Talk:British Isles/Archive 3

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 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 →

Contents

Definition of British

The following definition is taken from the Oxford English Dictionary:- British adj & n. *adj. 1 of or relating to Great Britain or to the United Kingdom, or to its people or language. 2 of the British Commonwealth or (formerly) the British Empire (British subject) *n. (prec. by the; treated as pl.) the British people.

Please do not change this definition (in the current introduction) which reflects popular English usage within the archipelago to fit one's own agenda. British is not commonly used to refer to the United Kingdom or Great Britain; it is what it is used to refer to. Iolar Iontach 13:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I support this use. Outside of the term 'British Isles' itself - which I see as an exception which proves the rule - British does not refer to anything other than 'of Great Britain' or 'of the United Kingdom'. Rather than the vague 'most commonly' how about -
  • 'Due to the implications of the use of the adjective British, which in modern times is otherwise used to refer to the United Kingdom'

This reflects the fact that the intended - if not always understood - use here is not of the United Kingdom, but it acts as an explanation for the confusion/offence. --Robdurbar 20:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree essentially, and have changed the article. It is not quite true to say that "British Isles" is the only common use of "British" to refer to the whole archipelago, but all the modern other cases I know where "British" is used to refer the whole archipelago are contractions of "British Isle-ish" as in "British Flora and Fauna: plants of the British Isles" etc. and so are related. Rnt20 18:33, 14 May 2006 (UTC) (although, come to think of it, the other use of "British" is just a contraction of "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland-ish"...)

I would like to make one simple point & request to those closely interested in the subject of this page... Whichever way the etymological wranglings of academics may swing, it really is not possible to use a term solely for geographical/ecological purposes that is inescapably bound to significant political implications. Even if unintended - which I assume is in most cases - serious offence is certainly often caused to Irish citizens (like myself) by British citizens who innocently use the British Isles term. Much of the debate here shown rather misses this essential fact. Ideally a politically neutral term should be used; at the very least, people who continue to use the term British Isles should be aware of its contentious nature and know to use it with caution. This should remain part of the article introduction. User: PConlon 24 June 2006

It is not the purpose of wikipedia to worry about any offence caused. The criteria for inclusion in wikipedia are verifiability, neutrality and no original research. If the term causes offence then it is acceptable to state this, giving a reference to support it. It is also true that British people do in fact use the term British Isles, probably in total ignorance of the fact that it may offend some people. The fact that both POVs exist means that they should both be included in the article, and both fully referenced. It would be useful to know the extent of offence caused in the Republic of Ireland, if you are going to claim that it offends you, that is all well and good on a talk page, but it does not represent a citation, it is a personal opinion. I am sure there must be people in the Republic of Ireland that are equally as unconcerned about the phrase as you are offended by it. If you can find some sort of citation regarding its offensive nature or better the extent of offence caused this would be a good thing (a survey or opinion poll). Be that as it may, the fact that it causes offence does not mean that it cannot be included. This is an encyclopedia, its purpose is to include things people believe, often the things people believe are offensive. As a molecular biologist I get offended by Intelligent Design, but it does not mean that I have the right to claim that the article shouldn't exist. Alun 18:44, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughts. I entirely agree that this term, as used by so many people both within Great Britain and beyond, should appear and be properly explained in any thorough encyclopedic work. I was certainly not trying to remove its reference or shut out anyone's point of view, rather just trying to make the article fully represent all views in as balanced and as neutral a way as possible. The offence that the term can cause should be highlighted, precisely to make people aware that this term has a contentuous nature and that its use should be made with sensitivity and caution. I do not believe that easily cited data exists on the numbers of people, within Ireland for example, who are offended with its use - I can only relate my experience that mainstream, moderate society within the Republic of Ireland shys from using the term for the reason above. This is supported by the Irish government's official abandonment of this term. To give a personal recommendation for those non-Irish people interested in fully appreciating this contention, I suggest that they view the recently released film 'The Wind that Shakes the Barley'. This is actually directed by British-born director Ken Loach and is the first UK produced film to win the 'Palme d'Or' at the Cannes Film Festival since 1996. [I have no connection to the producers of this film]. User: PConlon 25 June 2006

Definition of British(2)

The article says: but to end Jacobitism the Scottish clan system was crushed and they became fully British

So what definition of "British" is being used there? Rhion 17:00, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Part of the United Kingdom - 'British' [I think, not sure who wrote that bit!] --Robdurbar 18:32, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Sources re Priteni in Ireland??

The following sentence appears inaccurate and pov:British derives originally from Britto or Priteni, the Celtic or pre-Celtic people who populated the islands before the Roman invasion.

Can anyone provide a source which shows that the Priteni populated Ireland? My understanding is that they did not populate anywhere other than Great Britain (and surrounding islands) in the archipelago. Iolar Iontach 03:47, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

We could start from ca 50 BC, Diodorus "those of the Pretani who inhabit the country called Iris". Caesar invaded Britain in 55 BC. We can probably assume that those "Pretani who inhabit" Ireland were already established on the island by that time. --Mal 13:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
See the article Cruithne (people). This was the pronunciation of the name of these people in Q-Celtic languages such as both Irish and Scottish Gaelic - in their own language (which was either P-Celtic like Welsh or, just possibly, pre-Celtic) they were called Pretani or Pritani. TharkunColl 15:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
So in essence we are basing it on assumptions, not empirical evidence? Iolar Iontach 16:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
It is a historical fact that a people called by their neighbours Cruithne existed in Ireland, and that this was also the name applied to the Picts in Scotland. It is a linguistic fact that the name Cruithne in Q-Celtic is equivalent to Pritani in P-Celtic. The only thing that is unclear, on which theories have been built, is whether these people were themselves P-Celtic speakers, or whether they originally spoke a non-Celtic language altogether. This, of course, is irrelevent - the Pritani lived in both Great Britain and Ireland. TharkunColl 17:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I have read papers that dispute that model; it is an assertion rather than fact. Iolar Iontach 13:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
The details of their origins can be argued over, but those people existed and lived in the British Isles. The ancients knew this - hence the quite from Diodorus. TharkunColl 15:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Image caption

How can the British Isles consist of Great Britain, Ireland (usually) and a number of much smaller surrounding islands? Does Ireland float away somewhere else occasionally? The map clearly shows two main islands making up the British Isles — Ireland and Great Britain. I know this caption's wording is trying to avoid the political issues discussed ad nauseam in the article and discussion page, but it doesn't help to use woolly wording in a geographical article. I've changed the wording to make it (a) accurate and (b) as uncontentious as possible. Bazza 18:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Scots and Britons

Some minor edits to eliminate a few highly irritating mistakes and misconceptions in the Political History section.

From the time of Malcolm III onwards English began to replace Gaelic as the language of the court and the Lowland nobility. I have absolutely no idea who the mysterious 'Germanic peoples' are, who seemingly made an appearance as the ruling class. The Scots people have long been of mixed Celtic and English blood, some parts more Celtic, and other parts more English; but most definitely not 'Germanic' in any shape or form. Speaking a different language did not alter their racial or cultural composition. This artificial classification into 'Germanic' and 'Erse' is very old fashioned, belonging to a ninteenth century school of historical taxonomy.


Very few Scots, Hanoverian or otherwise, embraced the name 'North Britain' for their country, no more than the English adopted 'South Britain' for theirs. The examples mentioned are relics of official reclassification.

To say that the Gaelic-speaking Highlanders 'became fully British' with the end of the clan system is ludicrously incorrect: they had always been British, their political and cultural differences notwithstanding. Rcpaterson 01:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Aimed at the original point, though not arguing with anything said, just mentioning: English is largely Germanic. If by English you mean descended from southern Anglo-Saxon settlers who mixed with native Celts (the Angles, the Saxons and the Jutes being Germanic peoples). Again, not contradicting anything said, I simply felt the comment implied that no Germanic element is present in Britain, though this interpretation may have been taken out of context, as I just sort of happened upon this notice. If one is saying the Scots were a partial mix of Celt and English, one is saying they are a mix of Celtic and Germanic. - jove

List of islands

The lists of islands are divided into sets based around the larger islands in the group. The Ireland set alone is organised around political names (Ulster, Connaught, etc.). This goes against the grain of the rest of the article which does its best to remain apolitical, concentrating on the British Isles as a geographical entity. I propose to remove political names and replace them with compass points or some other non-political names. Bazza 15:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Problems with modern usage and controversy

A large number of Scottish and Welsh people object to the term British - despite requests for citations in this paragraph, I see some people have simply been adding to the number of peoples who object to the term. That's fair enough, but the unwarranted NPOV references to English people is not and, in the absence of the requested citations, I've removed them. Bazza 09:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

In fact, with more consideration I've removed the paragraph entirely — this article is about the British Isles, not the word British which is described elsewhere. This article goes to great length to explain its geographical context as opposed to political, and acknowledge feelings towards its title. Comments solely about the use of the word British should be made on the British page. Bazza 09:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

You are quite right. I would say, though, whenever and wherever you come across statements like 'a large nunber' of Scottish people think this or say that treat them with a high degree of scepticism. They most often eminate from a voiciferous an unrepresentative minority. I know very few Scots who object to to the term British. Rcpaterson 22:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

When statements like a large number of people are used without giving a reference or a figure, it represents a form of weasel words IMHO. Take a look here Devolution, Public Attitudes and National Identity, in this report by the Economic and Social Research Council 83% of English identify as British to some extent, 69% of Scots identify as British to some extent and 79% of Welsh identify as British to some extent. So in fact the vast majority of people living on the Island of Great Britain (the population of which is overwhelmingly English anyway) are not only not offended by the term, but actually positively identify as British. So the correct form of words would in fact be, a minority of Scottish and Welsh people are offended by the term British, but of course this would not serve the purpose of the original editor, who was including their POV rather than a neutral edit. I agree with Bazza though. Alun 10:00, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I have requested a citation for this

Today the term British is used to describe people or things belonging to either the island of Great Britain or the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. This can cause confusion or resentment

The term may cause confusion, especially to people not living the UK or the Republic of Ireland, but it needs to be cited. I think the claim of resentment is more problematic, but even if it is true it needs a citation.

I have also removed this

Many people, particularly those from the Republic of Ireland, find the term British Isles unacceptable and even offensive because of this.

It is unacceptable to say many people (see WP:AWW), how many? is it a minority or majority? What is the number or proportion of people who find it offensive? This needs a hard figure and it needs to be verified, otherwise it is simply the opinion of the person who has made the edit. I think it breaches the neutrality policy and possibly the no original research policy (as it is just a POV, without giving the alternative POV, and it may be based on unpublished material, because it doesn't cite a source). Alun 10:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

The less offensive term of equal clarity and brevity is "British & Irish Isles". Believe when I say that the Manx natives have no trouble with this description as they are linked to the U.K. as a protected and supported territory, Republic of Ireland on the other hand is a sovereign nation with no link to the U.K.

The basis for usage of the term is completely flawed logic as it refers to ancient texts etc and precedent for calling them the British isles. Place names reflect current realities, thus we have Istanbul and not Constantinople.

A better example would be the Aegean coast of Turkey and its islands. this whole area was once referred to as the Greek coast and all the islands were Greek islands. since the political landscape has changed and the Turkish state has jurisdiction, the only islands which are now "Greek islands" are those within the jurisdiction of Greece. if you were to rebut by saying that British refers to something more than a political term, but rather than an ethnic or geographical one, then the same argument (or even a better one can be made of Greek). the Greek world once referred to an area far greater than modern or ancient Greece (e.g. southern Italy, Sicily, turkey, Armenia etc) and many of the people residing in those parts of turkey which were formerly designated "Greek" are ethnically and linguistically Greek but live in the state of turkey, and therefore the islands and coast are Turkish.

Thus, you could not refer to the island of Ireland as British. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User talk:62.77.181.16 (talk • contribs)

What are you talking about? This article is not about the island of Ireland it is about a geographical region, the British Isles. The debate should be about whether the term is disputed or not. Some claim it is disputed in the Republic of Ireland, though User:TharkunColl has provided evidence (see below) in the form of a verifiable citation that the term is used in the Republic of Ireland, indeed his citation is from a speech given by a member of the Irish government. Neither I nor TharkunColl have found any verifiable evidence that the term is not used in the Republic of Ireland, or that it is in dispute. There has been a claim that the term is never used in Irish state documents and that it is not used in Irish school textbooks, these claims should be easily verified, but we have found no verification. Untill we get some proper verification on this then I think that we can assume that the term British Isles is accepted by everyone except a tiny minority, in which case the neutrality policy does not apply. Can we please stick to the point? Alun 10:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


Alun, you don't seem to have a keen grasp on the situation. You need only purchase a copy. or better still for you refer to one of "the Good Friday Agreement" to verify how the British and Irish governments agreed to refer to the islands of Ireland and Britain. They referred to them as the British & irish Isles in this inter-governmental agreement. As for that Irish Minister who referred to it that way in her speech, I am dubious if that reference is accurate, although the lady in question was not very highly regarded in ministerial circles in Ireland and was dropped as a Minister recently. Let's just say the Government appeared not to be too impressed with her Ministerial performance. Let me also suggest that there is little doubt that a majority of people in Ireland find the reference "British Isles" offensive but it is nigh on impossible to verify this save conducting a nationwide survey of opinions which would hardly be cost effective in terms of the proposition being examined. Starsweep 13:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Why do you doubt the accuracy of that reference? Simply because it doesn't fit in with your preconceived views? That was a quote from the Irish government website no less. And to cast aspersions on that government minister's competence is not only irrelevant, it is what is known as an ad hominem attack. Your mere assertion that the majority of people in the Irish Republic find the term offensive is not good enough I'm afraid, and even if you believe it to be true, I seriously doubt that you've spoken to a majority of Irish citizens and enquired after their opinion on the matter. In other words, it is nothing but POV. The fact remains that a minister of the Irish government felt able to use the term in a speech totally unconnected with any political agenda (at the opening of a theatrical festival), which is proof - if proof were required - that the term is not eschewed within Ireland. TharkunColl 13:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


Everyone's views are preconceived my good fellow, that is why people should think before they speak or contribute. It is correct to state I casted aspersions on this Minister's diligence and evidently the powers that be in the Governemnt appeared to share my view. Now, it would be folly of me to suggest that it was because of her use of terminology in this speech you cited that brought about her downfall but let me rather coarsely suggest she was not highly regarded as a politician by peers or public and certainly not representative of the views of the wider Irish populus on the use of this terminology. I am an Irish citizen and keenly aware of the public's views of this terminology given that I speak with them frequently and have done so in relation to this topic. Obviously I have not spoken to a a majority of the Irish citizens but I believe that a cross-section of people I have spoken to are representative of the views of the wider public (similar to criteria used in opinion polls). You seem to be of the belief that if a now redundant Irish Minister of the Arts referenced this terminology, it is not eschewed by the general public. That, my good fellow is frankly ridiculous and you will do better to discuss the issue than make use of this example to support your angle. You are citing one person to rebut what I examine to be the wider view of the general public. Let me suggest that you access the Irish Wikipedians notice board of which I noticed yesterday and see there to be hundreds of WP users, you can contact them to examine their views on this and then you will be certain on the general esteem this terminology is held in by the majority of the Irish public. I, and the majority of my fellow Irish people reject this factually incorrect terminology, this situation persists despite bizarre ramblings and trawls for exceptional comments from my good fellow TharkunColl.Starsweep 14:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Inoffensive?

Edit summary by PConlon reads:

This article should maintain an inoffensive, neutral stance while remaining factual. It is important that the contentious nature of the term is highlighted, so that users of the term may avoid innocently and unwittingly giving offence

There is no requirement on Wikipedia for articles to remain inoffensive, they should simply be neutral. Neutrality is achieved by including all points of view without prejudice (except for tiny minority points of view). I refer you to the neutral point of view policy. There's also no requirement for information to be factual, this is an encyclopedia, so it's OK to include what people believe, as long as it's referenced and presented neutrally. Please leave a message on the talk page if you make significant edits to an article, giving your reasons for doing so, this will help in discussions about how to improve the article. It's also a good idea to try to find some citations to support your edits. All the best. Alun 17:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, neutrality is crucial and all views should be appropriately accommodated. I have now left a message on this talk page (above). Many thanks & best regards. User:PConlon

Suggestion regarding terminology used in the article

It seems that there is some feeling that the term British Isles is unacceptable to some editors. In order to get some sort of consensus I suggest we try to formulate a few basic guidelines. At the start of the article I have included several of the terms used to describe the archipelago, including the British Isles, after all this is an encyclopedia, so we cannot dispense with the term altogether. I suggest that the region be simply called the archipelago in the article after this. This way none of the various terms are given any greater weight by the article. A more extreme solution would be to move the article to one of the alternative names (such as the North-West European Archipelago), but still include the alternative names (such as the British Isles) in the introduction to the article. As this is a geographical article and not a political one, it should matter little IMHO what the article is called, or what terms are used in it, as long as we can get a consensus on the terminology used. There is far too much politics being played here. I have removed the various references to the term British Isles being contentious, if this claim needs to be made at all, then it only needs to be made once, and it needs a source. Alun 05:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Terms such as "North-West European Archipelago", "Islands of the North Atlantic" and "Anglo-Celtic Isles" are almost completely unknown and are liable to engender blank stares if used in conversation. And since many of them were invented in order to appease the IRA during the so-called Northern Ireland peace process then there are those who would regard them as highly offensive. The term "British Isles" was used for literally hundreds of years before the foundation of the British state, and was the reason why that state chose to call itself "British" in the first place (and not the other way round). Why aren't the Irish up in arms about the appropriation of the ancient Celtic word "British" by the English? In any case, it is a purely geogrphical designation - just like "Irish Sea" for example. TharkunColl 06:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I nowhere said that the term British Isles should not be used, I simply pointed out that if we want to get a consensus then there are ways to achieve this. I am in favour of keeping the title of the article as it is. The current title may offend some people in the Republic of Ireland (and I have seen no evidence in the form of a citation that the term offends the majority of Irish people), but I think changing it would be just as offensive to the people of the UK. I think that the British Isles is the most accepted term for the archipelago. Having said that, if the title of the article is British Isles and the introduction gives this, and also the various alternative terms used, then it would be more neutral simply to refer to the region as the archipelago for the rest of the article. This is not a political article, and the term archipelago is more geographically accurate anyway IMHO. Alun 06:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with using "archipelago" in the body of the article on at least some occasions, but avoiding the term "British Isles" after the first paragraph would be very strained from a linguistic point of view, and might be classed as Wikipedia:Weasel words. We should just use it when it seems best, regardless of the political connotations that some people choose to attach to it. Their doing so has nothing to do with the term itself, which is purely geographical. TharkunColl 06:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
How does it constitute weasel words? Weasel words are an attempt to introduce an unverified POV by claiming that something is the opinion of an undefined source, like "Some people say...","Some argue...","Contrary to many...","As opposed to most...","Research has shown..." etc. (see WP:AWW for a more comprehensive list). I don't personally think it is strained to simply refer to the archipelago. All I really want to do is to get a consensus so we can avoid squabbling and edit wars on the article page. I am happy to comply with a consensus when one is reached. I don't think there is anything to achieve by arguing to the bitter end over my personal preference (personally I see nothing wrong with British Isles, but then I am British and was unaware that the term can be percieved as inflamatory in certain regions untill a few days ago). If the consensus is to continue to use British Isles then I am happy to do this. It is apparent, however that some editors are unhappy with this form of words. If the term is as contentious as some editors are claiming (and again I point out that they have as yet provided little evidence for this except their own personal feelings) then I see no reason why we should not all try to come to some form of words that everyone is happy with. Use of the word archipelago is just a suggestion, it has no political bias, percieved or otherwise, and is geographically correct. I am happy to explore other neutral terms that can be used, the islands for example (it should be obvious that we are refering to the subject of the article). Alun 07:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Weasal words or not, to never use the term "British Isles" after the first line would be an abuse of the English language. That's what I meant when I said we should just let it flow naturally - use "archipelago" and "islands" by all means, but similarly don't avoid "British Isles". That, after all, is what the article is about, and it would be like avoiding saying "England" in the England article. As for those who would attempt to impose their own political POV on what is actually a geographic article, I'm not sure what to suggest. Persuasion on the talk page and vigilance on the reversion front? TharkunColl 07:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand why it would be an abuse of the English language. The thing about POV is that it cuts both ways, people who do get offended by the term could claim that you are equally including your own political POV. It's just a question of relativity and perception. Let's see what others think. I am interested to see the opinions of User:Pconlon with regard to this debate. Alun07:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
The fact is that the term British Isles exists within the English language. The only political POV is that advocated by the tiny minority who don't like it. For the rest of us, it is a geographic term with no political implications at all. TharkunColl 09:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
From the neutral point of view policy:
To sum up the primary reason for this policy: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a compilation of human knowledge. But because Wikipedia is a community-built, international resource, we cannot expect collaborators to agree in all cases, or even in many cases, on what constitutes knowledge in a strict sense. We can, therefore, adopt the looser sense of "human knowledge" according to which a wide variety of conflicting theories constitute what we call "knowledge". We should, both individually and collectively, make an effort to present these conflicting views fairly, without advocating any one of them, with the qualification that views held only by a tiny minority of people should not be represented as though they are significant minority views, and perhaps should not be represented at all...There is another reason to commit ourselves to this policy. Namely, when it is clear to readers that we do not expect them to adopt any particular opinion, this leaves them free to make up their minds for themselves, thus encouraging intellectual independence.
The fact is that the term British Isles exists within the English language.-No one has disputed this. The only political POV is that advocated by the tiny minority who don't like it.- Do you have evidence that it is only a tiny minority? And if it is a political POV, then the oposite POV must also be political. I am really baffled by your dogmatic approach to this. I tend to agree with you about the term, I personally have no problem with it. I am merely trying to get a consensus as to how improve the article in a way that all of us can agree on, I tend to the opinion that the minor changes I have suggested are really uncontentious and are really quite unimportant regarding the article content, which should be geographical/geological/ecological in content. Alun 10:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, well it looks like the current form of words is not disputed. All the same it is essential to find some sort of citation to back up te claim that British Isles is offensive in the Republic of Ireland. Alun 11:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

It not so much being dogmatic that causes me to argue thus, but an unwillingness to let a vocal, politicised minority distort what is supposed to be a factual encyclopedia. I too would like to see a source that shows that the majority of people in the Irish Republic find the term offensive - but it's worth pointing out that even if they did, they would still only be a small minority amongst the total population of the British Isles, let alone English speakers around the world. That some Irish people don't like the term is indisputable, and the article mentions this in the first paragraph. There is no need to mention it again in the article, still less reiterate it in every single paragraph, as some editors have done. TharkunColl 11:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree, if it's only contentious to some people, then a simple reference to it is enough IMHO. I had the impression that it may have been more contentious than it appears to be. Whatever the truth I think that this sort of POV needs a citation. If it is really only the POV of a tiny minority, then it doesn't warrant any mention at all, as the NPOV guideline states. There is some indication in the article that in the Republic of Ireland the term is not used in school textbooks or in state documents, if this is a deliberate policy it should be easy to find a source for it, but I've tried several Googles and have found nothing online as yet. Alun 15:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
The term is used on the official Irish government website no less. Here's an example, from a speech made by Síle de Valera, Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands, on 31/3/2002, when opening the Clare Drama Festival in Scarriff Community College:
"I want to welcome you all to this the 55th Clare Drama Festival. A celebration of the great and good of Irish theatre mixed with the support and enthusiasm of the local community. I have been well informed that although there may be older festivals, none in the British Isles can boast 54 in a row. Until the year 2000 Clare Drama Festival enjoyed an unbroken run of 54 years and although last year was cancelled due to the Foot and Mouth scare this year the festival is back on track and greeted with even more excitement because of the absence. This year the Festival will run for eight nights, from tonight right through to next Sunday, the seventh of April." [1]
If a government figure as concerned with Irish arts and heritage as the Minister for Arts and Heritage can use it without batting an eyelid, then what's all the fuss about? I have amended the article accordingly. TharkunColl 15:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Nice source, good work. Alun 16:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

