Talk:British Isles/Archive 13

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 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 →

Contents

Merger proposal

There is a proposal to merge Great Britain and Ireland with this article. --sony-youthpléigh 20:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Support GB and Ireland are commonly known as British Isles, they're virtually the same. GoodDay 22:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose, the current article has a useful role to disambiguate in that shadowy area between British Isles, UK and Ireland. Abtract 22:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Oppose, the will lead to a counter proposal to merge the BI article into Britain and Ireland and off we go again. (Sarah777 00:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC))
  • Comment; I also strongly disagree with both of Sony's divisive proposals above.(Sarah777 00:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC))
It wasn't my proposal. User:SMcCandlish proposed it by putting up the templates (see), but no section was created here to !vote on it so I created one in order to oppose the merge. Atlantic Archipelago is a stub with little hope of growth, that's why I say merge on that one. --sony-youthpléigh 08:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I believe both articles have roles to play. Great Britain and Ireland are not the same thing as the British Isles, they are mearly the two major islands in the latter mentioned island group. Also the two articles seem to deal with different topics so I see no reason they cannot stand alone. Ben W Bell talk 11:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The two are quite distinct. Mucky Duck 15:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It's an interesting proposal, part of the ongoing "struggle" around these parts to redefine the "British Isles" along lines more acceptable to an element of Irish opinion, which more exposes a weakness in Wikipedia (democracy can be the anarchy of ideological but extreme minorities fighting their corners) rather than any generally-accepted objective reality. Clearly there is a much-discussed and referenced entity commonly called the "British Isles" and that needs an article and here it is. Clearly there is also a concept of "Britain and Ireland" and that needs discussing on Wikipedia. They are not however the same thing. MarkThomas 15:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. Three reasons:
  1. There is much confusion over words like "Britain", "United Kingdom", "British Isles", "Ireland", "Republic of Ireland", etc. Anyone searching for "Great Britain and Ireland" is likely to be looking for something else - perhaps because they think "Great Britain and Ireland" is the name of a modern country, or because they are looking for the historical United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Such people will find a disambiguation page (like the existing one) more helpful than a simple redirect. I would suggest, however, that the link to "British Isles (terminology)" should be made more prominent at the top of both this article and the Great Britain and Ireland one.
  2. The British Isles include other islands besides Great Britain and Ireland.
  3. When people say "Great Britain and Ireland" in place of "British Isles", they are not renaming or defining a collective entity called "Great Britain and Ireland". Rather, they are saying that no such collective entity exists. Great Britain and Ireland are two separate geographical entities, much like Europe and Africa, so there is no reason for them point directly to a full Wikipedia article; a disambiguation is far more appropriate.
Mtford 08:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose Those oppossing arguments have won me over. GoodDay 20:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose, there are two articles for the very reason that it clarifies the difference. Also, try merging it the other way (BI -> GB&I) and anticipate the chorus of disapproval that would follow. If there is genuinely no difference then either name should be equally valid. --Red King 17:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment - People interested in this issue might want to take a look at this Category discussion. History of Ireland now falls into the category History of the British Isles as a result of a recent Administerial dictum.(Sarah777 20:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC))
  • Oppose for all the reasons outlined by Sony, Sarah and Mark. If they all agree, who am I to disagree :P BastunBaStun not BaTsun 21:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Time to close this.

Conversation conclusion
Do not merge

Main arguments:

The current articles work as they are and serve different purposes; carrying out the merge could lead to edit warring

Waggers 13:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

British-Irish Isles

This term seems to be in breech of WP:NOR,WP:CITE and WP:V, If this term is to be accepted more than one referenced would be required . The reference currently on their doesnt even load. Gnevin 17:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Arragh Gnevin, surely you have more important things to be worrying about? (Sarah777 21:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC))
We can't just be creating stuff Gnevin 22:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Spooky!(Sarah777 22:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC))
Ummmm ... the reference right beside it is to a blue-chip London-based publishing house - and a dictionary at that! That would normally suffice WP:NOR, WP:CITE and WP:V. If you're still concerned then a Google search (web, book, scholar) will show it in use.
By no means it is as wide spread as "British Isles" - I doubt it would even be the most popular alternative phrase - but there had been an expression for at least one alternative phrasing to be highlighted in the intro, however all others were knocked out for not being dictionary defined (e.g. "Britain and Ireland", etc.).
My opinion, it clearly fits WP:NOR, WP:CITE and WP:V. But also adds a bit of WP:NPOV to what we all know is a contentious issue by pointing the fact that naming is not monolighic, and adding some balance from the naming issue. --sony-youthpléigh 14:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
If this term is so common i should be able to cite it in a dozen places. I've never heard it and to be honest the ref in the dictionary ,which isnt viewable on-line so we are taking the editors word for it just one reference and is more like to be OR on behave of the dictionary and so isn't WP:V. The links you provided me dont really convince me that this is a legitimate term Gnevin 15:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
The link does work, I'm looking at it right now, page 22. WP:V has no stipulation that a source needs to be published online though, but that, "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed." That's there. As for OR, well, clearly anything that been published (nevermind something published by a company like Routledge!) is by definition not OR.
Which links in particular don't convince you? Is it use of the term in university handouts? British think-tanks? Internet forums? The northern Assembly? Is it the use of the term in accademic journals from "European Journal of Human Genetics" to "Regional & Federal Studies"? Is it its use in books published by Springer and Routledge? Then again, I thought that a Routledge-published dictionary would be enough to demonstrate that it was a "legitimate term" - this will take me a moment to grasp, but - are you saying that it's not? --sony-youthpléigh 16:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I suppose i have to agree with you , how ever contrived the links and how ever few their are , they suit a need someone how to include the word Irish into a geographic term .Gnevin 17:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Do I sense some sardonicism in that? :) I, personally, see it as a fig leaf to NPOV but I can understand why it could by derided. --sony-youthpléigh 20:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Gnevin, the inclusion of British-Irish Isles should remain, along with British Isles. It's a compromise, we all can accept. GoodDay 20:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Including it so prominently in this article is silly. Its a term I've never heard before, and Google returns a really underwhelming 38 hits - 8 of which are WP pages or mirrors, or are direct quotes of the reference. Many are blogs, and many use "British/Irish Isles" rather than "British-Irish Isles". 30 hits in no way justifies the prominence it gets. Suggest its moved to the terminology article instead. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 23:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Batsun, it's usage is so low and unprominent using it so highly in this article is giving the term undue weight. Ben W Bell talk 13:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
-*grumble grumble*- undue weight I can go along with, but we are still at a situation where discussion of alternative terms or issues with the term are effectively banished to another article, and so taking it out - especially in an environment where no other alternative term stands a snowballs chance in hell of staying in - tips the undue weight in the other direction IMHO. --sony-youthpléigh 14:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I would argue that this article is about the islands themselves, and therefore not the place for discussing the terminology. Acknowledging that alternative terms exist and that "British Isles" is viewed by some as controversial is surely sufficient for this article, along with a link to the terminology/naming dispute articles. Waggers 11:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
The article isn't about the individual islands themselves, it's about the group itself. The name of the group itself is controversial. The composition/definition of the group is political not physical. (i.e. Channel Islands don't physically belong) It's pretty fundamental stuff. Burying it somewhere else would be denying verifiable reality. Hughsheehy 13:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I should have been clearer - of course the article is about the group, not the individual islands independently. But it is about the group of islands, not the name of the group of islands. I'm not suggesting removing all reference to the controversy, I'm just saying that we don't need to repeat the contents of the other articles here unless we go for a full merge (and I don't support that latter idea). One mention is enough. Waggers 14:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Could I also add that "The British and Irish Isles" throws back even more results on web/scholar/books - and that book results show use as far back as 1857! --sony-youthpléigh 11:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Again, British Isles and British-Irish Isles should remain. If either is removed? Edit wars would occur (and we don't want that). GoodDay 13:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Why should the latter remain? Its a neologism with 30 googlehits! If its appropriate for anywhere, then the British Isles (terminology) article is its natural home. There are many more popular alternative terms for the British Isles (as in, terms actually in widespread use!) - but they're not included either! BastunBaStun not BaTsun 14:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I may be wrong (it does happen) but I don't see why this is a relevant "argument". The first section in the article is about alternative names for the group, with all the required references. "British-Irish" can go there, probably fairly low down the priority list, although the fact that a dictionary explicitly defines it is potentially important. Hughsheehy 16:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
1857 is hardly "neo" (if you'll accept that a hyphen and an 'and' are interchangable in this case). I'd be for other phrases being there, but that was knocked down before because they weren't dictionary defined (e.g. "Britain and Ireland"). I'd not be on for a whole raft of other names, or for some to take advantage of B-II in the on-going 'war', but it's certainly referenced and defined. Maybe a pertinent use of "occasionally" in this case e.g. "The British Isles or, occasionally, the British-Irish Isles ..." Maybe even a footnote explaination? --sony-youthpléigh 18:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
We should leave British-Irish Isles where it's at. Why? because British Isles alone, won't be accepted by many editors out there. GoodDay 20:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Such editors have coped very well in the past, with the inclusion of the very next section describing the controversy about the term, and referring them further to not one but two separate articles on the controversy. Agree with Hugh, that next section is the place for it, along with further coverage in the other two articles. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 20:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Make the required edits, let's see how it works. I hope you're both right. GoodDay 20:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have to agree that this looks like undue weight -- indeed, hugely disproportionate weight. The term doesn't even appear in either British Isles (terminology) or British Isles naming dispute, and actual usage seems to be minimal. Frankly, I don't think it should be in this article at all (as against those other two, where it'd seem fair enough) -- much less bolded in the first sentence. If wider adoption of this term -- or one of the other occasionally-floated alternatives eventually solves the naming issue -- or even just reach the level of being a moderately-widely-used alternative, that's marvelous. (I certainly have no objection to it myself.) However, WP practice is to follow existing usage, not to get out in front of it. Alai 13:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Nobody has reverted Waggers' edit? I'm impressed and releaved. Guess I was being too pesimistic, earlier. GoodDay 22:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I am rather disappointed that The Britirish Isles didn't make the list of alternative names :)(Sarah777 23:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC))
Keep using it Sarah, try to sneak it into every conversation, and maybe it will become popular (and referenced) enough for inclusion :) Waggers 08:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Ibid

