Talk:British Isles/Archive 15

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 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 →


Contents

Uluru vs Ayers Rock

Okay, I have an account now.

Apologies if this argument has been used before but I see people using google hits as a way of determining how popular the phrase "British Isles" is. A google search on Uluru yields 1,270,00 results while a search on Ayers Rock yields 1,822,00 results. By your logic then we should still be calling this rock formation Ayers Rock and yet Wikipedia does indeed call it Uluru. But we do not because Ayers Rock is an name that was deemed to be offensive to the Aboriginal community and the decision was made to start referring to it as its Aboriginal name. Many people whether they are ignorant or just bloody minded still call it Ayers Rock however and the number of hits on google seem to bear this out. Murphy71 (talk) 23:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Anon, you're rambling on. What exactly do you want 'removed' from this article or rewritten? Please answer in less then a paragraph. GoodDay (talk) 23:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
What are you talking about GoodDay? Rambling on? Sorry, so anybody who disagreed with you is just rambling on? That's how it works is it?. If you bother to lift your head a little bit higher you will see that I actually already answered your request with a paragraph. And anyway, who are you to be telling people what they should be doing and restricting them to a paragraph or smaller? Not your call I am afraid matey. Please see my previous answer. Murphy71 (talk) 23:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
My point is, we already know that people living on Ireland, dislike the term British Isles. GoodDay (talk) 23:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
The Uluru argument is tendentious. The population of the British Isles is about 64 million. Over 60 million of those don't have a problem with the name British Isles - at least, no evidence whatsoever has been presented that they do - and we don't even know what proportion of the inhabitants of the Republic have a problem with it. Either way, if the vast majority of people in a place call it by a certain name, then that's it's name (for example, see Derry). TharkunColl (talk) 00:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


The Uluru argument is not there to support my own argument, it is only there to highlight the folly of using google search results as evidence and I think it does that very well, I would like to see no more google search results being used in this way.
I am not disputing the name "British isles" and if most of the population of Britain have no problem with it then there is no issue calling the Islands of Great Britain the British Isles. They are indeed the British Isles. But the Republic of Ireland is clearly no longer part of the British Isles because the word 'British' implies ownership and this is certainly not the case with Ireland. The opinion of British people have no bearing whatsoever on whether ireland can be called part of the British Isles, only the Irish people should have this right. So the population of Great Britain is irrelevant in this instance. The way you are constructing your argument you have effectively sealed Irelands fate as to ever belonging to Britain despite the war of independence being fought and won which proves otherwise.
When Scotland achieves independence from Great Britain it will be because the population of Scotland want it, not because the population of Great Britain want it. The referendum will be in Scotland only as it is rightly deemed the people of England have no choice in this matter. Ignorance and bad teaching is not a sold foundation to build the identity of a republic nation on, if the majority of Britain really believe that Ireland is still part of the British Isles then that is their ignorance showing through and changes nothing. Ireland is not part of the British Isles, this is a fact and a fact that people are going to have to get used to. The empire is long dead and there are much bigger fights to be won in Great Britain and that is where you should all be devoting your time to, not keeping alive this ancient and tired dream of Rule Britannia. Murphy71 (talk) 01:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Some of those who still use the term BI, go around blowing bugles at dawn after hoisting the union jack. They must be frequenting the Victorian Municipal Library for their refs. Most Irish people never use the term, it's an anachronism, a relic of a dead empire. "ahh" 78.19.5.160 (talk) 02:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
The fact is that we simply don't know how many Irish people dislike the term or don't use it, because no survey has ever been taken. Only those people who object to it would be minded to post messages here or write to newspapers, etc., and they might be a tiny minority. Or they might not be - again, we have no idea. What we do know, however, is that Irish people do use it - including Irish newspapers, the Irish parliament, and Irish government ministers. So it is clearly not the case that it is no longer used in Ireland. And just for the record, the term predates the British Empire by about 2000 years, and was used by the Ancient Greeks and Romans. The argument that they didn't use the English version of the name, and therefore it doesn't count, is, of course, ridiculous. TharkunColl (talk) 09:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Quote, "the term predates the British Empire by about 2000 years, and was used by the Ancient Greeks and Romans." Un-quote. On that basis Iceland must be included in the BI. You can't start massaging history to suit a modern day spin. I don't want to get into Godwin's Law here, but there are many fine examples. 78.19.65.254 (talk) 11:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Greater Germany, greater Britain. --sony-youthpléigh 11:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
"The population of the British Isles is about 64 million. ..." As we move away from a century-and-a-half period of depopulation, where 4 out of 5 Irish men, women and children perished or were exiled owing to British colonial rule in Ireland, it's a little rich for any person who posts comments such as this to call another argument "tendentious".
"The fact is that we simply don't know how many Irish people dislike the term or don't use it, because no survey has ever been taken." Published accounts describe it as "many" on both Ireland and Britain. We know that it is a political faux pas. We should stick with published reports, not our own anecdotal perception.
"... the term predates the British Empire by about 2000 year ..." Now, now, my Albanion friend, you know that this is disingenuous.
With regard to Uluru/Ayers Rock, it's my understanding that both names are official, and indeed that Ayers Rock would be the most common. Although, that both names can co-exist without suspicion of each other does demonstrate a parity of esteem that is lacking among the contributors to this article. --sony-youthpléigh 10:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

"However, Minister for Foreign Affairs Dermot Ahern has ruled that the term is not used by the Government and is without any official status." [1] A spokesman for the Irish Embassy in London said: “The British Isles has a dated ring to it, as if we are still part of the Empire. We are independent, we are not part of Britain, not even in geographical terms. We would discourage its useage.”[2]

Whether you like it or not it is now plainly obvious that it is time for Ireland to be finally removed from the British Isles. Users like TharkunColl seem to be pushing an agenda that just has no place in the modern world. The British Empire is dead and buried and it is indeed time that all notions of British ownership of Ireland are put to bed. Murphy71 (talk) 11:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