An interesting exchange. I would just like to add there are times when the pursuit of consensus is both pointless and dangerous. Will Lilliput and Blefuscu ever settle their differences over the correct way to eat an egg? Just imagine trying to invent a name for Russia that would satisfy all of its varied ethnic groups! British Isles it is and British Isles it will always remain. Rcpaterson 23:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

No one said it wasn't the British Isles to British people. The debate was about what terminology should be used in the article after the various names for the archipellago had been given. It is clear that to some people it is not the British Isles, we were exploring how large the population is that rejects British Isles, if it is greater than a tiny minority, then neutrality requires that their POV be taken into account. We were also looking for sources to back up the claim that most Republic of Ireland people don't accept the term. It seems that it really is only a tiny minority that rejects British Isles, and we could find no citations. Wikipedia is based on neutrality and verifiability (so one should adapt their position based on these considerations) consensus is how wikipedia works, if you do not believe in consensus then you are in the wrong place. Alun 05:51, 29 June 2006

(UTC)

I believe in truth: I believe that informed debate has to be based on hard empirical evidence, not the pursuit of some silly chimera. There are some times when 'consensus' is just another name for cant and mediocrity. Is a thing 'true' because most people say it is true? What would be the 'consensus' on the Jewish question in Nazi Germany? What is the contemporary North Korean consensus on Kim Jong Il? Any argument has to be based on a core of fact, otherwise one is in danger of sinking into a bog of hopeless relativism, where one position is as good as another. I do not care how many weasel definitions like 'archipelago' are taken into account: in the end the thousand islands or more comes back to one collective British Isles; and it is known by this name to non-British people throughout the world. Much of what you have written above is simply meretricious; and the suggestion that neologisms like 'North-West European Archipelago' be substituted for British Isles is Voltarian in its absurdity. Please try to think clearly. Might I suggest that you read Henrik Ibsen's Enemy of the People? That might get you to reflect on the real difference between truth and consensus. Rcpaterson 07:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you need to read WP:NPOV and WP:V. This is an encyclopedia, it is about what people believe, it is not necessarily about truth. If it were about truth then the Intelligent Design article (and many others) would not exist. Alun 09:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually, the Intelligent Design article seems to be truthful — it describes the existance of a concept; it does not state that the concept itself is true (or not). Bazza 12:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Well ID is not a core fact (Any argument has to be based on a core of fact). You cannot have it both ways. Wikipedia is still not based on truth or facts, but on what people believe. If there is a significant minority of people in the Republic of Ireland that dispute the term British Isles, and this can be verified, then the NPOV polict dictates that this be mentioned in the article. As it is at the moment no verifiability has been produced to support this POV, and without a supporting reference then it cannot be included IMHO. I wonder how you can claim that the British Isles are not an archipellago? I would suggest thet it is indeed a fact that the British Isles are an archipellago, indeed this is an article pertaining to the geograph/geology/natural history of the Islands themselves then it is a totally appropriate term to use. Alun 05:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Forgive me but rcpaterson is in dire need of a lecture. In Irish legal documents the islands of Ireland and Britain are known as "the British & Irish Isles", in the last inter-governmental agreement between the two jurisdictions, the "Good Friday Agreement", these islands were referred to legally as "the British & Irish Isles". Open your eyes and swim out of your sea of ignorance. Proclaimations such as "british isles it is and british isles it always will be" not only are factually and legally incorrect but only serve to reflect a boorish ignorant attitude on your behalf which may not do you justice my good fellow.Starsweep 13:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
This article is about a term that exists in the English language, and has nothing to do with the Good Friday Agreement. TharkunColl 13:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Listen keenly my good fellow, this article is about a reference to the islands of Ireland and Britain, therefore the legal and factual reference should be predominant, or at the least should be included as a significant qualification of the term. Try not to be so dismissive, if you are not in a position to argue against the reality, then you need not say anything my good fellow.Starsweep 14:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
This article is about a phrase in the English language, my good fellow. Please don't distort what is supposed to be a factual encyclopedia with your political POV. TharkunColl 15:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
This article is not about a reference to the Islands of Ireland and Britain at all, these are just two islanda, the archipellago is made up of thousands. Be that as it may, the term British and Irish Isles seems like a perfectly good compromise to me. This is a geographical article, I find it quite odd that people can get so het up about it. There is no such thing as a legal entity of the British Isles or the British and Irish Isles as this is nothing more than a geographical region, with no more legal or official status than the West Indies, or the Mediteranean. the Good Friday Agreement is a legal agreement regarding the political institutions of the signatory states with regard to Northern Ireland, it is not a an agreement about the correct nomenclature for the archipellago. Get a grip everyone, and put your petty nationalism on a peg before sounding off about things that are relatively irrelevant regarding the actual content of the article. I am happy to use just about any of the alternatives mentioned, though I would point out that there has been very little verifiability regarding the contentiousness of the term British Isles. Alun 15:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Well since the dispute with this seems to rest almost entirely on the premise that people in the Republic of Ireland think of the term I though I would see what the government of the ROI thought of it. Google search through the irgov.ie site, the official Ireland governmental site. "British Isles", 43 hits, including many Dail offical reports on such things as how the Shannon is the second largest river in the British Isles, freedom of travel between Europe and the British Isles and so on. "British and Irish Isles", 0 hits. Seems the government of the Republic of Ireland has no problems with the term. Oh and the Good Friday Agreement argument has no weight either, not a singe instance of "British and Irish Isles" or "British & Irish Isles" is found in the document. Ben W Bell talk 16:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh and some more numbers for us. A main google search for "British & Irish Isles", 18 hits but only about 7 unique sites. "British and Irish Isles", 127 hits. "British Isles", 16,600,000 hits of which only 4,510,000 are from the UK leaving 12 million+ hits from outside the UK. Guess which term is known and used the world over? Ben W Bell talk 16:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
There has certainly been a lot of huffing and puffing, but from my own google searches, and those of TharkunColl, it does appear that what we are really dealing with is a vocal tiny minority of people who are offended by the term British Isles. I have tried hard to verify the claim that British Isles is not used in the Republic of Ireland, and that it is offensive to a significant minority of Irish people (as the neutrality policy specifically calls for significant minority opinion to be taken into account), but I have found no support for such a claim. I really do think that there is a dire lack of verifiability on the part of the British Isles is offensive POV. Alun 16:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Based on Google searches alone the terms "British and Irish Isles" and "British and Irish Isles" actually meet the WP:NEO. Ben W Bell talk 17:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
The same is true of those other neologisms given such unwarranted prominence in the article - "Anglo-Celtic Isles", "Islands of the North Atlantic", and "North-West European Archipelago". Look up Anglo-Celtic and you'll see that it's actually an Australian term for its ethnic majority population that is the subject of some contoversy. "Islands of the North Atlantic" is absurd insofar as it doesn't also include Iceland, Newfoundland, and all sorts of other places. And I hadn't even heard of "North-West European Archipelago" until a few days ago when I noticed that someone had put it in the article. Say these phrases to any English speaker around the world and I suspect that not one in ten million would have any idea that you were talking about the British Isles. TharkunColl 17:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Another google count of note: "British Isles" site:.ie returns 35,000 hits for Irish Republic (.ie) websites - so it is clearly in widespread use in Eire - MPF 17:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Some of you discussed the point of whether or not the term "British Isles" is considered contentious by the Irish, but no one has corrected the spelling of the word in the article. It currently reads "contentuous." Should be, contentious. Thanks.


The article says in the opening line "(also occasionally referred to as the Anglo-Celtic Isles, the British & Irish Isles, the Islands of the North Atlantic, and the North-West European Archipelago)" - er, where? by whom? are these occasional references "notable"? ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notable ) ? If they have been used in some political document or other, let's cite this, otherwise we might as well put in that Mrs J. Brainworthy of Bideford in Devon once referred to them as "Cecil".--feline1 14:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Subjective pov nonsense

This article's very title just reeks of British jingoism and irredentism towards Ireland and the views of Irish people. Ireland is a "British Isle" to the British and their heavingly subsidised "compatriots" in the north-east of Ireland as they strive to delude themselves further regarding the decline of Britain in the past century. This has everything to do with their wounded pride and, knowing that the term is resisted in Ireland, their anti-Irishness. The term is not used by the Irish, a point which is incessantly made here. I have also never heard a British government minister use the term and in the GFA of 1998 the term 'Council of the Isles' is used. Being an agreement based upon respect, "British Isles" appears nowhere. That is an international agreement signed by the two governments. My question therefore is: why is Wikipedia institutionalising British prejudices and denial of the political independence of most of Ireland from British rule? Given our history at the hands of the British, and the first recorded use of the term "British Isles" in the seventeenth century when Britain was trying to expand its rule in Ireland, you don't have to be the most intellectually robust to know that "geographic" is the very very last thing that the expression "British Isles" really is. So spare us the insult. Thank you. 193.1.172.138 16:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

But the term is used in Ireland, as my cited source proves. Why will you not accept this? As for the rest of what you said, if anyone was looking for proof that this argument has been caused by a vocal, polticised monority, I rest my case. TharkunColl 16:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, the occupied Six Counties is used in Britain [2], as my cited source proves. Therefore, you must be a vocal, politicised minority pushing your political agenda with your "Northern Ireland" nonsense. 193.1.172.163 22:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

That is a very poor source for your argument that the occupied Six Counties is used in the UK. Occupied is not mentioned in that document and the term Six Counties is actually used as six counties (note capitalisation which changes the meaning completely) as "offer the hope of peace and reconciliation within the six counties of Northern Ireland." which is simply stating that Northern Ireland is comprised of six counties and not that it is The Occupied Six Counties. Anyway this has nothing to do with the discussion over the term British Isles. Ben W Bell talk 07:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I see you are over on the Malvinas pages pushing your "Falkland Islands" line too and resisting 'Islas Malvinas' being on the page introduction, as it has been until this very week. Now, there is proof of the political agenda of the "British Isles" brigade. Your comments there are also very indicative of the type of fanatical British mentality we are up against. Britain will never be enough. Your Empire is over. Get used to it. 193.1.172.163 22:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I am at something of a loss to understand your point about the "Occupied Six Counties" being used in Britain, because "Northern Ireland" is almost infinitely more common as a designation, followed in second place by "Ulster" - even though the historic boundaries of Ulster were rather wider than the current province. And if you actually want my personal opinion, rather than using me as a straw man, I tend to agree with Alun below - namely that given the choice, most Britons would jettison the millstone that is Northern Ireland in half a second, a sentiment with which I wholly concur. Did you know, for example, that in the early 70s, during his period of opposition, Harold Wilson made an offer to the Irish government that should he ever get back into power (which he did, of course), he would hand Northern Ireland over to the Republic, with the very reasonable stipultation that, as a sop to the loyalists in the North, the Republic should simply rejoin the Commonwealth (whilst still remaining a republic)? The Irish ministers were appalled at the suggestion, knowing that they simply didn't have the resources to police it, and the inevitable result would be a bloodbath. And as for my comments on the Falklands talk page - not that they are in any way relevant here - you might have noticed, had you not been so blinkered, that all of my arguments are primarily linguistic in nature. No one in the Falklands calls the place "Malvinas" therefore it has no place in the lead position in the article. Similarly, "British Isles" is a ubiquitous term in the English language and the article should not be distorted by political POV. TharkunColl 06:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Please keep your comments on topic. This is not a chatroom. I have tried very hard to find verifiability for several of the claims made on this talk page, as have several others. It is not good enough to state that British Isles is a disputed term in the Republic of Ireland on the talk page or in the article without providing proper sources. Personally I am totally unconcerned with the title of the article, I am prepared to accept any uncontentious compromise that gains consensus on this talk page. I do not think that your blatantly xenophobic attitude is at all constructive. As I see it the main problem for those who make the claim that British Isles is a POV that is not acceptable to people from the Republic of Ireland is that they have provided no evidence for this claim. Several people here have tried to find verifiability for this claim, none of those who are making the claim that British Isles in unacceptable have looked for verifiability or provided any sources (The term is not used by the Irish, a point which is incessantly made here. - please provide evidence in the form of a verifiable source for this claim, as I have tried in vain to find one, your statement and those you refer to are unsupported statements, and at present amount to little more than personal opinion). I am sure that the people posting here really are offended by the term, but we cannot include this in the article unless it can be verified. I would suggest that your stated position would be better served if you actually went to look for a verifiable source that shows categorically that a significant minority/majority of the citizens of the Republic of Ireland do find the term British Isles offensive. If you achieve this then no one will be able to dispute your claim, and it can be included in the article (as per the neutral point of view policy), it will also put a stop to this rather petty nationalism (on both sides). To claim that the term British Isles is some sort of attempt by British people to undermine the Republic of Ireland is quite absurd, whatever you or others may think I would suggest that the relations between the Republic and the UK are really very good, both on a political level and on the level of the respective populations. You should also be aware that a lot of people in the UK are not in support of Unionism in Northern Ireland. I suspect that if we had had a referendum in the rest of the UK on the status of NI and the Good Friday Agreement (and I note that we were the only people excluded from expressing an opinion) the Unionists may have been rather stunned by the lack of support they actually have from the rest of the UK. User TharkunColl has provided evidence that the term British Isles is in actual fact used in the Republic, and this was by a government minister no less. User:Ben W Bell has also done some searching for verifiability and gives the results from his google searches (above): "British Isles", 43 hits, including many Dail offical reports on such things as how the Shannon is the second largest river in the British Isles, freedom of travel between Europe and the British Isles and so on. "British and Irish Isles", 0 hits. Seems the government of the Republic of Ireland has no problems with the term. Oh and the Good Friday Agreement argument has no weight either, not a singe instance of "British and Irish Isles" or "British & Irish Isles" is found in the document. So I really think that it is up to you to provide some evidence to support your claim. Remember wikipedia is about verifiability, neutrality and published material (ie no original research), you should also bear in mind the reliability of your sources. Alun 05:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

"Harold Wilson made an offer to the Irish government that should he ever get back into power (which he did, of course), he would hand Northern Ireland over to the Republic, with the very reasonable stipultation that, as a sop to the loyalists in the North, the Republic should simply rejoin the Commonwealth (whilst still remaining a republic)? The Irish ministers were appalled at the suggestion, knowing that they simply didn't have the resources to police it, and the inevitable result would be a bloodbath."

The Republic's objection, and I think you must know this Tharkun, was the suggestion that Ireland would have to rejoin the commonwealth.--Salvador Allende 21:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I assume you have proof of this assertion - or perhaps it's just your opinion based on your misunderstanding of the true situation? The fact is that the Irish didn't want it. For good general biographies of Harold Wilson I would suggest Harold Wilson by Ben Pimlott, or how about Harold Wilson: A Life by Austen Morgan. TharkunColl 21:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


The crux of the issue is that the term "british isles" is offensive to the majority of Irish people.I am Irish myself and am aware of my Countrymen's views, obviously this is difficult to verify as to my kmowledge, no media sources have ever examined such a contentious and ultimately non-critical issue but it remains a fact in reality. Ben Bell refers to "google hits" as the basis for his charge on the accepted usage of the term "British Isles" in Ireland, what a laugh he gave me to use that as the cornerstone of his conviction. The day someone uses "google hits" as a basis for a case they are making is the day we should revert back to neanderthals. We should deal in realities, not the weird and wacky realm of anything goes "google hits". The simple solution to this problem in terms of referring to the islands in the article is the NPOV reference of no offence to anyone - "british & Irish Isles". It's a simple and fair solution. Get over yourselves and realise that a reference to these islands as "british isles" is not now politically or otherwise acceptable to the vast majority of Irish people. Oh, and spare us the petty requests for verification and further realise it is too intractable and complex a position to verify as I alluded to earlier. To echo user 193.1.172.163, your empire is over, deal with it. I think some of you need a serious reality check.213.202.153.3 00:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
The crux of the issue is that the term "british isles" is offensive to the majority of Irish people. Actually the crux of the issue is that you need to verify this claim, and you need to show that it is held by at least a significant minority of people. Claiming that is is held by a majority of Irish people is all very well, but why do you think people reading the article should take your word for it? You do not constitut an authority. We need to apply the correct wikipedia policies, verification, neutrality and no original reaserch. At present your claim appears not to comply with any of these policies. it is too intractable and complex a position to verify as I alluded to earlier, no it's not, all you need to do is find a published source that supports your claim. This should be easy to do if you are correct. spare us the petty requests for verification - Wikipedia:Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's three content-guiding policies. The other two are Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in the main namespace. They should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should therefore try to familiarize themselves with all three. These three policies are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines, or by editors' consensus. Their policy pages may be edited only to better reflect practical explanation and application of these principles., from verifability policy. Don't you get it, if you can't verify it, it can't go in the article. If you don't like this then tough luck, this is policy. What I am asking is very easy, if you can't comply then I would suggest that it you contention that is wrong, and not the rest of the world. Please do not mock other contributors who are at least using their time constructively looking for verifiability. Several of your previous claims have been shown to be incorrect, maybe this is the real reason you do not like verifiability, because it means you have to prove your claims. Alun 10:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
The problem is, you see, is that it has been verified that the term is indeed used in the Republic. Your mere assertions carry no weight whatsoever. TharkunColl 05:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


Alun, what previous claims have I made that have been shown to be incorrect? Have you completely and utterly lost the plot or is this symbolic of your initial descent into paranoid delusion. I am aware of my Countrymen's views with regard to the term "british isles" and the fact that "british & Irish Isles" would be a more desirable reference for them, not to mention NPOV. Where has anyone verified that "british Isles" is accepted as a reference by my countrymen? Nowhere. A mickey-mouse ex-Minister commiting a faux-pas in a speech is no such qualifier so don't delude yourselves that it is. TharkunColl is obviously a political POV pusher so there is little value in debating rationally with him, I suggest he is best left ignored. Alun, you know nothing about my Countrymen's views on the matter so don't presume my contention is wrong. Let me refer you to a previous suggestion mentioned here, go to the Irish Wikipedian's Society Page, you may leave a message there about the contentiousness of the use of the term "british isles" and I am wholly confident that the vast majority of the several hundred members would echo my view on this term. However this may still not convince the bubble-dwelling begrudgers so continue wallowing.213.202.177.107 13:29, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Alun, what previous claims have I made that have been shown to be incorrect?
The claim that British Isles is universally avoided in Ireland proved to be incorrect. The claim that the government of the Republic of Ireland does not use or recognise the term has proved incorrect and the claim that British and Irish Isles is used in the good friday agreement was shown to be incorrect.Alun 15:52, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Have you completely and utterly lost the plot or is this symbolic of your initial descent into paranoid delusion.
Please do not descend into personal abuse, (see Wikipedia:No personal attacks Wikipedia:Etiquette and Wikipedia:Assume good faith). This is a direct breach of several important policies and could lead to you being blocked from editing. Neither does it in any way contribute in a constructive manner to your argument.Alun 15:52, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I am aware of my Countrymen's views with regard to the term "british isles" and the fact that "british & Irish Isles" would be a more desirable reference for them, not to mention NPOV.
You cannot possibly be aware of the views of every single one of your countrymen, this is an absurd claim. I wonder how many of your countrymen can even be bothered to think about this at all, let alone get so hot under the collar about such a trivial thing. I do not quite know in what context you are refering to NPOV. On wikipedia NPOV is simply a policy that states that all majority and all significant minority points of view should be given in an article, without giving favour to any specific one.Alun 15:52, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  • A mickey-mouse ex-Minister commiting a faux-pas in a speech is no such qualifier so don't delude yourselves that it is.
Your personal views about the politician in question are irrelevant. It directly shows that members of the government of the Republic of Ireland do in fact use the term British Isles it is a completelly acceptable source. You only don't like the source because it contradicts your POV. Alun 15:52, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  • TharkunColl is obviously a political POV pusher.
This statement equally applies to you. Alun 15:52, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Alun, you know nothing about my Countrymen's views on the matter so don't presume my contention is wrong.
I have never made any claim to know the views of Irish people on this issue, you are the only one here who is making this claim. Neither have I anywhere stated that you are wrong, I have been asking for you to back up your claims with verifiable sources, I have every right to do this.Alun 15:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Let me refer you to a previous suggestion mentioned here, go to the Irish Wikipedian's Society Page, you may leave a message there about the contentiousness of the use of the term "british isles" and I am wholly confident that the vast majority of the several hundred members would echo my view on this term.
Your views and those of the good people at Irish Wikipedian's Society Page do not represent reliable, citable sources, we cannot use them in a references section. We might as well start using a bloke told me down the pub as a reliable source in the references section if we are not going to stick to the verifiability policy. I have nowhere doubted that the term British Isles may be offensive to some (maybe even most) Irish people, all I have done is require that you follow the correct procedure with regard to the content policies. Always try to remember The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. I have never doubted that what you have said is true (though I tend to the view that most Irish people probably just don't care) for some Irish people. But that's not the point, verifiability is the point. Alun 15:52, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Citation

Refer to this which the Irish Examiner decided to included on its editorial page.http://archives.tcm.ie/irishexaminer/1998/07/01/opinion.htm 213.202.177.107 13:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

So here we have yet another nealogism proposed by some lone individual - shall we put it in the already overloaded alternative names section in the first paragraph? Here's some of my own that can also go in - "Islands of the North-Eastern Atlantic by Europe" (INEAE for short), "English, Scottish, Irish, Welsh, and Manx Isles" (ESIWMI for short), and "Islands of the United Kingdom and Crown Dependencies and the Republic of Ireland" (IUKCDRI for short). Surely you can see the problem hear? None of these terms actually exist as a genuine part of the language, and would engender blank stares from almost anyone in the world. In any case, none of this matters. That the Irish government uses the term 43 times on its website (or whatever the figure was) is proof that the term is indeed used in the Republic - even if some Irish citizens don't like it - and the fact that some don't like it is already mentioned in the first paragraph. Why is any further debate even necessary? TharkunColl 15:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


It's not a neologism, it is a non-political NPOV form of terminology for an obviously contentious reference. "british & Irish Isles" is plausible, simple and perfectly acceptable and now verified. What is your bloody-minded problem with it? Let go of your imperialist leanings. We are living in the twenty-first century. 194.125.57.56 15:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
It is a neologism (the bloke claims to have made it up), and your source makes no mention of the British and Irish Isles, it talks of "The GBI Lands" (GBI: Greater British and Irish).Alun 17:44, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
I got quite excited because I had thought that you had produced a good source. In some ways it is an useful source as it certainly verifies that there is some bad feeling about the term in the Republic of Ireland. The thing is that it is a letter, so it probably represents something like a comment article or an editorial. Obviously these can only be used to verify that some people in the Republic feel this way. Alun 16:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