Please do not use "Ibid" when creating footnotes. As the article is edited new footnotes will be created between first mention of the source and Ibid, which will then appear to refer to the source listed in the new footnote. It is also possible the first mention of the source will be deleted or replaced by another source, orphaning the Ibid that follows. Kablammo 02:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

"British Isles and Ireland"

Two British lads are trying to sell their book on the weather- "The Wrong Kind of Snow"- on the Pat Kenny radio show this moment. They are referring to these islands as "British Isles and Ireland" throughout. Amazing how this very common definition of the British Isles is given so little space in this article. Anyway, you can listen to this treason by two loyal lieges here: http://www.rte.ie/radio1/todaywithpatkenny/ 86.42.68.161 11:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

They use it in company with Britannica, the publishers of British Admiralty charts, the Oxford University Press and many other UK organisations, so they're hardly on their own (read the article). Hughsheehy 21:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Don't know how it rates on the "these islands" scale - but certainly more accurate than the pov-loaded term used in the Wiki article. (Sarah777 21:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC))
so then why does this article still assert that there are 'two sovereign states located on the islands(sic)' when there are so many sources excluding Ireland from the definition of "British Isles"? 86.42.68.161 02:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Redirect British Isles to British Islands

So, why hasn't this been done yet considering there are so many sources separating the "British Isles" from Ireland? 86.42.68.161 02:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

It should of course; but there was a vote on it during the summer; obviously we probably need another vote at year-end to see if the mounting new evidence against "The BIs" has convinced enough folk to see reason. But it's too soon just yet. Btw, if you are going to engage in the debate here an anonymous IP isn't exactly the "high moral ground" -:)(Sarah777 07:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC))
Actually, that wasn't the proposal we voted on - I see what you mean....(Sarah777 07:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC))
It hasn't been done because they're not the same thing. British Isles includes Ireland, and there are more reliable sources indicating that than reliable sources claiming that Ireland isn't part of the British Isles. Waggers 09:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
The geographical island group exists, and is different from "British Islands". The problem is the name, which will change over time. Hughsheehy 09:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Ah, so it's a case of counting the number of sources for one POV vs. the number of sources for another POV? This NPOV thing has been consigned to the dust bin, has it, Waggers? --sony-youthpléigh 10:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
The article on British Islands is all well and good but does not cover the whole archipelago, which this article does. The problem is the lack of an agreed title, not the article's content. But then I think the article addresses that sufficiently (perhaps excessively). Bazza 13:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Apparently the British Isles and Ireland don't actually form an archipelago. (Sarah777 19:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC))
I can't believe this is still being discussed. Wikipedia policy is clear that the most commonly used English language name should be used, and we've established time and again that the most commonly used English language name for the subject of this article is British Isles. End of. Waggers 14:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
... but that's not what you said, Waggers ... (Incidentally, my POV is that the two articles should not be merged at this time as "British Isles" is still more commonly/verifiably the name for the archipelago as a whole rather than just the area covered by "British Islands". That said, there would certainly be a better environment around here if alternative POVs - goodness, even NPOV! - were tollerated a la alternative names for the archapelago appearing in the intro. Yet, as we know that is not the case ... you can even reference a dictionary and some people still will come back with "I've never heard of it" and think they've made a valid argument!) --sony-youthpléigh 14:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
The argument of the original poster was that the redirect should happen because "there are so many sources separating the "British Isles" from Ireland" -indicating that they consider the number of sources a valid indicator. You're right, it isn't - but even if it were, their argument would still fail because of the point I made. I didn't agree with them that the number of sources was important, I just corrected their assertion that the volume of sources that exclude Ireland from the British Isles is significant enough to warrant the suggested redirect. Waggers 14:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Again, not what you wrote, but not worth arguing over either - and I hardly believe you would mean what came across. --sony-youthpléigh 16:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Wait a sec, requesting this article be re-directed, is going too far. What's next? Do we ban the term British Isles from Wikipedia? GoodDay 16:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
If that's a proposal I'll certainly second it. (Sarah777 19:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC))
It's not a proposal. British Isles can't be banned. GoodDay 19:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