I would suggest that TharkunColl and GoodDay get their heads together for a chat..
"My point is, we already know that people living on Ireland, dislike the term British Isles." GoodDay (talk) 23:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
"The fact is that we simply don't know how many Irish people dislike the term or don't use it..." TharkunColl (talk) 09:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC) Murphy71 (talk) 12:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The term "British Isles" no more implies British rulership of Ireland than "Indian Subcontinent" implies Indian rulership of Pakistan. The problem is, that in order to reject the term, you must first redefine it to mean something that it doesn't. Many people in the UK hate being in the European Union, but should the UK ever leave then no one would suggest that the UK was no longer part of the European continent. Your quotations from government representatives are all very well, but politicians cannot alter language, no matter how much they might try - and it would be a very sad world if they could. Even that spokesman for the Irish embassy has got it wrong, because no one ever suggested that Ireland is geographically part of Britain. The terms "Britain" and "British Isles" are not synonymous. There is nothing at all unusual in a group of islands having a similar name to their largest island (e.g. Gran Canaria). TharkunColl (talk) 12:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I do love the way in which you insist that Ireland is part of some semi-mythical "Britain", but at the same time reject the notion that the Irish can have a defining role in it. Ireland is a part of "Britain", but it is the people of the southern portion of the larger island that know better as to what that means. Nothing very new there, but lovable in its quaintness none-the-less.
Back in reality, we are here to report the facts, not pronounce our judgements upon them. The Government of Ireland reject the term, as do many in the UK. You may not like that, TharkunColl of Albion, but your opinion is neither-here-nor-there. --sony-youthpléigh 12:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I actually said that Ireland was not part of Britain. Britain is the largest island in the British isles, and Ireland is the second largest. In the most ancient sources Britain is given the name of Albion, whereas British Isles already exists. It therefore seems that Britain was named after the British Isles, and not the other way round. And I neither like nor dislike the fact that the Irish government reject the term, because their opinion is irrelevant - it cannot alter the way people use the language. TharkunColl (talk) 12:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi Thark. Can you explain how you figure that the term Britain came after the British Isles? (i.e. the noun came after the adjective?) Are you just making this up or have you a reference? I think you'll find you're completely wrong...the term Britons and Britannia easily outdate "British Isles". Bardcom (talk) 15:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm still uncertain as to what this discussion's purpose is. What's being proposed? GoodDay (talk) 15:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Owing to the limitations of your native tongue, you cannot determine the existence of the genitive case, or what it means, in the ancient Greek/Roman terminology. This is not your fault, but let me explain. Britain, in their sense, was Albion, Hibernia, Mona and Thule. These were not "British" isles, but (in the closest sense given the limitations of the English language) "isles of Britain". Britain was a place, in the same sense as Europe is today, and Albion, for example, was an island of Britain, in the same sense that France is a country of Europe today. This can, of course, be rendered differently, describing France, for example, as a "European country", or Albion as a "British isle". In many cases, it's is quite legitimate to do so - but remember always the genitive case is of a noun, not an adjective. Let's be explicit, the "British" in Britannica insula is a noun, not an adjective - it is Britain that is being described. (This is also evidence that the Gaelic version is a modern concoction i.e. using modern Irish as an example, it is na hOileáin Bhriontanacha rather than Oileáin na Briotáine" ... which, literally in modern Gaelic, would mean the "Islands of Britanny", remaining true to the original etymology.)
"It therefore seems that Britain was named after the British Isles" - The names flipped, rather that one being "named after" the other. What was Albion became Britain. What was Britain, it appears that no word came to denote until we see the politically-motivated calque of the Roman term 15,000 years later that exploited the absense of a genative case in English to cyncially called these islands by the adjective form, "British" Isles, rather than simply "Britain", as they would have been to the Greeks and Romans.
Goodday, good point. I'd suggest that we posts to this page should have explicit purposes for the betterment of the article. I'm as guilty as anyone else in this respect. --sony-youthpléigh 15:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
In response to GoodDay - perhaps these discussions can be allowed to continue if it means that after views are exchanged, information and data examined, and opinions ..er... opined, then we can make suggestions to the article without as much disagreement as in the past. For me at least, I'm learning why some people believed the term "British Isles" to be historically accurate (and thanks to Sony, why this might not be the case after all). If this discussion results in understanding being built, I think that's a good thing. Hopefully it *will* result in agreement being reached over this article. Bardcom (talk) 18:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
The form of the article has already been agreed and has been stable for a long time. There is no reason to change it. TharkunColl (talk) 18:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
What a dismissive attitude - but Tharky, perhaps I'm missing your sense of humour, and if I am, apologies. But in case you've missed it while your account was blocked recently, this article is edit-locked. That is not the same as being stable. Also, if this article has already been agreed, why is there so much disagreement? Bardcom (talk) 18:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
The article, and especially the form of words in the intro, has been stable for many months. I don't see any consensus to change it. TharkunColl (talk) 18:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Define stable. Are you relying on another ancient translation perhaps? Bardcom (talk) 18:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
[Reply to Sony] Interesting - yes, I understand the distinction, even though my native (and indeed only) language has wired my brain so as to ignore it. But it means that those who "cynically" exploited the term "15,000" [sic - recte 1,500] years later had no choice, since the language they were using was English which, as you say, lacks a genitive case. In such a language, "British Isles" is surely the only reasonable translation - especially given that "Britain" was already in use. TharkunColl (talk) 17:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Tharky, I think you might be missing the point that Sony is trying to make. The current term "British Isles" uses "British" as an adjective. This is different than ancient usage. Sony, you say that Albion became Britain - is it not truer to say that Albion became "Great Britain"? The dictionary definition of British: "Of or relating to Great Britain or its people, language, or culture". Therefore, logically, if you accept this definition, and you accept that Ireland is not a part of Great Britain, you can understand why a lot of people believe the term to be incorrect, a throwback, etc, etc, etc. Relying on ancient (technically incorrect) translations as justification is incorrect - that's the point I believe Sony is making. Bardcom (talk) 18:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
That is the primary definition of "British", but not its only one - which is no more than one would expect from an ancient word that predates the formation of the British state by many centuries. "British", on its own, is indeed an adjective as Sony says. But a set phrase such "British Isles" isn't - it actually functions as a noun - in other words, the translation from the Greek and Latin is precisely accurate. Another example is "British Columbia", which is also a noun. "British" also has other uses - it can refer to the Romano-Britons against whom the English fought. In the middle ages people used the term "British" to refer to the Celts, as opposed to the English. And in phrases such as "the British", it is also a noun, rather than an adjective. TharkunColl (talk) 19:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Thark, the "British" in British Columbia, did indeed originally denote ownership. As you say, the phrase has since a noun-phrase, but through the example of "British Columbia" you can, I hope, see the cynicism of the 1621-era calque of Britannica insula as "British Isles" implying ownership of the smaller island by the larger. --sony-youthpléigh 19:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
But I ask again. What's being proposed for this article? 1) Change the title? 2) remove Ireland from the article? 3) Erase British Isles from Wikipedia entirely? GoodDay (talk) 18:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I think some people would like that. TharkunColl (talk) 19:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Thark, quite right. Something like Telecom Éireann or Iarnród Éireann can be rendered quite legitimately as Irish Telecom or Irish Rail, but British Isles is problematic. The issue is that an adjective needs a noun. The "Ireland" implied in the name of the telecom or rail company is quite fine, it refers to the state, but 1,500 years after the Romans, when Britain had changed from denoting the archipelago to denoting the larger island what what did it mean to call Ireland, for example, a "British" isle? Was it a neutral term, simply denoting the archipelago? Or did it subtly alter the position of Ireland from being an island of the archipelago to being an island of the larger island? (Thus, the insidious implication of the larger island being a "mainland", an idea that had never existed before then.)
Today, when the noun Britain refers to the United Kingdom, it is not equally cynical to pretend that the adjectival form can be used neutrally when describing Ireland as a "British" isle?
Bardcom, depends what you mean by Great Britain. First, the island formerly known as Albion became known as Britain. It later became necessary to differentiate the two "Britains" of the middle ages, the island and Brittany, which was then spelt the same way. This practice persisted beyond what was necessary, though the OED suggests that Great Britain is better to describe the political union of England (and Wales) and Scotland, whereas Britain is better for the island. (For our English colleagues, this confused situation is reflected in Gaelic too where there are no less than three "Britains": An Bhreatain, simply Britain, meaning the United Kingdom, An Bratain Mór, big/great Britain, meaning the island, and An Bhreatain Bheag, little Britain, meaning Wales. Add to this An Bhriotáin, meaning Britanny, and Corn na Breataine, the jaw of Britain, meaning Cornwall.) --sony-youthpléigh 19:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Sony. I was referring to Albion the island and I always took the term Great Britain to refer to the same island in the same context. After your explanation I can see that historically, Albion became Britain first, until further disambiguation was required. Again, thanks for the explanation. Bardcom (talk) 19:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Ultimately, the contentious issue is that the term "British Isles" is described as including Ireland. The solution is not so obvious (and this is the reason why this discussion is taking place on this talk page) Looking at your options, I don't believe you're making any serious suggestions, but in good faith let's assume nothing and look at them. Option 1: Let's say we change the title altogether - what's the alternative? Option 2: Let's say we change the article to exclude Ireland and highlight the fact that the modern meaning is different than the older meaning - that's probably unsupportable by verified sources and probably equally contentious. Option 3: More contentious than Option 2. So I'm moving towards Option 4 - highlighting the fact in the article that the term is contentious and list the reasons why this is the case. I'd like to see the article's opening paragraph changed along the lines I was trying before the edit lock you requested was put in place. Bardcom (talk) 19:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I've no problem with option 4. GoodDay (talk) 19:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Good discussion here, I for one would like to see Option 1 and if not that then Option 2. Murphy71 (talk) 20:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I know this is not a forum and I have been told about this, but sometimes someone makes a statement that just needs a response. And Tharkun saying this "And I neither like nor dislike the fact that the Irish government reject the term, because their opinion is irrelevant - it cannot alter the way people use the language" is just plainly absurd. It has nothing to do with the Government changing the language, It is everything to do with the Government changing the identity of its country, which of course has happened a lot over the course of history, usually after independence has been granted. Tharkun I have read many of your posts over the last few days and you do say the most strangest things sometimes. This is far more than just an issue over language and your attempts to legitimise the name are just silly, Like many other words and phrases that the Governments of the West have deemed unacceptable to be used, the British Isles whether you like it or not is an insulting term. If you do not understand why, or you do understand and do not care, does not really matter in this case it just is. Murphy71 (talk) 20:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
As for the alternative for Option 1, Plenty of other people seem happy with "The Islands of Great Britain and Ireland" and I for one have no issue that that. Murphy71 (talk) 20:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I do. That only includes two islands, and is therefore not the same thing at all as the British Isles. And besides, it's a clear breach of WP:COMMONNAME. Waggers (talk) 21:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Remember folks, if British Isles gets a makeover? so does Irish Sea. -- GoodDay (talk) 20:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't be silly GoodDay, the British call it the Irish Sea because it was the passage to Island and to be quite frank can call it whatever they want, it has absolutely nothing to do with this current topic and serves only to highlight the true feelings behind those you are against any proposed changed. You and Tharkun keep on like you are then I for one would not need to say another word because any credibility to have on the subject is eroded with every strange comment you make. Murphy71 (talk) 21:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

This article title can't be changed. GoodDay (talk) 21:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Waggers, Common name cannot apply in cases such as this, the fact that many people still call Ireland part of the British Isles is due to ignorance and/or disregard for Irelands status as a republic. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia not a barometer of public opinion. As I have pointed out with the subject heading, the proper name for Uluru is Uluru/Ayers Rock, But more people still use Ayers Rock, despite this however the Wikipedia article is called Uluru! No common name conventions used here, because the Australian Government has said the Uluru is its proper name. People come here to learn the facts and the fact is that Ireland is no longer part of the British isles. I can understand your reluctance to use 'Islands of Great Britain and Ireland" I lived in Jersey for a number of years and understand the feeling there, so maybe you are correct. But this does seem to be the most used alternative and is gaining ground fast. Maybe it is just better to go with option 1 and leave everyone else in the "British Isles".Murphy71 (talk) 21:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
WP:COMMONNAME can and does apply here. The Uluru/Ayers Rock thing is irrelevant for two reasons: (1) two wrongs don't make a right - just because one article is named according to something other than WP:COMMONNAME, that's not sufficient reason to ignore the convention elsewhere; (2) in the case of Uluru/Ayers Rock, the government of the country has given the entity an official name (and that's the only reason for the exception to WP:COMMONNAME being made there) - that is far from being the case with the British Isles.
You keep telling us that "Ireland is no longer part of the British isles" and we keep asking you for a reliable source to back this up; you've produced none. So referring to that statement as "fact" is just silly; it is not an established fact, it is neither verifiable nor true. Waggers (talk) 12:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Also, Ireland must not be removed from this article. Explain the controversay if you wish; but the island must not be removed. GoodDay (talk) 21:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
HeHe, you are about 90 years too late for that GoodDay, someone should have done something more about it back then! Murphy71 (talk) 21:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Trying to have Ireland described in a past-tense form, isn't that simple Murphy. GoodDay (talk) 21:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