A bloke told me down the pub

Don't laugh, this is actually true. The town where I live has a very large Irish population, and I am very friendly with many of them (yep, this really is a "some of my best friends are Irish" argument!). Over the years we have had many political, historical, and cultural discussions, and not once have any of them ever objected to the term British Isles. So you see, for every anecdotal Irish opinion that can be produced, I can produce an equal and opposite Irish opinion. That's why anecdotal evidence is so worthless. TharkunColl 16:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I quite agree, it's also why there is a verifiability policy. Alun 17:02, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Further to this 'evidence' from a "bloke down the pub", I am Irish. I have never objected to the use of the term 'British Isles'. --Mal 15:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
You asked for a published source and you go it, I didn't exactly trawl for anything, it was retrieved immediately. There is obviously no convincing some people of the offence this term causes in my State and at this stage I couldn't be arsed trying to debate rationally with political POV motivated bigots who exhibit no willingness for a compromise NPOV term. Stay inside your glasshouses, they suit ye and reflect your mentality. I and several others who have argued against the use of the reference "british Isles" will continue to change it on this article. It's a shame you haven't accepted the neutral term, nor the invitation to consult the Irisk Wikipedians to validate my view that is an unacceptable reference for the majority of my Countrymen. Your irrational childish petulant boorish persistence is all too evident in this debate. Let me suggest you try and invent a time-machine as it may serve as the only suitable vehicle for some fo you to beat the imperialist drum. 213.202.187.117 18:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Dear me, we are in a huff aren't we? Your source was fine for verifying that the term British Isles is offensive to some Irish people, and it is not a question of convincing some people, you seem to think that somehow the rules of wikipedia do not apply to you. Unfortunately your source makes no mention of your preferend alternative British and Irish Isles, so I fail to see how this constitutes verifiability, your source talks of "The GBI Lands" (GBI: Greater British and Irish). I wonder if you have actually read this source as you claim it verifies something it clearly does not. How can you claim to represent a consensus when there is no consensus in this debate. You have stunningly failed to prove your point, and now you are becoming unecessarily agressive.
  • no willingness for a compromise NPOV term.- What NPOV term? All of the terms used here represent a POV.Alun 20:06, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  • nor the invitation to consult the Irisk Wikipedians to validate my view.- See my post above. Your say so, or that of any amount of Irish people from wikipedia does not constitute verifiability. Remember The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Now you have provided some evidence that the term is not accepted by some people in the Republic, that's fine as far as it goes, but it amounts to an opinion expressed in a letter in a newspaper, it does not represent any sort of official policy of the government, neither does it claim to represent the point of view of all Irish people. Alun 20:06, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Your irrational childish petulant boorish persistence is all too evident in this debate.- Difficult to know how to comment on this one. But I think your words do you more harm than anything I could write. Maybe you should try to assume good faith. Alun 20:06, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
You really have made no effort ot be constructive in this debate. You seem to believe that everyone should just accept what you say as if it is some sort of divine truth. Sorry but wikipedia doesn't work like that.
You might want to look at this Government of Ireland site. I have done a search for British Isles, British and Irish Isles and British & Irish Isles, the results of all three may give you some idea as to why quite a lot of us require some evidence for your claims. [3][4][5].
I am seriously thinking of putting a request for mediation in about this. Please do not engage in a edit war, these are futile and you will be blocked if you break the three revert rule. Alun 20:06, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Alun, PLEASE do put in a request for mediation. This article has been hijacked by a load of nationalist mentalists. If they had their way it would be deleted or replaced with a page written in Irish. It's like reading the Andersonstown News, some of the guff I've seen on here the past few days! Most of us responsible editors now have our hands tied due to the 3RR.--feline1 09:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, your sources are worthless above. All you did was use an Irish govt search engine. The links it threw up aren't Irish government sources. Discover Northern Ireland is a UK source. The only one that is actually an Irish state one, OSI, uses 'Ireland and the BI' which is standard state language. It presumes that Ireland is not part of the BI hence it quotes it separately alongside BI. I do wish people would stop using search engines as proof of anything. Most of what is on the net is bullshit. Please quote professional sources, not net rubbish. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 15:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

In that case please provide sources, at least we were trying. You may well be right, but you have not actually provided any proper sources yourself have you? Alun 16:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually these aren't sources, the search engine was simply used to see how often the term British and Irish Isles was found, even using an Irish Government search engine. The results speak for themselves. If there is a claim that this is the normal terminology used for by the Irish state, then one would have expected it to have produces more Irish government hits rather than some that you yourself admit actually come form the North. Alun 16:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Request for help on the Lough Neagh article

Various editors including myself have been trying to keep the terminology used there consistent with this British Isles article, however are encountering repeated vandalism from anonymous user at 62.77.181.11 . Any editorial assistence would be appreciated.--feline1 13:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Reference

The reference being used (http://archives.tcm.ie/irishexaminer/1998/07/01/opinion.htm) to support the use of the other terms seems against the purpose to me. It reads to me that the writer of the article is actually against using any name other than British Isles and is actually deriding those who suggest alternate names or think that the geographical term is inappropriate. The article uses none of the terms that some people seem to be using it to support the idea of other names and seems to state that the population of the Republic of Ireland (this is the opinion in the letter, not my opinion) should mature to separate political history from geography. It seems odd to me that this letter is being used (and it is only a letter to an editor and thus not a source of verification under Wikipedia guidelines anyway) to put forward that for the population of the Republic of Ireland that the term British Isles is actually quite acceptable and doesn't carry political baggage. Ben W Bell talk 17:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

And the writer refers to the term being used to describe a socio-economic unit. This article, on the other hand, goes overboard to state that the term British Isles is being used only in a geographical sense. The author's suggestion, The GBI Lands, is, of course, erroneous as it only refers to Great Britain and Ireland, would exclude (in no particular order) the Isle of Man, Anglesey, Jura, the Isle of Wight, etc. I doubt that any socio-economic unit term is needed in any case - we are either grouped in with the rest of Northern Europe or remain two seperate entities in the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom (the IoM and other non-UK islands usually being encompassed in the latter by name if not fact). Bazza 17:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
The reference is not being used to support the use of other terms, it is being used to support the statement "the term British Isles is sometimes seen as contentious in the Republic of Ireland". The fact that the author of the letter himself has no problem with the term I would have thought adds more weight to his opinion that "seemingly most" people in Ireland object to it. Rhion 17:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
It is, however, just one person's opinion. For evidence that the term British Isles is indeed used in the Republic, please refer to all the links to the Irish government website quoted earlier. TharkunColl 17:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree that it is just one person's opinion, but the letter does state that British Isles is regarded by seemingly most Irish people as offensive and also the term British Isles is almost taboo among those of Irish nationality. I think it is a good enough source because it is being used to support the claim that British Isles is considered offensive to some in the Republic of Ireland, here we have a published letter that expresses the same opinion. Further the editor of the Examiner must have considered the letter's contention an accurate enough estimation of sentiment of some people in the Republic of Ireland, or it would not have been published. When it comes to verifying a POV then opinion pieces and editorials are fine, as long as they are presented as opinion rather than definative. Alun 11:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
It is not good practice to ascribe the POV to people living within a particular country (Rep. of Ireland). The political POV in question is most commonly known as Irish Nationalism and is not held exclusively by every resident of the Rep. of Ireland, moreover it is held by many people outside of Rep.of Ireland.--feline1 11:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
In my edit the article did not state that the POV is held exclusively by every resident of the Rep. of Ireland it stated that the term British Isles is sometimes seen as contentious in the Republic of Ireland.[6] How can you show/prove/verify that it is only Irish nationalists that hold this POV? There may be many Irish people who are not nationalists who dislike the term. The letter supports the assertion that, to some people in the RoI the term British Isles is offensive, the letter does not support the assertion that it is exclusively nationalists that are offended. Alun 11:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Nah, I think you're being daft. The term Irish Nationalism is BY DEFINATION (see its wikipedia article) a political POV, of which finding the term "British Isles" irksome is likely to be a symptom. To some random wiki reader from the other side of the world, a link to the Irish Nationalism article there will quickly put them in the picture as to why these folk may object to the term "British Isles". Conversely, just saying that some people in the country "Rep. of Ireland" object to it (and not mentioning the fact that people in other countries object to it) is in complete and doesn't immediately explain the reason for the objection.--feline1 12:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
It now reads For political reasons, the term British Isles is seen as contentious by some in the Republic of Ireland,[1] even though it describes a geographical and ecological region and not a political entity.. We know that some people don't like the term. We don't know that it is for political reasons, nor do we know that there are not people outside the Republic of Ireland who also hold that view. Yet the statement can be read to mean both of these. I suggest Some people consider the term British Isles a contentious political name[1], when it simply describes a geographical and ecological region. The reference is a good one, showing an example of this. Bazza 12:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh come on, we do know that people generally dislike the term for "political reasons" - don't be obtuse! :) What we are trying to do is express this in a *verifiable* way, in harmony with wikipedia's policies. Since wikipedia already has an entire article on Irish Nationalism, I think we can surely see it as logical that sentiments broadly falling under the umbrella description of "irish nationalism" exist, not just in Rep. of Ireland but elsewhere (eg in Northern Ireland, yes?) and that dislike of the term "British Isles" would be generally well described as falling under that political POV.--feline1 12:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
It's not clear who you are replying to. Bazza 12:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
The letter being used for verifying the assertion makes specific claims for people from Ireland, and also makes reference to the extent of this feeling by people of Irish nationality: I am referring to what is regarded by seemingly most Irish people as offensive.....the term British Isles is almost taboo among those of Irish nationality. It makes no mention of political considerations, though I think it is apparent that this is a political POV. The letter makes no mention of these people being exclusively nationalists, indeed the claims that the term is offensive to most Irish people and taboo among those of Irish nationality indicates that the feeling is rather widespread, rather than being restricted to a small subset of nationalists. If you want to claim that this is due to politics, then I think this is reasonable, if you want to claim that this view is only held by nationalists then I would suggest that the source does not support this claim. If you want to make this claim then provide a source that supports it Alun 13:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Please do not engage in petty edit wars feline1, engage in constructive debate on the talk page. Alun 13:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Alun, I firmly believe that if you read wikipedia's own Irish Nationalism article, which seems rather well written and extensive to me, you will see that it contains all the info and background anyone would need to understand how a tendancy to object to the use of the term "British Isles" would best be broadly described as an "Irish Nationalist" POV. That someone has but a "needs citation" marker against a wikilink this article is just silly, and a telling sign at how daft this edit war is becoming. Fer goodnessakes, explicitly choosing to identify oneself as being of "Irish nationality" or part of "the Irish people" (when one might be living in london, Boston, or New Zealand) *is* a political POV. I firmly believe that the most sensible, straightforward way for this article to start off is to basically say "The British Isles is the geographical name for a group of islands... some people however object to this name, a POV falling under the umbrella of Irish Nationalism". That way, some innocent reader from Outer Mongolia or Paraguay and get the basic geographical info they need, and if they want to understand and explore why there's bickering over the choice of name, they can go and read the extensive Irish Nationalism article and find out about the 2 millenia of history which has shaped these attitudes. Anyone with half a braincell who reads that article will surely grasp why the term "British Isles" would perhaps irk someone with the irish nationalist POV.--feline1 14:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I have changed the opening line from '...are...' to '...is a term traditionally used to describe...' as it seems to me - and I hope to most objective people - that this is as factual as we can get with a general consensus! To say 'are' is to deny that there is any significant dispute over the term, which is clearly not correct. I have also removed the reference to 'Irish Nationalists', as this term only describes Republicans OUTSIDE the Irish Republic. A citizen of the Irish Republic isn't a 'Nationalist'; he/she is a citizen of Ireland/the Irish Republic! To include the significant (and often bitter) contention over the 'British Isles' term in Northern Ireland (not part of the Republic), I have just left 'Ireland' in as a whole. User: PConlon, 15:54, 4 July 2006.

ARRRGH /takes deep breath/ - PConlon, the term "Irish Nationalists" does NOT only describe people outside the Irish Republic (why not read the Irish Nationalism article?) - it describes people who ascribe to a certain political POV, not who live in a particular country. Having that POV is not automatically synonymous with living (or not living) in the Rep. of Ireland (how many Polish immigrant workers in Ireland do you think care less about this? How many republican activists in Boston USA do care?) But I have reached by revert limit for today so I can't edit the damn thing any further.--feline1 15:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Where I think you are wrong feline1 is that you claim that this source verifies your claim about Irish nationalism. This source does not provide verifiability for this claim as it makes no reference to any form of nationalism. A source can only provide verifiability for that which it states. I am not in a position to contradict your claim that only Irish nationalists are of this opinion (I don't know), neither am I in a position to contradict PConlon when he states that no citizen of the republic is a nationalists in the sense that it is used in Northern Ireland (I don't know), but it does seem to me that both of these contentions are based on your respective POVs and cannot be used in the article untill they are verified. What I want to do is make a statement in the article that is categorically supported by the source and is categorically neutral. To that effect I think it is reasonable to state what the source states; that the term British Isles is offensive to many (or possibly most) Irish nationals (this produces neutrality because if it were not included then the reader would be left with the impression that British Isles is accepted everywhere); but also that British Isles is the generally accepted form of words. It seems to me that your reason for including Irish nationalists is little more than an attempt to discredit the POV by implying that only extremists hold this view, the source clearly does not make this claim. The wikipedia article on Irish nationalism cannot constitute a source as wikipedia articles cannot be used to verify each other, or all sorts of nonsense could be included in the encyclopedia. Alun 15:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Alun, "Irish Nationalism" *IS* a term used to describe a particular POV. It is meaningless to argue, as you are doing, that "we cannot verify that all people who are Irish Nationalists espouse an Irish Nationalist point of view". They do, by definition! This is what the term means, and there's a whole big wiki article to explain it to you. Your reasoning here is like saying "we cannot verify that all red things are, indeed, red". They are! If they weren't red, we'd call them a different colour, by definition. What I have been attempting with the phrasing of the article I gave (now since reverted) is that "SOME PEOPLE" (wherever they may live) tend to take offence at the term "British Isles", and that this tendency would be a POV which falls under the umbrella "Irish Nationalism" (which the interested reader can then go and check up on via the linked article) (NB, I am not saying that ALL people who claim to be Irish Nationalists find the term offensive). It is ludricous and indeed racist to try and purport that all people living in any country all share the exact same dislike of a phrase. True, there will tend to be more people with an Irish Nationalist POV in Rep of Ireland than anywhere else, but this is simple and obvious, particularly if you read the Irish Nationalism article.--feline1 16:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

If you are unhappy with my form of words then you should see this edit by User:Jtdirl, this makes outrageous claims that the sorce really does not support. It also uses a footnote as a source that includes claims made later in the article regarding Mikhail Gorbachev and Nancy Reagan that have never been verified. So the edit uses unverified material from the article to try to verify other material in the article, unbelievable. Alun 16:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know which is more laughable: your arrogance or your ignorance. Gorbachev on a visit to Ireland asked then taoiseach Charles Haughey how come Ireland had a president when the Queen was head of state. Haughey told him that the Queen was not head of state. His response, as recorded in biographies and in contemporary newspaper reports, was "So why then are you in the British Isles?" Haughey told him bluntly that Ireland isn't. Nancy Reagan made a similar fax pas in 1984, again blaming the confusion on the term British Isles. The term is now banned from Irish school books and from Irish state publications and the Irish state makes it quite clear that Ireland is not part of the British Isles. Sir John Biggs-Davison, a Tory MP recommended an alternative term, Islands of the North Atlantic which is now used widely in some contexts. Another alternative, Anglo-Celtic Isles is now used increasingly in academia. You can crusade all you want to push the myth that the British Isles is universally used. The fact is it isn't. Ireland doesn't use it. Scottish Nationalists avoid using it. Welsh Nationalists want it dropped. It is a controversial term which even Blair's government is fazing out, viewing it as outdated and offensive to many throughout the so-called British Isles. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 17:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

You don't have to be offensive. I am not and never have stated that what you claim is incorrect. What I am requesting is that you verify all of your assertions from published sources, not only is this the correct procedure on wikipedia articles but any editor has the right to demand that edits be properly verified. I have been looking for verifiability for some of the claims and have failed, I may well be looking in the wrong places. What I find baffling is that it should be easy to verify all of these claims. They should be able to be verified by going to the Irish government's website, or by simply looking in an Irish school geography text book. Given that you state that these terms are so ubiquitous why don't you simply add relevant references to the article, instead of insulting me and accusing me of things I have not said and of crusade all you want to push the myth that the British Isles is universally used? You have obviously not read all of this talk page or you would know that I really don't care what the Islands are called, I am currently of the opinion that they should be called The Islands Inhabited by Intransigent Aggressive Stubborn Bastards with nothing better to do than Whinge and Complain about Relatively Unimportant Things, this applies equally to the people living on all of the islands. You can find sources for these claims as you are obviously much more au fait with where to find them than I am, this would be much more effective than edit waring:
  • Gorbachev on a visit to Ireland asked then taoiseach Charles Haughey how come Ireland had a president when the Queen was head of state. Haughey told him that the Queen was not head of state. His response, as recorded in biographies and in contemporary newspaper reports, was "So why then are you in the British Isles?" Haughey told him bluntly that Ireland isn't.
  • Nancy Reagan made a similar fax pas in 1984, again blaming the confusion on the term British Isles.
  • The term is now banned from Irish school books and from Irish state publications and the Irish state makes it quite clear that Ireland is not part of the British Isles.
  • Sir John Biggs-Davison, a Tory MP recommended an alternative term, Islands of the North Atlantic which is now used widely in some contexts.
  • The term British and Irish Isles is used in the Goof Friday Agreement.

Alun 17:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, another COMPLETELY non-partisan comment from someone with no political leanings at all. /rollseyes/ If the term "British Isles" is not commonly used around the word, how come the president of the USSSR was using it? and the wife of the US president? You just gave two examples of it being used! The fact that these two people were farcically ignorant of what the term they were using MEANT is all the more reason for having a good wikipedia article about it. The article is primarily about what the term MEANS - a geographical term. --feline1 17:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Your bias is hilarious. They did not think it a geographic term. Few people do which is why the Irish don't use it, Scottish Nationalists want it banned and replaced, Welsh Nationalists call it an embarrassment. Even England's National Front won't use it. States won't use it. Academics are fazing it out. Blair wants it fazed out. Tories like the late Sir John Biggs-Davison proposed alternatives. British diplomats are told to avoid using it. Major media outlets recommend it not be used. International library systems now increasingly use British Isles/Anglo-Celtic Isles. Academics use Anglo-Celtic Isles increasingly. You can delude yourself all you want. The fact remains that it is a geopolitical term that is being fazed out. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 17:26, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Your spelling is odd. A search shows that the term is frequently used in Ireland, if mainly in NI. The enthusiasm of nationalists for censorship says more about them than it does about normal usage. ..dave souza, talk 17:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't know where you are getting your information; the term is not universally used. Perhaps you should trying using more reliable sources than Google searches. A search demonstrates that the term is frequently used, not that it is universally used. The term is becoming an anachronism, and has been rejected in Ireland for years. 172 | Talk 18:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • The term is becoming an anachronism, and has been rejected in Ireland for years- Please provide verifiability for this claim. Alun 18:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Jtdirl is a professional historian specialized in Ireland. Refer to his comments. 172 | Talk 19:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Laughable paranoia. Your comment says more about you than anyone else. According to [[7]]CAIN, which is not Nationalist

'British Isles' This was a term used to refer to the group of islands off the north-west coast of Europe comprising Britain, Ireland, and adjacent smaller islands. The term is still widely used in Northern Ireland and Britain. With the independence of the Republic of Ireland the term is no longer strictly accurate and is considered derogatory by some. A more correct term would be the 'British and Irish Isles'.

"British and Irish Isles", "Anglo-Celtic Isles" or "Islands of the North Atlantic" have been used at various times by the BBC, ABC, the Prince of Wales, the US State Department, the Foreign Ministry of the Federal Republic of Germany, Pope John Paul II, academics like Norman Davies, Unionists like Sir John Biggs-Davison, and many others. So much for your wacky theory about it all being some sort of Nationalist conspiracy. The only people doing any censoring are people like you who don't like the fact that there are problems with the so-called "British Isles" being used as the supposedly definitive name of the geopolitical area. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 19:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate that you're terribly fazed about the term, but it was you who reported nationalists wanting it banned. ...dave souza, talk 19:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe, while you are at it, you could provide verification for the claim that "British Isles" is exclusively a geographic term with no political meaning applied to it. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 19:26, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Where did I say exclusively? ..dave souza, talk 19:29, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

British Isles vs archipelago in caption

User:Pconlon has changed most instances of British Isles to archipelago or other neutral terms. On the whole it has not affected the flow of the article, apart from the caption for the satellite photo which is now not fully descriptive. I think it should be and have restored the British Isles wording for that part of the article only. Bazza 18:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Bazza, how about inserting 'the island group traditionally known as' into that caption? I think this wording is more neutral. Haven't made any change...would be interested in your thoughts. Best regards. User PConlon, 22:40, 4 July 2006

Archipelago?

