Talk:British Isles/Archive 6

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 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 →

Contents

History

Having promised, I've now put rather more effort than intended into an outline of the shared history of the islands to replace the two existing sections. It should be noted that all the links in the History section are now included in the template boxes and italic top line, and that the new section also supersedes the Political history section which wandered excessively into national histories without clearly covering shared points. While constructive improvements will be welcome, any major changes or comments should be raised here first, and unexplained blanket reversions without discussion and consensus will be treated as vandalism. It's longer than I'd hoped, but in my opinion gives a necessary overview. If the priority is felt to be keeping this article short, the section could readily form the basis of a main article on the History of the British Isles with brief headings only on this page. Checking points has taken a fair bit of effort, and citations have been added for items most likely to be questioned: further citations can be added if required. ...dave souza, talk 18:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC) italicised amendment...dave souza, talk 19:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

  • I'm very tempted to respond in terms of how treating "blanket reversions [...] as vandalism" will itself be treated. Blanket reversions, however undesirable, are not vandalism (well, unless one happens to be deliberately reverting to a vandalised version), and please do not describe them as such, or treat them as such, either in prospect or in practice. A desire to avoid an edit war is all very commendable, but this is being needlessly confrontational about it (if not actually more likely to cause it), and indeed smacks of WP:OWN. Alai 18:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
OK, I don't think that's what dave meant; he was probably just hoping that this change would HAHA SUCKERS!!!! I EDITED IT, IN YO FACE!!!!only be reverted after community discussion, rather than just out of hand. It's just an unfortunate turn of phrase I think. Let's discuss the content here; that is what everyone wants. --Robdurbar 18:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
My main comment would be that recent history needs expanding - a pragraph about 'the troubles' would be good. I'm no historian so as a section I can't really comment that much, but it does look very sparsely cited. --Robdurbar 18:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm absolutely not suggesting it's what he meant; I just think it's (as you say) an unfortunate turn of phrase, that might have an (unintended) deleterious effect. I've no strong feelings on the content of the History section. What to include here is very much a judgement call: on the one hand it could be greatly reduced in size, to essentially just pointers to component articles; equally, it could be greatly expanded and possibly spun out in the way Dave mentions. I'll go with the flow either way. Alai 18:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Anything in particular you see which needs a cite? Eventually we'll have a page like this for the article: Talk:Isaac Newton/Facts, but things are a bit fluent right now.EricR 21:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough, I'm a bit tired and have seen too many unexplained reversions here to be happy about that happening to work put into the article, but welcome discussion, and if anyone wants to go back to the previous situation, that can be raised here. There's a sentence about the troubles now when there was no mention of it before: since that links to five other articles it seems enough to me, but opinions welcome. I'd just add that doing this has brought home how hard it can be to get an overview from nation based articles, and highlighted one or two areas where one nation has good coverage but more detail is needed for another. ...dave souza, talk 19:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I still have issues with the "vandalism" characterisation, which implies to me "reverting back with admin rollback, or with summary "rvv", ignoring the 3RR in making such reversion, reporting to WP:VIP", and such like, which would not be appropriate. I think you're looking for a sentiment more along the lines of "anyone blanket reverting is being rude, ignoring all Dave's hard work, winding us all up (further), and generally being a complete muppet" -- that I'd fully endorse. :) Alai 19:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I commend your work if it leads to a better article. To write a shared history of the islands is actually an exercise in 'point of view' in itself. There are a lot of bad parts left out. And how about the un-shared history, is that to be omitted? Needs to be examined very closely. Maybe they should be named The Paradise Islands! -MelForbes 19:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Trust you've noted that the sharing includes massacres, brutality and famine. Paradise? ..dave souza, talk 19:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Going into historical headings, could cause this article to expand exponentially, with editors adding sub-headings ad nauseum Also the BI is not supposed to be political, but advancing toward a broader history destroys that myth, and in reality the BI (as regarding Ireland) became de facto defunct in 1922. But we have gone through all of this before, Just see problems ahead. -MelForbes
The synthesis of history is well done (especially 16th-17thcc.), but may be out of place. I've suggested a few times that the history section be reduced to links (like History of Britain) - these links are now contained in a box. But then again, the term BI is essentially political. Hmmm.--Shtove 20:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
There are some critics of what MelForbes is calling shared history—and there seems to be a bit of interest here on the talk page. The approach focuses on political rather than social history, views events as they fit the outline of English history, and forces an unnatural unit of study—giving undue weight to connections among the four nations and less than due those to the continent. It seems ridiculous to apply those critisism here. The simple response is to point out the amount of space allocated, or just {{sofixit}}.
The other objection, and i think what MelForbes means by POV in itself is that it's an attempt to assert "the unity of a past that has been rejected at the political level" and "The rejection of the British state by a majority of the Irish makes the notion of a single narrative history of the British Isles particularly problematic." (Lambert 2004, p. 222) This also seems a bit overblown when applied to a wiki section, but i think you did come down squarely on one side of the debate in your historiographic introduction. Maybe this could be expanded a bit to introduce the old Whig histories and pose shared vs. comparative and national as an open question? Or would this just be a distraction?
Anyway, good work, a big improvement to the article.EricR 21:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Obivously, suggesting that there is a shared history will always be controversial as it will be seen by some as the first road down a route to suggesting that there should be a shared present. I think this page could develop well in the history section as a chronicalisation of British-Irish relations over times; as DS points out, national articles are often limited on such topics. I like the fact that the section has been summarised into one, from two, bits. --Robdurbar 21:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments: just a note to say that it's probably my background, but I find it difficult to visualise how histories are to be kept separate. Does Cromwell suddenly appear in Ireland with no mention of the Covenanters or the English civil war? To me it's annoying when English history downplays or ignores the Scottish dimension, and rather infuriating when it's claimed to be British history and does that. In researching for this some things surprised me, like Henry VIII making Ireland a kingdom because of his shift to Protestantism and falling out with the Pope. To me this is an opportunity to get each nation's history across to others, not an imposed conformity or hiding from uncomfortable truths. Thanks to all who are finding ways to improve this section, ...dave souza, talk 22:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand how anyone can deny that there is a shared history. The nature of this shared history is, I suppose, disputed (although probably most English people would not deny that Ireland was treated pretty shittily), but it's simply a fact that there's a lot of common history. It seems to me that it's worth having a discussion of this here, as there's no obvious place to do it. It's useful to have a place where, for instance, we can talk about the Viking invasions as they affected both islands, the Norman presence in all four nations and the similarities and difference among their involvement in each place, the complex relations among the three kingdoms in the 1640s, the influence of the growth of Irish nationalism on politics in Westminster in the 19th century, and so forth. john k 23:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

"Shared History?"

'Shared history of the islands'. Oh please, please spare us that patronising shite. I mean- for the love of God. "Sharing"? We shared the dispossession, eviction, suffering, institutionalised sectarianism, obliteration of our traditions and culture (...táim ag scriobh i mBéarla anseo....) - with ourselves. Meanwhile, your crowd, the always apolitical British whose names for where we live possess no political connotations whatsoever, just tried to help us. No, nothing about the British state's presence in Ireland is political. Nope. Listen lads: You are insulting us. Not a single Paddy here accepts your apolitical potestations when you designate Ireland as part of your "British Isles". To be British was to be in power; to be Irish was to be without power. Words take on enormous meaning, and there is not a point in the wide earthly world in you denying this process. All of you have, to date, denied it. I can only assume it is willful. Everything- every single thing- about the term "British Isles" has to do with British colonial rule over us. Cut the crap. Our nations can get on great together- there are. obviously, innumerable positive connections between us- but not while you people persist in making claims over us. Give it up. Let us live together with respect for each other. For all that the Irish people have lost there remains, in their heart of hearts, a deep immovable moral sense of right and wrong about British-Irish relations. Modern political scientists might refer to it as "latent republicanism", but it goes much deeper than that. The British state, and the people who have supported their policies, have impulses over their neighbours that has a history of being frighteningly fanatic. This is the sort of issue that accentuates that history. El Gringo 18:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Gringo - I'm guessing you're probably not from Tunbridge Wells, eh? Relax, man. Don't forget, the Brits have been nasty to plenty of other people - Scottish Highlanders, Welsh, Yorkshiremen after the Norman Conquest, West Country people after the Pilgrimage of Grace, English Catholics 1540-1800, Non-Conformists, Jews at various times, witches, poor people always, women, lepers etc. And thats without even mentioning slavery, the British Empire etc. So don't take it personally. And it could have been worse, you know - ask the Poles about the Germans or the Russians. I do hope in this century we can concentrate on looking forward, rather than back. Sometimes its healthy to forget. Try to remember that when most Brits use the phrase BI - in a geography project about regions of Europe where stout and porter are produced, say - they do it because it is the only term they know to describe the archipelago, and they haven't the least idea that Irish people find it offensive. As for British claims over Ireland, I rather imagine that if the UK government could by some miracle persuade the Unionists in NI to vote for a 32 county republic, the champagne would be flowing in rivers down Downing Street, and the last helicopter would lift off from Hillsborough Castle in a trice.
Tell me, how does this section help progress the article in any way? How does it indicate the best way to make Wikipedia an encyclopedia? It doesn't. Let's not dragged into debates about Birtish/Irish history. If you feel that British atrocities warrent a mention in the article - then fine. I agreee with you, it could well be worth inclusion. --Robdurbar 21:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
A bit of historical trivia re the above anonymous contribution. In the mid to late 1970s panic broke out among the leaders of the Irish government, opposition and the SDLP when some headbangers on the far left of the British Labour Party began pushing for British withdrawal from Northern Ireland. Irish Nationalists called it the doomsday scenario. The believed that British withdrawal would result in the "balkanisation of the Isles". Loyalists would massacre Nationalists on the east of Northern Ireland (where Nationalists were in a minority). Republicans would massacre Unionists in the west (where Unionists were in a minority). Hundreds of thousands would have to flee their homes (Unionists fleeing to the east, Nationalists fleeing to the west) as ethnic cleansing (a term created later) swept the North. Nationalists in the south would end up rallying to defend Nationalists in the North. Loyalists in Scotland would rally to defend Unionists. The result, Irish politicians believed, would be a civil war that would engulf much of the island of Ireland and Scotland, turning both into local Lebanons. Irish policy was aimed to stop British withdrawal at all costs because having created the mess though centuries of mis-rule, the fear was that the British were aiming to cut and run, leaving the rest to pick up the pieces in the resulting civil war. In the view of the planners, luckily the niave dreamers like Tony Benn never got a chance to put their simplistic theories into practice. The irony is, and this is openly admitted by political leaders on both side, the British would love to be rid of Northern Ireland, but the Republic doesn't want it. The South couldn't afford the cost of it while Britain would so love to be free of the accursed place. One Sinn Fein leader joked privately (I heard him say it) that if Britain turned around in the morning and said 'We are leaving. It is all yours' his response would be two words: 'oh shit.' Because suddenly he (and the other parties) would have to take responsibility rather than blaming 'the Brits' for everything. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 21:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm brand new on Wikipedia and so I apologise in advance if this text doesn't appear quite right.
El Gringo, it seems to me that you are rather over-reacting here. Firstly, if I understand you correctly, what you are saying is that you "can only assume it is willful" that other posters have denied that the term "British Isles" is political. But perhaps that's simply what they believe. Anyway, the main thing I wanted to reply to was when you say "but not while you people persist in making claims over us". Who is making claims over Ireland (Republic of)?! And then you say "have impulses over their neighbours that has a history of being frighteningly fanatic". Who on earth has fanatical impulses over Ireland?! "The British Isles" is simply a geographical term. Nobody in Britain/UK has any claims to Ireland! Finally, by all means, call "The British Isles" whatever you want, but don't start being silly by talking about "impulses over their neighbours" as soon as someone else mentions that, to them, the term "British Isles" includes both the island of Great Britain, and the island of Ireland. Ojcookies 01:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Normans v. English

The Normans conquered the English in 1066. How come, therefore, the English get the blame for the subsequent Norman invasions of Ireland and Wales? Because we lost at Hastings? TharkunColl 23:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Afraid it's because you got Norman rulers who were remarkably good at assimilating into the local (high) society and started calling themselves English (or Scots, or whatever) by the time of these invasions. We got De Brus a bit later. ..dave souza, talk 23:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that's right. I just wondered why the English have been so universally hated by the other nations of the British Isles, when in fact it was we who were conquered first. Yes, okay, I can accept hatred based on the idea that we proved unable to defend the islands against the French and therefore let all of you down, but that, I feel, is not why we are disliked. It makes no sense to me at all. TharkunColl 23:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
It is because, later, the English had an unfortunate habit of invading other people's countries and brutalising them. One practically universal experience Irish people have (and many Scots seem to have also) is going abroad and being treated with a rather disgusted "You are British?" comment. Once one has gotten over the "No. No. We are Irish" (usually having to throw in references to Riverdance, Mary Robinson, 1916 and a couple of other things for them to recognise where it is you are from) the smiles break out and people begin explaining their anti-British attitudes ("We hate the Breetish here too") and how any supposed enemy of Britain is a friend of their's. Trying to explain how in the post Good Friday Agreement era Britain and Ireland are all lovey-dovey, and that President McAleese thinks Queen Elizabeth a "dote" (Hiberno-English for a "really lovely person) just washes over them. More often than not, particularly in the middle east they will then say "Oh Michael Collins" and grin (he was a hero to the founders of Israel!). When they start saying "IRA" you then quickly decide to get out of there and look for the nearest British (or Breeeetish) person in a bar to sit to and chat about Coronation Street and Camilla Parker Bowles. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 23:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't think the English need to feel ashamed about the British Empire, any more than the Italians need to feel ashamed about the Roman Empire. Brutality certainly happened in both cases, but its perpetrators are all long dead, and for every dose of brutality their was an equal dose of spreading civilisation and prosperity (the instigators of which are all long dead as well). In short, empires happen, and are a fact of history. Taking a more long term view, they are usually considered a "good thing". TharkunColl 07:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
BTW the Queen Mother was once asked what did she think of the English. She responded "Oh we Scots don't like them much. But remember the Queen is only half English. She is also half-Scots." That was one lady with a great ability for tongue-in-cheek soundbites. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 23:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that in Ireland at least, it is the later English presence, beginning in the late 16th century, rather than the Norman presence, which is mostly resented. The Old English mostly assimilated to Irish Gaelic culture. My understanding of Norman nobility in lowland Scotland is similar. Wales might be a more fair instance of Tharkun's complaint, but I don't know enough to say. john k 01:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