So what about changing the title of this article to the "British and Irish Isles" A name that you yourself GoodDay have admitted you are happy with?, of course on the Ireland talk page we are given this little nugget of why Tharkun does not like the name - "The trouble is that it elevates Irish to an equivalent status to British. A name giving properly equal weight would be something like English, Scottish, Irish, and Welsh Isles." TharkunColl 15:00, 4 October 2007. Which just highlights what Tharkun's real motives are. If we take Irish to mean both the Republic and Northern Irland and British to mean Scotland, Wales and the British Isles then we have no problem whatsoever. So yes the best way forward is without doubt adding "and Irish" to the "British Isles" .Murphy71 (talk) 22:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the point, Murphy71. This project doesn't create new terms, engage in original research, or similar. It is an encyclopedia, reporting on fact. The fact - like it or lump it - is that "British Isles" is still the most common real-world term for the islands of Britain, Ireland, Man, etc. Again - this has all been thrashed out before. Read the archives. The (series of) articles cover the term, the objections to it, and so on, in a balanced way, covering the alternatives also. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 23:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
It would appear, then, that no one has any objections to Option 4 "highlighting the fact in the article that the term is contentious and list the reasons why this is the case." This is good, because its exactly what we've already got. Indeed, not only that, but the intro even directs people to a whole article going into great length about it. Problem solved - no change. TharkunColl (talk) 00:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Very disingenuous of you Tharky - comments like these can only be seen to be trying inflame this discussion, and are not helpful. The full text of Option 4 suggested above finishes with I'd like to see the article's opening paragraph changed along the lines I was trying before the edit lock you requested was put in place. Bardcom (talk) 00:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
(late reply to this specific point)Bardcom: I reverted the opening paragraph before the block came on for readability reasons: "The British Isles is a controversial term ....." and 'that' is the point at which a reader's mind start wondering about the controversy, and not about the term British Isles, (which presumably is what he came looking for) The controversy exists, of course, and is referenced immediately after the first sentence. I believe that it simply reads better that way. I see however that the conversation is developing further below. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 12:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I must agree with Thark. I don't see the problem any more. The issue is amply highlighted. My preference ("... and I am not in the habit of repeating myself ...") is for an alternative to appear in the opening sentence and leave all else as it was before this current round of nationalist posturing (from both nationalities). "Britain and Ireland" appears to be the most common alternative (see uses). There is are reference to support this. Other options, I believe, are unsupported and unreflective of the facts - and, in honestly, unfair on our British colleagues, who for the most part been more than congenial during this round of our perennial spat. --sony-youthpléigh 11:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
You agree with Thark in that the article should be left as it is, but you then agree with my suggestion and you prefer an alternative along the lines of changing the opening paragraph. Which is it? Bardcom (talk) 11:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I think the name issue is amply dealt with in the article, but would like to see an alternative term appear alongside British Isles in the opening sentence e.g.:
I think it more accurately reflects usage where, in practice, both terms are used. --sony-youthpléigh 12:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I've no objection to that in principle but I do want to avoid the situation where we end up with a massive list of alternative terms, like this:
  • The British Isles or Britain and Ireland or the British and Irish Isles or the BritIrish Isles or the Islands of the North Atlantic or These Islands or (etc.) (Irish: Oileáin Iarthair Eorpa, Manx: Ellanyn Goaldagh, Scottish Gaelic: Eileanan Breatannach, Welsh: Ynysoedd Prydain) are a group of islands off the northwest coast of continental Europe comprising Great Britain, Ireland and a number of smaller islands.
In order to avoid that, we need to ensure that there are strict criteria for the inclusion of any alternative terms in the first sentence. I'm not convinced (yet) that we can prove that "Britain and Ireland" meets any objective set of criteria that the other alternatives don't. If we begin adding alternative terms to the opening sentence, I think it would set a dangerous precedent and lead to edit warring - various users adding their own favourite term, various other users removing it, users arguing over which order the terms should appear in, etc. I just don't think it's worth that hassle. Waggers (talk) 16:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
As an aside, surely it should be "is a group" not "are a group"? Waggers (talk) 16:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#General guidelines suggests: "...all alternative names can be moved to and explained in a "Names" or "Etymology" section immediately following the lead, or a special paragraph of the lead; we recommend that this be done if there are at least three alternate names, or there is something notable about the names themselves." That would be:

The British Isles (known also by several alternative names) is an archipelago...

—eric 17:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Waggers, the names must be verifiable with rock solid citations and not a cobbled together collection of possible alternative names by those using this talk page Bill Reid | Talk 17:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Behold a modern map!! [3] 78.19.159.30 (talk) 17:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
And your point is? Bill Reid | Talk 17:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Eric, nice suggestion, that would be okay by me. My only concern is having several parenthesized elements running one-after-the-other. Would it be possible to de-parenthesize it?
Waggers, yes, that is a problem.
Bill Reid, there are only two suitable possibilities that I can think of: "Britain and Ireland", which we have a reference to say is the most common 'alternative'; or "British-Irish Isles", which we have that dictionary definition for but which I agree give undue weight to a little-used alternative.
78.19.159.30, that type of terminology is very common on maps and elsewhere. If it were not, I wouldn't be bother arguing the case for "British Isles" is not being the only term. --sony-youthpléigh 00:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Cool, I think we're getting somewhere at last! I'm very happy with Eric's suggestion too. That being the case, there are two things we need to do now:
  • Draft the "alternative names" section (including agreeing a title for it)
  • Agree on how to format the first sentence so that it doesn't have too many sections in parentheses
Time to start some new subsections, methinks. Waggers (talk) 09:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

New first sentence

Options

(Please add more here, not to the discussion section, so that everyone can see all the options we're discussing in one place)

  1. The British Isles (Irish: Oileáin Iarthair Eorpa, Manx: Ellanyn Goaldagh, Scottish Gaelic: Eileanan Breatannach, Welsh: Ynysoedd Prydain), known also by several alternative names, is an archipelago off the northwest coast of continental Europe comprising Great Britain, Ireland and a number of smaller islands.
  2. The British Isles (known also by several alternative names) (Irish: Oileáin Iarthair Eorpa, Manx: Ellanyn Goaldagh, Scottish Gaelic: Eileanan Breatannach, Welsh: Ynysoedd Prydain) is an archipelago off the northwest coast of continental Europe comprising Great Britain, Ireland and a number of smaller islands.
  3. The British Isles (Irish: Oileáin Iarthair Eorpa, Manx: Ellanyn Goaldagh, Scottish Gaelic: Eileanan Breatannach, Welsh: Ynysoedd Prydain) (known also by several alternative names) is an archipelago off the northwest coast of continental Europe comprising Great Britain, Ireland and a number of smaller islands.
  4. The British Isles (Irish: Oileáin Iarthair Eorpa, Manx: Ellanyn Goaldagh, Scottish Gaelic: Eileanan Breatannach, Welsh: Ynysoedd Prydain - and also known by several alternative names in English), is a group of islands off the northwest coast of continental Europe comprising Great Britain, Ireland and a number of smaller islands.
  5. The British Isles, or Britain & Ireland, (Irish: Oileáin Iarthair Eorpa, Manx: Ellanyn Goaldagh, Scottish Gaelic: Eileanan Breatannach, Welsh: Ynysoedd Prydain - and also known by several other alternative names in English), are names for a group of islands off the northwest coast of continental Europe comprising Great Britain, Ireland and a number of smaller islands.