The term "archipelago" is never used to refer to the British Isles. At has a wholly different conotation. I have rephrased the first line accordingly. TharkunColl 22:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

If the description of Archipelago is correct, then it's an appropriate word to use. I appreciate, however, variations in wording through the article to make it a more satisfying read, and agree that island group (which surprised me by redirecting to archipelago anyway!) is better in the introduction. Bazza 08:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
I like the term island group as well, though I agree there is nothing incorrect about archipellago, which just means island group anyway. Alun 09:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Historical revisionism

To suggest that the term British Isles does not apply to the Republic of Ireland amounts to historical revisionism. The people of these islands were known as British (though in prior form) and the islands themselves as the British Isles (again in prior linguistic form) for around a couple of thousand years. That a nation state has existed for the last thousand years is a separate issue and one that I believe confuses many people with regard to this term. One user pointed out that the people of the Republic of Ireland should perhaps be annoyed by the misappropriation of the term British Isles, rather than annoyed or "offended" by its use today. This misappropriation exists mostly amongst some Irish nationalists, who have confused the nationality of a people with the ancient label given to all the people of these islands. Thus it is not offence, but rather confusion and misunderstanding that appears to have ensued. --Mal 16:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Since use of this term is tendentious, I think the intro ought to give its first OED citation - I'd guess it's post-Union (England-Scotland). Certainly, offence is taken by many in Ireland to the inclusion of the island of Ireland (all 32 chocolates in the box). I remember during the pre-Good Friday agreement negotiations Albert Reynolds was lambasted in the press when he came out of a meeting with John Major and referred to Britain as "the mainland". Most Irish people just have an 'eyes-to-heaven' moment when they come across heavy-handed English (not Welsh or Scots) insistence on the term. Labelling the indigenous peoples of these islands is always a problem - Edmund Spenser pretended for political purposes to be convinced the Irish were actually Scythians - so, to extend Mal's logic, these are the Scythian Isles (not to be confused with the Scillys, which should be an independent republic and part of NAFTA, with their own secret banking system for criminals and Texan tax-cheats). In-ger-lund!!!!--Shtove 22:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
OED citations as follows. Note that the 1621 reference predates the 1707 Acts of Union by nearly a century. British, a. (n.) SECOND EDITION 1989 ... c. British Isles: a geographical term for the islands comprising Great Britain and Ireland with all their offshore islands including the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands (see ISLE n. 1). 1621 HEYLIN Microcosmus 243 (page-heading) The Brittish Isles. 1792 A. YOUNG Trav. France II. 343 A territory, naturally so inconsiderable as the British isles, on comparison with France. 1888 A. J. JUKES-BROWNE Building of Brit. Isles 1 There have been many different arrangements of land and sea over the area where the British Isles now stand. 1916 G. B. SHAW Androcles & Lion Pref. p. li, Practically all the white inhabitants of the British Isles and the North American continent. 1960 C. DAY LEWIS Buried Day ii. 32 He was for ever buying, selling or exchanging books, many of them worthless, with correspondents all over the British Isles. Vashti 23:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Ha ha - got ya! I didn't specify whether I was referring to the legislative union or the union of crowns in 1603. In fact, this proves the point that the term is tendentious: it was Robert Cecil who first used the term Britain in a political sense, while he was setting up James VI of Scotland to succeed the ailing Elizabeth I of England; upon his coronation James became the 1st of England and the 1st of Ireland. In the years following, the Union Jack was used for the first time. Since Ireland is not Britain, British Isles is a political term, and one which no longer has validity, as most of Ireland is not under British rule. QED. Mebyon kernow!!--Shtove 13:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Congratulations, you must be very proud of yourself. Next time you ask for a reference please mention that you're trolling and save us all a lot of time. Vashti 15:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Far be it from me to impugn the logic of our Cornish friend Shtove here, but the very existence of the term "Great Britian", meaning literally "largest of the British islands", renders his statement a load of auld ballex. NEXT WEEK ON TROLLWATCH: Brittany in France declairs war on the UK, due to their offensive use of the term "Britain". "This political imperialism must end!" said a man with onions round his neck--feline1 15:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
No, I'm from the Scillys. I wasn't trolling. Is lightness of tone unwelcome? The OED def asserts that it's a geographical term; the history suggests it's a political term. Put both in to the intro.--Shtove 16:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
My apologies for my tone; I'm a little tired of playing games regarding this subject, and especially of being taken for some kind of English imperialist! Sourcing this is likely to be interesting; I don't think most people will accept Irish nationalist sources as being unbiased and any kind of original research we do to demonstrate it is likely to be, well ... It might be interesting to see what some foreign geography textbooks and atlases have to say, especially those in countries that could be considered neutral. Myself, I've always considered "British Isles" to be a neutral term, paralleled with "Lesser Britain" (Brittany). Now, "British" applied to people, on the other hand ... Vashti 18:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Understood - the Talk:Adolf Hitler playground is a bit quiet at the moment, so I had to have an outlet. I take British Isles purely as a political term, others insist that it's historical to the point of defining ethnicity (including Ireland), and you seem to say it's merely geographical. As far as I can tell the European WP counterpart articles use the term British, but then they're probably just copying this article. The problem is to do with the intro, which should be concise and balanced, but the term is just so loaded. The Neutrality section below is the best place to tease it out, and it looks as if progress is being made.--Shtove 18:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Shtove: You're confusing logic with fact. (Ref: Labelling the indigenous peoples of these islands is always a problem - Edmund Spenser pretended for political purposes to be convinced the Irish were actually Scythians - so, to extend Mal's logic, these are the Scythian Isles )
You're confusing nationality with ethnicity, which was the point I was making in my first comment in this section, ironically. (Ref: Since Ireland is not Britain, British Isles is a political term, and one which no longer has validity, as most of Ireland is not under British rule) --Mal 21:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

British Isles not coterminous with the UK

Even when the UK included all of Ireland. The Isle of Man was never part of the UK. TharkunColl 23:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

From what I can find, coterminous can mean having a shared boundary: thus NI and RoI are coterminous in that sense. The old Scottish building standards required notice to "conterminous proprietors", a legal way of saying neighbours. ..dave souza, talk 20:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

political POV editing has wrecked the balance of the article

The intro of the article now reads like some narco-syndicalist diatribe about how offensive the term is, and is completely out-of-proportion to the rest of the article, much of which just deals straightforwardly with geography. The is a section in the article dedicated to the terms "controversial" nature, but the bloody intro now has more material about that than the subsection! It would be nice is some responsible editors who were more interested in a good article that would make sense to a worldwide audience, rather than indulging in asinine POV bickering which most people outside the British Isle will think is ridiculous, could re-edit the material into a better shape.--feline1 09:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The whole article has been turned into a nationalist rant. I also notice how the editors have "fogotten" to include quotes from Irish government ministers using the term British Isles in speeches. TharkunColl 09:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
There is nothing natural about geography; all geographical labels are political constructs. The label "British Isles" is a political creation which has served, and continues to serve, clear political agendas. There is nothing "straightforward" about geographical labels and I suggest that User:feline1 and User:TharkunColl read up on Political geography and Imagined geographies. --Damac 09:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Quite right, Damac, and to prove your point, I suggest you take a long long walk from Dublin to Cardiff, just to demonstrate the arbitrary political nature of islands, and show us all that the Irish Sea is nothing more that a political conspiracy to defraud the Welsh.--feline1 09:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
If it is a political conspiracy, maybe you should ask who started it. The Irish did not come up with the term "Irish Sea". The original name for the sea in the Irish and Scottish languages was "An Mhuir Mheann" (the middle sea"), which is still in use.--Damac 10:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, and I'm sure you'll agree that the massive decline in fluency in the Irish language since 1922 has been a evil orchestrated conspiracy by crypto-unionist schoolchildren, all failing their exams and not doing their homeworks in a concerted attempt to suppress Irish identiy. Meanwhile I'm off to vandalize (whoops, sorry! "remove political bias from") the Irish Sea article, which should immediately be renamed the Welsh Sea. I mean, frankly, WHAT ABOUT MY HUMAN RIGHTS?? etc etc --feline1 10:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Off with you. I'll be very interested to see what you can contribute to that article. --Damac 10:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Nothing whatsoever beyond satirical trollery. However, there's a specific wikipedia guideline against satirical editing to make a point, so in my quest to retain the moral highground, I must confine my writing's to that articles talk page :-p If only the sectarian nitwits on *this* article would do the same.--feline1 10:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
"Sectarian" - LOL. Not only are wikipedia guidelines against satirical editing, but they also prohibit the use of insults. I'll not respond in kind.--Damac 10:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
"Yeah but themmuns started it, so they did" etc etc. --feline1 10:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
What about that quote from the Irish minister using the term British Isles? Why don't you include it? TharkunColl 10:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Which one? I certainly didn't delete and it wasn't on the page when I became involved (yesterday). I'd be very interested to see it and when it was made. Your habit of blanking pages back to your previous edit and ignoring countless contributions in the process has made it extremely difficult to follow who deleted what.--Damac 10:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

To quote what I said earlier on this talk page: The term is used on the official Irish government website no less. Here's an example, from a speech made by Síle de Valera, Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands, on 31/3/2002, when opening the Clare Drama Festival in Scarriff Community College:

"I want to welcome you all to this the 55th Clare Drama Festival. A celebration of the great and good of Irish theatre mixed with the support and enthusiasm of the local community. I have been well informed that although there may be older festivals, none in the British Isles can boast 54 in a row. Until the year 2000 Clare Drama Festival enjoyed an unbroken run of 54 years and although last year was cancelled due to the Foot and Mouth scare this year the festival is back on track and greeted with even more excitement because of the absence. This year the Festival will run for eight nights, from tonight right through to next Sunday, the seventh of April." [8]

If a government figure as concerned with Irish arts and heritage as the Minister for Arts and Heritage can use it without batting an eyelid, then what's all the fuss about? TharkunColl 10:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

By all means include it, but make sure you mention that in 2005 the Minister for Foreign Affairs said it is not Irish government policy to use it. British ministers and royalty in the past have come out with all sorts of offensive statements, offending many people, but I certainly would never take those as being representative of general opinion or official policy. --Damac 10:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Didn't stop you quoting Lloyd George though, in what was obviously a personal remark and not official policy. It may not be Irish government policy to use it, but that doesn't stop the phrase existing as part of the English language. That it exists is proved by Nancy Reagan and Gorby, even if they misunderstood its significance. And where is your evidence that the RNLI and Irish Lights remained single institutions because of administrative oversight? Surely they remained single bodies because it was more sensible to keep tham that way. TharkunColl 10:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
You must be mistaking me for somebody else as none of the above has anything to do with any of my edits.--Damac 10:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Quite possibly - so much junk has been added to the article in the past day that I lose track of it. The whole thing has turned into a warped political rant and needs serious attention. TharkunColl 10:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Suggested way forward

I've been contributing to the physical geography aspects of this article in the past, but can do nothing to improve it at the moment because of the bickering and unilateral editing being done on the introduction. I expect I'm not the only one in this boat. Before replacing entire swathes of text with their own point of view, users might care to examine this talk page and previous versions of the article first — they would then see that there have been discussions and agreements on how best to accommodate the various views. My own suggestion for bringing back some normality is that (a) this article should remain British Isles as that is a widely recognised term for those not familiar with the political niceties involved; (b) the introduction should be just that — a short description of what follows; (c) that this article be confined to facts on geography and history; (d) the article links to a new article on British Isles terminology conflict or whatever name people choose so that the discussion on the contention can go on in detail elsewhere (other articles suffering the same sort of conflict could also link to it); and (e) that new articles of alternative names are created which redirect to this one. That way Wikipedia can have the best of both worlds — a fine article on the set of islands some of us live on and a well-researched article on why its most common name is a contentious issue. I hope to get some considered feedback on this, rather than the down-your-throat reactions there have been to some other postings on this page. Bazza 11:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I think I agree– see also Category:Geographical naming disputes.--Pharos 11:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, remove all the political statements to a separate article. TharkunColl 11:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree too. The editors who have been causing this edit war have only been interested in pushing their political POV and I imagine have not even read beyond the article's intro, where there's plenty of nice neutral info on geography etc. Keep the intro short, just a few lines, including a link to a "British Isles terminology conflict" article (is there not one of those already?)--feline1 11:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion the dispute should be mentioned in a proportionate way, and as a first step I've edited the intro to reflect this. As the size of the article may be getting out of hand there's a case for a main article covering the controversy, but in my view there should still be a mention of it in the intro and a (brief) section which would link to such a main article. ..dave souza, talk 11:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The article is not ABOUT the name, it is about the ISLES themselves. The already is an article called British_Isles_terminology. Can we not for the love of god just direct the ranters there and let this article just get on with talking about the highest mountains and what species of wading birds there are etc etc--feline1 11:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
You STILL don't get it. There isn't even agreement about what the Isles are and what it contains. You can try to push your agenda all you want, but it will not stop users from reverting your POV-pushing everytime, as long as it takes, indefinitely. The issue isn't the name. It is what places are in the Isles. Even a British prime minister believed that Ireland was not part of it. Ireland believes it isn't part of it. Others agree. And the fact that there is not agreement is not to be buried by your agenda-driven POV pushing. Users will be correcting errors every time they are added in by you, without exception, indefinitely. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 12:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
No need to shout. Who are you responding to? Bazza 12:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I think he's responding to me. He is of course completely wrong in what he says. The article British Isles is about the geography, history, etc etc, of {the islands Great Britian, Ireland, Isle of Man, Hebridies, Orkneys, Shetlands, and dozens of other smaller bits of rock}. There is a separate aricle called British_Isles_terminology which contains lots of info on the various geographical and political names used within these islands, including why some with an anti-UK POV dislike the term "British Isles". The British_Isles_terminology article is the place for exhaustive exploration of that particular controversy; instead this British Isles article is currently being derailed by an excess of material about it. Personally I by now find it impossible to assume good faith in Jtldirl's edits. His naked political bias and POV is wholly objectionable and totally at odds with wikipedia's ethos.--feline1 12:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
The only thing "wholly objectionable" is the determination of a handful of users to create a false definition to push their agenda, namely that the term is exclusively geographic (if it was, then why does the article contain a section about the "history" of the "British Isles"?) and their attempts to ensure that the fact that their edits are not supported by verificable facts is kept quiet. Many users have been unhappy for a long time with the agenda-pushing they have been engaging in. At this stage that agenda pushing is going to be challenged, every time. They have shown no interest whatsoever in objectivity or balance. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 13:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Jtdirl, the article contains a section on the "history" of the people who have lived in {the islands of Great Britain, Ireland, Isle of Man, etc etc etc} BECAUSE the history of the islands involves a continual migration and exchange of human interaction across the "Irish" sea over the past few millenia. It therefore makes sense to consider it all in once place. By the way thanks for deleting my comment from your talk page. Seems you'd be embarrassed to let too many people know about what others think of your editing.--feline1 13:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately the likes of Souza and in particular TharkunColl don't seem to grasp that their edits are factually wrong. But then TharkunColl's contributions are of the sort where else he deletes any mention of the fact that the biggest lake in Ireland is in Ireland. He has an "issue" about Ireland. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 12:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I am still keen to see an article about the entire group of islands off the northwest of Europe return to some normality, so it would be nice if all involved, whatever their stance, could at least pause for thought or talk rather immediately reverting or substantially changing what's in the article. British Isles (terminology) seems to do a good job of explaining the various components and explores the contention over naming and the isles' components and might be a good place to link to for a main article on the issues people seem to take exception to. (Quite a while ago I studied Physical Geography as opposed to Human Geography — we always maintained that life would be much simpler if Human lot weren't around to muddy the waters. :-) ) Bazza 13:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I've also just read Alternative names for Northern Ireland, which is a fine example of an objective description of the various opinions on that subject. Can we to the same for a Alternative names for the British Isles? Bazza 13:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

It is a fair point. It is however important to mention in the main article that there are divisive issues. I get the impression here that some users (and they seem to edit a series of articles to delete or downplay mentions of Ireland) want any mention of problems to be sidelined in a secondary article rather than in the main one, so that when readers look up British Isles they see an article that whitewashes any difficulties. We wouldn't, for example, sideline all criticism of George Bush to a separate article and leave only positive comments in the main Bush article. The issue is more than mere terminology. It is something as basic as just what are the British Isles?. Contrary to some people's edits here, there is no agreement on what the islands are (exclusively geographic, geopolitical, historic, etc) much less who is in and who is out. Past edits here in the last few months did a good (though false) job of pretending that there are no disputes over what the term means and who it covers. Eventually the agenda-pushing here got too much and users who had avoided this article felt they had no choice but to intervene to tone down the rampant bias and agenda-pushing of some users, notably the likes of TharkunCall, whose antics elsewhere has seen him try to delete the fact that the biggest lake on the island of Ireland is . . . um on the island of Ireland (true to form he wanted it stated simply that it was on the British Isles!!!) and try to rearrange the article on Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, again to push his personal agenda. (His edits on both were reverted by other people.)

The basic problem is that while Alternative names for Northern Ireland could work because there was no dispute over what Northern Ireland was, merely over its name, on British Isles the dispute is not over name alone, but over what is it? Who is in it? Who isn't? Those questions can't be left out of the main question, however much some individuals, for their own agenda reasons, might wish them to be. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 13:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

JtdIRL, you are engaging in semantic absurdity. This article *IS* (or at least was) about the islands {Great Britain, Ireland, Isle of Man, etc etc}. It DOES consider elements of their collective geography and human history, because that is a convenient pedagogic delineation. No-one prior to yourself has suggested that it should not discuss these things. You have now moved beyond quibbling over the collective name used to describe all these islands, to somehow being averse to seeing anythin g on the island of Ireland discussed on the same page as things to do with the island of Great Britain et al. This is just completely ahine on your part.--feline1 13:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Surely it would just be confusing to have an Alternative names for the British Isles article. For a start, it's not the sort of thing a user is likely to type into the search box. Moreover, all the material there already is in or belongs to the existing British Isles (terminology) article.--feline1 13:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
British Isles (terminology) is already a substantial article. Looking at the amount people have to say about what to call the group of islands which British Isles talks about, I suspect there will be enough to warrant a separate Alternative names for the British Isles. That doesn't preclude an overall discussion in (terminology) with the customary "Main article" link to a more in-depth text. Typing into a search box is probably not the most common way people get onto a page —- linking from other articles to get an explanation of something is, I suspect.Bazza 13:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually, Bazza, I agree with you. Also this way hopefully jtdIRL can then go off an edit Alternative names for the British Isles to his heart's content, and leave the rest of us in peace to tend to the British Isles article.--feline1 13:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I would hope that you will both contribute to both articles: the subjects are obviously of interest — as long as you keep to Wikipedia's principles of NPOV and verification where needed, then there's unlikely to be any problem? Bazza 13:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Well I am waiting for jtdIRL to start objecting to the name "Great Britain", since this name has the literal meaning "largest of the British islands". No doubt he'll be screaming that this implication is unacceptable, and the name must be changed to just "Britain". --feline1 13:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


I and the others certainly will be editing this article all the time. Thank you for your constructive comments, Bazza. They are appreciated. (Re Feline's stupid comment above: I'll treat it with the contempt it deserves.) FearÉIREANN\(caint) 13:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
You don't think the name "Great Britain" has the literal meaning "largest of the British islands", then? --feline1 13:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Is there mischief here which might be better on your individual talk page(s) — it's making it hard to follow the discussion about this talk page's article. Bazza 13:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Possibly, but then jtdIRL deleted my comments from his talk page as he was embarrassed by the reaction to his editing. Anyways I am merely trying to get him to accept a point of semantic logic on what a name means, which is precisely cruical to the issue. The names "British Isles" and "Great Britain" are logically linked. One makes no sense without the other. It is not logically possible to refuse to accept "British Isles" as a geographical term and yet maintain "Great Britain" is fine.--feline1 13:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
It didn't really help. Bazza 13:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually I removed your comments from my talk page because I thought they were similarly childish. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 14:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I will reverse the question about what the British Isles is. If I want to write an article about the geography of the group of islands northwest of France, then what should that article be titled? Wikipedia guidelines recommend using the term most likely to be understood by most readers. I would suggest that the term to fit this criteria is British Isles, but I am open to alternatives. If that continues to be the term used, though, I would expect there to be a brief mention of controversies and links to more in-depth articles on those. Bazza 13:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
The most widely understood term is British Isles. I have no problem with that. However two problems arise:
  • What was originally a geographic term developed political, social, cultural and other meanings also over the centuries. As a result to suggest it is purely a geographic term is misleading.
  • Many elements on that set of islands now either no longer accept a link to those political, social, cultural and other meanings. Ireland has not considered itself part of the BI since the 1920s. (A then British prime minister himself accepted then that Ireland was not part of the British Isles.) Scottish Nationalists now find the implied cultural, political and other links that follow from the term unacceptable, as do Welsh Nationalists, so they too are disassociating themselves from the term.

While purists like to claim the term is purely geographic few accept that viewpoint (the fact that this article contains a "history" section itself shows that the geographic definition is bunkum — a review of mentions of "British Isles" even in google searches shows that only in a tiny minority of cases is it used exclusively geographically).

Any article here as a result has to make the point that the term has many resonances beyond geography which many others, for historic reasons, are uncomfortable with, and which some, notably the Irish, disassociate themselves from the any link with the term "British Isles" over. The problem with what to call the islands was shown when a history of the islands found that it itself could not use the name "British Isles" because of the offence such a term would cause in Ireland and parts of Scotland. (The book was simply called The Isles as a result.) As far as the Irish are concerned, they are not part of the British Isles and have not been for nearly a century. As far as Scottish nationalists are concerned, they are part of the isles but want nothing to do with the term British Isles. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 14:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

So my statements that the term to use is British Isles and that there ought to be a brief mention of controversies and links to more in-depth articles on those is reasonable? Bazza 14:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
It is difficult. Yes it is the most common name. The problem is that there is no agreement as to what it is the most common name for. Is Ireland in or out? Is the term geographic, geopolitical, historic, or what does it mean? The problem is that there is no agreement on the fundamentals. With Northern Ireland, at least (most) agree on the basics of where it is and what it is. They just cannot agree on a name. With British Isles, the name is the easy bit (or rather less difficult). The problem is that people cannot agree on what the name refers to. Unfortunately on this page a group of users over the last few months have turned the article around to imply that there is clear agreement on the term and its meaning. That is POV rubbish. And if used in the wrong way it is likely to offend Irish people, Scottish people, Welsh people. (Even England's National Front are opposed to the term being used now!) And Cornish people are also unhappy with it. It is a nightmare, which is why its usage is declining, with media outlets placing it in their style books in the "don't use" category, politicians shying away from it (even Tories like the late Sir John Biggs-Davison, who suggested an alternative). FearÉIREANN\(caint) 14:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
jtdIRL, I have already spoken out against this ludicrous sophistry, but since you've just ignored that and said the same stuff all over again, let me attempt to repeat it more clearly: The article British Isles is ABOUT the geography and human history of {the islands Great Britain, Ireland, Isle of Man, Hebridies, Shetlands, Orkneys, etc etc}. There is NO DISPUTE BY ANYONE EXCEPT YOURSELF about this: this *is* the subject matter of the article. You can verify this by moving your eyes across the words on the screen and reading them. Furthermove, the most common name used to collectively describe {that group of aforementioned islands} is "British Isles". So this, by simple wikipedia practice, needs to be the title of the article (as it indeed is, and always has been!) That the name "British Isles" is also used confusingly/conflicting in other contexts or causes offence to the bloody minded is a separate issue and need have no material impact on the contents of the article. We all seem basically agreed that it belongs in the already existing separate British Isles (terminology) article.--feline1 14:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I might venture to concur that this appears to be the consensus view. Failing that, perhaps it would be best if we were all shipped off to the scottish highlands, stripped naked, issued with large wooden clubs, and allowed to beat each other to death in an orgy of senseless yet inevitable xenophobic rage? The winners would then be free to expel all their enemies from the archepelago, perhaps to a concentration camp somewhere, and, free to dominate the land themselves, could call it whatever they wished? Sounds reasonable to me.--feline1 14:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Try valium. It might help. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 14:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
In my opinion this is the required consensus under WP:NPOV#Undue weight, and close attention should be paid to A simple formulation in that policy: too often the impression is given that all Ireland has a view, when the Irish Government website search makes it clear that this view is not shared in Northern Ireland. ...dave souza, talk 14:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
That command and (some of!) the other others above are all good material for Alternative names for the British Isles (or whatever). As long as they can be verified, there's no reason why there shouldn't be a strong, substantial article. I'm glad there's some consensus coming out of this. I appreciate that the subject is difficult to address, which is why I asked my question about what to call the group of islands, rather than what British Isles means. Bazza 14:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd just like to add a further rebuttal to some of the comments expressed by User Feline1; it is simply unsupportable to argue that the term discussed here is purely geographical/geological in nature - and can be reasonably & fairly presented in any thorough encyclopedic work without clear reference to its politically contentious nature (which is clearly far, far more significant than User Feline1 understands). The 'NO DISPUTE BY ANYONE EXCEPT YOURSELF' comment made by Feline1 in answer to my good colleague deserves to be picked out and held up for its remarkable disconnection with reality. It is good to see that good verifiable sources - including the Taoiseach (Prime Minister) of the Irish Republic himself - have now been included in the article, showing that in all official Irish government documents the term 'British Isles' is actively avoided in any context. User PConlon 18:47, 5 July 2006

PConlon, I was attempting to explain that the ARTICLE is about geography and human history of the group of islands, not that the name "British Isles" was without different conotations. Sorry if you find it confusing.--feline1 19:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


Right so help me god, I have followed what appears to be the consensus here, and pruned the British Isles article to be just about geography and history. ALL the other stuff about the NAME "British Isles", both its origins and its current politically contentious nature, have been transferred to British Isles (terminology).... that article will now need a thorough editing to make all the new material sit properly, and indeed may well require splitting since there is so bloody MUCH of it!! I'm sure many of you will enjoy working away at it. Meanwhile this British Isles article can return to a sleepy innocence about mountains, rivers, lakes, seabirds, and who's been murdering whom for the last 2 milleniua. Good night and good luck--feline1 19:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, ain't going to work...any article on the 'British Isles' will have to cover EVERYTHING about the term (in one single, complete article). You can't just pick and choose aspects of something you like and ignore the rest Feline1. Separate sections on 'other aspects' aren't an acceptable solution. Politics and geography are inescapably intertwined you see. The article as I see it now needs further revision and I invite all other Irish Wikipedia users to join me in ensuring that it is complete and factual. User: PConlon, 21:58, 5 July 2006

PConlon, you are talking nonsense. Splitting articles into sub-articles is perfectly common practice in wikipedia. By your logic, the articles British Isles and British Isles (terminology) will have to be merged into one huge article. Can I ask, does anyone actually have any problem with the geographical and historical material in the British Isles article?? Or are you just intent on still quibbling about the name even though there's a whole other article about it?? --feline1 21:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I think PC's case is that the article ought to touch on every relevant point, not that every relevant point be covered comprehensively. This is what happens in articles with such comprehensive titles. And yes, geography is politics, life even - Brian Friel's Translations is full of it. Woof woof to you, feline.--Shtove 21:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


FearÉIREANN: "You STILL don't get it. There isn't even agreement about what the Isles are and what it contains."