It shouldn't be forgotten that the sins of the British Empire are not something for which the English should take all the blame. A high proportion of colonial administrators and soldiers were Scottish or Irish, probably because the empire afforded them career opportunities that were denied to them at home. Don't forget where Wellington was born...--Stonemad GB 13:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
'I don't think the English need to feel ashamed about the British Empire'. Of course they don't, TharkunColl. And neither, I'm sure you'll agree, do the Germans need to feel ashamed about the Third Reich. ? El Gringo 17:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Are you comparing the British Empire to the Third Reich? The British Empire brought peace, prosperity and civilisation to vast tracts of the world, and gave birth to many modern countries such as the USA, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, etc. The British Empire created what we now call the global economy, and gave the world a single, unifying language. This is precisely the sort of things that historians praise when referring to historical empires. What did the Third Reich do for the world? TharkunColl 18:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
And it only lasted 12 years, whereas the British one lasted 500+.--Shtove 18:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
As to the question, the answer is straightforward: the Normans assimiliated; the British didn't. The Normans became Irish and consolidated their power; the British chose not to for the same end. Norman and Gaeil became the Irish. The political system which supported Norman domination is gone as Gaeil and Normannaigh needed each other and consequently formed familial and communal unity; the British political system is still over 17% of Ireland precisely because it maintains the power structure for those in Ireland who describe themselves as British. Those of patrilineal Norman descent would take exception to having anything to do with the British system here. Moreover, the hostility between those of Norman and those of British descent was profound with the latter displacing the former from the second half of the sixteenth century. The former viewed the latter as uncouth, uncultured nouveau riche crooks. Those of Norman descent were the very first group in Ireland to oppose the British state, especially in religious terms. In short, it has been the political structure which has been opposed far more than it has been some nebulous ethnic identity. And the problematic political structure for the past few centuries has been the British one. El Gringo 17:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Can I just point out to everyone that this current page is over 187kb long? This makes the pages difficult to read for users with older computers and for some firefox users. I know I keep saying this, but talk pages are not for general discussion about the topic. As tempting as it may be to reply to controversial remarks or to correct inaccuracies in opinion pieces, all that happens is the talk page gets longer and longer without anyone doing anything to help improve the article. Can we PLEASE follow policy and guidelines and put a stop to this? --Robdurbar 18:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Two things: the page needs badly to be archived. Unfortunately I am on a crap internet link right now (it took seven saves to save something last night) so I dare not try doing it. But someone needs to. Secondly, as to this general discussion — actually I disagree Rob. One of the major problems with this original page was that Irish and English (people outside England who live in the UK have a less rose-tinted viewpoint on all all-encompassing gloriousness of Britishness) did not understand each other's perspectives. The hysterical reaction to efforts by moderate Irish users to mention that there are some problems with the British Isles evidenced just how wide the gulf was. I think this sort of discussion is immensely helpful both to the people here now and to future readers of the article in helping them understand the background to the differing viewpoints and how they shape perceptions. I have no doubt but that how Wikipedia dealt with as thorny an issue as a controversial term like British Isles will be analysed academically in years to come. And putting on my historian's hat for a moment, it is precisely these sort of discussions that reveal the underlying perspectives and reasoning. I would like to hear a more cohesively argued explanation for the British perspective on Britishness, given that it is the Britishness of the term and its interpreted meaning that makes it so controversial to non-British people. Unfortunately Tharuncoll hasn't gone beyond the occasional outburst of "Brits are great . . . Brits are cool . . . Brits saved the world"-toned statements where a more detailed analysis would be useful. Normally discussions on the issues of the day aren't useful on talk pages, but here, in exploring attitudes, I think the analysis is sensible, useful and informative. All sides, here now and in the future, will benefit from the insight provided. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 22:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I hope you are disappointed. Our readers may expect a well verified encyclopedia article at British Isles, not the growth from some petri dish where the concept of britishness can be examined.EricR 00:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
You still don't get it. It is the Britishness claim that is central to the controversy. You may not see a problem with that, but millions throughout the British Isles and Ireland do. If you don't understand the differing contexts and understandings of the term british then you cannot understand the competing political, historical, social and cultural meanings attached by people on both sides to the term "British Isles". Considering the appallingly inadequate state of this article earlier, to talk as though its POV-pushing of a largely English perspective on the ter, was either verifiable or encyclopaediac is a joke. The empire is dead. Get over it. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 01:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, that may be because i'm not trying to get it. All i'm trying to do is make sure the claims of the article are backed up by reliable secondary sources. If you would like to examine britishness somewhere on wiki i'd suggest: Linda Colley Britons: Forging the Nation 1707-1837, Paul Ward Britishness since 1870, and Nicholas Canny Making Ireland British among others. Such a discussion is probably not appropriate for this article, but there is plenty of source material available. If you would like me to get something then simply provide a source, or point out a claim that needs verified and i'll go looking.EricR 16:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

As someone who has lived in Britain (specifically England) for a few years, perhaps I could try to provide a British perspective. The first thing to say is that terminology for the archipelago, and the various political units, is a complete mess, with many similar, overlapping terms, and only a tiny percentage of people knowing what they actually mean. As for the term British Isles, here it is not used that often, but it is used in situations where a geographic description of the archipelago is needed for which political units aren't relevant eg 'climate change in the British Isles', weather reports, or in atlases. In Great Britain this usage is not controversial (apart possibly for small numbers of Scottish and Welsh Nationalists). I have not seen any evidence that use of the term represents lingering nostalgia for imperialism, or a desire to piss off the Irish - it is simply the widely accepted, conventional term. I would disagree with Jtdirl's statement that the term is controversial to non-British people. I suspect you will find that to English-speaking people outside the archipelago (American tourists, Malaysian students etc), who do after all represent 95% of English speakers, this is a complete non-issue. You only have to look at foreign tourist websites about this part of the world, with their widespread conflation of England, Britain, UK, Ireland and British Isles, to see that they do not know, and they do not care.--Stonemad GB 09:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately Tharuncoll hasn't gone beyond the occasional outburst of "Brits are great . . . Brits are cool . . . Brits saved the world" That's rather unfair, and you have clearly not understood my arguments in any sense at all. I'll try and recap as succinctly as possible. The term British Isles has existed for at least two millennia and maybe more. It wasn't until the 17th century that the British state appropriated the term "British" for itself. Ireland is part of the British Isles because it always has been, and has nothing to do with its much later conquest by the self-styled British state. My comments about the British Empire earlier have no part in this argument, and were merely in response to some ridiculous anti-British statements made by ignorant posters. The fact is that the English/British may not have been the most peace-loving people in the world, but we are very far from being the worst offenders in history. One of our many usurpations, in my opinion, was our appropriation of the word "British", which originally had no political connotations whatsoever. It is interesting to note that it was the Scottish Stuarts who orginally coined the term in a political context, and it was for a very long time disliked by the English. TharkunColl 08:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I was being firmly tongue-in-cheek, Thar. Chill. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 23:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
In response to some of Jtd's earlier comments - I appreciate that, particularly a few months ago, the whole concept of the British Isles and its use was the issue. I think, you would agree, that many of the comments in this section are irrelevant - talking about the virtues, or lack thereof, of the British Empire stands out as an example.
I think that StoneMad's summary is a reasonable one - in Great Britain, 'British Isles' is a virtual non-issue (indeed Northern Ireland has dropped right off the political radar since 1997 over here) and the vast majority of people know or care little about the terminology. As for a more general summary on attidues to 'Britain', 'British' and the 'UK'... well there's a lot more variation on that. I think its fair to say that the majority of English people sub-consciously equate the UK and England, though they really mean nothing by this. That said, the West Lothian Question has been bubbling under for a while now and is slowly building a head of steam (its a regular point of discussion on the BBC's Daily Politics Show). Gordon Brown appears particularly worried by this - as a Scottish MP in a Scottish constituency, any English dissillusionment with the Union or with the role of non-English MP's would clearly damage his chances of becoming Prime Minister (one suspects that the Conservative party, the only parliamentary party who's potential next Prime Minister is from an English constituency, might quite enjoy this problem.) Another interesting thing is that some people claim that Andy Murray (or any non-English sportsman) is always described by the media as 'British' when he wins and 'Scottish' when he loses.
In Scotland and Wales I think that opinion varies from the 'couldn't care less' end of the scale to one patriotic Scottish friend of mine who is getting an Irish passport (his dad, who is from Northern Ireland, holds one due to the fairly complex Irish/British nationality laws) so that people won't think he's English when he travels abroad! He would probably never say that he's from the 'British' Isles. However, I do think that this is a relatively rare viewpoint. Mostly, Britain is used without thought or controversy for the UK and British Isles is not really thought about either. --Robdurbar 13:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Robdurbar, may I mirror what you have said. The term British Isles is not controversial in Ireland either. The fact is that hardly anyone uses the term. Usually it's just plain old "Britain and Ireland". As far as most Irish folk are concerned any validity for the term, as regarding Ireland, expired in 1922. Hope you don't take offence that Irish folks don't want to be called British. Well there is no offence intended and I can assure you that despite the "history", almost all Irish people have a warm and tender good wish for their 'British counterparts'. MelForbes 15:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree that it is not controversial per say in Ireland in the sense that few use it. Most regard the term as as outdated as the Austro-Hungarian Empire or the Soviet Union. A small minority use it. On the rare times it is used it is always controversial. I know that on slow weeks and in the silly season where there is no major news and they are struggling to generate interest newspapers used to ask me to write articles that could include the term just to cause controversy. It works every time. There are a handful of topics guaranteed to cause a row if covered in the media: "British Isles", how George Bush is a Great Man of Our Time, how Sinn Féin are heroes/bastards/freedom fighters/murderers/nazis etc, and other topics. I know when I submitted an article to one of the mainstream broadsheets in the UK (I won't reveal which one because their policy on the term it is not publicly stated by them yet — they are afraid of a right wing backlash) I in passing used "British Isles" they edited it out, telling me afterwards that they thought it a rather old-fashioned term they were quitely fading out from their newspaper. A number of British newspapers who have different editions for England, Scotland and Ireland use British Isles in the English version while (except for the jingoist Mail and Express) ensure the term does not turn up in their Scottish and Irish editions. (Both the Sun and the Sunday Times got a bit of bashing when it slipped through into their Irish editions by accident once.) One of the funniest experiences I remember was of a gang of people (some Irish, 3 Scots, a couple of Welsh guys and a member of the Young Conservatives) at a political function. They were all discussing how different their countries are. Then the young tory pipped up "but we are all the same in one way. We are all from the British Isles". The Irish had an instant 'disgusted look' but kept quiet. But Sheena from Glasgow went ballastic using language about the term I wouldn't repeat here. Her boyfriend had to tell her to calm down. Of all the people there, bar the Tory, everyone there was either (i) indifferent to the term but found it irritating; (ii) found the term rather old-fashioned and annoying, (iii) offensive and derogatory. It was actually the Scottish, rather than the Irish, who seemed to find it the most annoying. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 23:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Agree, controversial when it is used, that's why the term is so rarely used in Ireland! MelForbes 00:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

British-Irish Council

the "British Isles Council" is deliberately not used in favour of the British-Irish Council

Can the above statement be backed up by a citation. I realise that British-Irish Council is used but was the name British Isles Council even considered. As it is a political organisation it would make sense to name it after the two parties involved as opposed to naming it after a group of islands of which only one island (ireland) contains the participents. josh (talk) 14:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

We could support "Council of the British Isles":

Ahead of the Good Friday Agreement, the idea of a Council of the British Isles was widely canvassed, and such a council is indeed an important element in the Agreement. However, in deference to nationalist opinion it is called the British-Irish Council

Mcgarry, John (2001). Northern Ireland and the Divided World: The Northern Ireland Conflict and the Good Friday Agreement in Comparative Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 231. EricR 15:35, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I find it odd that the English want to be called British - from what I can tell the people of Wales, Scotland and Ireland are all ethnically 'Britons' (Not Celts according to recent genetic research) whereas the English are not. Why the English want to adopt the name of a subject people who lost pratically every battle they fought i'll never know. I'm all for calling the place England and the British Isles and letting the alcoholic stone age 'briton' wallow in the fact that they are histories losers.

Removing OR

I've removed some original research from the Terminology and Attitudes in Ireland sections, there is more work to be done but this is probably a good time to stop and discuss.EricR 18:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm generally supportive of most of your changes - but can I question a few bits that were removed (I'm comparing to User:Neelmack's version of the page, btw)?
  • the caveat in the first sentence. This has been discussed on a number of occaisions and consensus has appeared to support it. Though I can see its problems - its a bit wishy washy and not entirely encyclopedic or clear - it also stops people reacting violently to the article from just reading the first sentence.
  • Similarly the the coments removed from the rest of the intro - I don't see what's wrong in claiming that the Irish media and government rarely use the term
Do you mean the text removed in this edit? Not my IP, but i would say removing the <ref> was a good idea, and "This means that.." probably needs some rewording.EricR 19:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Ah yes, I was referring to that - I had spent about 5 minutes looking for where you'd removed it, makes sense now! I'll put the first paragraph bit straight in and have a go at rewording that next bit. --Robdurbar 19:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Some of your other changes I could question, but see your reasoning too - I found the removed Ahern quote interesting from its rather 'Big Brother' nature, if nothing else. --Robdurbar 19:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I left the mention of Dermot Ahern's statement in, was that what you're refering to? In later edits i removed the mention of the de Valera speech—i saw it as OR, trying to counter Ahern's statement—and a mention of Bertie Ahern's address to a 2005 conference. The latter edit removed the whole paragraph: "The different Irish attitudes towards the usage of the term British Isles can be gauged in a conference..."; we shouldn't be trying to gauge Irish attitudes, but should find someone else to do the work for us.
I rolled back both those edits however, as they were mixed up with some other stuff and i probably made too many changes w/o discussion. If you think the whole series is too much or too confusing go ahead and revert further.EricR 20:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Well it all got a little confused, especially with Britannia Rules!'s edits, but no, I think you've helped improve the page. Oh yes, I hadn't noticed that that had been kept, sorry. That said, I think a summary of Irish attitudes would be useful in there - its a question of how to do it. --Robdurbar 20:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Good evening all. Noticed the removal of 'Official Irish government documents and the media there rarely use the term' and think that was definitely an edit too far. This very important and is fully verified...if the indisputable verification (Irish govt website) is removed, it needs to go back. Pconlon 22:20, 5 August 2006
Do you mean the Dermot Ahern statement? That is still in the article. I've never seen a cite for "media there rarely use the term"; it would be nice to have something in hand, maybe for use in the Attitudes in Ireland section.EricR 22:14, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
The Irish government uses the phrase quite a lot. But unfortunately, all the citations were edited out. Facts eh? TharkunColl 23:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm opposed to all the instances of searching the web for a particular name, then trying to make some general conclusion about that name's use. Isn't that original research? If your intention is to characterize the Irish government's usage of 'British Isles' as rare, some, or quite a lot then that's clearly OR. If on the other hand you are trying to discount the Ahern statement that's a tougher issue, but i still feel it would be OR. We shouldn't be in the business of trying to disprove what a politician says with google searches. We need to find a secondary source addressing the issue.
If we are unlikely to find such a source, if no one would take the time to challenge the statement, then we shouldn't try to do that work ourselves. I'd take that as an indication that we may have strayed too far into discussing non-notable issues.EricR 02:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