Discussion

My preference is option 1. I think the translations need to follow straight after "British Isles" since that's what they're a translation of, and this option keeps the number of sections in parentheses down to just the one. Waggers (talk) 09:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Just a thought, actually - should the "alternative names" internal link be in bold, as it gets a bit lost otherwise? Waggers (talk) 09:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
A new section would be a good idea - this discussion is a little lost here. My preference is along the lines of option 5... Bardcom (talk) 16:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I was reading the article again, and really, it's all about Britain. To me, it looks like a pov-fork, and it is quite incorrigible as an article. No matter what we do with it, it probably would be a better course to start all over again, and just make it a 10 line page, with links to the different geographies and histories etc. 78.19.145.136 (talk) 16:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Option 5 isn't a runner - the article is about the islands, not the terminology, which already has an article. And with that last comment from the anon, we're finally seeing an agenda emerge, I think. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 16:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

(deindent)Agenda, LOL, talk about "reds underneath the bed". Please comment on content, and not on other editors please. Read WP:NPA. Notice you have not respond with your "points" yesterday, thank you. 78.19.145.136 (talk) 17:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Hang on a second Bastun, let's not start the language of "agenda's emerging" or any of that. There are some divergent opinions on this topic, which is to be expected. Let's think about the idea to reduce this article to 10 lines. Is the subject matter better covered in articles on Great Britain, Ireland, etc? Bardcom (talk) 17:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Bastun is quite right, the article is not on the option. It should be phrased:
5. The British Isles, or Britain & Ireland, (Irish: Oileáin Iarthair Eorpa, Manx: Ellanyn Goaldagh, Scottish Gaelic: Eileanan Breatannach, Welsh: Ynysoedd Prydain - and also known by several other alternative names in English), are a group of islands off the northwest coast of continental Europe comprising Great Britain, Ireland and a number of smaller islands.
If it were changed it would be my preferred, otherwise no.1. (I would happily loose "alternative names" element of no.5. )--sony-youthpléigh 21:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
But hold on- didn't you agree with me that if we add one alternative name in bold in the first sentence then we'd just be setting a precedent to add more, leading to lots of edit warring over which names should be included and what order they should be in? And the translations (Irish: Oileáin Iarthair Eorpa, Manx: Ellanyn Goaldagh, Scottish Gaelic: Eileanan Breatannach, Welsh: Ynysoedd Prydain) are translations of "British Isles", not "Britain & Ireland" or any of the other alternatives, so should come before any alternatives are mentioned. Waggers (talk) 08:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Just for clarification Waggers, the "translations" are not really translations in the true sense of the word. They're actually the common-name terms used in those languages. For example, the Irish term translates quote differently... Bardcom (talk) 13:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
(deindent)-::Britain & Ireland is a very common term, and seemingly more used than the term "British Isles". Therefore it should be up there in the opening sentence, and also it would be reflecting the real world situation regarding usage of the terms. 78.19.32.251 (talk) 13:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I would be happy with either 1 or 3, as the most readable. User 78. "Britain and Ireland" as a term is not accurate, as it excludes the other islands in the group - eg Man, Shetlands, Scillies etc. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 11:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Accurate or not (I would argue that it is - esp. what is "Britain"?), it is very commonly used and we have references to support this - even to suggest that it is more common a term than "British Isles". One could argue (in fact, many have, and we have references to support this too) that "British Isles" as a term is not accurate as it excludes the greater part of Ireland. --sony-youthpléigh 12:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Britain and Ireland is a common term, however we have to be clear we're talking about the same thing. Britain and Ireland is very frequently used to discuss the UK and Ireland governments and states rather than the islands. This article is about the islands, and they're not the same thing. I agree that Britain and Ireland is also used geographically, but I don't know how much of the balance of the whole Britain and Ireland usage out there. In my experience (which counts for nothing as far as Wikipedia goes other than as a talking point) newspapers, news stories and the like more often use the term politically and governmentally than geographically so we'd need to be careful on that one. Canterbury Tail talk 12:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
If the article is about the islands, as it's supposed to be, then it would be imperative I should think, to give the area its other very common name/s, i.e. Britain & Ireland. We could go down the way of debate, discussing what "Britain & Ireland" exactly means, just as we did argue what "British Isles" exactly means. The article should be flexible and upbeat in nature, and inclusively modern to the standards deserving of 2,008-AD -78.19.148.92 (talk) 17:33, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Verifiability. Core tenant of Wikipedia. Just saying for the verification and references for it we have to be careful. Canterbury Tail talk 17:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Didn't we have Britain and Ireland within the introduction before? If so, who removed it? GoodDay (talk) 17:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Think it was there some time ago. With reference to editor Canterbury Tail, I think it is very important to be clear whether the article is about the "British Isles" concept/term, or about the "Island Group". If it is about the "Island Group", which is claimed here, then should the other terms that are used, not be included? I believe they should. To make room, the translations could be moved to a different paragraph. -78.19.148.92 (talk) 19:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
As long as the article title (British Isles) is kept? I won't mind having 'translations' in the intro. GoodDay (talk) 19:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Alternative names section

I think we probably need to discuss what we want in here before we start to cobble something together. Consensus so far seems to be that:

  • It's the first section in the article after the introduction
  • The title is "Alternative names and descriptions"

Also, just a reminder that the usual general policies and guidelines apply; I'm thinking especially of WP:V (together with WP:RS, WP:OR etc.) and WP:EMBED. It's also important that we keep the section fairly concise - we don't need to repeat the whole of the naming dispute article here. Waggers (talk) 09:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


British and Irish Isles

Following on from my previous post can we please have some thoughts on the name "British and Irish Isles" ? Murphy71 (talk) 22:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Unacceptable. The article's name must remain British Isles, as the term exists. GoodDay (talk) 22:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
So whenever a country, City, Thing or Person changes their name then it is to be ignored in Wikipedia because the previous name already exists? Looks like someone has got lots of editing to do this week then to remove all these new names.Murphy71 (talk) 23:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
The article itself, must keep its current title British Isles. Just like Irish Sea, English Channel, Sea of Japan, North America, South America etc; should keep their titles. GoodDay (talk) 23:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I really do not believe you should be involved in this discussion then GoodDay. By using the above examples you demonstrate that you clearly do not have even the basic understanding of this issue and therefore your opinion becomes of low importance. You even contradict yourself because on the Ireland talk page you even voted for the British isles to be renamed The British and Irish Isles, so your ability to even make a decision is called into question. I guarantee you 100% that if Britain had been classed as being part of the United states of Germany for the last 60 years and had won its independence this article would have been reverted to Great Britain before the ink had even dried on the declaration of independence. And do not even dare to deny it because you know full well that would be the case. This is an encyclopedia, is should shape public opinion and not just reflect it, as long as the facts that are presented are real facts then that is all there is to it. It is a fact that Ireland is no longer a part of the British Isles, this is Ireland's view and the only view that matters. The British view has no relevance to this question, Britain lost that fight when they lost the war of independence, get over it and move on. Murphy71 (talk) 00:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
It's a rarely used term. It is not Wikipedia's place to decide what to call things, the world at large decides that, we simply make articles on reality. That's the object of an encyclopaedia. Canterbury Tail talk 00:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Good idea Ben! User:Murphy71 is quite correct in his/her analysis. The term British Isles is a political term from the past, when Ireland was part of the United Kingdom. Ireland certainly isn't British, and most people refer to these islands as simply "Britain and Ireland". This argument will go on and on until Wikipedia starts to introduce stable articles in the next couple of years or so. And one thing is guaranteed, "lump it, or leave it", you'll see a very different article indeed. 78.19.216.211 (talk) 00:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