"Other names" presentation

The first paragraph is not easy to read because of the unusually long list of alternative names embedded in it. The mix of roman, italics, links and parentheses makes it difficult to find the next word after "The British Isles...". Is there a better way this could be presented? There are enough entries to warrant a table or list; perhaps under the title of the infobox. I know that most articles where an alternative name is given use the in-line format, but few have as many entries, let alone embedded explanations, to skip over. Bazza 14:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Goodness! More "British Isles! And British Isles only!"-ism? Common WP practice is to list the names of places in other native non-Enlgish languages of a area italicised and in brackets in the first sentence of an article. In the case of this article, yes, this is quite long, but only because there are quite a few language spoken here and the name of the place is quite long in each of them. --sony-youthpléigh 14:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Get a grip, Sony. Bazza didn't suggest for a second that the alternative names should be removed and the article should only refer to the "British Isles! And British Isles only!" He's talking about presentation, and raises a valid point. You've both mentioned the existing convention, and that applying that here produces somewhat confusing results - so let's look for a solution rather than engaging in pointless bickering and putting words into one another's mouths. Personally, my view is that any information in the infobox should also be present in the prose of the article, so I don't support Bazza's suggestion of moving the alternative names there. Would a bullet-point list be better? Waggers 14:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the correct summary of my text. It was made in good faith. I know, as you say, what the convention which Sony refers to is, but felt that in this case it made the article harder to read than should be the case. Yes, a list would be a good solution, and might offer some slight advantage by including "British Isles" in it. For example:
The group of islands off the northwest coast of continental Europe, comprising Great Britain, Ireland and a number of smaller islands, is known by several names:
  • the British Isles
  • French: Îles Britanniques
  • Irish: Éire agus an Bhreatain Mhór, meaning Ireland and Great Britain[1] or Oileáin Iarthair Eorpa, meaning Islands of Western Europe,[2]
  • Manx: Ellanyn Goaldagh
  • Scottish Gaelic: Eileanan Breatannach
  • Welsh: Ynysoedd Prydain)
Not eloquently worded, but you get the gist, I hope. You might even include
  • the British Isles and Ireland
should others wish it! Bazza 17:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
An imaginative solution, and in an ideal world this kind of thing would be possible - but, seriously, you know as well as I do that in time points 2-6 will be stripped away "as this is the en.wiki", or at best be moved down to the 'Alternative names and descriptions' section ... and we all know point 7 doesn't stand a snowball's change in hell! It's the slippy slope to "British Isles! And British Isles only!"-ism. No offense intended. No assumption of bad faith. That's just the way it is. --sony-youthpléigh 17:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I've not problem with alternate terms being used in this article, as long as the article's title remains British Isles (in otherwords, don't move the page). GoodDay 17:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Why are there two Irish Gaelic names, and why are they then translated back into English? And why leave out the phrase that translates literally as "British Isles", because it certainly exists. And is the first name listed, the one that translates literally as "Ireland and Great Britain", actually a name, or just a juxtaposition of two names that often fall together in the same sentence? Also, on a related matter, does Irish Gaelic have a way of differentiating between the English words "Isles" and "Islands"? TharkunColl 19:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand your question. And what does "Irish Gaelic" mean? Is that synthesis? (Sarah777 19:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC))
There were a number of questions. Why does Irish Gaelic have more than one version of the name in this article, when Welsh, for example - which is spoken by a much larger number of people - only has one? And "Irish Gaelic", by the way, in case you weren't aware, is the Celtic language spoken in tiny pockets in parts of western Ireland. TharkunColl 00:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Ah, Thark means "Irish". I always found it funny the way people in the UK ask Irish people if they speak "Gaelic". I always had this mental image of someone replying by starting to commentate a Dublin-Kerry All Ireland Final in the style of Michael O'Hehir. Hughsheehy 09:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
The trouble with calling it just "Irish" is that one is far too likely to confuse it with the Irish dialect of English. The term "Irish Gaelic" has been used for centuries, it was only in the 20th century that the Irish government attempted to rename the language, for political reasons. Well, fortunately the Irish government has no authority in Great Britain, and we shall continue to use the normal English name for the language, if that's not too terribly inconvenient. Gaelic is the name for the language, divided into the closely related Scots and Irish varieties. What could be more sensible than that? TharkunColl 10:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Wow, Thark, you're funny sometimes.... "one is far too likely to confuse it with the Irish dialect of English".........Fantastic! Hughsheehy 11:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it's true. If someone said to me that a person was speaking "Irish", I could not be sure whether the person was speaking Irish Gaelic or Hiberno-English (even though the former might be more likely). Anyway, what's wrong with calling it Gaelic? That's its name in Gaelic, or something very similar. TharkunColl 11:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
"The ball comes into Liston. Liston jumps and grabs the ball. He turns. He's surrounded by the Dublin full-backs. There's a right struggle now, about ten yards out from the goal. Liston still has the ball but there's no way through. He makes a space and passes out to Spillane...Spillane has come rocketing up to support. He's got the ball, he's in the clear, he shoots. A GOAL!!!! A GOAL FOR KERRY WITH ONLY TWO MINUTES TO GO!!! A GOAL FOR PAT SPILLANE AND THE BOMBER LISTON! IT'S ALL OVER NOW FOR DUBLIN!"
Now, you see Thark, there's someone talking Gaelic, and in Hiberno-English too!
Meantime, your ignorance of Ireland is showing..... Hughsheehy 11:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
PLEASE can we get back to the original subject of this thread and stop slagging one another off? Thanks Waggers 12:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Fair point. But the foregoing does illustrate a rather significant problem with the approach of many editors on this page. (and yes I mean Thark, and others) They "know" a lot of things.....but the things they "know" are often WRONG. This is particularly true of many British editors "knowledge" about Ireland. I mean, this diff is a beaut. [1] That'll keep me amused for the rest of the day! Hughsheehy 12:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I must ask, why do we have to have a French language name in it? By the most common definition of BI (Britain, Ireland and some other smaller islands not including the Channel Islands) there are no French speaking native inhabitants that I can think of unless I've completely missed something. The other languages yes (though I'm really not sure about the Scots personally but anyway) but the French? Ben W Bell talk 12:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Personally I'm not convinced we need to list the name in other languages at all, at least not in the introduction. Listing the more notable alternative English language names makes sense. But to answer Ben's question, variants of French are spoken in the Channel Islands. Waggers 12:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
But haven't we determined in long and convoluted conversations that the Channel Islands aren't normally included in most common definitions and are definitely not geographically, which the term is primarily? Ben W Bell talk 13:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
@Ben - Channel Islands are normally included. The only way some definitions can be seen to exclude them is by reading one thing or another about the what it means to be "adjacent" or "nearby" something else. Definitions that go beyond listing Ireland and Britain (there are even some published definitions that describe BI and being the UK and RoI only!) will explicitly include the Channel Islands e.g. any definition that mentions the Isle of Man, will also mention the Channel Islands. This doesn't really have any effect on whether it is a geographic term or not - it still obviously refers to geography - but does cut a swipe into the "purely geographical" mumbo-jumbo.
@Waggers - French is included because the list is of langauges which enjoy official status in the various jurisdictions in the archipelago. If it were regional/ethic languages then it would be Jèrriais/Guernésiais etc. not French.
@Thark - the Irish (and call it Irish Gaelic if you like, there's nothing wrong with doing so, but unconventional in Ireland, as the "Gaelic" is redundant when describing Irish or Manx, unlike Scottish Gaelic where it could be confused with Scots, in the same way as Welsh, Cornish and Breton are not called Welsh Brythonic, Cornish Brythonic, or - very strangly - Breton Brythonic! Or even English Anglic! Or French Oïl!) tranlsation is provided as part of a project to provide translations of the meaning of Irish placenames. This is mainly relevent to Ireland-based articles (see Athlone or Sligo for examples) to shown the origin of placenames. Maybe it's not relevent (or wanted) here. --sony-youthpléigh 14:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I couldn't give a toss about how many names there are. The list has grown over the past year or so as part of the various attempts to reach compromises over the article's title's definition. My original point was that, if there are a lot then the start of the article is difficult to read. It makes it, from the start, a poor quality article. (And the inclusion of Jerriais, Guernésiais, Sercquiais, etc mentioned above would make this worse.) Whilst bickering goes on about whose version of what name should or should not be included, this fairly fundamental point is missed. So, does anyone have any views on "Is there a better way this could be presented?"? Bazza 13:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I certainly don't mean to include Jèrriais, Guernésiais, Cornish, Shelta, Northumberland Brythonic, and god knows what else. Only those langauges that have official status in the jurisdictions of the archipelago.
My view is that it doesn't distract too much from the readability (but losing one of the Irish definitions certainly is a good thing and dropping the translation or the remainder would be a good thing) and is beneficial for the article as from the off-set it show the diversity of life, history, culture and people on the archipelago. --sony-youthpléigh 14:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
As is stands now, somewhat shorter than when I first posed the question, it's OK. I had no problem with showing various names, just the six-line interruption they caused to the main text in smaller windows. Bazza 16:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Archiving

This talk page is huge. Would anybody object if I set a bot the task of archiving old discussions automatically? If not, what timescale should we set - would fortnightly be too short a time? Waggers 22:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, an archiving bot is needed. GoodDay 22:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Sure. A four week inactivity level should be a good balance as some conversations get restarted after a few weeks. Ben W Bell talk 22:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I've set it up for 4 weeks. Obviously we can change it later if necessary. Waggers 10:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Political naming

Anyone who may be wondering how representative the views of Irish Wikipedians (non-British) are on this topic of the offensive name check out Geograph British Isles, look at the coverage map and wonder why? Hint: it isn't 'cos we Irish don't have digital cameras or the Internet:)(Sarah777 (talk) 23:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC))

Nah, that's probably more to do with the fact Ireland is approx 1/2 the size of Great Britain but only has around 10% of the population and is a lot less densely populated. Trust me, the less densely populated thing is a good thing. Ben W Bell talk 23:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Hardly Ben; look at the even less densely populated Scotland and Wales (And NI)! It's because the term "British Isles" is taken by most Irish people not to include Ireland - I'm sure in time the hundreds of thousands of Brits over here will fill up most of the boxes - but this is a startling illustration of the Irish attitude to being called part of the "British Isles". (Sarah777 (talk) 10:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC))
Or maybe the site just hasn't been promoted in the media in Ireland, and as a result people don't know about it. There's usually a simple non political reason behind these things, not everything in life is political (despite what the adverts said before the last election in the UK). Ben W Bell talk 12:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Nope; this time you are wrong Ben - the reaction here perfectly reflects the views of 80%+ of those living in the RoI (and I live here!). Occam wins this time! (Sarah777 (talk) 21:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC))
Sure, and there's a lovely photo of The Royal Canal at Drumcondra Road Lower, Dublin, Ireland,[2] to pick one of many at random. Of course, like parts of Scotland there are all these miles of peat bogs with naething worth photieing. However, I'll grant you that Boycott is an Irish word ;) .... dave souza, talk 23:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Well Dave, I even added about 10 new squares locally myself till I copped the name; but no amount of references to population densities, bogs or anything else can explain the starkness of the contrast between the relatively densely populated rural Southern Ireland v. NI or the relatively densely populated areas of most of rural Ireland v the barren wastes of Scotland and Wales. This is a Slam Dunk guys! (Sarah777 (talk) 10:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC))
Also, as far as I can see, it doesn't include the Channel Islands. Hughsheehy (talk) 11:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Well spotted - maybe they are on the French Geograph? (Sarah777 (talk) 11:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC))
Maybe. What's interesting is that the site is sponsored by the UK Ordinance Survey. Hughsheehy (talk) 16:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
More precisely GB Ordnance Survey, rather than Ordnance Survey of Northern Ireland or Ordnance Survey Ireland. --Rumping (talk) 22:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Ridiculous Name