Just to inform you loosely, the British Isles includes the two main islands Britain and Ireland and their smaller, neighbouring islands.

That one individual was ignorant of the fact is not relevant, no matter what his status or position was.

"Ireland believes it isn't part of it."

I beg to differ. Being Irish myself. --Mal 21:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Just because a number of people, whether that number be large or small, object to, or find offence at, any particular phrase, object or idea, that doesn't mean that phrase, object or idea doesn't exist. (see Historical revisionism section above). --Mal 21:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Shtove. Feline1, it is not mature, rational behaviour to label as 'nonsense' anything you don't like or agree with. I think you are discrediting yourself by desperately trying to work the unworkable - your vehemence of editing implies a hidden (perhaps subconscious) political motivation...do you really want us all to believe that you are doing this entirely as an act of geographical purism?! I'm new to Wikipedia disputes and am not sure how exactly (and efficiently) do go about formally requesting mediation. Could a more experienced user please complete the request for mediation? You would be doing us all a great service. Best regards to all open-minded and well meaning Wikipedia contributors. User: PConlon 22:43, 5 July 2006

PConlon, deleting the article then adding a mediation tag without following the Wikipedia:Mediation instructions is not the way to go about it. Please read Wikipedia policies carefully with particular attention to WP:V and WP:NPOV rather than rampaging on. dave souza, talk 21:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Dave, seemed like a good idea at the time!!:O) I would add that there's been a lot of deletion on both sides of this dispute. Hey FearÉIREANN, fire me an e-mail when you get a chance. Cheers! User PConlon 23:02, 5 July 2006

Neutrality (or lack thereof) of the term

Use here:

The article should point out that this is a traditional name. It should point out where it comes from; the British dominance of the islands (hence their not being called, for example, the Celtic Isles). It should point out modern usage (the same as always in the UK, whereas in Ireland it is mostly avoided). If there is a modern British legal definition, include that too, but clearly state that is what it is. It would be interesting to note on usage by other nations (which undoubtedly take their cue from Britain and use a direct translation still today to refer to Great Britain, Ireland, and possibly surrounding islands collectively).

Probably the reasoning behind Irish attitudes to the term should be explained, but they are rather self-explanatory really. A simple link to History of Ireland would provide that information.

Use in other articles:

The term British Isles is a remnant of British Imperialism and London-based dominance over the native cultures of these islands, whether in Scotland, Wales, Ireland, Cornwall or parts of England itself. I am not against the term being used, it is the traditional label for the islands around Britain and Ireland (and including both Great Britain and Ireland), but it should not be used in preference to all others. Its use on Wikipedia should be only where necessary, and with conscious reference to its biased point of view.

zoney ♣ talk 15:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

the British dominance of the islands — apparently not (according to the article). But thanks for starting this going. Bazza 15:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Somewhat skewed, but a good starting point. Note the need to show Northern as well as Republic of Ireland viewpoints, and it should be noted that this usage of the term Celtic developed after James VI had appropriated the Brythonic label. ..dave souza, talk 15:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
British does mean Celtic - it was the term used to refer to the pre-Anglo-Saxon inhabitants of the islands. The British state chose to appropriate the term "British" for itself in the 17th century. TharkunColl 15:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Minor clarification: 1604, King James proclaimed himself as 'King of Great Britain, France and Ireland', earliest quotation of "British Isles" given by OED is in 1621, the English word "Celt" is modern, attested from 1707: see relevant articles. ..dave souza, talk 16:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I've just fallen into this pit, and there's some cat-person going around scratching people's eyes out. I referred to the James VI-Stuart appropriation of the "British" concept in the section above on Historical Revisionism. Apparently the OED gives the definition as 'geographical', so this should go in the first para.; second para to treat of the political connotations, with a link to the terminology article - I think the para as it stands is too involved. Now, where's that cat? Woof woof!--Shtove 16:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Fully agree. ..dave souza, talk 16:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
British today does not mean what Celtic means today. While the discourse as to the historical origin of the terms is quite interesting (and appropriate to include on Wikipedia), general use of the terms on Wikipedia, including in discussion such as mine above, should be with regard to the current popular usage of the terms. This extends to "British Isles". It may have meant something very different in the past. But nowadays it is contrived to suggest that the term portrays anything other than the islands being dominated by the UK (to which Britain is nowadays mostly synonymous).
Besides, "Britishness", British culture, and people, as in "of the United Kingdom" includes many many influences that aren't related to the Celtic Britons/British. In fact, whether accidental or deliberate, the "Celtic" influences have been pushed aside in the concept of Britishness (while the reverse is true of Scottish, Irish and Welsh nationalism where Celtic influences have been focussed on to the detriment of others).
And finally - how exactly is the OED a sensible source for attempting to find NPOV for Wikipedia? It is a British publication.
zoney ♣ talk 17:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
The OED is a reputable source - that's all you need to cite it on WP. It's only a dictionary, of course, and the term is undoubtedly a loaded one - let that be pointed out without packing the introduction with historical detail.--Shtove 17:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The OED may be reputable, but it is not always reliable. The claim that it is purely a geographic term is simplistic nonsense. It is like saying that because Iran elects a president, then Iran is a democracy. Or because a supreme court is supposed to interpret a law objectively, therefore they always do so. No lawyer believes that. The term may theoretically be geographic, but few people on the planet use it that way. It is used politically, culturally, socially, ethnically, and in a host of other ways. Dictionaries can afford to be simplistic in their analyses, not least because there is a limit to what they can include. Encyclopaedias can't be. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 18:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that describing it merely as a geographical term is simplistic. But the only way you can go behind the OED is to cite a superior definition. Is there one?--Shtove 18:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps we can save the discussion of everything the term can mean for British Isles (terminology), and actually deal with the article here, which is about the geography and human history of the {the islands Great Britain, Ireland, Skye, Rathlin, Lundy, la la ...} ? hmmm?--feline1 18:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I've just come up with a better title for the article: The islands of Great Britain, Ireland, Skye, Rathlin, Lundy, and La la. Move it there and the controversy evaporates, hmmm?--Shtove 19:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
OK< the name "British Isles" is somewhat controversial, but this article should not primarily be about the name. By all means, we should mention alternatives like IONA in the intro , but I think details of the naming controversy should really go in an article like Sea of Japan naming dispute.--Pharos 19:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Pharos, I've already done this! And requested de-protection of the page as well. --feline1 19:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I go away for a month and this page degenerates into a big edit war! For what it's worth, my feeling is that we should follow the solution that appears to have been reached HOWEVER, I think a small section - with a Main article link to British Isles Terminology - would complete the solution, and avoid all accusations of sidelinging the issue, whilst allowing this page to do its job.

Oh and for what it's worth - as has been discussed before, in respect to IONA I think, there are no politically neutral geographical terms I'm afraid. --Robdurbar 20:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Robdurbar, I specifically tried to have a fairly wordy disclaimer (which you have trimmed) and NO paragraphs in the body of the article about the controvesy. I'm not going to revert you, but I'd urge you to think again: our nationalist friends are unlikely to be happy with your super-lean disclaimer, and adding a section to the article on the naming controversy is asking for trouble and edit sprawl - the whole point was to divorce this from the article entirely and let the blood be shed at British Isles (terminology) instead.--feline1 20:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Just made tweaks to the history section - it starts to drag on at the Norman colonisation of England. I have no objection to the content of the disclaimer (the intial para in italics), but why doesn't it form part of a standard intro? And Feline - you're a cat, so you have no friends, nationalist or otherwise. I thought Great Britain was all about the Spice Girls 'n stuff.--Shtove 21:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
My problem with the disclaimer was, really, that its ugly and isn't done on any other page. I don't see why British Isles should be an exception. As above; it its going to be that long, then it should be part of the intro. --Robdurbar 22:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Robdurbar, I know the disclaimer is rather verbose, but I was trying to satisfy the concerns of jtdIRL et al. If we used you highly edited version, there would be basically NO explanation of the contentious nature of the term in the article, I cannot see how that could satisfy the concerns expressed on this talk page. Shtove, the reason for the "disclaimer" as a separate italicized paragraph is to try and make a logical/semantic distinction between the terminology and the subject material, so the article can get on and discuss the geography and history without having to apologise for its terminology in every sentance.
This was why I intended for the small disclaimer with small explanation pargraph in the article. This would be more in keeping with the wikipedia standards. I think we're pushing for the same solution here, just through slighlty different synthetics --Robdurbar 22:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
That isn't adequate, Rob.
  • It still perpetuates the myth that the term is purely geographic. It isn't.
  • It still claims that Ireland is part of the British Isles, which is highly debatable, and a view rejected overwhelmingly in Ireland.

Neither two are acceptable in the opening. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 22:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Wholesale removal of the content on the term's usage

User:Feline1 posted the following note, which probably should've been posted on this talk page, on my user talk page: [9] Dumping of the content on the usage of the term in a fork entry does not resolve the concerns that Jtdirl has carefully laid out on this talk page. If Feline1 and the other users feel compelled to shorten the content on the usage, I suggest carefully working out a compromise with Jtdirl on this talk page, without the spurious allegations that he is promoting some sort of Irish nationalist agenda. Jtdirl's nationality has nothing to do with the concerns he is laying out on this page. (Nor do my concerns with the issues he has laid out. By the way, I happen to be another historian, and I have no connection to Ireland.) 172 | Talk 21:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

172, numerous editors have been trying to resolve an edit war on this page now for over 2 days. I was acting in good faith, attempting to implement the first stage in the consensus on the way forward which I judged has been reached on this talk page. I do not think it is helpful for you to suddenly weigh in and start reverting things. The material was not simply deleted, it was merged in with British Isles (nomenclature). The next stage is to further edit that material, possibly splitting it further into a article solely about Alternative names for the British Isles or British Isles naming dispute etc.--feline1 22:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Feline1, I did not "suddenly weigh in and start reverting things." I had expressed my concerns on this talk page yesterday, although most users ignored me while continuing to attack Jtdirl as some sort of Irish nationalist. While you may have been "acting in good faith," I see no evidence that Jtdirl was consulted in the process of 'implementing the first stage in the consensus,' and no evidence that his concerns were addressed in the revision. The term "British Isles" is regarded by many as an anachronism and even offensive, and this fact, along with the relevant context and perspective, warrants mentioning in the intro. 172 | Talk 22:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Does my italicised opening disclaimer on the article not explain precisely these concerns as concisely as possible, and refer interested readers to an exhaustive article on the very subject? Please also stop insulting jtdIRL by trying to imply he is not an irish nationalist LOL --feline1 22:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Just thought I'd point out; the terminology page is far from a POV fork, but a year and a half old page that was created exactly so pages such as this don't get bogged down in argument over the terminology. --Robdurbar 22:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem, Rob, is that the issue isn't terminology. It is more fundamental. What is covered by the terminology, is the issue. And that has to be addressed on the page on the topic. It cannot be forked off to somewhere else. Name disputes can be. Content disputes, by their very nature, can't, because content concerns the content of the main page. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 22:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, *precisely*! This is not the first time there's been an edit war on this topic! --feline1 22:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
That's neither here nor there. Just because things were done wrong earlier doesn't mean things should continue to be done wrong on this page. 172 | Talk 22:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I've been reverted three times in just about a hour. Feline1's dismemberment of the article is now the current version. [10] I can no longer revert it myself, given the 3RR. 172 | Talk 22:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Er, YOU reverted ME, 172. How can you be reverted when you did not supply any content?--feline1 22:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
This is not a game. The content is the issue, not 'who reverted whom.' Jtdirl and I are committed to making Wikipedia a credible, usable encyclopedia, not playing games with Wikipedia users. 172 | Talk 22:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, just to clarify (and show without reverting), this would be :my approach to the issue (At least roughly; obviously some content changes would probably be needed) --Robdurbar 22:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
It's better than the wholesale removal of the content by Feline1, but your proposal is still is incomplete. The intro must be comprehensive. An intro to an article on a geographical term ought to address its contemporary usage/lack of usage. 172 | Talk 22:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
172, you are clearly misunderstanding the situation. "British Isles" is NOT "an article on a geographical term". It is an article on the geography and history of a particular group of islands. "British Isles (terminology)" is the article on a the term itself.--feline1 22:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
That isn't adequate, Rob.
  • It still perpetuates the myth that the term is purely geographic. It isn't.
  • It still claims that Ireland is part of the British Isles, which is highly debatable, and a view rejected overwhelmingly in Ireland.
It does neither of those two things, jtdIRL. This is easily verifiable by reading it.--feline1 22:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Neither two are acceptable in the opening. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 22:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Then how about a temporary revert of the main article to a version pre edit war, then edits on the subpage till we get it all sorted? --Robdurbar 22:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Not if that version also claims the term is purely geographic and states as fact that Ireland is in the British Isles. Both of those are highly questionable statements that can't be stated as fact. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 22:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

All of the material covered in this article is dealt with in depth in other articles. Contrast History of Britain - it consists of a brief intro, followed by a list of links to complementary WP articles. Efforts to make British Isles a paradise for twitchers and hill-walkers are hopeless (although Ireland could do with a right to roam), because history and politics are always going to intrude; if history/geography/politics of Britain are so complex as to defeat a comprehensive article on History of Britain, then the same goes for this subject, but double. Cut the article to a stub, with one para for the geographical description, one for the political description (including nomenclature controversy), and leave the rest to a list of See Also's and External Links.--Shtove 23:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
How does "This article is about the geography and human history of the group of islands situated off the northwest coast of continental Europe which include Great Britain, Ireland, the Isle of Man and numerous other smaller isles. Historically, the most common collective name for these islands has been the British Isles, and as such, this name is used in the article in accordance with wikipedia guidlines. However, use of the name "British Isles" in this way can be contentious and confusing (as the islands currently contain both the sovereign states of the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom, in addition to some direct dependencies of the British Crown) — the erroneous implication that all the islands are under the political control of the UK can be seen as politically offensive. For more information, refer to the article British Isles (terminology)." equate to claiming that "British Isles is a purely geographical term" (with no other connotation)?--feline1 22:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Jtdirl, It is fact that the term "British Isles" is used to mean all the islands in this region, including Ireland. All that matters is that the archaic nature of the term, and it's inappropriateness in modern day usage, be sufficiently explained in this article. Also its usage on Wikipedia should be subject to scrutiny. zoney ♣ talk 22:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually wrong, Zoney. Among others David Lloyd George, successive Irish governments, RTÉ and Bill Clinton all said that Ireland isn't part of the British Isles. I am not saying that I agree with them. What I am saying is that to state it as fact is wrong given that it is widely disputed, and not just in Ireland. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 22:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Circular argument. The suggestion is that Ireland shouldn't be included in modern usage, as the term is (quite rightly) controversial. I agree with that suggestion, but the fact remains that the term does in fact include Ireland, hence why there's a problem at all at all. zoney ♣ talk 23:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

How do we do this mediation thing then? I followed the link to the mediation page but there was nothing there relating to the British Isles article - do we have to fill it in ourselves? I am confused! --feline1 22:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Please read the information in the Wikipedia:Mediation, before asking for formal mediation. You must follow the preliminary steps laid out in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, if you have not already done so..dave souza, talk 22:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Scientific organisations

There are a number of joint British-Irish scientific organisations which use the British Isles in their traditional sense to include the whole archipelago as an ecological / biogeographical unit (e.g. the Botanical Society of the British Isles) - this ought to be mentioned - MPF 22:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Insert a link in the See Also section - that should cover it. Otherwise, it doesn't relate to the substance (what substance?) of the article.--Shtove 22:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
It does relate to the article, as such organisations are important users of the term 'British Isles' in its classical sense, publishing important scientific texts which use the term (e.g. Stace, Mitchell) - MPF 01:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Suggested introduction from an Irishman

I suggest the following as the opening paragraph in the article itself:

British Isles is a traditional name for the group of islands (or 'archipelago'), situated off the northwest coast of continental Europe, including Great Britain (the largest island in the group), Ireland, the Isle of Man, several thousand smaller adjacent islands. Its usage is controversial, as the term "British" is nowadays equated with the United Kingdom, and implies dominion over all the islands in the region.

This article should have a self-contained section concerning the name itself, probably as the first section (the article title is after all "British Isles"), just one or two paragraphs, with a "main article" link to British Isles (terminology).

As there is no commonly used alternative name for the entire group of islands, I think it is fair enough that the article remain under this title, as long as the level of introduction suggested above is included.

zoney ♣ talk 23:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey, you're not the only Irishman editing this damn thing ;-)--feline1 23:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem is, Zoney, as has been repeated ad nausaum, your version states as fact things that are a matter of opinion, with different sources saying different things, as the article makes clear. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 23:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

No - I have used the adjective "traditional" for a reason. Perhaps historical might be an alternative, although it's important to allow for the fact that most who use the term today still use it to mean the same thing, i.e. including Ireland. zoney ♣ talk 23:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Zoney's version sounds clean and simple to me. "Traditional" is debatable. However, I'd be interested to hear which other parts of the paragraph are disputable. SilkTork 23:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Looking at it fresh after a few weeks away, it seems to me that Jtdirl's phasing is the most NPOV. Zoney's and Feline1's versions are equally PoV. So I've reverted. --Red King 23:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I third this. Zoney's proposal was constructive in intent, but Jtdirl's version is superior in that it, unlike Zoney's proposal, specifically refers to the relevant sources on the topic. 172 | Talk 23:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks guys, I deliberately didn't say that Ireland is or is not in the British Isles, simply because it is an issue where there are different viewpoints and we have to reflect them, not state categorically one side or the other. Similarly I did not say that it was not a geographic term, or that it is. I said that it may have begun that way and then developed other meanings because to a significant degree the British Isles in physical terms were coterminus with the then United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Because there are so many ifs about the whole issue the article cannot under NPOV state something categorically when it is an issue of debate, without breaching NPOV. The earlier versions, by stating categorically that Ireland was in the BI, and that it was purely a geographic term, breached NPOV because it stated as fact something that is opinion, not proven fact. That is the heart of the issue. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 00:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay I've stayed away from commenting and editing this for a few days. The intro as it currently stands is better now since the war started. I feel (personally, though I will bow to consensus) that the inclusion of Ireland as controversial is a relatively modern development. How about something like "Great Britain, Isle of Man, many thousands of smaller islands and traditionally Ireland (though its inclusion in the definition has become the subject of much controversy in modern times)"? This will show that historically Ireland was included but gives a lead into the controversy over it's more modern inclusion. Also should we mention the word geographical in the first paragraph or sentence to get it through to everyone that that is the context we are using the definition in right from the start? (from also an Irishman [Northern Irish at least]). Ben W Bell talk 07:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Feline1 blocked

As an admin I have blocked Feline1 for 24 hours. I would not normally have done so, having been a party to the edit war. As with normal procedure a complaint over his breach of 3RR had been registered. Normally users at that point cease edit warring. Before other admins could intervene Feline1 abused his position by engaging in 5 reverts. In the circumstances immediate action was needed. As no other admin was available at the time I had to act. I have notified admins at WP:ANI and asked them to review the block. Where admins in edit wars have to intervene, often what happens is that another admin will unblock the user and then impose their own block. As I have said, in the absence of another admin to take immediate action against a user who had climbed to 5 reverts, was taunting other others that they could not go beyond 3, and given the fact that an independent party had reverted Feline's last revert, I felt I had no option but to intervene as an admin. I'm putting it on record here and elsewhere so that users know what happened. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 23:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

But now he can't respond to taunts! Seriously: the block may be appropriate, but not by FearÉIREANN\(caint) - nemo iudex in causa sua.--Shtove 00:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

It was a last resort when no other admin was available despite requests and he was on his fifth revert and indicating that he was going to keep doing so, taunting other users that they could only do three while he could keep getting away with doing it again and again. I alerted admins at the two relevant pages so that they could assess it independently and if they saw fit unblock him, shorten the block (I gave him the standard 24 hour block for breaching 3RR) or lengthen it. It is rare that these situations happen, but they sometimes do where immediate action is needed and no admin can be found at that moment to do it. I made sure it was all above board (hence listing it here, at WP:ANI and on the 3RR page). The feedback there was that in the circumstances the block was correct and not an abuse of process. I had already reverted three times but if I hadn't I wouldn't have taken any more role in reverting the page until the block had been independently assessed by another admin. I also only did so once another third party had intervened to revert his edit. If there had been an alternative then I would have gone for it. In the absence of another admin available I did contact Feline1, point out that he had breached 3RR and advised him to revert his last reversion to avoid a block by an admin. (At that stage I never expected it would fall to me to enforce it.) His response was dismissive. Instead he just kept reverting, despite an explicit warning that breaching 3RR automatically would produce a block. Usually when a user breaches 3RR they either revert their last reversion, or stop editing. It is very rare for someone to be so arrogant as to keep reverting over and over having exceeded the 3RR. At that stage someone had to block him immediately and unfortunately, despite his behaviour having been reported, no-one was available to deal with it. Someone had to, and it fell to me as an admin. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 02:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I must say that initially I was uncomfortable that Jrdirl had blocked Feline1 for 3RR since Jtdirl has been guilty of it himself over the last couple of days as well. I honestly believe that both users violated it, both with the best intentions and not pure vandalism. However saying that Feline1 had been warned by myself to be very careful as he was practically in violation of it. He was going to be blocked by someone, I just don't feel that Jtdirl should have been the one to do it (I almost did it myself). However the block has been reviewed and found to be fine and these are just my random ramblings and comments and this is not intended as a criticism or attack. Ben W Bell talk 07:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Because Jrdirl was involoved in the revert war it has highly inappropriate to impose the block. At that point he should not have used his admin tools. He should have behaved like an editor without the admin privilege and waited until another admin responded. It was not an emergency - it was an act of impatience. It was clearly a disagreement over the article in which an editor used a powerful tool to stop another editor from doing something he wasn't happy with. I take this as a serious issue and strongly suggest that Jrdirl do not use any admin tools in future in this debate. If Feline1 was an admin he could have blocked Jrdirl and we might have had a wizard war and Wiki could have vanished from the face of the internet.SilkTork 08:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
My actions were reviewed by other admins (as I requested them to) and judged perfectly correct in the circumstances. Admins have a duty to intervene in such circumstances. I made every effort to get other admins to intervene but none was available at that moment and immediate action was required under the 3RR rule. BTW Ben I didn't break 3RR and was careful not to do so. Sometimes admins in these situations have to intervene where no other user is available and a user, any user, is breaking WP rules. Five reverts is not on. It had to be stopped. (BTW one admin emailed me to say that it was lucky for Feline that I did the blocking, as I only blocked him for 24 hours. They said that, given Feline had engaged in 5 reverts and had indicated that he was going to keep doing it, they would have imposed a 3 day block.) FearÉIREANN\(caint) 11:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Checking the edit times yes I see now you didn't actually break it. Ben W Bell talk 11:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
No problem. I checked myself before reverting to make sure I hadn't breached 3RR. Even if I hadn't reached 3RR, having blocked Feline (who continues now to make rascist taunts on his talk page) I would have played no part in editing the BI article until another admin had reviewed the block, to avoid any perceived conflict of interest. As I said before the blocking was not something done lightly but only when an immediate response was called for and no other admins were available to enforce WP rules, in a situation where a user (any user) had been repeatedly been breaching 3RR and where they declined appeals to stop and revert any changes above the third revert. Users can have disputes. But deliberately breaking WP rules, and taunting other users about doing so, in the knowledge that at that moment there is no other admin available to stop it, is grossly unacceptable behaviour. In those (thankfully rare) circumstances admins, even when party to the dispute, have been called on to intervene. Feline's behaviour (from rascist taunts to blatent abuse of WP rules on 3RR, etc) is unacceptable. Other admins may well intervene to impose longer blocks on him for that behaviour. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 12:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, I think that it still leaves a bad taste that Jtdirl did the block. Really, I feel you OUGHT to have waited, just to avoid this discussion. That said, you are right that he broke the 3RR and his response, though understanable, is also inappropriate.
This all brings us back to the article. I would like to see it in its current state, pretty much, but with that long intro cut into two sections; an intro and a 'terminology' section. The terminology could then link to the BI (t) page. --Robdurbar 18:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Request for Single, Complete Article