To reply to TharkunColl; I think we had decided that the half dozen or so uses that could be found were only sufficient to show that some politicians used it occiaisionally - but that is still 'rare' and the Ahern statement later in the article supports this assertion. As for EricR's comments - I see no problem in using primary sources as evidence 'However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged' --Robdurbar 06:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The basic problem, IMO, remains that despite the separate British Isles (terminology) article, we evidently have a number of editors who don't think this article should exist under this name (or perhaps at all), and a seemingly inexorable drift to a state with half a dozen separate disclaimers about its inaccuracy, offensiveness, etc, and a lengthy section that's essentially duplicative of said other article. IMO a sensible application of WP:SUMMARY would be to have: one mention of the terminology issues in the lead of this article, and one short section on terminology, being essentially similar to the lead of British Isles (terminology), and serving as a summary and cross-reference to same. (Also refactor contents of the other article as required to make sure that between the two, everything currently here is covered.) Alai 18:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Disagree totally. Apart from anything else the very name British Isles (terminology) presumes there is a clear British Isles and the only issue is a dispute over names. As Irish users ad nausaum keep pointing out (and obviously will have to do continually on this page indefinitely) the dispute is much more fundamental and the name of the article carries with it a presumption that most Irish people and many other people elsewhere reject and find offensive.
As to Eric's nonsense about OR, he patently obviously doesn't know what OR means. Those of us who wrote that policy wrote it to cover academics and others who decide to place unpublished (and so unreviewed) information on Wikipedia. WP is not designed to be a primary source document, but to be a secondary one. OR does not mean published that source information cannot be used. Nor that it cannot be assembled. It means that unpublished source information cannot be used. If something is published then it can be used. Eric clearly doesn't know the difference. If Eric's wacky interpretation of OR was applied to WP then 98% of all history articles on WP would have to be removed as so-called OR. The entire set of articles on British history would have to be deleted. All the articles on Wikipedia about royalty would have to go. And all the political articles. It is a kooky interpretation of OR. At this stage any more of these nonsensical OR deletions will simply be reverted on sight. I am fed up having to clean up Eric's nutty interpretation of OR, and some people's screwed up spellings, mucked up footnotes, garbled sentences and the like all the time. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 19:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Let's first of all attempt to be slow to label others' contributions as "nonsense", etc.; there's enough inherent scope for disagreement here without unnecessarily causing people go on the defensive (or indeed, offensive). For my money, there is indeed a clearly-definable such archipelago, and the only disagreement is about terminology: and that's precisely what keeps being added to the article -- in ever-increasing numbers -- witness 'The term "British Isles"[...]'; 'This use of this name [...]'; 'Irish media rarely use the term[...]' (emph. mine) -- all just from the term-deleted lead section. This is the "terminology" articles, writ large (and writ often). Nowhere is it suggested that Irish people, or indeed anyone else in particular, do not refer to the islands collectively at all -- even those many people somewhat hindered by not having a term they actually find acceptable, that makes sense outside of any given context, seem to manage one way or another. ("These islands" and "Britain and Ireland" (or even "Ireland and England", just to keep the need for terminological accuracy in perspective) being pretty popular usages, which are at any rate not intended to have a different scope or definition.) I don't see much in the way of geographical argument being introduced to suggest they're not a group of islands, but just an optical illusion, or that there's some completing geographical definition abroad. (What political and historical material it's wise to include here is, as I commented previously, another matter.) If you want to rename the "terminology" article, or to merge it back in here, that's another matter, but not one that's sensibly addressed just by adding the same content here, and leaving the other as-is. The trouble with the alleged need to "keep pointing out ad nauseam" is that what's being pointed out isn't really speaking to how to improve the article, but is really just addressing objections to the article's existence/title by displacement, and isn't ultimately going to be especially productive. Alai 21:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
First of all, Alai, I also disagree - I think the vast majority of editors have now accpeted the broad consensus that we have reached and that the debate has moved on to refining the article, rather than overhauling it.
May I suggest that reality on OR lies somewhere between the positions of Jtdirl and Eric R here? OR does not just have the aim of stopping people publishing academic work here; it also acts to stop people from claiming 'I know x because I have experienced it'. Similalry, Jtdril is right that primary sources are fine to use, though 2ndary are better. When doing so, however, we have to make it clear how we are using sources.
I think that EricR's changes have been broadly helpful in tidying the article, though I also think that the re-added bits by Jtdril make a useful and informative point too.
Oh, and as for, 'I am fed up having to clean up....some people's screwed up spellings, mucked up footnotes, garbled sentences and the like all the time.' - as long as Wikpedia remains amatuer and run by volunteers, then grammar and spelling will remain crap. This is a downside of its otherwise good editor base and something that we have to cope with and not get too het up about. --Robdurbar 20:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure that what I'm suggesting rises to the level of overhauling: but to be clear, are you suggesting that there be no reduction at all in the amount of discussion of the definition/terminology, while retaining the separate terminology article? Or just that my suggestion in that direction is over-zealous? Alai 21:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes but as I've pointed out many many times, British Isles (terminology) is not just a discussion of the term British Isles and its alternatives, but of all geographical terminology within the archipaleog as a whole. It's aim is to clarify for confused readers who don't know what Britain means, or why its wrong to call the UK 'England', or why people sometimes refer to England and Wales as a single unit. --Robdurbar 06:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
What you say is of course true, but my feeling is that we're retreading too much of the same ground between the two. But if the general feeling is that we need to have that much here, I won't protest (too much). Perhaps Jtdirl is correct that (to paraphrase) we need to degrade the article somewhat in order to prevent it being degraded a lot, but that's hardly ideal. Amount of material aside, it's surely the case that it should be as consolidated as possible, rather than drifting in and out of focus as it does at present. Alai 20:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes. On this issue, given its sensitivity, we have to have a large terminology section here. If there isn't, then you will have edit wars ad infinitum because various users or editors will interpret the absence of a large terminology section as indicative of bias (i.e., that the views of one set of people are reflected in the article and the views of millions of others shunted into another article). The way to avoid that is for the article to contain a full discussion of the topic. That is regularly done on WP in sensitive articles even where there is replication with some other article somewhere.
Re OR — the central issue is whether there is independent verifiable documentary evidence or analysis available. The insistence of Eric that there must be discussion not statement is preposterous. There is no documentary discussion on the date of Elvis Presley's birthdate, just a statement of it in sources. Where things are so patiently obvious that they are not discussed, or where there is a complete consensus on something that it is not discussed, one simply refers to documents that state 'x' or 'y'. It is perfectly normal.
Re spelling, I understand that point about amateurism completely. The problem however is a sentence is edited and replaced with mangled syntax, chronically bad spelling, etc. It isn't a mistaken new sentence but the rewriting of old correct sentence that produces a complete twisted mess. Or people who move a footnote and then completely screw it up. It is fixed and then they go back and do the same thing again, and again. When for the umptheenth time the exact same correct sentence and layout is replaced by a garbled mess, one cannot but help sighing, and muttering in Hiberno-English, "Oh, for the love of Jaysus. Not a-fucking-gain." FearÉIREANN\(caint) 22:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Jtdirl, you are simply mischaracterizing my statements concerning original research. When discussing the use of neologism i have indeed said that the sources we use should discuss the term's usage, not simply use the term. This is straight out of WP:NEO. I have not applied this principle to the use of sources in general.

I would like to point out that wikipedia is a tertiary source, not as you say a secondary source. Perhaps that is the crux of our little disagreement here? If your intention is to provide commentary, analysis and criticism of other sources then you and i are definitely working at cross purposes here.

Isn't there maybe some way we can work together on this article? Reverting my edits on sight is, i have to admit, a very straight-forward solution. For various reasons i am currently opposed to such a course of action. Do you have any other suggestions? I am currently at a loss as to how to proceed.EricR 00:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I would be grateful if someone could clarify exactly what the dispute is about. Is it about 1) the definition of the 'British Isles' ie whether or not they include Ireland, southern and northern. Or is 2) that the term is agreed to include Ireland, but for this reason people from Ireland find its use unacceptable, as indicating an anachronistic and inaccurate British control over the archipelago as a whole. Because 1) and 2) are incompatible - one of them must be incorrect. If the Irish people do find the term unacceptable as indicating British control over their territory, it follows logically that they accept that the term does include Ireland in its definition.--Stonemad GB 18:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Only if your presume that all Irish people agree with each other, which is a nonesensical viewpoint regarding any group so large. Generally, though, '2)' almost deiffnately applies; for some - Jtdril and MelFobes argue many although part of the problem is that there is little proof for either side as to 'how many' - 1) applies. I don't think the two are incompatible - to someone following both points of view, those using it are both wrong in the area that they cover with it and, because they're using it for this area, are using it inaccurately.

As for the OR - I'm afraid I can see both sides of this argument and can't really provide you with a solution. The good news is, I think, that it now seems to just be two paragraphs over which you differ substantially. --Robdurbar 20:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

  • I'd go so far as to say that most Irish people would have objections on the grounds of 2), but it's indeed hard to quantify, or come to that to precisely describe in the grand scheme of "offence" and/or "controversy". You'd probably not want to say "Of course, Ireland is part of the British Isles" loudly in a north Kerry pub, though. I've also heard it framed in terms of 1) on occasion. ('If you must use that phrase, it should mean "British Islands"', roughly speaking.) Rather than OR or not OR, it's perhaps best to reframe this in terms of what can be backed up with reliable sources, and what can't (or at least, isn't). Alai 22:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Most Irish people would agree that the term British Isles does exist, but with regard to the inclusion of Ireland, most would disagree. So the second biggest island of the "British and Irish" archipelago disagree with Ireland's inclusion in that BI political term, how frightening that must be for some people. An observation to the discussion about avoidance of the term in Ireland, with citations demanded for almost all sentences. Well there is something so glaringly obvious that it is almost knocking the eyes out of my head, and that is the avoidance of the term by the United Kingdom government, so much so that Westminster had to draft a new act of parliament called The Interpretation Act 1978, to invent a new term named the British Islands in order to deal with this great dilemma. It was a stroke of good luck that the term British Islands wasn't a political term, otherwise the unbecoming term British Islets would have had to be invoked, thus saving the day! MelForbes 02:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

EricR, I wonder - what exactly do you want to 'prove' that the term is controversial to many in ireland? Would it be accpetable with one citation and changing the word 'many' to 'some'? I would support this - until we can prove percentages etc. (which we can't) then we shouldn't be using words like 'many', 'a majority' or 'a minority'. --Robdurbar 05:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and I moved a fact template - I presume taht you wern't questioning that the UK of GB and I largely coincided with the 'British Isles' geographically? --Robdurbar 05:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The UK of GB and I certainly largely coincided with the ancient term British Isles, but not precisely. The Isle of Man was never part of the UK, and still isn't. To not mention this would be to leave out an important fact. TharkunColl 11:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
My thinking is that every statement in the article needs to be backed up by a reliable source. Every claim should have already been made by made by others, all the reasoning and interpretation of evidence should be someone else's. Isn't this what WP:V and WP:OR set as policy for Wikipedia? Not every clause in the article needs a footnote, sources do not need to be provided for everything right now, but we should know it's possible to find a source before a claim goes in the article. Preferably multiple, independent sources.
Concerning the opening paragraph of the terminology section:
  • the term carries additional meanings; political, economic, cultural, geopolitical, legal and cultural
the article used to have a citation for this claim, which has since been removed. Right now we only have sources which are conficting, which state that 'British Isles' is not a political term.
  • ...reflecting historical divisions and the fact that the British Isles in general coincided with...
can we find any source which says that this is the origin of the additional meanings?
  • ...a inference which causes the term to be both unacceptable and controversial to many people in Ireland
i think we have sources stating that a significant number of people find 'British Isles' unacceptable and controversial (we've at least got a good selection on how Irish historians feel), but nothing as to why. Jtdirl above made the claim that the concept of Britishness is central to the controversy—and others seem to often bring up colonialism and famine etc. Without a source can we say that fear of being mistaken for part of the UK is the reason the name is unacceptable?
I wasn't challenging the many people in Ireland part of the paragraph, though some of the modifiers later in the section probably bear looking at.EricR 17:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

LOL. There is a term some copyeditors write down as HSCO, FFS or DSTBO ("Have Some Cop-On", "for Fuck sake" or "Don't state the bleeding obvious"). It refers to a case where evidence is asked for a bleeding obvious. (Some gobshite some time ago on an article on a member of the Royal Family but in a citation request for the fact that they were born!!! Another wanted evidence that a particular king was male!!! Another person put a cit request for a mention that Great Britain physically is an island, while I saw one once put onto a statement that John F. Kennedy — I think it was — was President of the United States.) FFSs or HSCOs are where the answer is so patently obvious and universally recognised that you presume that the reader has a sufficient brain in their head capable of knowing elementary facts. The ... the fact that the British Isles in general coincided with... is a classic HSCO moment. That doesn't require a citation. Every map shows it. Everyone who has ever seen a map knows it. The British Isles is understood to consist of two big islands and a lot of small ones. The two big ones consist of the vast majority of the land mass of the BI — somewhere in the mid 90s in percentage terms. They together formed the UK of GB and I. Ipso facto the British Isles generally coincided with the former UK of GB and I. Any case where a 90%+ of the land mass belongs to something can be said to be generally coinciding with. precisely concided with would be inaccurate. The article doesn't say that. Please, Eric, don't go down the road of HSCOs. Your question can we find any source which says that this is the origin of the additional meanings? is classic HSCO. Geography only became understood in any mass sense in the last three centuries, if not a lot less, ie, since the appearance of primary education for ordinary people. From the early 1700s to 1800 the two states shared a same crown and Ireland was not seen anywhere as independent. (It was generally viewed as a form of colony.) From 1800 to 1922 it was formally joined at constitutional level to GB. Similarly your complaint about the meanings is another HSCO. You aren't comparing like with like. One talks about a term which is a formal defined understood concept. The others are referred to as additional meanings which means not formally defined but generally understood as a broad concept to mean. To use a similar case. Great Britain is a formal name for an island. It also has broad cultural meanings outside simple geography, being used variously to mean the whole UK (particularly for some reason in sports), sometimes even just England (often by Americans who get confused by all the different nomenclature) and other meanings. Please be careful to read how things are phrased. I think you may be missing various nuances in the text, and also innocently straying too much into HSCO territory on occasion. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 01:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's see: "Great Britain physically is an island", there is an island named Great Britain (Mitchell, J.B. (1962). Great Britain: Geographical Essays, p. xi. ) "John F. Kennedy...was President of the United States" can be found in "Kennedy, John Fitzgerald", Encyclopedia of American Parties, Campaigns and Elections (1999). Took longer to type the cites than to find them. You would have to be more specific about these royals in question before i can look for anything.
The point i was making above is that such facts can be cited, not that we have to provide a footnoted reference for each. The statements i questioned above either had a cite previously and it needs to be put back, or i doubt that a source can be provided to support the statement.
As for the rest of you edit i fail to see it's connection to any issues i've raised. Strawman is probably a well-worn word on WP talk pages, but i think here it applies.EricR 03:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
There may have been some Pretani in the northern part of Ireland, but the Pretani weren't dominant,although Pretani seem to have been dominant in Britain. Can be argued, but these opening paragraphs could get very long indeed if we allow snippets of history to be added willy nilly. The Hawaiian Islands example is way out and doesn't hold up. Check out the Azores, the Leeward Islands, the Caribbean Islands etc etc etc, it just does not add up. MelForbes 23:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't think the fact that the British Isles largely coincided (the caveat largely existing due to the IoM) is what the source is requiring, but the fact that its political meanings date from this; this is why I moved the template, to clarify. 'a inference which causes the term to be both unacceptable and controversial to many people in Ireland' - I think this does qualify as the obvious. Robdurbar 22:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The archipelago contains two sovereign states: the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. Between 1801 and 1922, the two together formed the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.

This phrase seems to imply that between 1801 and 1922 the Republic of Ireland and the UK together formed a state. TharkunColl 23:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

And maybe that's why it broke apart, can't agree on a simple page. Hope we get there, cheers! MelForbes 00:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
To avoid that sort of problem I originally wrote the sentence in reverse, mentioning the kingdom, then saying it broke into two states one being the "Irish Free State (now called the Republic of Ireland)". Historians generally write a text chronologically to avoid these sort of problems that arise when one writes it backwards, when changes in time with nomenclatures can be open to all sort of misunderstandings. However some users insisted on writing it in reverse chronology and using only current nomenclature to save space, even though it was pointed out that it would cause this sort of problem. Dare I say it — told you so! lol (BTW Thar: in case you misinterpret that. I don't mean you personally, just you plural (or ye if you prefer!) FearÉIREANN\(caint) 01:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
A very fair point made! I suggest inserting 'Great Britain and Ireland' in place of 'the two together'. With no disrespect to other editors, I have tried to make the wording flow a little more and try to make things even clearer. The result of my efforts on paragraph 2 is as follows:
'The archipelago contains two sovereign states: the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. The islands also include the Isle of Man, a United Kingdom crown dependency. Both states, but not the Isle of Man, are members of the European Union. Between 1801 and 1922, Great Britain and Ireland together formed the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. In 1922, 26 of the 32 counties of Ireland ceased to be a part of the United Kingdom and became the Republic of Ireland.'
I hope this may be acceptable; nothing fundamental has changed and only an extra 'United Kingdom' has been added. One additional note, I see the removal of the 'is rejected by some...' sentence from the first paragraph - with however the sentence above indicating the existance of a controvery, I personally am content with this. I added in 'particularly in Ireland', as I think it is important. Kind regards, Pconlon 15:40, 12 August 2006

Greek reference - Pytheas

Why remove the reference from its position? It is historically documented that Pytheas introduced the term Britain, otherwise the island(s) would have been called something totally different. It began with Pytheas. Politis 09:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Why do we need some ancient obscure wanderer from some part of eastern Europe to back up the nomenclature. The islands have been called by many different names, and I am pretty certain that a learned scholar could source an array of them, going back thousands of years. I think by the discussion on the talk page, that there is agreement to keep the opening paragraphs brief and concise in order to facilitate the overall article. MelForbes 10:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
In which case, the information on the origins of the term should be moved to another point in the article (if it's not there already), rather than removed completely. Waggers 11:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
It's already there, there was no point in moving it. Are all editors reading these pages? ;) MelForbes 14:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Pytheas actually put Britain (and the name) on the map, it is rather like diminishing the role of Columbus in America. I will not be reverting, but I ask you, do you think that place names should have most of their alternative appelations included in the fist words of the opening paragraph? For instance, some place names were founded under one name, as new populations arrived, another name took over, occasionally a third; and then some of those places reverted to their original appelation. Meanwhile, neighbours speaking different tongues may call the same place by a different name. Should those names be in the opening line? (I ask because there is a debate at another corner of wikipedia over precisely that. My argument is that any other appelation should only be included further down, in the historical or etimological section - as is the case with this article - and only if historically relevant). Thanks. Politis 11:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Hecataeus, a Greek historian in the 517 BC. How about the "Keltoi Isles", that is if Hecataeus had got his say! He didn't mention islands of the Prettanike either. Don't think the British Isles were ever even mentioned until 15th century, and it was Anglo-French spelling then, but it's not clear whether Ireland was to be included in the term. I presume that they weren't beckoned on the issue! Islands of Britain are mentioned, but also there are numerous references to Islands of Ireland too. Really we can draw any conclusions we like from the evidence. Columbus may not be the finest of examples, for didn't he believe that he was in India. Point I'm making is that it is a difficult subject to get full agreement on every line and comma. Adding Pytheas to the first paragraph adds argument to that paragraph, maybe the article is better served by having it in the body text. MelForbes 14:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Good point, nice information! Politis 15:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the first paragraph works well as a single sentence - nothing more is really needed there (the opening note does the job of informing the reader of the existence of a controversy over the term). On an amusing aside, I've just understood what the symbols ':I' do at the beginning of many user comments - I thought it was an 'unconvinced' smiley face!!! Kind regards, Pconlon 15:53, 12 August 2006

