where it has to head because of persistent POV, the reasonable editors are going to quit Wikipedia in disgust and it will become a devalued POV-fest and clearly visible as that to ordinary readers. MarkThomas 16:31, 9 April 2007
How strange then that the first atlas in my house that I tried, the US-published Rand-Mcnally Millenium World Atlas, pages 10-11, maps of the islands in question, has the title "British Isles". As I suspect do most other atlases. They must all be suffering from arrant delusional nonsens I s'pose. :-) MarkThomas 19:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
And how strange that the Michelin maps, which used to be of the British Isles, are now of Britain and Ireland. Stop evading the question, find a reference. "Generally" is NOT a value free word and requires a reference. It clearly means "usually", "in the majority of cases", etc. This is quite possibly NOT TRUE. If you can't support generally then it could just as well be "sometimes". I'm giving you guys LOTS of time. If you can't find a reference than you can't keep insisting on "generally". And Bastun, the issue is that some editors are happy with some (apparently unsupported) quantifiers, but extremely unhappy with some well supported ones. I am forcing the issue and I have given LOTS of opportunity. Find refs. Again - to put it bluntly - "put up or shut up". Hughsheehy 09:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh, one more time. The intro paragraph as it currently stands is NOT consensus, although changes keep being reverted as if the paragraph was consesus. In addition to the request for references to support "generally", there is a longstanding and unanswered request for any editors to find references that give any indication that the level of objection to the term in Ireland is small/minority/etc. Hughsheehy 09:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
there is a longstanding and unanswered request for any editors to find references that give any indication that the level of objection to the term in Ireland is small/minority/etc. Really? Where is this request? My recollection of debate here is that people were/are agreed that the term is objectionable to many (or would be if they ever thought about it), but how many is currently unquantifiable, as no survey has been done. An equally valid request to provide references showing its objected to by a majority would be equally pointless. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 10:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Stop. The term is generally used, at least colloquially, but maybe it would be worthwhile to mention that it is not used (generally/at all?) in political discourse. However, whether or not it is generally being used to a lesser and lesser extents in other contexts is speculative. It certainly is not marked as "rare" in any dictionary I've ever seen (unlike "floccinaucinihilipilification"). --sony-youthtalk 09:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I remember my university maths prof used to say "if someone ever tells you that something is obvious it means they can't prove it". Please find a reference/citation. And antidisestablishmentarianism isn't marked as rare. Nor are thousands of other rare words. Existence in a dictionary isn't proof of widespread usage. If it's used colloquially, where? Who says so? This page can't cite [1] I don't think that would be sufficient, nor would a poll of the editors of the page. Hughsheehy 10:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh, gosh! Do we really have to cite all of these, or would just one or two be enough? --sony-youthtalk 10:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Potentially yes, since now we're just back to Google-whacking, which gets us nowhere. Even with just a quick look at the first few pages of "British Isles" books, there wasn't a single one published after 1985, which is 22 years ago. There are a few recent ones on page 4, but if you look across the refs then they're "generally" pretty darn old. Meantime, there's still not a single secondary source citation being produced to say it's the most commonly used term today (which is what "generally" means).....so maybe it isn't, and drawing conclusions from a spread of those books published (and scanned by Google) over a period of several hundred years would qualify as OR, unless someone else has published such a study and drawn conclusions. In addition, there's all those citations that say that the term is widely rejected/disputed/etc, in Ireland, which citations are still being essentially rejected by editors who don't produce any citations themselves and who are demanding Polls to substantiate the fact...which leaves "generally" needing some more substantiation than google whacking. Let's see some worldwide polls to support "generally", or at least some reputable published citations. Otherwise it goes and gets replaced by sometimes, or something equivalent. Hughsheehy 13:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