Who in their right mind uses the term "British Isles" anymore? I'm 22 and I've never heard it used in Ireland; I think I'd feel decidedly uncomfortable if somebody were to use it while talking to me. It's a ridiculous hangover from the time the Brits had their boot on all the Irish people. This article doesn't emphasise that enough. 86.42.84.131 (talk) 02:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a global project, not an Irish one. Globally, British Isles is still the most common name applied to the islands. Suggesting that the majority of the world's English-speaking population are out of their minds is not going to help your argument any. Waggers (talk) 08:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
The commenter never said this. Their substantive suggestion was that the "article doesn't emphasise that enough." That's a fair comment. We should take this remark on board and work their suggestion into the article in order to improve it. Dismissing anybody's criticism or reading things into remarks that aren't there does not benefit us. Is there a reference to support the claim that "the majority of the world's English-speaking population" use the term as opposed to the manifold alternative phrasings? --sony-youthpléigh 10:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
second line in The term British Isles is controversial in relation to Ireland where its use is objected to by many people[3] and by the government of the Republic of Ireland. Gnevin (talk) 10:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I know it's there, that's not my point. A reader left a comment on this talk page suggesting that it be emphasised more. That's fair comment and should be dealt with in the same manner as you replied to me. Dismissing their comments as part of some imagined campaign ("... not going to help your argument ...") is not the way to go.
However, I also feel that the current phrasing suggests that it is only to Irish people that the term is objectionable or felt to be outdated. This is not true. See my comments on the "name debate" page. --sony-youthpléigh 10:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
"Who in their right mind uses the term "British Isles" anymore?" The implication there is clear: anyone in their right mind would not use the term "British Isles". Yes, there was a suggestion about improving the article later in the post, but to come in and suggest that you'd have to be deranged to use the term "British Isles" is not acceptable behaviour, and that's what I was addressing. Waggers (talk) 10:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough, I didn't take it that way, but fair enough. (Still, the question is left hanging :-) ...)--sony-youthpléigh 10:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't get too upset with the anon editor, Waggers. He/she only started editing yesterday and will probably raise a similiar question at Irish Sea, - Peace brothers/sisters-. GoodDay (talk) 19:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
"Irish Sea"? Never heard of it. Maybe you mean the Inter-Britain-Ireland Common Sea Route Area? (I do of course prefer Manx Sea myself as was the Irish term for that body of water before that language became polluted by filthy calques from the English language, the title of this page being another example of one.) --sony-youthpléigh 21:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
He he, I'm just glad both articles haven't been moved. Even if their names are 'out of step with the times', they're still historical names, they were used. GoodDay (talk) 21:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't think there was any proposal to move this article (at least, not recently). The term British Isles is still very much in common use, certainly on this side of the body of water mentioned a short while ago. (Help, I'm turning into a politician!!) Waggers (talk) 21:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
"these waters"? --sony-youthpléigh 22:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I've been led by my Irish friends to believe the Irish were growing out of this kind of thing. I thought the days of the North Atlantic Archipelago were gone. I can kinda understand the origins of the sensitivities, but come on, Ireland is a respectable, dynamic and successful independent country these days. You don't need this paranoia ... no-one using the term "British Isles" seeks to subject Munster to England, it's just a the convenient and well-established term. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

British Isles is an ancient term, and is also a purely georgraphical one. It has no political overtones whatsoever, and is a perfectly acceptable, and common, term. Lianachan (talk) 17:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a reference for this assertion? It would be very welcome if you did. Until then, you should note that the OED dates it to 1621 and historians agree that it was political in nature. See here for some examples. --sony-youthpléigh 19:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm. Reading the references, what historians actually seem to be saying is that it is a geographical term that has acquired political overtones, which is something different. On a pedantic point, the OED records the earliest usage it can find, it doesn't date words per se. In fact someone as a result of this talk page found an earlier use (1580's I think, and an example of Wikipedia at its best IMO). It's a shame that these talk pages are so clogged up with personal opinion, but it's there somewhere. MAG1 (talk) 10:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't see where they say that it "acquired" that overtone, but you're right, the "it was" in that sentence was too strong given the evidence, "it is" is more accurate.
The pre-1621 reference you are thinking of was found by User:TharkunColl. It's to a 1577 use by John Dee. It appears in the article.
Do you not find a contradiction between saying "... someone as a result of this talk page found an earlier use ... an example of Wikipedia at its best IMO" and saying that "It's a shame that these talk pages are so clogged up with personal opinion"? It was a bluster of argument and opinion, charge and counter-charge that provided the impetuous to find that reference. If it wasn't for all that opinion, that now looks like it serves no purpose but cloging the place up, it would never have been found. --sony-youthpléigh 12:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
The term is never used in good company, I'm afraid it's gone the way of the 'Empire', a relic from from the past. I see National Geographic is doing some modernising, look here http://www.tribune.ie/article.tvt?_scope=Tribune/News/Home%20News&id=82652 03:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.19.86.129 (talk)
Excellent - yet another MSM reference for the fact that Ireland is not in the British Isles. Sarah777 (talk) 03:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Wait a minute. The term "British Isles" may or may not be obsolete, but the term certainly includes Ireland. Saying that it's excluded is like saying that Calcutta is not in Hindustan. The issue is whether the term is appropriate, not what it means. john k (talk) 23:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment, Hold on a sec! Is India in the 'Empire'? Well, I should definitely say nay. But if you should have asked me that question 100 years ago, it would have a definite yeah. Assuming you were alive then, of course ;-) 00:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.19.72.224 (talk)
No. It's more like saying that Calcutta isn't in Alaska. Sarah777 (talk) 23:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
No, that's totally insane. john k (talk) 21:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
To re-iterate the point of grammar made by 78.19.72.224, if a term is obsolete then the past tense should be used e.g. "The Isle of Man was in the British Isles" and "Calcutta was in Hindustan". Better still would be to say that "Kolkata was in Hindustan". Although, like British Isles, many persist in using Calcutta long after its sell-by date has past. --sony-youthpléigh 03:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
No, that doesn't make any sense. "Hindustan" isn't an old name which was changed, it is an obsolete name which is no longer used at all. It's not that there used to be a place called Hindustan, but it changed its name to something else. It's that there's a place which used to be called Hindustan, but that name is no longer used. john k (talk) 21:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment, yes John, obsolete, just like the term British Isles. Unfortunately people keep these atlases for years and years. It's little wonder why some folks sometimes get a little mixed-up in their geography. 01:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.19.169.28 (talk)
Okay, let me again clarify my basic point here. There seem to be a group of people here who are willing to say that Great Britain, and the Isle of Wight, and the Orkneys, are part of the "British Isles," but that Ireland is not. This is absurd and wrong, and the article should not say anything of the kind. Whether or not "British Isles" is an obsolete term is a completely different question. john k (talk) 03:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
There are some who use the term like that, mapmakers among them. It gives rise the to phrase British Isles and Ireland. Compare with the term British Islands, which has legal meaning in the UK. --sony-youthpléigh 11:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
"Saying that it's excluded is like saying that Calcutta is not in Hindustan." Actually is more like saying that Karachi is not on the Indian sub-continent. Mucky Duck (talk) 09:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I was giving the full benefit of the doubt to the opposing position. I agree that it's a lot more like that. john k (talk) 21:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
So, is Kolkata, or is Kolkata not, in Hindustan? And has Calcutta ceased to exist? What is the name of the archipelago formed by Corsica and Sardinia? They must not form one. --sony-youthpléigh 11:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
1. It is in the historic region of Hindustan, but not the modern state with that name.
2. No - it has not, but it is now officially called Kolkata.
3. "Corsica and Sardinia".
What's your point? Mucky Duck (talk) 12:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
That the words we use to describe geography are intimately related to politics; that as politics change so too do the words that use use to describe places; and that it is not necessary that an archipelago have a name, it can be known solely by it's members. --sony-youthpléigh 13:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
It is not necessary for it to have a name, and the name could be something different. However, the actuality is that the name of the archipelago that consists of Great Britain, Ireland, Man, Lewis, Wight, Yell, etc, etc is the British Isles. You and others don't like that, that's understood. But this is an encyclopeadia, campaigning for change does not belong here. Mucky Duck (talk) 13:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Nobody campaigning for anything other than truth and reality. The article should reflect all political, all geographical, and all historical contexts of this little used relic of a term from an acrimonious past. I'm afraid Mucky Duck that you too could be charged with campaigning for change does not belong here. 13:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.19.105.106 (talk)
I have no axe to grind and am not trying to change anything. I don't care what the name of the archipelago is, but recognise that the name is British Isles. Mucky Duck (talk) 16:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
That situation is clearly in flux, as news from the National Geographic Society demonstrates. It has been in flux for many decades now, as is well documented. (The crux of the issue may indeed be that we are now standing at the precipice of one state.) Neither has it ever been the case that "British Isles" was the sole means of referring for the group. I have long used and heard "Britain and Ireland" without any confusion over what was being referred to - and without fear that through pedantry anyone would think that that turn of phrase must by necessity exclude Lewis, Wright, Mann, etc. - as I'm sure that you secretly have too.
No secret, of course I've heard other ways of referring to it. That doesn't alter its name. Mucky Duck (talk) 16:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
(The "secret" was that you would use them yourself.) So you have no problem with them being employed as appropriate? --sony-youthpléigh 17:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I doubt that I would (if referring to the archipelago rather than the two countries) but no, I have no problem with people using whatever they wish outside of academic usage, provided it's clear. What I object to or not is hardly the point in question, though, is it. Mucky Duck (talk) 12:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
The original post was that this flux was not given enough treatment in the article. While we have since wondered off topic, that was a fair comment, in my opinion. For example, save for when explicitly dealing with terminology, the article does not contain any other means of referencing the archipelago in the English language save for "British Isles". That appears to me to be quite unnatural. There was a time when it did, but these were 'fixed' by certain UK-based editors. That doesn't strike me as being particularly reflective of reality. Reality is that British Isles is quite an odd little term, rarely used. Much more common is that other terms are used in its place. --sony-youthpléigh 14:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Not given enough treatment? Half the lead section, the entire first section (alternative names and descriptions) and chunks of "names of the islands through the ages" are devoted to it along with an entire separate article British Isles naming dispute and large parts of a third British Isles (terminology). Mucky Duck (talk) 16:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I see in your hurry you passed over the clause "... save for when explicitly dealing with terminology ..." Run back and read what I wrote again. Thanks. --sony-youthpléigh 17:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, no, it may be that I didn't understand what you meant though. Where else do you want it to discuss the issue of terminology except when dealing with teminology? Mucky Duck (talk) 12:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I missed your "British Isles is quite an odd little term, rarely used". I'd be interested in your definition of "rare". Mucky Duck (talk) 16:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
On matter of language, I defer to the Oxford English dictionary. It defines "rare" as meaning "occurring very infrequently". The text of the article currently says the opposite - and has marked as "citation needed" since June 2007. If a citation is not forthcoming you will of course have no issue with me removing that unfounded statement? --sony-youthpléigh 17:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Not provided you're not going to replace it with "an odd little term rarely used" ;-). What the article says is probably correct but it's rather difficult to prove so, sure, enjoy yourself. Mucky Duck (talk) 12:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Not exactly John Kenney. The article should reflect the reality of a present day analysis. Even calling BIG islands like Great Britain & Ireland by the term isle is metaphor of Swiftian proportions, and a gross insult to their true status, more like land masses I should venture. We rarely hear Iceland being called an island, people respect it, and call it by it's proper name, which is Iceland. Even in the Falklands, which are pretty tiny, they refer to them as islands. British Isles has about the same weight as Emerald Isle (as in Ireland), which doesn't have an entry on Wikipedia I gather. 12:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.19.105.106 (talk)