May I use an illustrative example to make my point…Imagine, if you will, the ludicrousness of an article about Adolf Hitler that relates only to how he was big in politics in the 1930s-40s, made great contributions to moustache culture, had considerable talent as an architectural artist and had a remarkable ability to get a party going. Then having a separate, link-connected article entitled ‘Adolf Hitler (Nasty Aspects)’, covering the repression of German intellectuals, World War 2 and the Holocaust. Thankfully, the 'Adolf Hitler' Wikipedia page is complete and thorough in covering all these aspects (and more). I would like to make the argument that the ‘British Isles’ article should remain a single article, thoroughly presenting all aspects of the term – geological, geographic, cultural, political, historical… I see attempts to compartmentalise inescapably intertwined aspects in separate pages causing even greater conflict among contributors than a single, complete article. Personal note: Some rash things have been said and done in this recent dispute that aren’t constructive and I would like to ask everyone (including myself) to pause for breath and remember what this remarkable website we are contributing to is all about – the thorough explanation of any term that a user wishes to increase their knowledge on. If terms have political ramifications, these should be fully and sensitively included in the article. Enthusiastic re-enactments of past battles however should just be left to members of historical societies who like to get all dressed up and run around a field at weekends! Lighten up everyone and have a pleasant weekend wherever you are. User PConlon, 13:17, 6 July 2006

Having just seen this dispute for the first time, I agree with this opinion. The idea of having one article about a term and a different article about the term with "(terminology)" in the title is not a viable compromise. Pausing sounds like a good plan too. At the moment, this article contradicts itself (Compare: "British Isles has been used by an Irish government minister as recently as 2002" and "In the Republic of Ireland it is assumed that the term British Isles does not include the Republic of Ireland itself") and has an introduction that is too detailed. It should be possible to include detailed information about a term that is disputed. Correcting these problems and merging the information here with the other article will take time and patience. Flying Jazz 12:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. It is getting too long as it is. I agree that history, politics, naming controversies are intertwined, but the physical aspects (such as geology, geomorphology, climate, etc) are not. Your wish is understandable, but where would it stop? Should, for eaxmple, the British Empire article (which is itself long, but references out to more detailed discussions) be brought into this? Maybe those of us more interested in "hills and rivers" should take that information into British Isles (geography) (referring from there, of course, to this article and British Isles (terminology) to keep others happy). Bazza 12:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't think Wikipedia should be about keeping some people happy. Speaking as an outsider to the dispute (basically, as a reader on this issue, not an editor), different articles for "British Empire" and "British Isles" makes perfect sense, but two different articles for "British Isles" and "British Isles (terminology)" is an indication that the editors have engaged in some kind of radical silliness instead of focusing on the reader. Also, a reader would expect this article to be long considering the many issues involved. Flying Jazz 12:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I also like the British Isles (terminology) page - it was created to give clairty for those in the world who think the whole caboodle is called England. It achieves this admirably. Bazza 12:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Oops PC, looks like you've blown it re Godwin's Law ; ) .... More to the point, it's quite valid to hive off detailed areas to avoid article bloat, but the article should usually have a concise section summarising the points and linking to the new main article. PS, signing your name with four "tildes" is easy. Flying Jazz, I agree that the intro is too detailed. More later, ..dave souza, talk 12:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Over-detailed intro? I agree as well. --Bazza 15:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I think that people who call both islands together "England" are either far too stupid to seek clarity about the matter or they consciously wish to appear stupid. A separate Wikipedia article for that sort won't help them change. As an American, I know plenty of both of these types. (In fact, once in a blue moon, I myself am intentionally stupid around Europeans when it comes to Europe because being corrected by them or watching them scowl at me can be a cheap source of entertainment. This behavior has been common among us for centuries and its true master was Mark Twain.) Flying Jazz 13:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Yese American? are ye frae Canada then? :) ..dave souza, talk 13:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
heh. I wish someone would ask me that in the real world. I'm in Boston, and the "BRITS OUT!" graffiti from not too long ago has all finally faded from the walls of our Irish neighborhoods. I'm just glad Bush's attitude about organizations that fund terror wasn't around in the 70s or the US and UK would have entered a joint operation against Paddy's Tap down the block. Flying Jazz 13:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I also think that it would make more sense for the terminology article to form part of this one. But I don't think the reasons the original poster gave were valid - using that logic, the whole of Wikipedia would be one article! I don't think the British Isles article(s) should deal with people & culture, etc. - those details should be in the Republic of Ireland and United Kingdom articles (and the countries, regions, etc. within them). British Isles should be just about geography, because it's a geographical term. Waggers 14:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
It's just as irritating when one is Welsh and one constantly gets refered to as English or as from England, I get this a lot here in Finland. My work colleagues have now all been set straight on the issue, though they find the whole Great Britain, UK and British Isles thing very confusing. Some mention needs to be made here about these sorts of differences. Alun 14:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Which is what I admire British Isles (terminology) for — a succinct description of what's what. It's linked to from other pages as well so incorporating it here would mean people having to wade through this article as well. Keep it separate and link to it from here — this is a web, after all. --Bazza 15:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Two separate articles make sense - one would be about the actual British Isles, and the other would be about the term British Isles. And just because it's a geographical region, doesn't mean it doesn't have a history. To separate that history into two arbitrarily defined regions would distort the nature of the relationship between the islands, which have seen large movements of people, culture, and ideas between them throughout history and going right back to the Neolithic. This needs to be stated. TharkunColl 15:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

"The actual British Isles" gives you away - obviously all this talk about the legitimacy of the term is a waste of time.--Shtove 20:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Well...on second thought...now I see there are Americas and Americas (terminology) pages at Wikipedia also. Honestly, I don't like that either and would prefer a single article there too, but I suppose there are reasons for editors there and here to do things this way and precedent and consistency among different geopolitical naming controversies counts for something. I no longer strongly support PConlon's request. Flying Jazz 16:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

We could even call it European Isles! --Red King 16:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and include Sardinia, Corsica, Gotland, Iceland, etc. in it as well. TharkunColl 16:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

This problems we have had are not unique to this article. If you look at other articles about geographic regions, many (like Scandinavia, Central Europe, Midwestern United States, South Asia, Middle East) spend a lot of time discussing difficulties of definition and usage of terminology. That said, there is sense in moving general information about physical geography (geology, climate, biology) from Great Britain and Ireland to here, but little point in simply duplicating (or triplicating) information. As regards human geography and history, anything more than a cursory overview could be seen as POV that "Britain and Ireland are very similar". Copious linking to other articles would be less contentious than putting more detail here, without compromising the usefulness of this article. There is also too much overlap between Britain, British, British Isles and British Isles terminology; I suggest the first two are merged, the fourth tidied and a new British Isles name controversy be split out of the relevant bits.

On a related note, consider if you will the Category:British Isles; there are almost no articles directly contained within it; most are within subcats specific to Ireland, Great Britain et al; many of those that are there should be within a subcat. (The same is true of Category:Scandinavia, for one.) Very interestingly, there is currently no Category:Great Britain. There is a Category:History of Britain; I have no idea to what extent this is intended to encompass Ireland. In short, this article is part of a wider problem. jnestorius(talk) 17:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

To suppress the fact that the British Isles have shared many cultural traits for thousands of years, and continue to do so, would be POV. What about the shared Megalithic Culture during the Neolithic and Bronze Age? How about the free movement of peoples between all the islands in the group that continues to this day? Human geography is as much a part of geography as birds and fish. TharkunColl 17:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
And likewise, to suppress the fact that the relationships between the peoples of these islands have not always been the best, and that a significant portion of the peoples on these islands has a problem with the term British Isles, even as a geographical label, is also POV. We don't need the term "British Isles" to to talk abou the free movement of peoples, birds, fish, or whatever else. --Damac 18:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't remember suggesting that we should suppress the fact that relations between the peoples of the British Isles have been punctuated by violence - bloodshed is a fact of history. Relations have also been punctuated by mass movements of population and culture - ranging from the conquest and colonisation of Scotland and Wales by Irish settlers during the Dark Ages, to the later Norman incursions into Ireland and Scottish and English settlement in the North. And not forgetting more peaceful migrations that have seen literally millions of Irish find homes in England. TharkunColl 18:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, but the fact is that people use the term and this article needs a title. I agree that the intro is now bloated; also agree that the terminology should be mentioned here and then expanded on at BI(t), as dave souza suggests.
Also, its worth pointing out that BI (t) does not just deal with 'British Isles', but all geographical terminology within the isles. --Robdurbar 18:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
People use a lot of terms; this does not mean they require detailed explanation on Wikipedia. (For example, there's no article on Slitty eyes even though Prince Philip has used the term. There is no need for this "BI" article to deal with geography - there is already a article entitled Geography of the United Kingdom and a Geography of the Republic of Ireland. Any geographical information that this article contains should be there and there alone.
"British Isles" is an outdated term. Wikipedia should mention it but should not claim it is a valid geographical expression. There once was a political (and I presume geographical) entity called Großdeutschland and I would imagine that Poles would find it very offensive nowadays if parts of Silesia, Pomerania, etc., were included in an article entitled Geography of Großdeutschland. Speed the day that Wikipedia will have Historical British Isles to match Historical Eastern Germany.--Damac 18:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
But don't you think that the British Isles (or whatever you call it) is a valid geographical and cultural entity? TharkunColl 18:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I would be one who would argue that these islands have far more in common than differences. However, by insisting on a term like "British Isles", and making derogatory and snide references to Irish poeple and their opinions, you and the "BI" brigade here are reinforcing the view that "it" (whatever we would like to call it) has very little validity as a cultural entity.--Damac 18:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Damac, Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and Wikipedia is not censored. The term is commonly in use in geography, and if you're offended at the language, this isn't the place to campaign to change it. ..dave souza, talk 19:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
And this is a talk page and please don't misrepresent what I've being saying. By all means, Wikipedia should use the term, but should explain what some people claim it to mean and why others oppose it. I've never called on the article to be deleted.
There should be no geographical information here, as it's already in greater detail somewhere else. The geography argument is a dud argument in my opinion, especially considering that true geographical entities, which are also in common usage, have no similar articles (i.e. Geography of the Iberian Penisula, Geography of Hispanola etc.)--Damac 19:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
How strange. Iberian Peninsula and Hispaniola both seem to be categorised as Geography and have such content. ...dave souza, talk 19:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh dear, and so they have. My mistake. Still, the terms are pretty inoffensive. Iberia belongs neither to Spain or Portugal and neither have attempted to prefix their name to the term. Same applies to Hispaniola.--Damac 19:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
From a geomorphological and geological point of view it makes sense to consider the island group as a whole. Otherwise we'll have geography articles on Ireland (the island), Great Britain, the Northern Isles, the Hebrides, the Isle of Arran and Bute, Anglesey, the Isles of Scilly, the Isle of Wight, and so on. The only reasons that British Isles has been adopted as the term used to describe the set of islands are (a) most people recognise that as a term describing them and (b) no-one's yet come up with a recognisable alternative. --Bazza 19:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
For similar reasons, we could also have a joint Sardinia and Corsica article, but we don't, and the world still seems to revolve on its axis.--Damac 19:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

<Just a thought> is someone going to start campaigning to have Postman Pat moved to Pàdraig Post since Postman is sexist and politically incorrect? ..dave souza, talk 19:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

With the spelling "Pàdraig", go ask a speaker of Scottish Gaelic.--Damac 19:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

TharkunColl and souza's antics

While most users on both sides of the argument here have shown themselves willing to discuss issues and try to work to achieve a consensus that reflects all viewpoints, TharkunColl and Dave souza seem intent on doctoring the article to force their personal POV as if it was fact. In this edit TharkunColl, as before, sought to hide the fact that he was deleting any neutral working and footnotes, to push his own widely disputed claim that the Republic of Ireland is part of the British Isles (the wording that had been there was deliberately worded to avoid saying that it was, or wasn't, merely that it is a controversial issue of debate), and to push his claim that British Isles is exclusively a geographic term, a demonstrably false claim. Other users, not noticing his careful gutting of the opening, made genuine efforts to clean up what they thought was the NPOV paragraph. When TharkunColl's dodgy edit was corrected, souza, true to form, reinserted it, claiming that the neutrally agreed version was added in sneakily.

Since TharkunColl and souza seem to have missed it, it was agreed to use that opening because it was seen as the more NPOV. But instead of constructive debate, TharkunColl seems to want simply to delete anything that does not reflect his opinion, and remove any footnotes that don't push his agenda, to insert a set of claims that are widely disputed. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 22:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I only removed one footnote, the Lloyd George one, which is ambiguous anyway and a dictionary definition is much better. TharkunColl 22:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the removal of that footnote–the given link does not support any of the footnote's conclusions. There is no evidence how many "manuals" describe the archipelago, that "experts and advisors" were consulted on the letter's phrasing, or that this was in fact the author's belief.EricR 22:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

A lie. You removed a statement that the issue of whether Ireland is or is not in the BI is a matter of controversy. You removed a statement that the BI originally was a geographic term, but is seen by some as having political, historical and cultural meanings because for much of the last two centuries the BI and the UK of GB and I were largely coterminus. You deliberately removed qualifications and explanations and replaced them with your own, widely disputed, bold assertions. It would be nice if you had the decency to tell the truth about your edit, rather than lie about it. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 22:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

It would be nice if you stopped pushing a blatantly biased and nationalistc agenda. My revisions were an attempt at neutrality. TharkunColl 22:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
If you think your edits are neutral, I suggest to buy a dictionary and look up the meaning of the word. Or if you own one, read it. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 22:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Here, here, though I wouldn't yet label dave souza in the same way. --Robdurbar 09:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Jtdirl/FearÉIREANN, you are in clear breach of Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:Assume good faith here. Regrettably I must ask you to moderate your language in future. Regarding your insulting suggestion about buying a dictionary and looking up the meaning of the word neutral, I would have hoped that you would realise that Wikipedia:Neutral point of view sets the standard. For the record, your reversion with the comment (remove yet more sneaked in POVing by TharkunColl.) removed the efforts of several editors in what I thought was a promising development to a more neutral opening. I changed it back with a comment about your sneaky revert for which I apologise: neither your edit nor TharkunColl's should have been described in this way. You then reverted it again with the comment (rv to accepted version - removing footnotes and adding in propaganda is vandalism), removing a footnote and thus vandalising the article by your own standards. I accepted the point and worked on a version keeping all footnotes which I posted at almost the same time as you posted this section on the talk page. I am glad to see that editing to improve the balance of this article has continued, and hope that you can see the need to avoid giving undue weight to one viewpoint. ..dave souza, talk 19:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

3RR

By a judiscious use of anonymous sockpuppets you have forced me to dely any further reversion. But rest assured I shall. This article is not a soapbox for political agendas. TharkunColl 22:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The current version claims that the term only acquired cultural and political meanings because of the UK - where is the evidence for this? And where is the evidence that the Irish rejected the term in 1922? Some of them still use it today! TharkunColl 22:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The term was invented for political purposes under the Stuarts, along with the Union Jack. Because the term has no legal basis, the only evidence we'll get for its rejection is anecdotal - there may be newspaper articles that can be cited, but that's getting in to OR.--Shtove 22:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
The term dates back to the Classical geographers. TharkunColl 22:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Without commenting on the content issue (yet), referring to 172 as an "anonymous sockpuppet," when he's a contributor of four years standing, is odd in the extreme. Mackensen (talk) 22:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Okay fair enough - but he made no comment on the talk page, which is still pretty anonymous. This article has been hijacked by the political POV pushers, and those who disagree with them have been muzzled. I have been accused of hating the Irish, when in fact nothing could be further from the truth. TharkunColl 22:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
172 has certainly posted various comments on the talk page, if you'll look back over it - it's possible that he mostly commented in old sections, and that you haven't noticed them (I just read the section in the last half hour, and saw various comments by him.)

Examples of bias

For a statement that the term is avoided by institutions in Ireland, the footnote gives two bodies that do use it (RNLI and Irish Lights).

The claim is made that the term only aqcuired cultural meanings because of the UK before 1922 - no evidence is given for this at all.

The Lloyd George statement is, at best, ambiguous - "propinquity", a rare word, has connotations of kinship that go beyond mere proximity. His statement could easily be read to imply that Ireland is indeed in the British Isles. It has no worth as evidence. TharkunColl 23:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Wrong on every point. The RNLI and the Irish Lights are British institutions that were not passed over to the Irish Free State due to a technical error in 1922. They are paid for by the Irish taxpayer and are referred to, as were other institutions pre-1922, as British Isles institutions.

A technical error? Prove it! Provide us with evidence, not assertions. In fact, the RNLI is an independent charity that is not under government control anyway - and to split it would have made no sense given what its function is. As for Irish Lights, again, splitting it would have made no sense. TharkunColl 08:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Your second point suggests you don't know your history.

Provide evidence of your assertion. That's all I'm asking. TharkunColl 08:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Propinquity has a clear dictionary meaning. It would not be used if Lloyd George thought Ireland was part of the British Isles. It has every worth as evidence. Your claim to the contrary just shows how poor your research skills and judgement are. The footnote is directly relevant and will be re-inserted, as will everything else, as often as necessary.

And I will continue to delete your grotesque bias whenever I possibly can. This is a dictionary, not a soapbox for nationalism. Just because you don't like a term, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. TharkunColl 08:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I think Lloyd George's statement does denotate that "Ireland" and "the British Isles" are mutually exclusive. That does not mean that "Lloyd George thought Ireland was not part of the British Isles." It means that he used a particular phrase in one particular letter (or whatever it was). Just because Lloyd George made that statement does not mean that if one had asked Lloyd George to define "the British Isles" he wouldn't have said they included Ireland. We shouldn't attribute more significance to what is, after all, a single passing remark, than is appropriate. john k 09:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The only bias is your inability to recognise that, as the rest of the planet but you seems to grasp, the British Isles is not merely a geographic term, and the claim that Ireland is in the British Isles is a matter of considerable controversy. As a result to state categorically that the term only has a geographic meaning, and that Ireland definitely is in the BI, is a falsehood, a deliberate mispresentation to push your personal agenda. It will be removed and an NPOV statement placed there, as often as necessary. If that means inserting it daily for the next week, month or year, various users will do that. Dodgy POV-pushing about the term's meaning and Ireland's status cannot be allowed to stand under NPOV rules and will not be. Various users, from Ireland, Britain, the US and elsewhere will be correcting any false claims such as those added in, every time they are added in. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 23:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

As you are so sensitive about terminology, and most of us have been trying to accomodate all views amongst the bickering of a minority, kindly return the respect and refer to United Kingdom, not Britain. --Bazza 08:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Moreover, if the article gives undue weight to the minority POV that "British Isles" is some sort of offensive imperialist term, then it risks offending the larger majority of people in the Isles who will regard such POV-ing as excessively zealous political correctness.--feline1 08:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Jtdirl/FearÉIREANN, your assertion that others "state categorically that the term only has a geographic meaning" is a straw man, and seems to arise from an inability to realise that "widely" does not mean "universally". However, your stated intention to edit war is noted. ..dave souza, talk 20:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


Feline1 returns from his 3RR blocking with his mouth washed out with soap and water :)

Dear all, I have strong concerns about User:Jtdirl's conduct & impartiality as an WP:ADMIN in this "Edit war". With many of his comments to other editors (e.g. calling their edits "vandalism", talk contributions "lies", "net rubbish", "bullshit", "laughable", "deluded", "wacky", accused them of "arrogance", "ignorance"... etc etc), I feel he is paying scant regard to wikipedia policies such as WP:CIVIL, WP:ATTACK and WP:FAITH.

I also have strong concerns about the current state of this British Isles article and User:Jtdirl's contribution as an editor. I feel he is paying scant regard to wiki guidelines such as WP:CON and the WP:NPOV policy. My reading of this talk page is that most editors feel that (i) "British Isles" is the most appropriate title for the article in line with WP:NAME, (ii) the article is currently out-of-balance and should focus more on geography and history (iii) some much briefer mention of the contentious nature of the name "British Isles" should be present (my own editorial attempt at this was an italicised disclaimer at the top), but that the bulk of this material is better handled by the British Isles terminology article (which currently contains duplicates of all that stuff). User:Jtdirl is continuing to revert edits which seek to achieve particularly the latter.

The issue of the neutral point of view and in particular WP:NPOV#Undue weight have been raised by editors above, although ignored by User:Jtdirl. I believe the WP:NPOV#Undue weight aspect is the key to this whole edit war (it is certainly what piqued my personal involvement). Currently most of the article intro and 3 more entire sections are devoted to the "naming dispute" aspect. Since the present naming dispute is a Meta-issue, and will not change the height of Mt Snowdon or the length of the river Shannon by one inch, or affect the events of history stretching back 2 millenia into the past, I feel this meta-issue can be usefully dealt with largely by British Isles terminology. I do not think there is much disagreement that the term "British Isles" is contentious amoung those with what might be very broadly described under an Irish Nationalist political POV (which probably includes by far the greater part of people on the island of Ireland, and also amoungst other nationalist groups in the UK (Scots, Welsh, Cornish...). However with the population of the United Kingdom at just under 60 million, Republic of Ireland at just over 4 million, and the share of the vote in elections for parties such as Plaid Cymru and the Scottish National Party relatively poor considering the UK electorate overall, the number of people resident in the "British Isles" who find the term contentious/offensive is with reasonable likelihood quite substantially in the minority. Moreover the term is widely known throughout the world, where people are largely unaware of the controversy (cf. examples of figures such as the President of Russia and spouse of the President of the USA - hardly people ignorant of international affairs). It is very much my view, and I believe also the view of other impartial editors, that the "naming dispute" aspect of the article is falling foul of WP:NPOV#Undue weight. Also, whilst stressing that I am in NO way trying to be offensive or make assumptions about people, I have been examing the user:talk pages of most of the editors involved in this edit war. Amoungst those who maintain the "naming dispute" aspect is NOT unduly weighted, I detect a majority who identify themselves as Irish Wikipedians and/or have done much fine work editing articles relating to Ireland. I respectfully suggest that these people are something of a "special interest group" on this naming dispute issue and cannot be taken as representative of the Neutral Point of View.