These are fallacious arguments, Hugh. "They're all old books - except the ones that aren't." There is no assertion that BI is the most common term in use ("generally" does not imply "exclusively"). Drawing a conclusion that {alternative term to BI of your choice} is more commonly used without producing a secondary source citation would surely also be OR? Who is demanding a poll? I've seen several editors, myself included, say (correctly) that we're not aware of any polls, which is not the same thing. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 14:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not saying that any other term is more used. I'm saying that there's no citation to support that BI is "generally" used. "Generally" doesn't imply exclusively, but it clearly implies majority. It's unsupported. All I was saying with the google argument is that it doesn't support "generally", and it doesn't. I'm not arguing for any other term. Find a citation to support "generally". I don't believe that a poll will be found and have often said so, and I have been saying that the secondary source citations that demonstrate the level of objection in Ireland are enough for that, which several editors have disagreed with, demanding polls. If polls are demanded for one, then they're needed for the other too. I suspect that neither has them. If reputable citations are enough, then one assertion has supporting citation. The other doesn't and I've been asking for them. None has been produced. Find a ref to support "generally". Then, if citation is enough for "generally" and if citations can be produced, we're getting somewhere. Hughsheehy 15:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Done, and limited to books published this century. Which cuts the number of results to a mere 300,000+. Whoda thunk it was still in such widespread usage? BastunBaStun not BaTsun 15:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, I provide a reference - which gets a disparaging comment of "not sure google is good", but meh - and your next edit is to remove yet another reference from the article, Hugh? What's up with that one, Hugh? A secondary source showing 4 different US-published dictionary defs isn't good enough? BastunBaStun not BaTsun 15:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, just not sure that google is good as a tool in these contexts, and in any case from what I can see those are all published in the UK (no, i haven't looked at them all) and I've already showed that the existence of a definition isn't an indication of commonality or usage. As for an example of why I don't think google is the best indicator here, try [34] and tell me how there could be 300k books about the British Isles if only 14k of them mention Ireland at all. That would seem odd. It would seem to indicate that the google book search may give odd results. Hughsheehy 15:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
You're right, Hugh. In fact, you're so right that I think it should be removed forthwith. The facts are that "British Isles" is NOT the genearlly used term to refer to the subject of this article. What people generally say is "England." Whether they really mean the British Isles, Britain, UK, Ireland, Scotland, Anglo-Celtic-thing-a-me-bob, whatever, people GENERALLY (as in almost exclusively) say ENGLAND. Would you like to put that in, Hugh? That is well documented. No problem finding sources on that one. Now for the love of God drop this pedantry. --sony-youthtalk 15:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Is it well documented? Really? Hughsheehy 16:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
In comparasion finding references to support how many people say "British Isles" and how many don't, its a winner. Sorry, lost my temper but I don't see the point of this. One week you're being badgered to produce evidience for how many people don't say "British Isles", then the next your badgering others to produce numbers the same numbers but in reverse. If you think that British Isles is not the common name, the article should be moved. I have however, removed the offending part of the sentence. It was redundant for just the reason I mentioned: you don't need to say when the title of a encyclopedia article is the common name for a thing, only when it is not. --sony-youthtalk 16:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Fish and chips