"It is a fact that Ireland is no longer a part of the British Isles". No, that's simply wrong. You can't change geography I'm afraid, no matter how much you might want to. TharkunColl (talk) 00:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Murphy71: "This is an encyclopedia, is should shape public opinion and not just reflect it...". No. The job of an encyclopedia is to report on fact, not to shape public opinion. 00:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi User:Bastun, you misquoted, and out of context too, and that now brings your credibility into question. The full quote is "This is an encyclopaedia, is should shape public opinion and not just reflect it, as long as the facts that are presented are real facts then that is all there is to it." 78.19.216.211 (talk) 00:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
No need to go all ad hominem on me, anon. Include the rest of the quote by all means. The assertion that an encyclopedia should be used to shape public opinion is still completely invalid. The job of an encycopedia - and as explicitly stated in the WP project's central policies - is to report on verifiable facts. It is verifiable fact that the most common name for this island group worldwide is "the British Isles". It is verifiable fact that it is objected to by some in Ireland, and that alternative names have been and are used. All of this is reflected in this article and its associated ones, as it stands, in accordance with WP policy. And all of this debate is already covered numerous times in this talk page and its archives. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 01:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
What you've written doesn't change the fact that you quoted out of context, and that's a no no, and puts a big question mark over your arguments. Sorry, but that's the way it often is. BTW, it wasn't an ad hominem on you, it was an "ad contentum" on your argument.I hope you understand the difference. Cheers! 78.19.180.191 (talk) 09:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Batsun, you know full well that what I meant was that an encyclopedia is not supposed to just repeat commonly held beliefs if they are in fact false. By misquoting me you have turned my comments into something different. And your comments do not stand up when compared to by observation of Uluru, despite the majority of people still calling it Ayers Rock the Wikipedia article is name Uluru because it name has been changed by the people who it matters to the most. Public opinion is not the only measure of whether something is correct or not. And anyway the popularity of the term "British Isles" mean nothing with regard to this debate, it is what people think the British Isles represent that matters and that is a much harder fact to gather than just relying on the number of hits on google. How many people believe the British Isles is the correct name but don't actually consider The Republic of Ireland to be part of them?. I have asked the question here and am still waiting for a single credible answer as to why Ireland should be considered part of the British Isles? The only answers I seem to get are "because I said so". "Because that is the way it is" or "Because that is what the majority of the world think" (okay not exact quotes but you get my drift). Come on then people why do you know better than the Irish people as to why their Independent nation should be forever be classed as belonging to Britain? Murphy71 (talk) 01:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the hour, I'm only going to answer two points, and make one. "what I meant was that an encyclopedia is not supposed to just repeat commonly held beliefs if they are in fact false" False according to whom? Apart from you, that is? You can't just assert something and expect everyone to accept it. But - once again - your arguments have been brought up numerous times before here and haven't persuaded anyone. But - they have resulted in modifications to the article(s) to reflect verifiable facts.
"why do you know better than the Irish people as to why their Independent nation should be forever be classed as belonging to Britain?" Er, I am Irish - born, bred and buttered here, as old Mr Brennan used to say - and I know noone who thinks that the term "British Isles" means that Ireland belongs to Britain. Nor do any of the British that I know thinks so. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 01:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I know people (in my particular case, from outside Ireland and Britain) who thought (until I corrected them) the term means Ireland belongs to Britain, and I've met and otherwise encountered people (some British) who think the term means Ireland and things Irish can be classed as "British." None of this is to say I agree with Murphy: This page can't be renamed "British and Irish Isles." It must stay as "British Isles." But I do understand the objections to the term and the motivation for wanting it to die a quick but painful death. :-) Unfortunately, Wiki isn't my (or Murphy's) utopia, so it must stay. Nuclare (talk) 02:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, GoodDay, I see you are still trying to make analogies that aren't analogous. Still pretending Irish Sea is analogous to British Isles, eh? It's a hopeless cause there. Nuclare (talk) 02:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Tharkun, you are being quoted at politics.ie - [4] Murphy71 (talk) 07:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Infamy, infamy, they've all got it in for me! Interesting how at least half the posters on that thread had no objection to the term, or opined that objecting to it was just plain silly. TharkunColl (talk) 08:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Total of 10 posters. 4 posters suggested changes to the current title, 2 posters point out that the current term is confusing as it can be a geographical term and/or a political term, 3 posters have no opinion either way, and 1 poster says that they won't lose sleep over it. Nobody used the word silly, or even opined anything that can be interpreted as such. Come on Tharky, stop trying to stir it. Even Florida vote riggers would be hard pressed to count up to "at least half". Bardcom (talk) 14:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
What is interesting about that? There are 60 million British and only 5 million Irish; so I reckon anything less than a 12 - 1 support British pov is a sign of progress on this crucial issue. 50/50 means the POV pushers are in deep doo-doo. D'oh.Sarah777 (talk) 09:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Because the politics.ie forums are well known for their high proportion of British users? :P But yeah, 50/50 on an Irish forum probably does means the PoV pushers trying to expunge "BI" are in deep... something. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 10:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Bastun, Politics.ie user base is from all over the world not just Ireland, in fact many of its users are not Irish but people with an interest in Irish politics and it history.--Padraig (talk) 10:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I think it hit the Irish Times a couple of years ago, seems to have a lot of life, LOL. 78.19.180.191 (talk) 09:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm still not persuaded by the calls for this article's title to be changed. GoodDay (talk) 15:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't think anyone is asking for the term "British Isles" to be put on some back shelf or such. It's more a call for the other very often used terms to be introduced too, as per Sony. Another interesting thread here [5]. We're not the only ones discussing this heated topic. 78.19.159.30 (talk) 16:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
All that thread is doing is servinig to highlight that the term/name "British Isles" isn't universally hated in Ireland, not everyone finds it offensive, and some people in Ireland find it acceptable. It doesn't support the position of wanting to change the name, quite the opposite actually. Canterbury Tail talk 16:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Who are those two IP addresses that have just showed up? They're behaving as though they've already been here; quite curious. GoodDay (talk) 16:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
The two are me, I don't edit articles, although I used to, a couple of years ago. Ben, you are taking your own view of the threads, I think you are an admin, so I'm quite surprised at you. If you cannot see that the term "British Isles" is very offensive to many in Ireland, then you must not be properly reading the thread. I do know that the Unionist population generally go with the term. The substantive point is that the said term is seldom used, and the term "Britain and Ireland" appears to be the most common term. Map-makers don't use the term any longer. 78.19.159.30 (talk) 16:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Anon, would you please sign-in. This jumping from IP to IP is annoying. GoodDay (talk) 16:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Anon, whilst the usage of "British Isles" in Ireland may be fairly rare, it's still very much a commonly used term in the UK, and (apparently) elsewhere in the world. This is a road we've been down before; I see no point in repeating a discussion that's already in the archives several times over. Waggers (talk) 22:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi Waggers, I don't want to be wagging my wagger at you, but this is an editing dispute that other editors too are involved in too. It seems to raise some national fervour on both sides. All I ever ask is for Wikipedia to "tell it like it is". Don't go shooting the messenger. Something to ponder here, [6], [7], [8], [9], [10] - 78.19.159.30 (talk) 23:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Let's archive this discussion, with the promise of not revisting this topic for another six months (at least). GoodDay (talk) 22:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Anon - we can all go and find examples of the use of "Britain and Ireland" - and also "British Isles". (Funny, I got criticised above for doing the latter... Agree with GoodDay, this has all been gone over multiple times before. The alternatives and objections to "British Isles" are already very adequately and prominently covered - meriting their own articles, in fact. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 23:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
User:Bastun, I am really really sorry to point this out to you, but I don't think you have read my input into the page. State exactly what I written that you disagree with, and why you disagree, and I will get back to you ASP. Thanks! 78.19.159.30 (talk) 23:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Just to add here that British Isles is by a huge margin the most-used name of the islands and so is the name we should use. Changing an article name follows the general usage, it doesn't drive it. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Any refs for the "huge margin" assertion, apart from Wikipedia? 78.19.145.136 (talk) 17:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Anon, will you please become a registered User (and sign-in). If you don't? you might create the impression of being a 'single purpose editor'. GoodDay (talk) 17:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
He certainly wouldn't be the only one; nor the only "single-purpose" named editor. Sarah777 (talk) 20:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Anon, there is no need to get an account, but there are advantages. --sony-youthpléigh 20:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Anon - stay as you are! I used to edit using an account but I stopped long ago. The discrimination against IP editing is breathtaking here at Wikipedia. You are automatically assumed to be a troll, sockpuppet, vandal or all three. As for British Isles, it's amazing (well maybe not) that the same old argument is still raging here as it has done for about the last three years. Can you not get it into your heads that the term British Isles is used thoughout the world, so there should be an article about it - with that name. This article is a disgusting example, together with Ireland, of hatred towards the British, for no good reason other than history. These articles put Wikipedia to shame, and so do you lot who argue against the term. 86.26.245.121 (talk) 22:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Accusing other people who don't agree with you of hatred, is not a very good way to progress a point, or to go forward for that matter. It could be seen as a "clutching at straws ploy" to wound your opponents, or be seen as a method to attempt to embarrass those that would disagree with you. Thanks for the advice about account. 78.19.145.136 (talk) 22:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
The hatred is there for all to see. Have a look at some of the archived discussions. There are certain users, who I won't name, where hatred towards the British is very apparent. They hijack articles such as this to push their own political agenda. They deny facts such as "The River Shannon is the longest river in the British Isles". It's very sad really. 86.26.245.121 (talk) 23:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Umm, could you two have this out on your own personal pages? We certainly don't need this kinda stuff in the discussion. GoodDay (talk) 23:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
This is absolutely relevant to how this article is currently written and how it has developed. 86.26.245.121 (talk) 23:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I think in the archives you will see some "hate talk" against Ireland, I don't take much notice of it myself, as it is most often irrational and from the past, just as I believe the "British Isles" is a term, mainly from a past empire. Many of the British editors have a very cosy ride on WP. Quite frankly, there is a lot of pov-hype in many of the British history articles, and if you look at talk Scotland, you will see the English and Scottish editors quibbling over the colour shade of a map above all else. But usually British articles go unchallenged by anyone on WP, as there is no peer pressure to be objective and candid. But then a common article like "British Isles" disturbs that cosiness, some editors get can get quite upset. I think everyone should examine all objective points, as this is one of those articles of both Irish and British interest, and a test for Wikipedia. 78.19.170.225 (talk) 23:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Hah! You've caught me 78.19.170.225. I was indeed in a heated discussion at Scotland (and here I am, asking you guys to cool down?). I've still got some lumps from that article. GoodDay (talk) 23:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Can't go with the notion of there being anything wrong with hatred of a genocidal Empire. Anyway, look at Walter Devereux, 1st Earl of Essex - does that need the touch of my pov-removing scalpel or what? Sarah777 (talk) 20:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
The article title must remain & shall remain. GoodDay (talk) 20:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
The triumph of unreason, eh? Sarah777 (talk) 21:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
If you can get this article title changed & the term British Isles removed from Wikipedia? You'll have me surprised (to say the least). GoodDay (talk) 21:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
"'It is a fact that Ireland is no longer a part of the British Isles". No, that's simply wrong. You can't change geography I'm afraid." ------------->>How reassuring to know, then, that when the islands of Ireland and Britain were created the name "British Isles" went along with that creation of geography all those millions of years ago. And there was I thinking the name was invented by a British person in the seventeenth century, and embraced by British people thereafter to represent their political hegemony over Ireland since then. Now, I know better: Ireland, the island, was given the name "British Isles" when it was created millions of years ago. Ah, British nationalism; as rational as it ever was. Only rightwing British morons could live in such a state of denial about the deep politics at the heart of the name "British Isles." Insulting stuff. 86.42.103.235 (talk) 15:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Since the term was used by the Ancient Greeks and Romans, and was the first recorded name for the islands, your assertions are just plain wrong I'm afraid. And in the 17th century, the English disliked being called British, as at that time it was still primarily associated with the Celtic inhabitants of the islands. TharkunColl (talk) 17:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Please anon, we've had enough mudslinging. GoodDay (talk) 15:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
And please, we've had enough mud covering under this "British" hegemonic locution that since the seventeenth century has been entirely designed to suffocate our Irishness. If it's a choice, I'd rather be covering your society with our mud to the same point of suffocation of your identity than merely slinging an auld bit of mud at it. Shoe. Other foot. 86.42.103.235 (talk) 15:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not British. GoodDay (talk) 16:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
1) The “United Kingdom”, and the “British Isles” are not the same thing, The phrases are used differently, with different meanings
2) Lingusticaly. No one would accept a sentence along the lines of “The solar system contains 9 ½ planets”, or “The carribean is a chain of 23 ½ islands”. Nor would any one accept “The British isles is a group of 23 1/5 islands off the north west coast of europe” The British isles can only contain a whole number of islands (or a number of whole islands). Therefore the British Islands must contain either both Dublin and Belfast, or neither. Anything else would be nonsense.
3) No one believes that Ireland is part of the united Kingdom, any more than New Zealand is part of Australia, Jamaica is part of India, or Canada belongs to America.
4) There undeniably exists, off the coast of Europe a group of islands, including Britain, The Orkneys, the Scillies, and Ireland. Does there exist a single unambiguous commonally used term for this group? No there are at least three terms in use, including “British Isles”, “Britain and Ireland”, and “These Islands”. Wikipedia naming rules would require that the commonest name be used as the name of the article, with redirects from any significant alternatives. As, plainly “most residents of Ireland believe…” is exactly balanced by “Most people on the archipelago in question believe…” we are left to look for what terms would be most common in the rest of the world. What term would most Americans/Australians/South Africans etc use to describe this part of the world? IdreamofJeanie (talk) 17:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. Now that you bring New Zealand into your argument, can you tell me the name of that archipelago. Does it have a name? 78.19.171.224 (talk) 17:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
If it has a name, it's most common one in English is "New Zealand". But, if I understand you correctly, just because a certain archipelago in the world doesn't have a name, doesn't mean that all of them don't. Many, probably most, clearly do. British Isles is one of these. TharkunColl (talk) 18:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