While "isle" might have some connotation of a small island, it is perfectly acceptable to use it as simply a synonym for "island." john k (talk) 16:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually, it does mean small island, and as for being perfectly acceptable, well that's your subjective opinion. If you want to call big by the name 'small, well?;) 16:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.19.105.106 (talk)
American Heritage Dictionary gives "An island, especially a small one. " as the definition of "isle." So it's not "my subjective opinion," it's what dictionaries say. john k (talk) 20:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


General Sanctions?

I'm a bit surprised and disappointed to see the general sanctions template at the top of this talk page. When was the last time there was an edit war on the page, April? All the big disputes of the past were handled pretty much w/o admin intervention. There has been quite a bit of heated discussion on a few issues, but a number of editors put some effort into reaching a compromise. These "general sanctions" seem unneeded, and a little insulting.—eric 19:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Fear not - the article isn't under general sanctions (if it was, it would be listed at WP:SANCTION). I've removed the template. Waggers (talk) 19:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually sanctions were applied to this article on January 25, under the Great Irish famine sanctions.[3] -- SEWilco (talk) 20:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
A sanction perhaps, general sanctions (in the Wikipedia sense) no. In this case, a single user was banned from editing this article (and its talk pages and subpages). Wikipedia:General sanctions apply to the article, not to any specific editors. Waggers (talk) 21:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, sorry i guess, i wasn't up to speed with everything that's been going on lately!—eric 09:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Don't apologise, the template shouldn't have been added to this page and you were right to question it - I for one wouldn't have noticed it until much later if it wasn't for your raising it. You did a good thing :) Waggers (talk) 22:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
The good news Waggers is that I've just realised the block you engineered is long since expired. I think your wilder statements will no longer go unchallenged. Sarah777 (talk) 03:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I "engineered" nothing and I don't know what "wild" statements you're talking about - but I think we can categorically agree that there's no need for the {{Sanctions}} template on this page. Waggers (talk) 14:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
On that we can indeed agree. Sarah777 (talk) 20:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that:

"British" is a collective term that was used for shorthand adjective or noun on the Tudor (Anglo-Irish) and later, Stuart (adding Scots; English Lowlanders and Irish Highlanders) dominions, rather than the unwieldy, full length name. It even includes the Isle of Man (to round off matters), which had been under Stanley domination until the Hanoverian period. I believe that the overt political perception of some Irish is due to the titling of the Crown since the Irish War of Independence and the wish to have all of Ireland for themselves. My personal preference, would not depict either English, Irish, Scots (being both) or Manx in any title (although I would feature all four on the royal arms), but seeing as how the Irish are dead set against any collegiality with their blood neighbours across the waves, they will continue to kick this dead horse until both feet are broken. It's funny that they chose the Tudor livery colours of green and white, partnered with the Orangist as well, for a national flag and then the arms of Leinster as representative of Ireland on whole, which the Crown has always done. The very government of Ireland as it exists in the Republic, owes more to Oliver Cromwell than the Stuarts (who says Catholicism or Jacobitism and Gaelic or Scottish mean anything in Ireland?), so it is obvious when anybody takes a stance on either side, they are merely rabble rousing ruffians without a valid point of contention! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.255.11.149 (talk) 19:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

So what is it you want changed in the article? GoodDay (talk) 20:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

It was just a comment about the fratricide we see here. Perhaps the notation of the term being "controversial" should be lessened, since the point here is collective geography rather than politics. As it is now, it continues to be a tug of war, rather than neutral accumulation of knowledge on the biggest island chain in Europe. I'm sure geology is much more relevant than people picking a fight, just to control on matters in which we would split hairs. 24.255.11.149 (talk) 20:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Politically motivated edits (real or suspected) generally clash on Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 20:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

That's what I'm talking about, in that it should have little to no place here, except in perhaps stating which countries dwell here and where their borders are. 24.255.11.149 (talk) 20:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Cool. GoodDay (talk) 20:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Some comments:
  • The green and white are not the Tudor colours. That's no great secret. It's a tricolour (hint: see France).
  • The Crown has never taken the Leinster colours to represent Ireland. The Leinster colours are green. They were adopted by the Confederacy during the War of the Three Kingdoms - from where green may have become known as Ireland's national colour (and used to represent one tradition on the tricolour, with white representing peace between it and the orange tradition). Since then they have been associated with rebellion, and certainly not the Crown! Before then blue was more commonly associated with Ireland, that being the colour you are thinking of, however, that was only used by the Crown since Henry VII. Before then the Crown used the arms of Munster, although the blue harp was recorded as far back as the 13th century as representing Ireland, and harps important to Gaelic symbolism far far before then.
  • You are correct about the era that "Britain" and "British" re-entered the vocabalory of the people of these islands, but off on what it meant to them (see the first quote here, and pay special attention to the part that says that "The term 'Britain' was widely understood and it excluded Ireland"). The "overt political perception of some Irish" when it comes to the term is nothing new - and certainly pre-date the War of Independence! (Indeed if you read the Morrill quote you'll the see word was always overtly political in it's modern sense.) I particularly enjoy the 1832 O'Connell on the West Brit article: "The people of Ireland ... are ready to become a kind of West Briton if made so in benefits and justice; but if not, we are Irishmen again."
Final thoughts, it's hard to believe that you know what the word "collegiality" means (relating to or involving shared responsibility). Demanding that a shared space be named after oneself alone is hardly in the spirit of collegialism - though collegialism can hardly be said to be the mainstay of southern Britain's preferred relationship with Ireland over the past millennium! As for Cromwell, this kind of trolling hardly deserves a response except to say that the Irish republic has never been marked by dictatorship, intolerance, or genocide, unlike the English one. --sony-youthpléigh 22:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Ireland not intolerant? I refer you to the the Roman Catholic boycott of Trinity College, Dublin and a football match with "commie" Yugoslavia, Kerry Babies Tribunal of 1986, no decriminalisation of homosexuality till 1993, the X and C cases, and the Magdalene Laundries only finally closed in 1996; still, the Limerick Pogrom was before the Republic, so I guess 2 out of 3 ain't bad... BastunBaStun not BaTsun 00:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Wow! Bastun reckons that cultural and physical genocide is some way equivalent to delaying the decriminalisation of homosexuality until a few years after the British did!!! Such a fine sense of balance and perspective! Sarah777 (talk) 01:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
All true, Bastun, and there's no point in me picking nits, though with respect, in relation to Cromwell, I was talking about intolerance leading to death tolls in the region of 70% due to war. That does nothing to undermine what you are saying though, and you are quite correct. --sony-youthpléigh 01:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I thouhgt Roman Catholics were barred from Trinity College, Dublin, and the anti-homosexual laws were imposed by Westminister. Nit-picking, I think. Couldn't play a game or get a pint on a Sunday when I lived in the UK, and a Roman Catholic cannot be Primeminister, or marry the monarch, etc, etc. Enough! 02:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.19.123.139 (talk)
I am certain it is not the case that a Roman Catholic cannot be Prime Minister (wasn't Callaghan Catholic - and indeed Irish to boot?). As for getting a pint in the UK on Sunday, perhaps if you were in certain parts of Wales this may have been the case, but all pubs I know of did a roaring trade when their hours were restricted - the Sunday lunchtime swill we used to call it. These days there are no such restrictions, which has taken half the fun of seeing how many pints you could down between 12 and 2 pm, before having to wait another five hours before the pub opened again. TharkunColl (talk) 08:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
This is not a discussion board please keep comment, to ones about improving the article Gnevin (talk) 09:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