'The history of the islands is one of emergence of nations, and tends to be considered on a national basis' moved to end of paragraph 2

I have just been looking at the Introduction section and this has occurred to me - paragraph 3 is a geographic/geological paragraph (and also the largest one). As the above-quoted phrase is historical, it should really be added to the end of paragraph 2. I think it was composed by Dave Souza and I must say, in admiration, that I do like its remarkably sensitive and poetic composition. Pconlon 16:13, 12 August 2006

Lol, yeah, it is quite nicely written and I think it fits well where you have put it. --Robdurbar 18:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, well I've learnt here to be open and diplomatic about all changes...and Dave does have a certain flair wit dem words! Kind regards, Pconlon 18:34, 14 August 2006

Intro Para 4

Is there a better wording for the new addition to intro para 4 - The term has also been used either not to include the island of Ireland at all in the definition, or else to include just Northern Ireland. is unwieldy. Is it necessary at all? Bazza 17:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Is it a new addition? I think it(or such sentiments, anyway) have been in the article for a long time, and I think keeping it in the intro is good as it explains more of the nature of the conflict. As for better writing.... can't think of the top of my head, but you're right that its slightly clumsy. --Robdurbar 18:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Nah, it's not a new addition - it's been there for ages. Jtdirl is the user you should discuss this with. He sees it as being very important (and can firmly back it up) and I argee with him. It explains the confusion that comes from different sources having different definitions. As for the wording, well, it's a difficult thing to explain and I think the existing wording makes a pretty good job of it. Pconlon 18:28, 14 August 2006

One other thing, someone changed (without noting it) the first sentence to read 'As the adjective "British" usually means, among other things, "of Great Britain" or "of the United Kingdom"'. 'British' does always mean 'of Great Britain' or 'of the UK' doesn't it?! The Falklands Islands are 'British' because they are governed/protected by the United Kingdom. I've simplified it back. If the person who made that change would like to explain any error I'm making, please enlighten me. Kind regards, Pconlon 18:42, 14 August 2006

No, British is an ancient word with a complex history, and some of its uses long predate the formation of the UK. An obvious example of this is the term British Isles. Another example is the use of British by historians of the early middle ages, who use it to mean Welsh (as did the people of that time). TharkunColl 17:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
TharkunColl, if you've just changed the wording at the start of Para 4, I'm ok with it. Thanks for the clarification. I've actually just returned to my computer with the intention to change what I wrote, realising the danger I created of complaint! Pconlon 19:00, 14 August 2006
I did revert this on site because it didn't seem to alter the meaning, but just add more words. However, if others support its re-addition, I won't complain. --Robdurbar 18:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I think one could say the "it has come to primarily mean", even; but it's certainly not the original meaning, or the only current one. Alai 22:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Meaning of British

'No, British is an ancient word with a complex history, and some of its uses long predate the formation of the UK.'-TharkunColl.

Indeed. And the Swastika is a sacred symbol in Hinduism and Jainism. Harmless, therefore- isn't it? El Gringo 21:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

the man makes a good point --Robdurbar 21:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Harm is in the eye of certain beholders. The swastika article provides a good example of how to deal in a neutral way with such issues. ..dave souza, talk 22:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The swastika is harmless; its use to denote nazism is not. In Mexico El Gringo derives from term given to the troops that invaded and occupied Mexico before half of its territory was forcibly annexed; by this doctrine its use is solely to approve of this. History does not consist of people in white hats and people in black hats, as the Boer War article actually makes clear. MAG1 23:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed reference

I have removed the reference to the term "British Isles and Ireland" being used in sport. The reference given was to a site describing somebody's participation in a yacht race round the archipelago. The race was however misnamed in this site - it is known as the Round Britain and Ireland Yacht Race, not as the Round British Isles and Ireland Yacht Race.--Stonemad GB 22:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The adjective "British"

Why does the fourth paragraph keep being edited to imply that the term "British" is purely political? It isn't. And that's a simple fact. TharkunColl 23:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I think Robdurbar's 'can mean' wording does the job nicely and consisely (see note above). I hope this is acceptable to you too TharkunColl. Kind regards, Pconlon 10:52, 15 August 2006

History section way too long

It should just be a history of events that affected the whole archipelago, like the Wars of the Three Kingdoms. Instead it is full of details that are specific to one or other of the constituent elements. It needs a good spring clean if we have a historian in the house. --Red King 20:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced claim

How can anyone possibly say that most Irish people and people of Irish descent don't use the term? Where's the evidence for this? And why does someone keep removing the bit that says that Irish government departments still use the term (whatever their so-called official policy may be)? These are just POVs from people who can't accept that the term is still used in Ireland. TharkunColl 12:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Your lack of knowledge about Ireland never ceases to astound. lol FearÉIREANN\(caint) 15:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
No Irish person I've ever spoken to in real life (i.e. not on the Internet) has ever raised the slightest objection to the term. If people want this article to say that most people of Irish descent object to the term, they must provide sources. Has any survey been conducted of all Irish descended people all over the world? If so, all well and good. But I seriously doubt it. TharkunColl 16:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Giving your many claims as to what Irish people's views supposedly are I doubt if you have ever spoken to an Irish person. Your edits show no evidence of even a passing grasp of Irish views. At this stage your edits are nothing more than vandalism and will be treated as such. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 17:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm only asking for sources, as per Wikipedia policy. And I don't particularly like being called a liar, even by implication. I have spoken to probably hundreds of Irish people over the years. TharkunColl 18:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
'No Irish person I've ever spoken to in real life (i.e. not on the Internet) has ever raised the slightest objection to the

term.' I'm really certain that you have taken aside the likes of Seán Óg Maidhc Ó Conghaile from Indreabhán and asked him such a question. Yes, bringing up politics in person would be just the sort of thing that a certain type of person would do. 'If people want this article to say that most people of Irish descent object to the term, they must provide sources.' How about if you claim that it is used commonly you provide sources for its common use to include Ireland. By the way, sources from the British crown's government are about as acceptable as an IDF statement on the latest bombing in Lebannon. Try The Irish Times and RTÉ, or just come over here and do random interviews. El Gringo 20:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I have never suggested that the term is used "commonly" in Ireland, and have therefore made no claim that requires verification. I have merely stated that the term is used in Ireland, and to prove this there are numerous references to it on the Irish government's own website. I even placed these in the article, but strangely they were all edited out. On no occasion whatever have I quoted anything from the British government's website. As for people of Irish descent, just try and think for a moment what this actually means. Ireland has had people living in it for thousands of years, and due to well known processes such as migration and genetic dispersal, it is a foregone conclusion that every single one of us has at least some ancestors who lived in Ireland (and anywhere else you care to mention). TharkunColl 23:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
If we're going by anecdotes, I asked some friends about this when I was in Ireland recently, and they said that the term "British Isles" was not frequently used there, "for obvious reasons". FWIW. Vashti 20:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Look, I would have thought the Irish government situation is quite simple:

  • Members of the Irish government have specifically said that the term is avoided
  • However, it is a phrase that many will have grown up hearing, and all will be aware of. It is rediculous to suggest that any democratic government will screen every speach or document coming from its members. Thus, 'British Isles' will sometimes get used, even by those who disagree with the term .
  • Indeed, to talk of 'the Irish government' as one monolithic organisation is rediculous.
  • This means that both the phrases 'the Irish government never uses the term' and 'the term is still used by the Irish government' mis-represent the situation.

The article has compromised adequatly on this issue for a while - the important FACTS are that 1. the term is rejected by Irish politicians but 2. occaisionally slips into use. To be honest, claiming otherwise really just seems untenable... --Robdurbar 21:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The anecdotes and proposals for original research are entertaining and may be true, but the threshold for Wikipedia is verifiability and not truth. It's a bold claim that a majority of Irish people and people of Irish descent reject the term, especially considering how many can claim such descent across the world. Rather than add {{Fact}} I'll substitute "many" for "most" until clear verification is provided. ..dave souza, talk 21:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
sensible --Robdurbar 21:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Beat me to it with an equally sensible approach. ..dave souza, talk 21:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, though I have since attempted a couple of tinkers. I have tried to retain the well-sourced content of Jtdirl, but removed some of the generalisations drawn from it that worried Eric R. Hopefully, the content can now tell us about itself, and the reader can draw his own views about its use in Ireland as a whole. I hope my edit summary, then making a couple of edits, arn't viewed as hypocritical... the three should be taken together as a whole, with the first edit summary describign them together Robdurbar 21:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I object...belatedly. Not for the rollback, that's no big deal—but for the sparse feedback; which edits did people have problems with, which did they support? Consensus and preventing edit wars are all well and good, but eventually we'll have to look at where the article conflicts with those pesky policy pages. Is removing article text until it can be supported by sound references the wrong way to proceed?EricR 00:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, unfortunately some good edits to Terminology may have been lost and will have to be reviewed: I've cut the sport bit as per #Removed reference above. The whole section needs to be gone over to make it informative rather than presenting one opinion, but I'm not rushing at it without getting better sources than the rather dodgy ones that have been found so far. A while ago I requested citations from the books that are listed at footnote 26: given questionable inferences being drawn from other sources it will be helpful if someone with access to the books can check what they actually say on the subject. ..dave souza, talk 21:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

For those of you who perhaps doubt that the term British Isles is used neutrally in the U.K., have a look at [1]. This is The Guardian remember, not the Daily Express. Incidentally there appears that there might be an article in The Irish Times on this very article last month, but it is a bit difficult to tell without a subscription ([2] second article). MAG1 23:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

One story is rather relevant. As for the article about us here, see Talk:British Isles/Archive 4#This discussion is getting media coverage. ..dave souza, talk 23:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Interesting, if you search for something, then you will surly find it. The world is actually flat, that is if you cite The Flat Earth Society. I thought that The Guardian used to be called the Manchester Guardian. Now, is Manchester in England, or is it in Britain. Surely it's in the British Isles somewhere. But it does not follow that Irish people use the term British Isles. The Irish Times search seems to lead to a predominance of unionist parties, which don't exist in sovereign Ireland. MelForbes 00:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Such as searching for "British Isles and Ireland"?  ;) Oh, and try reading the story I linked...dave souza, talk 00:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Hey Dave, can't get your point try reading. Ye, it says British Isles. So? MelForbes 20:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
The relevance is of a term which you tell us is controversial and rarely used in Ireland being used in the obituary of one of Ireland's most successful athletes and the head of one of the largest families in the British Isles, a devout Catholic born in Dungarvan, written by the last of his 13 surviving children who one might surmise is of Irish descent. Which would seem to suggest that Irish people use the term British Isles. When it suits them. ..dave souza, talk 22:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Dave, why did I ask? Your answer says more about attitudes than the newspaper article says about the British Isles. I have lived in Ireland for the last 11 years and never heard of the person in question. But please with all due respects to the individual, maybe I should have had. Obituaries are most often over-done, thought that you would have known that. MelForbes 23:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Official use of the term British Isles in Ireland

All of the following were collected from the official Irish government website by Ben W Bell talk. I subsequently added them to the article, but they were gradually edited out and no trace of them now remains. I strongly suggest that they should be put back in, simply in the interests of truth and honesty. All these are official reports and minutes from both the Dáil and the Seanad. As can be seen, the term is used in a completely neutral sense.

Yes. And no-one can legitimately deny that the term is used. Did you read my post above that discusses such issues? --Robdurbar 08:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes I did. You used phrases such as "slips into use", almost implying that the ministers and officials used the term accidentally, without realising they had done so. This is pure POV, not to mention rather insulting to the people concerned. Are you saying that members of the Irish government are so conditioned that they keep using the term without really wanting to? That's utter hogwash and, needless to say, completely incapable of verification. Perhaps they are using it because that's what the islands are called! Either way, they use it. TharkunColl 10:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I do back down in that this is original reserach; we cannot know people's motives, most of the time. However, I don't see anything insulting in it - I use lots of phrases that I know I shouldn't because I have been conditioned from use to do so... we all have a Ron Atkinson moment now and again.
Furthermore, I don't think we should be mispresenting the situation by giving the impression that the term is in use in the way that it is in the UK. --88.107.146.96 09:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
No they don't. It is used rarely. As has been mentioned before (do you ever read anyone else's comments but your own?) it is occasionally used, usually in press releases and scripts, or in sport in the absence right now of a universally recognised alternative. It is not used in the way it is used in Britain, where the usage is widespread. Your pushing of POV nonsense is getting tedious at this stage. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 12:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Yet again, you are attributing motives to these people that you cannot possibly know. The term is used, and that's a fact. You cannot say "rarely" without providing proof. It is you who is pushing a blatant POV and that, needless to say, is extremely tedious. TharkunColl 15:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
The term is evidently used on occasion. Rarely is obviously a subjective statement, and while your opinion is noted, please provide a verifiable source for this statement. ..dave souza, talk 14:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, a guy (Dr. Mark Roe) wrote a letter into today's Irish Times talking about Waterford being "the only part of Britain or Ireland which does not have a university". Why, if the term "British Isles" is so commonly used in Ireland, did he not write the more simple "British Isles"? Hmmmm. All must not be well in the Realm, lads.

PS: Your above references would be more instructive if you introduced people like Mary Henry. Context is everything and a TCD senator saying "British Isles" is par for the course. But nice to see our British posters supporting their Anglo-Irish soulmates in defence of the "British Isles". Of course, the term is not political at all. At all. At all. Jesus, Mary and Joseph how could anybody suggest that British rule in our country is political? Britain, my dear boy, is above politics- it is those dastardly natives who politicise everything! All you Brits need a slap. Chancers. No wonder you kept 25% of planet earth faoi chois for so long. Chancers. Chancers. Chancers. The end. El Gringo 22:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

One letter to a newspaper from one individual does not a faction make. I find your grotesque anti-Btitish imputations extremely offensive (whilst at the same time risible). Please desist. TharkunColl 23:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

You'll be pleased to know that I find all your collective denials about the rightwing British loyalist tribal politics behind the use of the term "British Isles" to be at least as offensive. Will you desist? I also wonder will you people ever come to terms with the fanaticism at the heart of your state's actions throughout the world for many centuries. I suspect, however, that belief in a morally superior British Empire is the umbilical cord to modern British identity for the few remaining troglodytes over in Britain when it comes to Ireland, many of whom seem to make a remarkably disproportionate appearance in Wikipedia defending nostalgic articles where the nomenclature reflects Britain's former colonial greatness, articles like yours truly here. All in the name of being apolitical, of course. El Gringo 23:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Have you ever heard the phrase willful ignorance? The term British Isles predated the British state by thousands of years. I find your remarks both offensive and racist. TharkunColl 23:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's see 1621 to 2006....Hmmmm- nope, Thar, that really is not thousands of years. And maths after the basics of 26 + 6 = 1 got a bit tricky for me. Here's an online calculator, though, just so you can see for yourself. Second, there is no such thing as the British race. There never has been, and there never will be. Alas! And it was an Englishman who started that mad notion so no doubt you will embrace it now. At most Britishness is an ethnicity. Given this basic fact of evolutionary biology, upon what grounds could I be "racist"? Your answer here will test just how risible you can be. But, before you start, opposition to people who want to impose their nationalist/tribal terminology on other peoples' lands- that's yourself, by the way- is opposition to the, em, master race? El Gringo 23:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

You seem to have conveneintly forgotten Ptolemy and all the Classical references. Oh well, a few facts should never be allowed to get in the way of a good nationalist agenda, eh? Oh, and thank you for confirming that "British" does not refer to a race. As everyone knows, it is a collective term for four races - English, Scottish, Irish, and Welsh. TharkunColl 00:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Sovereign Ireland

The sovereign state Ireland should be referred to by it's proper legal title. To refer to it by any other name is an exercise in pov. A mere 15% of the island of Ireland opted against the consensus in 1922, and now refer to themselves as Northern Ireland. Is it correct to refer to it by Northern Ireland, or should it be referred to as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. To me it all seems very weird to refer to the two parts of the island of Ireland by what are in fact two quite incorrect terms. MelForbes 22:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