But Thark, that is one of the principle foundations of your argument, "that there is a name". But there is no real name for the islands west of Europe. The term "British Isles" was handy when England dominated Scotland, Wales and Ireland, but Britain is England and Wales, and not Scotland or Ireland. There is no real name for this place. -78.19.171.224 (talk) 18:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
You appear to be under a certain misapprehension about how language works. Names for (the overwhelming majority of) things are not created by statute or any "official" body. They just evolve. A chair is a "chair" simply because the vast majority of English speakers happen to call it that. Likewise with British Isles. TharkunColl (talk) 18:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Yup, you call it that, plus some more British people, but that seems to be it! It certainly is not universal, it's now avoided by map-makers, governments, and is rarely overheard in polite company. -78.19.171.224 (talk) 18:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Those people - even if what you say is true - don't make language. The majority of people in Derry call it Derry, therefore I am happy to accept that that's it's most common and therefore proper name. The majority of people in the British Isles, with a ratio of 15 to 1 (not some cheesy 80s quiz show), use the term and/or have no problem with accepting its meaning. The vast majority of English speakers worldwide also use it. There really is no contest here I'm afraid. TharkunColl (talk) 18:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
"The majority of people in the British Isles, with a ratio of 15 to 1 (not some cheesy 80s quiz show), use the term and/or have no problem with accepting its meaning." You've been asked for a reference to support his before, Thark. I still submit that "Britain and Ireland" is the more common way of referring to the islands, and have reference to support this view. Are still basing your opinion on the conjecture that EVERYONE in the UK says "British Isles" exclusively and EVERYONE in the Republic of Ireland says something else exclusively? Tish tish tish.
"Names for (the overwhelming majority of) things ... just evolve." Should I imagine you as a dinosaur then, Thark? Or a dodo? --sony-youthpléigh 21:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Not everyone in the UK will like the term British Isles, and not everyone in the RoI will dislike it. I was merely simplifying matters for rhetorical purposes. Dinosaurs, dodos, extinct today - unlike the term British Isles. If the term were one day to become extinct, then Wikipedia should reflect that. But it is not Wikipedia's job to try and influence it. Incidentally, it is my opinion that when Scotland and perhaps one day Wales become independent, the term British Isles will lose its political associations and we can all, all four of us here on these islands, not mind about it. And that is why a barbaric neologism such as "British and Irish Isles" is so grotesquely wrongheaded. What it should be, is something like "English, Scottish, Irish and Welsh Isles". To say "British and Irish" is to merely express a current fact about statehood, but such things are transitory. What will you say when Scotland becomes independent? Either you refer to the four nations, or you use the collective term, namely British Isles. TharkunColl (talk) 00:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


Home Nations

OK 78.16.122.227; Why do you want to remove the Home Nations? GoodDay (talk) 23:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

They are not poltical states so as of the Great Britain infobox they shouldn't be there. Also Cornish people should be added to the indengenious peoples section again as of the GB page.78.16.122.227 (talk) 23:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I actually have no problem with the removal of Home Nations or the addition of Cornish people. My major concern here, was the fact you made those changes without discussing it 'first' & with realizing many editors may have agreed earlier to have those current edits there. GoodDay (talk) 23:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Is this page listed under some special section where edits can't be made without discussion? So bureaucracry comes in the way of good edting. Fantastic. Anyway, at least you agree. Please revert it back then.Thanks.78.16.122.227 (talk) 23:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
It's not that simple, I'm at my 2-revert limit for the day. Besides, other editors may weigh in on this discussion; it's not entirely our choice. GoodDay (talk) 23:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
You're allowed to do 3 or less edits on thing a day. You should revert it back and if someone disagrees they can bring it up here. A correct page shouldn't be stopped by speculating that some opposition will arrive for no reason.78.16.122.227 (talk) 23:54, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I personally, hold myself to 2-reverts within 24hrs. But again, we should wait for others to chip in at this discussion (trust me they will). GoodDay (talk) 23:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I also agree. I've restored anon's version. Bardcom (talk) 01:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


neutral - but I reverted the edit since a) 2 people is not a consensus and b) does not confirm to Wikipedia:Verifiability. Triwbe (talk) 12:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Here's your Verifiability : Great Britain. Note the home nations aren't included for the reasons given above and Cornish people are incuded because they appear here in Ethnic groups in the United Kingdom. Come on this isn't a scandalous edit - huge votes aren't needed! It's just matching all of the other pages. This is a no brainer. Put it back.78.16.176.146 (talk) 12:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Another Wikipedia article can't be used as a source. Why do you choose to change this article to match GB rather than the other way round? josh (talk) 13:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Because the GB page correctly only puts in a sovereign state. England, Scotland, Wales are not states or countries. Check out here for proof: http://geography.about.com/od/politicalgeography/a/englandnot.htm . The edits I'm making are as truthfully as saying a square has four sides. This 'argument' is a joke and there's only one right answer.78.16.176.146 (talk) 13:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Please do not make it personal, it is not my verifiability, this is part of the Wikipedia:Five pillars. Just make the change and add a verifiable in-line reference to an independant 3rd party source and that should be the end of it. Triwbe (talk) 13:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I would have done that except that I can't get a reference to work in the infobox. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.16.176.146 (talk) 13:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Cornish is a recognised ethnic group. See here [11]. It's a long document, so do a search for "Cornish" in the pdf file. If the argument is whether or not to include Cornish in the text, then from this it would seem correct to do so. Silas Stoat (talk) 15:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Good work, then it definitely goes in. Triwbe (talk) 15:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
That referenced document is interesting. The document referenced above, and published by the UK Government, puts the ethnicity Cornish as being "White British" whereas the ethnicity Northern Irish is categorized as "other White" alongside Gypsies, Poles, French, Americans, Russians, etc. Wotapalaver (talk) 08:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Bardcom

I have created an RfC about User:Bardcom's conduct here and elsewhere at WP:Requests for comment/Bardcom. Tb (talk) 19:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Tb, please read WP:CIVIL -78.19.7.28 (talk) 19:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Of course I have. I'm not sure the relevance here. We have a dispute about Bardcom's conduct. He himself asked that an RfC be opened. Tb (talk) 19:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Speech like this is very uncivil, "The original text was thus accurate, and since the change was motivated by POV it should be reverted.", and causes conflict. Please do not attack other editors, and AGF, as always. Thank you. 78.19.7.28 (talk) 20:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I disagree, but a meta-discussion is fruitless. I am also not willing to engage a lengthy discussion with an anon-user who is, for all I know, User:Bardcom. Tb (talk) 20:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Time to Archive

Could & would somebody archive some of this page; it's getting longer then the Thames. -- GoodDay (talk) 00:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't you mean the Shannon? 86.27.191.225 (talk) 10:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
It's set to be automatically archived after 28 days; the problem being there's been quite a lot of heavy discussion here lately (with not very much of it to do with the article itself, I might add). Do you think 28 days is too long - would 14 be better? Waggers (talk) 13:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Nay! If it's set for 28-days, that's cool. GoodDay (talk) 14:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Policy Proposal