That's in my thoughts. The Irish republicans keep disrupting the neutrality of this article. The source of their antipathy rests with:

  • When Henry II and Strongbow went to Ireland, the king allowed some of his nobility to leave the main part of England because of the recent rebellions and wanted to pacify them with land. This is the source of the Old English.
  • Edward Bruce invaded Ireland when it was English, thus being the basis of a so-called Gaelic culture, even though the Scots and Irish have never gotten along, maybe why the Scots were kicked out of Ireland in the first place, but boohoo if King Jimmy sent them to Ulster much later.
  • Later revolts were due to the Wars of the Roses having exiled many of its partisans there, especially Yorkist opponents of the Tudors, who subsequently decided to fix the problem. Much of the actual conflicts in Ireland stem from the inability of the English (old and new) and Scottish planters to get along. This is why they supported the English Pope's Laudabiliter, but not the declaration of a king in their island, although bullied by the Scots originally.

24.255.11.149 (talk) 16:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

You'll always have differences of opinion about presentation, even amongst university professors. If you see disagreement, never blame one side, or the other. It's in the nature of the world to have different view-points, and it's the nature of history to be reviewed all of the time. Some of your facts above are not quite accurate, but I won't get into that. 16:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.19.212.237 (talk)
"not quite accurate", 78.19.212.237? "[Henry II] allowed some of his nobility to leave the main part of England because of the recent rebellions"? "Edward Bruce invaded Ireland when it was English, thus being the basis of a so-called Gaelic culture ..."? "... the Scots were kicked out of Ireland in the first place ..."? It's like describing events in a parallel universe. This nut is particularly surreal, collapsing five centuries onto itself and playing it in reverse at high speed; "Much of the actual conflicts in Ireland stem from the inability of the English (old and new) and Scottish planters to get along. This is why they supported the English Pope's Laudabiliter ..."? If I might suggest that much of the "antipathy" of the other side rests with having little grasp of even the most foundational knowledge of the history of these islands. Although, you are right in that there is little to be gained by laying blame. --sony-youthpléigh 19:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
My reference was to 24.255.11.149 making gross oversimplifications to history - 24.255.11.149 also has a discernibly obvious "point of view". It can be a huge problem when trying to grasp the realities. Would you read a book written by Andrew Jackson about the "Origins and History of the American Indian"? With extreme caution, hopefully! 78.19.12.94 (talk) 20:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Whoever recounts events, is it too much to ask that they respect the direction of time? If only to avoid the risk of Scottish planters supporting Laudabiliter in defiance of an English king? --sony-youthpléigh 20:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Removed incoherent British rant as Arbcom prevents me from giving a very direct and honest reply. Sarah777 (talk) 01:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
The rant in question is from a user formerly known as Lord Loxley, who is not British, and is well know for his tediously lengthy and completely irrelevant posts. He has tried to insert his rabidly anti-English POV into many articles. TharkunColl (talk) 09:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
That's a red herring to squealch the legitimate discussion about what motivates the vandals on this page. TharkunColl prefers the fighting and him winning, Anglo-Saxon aristocrat on top of Celtic peasant, because in his mind, the English are racially distinct from the Celts. The truth is, that is a Roman British attitude to non-Romans and he just doesn't know or want to admit the truth of English expansionism in the British Isles has nothing to do with a few Germanic mercenaries in the upper class, but with Roman policy. 24.255.11.149 (talk) 16:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Are you incapable of saying anything coherent or relevant, Lox? TharkunColl (talk) 16:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Hide your idiosyncrasy in plain view. It's blatent that you will be banned from Wikipedia for all the harsh goose stepping you do on various articles in which your pride has a stake. Pride goeth before the fall. 24.255.11.149 (talk) 16:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Why don't you just stop interfering with things you know nothing about? Have you ever even been to England? TharkunColl (talk) 16:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but it doesn't matter. I am always reading up on all sorts of POVs and some just don't hold water, no matter how widespread in error. Since the common people have had little access to education, they are readily willing to believe in aristocratic lies that the monarchy is a Norman, rather than Anglo-Saxon institution. 24.255.11.149 (talk) 16:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Disorganise the different sets of facts in such a way as to never understand, thus fuel for more adversity and conflict. Has it occurred to anybody about the English Adams and Scottish Paisley, both contending for influence on Irish soil? Jump Jim Crow > Jump Mc Paddy. You always follow the pied pipers and can't see outside your soap operas. The main point is, that these "troubles" have nothing to do with any "British" vs Irish struggle, but the English and Scottish factions of the island (and between older and newer planters, like Old English vs Anglicans and Ulster bridge to Argyle by the Scotii, with the Ulster-Scots returning), which have almost always dominated its affairs for practically a millenium by now, in one way or another. What is the problem with Irishmen recognizing that their island is an obvious junior partner, like say Belgium to France or Holland to Germany? Life is life and unless you can change the face of the earth, get a life and quit blathering, not to say that the "British" can get away with bullying. Besides, the national characters of these islands just aren't different enough to be able to split hairs and feel good at the same time. It's ridiculous that Irishmen complain about English Cromwell and yet revived commonwealth government, while the same is true for the British who retain the Celtic Stuart monarchy. There is no absolute difference between these islands! Balance and shared Anglo-Celtic culture is what defines the British Isles at heart, even if infighting never seems to go away. When people in different neighbourhoods, towns and shires don't see eye to eye, how is it feasible for nations to get along? But then again, the Scots have reconciled their Anglo-Celtic duality of Lowlands and Highlands, so what is so horrible about English and Irish doing the same? Is it any consolation that both the Tudor countries, England and Ireland chose republican governments against the Scottish Stuart line? Imagine if the new joint capital were to occupy the Isle of Man as some sort of "Capital Territory" like the District of Columbia in the US or Australia's, rather than separate English London or Celtic Dublin? There are too many fanatic separatists in the British Isles. What's Wales and Cornwall? Nothing but another part of England, same with Orkney and Shetland for the Scots and also true with Ulster and the rest of Ireland. They just have different governments calling the shots, like the Plantagenet and Capetian camps for control of France in the Hundred Years' War, occupying different parts of the country. 24.255.11.149 (talk) 01:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