The appropriation of the word "Ireland" (without a modifier) by a state that only occupies about two thirds of Ireland is not to be taken seriously. TharkunColl 23:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry Thar, 85% -MelForbes 23:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Are you referring to landmass, or population? Either way, it doesn't matter. What matters is that a state that does not represent the whole of Ireland, has appropriated that name for itself. TharkunColl 23:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Funny then, that when Queen Elizabeth II invited President Robinson to visit Buckingham Palace the invitation spoke of the "President of Ireland", not President of the Republic of Ireland. Obviously then the Queen is a secret Irish nationalist, according to your bizarre interpretation of things. Your agenda-pushing is so OTT it is hilarious. Under international law, the two states registered with the UN, in forms of names accepted by each other, as the United Kingdom and Ireland. If it is good enough for the UN, for Downing Street, for the Irish people and for Her Majesty the Queen then it is good enough for this article. If you have a problem with it, complain to Her Majesty! FearÉIREANN\(caint) 23:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Good to see that you are backing up Ireland's claims by reference to a statement by the British Queen! It cuts no ice with me, however. Agenda pushing aside, what right does the government of Dublin have to call its state "Ireland"? TharkunColl 23:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Thar, if I were you I would listen to your queen. After all you are a subject of her most noble majesty, and you must listen! MelForbes 23:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
No way, Jose. My arguments are strictly linguistic, and the queen can go and fuck off back to her ancestral beerfests in Bavaria for all I care. TharkunColl 23:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh jaysas, a Cromwellian! El Gringo 00:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Another insult? I do not support Cromwell or any of his policies. TharkunColl 00:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello, tis me. In general, we should refer to Ireland as such; that is its name. However, there are some cases, possibly in this article (though I havn't checked every individual use) where we should use Republic of Ireland, in order to disambiguate from the island for users who are unfamiliar with the region/subject. This could, alternatively, be something mentioned in a reference. --88.107.146.96 09:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the statement above that "Sovereign Ireland" is the proper legal title and "to refer to it by any other name is an exercise in pov" explains the recent edit where MelForbes has substituted "sovereign Ireland" for "Republic of Ireland", but conflicts with Names of the Irish state which says that "The Republic of Ireland Act, adopted in 1949, provided that, henceforth, the Republic of Ireland would be the official 'description' of the state, but not its name." and that "the term Republic of Ireland is commonly used in ordinary speech, especially in any context in which it is necessary to distinguish between the state and the island as a whole. So, for example, one always speaks of there being a border "between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland" rather than between Northern Ireland and "Ireland"." Of course the anecdote about QE2 will be true, since "As a name of the state, Ireland is used for almost all official purposes.... It is also used in the state's diplomatic relations with foreign nations", but this article is required to explain things to readers less versed in Court language than HM. Of course if these statements are superseded, please provide a verifiable reliable source for the change. Otherwise, please restore the proper disambiguation. ..dave souza, talk 10:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC) formatting changed . dave souza, talk 13:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Rob and Dave's remarks seem sensible to me. Tharkun and Mel are both advancing fringe POVs here, I think. john k 11:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. Bastun 11:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
What are you talking about? Firstly, my edit was "sovereign Ireland" and not "Sovereign Ireland", a big difference. Whats wrong with calling a sovereign nation, sovereign, what's POV about that. The purpose is to distinguish the sovereign state of Ireland from the island of Ireland. If that's advancing "fringe POV", according to 2 editors, then that makes me highly amused. John k, don't remember Rob editing this section. MelForbes 13:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC) Add edit; I see Dave has rectified something very important. He has changed "Sovereign Ireland" to "sovereign Ireland". That makes some of this discussion redundant. MelForbes 13:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
The way you have worded it makes it seem as if Ireland is a sovereign state, whereas in fact it is divided between two sovereign states. TharkunColl 13:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Ah-ha! I think I see what the problem is now. Some people don't like Ireland calling itself Ireland. OH, if that's not POV... MelForbes 13:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
I have no objection to Ireland calling itself Ireland. But I think it is risible and highly offensive that part of Ireland should call itself Ireland. TharkunColl 13:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
I was the anon earlier (my account had a bit of a glitch). I don't particularly object ot 'Sovereign Ireland' either; its a good, if slightly unorthadox, way of disambiguating between the State, the nation and the country. I'm just saying that we shouldn't act like 'Republic of Ireland' should be considered unacceptable in the article either (as Dave points out, it is the country's 'official discription'). --Robdurbar 15:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I've put in a footnote after Republic of Ireland to explain the complexities of constitutional name, diplomatic name and description. Some people (well one mainly) don't seem to understand them. But then given the fact that that user tried to put in a name of Ireland that is eighty years out of date, their lack of knowledge on this whole topic is becoming patently obvious to everyone. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 16:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

"Sovereign Ireland," as a proper noun, seems to be something of a neologism, and also strikes as being the kind of term used by people who call Northern Ireland the "6 occupied counties". What in the world is wrong with "Republic of Ireland" as a term when one needs to distinguish the Republic from Northern Ireland? john k 17:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, if Ronan Fanning, that arch radical subversive (can't you just picture him in student riots in '68?), can write an entire book on the 26 counties entitled 'Independent Ireland'....El Gringo 17:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

John, Mel wrote "sovereign Ireland" not "Sovereign Ireland". The former is not a proper noun. It is absolutely normal to write the word "sovereign" (lowercased) before the name of a state. Re "Republic of Ireland" there ain't no such place. There is a place called "Ireland" whose description, in Section 2 of the Republic of Ireland Act is "Republic". If one is writing about both the south and north, "Republic of Ireland" is a tolerable but inaccurate disambiguation vehicle. In the context of states, there is no need for disambiguation because there is no grounds for confusion between the two sovereign states, Ireland and the United Kingdom. Northern Ireland is not a state. It is merely a region of a state, the UK. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 17:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

"It is hereby declared that the description of the State shall be the Republic of Ireland." Keeping the description consistent is useful for readers not versed in such equivocation. .. dave souza, talk 18:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
I think consensus was reached on this issue previously. I believe the result was that the states should be given their full titles (Republic of Ireland and Ireland) where references were to be made regarding the states, and "Ireland" used when it refers to the whole of Ireland and Irish people in general.
In my view it can be confusing - especially to a reader who is not familiar with the political geography - as the word "Ireland" can be used in casual conversation when referring to the state. Its a matter of context, which isn't always clear to people who do not know the political setup. Facts relating to "Ireland" can misconstrued.
Any objection I might have over the usage of the term "Ireland" are purely from a logical standpoint. --Mal 18:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Perspectives in Ireland section

This all seems very confused at the moment, with commented out sections and long refs. Would any one mind if I tried to give the first couple of paragraphs a bit of an overhaul? I wouldn't really be looking to change the content, just 'streamline' it. Robdurbar 16:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I second this. The Perspectives in Ireland section is very prolix. The point its making is essentially a simple one - that in Ireland the term is seen as offensive and defunct, and is therefore rarely used, except by NI Unionist politicians. I don't think anyone seriously contests this. An explanation and a couple of refs are all that is needed.--Stonemad GB 23:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Well my attempt to tidy was reverted, but I changed back. I'm fed up of editors blanking out content for long periods of time from the article. It just takes us to a situation where editors and readers don't know what is being said nor why content has been removed.
And I feel the same about the stupidly long refences - I'm very tempted to delete all the confusing blockquotes from this article.
I have no opinion, really, on the content of much of these bits, but it is just ABSOLUTELY BAFFLING! --Robdurbar 20:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Britain and Ireland POV fork

Apologies if this has already been resolved satisfactorily on these pages, but I've just discovered what is essentially a POV fork at Britain and Ireland. (It was certainly created as such - the first edit summary was Copied content from British Isles.) It seems to serve no useful purpose other than to discuss usage of the term, which is already done more than adequately here and at British Isles (terminology). I reckon a simple redirect is all that's required – what do people think?

On a secondary point, I'd favour merging Islands of the North Atlantic into British Isles (terminology), on the basis that Wikipedia is not a usage guide, but that's a less clear-cut case. --Blisco 17:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh Christ it is like Groundhog Day here. Re the second, the answer is an unambiguous NO. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 17:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
The text of the IONA article, and the text in the Alternative terms section are an innacurate representation of the sources available which describe the acronym. There is and older discussion in Archive 5. If anything, the Islands of the North Atlantic page should be moved to IONA or merged with British-Irish Council.EricR 18:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
You are joking? IONA is totally different to the British Isles Council. Merging them would be about as ridiculous as merging DUP and Northern Ireland Assembly or merging Scotland with British Isles!!! Merging Islands with the North Atlantic with anything other topic is a 100% non-starter. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 18:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Where did you read 'British Isles Council'? Bertie Ahern:

The British-Irish Council is the expression of a relationship that at the origin of the Anglo-Irish process in 1981 was sometimes given the name Iona, islands of the North Atlantic, and sometimes Council of the Isles,...

A council, not the archipelago. Is this really so unreasonable a position that i must be joking, when it's the position nearly all our sources support?EricR 19:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC) (added to Ahern quoteEricR 19:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC))

You are completely confused on two points:

  • What IONA is
  • What Bertie said.

The latter is not suprising. Bertie's inability to speak English is notorious (the entire Dáil has been left on occasion trying to work out what he is talking about). What he said, above, is typical Bertie bullshit. (I know some of his speechwriters and they pull their preverbial hair out with what he does to what they wrote.)

For the record, IONA is NOTHING to do with the British-Irish Council. IONA is a term used to refer to a set of islands. The British-Irish Council is an assembly made of members of parliaments on the islands. There is nothing else to it. IONA is simply a term coined to be used to refer to those islands at a time when a new relationship was developing. It was intended to replace the "British Isles" because "British Isles" is objectionable and offensive to millions on the archipelago. Sometimes people use IONA as a symbol of the new relationship (i.e., to show that that relationship is now based on understanding and sensitivity, hence it being used and the ditching of "British Isles") but they don't mean that the term IS the relationship, just that it is a symbol OF it. That is what Bertie, in his usual garbled manner, was trying to convey. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 19:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I've added to the Ahern quote above to provide more context, a link to the full speech is available on the references page. I don't disagree that IONA is sometimes associated with "the totality of relationships", but in this instance Ahern is clearly listing IONA and Council of the Isles as alternate names for the council. Isn't the difficulty of trying to interpret meaning a good reason to look to secondary sources? Most of which i've seen so far clearly use IONA as the proposed name of a council.
Regardless, we've already taken up quite a bit of space with this discussion, any objection to moving everything from my 18:11 comment till now to IONA talk and get out of the way of the merge discussion?EricR 19:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
I am astonished. IONA never ever ever meant the Council. Never. IONA is, as the name makes clear, about islands. It is not, and never has been, about a political body. I am amazed you have got that so monumentally wrong. IONA is 100% about an alternative name for the islands. It has been used as shorthand for a relationship. But it never ever ever ever meant the Council. Just think about it: what dork would name a council Islands of the North Atlantic? Official bodies use words like Council, Body, etc. They do not simply use a term without using any of the standard language for governmental and parliamentary structures. Calling the Council the Islands of the North Atlantic would be about as silly as calling the Council the British Isles, calling the European Parliament Europe or calling the US Congress the United States! Somewhere along the line you have got your wires completely crossed and have mixed up unrelated things. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 20:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Mr. Peter Luff (Mid-Worcestershire):

What is it that the people of this kingdom are being offered? There will be a Parliament for Scotland--quite an ambitious and wide-ranging Parliament--with significant powers. There will be an assembly for Wales, with fewer significant powers. There will be a new devolved body for Northern Ireland. I am sure that that will have its merits in the context of the Northern Ireland peace process. In the same context, there will be a council of the isles. I think that some people are calling it IONA--the islands of the north Atlantic, from which England, by definition, will be excluded.

EricR 20:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
If you read the full nature of Peter's contribution you will see that he is speaking through his arse on the topic. For a start, how could the council not include England if it was made up of representatives of all the states? So far, as "evidence" (though it barely qualifies for the term) you have produced a typically garbled contribution by Bertie, which is so confused it goes round in circles about nothing at all, and a rambling contribution from a minor MP who is so confused he thinks that somehow a Council of the Isles can leave out England!!! Again, I repeat: your equation of IONA with the Council of the Isles is complete nonsense. They are totally different things. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 23:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
So, some using IONA are talking out their ass, others are confused and incoherent—but somehow we are able to divine which are expressing The True meaning of the acronym. Maybe we would do better to look to a secondary source to help with the confusion:

The UUP had long been interested in such an overarching Council of the British Isles and it had also been an idea that inspired British Conservatives like Sir John Biggs-Davison who had earlier coined the acronym IONA, Isles of the North Atlantic, for a similar vision.

(Aughey 2005, p. 91) again, a council.EricR 00:17, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Zeech. No. But anyone who has done even the slightest bit of research knows how to read context, and knows the difference between 'context, definition and structure. You don't seem able to and mix up all three over and over. You've just done it yet again by misunderstanding Aughey. Sir John had a vision of a relationship. He proposed to get away from the bitternesses of the past by using new terminology for that relationship across the archipelago. He proposed as a neutral name for the parts, IONA, as an alternative to the existing controversial name, British Isles. The UUP had a similar vision for a new relationship and used Sir John's concept of the IONA relationship as the basis for it. Central to their proposed structure for the relationship was to be a consultative parliamentary body called the British Isles Council. Denis Canavan, as shown in the article, argued that they should drop the British Isles bit because it was potentially offensive to Irish Nationalists, given their experience of what "British" in the governmental sense had done to them. The name chosen for that body was the British-Irish Council.

How many more times does it have to be explained to you?

  • relationship = archipelago (British Isles / IONA)
  • structure = parliamentary body (Council for the Isles/British Isles Council).

They are TWO different things. The very names makes that clear. One is a council (i.e., a formal body made up of politicians). One is a geographical/cultural/historic relationship on an archipelago, known variously as the British Isles, British Isles and Ireland, the Anglo-Celtic Isles or the Islands of the North Atlantic. An island and a consultative parliamentary body are two different things. Look up a dictionary. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 00:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

And now, not only must we selectively ignore usage of IONA, but also disregard the plain text meaning of secondary sources by authors which actually discuss the acronym. I have not misunderstood Aughey, but have simply read the passage without attempting to impose a preexisting bias on it's meaning. Perhaps the quote provided was too lean and you were guessing at the pre and post text? I have added to the quote on the references page to show that Aughey was clearly discussing the British-Irish Council.
Your desire to read extra meaning into source text is noted, the use of the (Davies 1999, p. xxii) citation is in a similar vein. I've added the relevant quote to the references page—a quote which does not support the article text to which it has been variously attached.
Article text which is not supported by a reputable source seems to have been accepted by most of this article's editors, despite the verifiability policy. Ignoring the existing references, or misrepresenting their meaning, is another issue entirely.EricR 15:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Unlike you I have been applying no extra meanings, just following standard academic interpretation. You have been applying a POV agenda. Your inability to read text and understand the history of this island remains astonishing. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 19:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
You do mean these islands don't you? Following the accusation of illiteracy you intended to point out my inability to understand the history of these islands? Once again i suggest we cut and paste this entire discussion to the IONA talk page, or if some other editor wants to be bold and just do it i have no objections. There we can hash it out (or more likely hammer it out) with some article edits.EricR 23:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Blisco, You're a brave person. I think you are completely right about the first point: explicit POV fork, no information there which is not found here, and potentially confusing; however, the redirect could go to British Isles (terminology) and give the reader the opportunity to work out which bit of the archipelago they want or all of it.