To make particular reference with respect to my dealings with User:Jtdirl - I appreciate I am often more withering in my comments than is desirable, and apologise for any offence caused. (Suggestions such that we instead all strip naked and club each other to death in a xenophobic rage are, I assure you, intended to be light-hearted :) and diffuse the situation by making us see how ridiculous it is becoming, rather than an attempt to inflame it. I would refer you to the fight between the Judean Peoples' Front and the People's Front of Judea in Life of Brian...) With regard to my WP:3RR violation, I was annoyed that my edits were reverted and called "vandalism" when I had been trying to enact what I perceived to be the editorial consensus. You approached User:172 on their talkpage User_talk:172#Soapbox articles asking for their collaboration (I know that you have worked with 172 before). 172 proceeded to revert my edits 3 times and you then did twice more. I believed the pair of you to be acting in consort to revert me, effectively giving yourselves an 6RR limit! You described your edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=British_Isles&oldid=62270897 "reinsert opening" when in fact it is a simple reversion (thus reinstate much more "naming dispute" material than just the opening para)! I felt this was an attempt to disguise your behaviour. Above anything else, I feel it is deeply improper for you to use your admin powers to block me under 3RR when you are an antagonist in said edit war. (I do not accept that "no other admins were available" - surely you can leave details on the WP:AN/3RR noticeboard and someone in another time zone would have acted?) When I have complained about your conduct via my own talk page, you simply accused me of making personal attacks and threatened to block me for yet longer periods. With all due respect, I feel this is an abuse of your admin role - you cannot adjudicate on an issue you yourself are so embroiled in.

More than one other editor has already made an appeal that we seek mediation under WP:RFM. I support this request. It is also clear that some editors (myself included) are uncertain how to use the relevant template to achiece this. I suggest that if User:jtdirl was a responsible and honorable admin, he would [Disengage for a while] and assist us in setting up an WP:RFM.

The above attack is so ridiculous and illinformed that it isn't worth wasting time on. Users who engage in 5 reverts to force their POV onto a page are in no position to issue lectures to anyone on standards of behaviour. Someone like Feline1 who uses his talk page to make personalised attacks on Irish users using something like the Irish famine to try to cause offence is beneath contempt. What next? Attack American contributors by ridiculing 9/11? Attack Jewish users by ridiculing the Holocaust? Attack Japanese users by laughing at Hiroshima? People who behave that way are simply bigots, and rascist bigots like that have no place on Wikipedia. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 01:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Jtdirl, you've responded to my comments by simply making a personal attack on me! (that I'm "ridiculous", "illinformed", and a "racist bigot" and "beneath contempt"). You've persisted in your accusations of bad faith by characterising my attempt at implementing editorial consenus as an attempt to "force my POV". Attacking me on the basis of thing I have not done (ridiculing 9/11, the Holocaust or Hirishima) is to set up straw men. (My comment talk page which referred to the potato famine was intended as heavy handed satire from one Irish man to another, not to cause offense - when I saw that it had offended, I removed it and apologised). In short, I feel your response just adds further weight my concerns about your conduct as an admin vis a vis WP:CIVIL, WP:ATTACK and WP:FAITH. The fact that one user violated WP:3RR does not grant an admin license to continue to violate wikipedia policies. And you've said nothing further to address the substantive points made re: WP:NPOV#Undue weight nor address the reasonable request for mediation under WP:RFM.--feline1 07:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


I don't think this needs mediation. See John k's summary above for a sensible a realistic sumamry of the situation. If this were to go to mediation I would imagine it would soon end up on that lame edit wars page. This is a perfectly solvable issue.
As for the block; I don't think that Jtdril should have blocked you and I think that some of his conduct has been 'un-adminy'. However, this was done in the face of Feline1 breaking policy. The 3RR exists for a reason and editors who break it do not receive much sympathy from the community (and righlty so). You should have been blocked though Jtdril, no matter the inconvenience, should have waited for another admin to be free. Furthermore, Feline1's condut since then has hardly been exemplary.
However, what should happen now is for both of you to acknowledge that you've made a few errors of judgement here - we all do so sometimes - and allowed yourselves to be cought up in an argument that needed not happen. Apologise, move on, and learn from this dispute for future conduct. --Robdurbar 09:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I made no error of judgment. I acted in accordance with precedent where a user was abusing the 3RR rule by engaging, despite appeals to stop, in 5 reverts with a threat to keep reverting ad infinitum and no other admin was available to stop it. It is standard in those situations for an admin, even one who had been party to a dispute, to step in. Otherwise everyone tends to join in and break the 3RR rule and a massive edit war erupts. You should be complaining about Feline's typically disgraceful behaviour (from non-stop reverts to anti-Irish attacks to ignoring appeals from users to stop, to calling editors with years of editing history 'sockpuppets', etc). I acted as is standard in emergency situations, by stopping the orgy of reversions, then asking admins, when one became available, to review the block, and in the meantime withdrawing from editing the page until the block had been reviewed. In emergencies that is what is done. If such a situation arises again where any user keeps reverting well beyond the maximum of 3 allowed, and threatens explicitly to keep doing so, and no other admin can be found to deal with it, I will again have to issue a block. It was all done above board, openly and honestly, with an explanatory note put here, and a request for a review put on the WP:ANI. I obeyed Wikipedia rules, unlike Feline who just gave the rules, and fellow users, the two fingers. But then, given the abuse he has posted elsewhere, showing contempt for Wikipedia rules seems part of the course with Feline. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 00:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Well I'm not *asking* for sympathy, Robdurbar :) I would however like to see the article returned to a sensible neutral balance free from undue weight on minority POV (I would be particularly pleased so see some further improvement/enhancement on the geological/climactic content, something which the protagonists of this edit war seem to have no interest in whatsoever). Whether or not mediation is required will depend on whether editors are allowed to implement consensus without unilateral reversions from POV-pushers...John k's suggestions are essentially the same as the already established consensus. As for "learning from this dispute for future conduct" - my dear fellow, knowing my fellow countrymen as I do, I doubt I will ever see such disputes cease within my lifetime, whether on the Interweb or anywhere else. I mean you know what day it is on Weds 12th, for instance...? ;-) --feline1 09:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I believe it can be resolved and progress has been made on Wikipedia regarding the Derry/County Londonderry issue, for example. There also has been clear distinctions made in numerous articles between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. None of this would have been achieved had everyone stuck to the "majority view" mantra.--Damac 09:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I almost hesitate to look at the City-whose-name-starts-fights article :) but a quick glance shows several screenfuls about the city itself, and only one section about the actual name. This seems sensibly in proportion, and would be an admiral aim for the British Isles article.--feline1 09:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I couldn't help noticing that in the case of that particular city, the Nationalist POV, namely to call it "Derry", has been given top billing, even though the majority of its population are presumably part of the Loyalist/Protestant community (since it is, after all, a city in Northern Ireland). This comes as no surprise, given the intansigent nature of the agenda-pushers in Wikipedia. TharkunColl 11:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Er, wow. No, Derry/Londonderry is most certainly majority Catholic. Look at Derry City Council - 24 Nationalist to 6 Unionist council members. john k 11:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
It seems to me that the Irish Nationalists want it both ways. On the one hand they assert that the Republic of Ireland is a sovereign state separate from the UK (which it is), but on the other hand they want to interfere with articles about subjects connected with Northern Ireland (which is part of the UK). They can't have it both ways. TharkunColl 11:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

TharkunColl; please don't take this off topic. --Robdurbar 11:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

No, please, let him as it exposes his nationalist POV
TharkunColl, you presume too much. The compromise Derry for the city and County Londonderry for the county was worked out after a long discussion. As regards the city, I see nothing wrong with calling it according to how the majority of its (the city's) residents and city council see it. Is this anything different to what you've been fighting for weeks for over at Falkland Islands.
Your suggestion that you are somewhat free from any POV is laughable. You clearly have an agenda and this is to favour and promote whatever term British people have created for particular entities ("British Isles", "Londonderry", Falklands) over anything else, even when the local majority (e.g. Derry) reject these labels.
Contrary to your denials, you are a nationalist. You show no evidence that you are willing to apply your lofty arguments in defence of the Falkland Islanders elsewhere. Let's look at some of these arguements (with my comments in italics) made on Talk:Falkland Islands:
  • It's not nationalistic to speak the truth. According to your ideas, the whole world and his wife should have a say in the naming of the place, apart from the people that actually live there. TharkunColl 18:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
But it is nationalistic to speak the "truth" from an Irish perspective? Or is "truth" the preserve of British nationalists? And the people of the "British Isles"/Derry don't have a right in how the place they live in should be named?
  • "Malvinas" is hardly ever used in English. Furthermore, it is rejected by the islanders. Foreign territorial claims should be mentioned in the body of the article, not in the header. TharkunColl 17:52, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
But the Irish people and Derry city are expected to accept labels they don't use and which were imposed from without?
  • Why are we giving so much prominence to the territorial claims of a foreign aggressor? TharkunColl 11:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Apply that in the "British Isles" case!
  • that the occupiers imposed alien names on the place should also be mentioned - where it belongs, in the history section. TharkunColl 06:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
A good argument to confine the term "British Isles" to the rubbish bin of history
  • "Malvinas" is not the name of the islands because that is not what the people who live there call them. TharkunColl 19:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Exactly, just as the majority of people in Ireland reject the term "British Isles", and the majority of people of Derry reject "Londonderry".
  • But the name of the islands is not disputed by the people that matter, namely, the Falkland Islanders. It is completely irrelevant that Argentina has problems with the name, they are a foreign country and it is none of their business. The Argentines are attempting to impose themselves on a people who want nothing to do with them. Can you not see how fundamentally wrong that is? TharkunColl 21:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Please allow me to paraphrase: But the name "British Isles" is disputed by the majority of people in Ireland. It is "completely irrelevant" that you have a problem with this. You are from "a foreign country and it is none of [your] business. The "British" are attempting to impose themselves on a people who want nothing to do with them. Can you not see how fundamentally wrong that is?
Your refusual to adhere to your own standards in this debate exposes your nationalist POV and your arrogant colonial attitude.--Damac 11:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I was wrong about Derry - if the majority of its citizens are Nationalists then Derry is the correct name. As for the Falklands, a majority (in fact, 100 per cent) of its inhabitants don't want them to be called Malvinas. As for British Isles, a majority of their inhabitants - perhaps by a ratio of 60:4, have no problem with the term. Can you see my reasoning here? It's not that difficult really you know. TharkunColl 13:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I can see you reasoning, and it's a reasoning I detest. Similar justifications were put forward for the retention of the pre-1922 United Kingdom - you would argue that as the majority were in favour of it, it should have remained. The term "British Isles" is redundant. The majority of people in five-fifths of an island that you claim forms part of the so-called entity as well as a significant minority in the remaining fifth of the same island reject the term and do not describe themselves as coming from or living in the so-called "British Isles". Can't you see that you are forcing a label on a territory where the majority reject it. This is not even nationalism, it's aggressive interference with the wishes of another sovereign entity. You've more in common with the Argentinians than you think!--Damac 14:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Tharkun, it's always best to tread carefully when you have no clue what you're talking about. Surely the fact that Derry/Londonderry has a Nationalist majority is not only quite well known, it was easily discoverable before you started talking about it. The Derry article itself notes that the 2001 census showed its population to be 78% of a Catholic background and 21% of a Protestant background. And surely, even without specific knowledge on Derry, this was a subject to speak carefully on - surely you know that Northern Ireland is, at this point, nearly evenly divided between Catholics and Protestants, and that there's no reason to assume that one particular city would be largely Unionist without any specific knowledge. It would be great if everyone would make sure they had some idea what they're talking about before they say something. john k 13:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, you're right. Mea culpa! I'm not an expert on Derry and merely made an incorrect assumption. But I've admitted it now and fully accept that because the majority of people in the city call it Derry, then that is its correct name. Most of my arguments have been linguistic in nature, and I get a little peeved when certain people ascribe nationalist motives to me - as if that somehow undermines my position. TharkunColl 14:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
And you don't think other people get peeved when you through around the nationalist label like confetti?--Damac 14:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Well what would you call it when those people overload an article with the POV of a tiny minority of the population of the place? As I said, the likelihood is that British Isles is perfectly acceptable to something like 60:4 of its population, i.e. 15:1. 1 in 15 is a small minority - not insignificant I agree, and their objections should be stated - but not to the extent of overburdening the article. TharkunColl 14:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I call it asserting an expression of the sovereignty of the Republic of Ireland, and an expression of self-determination. I would liken it to the right of the Falklands people to resist hostile Argentinian attempts to label it.
The so-called "British Isles" does not have "a" population. The entity you describe as the "British Isles" encompasses two sovereign states. The smaller of the two states is not subject to the majority rule of the larger entity. Those days are thankfully over; it's 2006 and not 1922.--Damac 14:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
To say that the British Isles does not have "a" population is mere semantics - people live there, and people form a population. Would you deny that the earth has a population? It is also worth noting that I lost the Falklands argument and the alien term "Malvinas" is right there in the first line. And no one is talking about rule by one state over another - simply linguistic usage. In any case, part of Ireland is still under UK rule - unfortunately. In my opinion the division of Ireland was a crime and the sooner we get shot of Northern Ireland the better. TharkunColl 14:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
RFM

I noticed there is some talk of filing an WP:RFM. My other case appears to be going slowly, so Im willing to help out in any way I can here. Please file first though. Cases can be assigned with or without mutual agreement from parties, though refusal of mediation typically means moving on to WP:RFA.-Ste|vertigo 18:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

See more progressive discussions below. This article has gone through no early stages of dispute resolution and a mediation would only drag out an issue that is esaily solvable and appears to be being worked through. --Robdurbar 21:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


One term, One article, One thorough explanation

Just returned and seen that discussion continues! 'British Isles' is a term in common usage and so, without question, needs a Wikipedia article to cover it. I've already given my opinion, at some length, that the article should in cover everything associated with the term. The idea of making the 'British isles' article solely about geography and sweeping every other issue (some of which some people may not like but exist none-the-less) under the carpet on a side article is ridiculous. Incidentally, my Hitler example (given above) was certainly an extreme one - as many good illustrative examples often are - but hopefully made the general point. I wasn't aware of this Godwin's Rule thing, but it seems a good one to me and will be respected henceforth. For another example then, imagine a 'King George III' article that refers in passing to 'medical issues' before going on to talk about his wonderful accomplishments...the user would have to go to 'George III (Medical Issues)' to read that the man went absolutely barking mad for a long period when he ruled the Empire! No, I'm with: One term, one article, one thorough explanation. User: PConlon 13:50, 7 July 2006

PConlon, you may find the article on Meta helpful in understanding others' points of view here. I believe the correct analogy would be not over the treatment of aspects of George III's actual life, but whether their happened to be a dispute or confusion as to what "George III"'s correct name was. So long as the commonest name was used in the article, readers would know what it was talking about, and there would be no need for lengthy caveats every single time his name was mentioned - the naming issues would be a meta-discussion which could be covered separated. (Actually I believe such issues do exist for, say, various pharoahs, where they used multiple names for themselves, and there may be disagreements how to translate these hieroglyps, and yet others appear in Greek, Biblical, etc sources. However you will see for example that the Thutmose III article does not include a multi-paragraph digression or oodles of caveats/weasel words every single time that pharoah's name is mentioned! It just uses the most common name and gets on with the facts)--feline1 13:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

You still miss the point...I'm not typing the same thing over and over again, as it must bore others (it does me). If you willfully choose not to get my point, that's your own issue. A complete article on the term 'British Isles' with a separate 'terminology' article linked to it is ridiculous. Btw, how did you manage to respond to my point before I wrote it?! User: PConlon 15:14, 7 July 2006

PConlon, I do not "willfully" miss your point, I simply do not agree with your reasoning. Please be mindful of the wikipedia assume good faith policy.--feline1 14:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I assumed it, but since then I've seen little evidence of it from you. Your attitude appals me; as others have already said, it appears to be uncompromising, bigoted and imperialistic. Also, sheer volume of argument does not make up for anything it might lack in substance - just a general point. User: PConlon 15:35, 7 July 2006

Imperialistic? My political suggestion was that we all stripped naked and clubbed each other conconscious in a xenophobic rage. I ask you: is that a way to run a f*cking empire? It seems to me to have more in common with an anarco-syndicalist commune, where all decisions must be ratified at a bi-weekly meeting, requiring a 2/3rds majority in the case of purely internal affairs, and an...--feline1 14:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree fully with you, User:Pconlon, that 'the idea of making the 'British isles' article solely about geography and sweeping every other issue...under the carpet on a side article is ridiculous.' Removing the context from this article and placing it in a "terminology" page is simply a way for nationalistically-minded British wikipedians to attenuate the widespread Irish rejection of the term, to confine that objection to some remote part of wikipedia and get on with advancing this particular product of their country's relationship to Ireland, this aspect of their nationalist mythology. With this term, context is everything- which is why of course the aforementioned wish to remove it. Felicitously on this point, Edward Said wrote brilliantly many years ago (in Orientalism) about the need for colonial countries to control the representation of the natives to the outside world. New World, it may be, but alas some of the old dogs with their old tricks are with us yet. El Gringo 14:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

El Gringo, the article is not just about geography - it contains numerous sections on the murderous antics of the inhabitants over the past few millenia as well.--feline1 14:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at Geographical_renaming#Naming_disputes; every article listed there is about a naming dispute, and separate from the article about the entity whose name is in dispute. With one exception: British Isles. Take a look at Derry. A good article about the city; the first section after the intro is about the naming dispute (already entioned in the intro) with a link to the separate article about the dispute. The rest of the article takes the name "Derry" which is the title of the article and uses that in discussing all other aspects of the city. I think that is a good model for British Isles. Let us take "British Isles" to mean "Great Britain, Ireland and the rest"; mention that (1) many people dislike "British Isles" and use some other words to mean "Great Britain, Ireland and the rest" and (2) some people use "British Isles" to mean something else; link to another article discussing these issues; then move on and discuss the other aspects of the isles. What other aspects? A few examples: Geology of the British Isles and Trees of Britain and Ireland; Climate of the United Kingdom could be expanded into Climate of the British Isles since Ireland#Climate is pretty sparse; likewise British avifauna as against Ireland#Fauna. I don't think nationalist sensibilities can be offended by observing that the climate, plants and animals in Britain and Ireland are similar; a single article to cover both is better than nothing for Ireland (it can be refactored later when an Irish expert becomes available). How much of Category:British Isles needs to be summarised in the head article is just a detail. jnestorius(talk) 18:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Well said. --Bazza 19:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC) (a non-nationalistically-minded British but would rather be considered English Wikipedian)
One term, one article, and many, many links. Para 1: The British Isles is a term used to refer to the islands of Britain, Ireland etc. Para 2: The term is considered controversial (link to terminology article). Para 3: list of links to History of Ireland, Geology of England - oops, red-link - Geology of Britain etc - including Ireland#Climate. The partial material covered here comes in much fuller form elsewhere. See History of Britain for precedent of this form. And once the list of links gets going we can argue about that and be happy.--Shtove 21:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Archaeology, Prehistory, and History

How should the history of the islands be presented here? It is a shame that the current article does not lead the reader directly to Prehistoric Britain and Early history of Ireland as well as the other relevant articles. In my opinion outline form would be best, attempts to summarize the numerous articles would quickly bloat the article.EricR 16:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

This is actually a case in point. During the Neolithic period and Bronze Age the British Isles shared the same stone-circle building culture. Something like this surely belongs here. TharkunColl 16:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I suggested above (lost in the controversy) that this article consist of a short intro (2 paras: naming the islands + controversy over use of term), and then simply a list of links to articles that cover the content. Please look at History of Britain by way of example. This controversy is not going to end, and the material is better covered elsewhere.--Shtove 16:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Brythonic Celts in Ireland?

Now, this claim is one which I would dearly love to have evidence for, and I'm not the first here to ask this. Irish is a Q Celtic language as is, obviously, Scottish Gaelic. Welsh, in contrast, is a P Celtic language. I know of nobody who claims that Irish is a British/Brythonic language. So, how did our politically motivated wikipedians manage to delve into some past and throw Goidelic Ireland into the Brythonic/British world? El Gringo 17:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Ask the ancient Greeks, my politically motivated chum...dave souza, talk 18:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Did something just fly by the window? What does that mean, chum?--Shtove 19:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
FTFA, the AG's called the whole lot Pretanike, Classical geographers followed suit and the term entered English around 1621. Unfortunately some politically motivated person has edited out the point that Celt was coined around 1707, at which point the "Celtic world" extended from central Europe where the Greeks and Romans thought it was. Get it? ..dave souza, talk 20:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
No. At some stage it was asserted that the peoples of ancient Britain and Ireland were identical in origin, and I think this is what El Gringo was addressing. Your point, I think, concerns the etymology of Britain. I take your point about classical geographers, but I'd like to see reference to a source that Pretanike was a Greek name for "the whole lot". The evidence from linguistic studies - minding our P's and Q's - muddies the water. Surely Celt is derived from an ancient Greek word? But that's all beside the point. Just as the English term Celt was a late invention, so too was British Isles. All that matters is the English term - not its etymology - invented c.1621 (along with the Union Jack), when the Stuarts were trying to establish a framework for their collection of kingdoms (in imitation of the Habsburgs in Iberia). Therefore, of purely political significance. I accept it's a well worn coin (time to take it out of circulation), and therefore worthy of definition on WP. But it doesn't need to head up a lengthy article, when the content of that article is comprehensively covered in other articles. Let it be reduced to a list of links. BTW, what does FTFA mean, IYWBSK?--Shtove 20:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Basically agree. Re the last question, you've got me there. Regarding the history, the claim that it was originally a geographic term seemed to me to beg the question of its political introduction by Jim VI, and I tried to edit it out: glad to see it seems to have gone. From what I can understand, the languages now called P and Q Celtic were related but different, and their geographical areas are hazy given the unknown of Pictish and questions about the west of Scotland, for example. IIRC there's also a question as to what extent the Beaker people were incomers or a cultural shift. From what I've read, trying to pin modern national identities on the Iron Age is pretty dodgy, and the term Brythonic is another recent academic adaption of a Welsh word. Hope that helps. ..dave souza, talk 21:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
On the term Celt in Irish history: there are Irish WP'ers who are irritated by its use - can't refer you from memory, but User:Jdorney may have leads and there are articles that reflect this. On the face of it, the term British Isles defies reason: there is one island called Ireland and one called Britain. The term does make sense in conventional use, and that's good enough for a sourced WP article. But where does it come from? My view is that it's a piece of Stuart propaganda, purely political, which got blown up (?bloomed) in the Victorian era. But the OED, a reputable source, apparently defines it as an exclusively geographical term while recognising its Stuart vintage. Others trace its origins back to classical antiquity - in my view, this ignores the tendentious use of etymology. On the evidence of this talk page, the corpse will keep twisting. Also, I have had disagreements with El Gringo - WP is about fact and opinion, but both sourced. BTW, what does IIRC mean, BYP?--Shtove 22:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Why does naming an island group after the largest island in the group "defy reason"? john k 04:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Just as you say, though I'd think Georgian rather than Victorian, with Rule, Britannia! dating from the 1740s. Of course the whole Celtic revival had nationalist political underpinnings, as well as antiquarian and artistic interest: both it and the British thing being part of the construction of national identities: Geopolitical seems appropriate. The Union of the Crowns might entertain. ..dave souza, talk 00:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


Channel Islands

I hope you don't mind a Welshman butting in on the Anglo-Irish War Part 2 (I hear that Ken Loach is already hard at work on the film), but I notice that the section on terminology says that the archipelago includes " ... the crown dependencies, the Isle of Man, Guernsey and Jersey, which are direct possessions of the British Crown and not part of the United Kingdom". I always understood that Guernsey and Jersey were not considered to be part of the archipelago. Does anybody have a citation? Rhion 06:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Here's one which can serve to muddy the waters:

...With reference to the area of coverage this in some way has been shaped by the political history of the islands that make up the British Isles.