This article appears to state, at the bottom of the first paragraph, that whilst fish and chips remains a popular dish in Ireland, it is often served without fish... Just had to be different, didn't they? TharkunColl 15:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

How can you have "fish and chips" without fish - isn't that just "chips"!? I removed it as plain nonsense. And anyway, it's more commonly known as "Irish fish and chips" :) --sony-youthtalk 15:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
We have much better fish in England - two-headed mutated cod from the North Sea. TharkunColl 15:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Ah, two heads are better than one. --sony-youthtalk 15:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I wonder if that's been there since April Fool's last year? Sounds a bit like those edits where people leave an "r" where there should be a "v" to make "visible" "risible" and so forth. Nobody ever notices those. MarkThomas 15:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I think Hugh has delivered a good spanking to everyone, so it's back to work.--Shtove 21:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Plural

There's a debate (in the edit summary box, grrr) over whether "British Isles" is plural or singular. The term refers to more than one isle, and is therefore plural. So "The British Isles are a group of islands..." is correct and "The British Isles is a group of islands..." is incorrect. Waggers 08:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Not so. "British Isles" is the name for the singular group. Take a similar case; you would not say "the United States are a country of the western hemisphere". Naomhain 08:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
See the BBC style guide and the conclusion of the discussion on a grammar page on WP (referenced somewhere above). It's singular. Hughsheehy 09:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
It's basic English. The island of Great Britain is a British Isle. The island of Ireland is a British Isle (in the geographical sense). Together, Great Britain and Ireland are two of the British Isles. "British Isles" is essentially a synonym for the list of islands in the group, in the same way that the Channel Isles are Jersey, Guernsey, Alderney, etc. To say "The Channel Isles is Jersey, Guernsey, Alderney, etc." would be wrong.
Ultimately it depends whether you're talking about the term itself (which is singular, as in "The British Isles is the name given to..." or the group of islands ("The British Isles are situated near France"). Since the first sentence in the article is talking about the group of islands, it should be "are". Elsewhere in the article when it talks about the name itself, that should be "is". Waggers 10:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
BBC style guide. "The British Isles is not a political entity. It is a geographical unit, the archipelago off the west coast of continental Europe covering Scotland,Wales, England, Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands." Looks singular to me. Of course Georgia is an American state. Florida is an American state....but The United States is a country. Maybe not such basic English. Hughsheehy 11:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the Channel Islands is an interesting example. Would you say "The Channel Islands consists of Jersey..etc." or "The Channel Islands consist of...". Hughsheehy 11:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Thinking about this, I think most (non-specialist-Grammarian) people would casually say "The Channel Islands consists of" so I think personally that groups like this are usually thought of as plural even though (as the BBC style guide states) they are in strict grammar rules singular. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. On a different note, I am constantly fascinated by the flexibility of Hugh's positions - I would have thought the last authority he would want to turn to would be that bastion of despicable english (note the lowercase "e"!) hegemonic distortion and Irishist hatemongering "the BBC" - but no - they are in the frontline of the Sheehy reference defence squad, Gord Bless 'Em! MarkThomas 13:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi MarkThomas, I believe that saying "consists of" would be correct for a singular, not a plural. "It consists of" whereas "they consist of" so your logic is unclear to me. Hughsheehy 13:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
That's just it - it isn't logical! It's what ordinary people say though. Also, can you stop being reasoned and logical here and fierce and accusatory on my talk page, it's tough enough trying to keep up with your endlessly shifting logical grounds without having to read my talk page as well! Give my poor RSI fingers a break and have pity on the English for a change! We mean well! MarkThomas 14:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I have not been "fierce and accusatory" anywhere and I ask you to withdraw that statement. I asked you to be civil. I repeat the request. Hughsheehy 14:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Dictionary.com/Random House: "British Isles – plural noun." Therefore, "The British Isles consist of ..." Isn't this what dictionaries are for? --sony-youthtalk 14:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The BBC style guide does not say the term is singular. Furthermore, the "United States" is actually a shorthand version of "United States of America", where "America" is clearly singular (also "United States of Mexico" is another example). In our case, the full phrase is not "British Isles of [something]", it's just "British Isles", and the fact that this is a plural noun should be patently obvious to any speaker of English. Just because it's also a proper noun, does not mean that it cannot be plural. Here are some other examples:
  • Solomon Islands
  • Canary Islands
  • Windward Islands
  • Fortunate Isles
  • Islets of Langerhans
All of these take plural form, so the correct word is "are". The fact that "group" is singular is completely irrelevant, because the "are" in the sentence refers to "British Isles", not "group". If we persist in putting "is" in this sentence the only result is that we will look stupid or illiterate. TharkunColl 14:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Interestingly, the BBC doesn't actually obey its own style guide [35] ...almost ever.. Hughsheehy 15:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Often in English there is a distinct word for the item that represents a group of other objects. For example, Farmer Giles' cattle, when considered as a group are referred to as Farmer Giles's herd hence:

Farmer Giles' cattle (the plurality of idividuals) are' brown, but
Farmer Giles' herd (the group) is large.