We really need to draw this discussion to a close, it has nothing to do with improving the article itself. Feel free to continue the conversation on user talk pages or an off-wiki discussion forum of your choice - but please let's try an keep this page focussed on specifics about the article, not a general discussion about the British Isles or the philosophies of the various groups that inhabit them. Thanks. Waggers (talk) 09:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Much of the actual conflicts in Ireland stem from the inability of the English (old and new) and Scottish planters to get along. This is why they supported the English Pope's Laudabiliter
That's gotta be up there with the biggest pieces of historical nonsense I've ever seen on wikipedia. Those Scottish planters are 17th century ... along way after 1155. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Just a set of responses to a few points made in this section.Firstly, Edward Bruce. The latter came from Carrick, culturally indistinguishable from nearly by Ulster. He was probably fostered in Ireland during his adolesence and probably (it has recently been argued) was a descendant of Niall Ruadh O'Neill and great, great grandson of Rory O'Connor. If his older brother Niall had not been killed by the English a few years before, it would probably have been Niall who led the Scots invasion "to expel the foreigners from Ireland". The British-Irish dichotomy would never be used in Medieval history by anyone who new what they were talking about. Comparisons between medieval Scottish and Irish history, and English and Irish history, make a complete nonsense of the British-Irish dichotomy. Most of the landmass of Scotland and Ireland have a shared linguistic and cultural history, while Dublin, Cardiff, London, Bristol and Edinburgh ... and in fact all cities in the British Isles ... have shared the same English language and culture for the last eight centuries. The British-Irish dichotomy is a recent creation of Irish cultural movements which systematically devalued the place of the English in Irish heritage (in Ireland for 8 (!!!) centuries!) in favour of Gaelic romanticism, Hibernicised the position Irish Gaelic at the expense of older pan-Gaelic ideologies and insularised Ireland's history at the expense of facts. Anyways, these tendencies are thankfully in retreat, and modern Irish medievalists are among the biggest "champions" of the pan-insular approach. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
modern Irish medievalists are among the biggest "champions" of the pan-insular approach.
I shouldn't get too carried away. Evelyn Mullally and/or the people at Four Courts Press decided to render the French La Geste des Engleis en Yrlande "The Deeds of the Normans in Ireland". Naughty naughty (tut tut)! Only in Ireland could there ever be the motivation to "translate" des Engleis as "of the Normans". On the whole though, this kind of thing is becoming the exception. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't think you quite understand what being Irish is. Being Irish is being a part of everything that has gone before. Making broad generalisations is usually something foreigners do. Not quite sure, it would be wonderful to know where you get your generalisations/facts from. Ask any English-person living in Ireland, you'll find that there is no pressure from ideologies, but the Scots do go on a wee bit. They are much more uncomfortable with their relationship vis a vis England than the Irish are. English-bashing is usually a Scottish phenomena, you'll rarely hear it in Ireland. And the spoken tradition of Irish culture and language still lives today, un-broken for 1000s of years in some areas. And of course Ireland, as a nation, (rather than the city of Dublin), was predominately Irish/Gaeilge until c 1900. Why should Dublin be taken to represent Ireland. It's only part of the story of Ireland. 78.19.36.185 (talk) 21:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
These tendencies in early modern Irish culture are hardly secrets, and as I acknowledged "these tendencies are thankfully in retreat". The point about Dublin though, every other city in Ireland, and the hundreds of Englishries in existence for half a millennium before the Tudor age (after which the three Irelands began to converge), is that it shows there were more differences within Ireland than between Ireland and the meaningless and historically irrelevant concept of "Britain". Incidentally, Irish has been a minority language since at least the census of 1841, and English spoken by the majority of people on the island even longer. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
You're including the 6 counties of Ulster, and I was also referring to born speakers, my grand-father was bilingual for example. I think some of the differences were supplanted, Plantations, Penal Laws for instance, without expanding. And I have some Cromwellian adventurer connections too, so I try not to be biased either way. It's just the enfolding of history. Your argument is for a unified Britishness that includes Ireland. Well we can't really impose that, no more than can describe Britain as being Irish. It did take a lot of influence from Ireland, no doubt. Nice argument, but more of a debate than a fact. Back tomorrow. 78.19.36.185 (talk) 21:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Your argument is for a unified Britishness that includes Ireland
I don't think I'm arguing that ... just responding reactively to points other people make. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Gnevin is concerned that this whole section is off-topic, so if anyone wants to respond to me, I'd ask that you do it on my talk page. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


Cromwell

Cromwell was the first to create a unified state that encompassed the whole British Isles, some 150 years before the next attempt. Since he is equally hated by the Irish for being a bit of a bastard, and the English for being a regicide, perhaps we should acknowledge his place in our shared history a bit more. TharkunColl (talk) 00:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd be more for an enlarged section on the Stewarts as the first monarchs to rule the whole B*ritish Isles in personal union some 50 years before Cromwell's bloody and sectarian campaign. Though a compare-and-contrast might be informative. --sony-youthpléigh 01:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
You've forgotten Edward ... he ruled all of the British Isles (save the Northern Isles). Henry II too claimed the allegiance directly and indirectly of the whole archipelago (as well as half of "France"!). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedantry states that what occurred in 1603 was literally irrelevant, and true union did not occur until 1707 (or 1801 with regard to Ireland). In which case, Cromwell is certainly the first person to create a unified state across the whole British Isles. It was called the Commonwealth of England, Scotland and Ireland, and representatives from all parts were sent to Westminster. Notice also, incidentally, how the English - once they had thrown off the Stuarts - studiously avoided any terms such as "Great Britain", "Britain" or "British" - these were all Stuart (and what we today would call pseudo-Celtic) pretensions that the English hated. On the Cromwell issue itself, I think he was a great but deeply flawed man. He and his associates drew up the first written constitution for any nation in the world - indeed, the first two - and perhaps this is exactly why the English have distrusted such a thing ever since. TharkunColl (talk) 00:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedantry also states that it was the Commonwealth of England, not "of England, Scotland and Ireland" (rather like the breakfast!). "These were all ... pretensions that the English hated"? "Scotland and Ireland", you mean? Yes, much better to call it all "English", no?
A "great but deeply flawed man"? If you consider the death of up to 70% of the Irish population "great". I would have stuck with just "deeply flawed" but then my parliament doesn't have a statue erected to him outside of it.
"... exactly why the English have distrusted such a thing ever since"? Exactly why the Irish have been distrusted the English ever since! (If you don't believe me ask Churchill: "... upon all of these Cromwell's record was a lasting bane. By an uncompleted process of terror, by an iniquitous land settlement, by the virtual proscription of the Catholic religion, by the bloody deeds already described, he cut new gulfs between the nations and the creeds. 'Hell or Connaught' were the terms he thrust upon the native inhabitants, and they for their part, across three hundred years, have used as their keenest expression of hatred 'The Curse of Cromwell on you.' ... Upon all of us there still lies 'the curse of Cromwell'.") --sony-youthpléigh 03:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
It was originally the Commonwealth of England and did not become the Commonwealth of England, Scotland and Ireland until after the relevant acts of union were passed (see The Protectorate). The Stuart pretensions I mentioned were all those that involved the word "Britain" or its derivatives, which Cromwell eschewed. The Irish mistrust or hatred of the English because of Cromwell, though understandable, is perhaps also a little unfair in that upon the Restoration in 1660 Cromwell's body was dug up and his head stuck on a pole as a regicide (i.e. the English - or more precisely, the English royal establishment - hate him too). A good modern analogy (and this doesn't break Godwin's Law because it is a near perfect analogy) is the modern English mistrust and hatred of the Germans because of Hitler - but made even more untenable in Cromwell's case by the passage of so many centuries. And yet, despite all this, in many ways Cromwell was great - he destroyed the power of kings forever in this country and ever since parliament has been supreme. And that's why he deserves a statue there. TharkunColl (talk) 12:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
"It was originally the Commonwealth of England ... The Stuart pretensions I mentioned ..." It was a deliberate twist to demonstrate how preference for terms endure.
"... upon the Restoration in 1660 Cromwell's body was dug up and his head stuck on a pole ..." Big whup-te-do! His "settlement" of Ireland was maintained and even furthered ([http://www.wesleyjohnston.com/users/ireland/maps/historical/mapcromw.gif see). Never did we see a return to the toleration that was so abhorrent to parliament that they would murder their king for it. Cromwell was never dug up from an Irish perspective, he lived on for another three centuries in the English (and subsequent British) parliament where is statue still stands in all its pride today - representing the enduring terror and intolerance of the English, and subsequent British, parliament.
"... ever since parliament has been supreme ..." Do you think you need to remind me? Have Irish people not suffered woe because of it? To the English your parliament may represent liberty. To the Irish it represents hatred, intolerance, violence and terror.
"A good modern analogy (and this doesn't break Godwin's Law because it is a near perfect analogy) is the modern English mistrust and hatred of the Germans because of Hitler ..." This is a ridiculous analogy. Just look at raw figures alone! Below are the population figures for England and Wales at roughly either end of the war with Hitler (source):
  • Population of England & Wales 1941: 41,7488,000
  • Population of England & Wales 1941: 43,815,000
Contrast to the enormity of death endured by the population of Ireland during the Cromwellian war (Perceval-Maxwell: 1994)
  • Population of Ireland 1641: 2,100,000
  • Population of Ireland 1652: 850,000
And can I ask what happened after the war with Hitler? Did England suffer a "settlement" on Hitler's victory to ensure that it would be politically nullified? Was that "settlement" maintained after the war by the Allies? Did the Nazi's, with all their intolerance and violence, remain in power in England for three centuries after the war? Ridiculous!
Again, it's a ridiculous analogy and a demonstration of the height of English arrogance that you would dream that the petty inconvenience that England endured 1939-45 could be compared in any way to the ultimate examples of violence, suffering and intolerance that your people have inflicted on others, Cromwell, the ensuing "settlement", and the persistence of that "settlement" and interrelation under military force by parliament for centuries after. --sony-youthpléigh 13:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Is there a point to this British vs Irish spat? GoodDay (talk) 15:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
There might well be an English vs Irish spat, but there can't really be a British vs Irish spat because the Irish are British - and deep down they know it, which is why they always protest so much at it. TharkunColl (talk) 15:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm just hoping you guys will 'move' the dispute to your respective personal pages - unless you both got something to add to this article. GoodDay (talk) 16:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I think my original point is still valid. Cromwell was the first person (by whatever means) to create a single state encompassing the whole British Isles. TharkunColl (talk) 16:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Make sense; as I don't recall any rebellions being successful in England, Scotland or Ireland against his rule. GoodDay (talk) 16:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Its flag is on the right, which makes a point of including Ireland though not as aesthetically pleasingly as the later invention of the Cross of St. Patrick for that purpose. Cromwell and co. clearly had a rather ironic and typically English sense of humour as well - the motto of their republic was PAX QUÆRITUR BELLO ("Peace is sought through war"). TharkunColl (talk) 16:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Cool. GoodDay (talk) 16:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
"... there can't really be a British vs Irish spat because the Irish are British ..." Truly pathetic. I defer to the infinite wisdom of Samuel L. Jackson (in interview with Kate Thornton on ITV):
Thornton: What was it like working with Colin [Farrell]? 'Cos he is just so hot in the UK right now...
Jackson: He's pretty hot in the US, too!
Thornton: Yeah, but he is one of our own.
Jackson: Isn't he from Ireland?
Thornton: Yeah, but we can claim him, 'cos Ireland is beside us.
Jackson: You see, that's your problem right there. You British keep claiming people that don't belong to you. We had that problem here in America too. It was called slavery.
Back on topic, the subject of this article is the "Br*tish" Isles, not the life-and-times of an Englishman who was worse than Hitler. --sony-youthpléigh 17:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Love these disputes (though I'd prefer them sticking to the topic -the article). GoodDay (talk) 17:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
No matter how bad he was, and opinions among historians are clearly divided on that issue - and indeed, his excesses in Ireland may (or may not) be hugely exagerated - it is still true that Oliver and his army created the first state to encompass the whole British Isles. Is this not a relevant item of information? TharkunColl (talk) 19:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, short-lived as it was (6 years?), and, according to Winston Churchill, it is above all else the reason why one does not exist today.
How would you suggest integrating this into the article? Should we first discuss the source of the genocide? The ethnic cleansing? English betrayal of Irish loyalty? The open and unmasked hatred and intolerance? The continued, centuries-long persecution and violence enacted by the English parliament? How a man who today would be listed among the most frightening war criminals of all time occupies a place of honour outside Westminster Palace?
Alternatively, as it my opinion, the subject of this article is the "Br*tish" Isles, and not, as I said before, the life-and-times of an Englishman who was worse than Hitler.
I do however agree that the whole history section is a bit too much of a skim-through. This in itself isn't so bad, there is not point in reproducing any article here or emphasising one incident as "key" to our history. (Otherwise we might end up with half and article on the Famine and another highly disputed half laied over the Cromwell.) More thought in how we could direct readers elsewhere would be more what I'd like to see, especially a thoughtful linking to main articles on subjects to guide readers through the section and "spinning them out" to articles where they can get more detail. --sony-youthpléigh 20:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Statue of Cromwell outside the Palace of Westminster, London. It really is amazing how the British honour that man, butcher of the Irish. It's just another reason why Ireland could never be British, just as Judea can never be German.
Statue of Cromwell outside the Palace of Westminster, London. It really is amazing how the British honour that man, butcher of the Irish. It's just another reason why Ireland could never be British, just as Judea can never be German.






