With respect to your second point, the article is not well written, but Islands of the North Atlantic has a life of its own owing to its role within the Northern Ireland peace process and so does justify a separate article. It is probably best to discuss its merger with other articles there rather than here. MAG1 18:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

And "British Isles" is not "explicitly pov"? Get a grip. Have you people ever read even the basics of Irish history? Do you people really think the British state sauntered in here and we ran out with flowers and cups of tea and gave you all our land, power, customs, language, legal system and said 'yes, keep us under your sectarian Penal laws for centuries'. You profoundly insulting individuals. The term "British Isles" is nothing if it is not reflective of British tribal prejudices and political aspirations regarding Ireland. A more political pov term I cannot imagine. But it is astounding how non-pov it is just because it is a name which your tribe invented. For all your protestations of enlightenment one doesn't have to scratch too deeply to see the heart of your tribe. El Gringo 18:43, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

It is you who are quite obviously profoundly ignorant of history. The term British Isles existed for hundreds of years before the British state appropriated the term "British" for itself. TharkunColl 23:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
That is an unfair attack, Gringo. Most of the users here have struggled to grasp the problems the name "British Isles" causes in Ireland. Thar is in complete denial, but as the editing history shows a broad range of users have come to understand something of the complexity and have shown a willingness to take it on board. And just because the British and English states and their oligarchies many years ago made horrendous mistakes does not mean that today's British and English people cannot be held responsible for those actions. The people here are not "profoundly insulting individuals". One or two have acted that way. But the vast majority on all sides of the argument are trying to get to grips with a complex topic and take on board all the aspects of it, including Irish experiences of British (mis)rule and how it colours any reference to the "British" Isles. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 20:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Can I ask one question, why do people keep saying that Islands of the North Atlantic is in the Belfast Agreement? It isn't, it's not mentioned in there once yet people keep saying it is. Can people please read this document (I have done several times including when I voted on it) and be clear on what is and isn't mentioned and agreed in it. Ben W Bell talk 20:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Since the term Britain and Ireland is so common in Ireland and on British television stations, this appellation must have it's very own explanation page. This term is not neologism, and goes way way back. Talking about insults, to remove this page would indeed be an insult to many many people. Nearly all the PRO-British editors (for want of a better description) seem to have no problem accusing other editors of POV. Really it's just getting a bit tiresome to listen to this garbage day in and day out. Just today, I have been accused of POV LOL. El Gringo has a very valid point, and that is, the term BI is reeking with POV, whilst Ireland is not, nor has it any designs on it's neighbours. MelForbes 22:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Britain and Ireland is certainly common, but the question is - is it a term, or just two terms connected by a conjunction? Britain and France, and apples and bananas are also common, but they don't have wikipedia entries. Please explain your statement that the term BI is reeking with POV. BI has an entry, like all other Wikipedia entries, because it is a very commonly used term. The fact that it is offensive to many people is not a relevant criteria as to whether or not it should be in Wikipedia. I am very sympathetic to the argument that BI is a defunct and offensive term that should be replaced, but Wiki is here to describe how terms are used today in the real world, not to tell us whether or not they should be used in future in an ideal world.--Stonemad GB 22:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
"Please explain your statement that the term BI is reeking with POV." unquote. I believe the answer is self-explanatory. If the term is so offensive to so many people, then it clearly has pov-value.MelForbes 23:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • P.S. Britain and Ireland is used in the real world and is very commonly used in the real world. MelForbes 23:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree: as I said, "Britain and Ireland is certainly common". But that doesn't merit an entry unless it is a term in its own right - just like Britain and France and apples and bananas.Britain has an entry, Ireland has an entry - I think most readers will be able to work out what you get when you put them together.--Stonemad GB 23:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


I repeat: Wikipedia is not a dictionary. If we had an article on every single disputed term we'd have separate articles on Derry and Londonderry for goodness sake. We should have one article on the island group, call it what you will, with all terms which unequivocally refer to that group redirecting to it. If the terms are disputed, explain the dispute. If there is a lot of explanation to be done, have an article dedicated to the purpose. The idea of WP:POV is to describe all POVs in one place, not to have an article for each POV. Incidentally, I'm using POV in its proper sense to mean 'a point of view', not the frequently misused sense of 'biased'. When I call a page a POV fork, I'm not expressing any opinion on the POV it describes, just pointing out the general undesirability of multiple pages of this nature. --Blisco 23:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
A further thought: if the consensus of editors was to move this page - i.e. the article about the archipelago off NW Europe - to Britain and Ireland, would you support a separate article called British Isles explaining how, why and by whom the term was used? If so, would you be happy with the consequence that good-faith editors would create links to British Isles thinking they were providing readers with more information about said islands, when in fact they were landing them with a debate over terminology? --Blisco 23:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I broadly agree with you. The article British Isles should only be a 20 liner page (see my user page), with links to the parts. The article Britain and Ireland should only be a 20 liner page (see my user page), with links to the parts. Yup, that would sort of all the different POV! MelForbes 23:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
I suggested pretty much the same thing, again, and again, and ... Now we've got Jtdirl and EricR arguing over IONA (any formal source?), POV forks, and Jtdirl berating Elgringo. This article should give the definition of BI, with a brief whizz around the geographical features, and short description of its origins as a term (Greek stuff - Pritaniki - to be closely sourced: I suspect that was never intended to refer to Ireland), including its explicit adoption by the Stuarts. The rest should be links, links, links.--Shtove 17:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I suggest you read WP:POVFORK. These two articles are about the same topic: the archipelago. One topic = one article. This article should then include all the POVs. An article for each POv isn't how Wikipedia is meant to work.--Stonemad GB 00:03, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow, has kikced off here again. I've always held the belief that there should be one article on the archipalego, and that that should be held at 'a' page, to which all the others redirect. Mel Frobes' proposal, whilst interesting in a way, goes against the idea of Wikipedia having articles on 'things' rather than on 'words'. Furthermore, Stonemad's point about not having multiple articles for each point of view is important. Personally, I would rather see how the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anglo-Celtic Isles ends first, and use that as a precedent for the other term articles. I think 'IONA' has the advantage of being well sourced and gives a detalied and interesting article and is 'just and so' acceptable. I agree that I see little point in having an article called Britain and Ireland - as discussed previously, its debatable as to whether this is even a phrase or not. Robdurbar 20:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Rob, the problem with that theory, like Javert, it doesn't flex. Then the constant hearing of the mantra, "Wikipedia is not a dictionary", like some hollow looped digital recording telling us not to, is actually quite meaningless. If one reads the relevant WP pages dealing with these issues, they are not cut and dried like some would like to claim. This analysis, if forced to it's conclusion would redirect many WP articles. Just in the space of 15 minutes I have thought of 9 articles that would redirect under the theory. Should they go too?-Big Apple, Aussie, Canuck, Geordie, Jap, Kraut, Gringo, Yankee ................MelForbes 21:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
OK, I was over-general with my selective quoting of Wikipedia guidelines. Terms that are clearly pejorative or non-standard, if notable enough, certainly shouldn't be merged into the standard term (though any article with a link to Wictionary prominently at the top, such as Jap, is likely to be of questionable utility IMHO). I take back my semi-serious suggestion of merging IONA, which I made out of a personal preference for long and comprehensive articles over short and insubstantial ones. "Britain and Ireland", however, is not pejorative or non-standard but a standard term that refers to the same entity that is generally known outside Ireland as the British Isles (give or take the IoM). More to the point, the entity and issues it describes are dealt with adequately by both British Isles and British Isles (terminology). The terms you listed, by contrast, don't have their counterparts in "New York (terminology)" etc. --Blisco 21:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
"if notable enough" unquote. That's my point. Just take one example, B Sky B, a world premiere international communications empire, constantly uses the term. There are many other examples, but WP or I wouldn't have the resources to cope with such an analysis. Do a Google, forget about the count this time, then study the related sites, the term has a life of it's own, no doubt! MelForbes 22:17, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Mel - WP:WINAD is not a theory - its an official policy. The fact that there may be some articles on Wiki that do not comply with it is not a good reason to have others. And your examples are not quite as clear-cut as they seem on closer inspection. There is no exact alternative term for Geordie or Gringo, for example, so any redirect would be inaccurate. Kraut, being strongly perjorative, is not simply an alternative name for German. Yankee has at least two meanings - Americans in general, and Americans from States that supported the Republic in the US Civil War. Again, any redirect would be inaccurate. I could go on.
Nobody doubts that Britain and Ireland is commonly used - it would be hard not to use it when talking about relations between Ireland and Britain! This is not a good reason for it to have its own entry though - we already have an entry for the archipelago, and one for each of its constituent parts.--Stonemad GB 22:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Hey Stonemad GB you must be a lawyer, you forgot the Big Apple. Firstly, the article British Isles is far to long. The length of the article alone is a gross indulgence in POV. It was a political term for 2 islands period, and became legally redundant in 1922. But through custom, and the status of Northern Ireland, and sovereign Ireland being in the British Commonwealth until 1949, the waters got muddied, and some usage carried on, particularly in Britain. It's just a mere 20 liner topic. MelForbes 23:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with MelForbes' 20 Lines suggestion. And why not disambiguate the term BI to an article entitled The Archipelago? This is clearly the most important collection of islands that's ever been, anywhere. So say Posh and Elgar.--Shtove 00:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
And therein amid the facetiousness is a solid point, Shtove. After all, this is English language wikipedia and is The Times called The English Times? Nope. Is the Telegraph called the British Telegraph? Nope. Is the National Farmers Union called the British National Farmers Union? Nope. Is the Conservative Party called the British Conservative Party? Nope. Now, contrast those with similar organisations in the English speaking world. 'The Archipelago' it is, then. El Gringo 01:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
If you stay at Wikipedia for a while you'll find out that all disputes are discussed over and over again at Wikipedia. It's been a couple of months since the 'United Kingdom is not a country' debate came up. We must be about due for another one soon. DJ Clayworth 21:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Not the same, not least because, although a common term, Britain and Ireland is, as it's article states, an ambiguous term. This article, on the other hand, is clear about what it is covering — the entire set of islands, even though the label given is not fully accepted by all (as the article also clearly states). Bazza 14:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree that Britain and Ireland should stay. Regardless of its technical accuracy it (or "Great Britain and Ireland") is by far the most widely used alternative term for the BI. Some documentation would be nice, though; it's a shame the linguists seem to be asleep at the switch as all of this would be a fascinating research topic. Vashti 15:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Idea

Once again I apologise if this is going over old ground, but would this work?

That would, I hope, address the problem of duplicated content while highlighting the dispute and giving adequate space for all POVs to be presented. --Blisco 20:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Well? Blisco 17:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I would support you in this- it's a good idea. MAG1 17:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. The explanation here should be concise and to the point, and a "dispute" article would allow expansion of the evidence. It would not lessen the need for close examination and improvement of the evidence regarding the dispute. This point is also being discussed at Talk:British Isles (terminology)#Discussion. Some there seem to be suggesting that that article could be renamed British Isles naming dispute, but as discussed above that article has a valuable role in explaining the various meanings associated with names for the islands, and would be improved by having only a brief summary about the dispute. ..dave souza, talk 19:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

edit conflict: On the creation of British Isles naming dispute, you haven't really made your reasons for doing so clear. Is it to save article space? We have some good material going to show that usage of British Isles is problematic. A respected historian pointed this out in a famous essay, and others have since taken up his challenge and attempted other names and descriptions for the archipelago. That should by itself be enough for a prominent section in this article explaining the situation. If we stick to the sources and avoid the hyperbole of one side and denial of the other brought on by the edit war, and give the issue space in accordance with it's notability (a straightforward paragraph in the intro? and a section not shuttled to the bottom as it becomes overly long and off-topic?) would there be any need for a separate article? The name is variously rejected/disputed/problematic and in ceartain instances avoided or replaced. That information, and the explanation as to why should stay in this article. Doing otherwise seems more an admission of failure than what's best for the encyclopedia.EricR 20:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

One of the central problems with this article is a reflection of a difficulty in a lot of academic discourse: what is more important, an object or an event or its name and political and cultural context? Among other things it is a reason why scientists (who nearly all study the former) and historians of science and social scientists (many who only see the latter) barely interact. What I like about Blisco's proposal is that it separates out these two things. The archipelago really does have a shared geography, geology, and natural history which don't break at national borders, and several aspects of its history can only be understood properly at the level of the archipelago (as this discussion generally demonstrates). The most popular collective name in English is very probably British Isles. There is also a valid, extensive, and interesting debate on the name and the alternatives with more than enough material for a good article. The benefit of Blisco's proposal is to provide clarity for the reader by stopping the overloading of an article with several jobs, and I would hope would allow for a more constuctive atmosphere to build good articles. It would be much clearer for the reader and allow him or her to actually find what they want. It would also be a consistent approach with similar disputes in the encyclopaedia. MAG1 23:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Partial inclusion of Ireland?

"'British Isles' has also been used either not to include the island of Ireland at all in the definition, or else to include just Northern Ireland.". How could the latter possibly be the case, since Northern Ireland is clearly on the same Isle as Southern Ireland? Do we have examples? DJ Clayworth 17:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

There are (see article), but it not clear whether it has happened as a convenience to cover Irish objections without any consideration of the geographical consequences. In other cases, it is perhaps being mistakenly taken as a synonym of British Islands. MAG1 23:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Banner

Why does the article have a banner at the top of the page pointing out the controversy? Such things are used to point the reader in the right direction when they don't get the article they expect not for pushing editors agendas on to the reader. The problem is further compounded by restating there is a controversy in the first paragraph. All this does is make it clear that the editors are more interested in airing their grievences about the term than discussing the subject itself and makes the article look amuturish. What is the justification for this? josh (talk) 19:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Because its much easier to do that than have numerous Irish people come here, get offended, or start edit wars and perceive Wikipedia as a biased and outmoded institution. Besides, it doesn't harm anything and, in my opinion, doesn't look amaturish. Those with grievences were here long before the note. --Robdurbar 19:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I have to say the 'noting of the of the Irish viewpoint' is getting a bit much. The controversy is now mentioned in four different places! Once in the banner header, once at the beginning of the intro, once again at the end of the intro, and then again in its own section. Could we at least cut this down to two? DJ Clayworth 21:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Completely agreed - I restored the old Banner which gave USEFUL navigational and disambiguation information, whilst still allowing a 2nd modified banner to redirect to discuss any uses of the terminology. To no great surprise, our one man wikiaddict on this issue, jtdirl, instantly reverted it.

Having the banner as it was makes the article look totally unprofessional, and elevates the discussion of Irish "objection" to a much greater place of importance than it deserves - hence giving the article a PoV.

Jonto 17:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Jonto, you have reverted five times today (and Fear Eirann four times.) Please don't forget that the three-revert rule exists to ensure that either other editors join in, or the topic comes to the talk page, or that it is merely given 24 hours to cool down. I am not sure why you say in your edit summary that Fear Eirann is outnumbered - it is not about numbers. This article is open to anonymous editors from around the world who will accidentally disrupt the article if they do not immediately see the controversy. There are two types of reader for whom the banner prevalent earlier this month would be especially useful:
  1. the reader who dislikes that some people infer British ownership of Ireland from the term, and wants to warn others about it
  2. the general reader who is likely to misuse the words in a term paper, blog or newspaper article
For the record - this is the banner that existed earlier in August, and Jtdirl is defending:
The term "British Isles" can be confusing and is objectionable to some people, particularly in Ireland. See the Terminology section below for details of the controversy.
And this is the banner that Jonto puts in its place:
For an explanation of often confusing terms like (Great) Britain, United Kingdom and England see also British Isles (terminology).
For details of usage of the term "British Isles" and attitudes to its usage see the terminology section.
I propose this, which leans heavily towards being unabashed that Wikipedia editors, and the world in general, is currently in disagreement about the name. I propose this because I my personal POV is that the dispute is just as notable encyclopedic contect as the geography and history.
The term "British Isles" can be confusing and is objectionable to some people, particularly in Ireland. For an explanation of confusing terms like Great Britain, United Kingdom and England see British Isles (terminology).
I will put this in place in the hope that it helps to cool the edit war while we discuss something better. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 19:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually I didn't revert 4 times today. I reverted three times. The previous revert before then was over forty hours earlier. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 20:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I actually reverted twice if you looked in detail. jtdirl reverted 3 times. The comment about "numbers" was in response to jtdirl's "unilateral" comment. The exact reason I placed the link from months ago is because the British Isles (Terminology) article explains quite well what the various terms mean (not only "British Isles"),especially the venn diagram. The newer banner does nothing of the sort, and implies more that the term "British Isles" is somehow not correct terminology. The fact that the word "controversy" is used in the banner seems PoV, also implying that it should not be used, just because some people (who need a good history and geography lesson) choose to interpret the term incorrectly. Jonto 22:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

People have miscounted reverts - including me. Sorry. Both parties have reached at least three (one has four but that is not interesting.) No-one is being chastised or wiki-prosecuted here, and both have stopped.
MelForbes has since reverted the word controversy. I think that is over the top - because it reinforces the word objectionable.
MelForbes also reverted the link to British Isles#Terminology. He is probably right, because, summary style or not, it makes it easier to make the version 0.5 Wikipedia CD.
The deeper issue is whether or not to draw attention to the naming issue in a banner and in the lead section. I have already explained my preference for doing so, and now it is time for others to have their say (again.) --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 05:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The reason to have an explicit banner is simple: if it isn't there, users will start adding in stuff to the opening of the page that is already there later on. To avoid that, it was agreed to have a banner drawing attention to the terminology section on the page, so as to say — 'see it is covered. You don't have to add in more stuff.' Two banners is messy and unnecessary. There is already a link to the British Isles terminology page in the text.