Ok, I've made my proposal now in the official place; it is only at the very beginning stages. WP:British Isles. Tb (talk) 18:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Having read it I'd say it has potential but the very last clause is problematic. Sarah777 (talk) 04:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
It's a compromise. Tb (talk) 14:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but we still must draw the line in the right place and leaving obvious misuse of the term in place would not be acceptable. Sarah777 (talk) 14:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree; can you please comment on the page for the discussion so that other people can participate? If none of the anti-"British Isles" folks bother to do so, you'll get no guideline at all. I'm frankly distressed that it seems none of the anti-"British Isles" contingent have bothered to do so. Tb (talk) 15:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not part of the anti-"British Isles" contingent, and a lot of folks would object to being labelled that. Perhaps you're marketing to the wrong people. How about trying to address the "accurate usage of the term "British Isles" in wikipedia" contingent. Sometimes your choice of language paints a very POV picture... I intend to participate after the RfC. Bardcom (talk) 15:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
If you wish to fight over terminology, you may. But right now, the proposal will simply fail because of the refusal of any of the people to participate who it is designed to benefit. Tb (talk) 17:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Society for Creative Anachronism

Seeing as how there's an ongoing RfC concerning me at the moment, I'd prefer if the community deal with the Society for Creative Anachronismarticle please? I've tried to discuss this with TharkunColl on his talk page here. Bardcom (talk) 14:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

They are just edit warring, make out a WP:AN3 and point to this discussion as trying to reslove dispute.--Domer48 (talk) 15:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

British Isles, a 17th century invention

British Isles is an objectionable term, especially in Ireland. Many Irish people find the term grossly insulting when someone tries to apply the term to Ireland. But it's seldom used in Ireland, and it's often seen as a term that "the British use". Reasons?-- Over a million Irish people were slaughtered under Cromwell, plus a lot of British establishment dirty deeds were done. It would be a bit like calling Israel by the adjective German, that's why offense would mostly be taken. It doesn't mean that Israel people dislike Germand, or Irish people dislike Britain. -78.19.7.28 (talk) 19:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not overly concerned with where British Isles is used or not used throughout Wikipedia, as long as this article keeps its current title. PS- the it offends people argument, doesn't cut it at Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 20:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
"PS- the it offends people argument, doesn't cut it at Wikipedia.", that wasn't my point, really I was trying to calm the waters here. I also said the term is not used in Ireland much. The British Government don't use it either, and modern day mapmakers generally refuse to use the term. etc etc -78.19.7.28 (talk) 20:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Like I said, I'm only concerned with this article's title. GoodDay (talk) 20:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Can we at least, please scotch the notion that British Isles is a 17th century term? It was used by the Greeks and Romans 2000 years before that. To claim otherwise is simple intellectual dishonesty. TharkunColl (talk) 23:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

What the Greeks and Romans called things is (A) in the article and they weren't calling anything "The British Isles". They were calling things Britannia, and Pretani and suchlike and (B) they included bits of land that are not now in what is sometimes called "The British Isles" and (C) were prone to giving names to areas that they knew nothing about.
Also (D) the Greeks and Romans weren't around in the ~1500 years that the islands were NOT called anything Britannic at all. Finally (E) there is specific reference in the article to how the people who coined the term in English in the 17th Century had to explain the term to their readers and to explain why they were coining the term. Isn't there even a specific reference that "The British Isles" was not even common use until into the 18th century.
Besides, as for what the islands are called, wasn't there some fuss recently in the USA where National Geographic agreed/decided not to use the term "British Isles" any more?
Even if "The British Isles" was the traditional name for the islands, which it seems not to have been, there seems to be an increasing body of evidence to suggest that "The British Isles" is what these islands used to be called. Wotapalaver (talk) 13:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I can't tell what your last sentence means; it seems to be the opposite of what you want to say? Anyhow, I'd be happy to have a substitute phrase. I simply have never seen one. "The UK and Ireland" is no good because the government of the Crown Dependencies is unusual; "Great Britain and Ireland" is even more narrow. Tb (talk) 13:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, my last sentence isn't very clear. I meant to say that "The British Isles" may indeed be a term that was generally used for a period of time, but that this period is now in the past and therefore "The British Isles" is what these islands "used to be called" - but that they are not uniformly called that any more. Lots of other names are increasingly in use and "The British Isles" seems to be on the way out. The process may well take a while, but is likely to be irreversible. Wotapalaver (talk) 13:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
It seems to me that Wikipedia is supposed to track reality and not push it along though, right? We aren't supposed to pick political candidates we want to win, and trumpet them, and it seems to me that we aren't supposed to pick linguistic changes we hope for and trumpet them either. Tb (talk) 13:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not trumpeting anything, simply reflecting on what seems to be happening. Wikipedia should not "trumpet" anything except the facts. The fact is that lots of people call the islands "The British Isles". Another fact is that lots of people have stopped calling the islands "The British Isles" and/or object to the islands being called "The British Isles". One doesn't have to agree with people's feelings to observe that they do feel a certain way. Wotapalaver (talk) 13:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Wotapalaver you are well supported in your views, and by the Irish Government no less. Written Answers - Official Terms", Dáil Éireann - Volume 606 - 28 September 2005. In his response, the Irish Minister for Foreign Affairs stated "The British Isles is not an officially recognised term in any legal or inter-governmental sense. It is without any official status. The Government, including the Department of Foreign Affairs, does not use this term. Our officials in the Embassy of Ireland, London, continue to monitor the media in Britain for any abuse of the official terms as set out in the Constitution of Ireland and in legislation. These include the name of the State, the President, Taoiseach and others."
"New atlas lets Ireland slip shackles of Britain". A spokesman for the Irish Embassy in London said: “The British Isles has a dated ring to it, as if we are still part of the Empire. We are independent, we are not part of Britain, not even in geographical terms. We would discourage its usage.”</ref> Its use is also avoided in relations between the governments of the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom, who generally employ the term these islands. Bertie Ahern's Address to The Joint Houses of Parliament, Westminster, 15th May, 2007, Tony Blair's Address to the Dáil and Seanad, November 1998. --Domer48 (talk) 15:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Fortunately, politicians - no matter how much they might want to - cannot alter language. TharkunColl (talk) 15:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Maybe politicians do not change language, but practice certainly does change language. From reading the article and the references it seems that there is an increasing tendency for people to practice avoiding "The British Isles". Why are people so hot under the collar about the term possibly fading away anyway? Why must it be "fortunately politicians cannot alter language"?Wotapalaver (talk) 15:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Would you like to live in a world in which politicians could change language, on any whim or because of the latest fad of political correctness? TharkunColl (talk) 16:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
The question on whether or not I would like to live in such a world is unimportant. From reading the article itself it seems that it's not only politicians, but also National Geographic, Michelin maps, Readers Digest maps, and many others. If you wish to talk about geographic terms, companies that make atlases certainly do change language. You or I might like it or not, but I would guess that National Geographic has more influence on terminology in maps than either you or I. Wotapalaver (talk) 19:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

No I would not like to live in a world like that. Thats why we had a whole host of Rebellions and the Easter Rising, and we are starting to get our languge back as well thanks very much. --Domer48 (talk) 18:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

And now we see the true political motivations at work here. Just scratch the surface and it's there. TharkunColl (talk) 18:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Just look at my user page then, and whats your excuse? --Domer48 (talk) 18:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

And how about all the Irish attacks, slave raids, and colonisations on the west coast of Britain from Roman times onward? You started it, mate. It was just your misfortune to push round a kid who grew up to be much bigger than you. TharkunColl (talk) 18:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

And now we see the true political motivations at work here. Just scratch the surface and it's there. You trow a little bait and catch a little fish, just did not expect a bite so soon. --Domer48 (talk) 18:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, right. I was merely responding in kind. Still, nice of you to not try and deny the truth of what I said. TharkunColl (talk) 18:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

You are after been caught lovely, now Wotapalaver asked a question above as to why are people so hot under the collar about the term possibly fading away anyway? Now they know, and now we see the true political motivations at work here. So now every one knows were you are coming from, and as you have raised it yourself, before the dark ages. Bye bye now. --Domer48 (talk) 18:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I think most people will realise just who is the one with a chip on his shoulder. My own motivation is simple - I want Wikipedia to tell the truth about language, and not surrender to political browbeating by a vocal minority. TharkunColl (talk) 20:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

aaah, tut tut, you want to tell the truth, well start here. Spare me, and the truth will set you free. Now go polish that chip on his shoulder, and when your in a hole, my advice, stop digging. --Domer48 (talk) 20:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I find your level of overreaction quite instructive. Mere facts will never prevail against such emotional investment, which is why this fruitless debate comes round like clockwork every few months. TharkunColl (talk) 21:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I can only offer you the charity of my silence, in an attempt to stop you putting your other foot in your mouth. I see you have not got the hint yet. I've done with this conservation, bye bye. --Domer48 (talk) 21:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Thark: "You started it, mate. It was just your misfortune to push round a kid who grew up to be much bigger than you." Thark, time to re-visit 1169 and all that, but if we are keeping a score card then I think the behavior of "your lot" over the last millennium merits that "our lot" get to rename the gang now that you are finally being put to bed (being the petulant child that you are, you can expect that it will be without supper). I am, however, glad to hear that you have agreed at last that Wikipedia should represent language in a genuine fashion. You will agree that it is clear that language is shifting and that to many (as attested by published sources) the term British Isles is no-longer tenable and that other constructions are increasingly more preferred. You will agree that WP should reflect this. (Or at least, if you did, it might show some maturity on your part and the older brothers and sisters of these islands might show some pity for you and maybe bring you up a sandwich and a glass of fizzy orange while you sulk in your bedroom.) --sony-youthpléigh 02:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


Another guideline

I have numerous concerns about the proposal as they are currently written and have written another proposal. My main concerns were that the proposal as it is written here did not walk the line of WP:NPOV, did not have an adequate grounding in current consensus and practice, and did not offer any concrete guidelines per se that an editor could follow or easily understand (in the broadest sense of the term).