However, in the case of the British Isles the name of the group is the same as the name of the plurality. This is by no means uncommon, many examples exist. In such cases the form of the word makes no difference: A group is singular. Hence:

The alps is a mountain range of central Europe.
The alps are mountains in central Europe.

or

Trinidad and Tobago are islands in the Caribbean.
Trindad and Tobago is a country in the Caribbean.

Let's deal with the objection voiced above to the case of the USA. The qualification "of America" makes no difference to the number because it in not a noun but an adjective (adjectival phrase, actually). You can reinsert this if you like:

The United States of America is a country of the western hemisphere.
The United States of America are representative democracies.

Try it with soldiers - plural - and soldiers of the Queen - plural again, I think you'll agree.

The BBC is not being inconsistent in using the singular in the style guide (when it is referring to "the entity" (singular) but the plural elsewhere when referring to the plurality - "The British Isles are in a maritime temperate zone" is fine. This doesn't mean they don't make errors, of course.

On the consist/consists question. Again it depends on what you mean my British Isles. The group is singular the plurality plural:

The British Isles consists of Great Britain, Ireland etc.
The British Isles (all of them) consist of mud and rock.

Back to "The British Isles is a group". In this sentence the name is referring to the grouping, not the plurality of isles and the correct form is therefore "is". This does not mean that it is always singular; it would be quite correct to say "The British Isles are islands" for example. Waggers is absolutely correct to say that it is contextual but it has nothing to do with whether its a proper noun or not. As he says, "the first sentence in the article is talking about the group of islands". And the group is singular. Naomhain 16:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Naomhain, that's wonderful, but it is the British Isles we are talking about, not a British Isle. I cited the Random House dictionary above where it is clearly defined as a plural noun, now from the OED:
"British isles: a group of islands lying off the coast of northwestern Europe, from which they are seperated by the North Sea and the English Channel. They include Britain, Ireland, the Isle of Man, the Isle of Wright, the Hebrides, the Orkney Islands, the Shetland Islands, the Scilly Isles, and the Channel islands."
Note how both the British Isles are always referred to as "they" i.e. third-person plural. If you find a dictionary that defines the term as a singular noun, please refer to it. --sony-youthtalk 21:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Too tempting.. ;-))
From Dictionary.com. British Isles. Crystal Reference Encyclopedia - Cite This Source. Group of islands off the NW coast of Europe. It consists of two main islands (Great Britain and Ireland), and many smaller islands, notably the Isle of Man, Isle of Wight, Channel Is, Western Is, Orkney, and Shetland.
Crytal Reference Encyclopedia isn't OED and it isn't a dictionary, but hey. Hughsheehy 13:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
And we all know that encyclopedia writers do not do good at grammer. --sony-youthtalk 16:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The term British Isles...

"The term British Isles, whilst is most often used in the United Kingdom, it's interpretation is generally misunderstood elsewhere in the world, is disputed, particularly in the Republic of Ireland."==

Whoever edited the text to produce this travesty of a sentence is illiterate. Those who place political agendas above ability to write English are editing the wrong encyclopedia. TharkunColl 23:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Thark, please see WP:Civility. I didn´t write that edit, but you can correct grammer without being insulting. Hughsheehy 08:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Why is this article called "The British Isles"? They are not known as such in Ireland. (Sarah777 15:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC))
Sarah777 please read the rest of the talk page and the archives before dredging this up. It has been proven that it is used in Ireland, by news broadcasts and politicians as well as others. It may not be the favoured term or even the most common term but it is far from unused in Ireland and is used worldwide. Ben W Bell talk 16:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Ben, I didn't 'drag it up'. I found this section and the heading (see above) by chance. However if it makes you any happier I will not mention it again! Regrds (Sarah777 17:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC))

Breakfast on Mars

Since contributors to this page were the only ones to vote on the proposal to merge Full English breakfast, Irish breakfast and Ulster fry into one article, I'm posing here again for comments. This time, I'm proposing to merge them at simply Full breakfast on the basis that this is a common term in restaurants (whether it eventually be a "Full English" or "Full Irish").

Comments are welcome, on the talk page. --sony-youthtalk 21:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)