Re the reverts: Neither of us did more than three in a twenty-four hour period. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 05:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The article should be designed for readability not for the benifit of editors. There is a comment at the top of the article for the benifit of editors. Articles such as Evolution get far worse abuse than this one and don't feel the need to put up banners pointing out that Evolution is based on scientific fact. josh (talk) 07:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
It is nice to see that calm has returned.
joshurtree, Wikipedia often puts up far more obtrusive banners such as the merge banner, the npov banner and the disputed banner. Fear ÉIREANN and I both said that the banner is for readers as well as editors.
Someone said that such people need a good geography lesson. Agree! Isn't that exactly the audience we should be aiming for? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 12:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Calm has only returned because I have other things to do, and do not have the time nor energy to fight other highly vocal administrators who seem to have dedicated their entire life to editing in order push their PoVs and agendas on Wikipedia. Neither to I have the time to start lobbying campaigns, including petty attempts at character assassination like the editor in question.(Refs: 1 2 3 4 5) I also see it pointless in wasting my time in trying to debate with administrators who instantly describe you as a "vandal" if you happen to disagree with their PoV.
Back to the point - Yes, I said that people need a good geography lesson. What wikipedia needs to do is to educate people as to what exactly the term means and what the other terms that may be confused with "British Isles" mean. The perfect article for doing this is British Isles (Terminology) with its excellent venn diagram, map, and diagram explaining the histories of the states in the British Isles. Therefore British Isles (Terminology) needs a prominent link at the top of the page.
What is happening on this article, however, has nothing to do with educating people in terms of geography and history. Using "British Isles" in its correct geographical sense should NOT cause any offense to any reasonably minded Irish person (and I'm Irish too). Here is a story from personal experience:
I have a good Irish friend from County Meath (gaelic football wacthing, quite proud to be Irish andquite nationalistic) - he and I were in France and were talking to a person from Russia - the Russian asked him if he was British. My friend replied "I am not British as from the UK, but I am from the British Isles".
What is happening in this article is that there is one highly vocal and nationalistic contributor from the RoI who seems to have an agenda that he is trying to push. HE personally has a strong dislike of the term "British Isles" (dispite it widely and verifyibly being used throughout the world an as being the standard term for the archipeligo). This same editor tried to stop someone saying that "Lough Neagh is the largest lake in the British Isles" despite this also being undeniable fact. He has also stated in glee on a talk page that he sees the term "British Isles" as fading out of use in the future, with his preferred alternative being "British Isles and Ireland" (a term which I could also object to as being offensive as it could imply Northern Ireland is not British).
It is not Wikipedia's policy to try and change the meaning and usage of words in the English language, but merely to report the facts as they are. "British Isles" is a standard and highly verifyable geographical term. If anyone tries to interpret it in any other way then they are simply ignorant of the facts. Wikipedia should not be used to try and undermine standard English terminology by marking it as "controversial"/"objectionable", and therefore promoting the editor in question's agenda to try and discourage the use of a particular term. Yes, any Irish dislike should be contained further down within the article, but to display this objection in such prominence as at present is to promote the PoV of a vocal minority, rather than sticking to global standards and pure verifiable fact.
Jonto 20:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Unfair Voting System

It's apparent that most if not all of the editors have adhered to WP rules when it has come to casting votes on these British/Irish affairs. But one big problem persists, and that is the relative ratio of populations between Britain and Ireland. Britain has 60,000,000 people and sovereign Ireland has just 4,000,000. That is a 15 to 1 ratio. That means that British orientated Wikipedians will always super-outnumber their Irish Wikipedian counterparts. Really is this a fair system of voting?MelForbes 19:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Well that depends if you believe two things:
1. That all British and Irish editors are blind enough to vote in a certain way just because of their country of origin.
2. WP things are votes. If this refers to A-C isles, then I seriously suggest going to Deletion Review... my opinions aside (and I've never closed an AfD, nor looked that cloesly at it), I'd have been sorely tempted to close it as a non consensus - I'm not sure, though, its not my field of expertise.

--Robdurbar 20:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I do believe that most editors believe themselves to be pov-free, but as student of human nature and all that stuff, sadly I do believe that the state of being pov-free is a trait held by a minority of people. If that view is correct, it follows that the system is unfair. That is why a degree of mutual respect is so important for these issues to be correctly resolved. MelForbes 20:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Get serious for a minute. Are we seriously suggesting that in differing viewpoints voting should be weighted inversely to the numbers of people we expect to vote in a certain way? If countries followed suit then the Bloc Québécois would rule Canada and the Give Wads of Money to Rhode Island Party would rule America. DJ Clayworth 20:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I didn't suggest that. But then again that's probably why they are called the British Isles and not Britain and Ireland.MelForbes 21:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I live in a small (population) country next to a much larger country that shares a landmass whose name is sometimes taken as synonymous with the larger country. You know what? Nobody gets steamed up about it. DJ Clayworth 21:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Really? Canadians are forever bitching about those "arrogant, boastful, big-mouthed Americans" down south. I know Canada pretty well!MelForbes 21:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
You're right. They bitch constantly about the US, but they don't refuse to call their continent 'America' as some sort of bizarre protest. DJ Clayworth 14:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I think the United States is part of the continent of America, but is not America. Also I believe, correct me if I am wrong, that Canada is part of the continent of America. Cannot really see what the problem is. Europe is a continent too, shared by about 50 different countries, North America has only 3. Africa, Asia, the same??????????MelForbes 16:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

If this refers to the Anglo-Celtic Isles article, then there were Irish ppl voting for delete/redirect aswell as British. I'd say there were probably completely neutral ppl from outside the islands voting too. And at the end of the day, noone could come up with credible sources to beat WP:WINAD, WP:NEO or WP:V, despite numerous requests. That is why the 'vote' was lost, not because of some perceived bias. I voted delete/redirect on A-C Isles, I'd vote the opposite if IONA were nominated, because that meets WP policies whereas A-C Isles clearly didn't. Bastun 00:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe. I didn't suggest definate bias. I didn't see any "Irish ppl voting for delete/redirect" on ACI. Anyway, a worthy question, I believe. MelForbes 09:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
In fact, Mal and User:Bastun are both Irish and both voted to redirect or delete. It's true that the problem was a lack of sources, not some vendetta against the Irish. Vashti 12:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Stop before I laugh myself silly! Please. BTW vendetta is your word, not mine. MelForbes 12:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, I hate all Irish people, and live for the day when your island disappears under the waves. Vashti 13:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Nah, not going to happen. I think it was St. Columba of Iona (not IONA!) who prophesied Ireland would never flood - instead we get fire... :-P Bastun 13:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Dammit. :) I should apologise for that, it was intemperate and I should have borne WP:POINT in mind. However ... I am very tired of certain editors setting themselves up as the sole arbiters of who is and isn't Irish, and seizing every opportunity to shriek about people causing offence while being repeatedly offensive themselves. Vashti 14:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Vashti, I think that you are shadow-boxing. I was born in Britain to English-Scots and Irish ancestry, and I now live in Ireland. If you cannot fight the good fight without taking umbrage, or trying to take umbrage, I suggest you get out of the kitchen, or continue your shadow-boxing. If you want to say something constructive, or something that matters to decent folk, go ahead, say it.-MelForbes 16:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

FAC nomination

You may have noticed that user BjF has nominated this page as an FAC. His or her contribution history is here [3] and seems to consist of nominations for FACs only. While assuming good faith, administrators among you might like to have a look at this before effort is expended on discussing it. MAG1 20:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I don't think this article has any hope of becoming a FAC in the near future, but if we try hard, I think we could make Lamest Edit Wars- it's almost there now (see section on Land making up Tsushima subprefecture) . MAG1 22:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Criticism

There once was a set of old isles
whose naming disputes ran on for miles.
With long history lessons
and longer bitching sessions
It produced much more groaning than smiles.

FearÉIREANN\(caint) 23:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah - I saw it on the other page. Actually, I'm a bit pissed so I don't think I have anything more to contribute. TharkunColl 23:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps your edits tonight, and the text you installed, were a product of being pissed. If so, it might be wise not to edit while drunk (we all have done so — I once discovered that after a night out partying, and blind drunk, I wrote one of my best articles on here. The trouble was I couldn't remember writing it. I was flabbergasted to see that I was the editor of it, all in one edit on one night) . I'll presume your edits etc were the product of alcohol. I'm removing both our comments from earlier from general view. (They'll be on the page but only in edit mode.) FearÉIREANN\(caint) 00:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, okay - sorry about the intemperate use of language. And yes, I was indeed on the sherry last night. But I must state my objection to being called a "racist" and "anti-Irish" - not once on these talk pages (until last night) have I descended to personal abuse, which is more than can be said for some of my opponents in this debate, who have not only criticised me personally but also said some rather unpleasant things about the British (which is okay, of course, because being anti-British is not only non-racist but apparently de rigeur in some quarters). It may surprise you to learn that I actually rather like the Irish, every single one of whom I've ever spoken to in real life has never been anything but friendly. Perhaps some of those who have accused me of opinions that I do not hold might wish to retract them now.
So why, you may be wondering, have I continued to edit this article in the way that I have? The answer is simple - I do not wish to see the language bowdlerised in the name of politics. We are not here to describe what certain people wish to be the case, simply what is the case. TharkunColl 11:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I have also been accused of being racist and anti-Irish, which I thought was very odd considering I am Irish. Of course, I was also informed in the same page that I am not Irish!
Perhaps I should also put that down to lack of sobriety.
I agree with TharkunColl's logical approach. --Mal 16:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Mal, you would be more Northern Irish, probably Unionist. But then again Unionists usually class themselves as British. Personally, I would see you as British.MelForbes 16:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Personally, MelForbes, I would see you as rascist. What's your problem with accepting people's self-description? ...dave souza, talk 21:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Dave sousa, I hope it's not because I deleted your sectarian religous edit a couple of days ago. MelForbes 22:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
No, it's because you're making peculiar remarks about Mal. As for that edit, to quote the article cited "He sees his Catholicism as secondary, although he recognises that "Catholicism is obviously a part of the Irish culture and there is a long history of inter-reaction between the Irish people and the Catholic Church, not all of it affectionate."" However you seem to have a problem with people's self description. ..dave souza, talk 23:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
No, I am talking about a different edit on the BI page where you brought religion into the equation. You have called me a racist because I thought Mal was a British editor. Oh, what terrible offense to call someone British. I did not say that Mal was not Irish. Just as one can be Scottish and also British. I remember Mal once writing that he was Irish and that he was also British. If Mal has taken offense, well there was none intended. Mal said it of himself in a past talk page.MelForbes 23:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not pissed, and I'm Irish, born in Britain (although I live in England). British people get pissed very often, and they dye their hair and vomit. Quod erat demonstrontonium. Not pissed, honest.--Shtove 00:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

MelForbes I am Northern Irish. I am Northern Irish by virtue of the fact that I live in, grew up in, and was born in Northern Ireland. I am also Irish. I am Irish by virtue of the fact that I live in, grew up in, and was born in Ireland. Also by virtue of the fact that my ancestors are all from Ireland. I am also British by virtue of the fact that I am a citizen of the United Kingdom.
However, you did imply that I wasn't Irish: "Mal: you are as much an Irishman as a Pied-noir was an Algerian." You also went on to say that if me and people of my mentality "ever became Irish like the rest of us your entire self-definition as part of a "superior race" would be over." My people are Irish. My people are also British. Unlike you, I believe that the two are not mutually exclusive. But that is merely a difference of opinion - it doesn't make me any less Irish.
I am indeed, nominally, unionist. I make no secret of it - I included the information on my user page.
I am not Irish only in the sense that I am not a citizen of the Republic of Ireland, and "Irish" is that country's national description - its nationality. With the utmost respect, I really do think that nationalists (which I presume you are) have a considerable lack of understanding of unionists. I'm 100% sure that this goes both ways of course. Unionism emcompasses a myriad of thinking, and we don't all see things as black and white as loyalists do.
If there was no offense intended, then I will accept that it was simply a misunderstanding on your part. I hope that what I have said has clarified things somewhat for you, and that this confusion need never happen again.
I want to add that my standpoint regarding this particular disagreement over the terminology of the British Isles has nothing whatsoever to do with my being unionist. My perspective is one from which I can see a shared heritage between all the peoples of these islands - back when the term British Isles was invented, we were all labelled as 'British' (Pretani), and all shared a similar way of life, or culture, which was essentially Celtic. There is an argument that the bulk of the people in the islands were pre-Celtic.. but that, if true, doesn't negate the fact that we were engulfed by that culture. --Mal 01:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Mal, I never wrote the words, "Mal: you are as much an Irishman as a Pied-noir was an Algerian.", which you attributed to me. You also make other claims that I won't honour with a reply. Maybe try get the facts correct before you quote other editors, and the same to Dave souza. Will I take offense? no! You say you are Irish and British, nice to have 2 hats. Anyway cheers!MelForbes 08:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Mel please accept my apologies regarding my error in assuming it was you that had typed those words I quoted. It was of course User:El Gringo.. your comments (and mine) running on from his momentarily confused me.
As for having "2 hats" - no more so than any other British citizen (Irish and British; Scottissh and British; English and British; Welsh and British). --Mal 00:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Glad to see that all can accept each other's self-description, and hopefully think of Mal as Irish AND British. The cited article I referred to above makes it clear that identity in some of Ireland at least is complex and very much tied up with sectarianism. I'd cited a "nationalist" as saying he lived in the '"British Isles": this was changed to give his name and job but not allegiance. The article has him giving the nationalist perspective, but doesn't say he is that: it does say he's Catholic, and as the section already mentioned the point in the article that "Since the nation extended to the whole of the island, nearly all Catholics, including those who did not classify themselves as supporters of SF, expressed difficulty in understanding unionist descriptions of Britishness." it seemed a useful way of making it clear he wasn't a unionist. I didn't bother reinstating a point which is a bit obscure, and is less significant than other references to the article.
MelForbes, if you edited out another point you thought sectarian, I've forgotten it. And I didn't call you "racist", the term was "rascist" which seemed to be a neologism meaning "taking excessive note of perceived nationality". If it's an Irish spelling of racist, that wassn't intended. However, it brings up the point that some editors here seem to have a "no true Irishman" perception that Irish people all detest the label "British"; if someone says they're British they can't truly be Irish; therefore the first point is true. As the cited article makes clear it's much more complex than that, and the aim of our article should be NPOV in showing the various perceptions rather than trying to change the language by propagandising the "Irish" case against the term "British Isles" and denigrating other perceptions. Anyway, must pull together some more useful work now. Your internationalist chum, ..dave souza, talk 10:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

#Note_to_all_users (again). It makes it really difficult to follow the discussion about improving this article. Bazza 13:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Si finis bonus est, totum bonum erit MelForbes 22:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

IONA (mini-)RFC

Well, i didn't think i needed to do this (when have we ever had a lack of comments), but i've made a major change to the Islands of the North Atlantic article. Please comment on the talk page.EricR 17:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

What on earth have you done to the IONA article? IONA is a geographical concept that refers to the archipelago in which Ireland, Great Britain, the Isle of Man etc are constituents. It is not a synonym for the British-Irish Council just as British Isles isn't a synonym for the British-Irish Council. You have made a mess of the article. Iolar Iontach 08:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Citations evidently needed. ..dave souza, talk 10:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
A loose linkage of the UK, ROI, IOM and Channel Islands similar to the British-Irish Council is what the available sources have to say about the acronym. Please comment on those sources or in the alternative, find some others.EricR 14:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Intro para 1 "internationally"

The introduction has been amended slightly to add "internationally": The term is objected to by many, especially in Ireland, because of the common confusion internationally between the islands themselves and the British state. I don't understand why the word has been added. Is the confusion international only? And is it between the islands and the UK or what? And common doesn't help either - are more people confused than not? Perhaps a rewording is in order: The term is objected to by many, especially in Ireland, because some people assume it means all the islands are part of the British state. Bazza 13:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

If you look at the history, it's already been that at least once ... that sentence has gone through a lot of revisions. The problem with "some people think" is that we immediately hit weasel wording and need to source the claim that some people think that or mention some people who think it. Woez. Vashti 14:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Same applies to the current wording. Try, then, because it can be wrongly taken to mean that all the islands are part of the British state. Bazza 15:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Because then the sentence is open to two meanings, one of them implying that it is the Irish people mentioned directly before in the sentence who make the error. In fact, as Irish people find whenever they go abroad, or as a twenty second google search shows clearly, it is internationally away from the archipelago that that mistake is made. Americans make it. People in Africa make it. Irish people hear it all the time: "you're from the British Isles. I like your queen" or "You're from the British Isles. I didn't know Ireland was still run by Britain" etc etc etc. The word "international" is needed to add clarity to the sentence. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 16:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

So presumably, if the putative international confusion (such as it is) could be cleared up, then you would have no objection to the term British Isles? That certainly seems to be what you're saying, anyway. It's a good job we've got Wikipedia then, so as to be able to educate people. It's a pity, therefore, that the article has been overburdened with objections from a vocal and politicised minority. This is surely only adding to the confusion. TharkunColl 19:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Use outside UK and Ireland

I followed some of the links of websites that claim 'British Isles' is used synonymously with the UK. The Utah British Isles Association, which our articles says does this, clearly says it is for people with a heritage from 'United Kingdom and Ireland'. (Admittedly it does refer to those people as having 'British Heritage', which I guess is a simple mistake - I can see them saying 'if you come from the British Isles you must have British heritage'. I wonder if they have any Irish people in their organisation?).

britannia.com does seem to get it wrong, but frankly only once in their header.