My proposed guidelines are here. --sony-youthpléigh 20:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Mass Removal of term British Isles from Wikipedia

I don't know if some are aware of this, but there is at least one editor going around Wikipedia in a single minded attempt to remove all references to "British Isles" from the encyclopaedia. I find it hard to assume good faith when the editor in question has argued against the term on this page and is systematically removing all references to it from throughout the project despite it being a worldwide recognised term (that is yes objected to by some.) Canterbury Tail talk 00:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Who's the editor in question? GoodDay (talk) 00:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
To my observations, after seeing the removal of the term come up on my watchlist on several occassions, User:Bardcom appears to be making a systematic attempt to remove all references to the name. Canterbury Tail talk 00:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I recommend Bardcom stop & reconsider. GoodDay (talk) 00:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Dunno. Bard is to be commended if he isn't breaking any rules. So long as Wiki takes the B Isles to include Ireland clearly use of the term should be reduced to the absolute minimum to avoid edit warring if there is a better alternative available. There are also editors going around creating articles with B Isles in the title in order to provoke Irish editors. Sarah777 (talk) 01:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Most of the world takes BI to include Ireland. And please stop assuming you speak for every Irish editor or everyone in Ireland - you don't. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 01:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Remember User:Bastun, please attack the arguments, not the other editors. Please read WP:NPA. Quote, "And please stop assuming you speak for every Irish editor or everyone in Ireland - you don't.", shows you are breaking the WP:AGF principle. This type of ad hominem discourages new editors from editing, or offering their input into talk pages. Thank you. -78.19.143.86 (talk) 12:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
When I see you posting something along the lines of "Remember User:Sarah777, please attack the arguments, not the other editors. Please read WP:NPA. Quote, "There are also editors going around creating articles with B Isles in the title in order to provoke Irish editors.", shows you are breaking the WP:AGF principle. This type of ad hominem discourages new editors from editing, or offering their input into talk pages." I'll assume good faith on your part - until then I can only judge your input on the basis of what I've seen, which seems to support editors from one side and "warn" editors from the other. Thank you. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 12:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Not accurate, I stood-up for GoodDay last week when he was called a troll, and I think that we have had different arguments. 78.19.143.86 (talk) 13:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Whatever, anon. There was nothing in my remark that could be interpreted as a personal attack. Read Sarah's comment again. Read my reply again. She is asserting that editors are doing things to provoke a reaction in Irish editors. I'm pointing out she doesn't speak for every Irish editor. Accusing me of an ad hominem argument and personal attack because of that is pretty much in itself a personal attack. There are plenty of admins around watching this page, and I'll be happy to take a warning from them should I be wrong. I don't need an anon throwing beans at me when s/he won't even bother registering a new account or recovering their old login password. What was your old username, btw? BastunBaStun not BaTsun 13:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
But maybe it's true, don't shoot the messanger, just because you don't like the message. 78.19.143.86 (talk) 13:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Yep. I thing Bastuns effort above was clearly a personal attack on me - but as he says there are plenty of Admins watching so he's safe enough whereas you may be at risk. It goes without saying that I don't speak for all Irish folk - I only claim to speak for the majority - at least in regard to the political term "British Isles". Sarah777 (talk) 22:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey Canterbury Tail, it would depend on context. Very often the term British Isles is wrongly used, and I'm talking about your analysis here. You maintain it's only geographic, do you? 78.19.9.60 (talk) 01:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

This fight over the usage of British Isles on Wikipedia, is never going to end; unfortunately. It's gonna remain a controversial 'term', just like Sea of Japan, Irish Sea, English Channel, South America etc. It's too bad. GoodDay (talk) 15:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
The "fight" over "Irish Sea" is entirely a construct to set in opposition to those objecting to the misuse of the term "British Isles". Nobody in Ireland gives a s**t what the British call the Irish Sea. Sarah777 (talk) 22:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Interesting, but impossible to proove (either-way). GoodDay (talk) 22:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Proof, truth, in fact anything other than verifiability does not matter on Wikipedia. The term British Isles is verifiably a matter of dispute, there is no verifiable evidence to suggest that the term Irish Sea is so. Contributions to talk pages subject to the same guidelines as contributions to articles. If you continue to make edits that insist that the term Irish Sea is controversial without providing verifiable sources to back up this statement, your contributions risk being considered disruptive. --sony-youthpléigh 23:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
On that note, bye. GoodDay (talk) 23:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Response to this massively unjustified personal attack on my talk page, where the issue should have been raised first. Ben, I am appalled at your accusation and tone. Bardcom (talk) 11:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Assuming that all those 78.19.etc IPs are the same editor. I again urge him/her to please become a registered user or stop jumping from IP to IP; as it is annoying. GoodDay (talk) 17:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I took a quick look through the users contribution and (although I wanted to find some) I couldn't find any changes that were really of merit. Could the editor involved maybe supply a selection of his "best" removal of the term so that we could see the value of this action? There are some cases, I believe, when "British Isles" is used improperly and/or inaccurately (even gratuitously). --sony-youthpléigh 22:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I only just saw this comment now. Really Sony? You couldn't find any changes that were of merit? Perhaps you would be so kind as to point out the edits you feel are not of merit for discussion as opposed to joining in on this unjustified attack. Or join in the discussion on my talk page where Waggers has already pursued this topic. I am surprised at you joining this attack though - you usually do your research... Bardcom (talk) 11:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I assume Sony is talking about me. I make very few edits, and didn't make any edits whatsoever in this sphere, of late. 78.19.83.219 (talk) 15:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Holy smokers, how many IP addresses do you have anon? I've counted at least 10; would you please become a registered user? please. GoodDay (talk) 16:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Since there's no policy mandating editors to have a registered moniker, how can anon editors be motivated to register? In fact, perhaps there are advantages to remaining anonymous... Bardcom (talk) 17:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. I have called repeatedly for a registration policy but the Wiki-community are not interested. So IPs are as legit as anyone else it appears. BTW; it seems you don't have to change your IP deliberately - it varies from time to time within a certain range - so accusations like that, GoodDay, could be interpreted as failing to WP:AGF. Sarah777 (talk) 23:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
You lost me Sarah?? What accusations? GoodDay (talk) 23:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
You've disagreed with Sarah, therefore she gets to throw beans you... BastunBaStun not BaTsun 00:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
No Bastun, there was no "disagreement". But your accusation of me "throwing" beans is definitely a breach of WP:AGF. Sarah777 (talk) 01:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Hey Bastun, you certainly know an awful lot about beans, they were never my fav. You know what they say about "Bean Power", and boiling a kettle from their fumes and all of that. The smell is puph!! In the mean time have a look at Wikipedia:Don't assume, a lovely little short essay. Quick read! And it's April 1st today, so don't be caught out at the office. 78.19.85.68 (talk) 01:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
GoodDay pleads with an anon to register and you call that an accusation breaching WP:AGF. Its a pretty clear cut example of WP:BEANS. A bit like the other week where you accused me of attacking you, wouldn't provide diffs, then had one (or two) admins say no, they weren't attacks. Hmm, never got an apology for that... BastunBaStun not BaTsun 09:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Pleading for an anon to registered-in? isn't a bad thing. As for the pooh poohing? General Melchett, advised - never ignore a pooh pooh GoodDay (talk) 12:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Bastun, I never reported you to any admin whatsoever, so not correct there. It's not Wiki-etiquette to be quoting essays, you should read them all. But I know you like beans. Actually, carrots and broccoli are more nutritious. Did you read the articles? -78.19.206.209 (talk) 13:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Never said you did. Check the indentation. My reply was to Sarah. Try more carrots... BastunBaStun not BaTsun 14:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
And Sarah has good reasons to. You are "forever" baiting. A bit like the oll Soviet "drip drip" treatment. -78.19.140.184 (talk) 16:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Back to the subject. I've just discovered this myself. Bardcom has left articles that say 'in the Great Britain and Ireland' which is just silly. I can't see any reason for this mass change except either personal opinion or a nationalist POV, and I've reverted a few. I have seen some 'straw polls' but these have been done in isolation out of context. In other words, to make my view clear, I think they would only be valid if he had put them in the context of his attempt to remove the term British Isles wherever possible, rather than what looks like cherry-picking.Doug Weller (talk) 08:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

There are plenty of cases where the contentious term "British Isles" is not technically correct, e.g. where "UK and Ireland" should be used because only Ireland (the State) and the United Kingdom are really being referred to (and not say, the Isle of Man). zoney ♣ talk 19:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)