These islands encompass both the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, which have maintained their own separate (from Westminster) system of government. The largest set of islands is Great Britain, comprising England, Wales and Scotland which have been joined under one monarch since 1603. For the period 1801-1920, Ireland was ruled directly from Westminster. Thus, for books printed before 1920, the British Isles was the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (and the Channel Islands, the Isles of Scilly and the Isle of Man). Since 1920, Ireland has been divided into Northern Ireland and Eire (the Republic of Ireland). Some texts produced in the period of post-Irish partition explored the British Isles (Demangeon 1927; Stamp and Beaver 1933; Watson and Sissons 1964); others the UK (Gardiner and Matthews 2000; Mohan 1999) and some Great Britain (Mitchell 1962).

Hardill, Irene; Eleonore Kofman, David T. Graham (2001). Human Geography of the UK: An Introduction. London: Routledge.  EricR 08:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Interesting. If the Channel Islands are considered to be part of the British Isles that would indicate that the term "British Isles" is political rather than geographic. Looking at a map, the Channel Islands are clearly geographically offshore islands of France. Mind you, maybe all the islands are offshore islands of France and should be renamed "The French Isles" ;) Rhion 10:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Naughty.--Shtove 10:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Ah, I like it, the French Isles, something the British and Irish can unite in opposing. You should become a diplomat. Alun 11:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't oppose - good food, civilised life: bring it on.--Shtove 17:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
And for soccer fans, as offshore French we have a team to support in the World Cup final tomorrow. Allez les Bleus! Rhion 17:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Not to mention the strength in depth we could provide to the French cricket team, and for those who are interested in rugby like Rhion, what a team we could field!!!! Alun 21:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


I think this notion that the Channel Islands are in the "English" Channel is offensive. It should be the Norman channel.--feline1 21:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
No no no, it's the British-Celtic-Saxon-Frankish-Friesian-Belgian (insert as appropriate) Channel. And what about the German Sea, I mean it's definitely not North of England. Alun 21:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
So what would you call the "Irish Sea"? ClemMcGann 21:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Well apparently it's the The Irish Sea (Irish: Muir Éireann). Let's have an edit war, yea!!! All your frustrations released without shedding a drop of blood. Isn't wikipedia just FAB!!!!Alun 21:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Neutral point of view in the lead

Regrettably, some editors seem to have difficulty in following the policy that conflicting views should be presented fairly, but not asserted, and that significant viewpoints should be represented in proportion to the prominence of each. While the shorter lead has come much closer to WP:LEAD, an intro is being pushed for that reads like the start of a "we hate this term" pamphlet. It's important to let readers know about the dispute, but it should also reflect the wide usage and acceptance of the term by people who know of the existence of the two sovereign states and don't consider that the term implies anything else. The Terminology section is currently inaccurate and needs work to improve neutrality. One alternative that seems common but isn't mentioned is simply referring to "Britain and Ireland", which is inoffensive but rather ambiguous: this should be discussed. However, the first priority must be to improve the lead. .. dave souza, talk 21:53, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree; the controversial aspects of the term are given way too much prominence. All it needs in the intro is a sentence noting that some people dislike the term. It can then be discussed in more detail in the article proper. Martin 22:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Like Common usage, including this article, includes the Republic of Ireland under the term: this is disputed because British Isles can be interpreted as implying United Kingdom sovereignty over the entire archipelago, even though this is not the case. For detailed discussion of this issue see the Terminology section below. The introduction should be just that — succinct points referring to more in depth discussion later on or elesewhere. --Bazza 09:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Removed reference

I have removed the following reference from the article:

<ref.>A minister is asking for easier access to birth certificates which "is the norm throughout the rest of the British Isles including Northern Ireland" The term 'British Isles' is not officially recognised by the Irish Government.</ref.>

far from supporting the assertion that the Irish government never uses the term British Isles, this reference does the opposite. If the British Isles includes Northern Ireland, then ipso facto, the British Isles also includes the Republic of Ireland, what with them being on the same island and all. Regardless, saying that it is not "officially recognised by the Irish government" is something of a red herring. As far as I'm aware the term is not "officially recognised" by anyone; one might as well say that the fact the indigenous inhabitants of the Amazon have not "officially recognised it" means they find it offensive too. Martin 23:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Simplistic and wrong, again. If millions disagree with claims as to the meaning of a term then that has to go in at the beginning, and will go in at the beginning, however much it may inconvenience souza's agenda-pushing. If he wants to write one-sided propaganda, I'm sure there are plenty of sites that would willingly accept his POV-pushing. Where a dispute exists as to the fundamentals of an issue the existence of a dispute is always mentioned up front. Some of us were involved in writing the NPOV policy years ago and have been involved in applying it (and in drafting many of the other main policies of Wikipedia). Souza shows no evidence of reading the NPOV policy, much less understanding it.
BTW this stuff about me pushing a pro-Irish Nationalist anti-British POV is pure garbage. As John Kenney can confirm, I was the one who stopped American editors moving the page of Charles, Prince of Wales to Mr Charles Windsor. I was the one who consulted with Buckingham Palace and with the Prince of Wales's office to establish correct titles for use in British royalty page. I was the one who stopped Irish-American republicans turning the page on the Irish Famine into a Brit-bashing rant, and I was the one who made sure that the name of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland was entered in correctly, and that English and British monarchs were referred to using their correct titles. So the idea that I am some bigoted Irish nationalist attacking Britain is garbage. Whether it is in British royal titles or the Irish Famine, the British Isles or pages on Australia's relationship with the crown, the only issue I am concerned with is accuracy. While most people on this page are also, a small minority show no interest whatsover in factual accuracy and are just interested in highjacking the page to push their country's agenda. Whether it is standing up to extreme republicans about the Famine or Americans over the Prince of Wales's title, or getting the facts right here, accuracy is the only thing that matters. If, as in here, simplistic claims and definitive assertions are wrong then I will fight on the issue as long as it takes. (I had to fight two months to stop Americans adding in the ridiculous Mr Charles Windsor nonsense, and will fight as long as it takes to stop similar simplistic nonsense being added in here also.) FearÉIREANN\(caint) 00:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
If you're replying to me, I don't believe I've stated anywhere that it shouldn't be mentioned in the introduction; indeed, I quite agree with you that it should be mentioned. However, I am of the opinion that in line with this, a sentence noting some people's displeasure with the term is all that is needed in the introduction. There is no need for any kind of in depth analysis in the intro. That is more appropriately placed in its own section. At the very least in the introduction, the material regarding any controversy should not outweigh the material actually discussing the term.
edit: Also, it'd be quite nice to have some statistics or references showing exactly how many people in Ireland dislike the term. Remember: "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". I realise that's something of a tall order, and I have no idea where such figures would come from, but it would be nice. Martin 02:17, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
The sentence "The claim that the Republic of Ireland is covered by the term is widely disputed in Ireland" is unclear and easily misinterpreted by the reader to mean "Many people in Ireland believe that the British Isles cover Northern Ireland but not the Republic" which (to a reader like me who comes to these sorts of pages to learn) would mean "Many people in Ireland believe that an island isn't an island." This is confusing text. It should be possible to have clear text describing a complex and potentially confusing situation. This key sentence should be rephrased with a synonym for "covered" that must indicate terminology and can't indicate geography . Flying Jazz 02:20, 9 July 2006 (UTC) (American editor. Hail, Prince Charles. I didn't do it.)
It's my understanding that some people take issue with the use of term, not with what it means. The British Isles includes Ireland, which is why some feel it implies British sovereignty in Ireland. Martin 02:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Beacuse of its meaning (or, more specifically, one non-politically-British region within its meaning), some people don't use ithe term. Categorizing this as a usage issue is not correct and categorizing it as a meaning issue is not correct either. I think you need both to be right and to be NPOV. Calling this lack of use "unpopularity" or "dislike" or "taking issue" based on what "some feel" is giving an unnecessarily emotional motive to a large group of people. What is important is its lack of use among them due to its meaning. Both meaning and usage should be involved in the same sentence. Flying Jazz 04:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
"It's my understanding that some people take issue with the use of term, not with what it means. The British Isles includes Ireland, which is why some feel it implies British sovereignty in Ireland. Martin 02:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC)" Quoting for emphasis. What an amazingly good point. We've been arguing over its meaning for the most part but you do appear to be correct, the truth of it is whether or not millions of people in the Republic of Ireland use the term, not what it means. The main arguments seems to be that they don't use it not regarding its meaning. This should be taken into consideration. If it is solely a usage (or lack or as they don't like the term) thing then most of these arguments are irrelevant. Just because someone doesn't use a term doesn't mean it's incorrect. Ben W Bell talk 06:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
No — I think that the dispute includes the meaning. There are contributors to this page who state the the term British Isles does not include the island of Ireland (because that island contains the Republic of Ireland). So, if an article says, for example, that the River Shannon is in the British Isles, then they will say that is incorrect. This is why it is important for this article to make clear that (a) the term British Isles as used here includes Great Britian and Ireland and (b) the term British Isles is, in some places, not normally accepted as meaning this. --Bazza 09:17, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, I would have to respectfully disagree myself. Just think about it for a moment. "British Isles" is a term used to refer to the archipelago off the coast of Europe that includes Great Britain, Ireland, and various other islands. There is no debate in Ireland, north or south, as to whether or not Ireland is included in that archipelago; it is an incontrovertible geographical fact that it is, and I'm not aware of anyone disputing it. The only debate is concerning what that archipelago is called, not what it contains. If everyone started calling the archipelago "The islands that belong to Queen Elizabeth II", Ireland would still be part of it; one can't opt out of being a geographical feature, but one can take issue with what that feature is called. Martin 14:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Only part of Ireland "belongs" to Queen Elizabeth II, and most of it definitely does not. And that's even ignoring the rather dodgy use of the word "belongs", inasmuch the Queen doesn't actually "own" anything more than a tiny fraction of the land area of the UK (and for all I know may even have personal property in the Republic - she certainly has in the USA, for example). But I totally agree with the main thrust of your comments - the term British Isles most certainly encompasses the whole of Ireland. The debate, surely, is whether the term itself is any longer appropriate, not what it actually means. From a linguistic point of view, the evidence is overwhelming that the phrase is still part of the language - not only in the UK but also in the Republic. This is proved, for example, by the numerous references to it from official Irish government sources. In short, the term British Isles is used and understood across the whole of the British Isles. TharkunColl 14:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
You may have missed my point — the term British Isles exists regardless of what is means. It might be used to refer to all the islands except Ireland; or it might be used to refer to all islands. Worldwide convention seems to say the latter is the one most commonly used. Your argument also falls back to the term being a political one, which approach has led to the dispute over what the term does or does not include. In the absence of any other commonly-used term to refer to the island group as a whole, British Isles should be the term used. --Bazza 15:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


Introduction npov

(New subsection to avoid discussion of the intro from getting mixed up with the deletion of references issue.)

Jtdirl/FearÉIREANN, your credentials are impressive. As you surely know, I don't have so much experience, and can only read carefully the policies as written down. I wonder if you also worked on Wikipedia:No personal attacks? From a quick look there seems to be nothing saying that it's acceptable to attribute an agenda to me that I don't hold and use that to dismiss my point of view: perhaps you can elucidate. By the way, people tend to call me dave for short: using a second name tends to look a little hostile, but of course customs may differ where you come from.

Regarding the introduction, you appear to feel that it should be framed to discredit the term, with all of it except the last short paragraph emphasising doubts about the term and the grievance that some people feel against it. In my opinion the introduction should state what the term usually refers to, state that there is a controversy but no alternative term has yet gained widespread use, and briefly list the area encompassed as it does at present. Details of the dispute from either viewpoint should be avoided in the lead. The controversy is also referred to in the italic disambiguation line at the top of the page. To me this better reflects npov and makes the controversy clear without giving a (perhaps substantial) minority view undue weight. The detailed points of argument should then be set out in full in the terminology section, or fully outlined there with full detail going in the British Isles (terminology) article.

From your comments and reverts it seems that we may have some difficulty in agreeing a balance here, and perhaps it would help now to get impartial outside comment on the best way forward? ...dave souza, talk 09:26, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Methinks that unfortunately, if there is no resolution within a day or two, then an RfC might be a good idea.
For that, a decent and neutral (i.e. no judgements made, only people's opinions stated) summary of the dispute would be highly useful, even necessairiy; this talk page is already very long. --Robdurbar 21:26, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


Why have most of the Irish govt. citations been removed?

Are they in some way unacceptable? TharkunColl 19:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

See the edit sumamry. It unecessairily infaltes page length to have more than two or three citations for the same point (especially where these are not citations, rather are examples.) If you feel some of the deleted ones are better, replace the current ones but there's no need for so many (indeed, having that many may even be a very light violation of WP:POINT). --Robdurbar 21:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

In 84 years of Irish "govt" (most of your citations were from politicians, not the government) the amount of citations you have referenced is very tiny. How many comments were made in the Oireachtas in this period? That is the context, whether you like it or not. You list people such as Mary Henry, a mere senator, of TCD (yes, Trinity College Dublin) who is playing to a certain, shall we say, "audience". Only the most wilfully blind would think such a person was representative of Irish society. 193.1.172.163 22:08, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it will go away, you know. TharkunColl 22:29, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Anyone with the slightest understanding of sourcing knows that sources have to be

  • contextual
  • accurate
  • representative
  • informative.

Your links aren't. Mary Henry is a classic example. Mary is a senator from the University of Dublin, a former bastion of Irish unionism - where I studied too. As such it would be remarkable if she hadn't used the term, given that her electorate would expect her to. (Quoting Mary as an example is a bit like quoting a reference to royal weddings as evidence that most people still get married wearing morning suits. Royalty, by definition of course wear morning suits or military uniforms. So sourcing them isn't proof of anything.) Of course Mary uses British Isles, just as Tories like singing Rule Britannia and Labour people like singing the Red Flag. It goes with the territory and is evidence of nothing except either your scraping the barrel for evidence or your complete lack of understanding of context. Having Mary Henry, given her electorate, use the term would be no more unusual than her colleague, gay rights campaigner Senator David Norris, delivering a speech defending gay rights, or Pope Benedict delivering a speech attacking gay rights, or George Bush speaking about how marriage must be between a man and a woman, Her Majesty delivering a speech on the value of the Crown in Australia, or Gerry Adams defending the role of the IRA in the Troubles.

Informative sources would be where Mary Henry attacked the use of British Isles, David attacked gay rights, the President praised gay marriage, Her Majesty urged Australia to become a republic, or Adams attacked the IRA's role in the Troubles.

Similarly your reference to Síle de Valera is evidence of how little you know about the topic. Anyone who know's Síle's viewpoint knows very well as that she hold extreme republican views — she played a key role in forcing Jack Lynch out of the party leadership by expressing a republican attack on him. And anyone who knows how ministers operate know very well that they don't write their own speeches; they don't have the time to. If they have time they proof-read the speech in advance. If they don't they read what is written. In Síle's case, as is well known, she went ballistic when she realised that the speech she was reading included phraseology she would never use. She bollocked the speechwriter afterwards over it and AFAIK never used him again. Either you know that and deliberately mislead people by not mentioning it, or you didn't know that, in which your research was incompetently done and amateurish.

But then your contributions here show no evidence of professional sourcing, just POV-pushing.

Proper professional sourcing would know the difference between ministers reading speeches on automatic pilot that were written by others (George Bush recently had the same problem. A speechwriter used a term he would never ever use himself but he was literally reading the words off the teleprompter when he realised "oh. For fuck sake. Who wrote this?" But at that stage it was too late. He had read the words.) and people delivering their own words, and would seek sources that reflect the speaker's words (for example, in interviews, unscripted parliamentary debates, in televised debates, in newspaper articles, etc). Your contributions show no evidence of professional sourcing, just a lot of evidence of taking things out of context, or not letting other contributors here know the context, to push your agenda. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 23:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Source for this business about Síle de Valera? john k 23:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, Ben Bell posted a bunch of links above to mentions of "British Isles" Irish people. I don't think anybody is disputing that there are various Irish people who find the term offensive and don't use it. But it also seems clear that various people in the Republic do use the term, including various people in parliamentary debates and reports. Even if some of them are quasi-unionists, and others are only using it because a scriptwriter fucked up, the fact remains that the term is used in the Republic, and it is used to include Ireland. There has still been almost no evidence presented to support the idea that much of anyone uses the term "British Isles" in a way which excludes Ireland. john k 23:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

John,

You'd be lucky to find 20% of Irish people who use it in a way that includes Ireland. There is an overwhelming consensus in Ireland that it does not cover Ireland. There is also growing opposition to the term among both the Scottish Nationalists and the Scottish Labour Party. Even the Scottish Conservative Party shies away from using British that much. Only last week the Record recorded Scottish Labour Party embarrassment that Gordon Brown endorsed the English soccer team in the World Cup and spoke of the team "representing Britain". And the Scottish Tories too were annoyed that Cameron used "British pride" to describe the reaction to the fact that England actually didn't get knocked out in the first round. To rebuild their electoral prospects the Scottish Tories have been replacing the word "British" with "Scottish" in leaflets of late. Even in England, some Tories have been using "English" rather than "British" more and more, while the National Front disown the word "British" in their most recent policy statements and stress their Englishless. Similarly the Royal Family lays far more emphasis on its individual Scottish and English origins than a shared Britishness. (The Princess Royal, in Holyrood, stresses that she is the granddaughter of a Scottishwoman and works with the Scottish Rugby Football Union, while Prince William associates with English organisations like the Football Association. The BBC and the Guardian both ask that "British Isles" not be used, or in the latter case, that "British Isles and Ireland" be used if at all possible, while in legislation British Islands is used in preference to British Isles where possible. The Foreign Office also recommends that "British Isles" no longer be used. Recently both Blair and Ahern, in a speech, used "Islands of the North Atlantic" where in the past British prime ministers at least would have said "British Isles". I think you seriously overestimate the extent to which the term is used, and underestimate the extent to which everyone, from the Irish to the British Foreign Office, the BBC to the Royal Family, the Labour Party to the National Front, try to avoid using it. In large parts of British academia, it is seen as politically incorrect to use the term, with many campuses and many academics either discouraging its use, or in some case, banning it altogether. (I have been at 3 conferences in the last 2 years where the term "British Isles and Ireland" or the "Anglo-Celtic Isles" were used and where academics were explicitly told not to use it, because it was "potentially offensive to millions on these islands, in Ireland, Wales and Scotland".) FearÉIREANN\(caint) 00:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

What exactly is the grievance here? Some people take objection to the use of the term, and some people do not. It is silly to pretend that the entirety of Ireland is up in arms when its used, and it is also silly to pretend that it is an entirely geographical term with no political connotations. What's the problem with bringing this out in the article? There seems to be a lot of complaining about how stupid everyone else is, and very little discussion of the article itself. I will repeat what it says at the top of this page: Talk pages are not strictly a forum to argue different points of view about controversial issues. They are a forum to discuss how different points of view should be included in the article so that the end result is neutral. I for one am getting rather tired of the constant back and forth bickering going on here, so I hope others will join me in exhorting us to put our toys back in the pram, and actually dicuss how to make the article better. Martin 00:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Here here! As a Scot, I really do detest the name British Isles, for it has forever been used by fuddy duddies who want to rant and rave about things British, basically meaning English. I always refer to my country as Scotland and would never ever use the term British Isles. MelForbes 00:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
And as an Englishman I always refer to my country as England, and my nationality (along with yours) as British. But what name do you use when you want to refer to the group of islands, some of which make up Scotland? --Bazza 12:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Why on earth should "British Isles" be offensive to Scottish or Welsh people? Surely they are, by any definition, British, and Scotland and Wales are (mostly) on the island of Great Britain. If one referred to all of Great Britain as "England," I can see why that is offensive (although I think the sensitivity about this is taken to quite ridiculous levels), but "British" is a term which is specifically inclusive of Welsh and Scottish people. And the issue with Brown and Cameron endorsing the England team is that Scottish people hate England, or at least the English football team, and don't think that the England team represents them, not that the term "British" is offensive. Beyond this, most of this was a vague rant, and you didn't respond to either of my specific questions, re: source for the stuff about Sile de Valera, and any kind of response to the idea that plenty of people in Ireland apparently use "British Isles," re: Ben Bell's links provided above.
To me, the basic issue seems to be that a fair number of people dislike the terms "British" or "British Isles" because they connote some sort of English (particularly) dominance in the, um, Anglo-Celtic Isles (and doesn't that sound ridiculously stilted, btw?). But so far pretty much no evidence has provided that anyone disagrees with what they denote. The wikipedia article should obviously have some discussion the connotations and the controversy that arises from them, but it should focus on the denotation. And as yet, nobody has provided any evidence that what "British Isles" denotes is at all in question. john k 14:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
And another thing - JTD keeps on saying that most Irish people understand the term "British Isles" to exclude Ireland. But he has yet to provide any evidence of this. What there is strong evidence of, once again, is that a lot of Irish people don't use the term "British Isles." There has yet to be any serious evidence presented that Irish people believe the term "British Isles" means the same thing as the official term British Islands (which seems to be his argument). Even if Irish people do believe that this is what the term "British Isles" means, the widely acknowledged fact that Irish people don't much use the term "British Isles" would suggest that we should ignore them - I've never heard of the principle that people who don't use a term get to decide what it means. By all accounts, the vast vast majority of people who use the term "British Isles" use it to include Ireland. As far as I can tell, we have examples of Irish people a) avoiding use of "British Isles," and occasional examples of them b) using it in the normal sense as inclusive of Ireland (usually when comparing some thing in Ireland to things in the UK, in the same way that someone from Portugal might say that Lisbon is the third largest city in the Iberian Peninsula.). We don't as yet have any examples of c) Irish people using "British Isles" to mean British Islands. Nor do we have any examples of anyone else using it in this way. The very existence of the term British Islands suggests that "British Isles" is so closely associated with a definition including Ireland that the British government had to make up a new term to mean UK+Man+Channel Islands. Can anyone point to a usage of "British Isles" that excludes Ireland (the Lloyd George one particularly doesn't count, since it was written at a time when Ireland was part of the UK. If he used "British Isles" to exclude Ireland, this was a misstatement or a mistake, because clearly Ireland was part of the British Isles in 1920, or whenever that quote came from.) john k 19:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
There is at least one source that shows it exlcuding Ireland; an academic conference that refers to 'British Isles and Ireland'; and there is that Lloyd George quote which I forget briefly. However, I do agree that these appear to be exceptions, rather than the rule (and should be treated as such). --Robdurbar 21:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
It seems to me that with this number of examples, we could just as easily say that such usage is mistaken. After all, if the universal usage of everyone in Europe in the 19th century in using "England" to refer to the whole of the UK was "incorrect," I don't see how people very occasionally saying "the British Isles and Ireland" can be seen as evidence of a different meaning of the term. john k 23:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

English Isles

How about this for the name of the islands? After all, the vast majority of their inhabitants speak English as a first language, and of the tiny minority that don't, the vast majority still speak it. I must emphasise, of course, that the phrase "English" in this context must not be confused with the very similar sounding word "English" which means something of, or pertaining to, England. These two words, "English" and "English", despite a superficial resemblance, have actually no etymological connection whatsoever. TharkunColl 12:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Please reconsider your post. Do you think it will actually help to improve the article? If not, why did you post it? - FrancisTyers · 12:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Let's just ignore this section, eh? --Robdurbar 12:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Probably best. Ben W Bell talk 12:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Erm, it was a joke - I was parodying what some might see as my own attitude. TharkunColl 13:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
You are one of the small number of editors who have made others' attempts at improving this article and following discussions about those improvements well-nigh impossible. If it was a joke, then help us non-participants out a bit and make it a bit obvious. --Bazza 15:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

This comment can clearly be seen as flaming: less inflammatory posts have already been removed from this tail page, and I propose that this section be deleted. Any comments? ..dave souza, talk 17:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Not productive at all, get rid of it.EricR 17:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Ben W Bell talk 17:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)