78.19.29.127 (talk) 01:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's true to say that the British honour him - I seriously doubt if the Scots do, for example. Amongst the English his reputation is ambivalent at best. He is the great enigma, the man who changed the course of our history, yet despite having left copious letters and other written documents, no one ever seems to be able to gain a consistent insight into his character. He was a puritan who liked parties, a militarist who wanted to be a civilian, and a man who lived the life of an obscure country gentleman well into his forties. Unlike Hitler, with whom he has been unfavourably compared (a feat in itself), the changes he made in his country endured. Because of him the English created the concept of parliamentary sovereignty, which we later exported round the world - ironically, and eventually, even to Ireland. This was radical and new at the time, and Cromwell must be given credit for this. Also the idea of having a written constitution - under Cromwell England was the first country ever to have one. When a new state - let's say Ireland - draws up a constitution for itself, it is following in Cromwell's footsteps. To say that Cromwell was a great man does not imply that he was a good man - great does not mean good - but he was a great man. TharkunColl (talk) 09:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

"Because of him the English created the concept of parliamentary sovereignty, which we later exported round the world - ironically, and eventually, even to Ireland." - The Irish had been pressing for parliamentry sovereignty since before 1494, only for the English parliament to repress it at every turn. In 1782 in we got it de jure but de facto parliament was still unsovereign. 19 years later even that fraud was revoked. It was not until 1922, following a bloody guerellia war against the British (viz. English) parliament that a sovereign parliament was "allowed" to exist in Ireland. Meanwhile, look north and you'll see that parliamentary sovereignty was wrestled from the king by the Scottish immediately prior to Cromwellian regime - only be run rough-shod over by marauding English armies. It was those constitutional changes, put in train by the Scottish, that were aped by the English in their "Commonwealth".
Parliamentary sovereignty, "a concept created by the English"? Don't make me laugh! "Exported around the world"? The English exporting democracy and freedom rather than violence and oppression?? Now you've ventured into the world of the absurd!
First written constitution? Cromwell? The English? No. That honour would fall to the Irish in 1641. (But so what if Cromwell had a constitution? The USSR had volumous constitutions but was hardly a pinnacle of democracy or freedom?)
Now back on topic, what do you propose to do about the History section? --sony-youthpléigh 13:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't know really, but I notice that currently the article doesn't mention Cromwell by name at all, and the activities of his army in Ireland seems to have been given something of a negative spin. Oh, by the way, did you know that Cromwell's real, family surname was Williams, and that they were Welsh? TharkunColl (talk) 13:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I noticed that. It's not necessary to mention him in order to tell the history, but it is more usual. Sure, put him in. I was thinking about "mini" templates for each of the current sections, linking to relevant main articles.
("... Cromwell's real family surname was Williams, and that they were Welsh" - This is typical of the English view of history and hegemony of our islands. The Irish don't hate Cromwell because he was English, we hate him because he supervised the murder of over a million Irish men, women and children. If Irish hate figures tend to be English more than any other people, this is just co-incidental - or you might ask yourself why it happens that English people wrong Irish people so much and so often?) --sony-youthpléigh 14:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I never said that the Irish hate Cromwell because he was English. Quite the other way round in fact - they hate the English because of Cromwell. Why do English people tend to abuse the Irish more often than others? Well, geography probably has a lot to do with it. Who else is going to invade Ireland? Scots or Welsh maybe? Even before the Scots and Welsh came under English control, their numbers were tiny compared to the English. So in answer to your rhetorical question, the reason why the English tend to abuse the Irish more than any other nation is (a) they live next door to them, (b) there's a lot of them, and (c) they are the dominant power on their island. In all these discussions it would be easy to get the impression that the English are a great deal worse than other nations when it comes to invading, but I would suggest that this is simply a matter of opportunity. Long before the English ever went anywhere near Ireland, the Irish had invaded and set up colonies in Britain. Most of the Welsh kingdoms had Irish foundations, as did the Scottish kingdom. Furthermore, the Irish regularly raided Britain and kidnapped British people as slaves - St. Patrick was one of these. So the Irish are not just innocent victims here, despite what they have managed to convince the rest of the world through shear blarney. TharkunColl (talk) 16:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment on TharkunColl, the Irish don't hate the English, ask any of 200,000 English who live in Ireland. They'll all tell you they love it here, no animosity. It's just that when people start bending history to suit their own beliefs, that it gets a little frustrating. After all, we are supposed to be building a POV-FREE encyclopedia here, so let's do it. On a lighter vein, Oscar Wilde, "God created the Irish, to stop the English from boring themselves to death". Yeah, I agree with Oscar on this occasion. He... he...!!!78.19.174.181 (talk) 17:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Despite how it might appear, I actually rather like the Irish (what I don't like is the politics and the hatreds that politics engenders). I don't know how many millions of Irish people live in England, or whether proportionally it's more or less than the figure you just gave for English in Ireland, but I have never encountered any anymosity either towards, or from, them in any way at all. TharkunColl (talk) 17:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Believe it or not, I actually like the English and have no probs. Even some of my best friends are English. And they have a brilliant sense of humour. All that bashing they get from all quarters, and they keep that auld chin up, and the stiffer upper lip of course in tact. Sure where would we be without them? ;))) 78.19.174.181 (talk) 01:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
What has this got to do with improving the article? There are chat forums for this sort of stuff. If you want to improve the article I suggest you put your energy into changing the repulsive title. Sarah777 (talk) 22:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Awww ... can I join in on this loving feeing? ("Who else is going to invade Ireland?" Well ... truth be told it was the French in the first instance. No-one ever imagined it would end up in English hands!) --sony-youthpléigh 22:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, end the blogging. PS- include Irish Sea among your energies for title changes. Seriously though, both titles are fine. GoodDay (talk) 22:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)