I think really the case isn't that 'some people use the term this way', it's that there is a lot of confusion and many people get it wrong. DJ Clayworth 21:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

While it wouldn't be considered PC, if you're Irish then you do actually have British heritage. It doesn't necessarily follow though, that all Irish people are British citizens of course. --Mal 15:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid you miss the point. Firstly Utah is just one example of a far wider phenomenon. Irish people who go abroad can have the mistake made daily to them. It is extraodinarily common. Secondly while they mention Ireland, they then culturally define the British Isles is a way in which Ireland doesn't exist and in which they equate British Isles = Britain. (Queen, crown, etc etc.) That equation is worldwide. Even TIME magazine has done it. There are numerous examples. The Utah one was used simply because it is so clearcut in terms of the list of things it thinks symbolise the British Isles. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 05:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

"While it wouldn't be considered PC, if you're Irish then you do actually have British heritage" according to Mal. Is Mal suggesting that having your land stolen and you discriminated against in the Penal Laws, denied the right to vote, denied the right to own property based on one's religion, being brutalised by Cromwell and his invading army, prevented from sitting in parliament, required to pay tithes to Britain's established church, and being left to die because of ignorant British government policies during the Famine, is "British heritage". If it is then Irish people have it. But it is not a heritage worth having, and one Britain should be ashamed of. Not every aspect of British involvement in Ireland is negative. And I have no problem celebrating the positive aspects. Unfortunately Mal's community is still struggling to acknowledge the many negative ones. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 16:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we did have much of that happen to us. So did many other ethnic groups and nations.. and not just by the English.

That's nothing to do with what I had suggested though.

Also Jtdirl - my name is Mal - not Mel. And please leave your perceptions of my "community" out of this thank you: you don't haave the first clue as to how I think. Frankly I'm getting tired of your preconceptions.

I draw your attention, yet again, to WP:NPA --Mal 18:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Mal, please, say something that makes a bit of sense, otherwise you might get Mel a bad name. Also for one who can offend, you sure get offended easily! MelForbes 20:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
If he got offended as eaily as some of the Irish nationalists here, I think he would be editing the Republic of Ireland and Ireland articles putting a big box at the top claiming "The term "Ireland" to refer to The Republic of Ireland can be confusing and is objectionable to some people, particularly in Northern Ireland. See the Terminology section below for details of the controversy." He could also add to the opening paragraph The term is objected to by many, especially in Northern Ireland, because of the common but erroneous assumption that as the Northern Ireland is part of the island known as the Ireland, it is also part of the Irish state.[1] :P What do you think Mal- not a bad idea?! Jonto 20:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
WOW Jonto, that's exactly the way it should be. Why should the sovereign state of Ireland not be called by it's proper legal name. Now is that a bit of British povishness entering the article?MelForbes 20:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
You fail to detect someone being tongue in cheek, even indicated by the ":P". The fact that "Ireland" IS the legal name says a lot. I think all the British people here should start to petition the government to rename the UKoGBaNI "The British Isles", since nine words are obviously too much for a country! Jonto 21:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

To return to the point here, it is my contention that British Isles is not used anywhere as a synonym of the UK. The only example found is britannia.com, which calls itself a 'gateway to the British Isles' while actually only providing services only to the UK. That's doubtful as it could still reasonably call itself that, just as a US company might call itself a 'gateway to the US' while only providing information about some of the states. DJ Clayworth 16:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

It also doesn't matter whether "British Isles" is incorrectly being used as a synonym for the UK or not. The term "British" is as ambiguous as "Irish" and can mean "of the British Isles" as well as "of the United Kingdom" and "of Great Britain", and therefore "British Heritage" certainly is correct in the first context. Believe it or not, there IS today (you hear that jtdirl - TODAY - I could go on and list many of the past atrocities carried out in name of the "Irish", but will not go there) a common shared heritage covering the entire British Isles. There are also may differences within the BIs, but that does not deny the fact that there are definite commonalities. Jonto 17:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Mel will you please pay attention to WP:NPA, and stop making stupid, insulting and sarcastic comments about me. Thank you. --Mal 04:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

'Mal, I am very serious on this issue. But sadly, new editors on the page could get confused between Mel and Mal. MelForbes 08:19, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

OK then Mal - I'll take it as merely a joke then! :P --Mal 02:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Removing dodgy edits

TharkunColl has been adding in questionable edits again. Among the errors are

  • "evidence" of "Irish government usage" that actually isn't from the government at all (it is from an Opposition politician from a University, Trinity College, that stands almost alone in its usage of the term);
  • "Government usage" in the Dáil that actually is usage in the Senate by a junior senator, who was surrounded by people, such as the Minister of State for the Office of Public Works, Martin Cullen, not using "British Isles" but instead "Great Britain and Ireland";
  • links that went to PDS documents that users had to download and open. Such documents are not used in footnoting because they are not easily accessible and so not verifiable and because they can cause some users when they hit to link to have their computers crashed. Though going by the errors in the other footnotes Thar added in, they probably were all wrong anyway.

I've deleted the whole bunch. They are evidence of nothing but a bad edit and misleading footnotes. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 15:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed as OR and per Jtdirl's first bullet point above. Síle de Valera's speech to the art's festival should go also. Hmm, the link to her speech on the Department of Arts, Sport & Tourism website seems to be dead.EricR 17:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
This is not OR - these are sources. If PDS documents are no good, then what about citations from obscure academic papers? They are even less accessible. TharkunColl 17:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Do y'all mean the PDF documents? The only part of Jtdirl's comment i agreed with was his first bullet point. Please see: WP:RS#Some definitions for the guideline on which sources are appropritate for Wikipedia,EricR 17:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The argument that "PDS" documents should be excluded as sources is patently absurd: it would mean that we can't use a PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES, SEANAD E´IREANN, TUAIRISC OIFIGIU´ IL—Neamhcheartaithe (OFFICIAL REPORT—Unrevised) because the Irish government chooses to distribute them in the open document pdf format. As a courtesy I always put (pdf) after such links to warn it's a download, but if someone finds it causes a crash, they need their computer sorted. That said, the sources should be properly examined and presented for what they are: they appear to be evidence that British Isles can be used in Irish government debates without the sky falling in, and as such are just as valid as a Utah website being cited to show international usage: both tend towards original research in showing "evidence" for the editor's opinion rather than showing a source of the opinion.. ..dave souza, talk 18:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Hear, hear. There appears to be a current of opinion on this page that if some dodgy website were to use "Uruguay" as a name for the British Isles, this would make it valid to include it as an alternative name, citing the dodgy website in support. This is completely wrong. Content must be verifiable, and dodgy websites are not reputable sources.--Stonemad GB 18:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Apologies for trying to break up the edit war fun, but I have tried to include these references properly. The truth about them, as far as I can see is that:

  • the references are the official parliamentary record i.e. verifiable and reliable;
  • "British Isles" has been used several times, all by different people, so it is not just usage solely by an odd bod;
  • from the debate records the use of the term does not appear to have been commented on, so at most its use is seen as a solecism, not offensive;
  • none of the people who have used it are a government minister, so it is not governmental usage (which seems to favour Britain and Ireland);
  • the debates are a few years old.

All in all, it is not terribly exciting. MAG1 11:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Perspectives in Ireland section

I have done a major pruning of this section, which was starting to assume a theological complexity and inpenetrability redolent of the Schleswig-Holstein Question. It is now about half the length: I have removed some duplicated and lengthy quotes, and a discussion of differing Irish attitudes to Britishness which did not belong on this page. The salient points remain: hopefully they will be clearer than before.--Stonemad GB 22:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Perspectives in Ireland, should be discussed with Irish editors too. Or else we'll have the Brits editing for the Brits, and the Brits editing for the Irish too. All very unhealthy! MelForbes 22:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Mel - 1)I'm not British, I just live in the UK at the moment.
2)To suggest that edits relating to certain countries should be discussed with editors with those nationalities is somewhat controversial, to say the least!
3)One of my edits was to remove the statement that the term BI carries legal meanings. I am not aware that BI has or has ever had any legal status: it was and is customary usage, not a legal term. If you can provide a source showing a legal status for the term, fine: otherwise I will delete it again.
4)I did a major pruning to the Perspectives in Ireland section, which you have reverted. I will not start an edit war, so I have posted the proposed para here, for editors to compare with the existing. Which is better? I would be grateful for everyone's thoughts:

In Ireland the use of the name "British Isles" is highly controversial, because of the perception that its use implies a continued constitutional relationship between the sovereign states of the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom, which is not the case.[27][28]

As a result the term "British Isles" is not generally used by either the Irish government or the Irish media; both normally use alternative terms. [29]

In Northern Ireland nationalists reject the term British Isles and use the awkward and ambiguous description these islands as an alternative, whereas unionists, keen to stress the Britishness of the whole archipelago, do call it the British Isles.[30]

--Stonemad GB 23:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

That is unacceptable because it is false. The Irish government, its departments, and Irish politicians use the term. It is only the intellectually dishonest who would try to suppress this fact. TharkunColl 23:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I really can't just sit back and let a comment like that given above pass uncorrected. It is well documented that the Irish government avoids use of the term 'British Isles' - this is well verified. We can't say none, not ever, but usages of the term officially by the Irish government are extremely rare. Ulster unionists, as Stonemad GB rightly says, use the term for exactly the same reason as the Irish government avoids it!! TharkunColl, please recognise and accept this. Stonemad GB, I agree in principle about the 'Perspectives in Ireland Section' being over-long. I object to 'use the awkward and ambiguous description' bit though - those who avoid use of the 'British Isles' term usually do not refer collectively to the island grouping at all, or use terms like 'Britain & Ireland' or 'Anglo-Celtic Isles' instead. Pconlon 17:18, 25 August 2006 (PT)
Good point, Pconlon- that clause could be deleted or replaced by "use alternative terms" or something similar.--Stonemad GB 09:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Not such a good point in that 'use the awkward and ambiguous description' is a properly sourced citation: the sentence could be put in inverted commas as a quote if that's preferred. The source was brought up on 11 July 2006: see archive 5. The cite is accurate, as confirmed by Google scholar and Amazon book search. ..dave souza, talk 13:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Whilst Irish Nationalists and their sympathisers might avoid this term, the government has to be seen to be anti-UK to a point, and so certain politicians will avoid using it at times. However, a good percentage of Irish politicians, and all the rest of the world, consider Ireland to be part of the British Archipilaego. I'm not British - I'm English, a citizen of the UK, and although the term does deserve a paragraph or so to explain that in Ireland it can be misunderstood, we can't assume that too many people avoid the term at all. I don't know where I'm going with this, or what I'm arguing for, but yes. Be mindful of changes, and all that. HawkerTyphoon 00:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid, HawkerTyphoon, you can claim to be English until the cows come home. However, seeing that British law and all the rest of the world would see you as British, your own idiosyncratic self-definition doesn't, in fact, matter. You are British, so spare us your irrelevant self-definitions. Thank you. El Gringo 13:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
@Pconlon: "...those who avoid use of the 'British Isles' term usually do not refer collectively to the island grouping at all, or use terms like 'Britain & Ireland' or 'Anglo-Celtic Isles' instead." They may do the former two, but at the recent AfD for 'Anglo-Celtic Isles' noone could verify that this neoligism was used at all outside academia.
@HawkerTyphoon: An interesting use of Wikilinks... While the IRA are Irish Nationalists, that most certainly does not mean Irish nationalists == the IRA! Bastun 01:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think Stonemad's proposed pruning is satisfactory in any sense. It grossly simplifies the analysis, while removing large amounts of factual information. As an encyclopaedia we cannot simply remove chunks of evidenced text and replace it with an unevidenced, simplified, summary. That is not an option. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 04:08, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

"As an encyclopaedia we cannot simply remove chunks of evidenced text and replace it with an unevidenced, simplified, summary. That is not an option." Absolutely! So why did you do precisely that with the PDF citations? TharkunColl 12:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
I think if I'm being criticised by TharkunColl AND Jtdirl I must be somewhere on the right lines... The para I wrote is not unevidenced: it includes 4 references, as you will see if you look at the version of the page with it on, and more references could be added without adding a word to the text. Any discussion of Irish perspectives to the term is bound to be a summary, unless you include the views of every single Irish person in the para (which is the way it was evolving). The question is: what is the appropriate level of detail? I would submit that the para above gives all the main perspectives in Ireland, with references. The para on the page at the moment is hopelessly confusing, duplicated, badly written, and prolix, and is pretty useless to the ordinary reader. For example, why is a long (paraphrased) quote from a Scottish MP included in the prespectives in Ireland section? Jtdirl's comment "This is not an option" is both untrue (it obviously is an option, depending on consensus) and offensive: it implies a sense of proprietorship over the page.--Stonemad GB 09:39, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
HawkerTyphoon, while I agree in a general sense with some of what you say, I have to reiterate what Bastun said and query your reason for wiki-linking "Irish Nationalists" with the IRA. Most Irish nationalists I know, or have known, do/did not support the IRA.. nor any of its descendant organisations. --Mal 04:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Hear hear. Having known victims of the IRA many of us view the IRA with repugnance. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 05:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
British Isles is rarely used in Ireland. That does not mean it is never ever used. When one does hear the term being used, it's usually a moment of "did I hear that term being spoken in Ireland episodes". People in Ireland associate it with pre 1922 politics, age of empire etc, a time when Britain ruled Ireland with a merciless marshal law against the old Gaelic and their language and culture. I am referring to a time when bagpipers and harpers were hung in situ and without any question of trial, just for being bagpipers and harpers. A time when Gaels were hunted and killed by British colonists on horseback (see Carty's history 1946), for weekend recreational sport. The term is generally avoided. MelForbes 09:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
It's a pity that the perpetrators of those deeds are long dead, and therefore beyond punishment. This is not the case with those murderous gangsters known as the IRA, however - but for some reason they too are beyond punishment. TharkunColl 12:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Do you mean Ireland or Ireland? And even in the RoI there's evidence the term is used: have you a reliable source for "rarely" and "generally avoided"? ...dave souza, talk 11:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I was emphasising a point why idea of British Isles is not at all popular in Ireland, excepting Unionist tradition. Thar, both groups are still alive and well apparently. The IRA still mostly exist, as so does the British state exist too, don't get too upset. MelForbes 14:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
The British state still exists, but the people who committed those crimes against the Irish do not - they are long dead. TharkunColl 15:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
They live on as long as that state lives on in Ireland. Only the most dishonest could deny that British rule in 2006 is based on mass murder of the Irish and threatening terror and violence on them for many centuries should they not accept British occupation. Your state breathes through the lungs of Bingham, Spenser, Gilbert, Devereaux, Cromwell and all the rest. Without this mass violence, there would be no British rule here today in 2006. Were the British state truly ashamed, it would complete the contraction of its state from Ireland. Its actions speak. The current situation is akin to your rapist living in one of your four bedrooms. The past is not forgotten in such a circumstance.
Thar, the B state committed those crimes, for it was B law and policy that perpetrated the events, and it's still alive and well. So the B state must, like other regimes take their responsibility. Although, admit, it's different lately. Try as an RC living in NI in 1960's. That period is in many a Wikipedians lifetime. MelForbes 16:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
So the general population of the modern UK must take responsibility for crimes committed by a tiny minority hundreds of years ago? I don't think so. As for NI in the 60s, at that time NI had its own devolved government which the UK government did not interfere with. When it was finally forced to so at the end of that decade it was as much to protect the Catholics as anything else. TharkunColl 16:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Ah no! it's passé now. Merely I was stressing a point why the term British Isles is not adoringly and passionately loved and embraced by Irish people in general. It wasn't a tiny minority, it was British government policy of the time. Get it, it was British, it wasn't a bunch of renegades. BTW, some of the perpetrators of the system were also of Ireland, in the pay of the British machine. So my point is not to say Ireland is good, Britain is bad. Ireland turned it's back on this imperialism in 1922, and likes to keep it there. That's why they don't like association with BI. MelForbes 16:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

The empire strikes back?

The intro now includes the allegation that "The term is objected by many people in Ireland, because of the term's association with British imperialism." Is there a reliable source for this assertion? ..dave souza, talk 12:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

How many times has this sentence been altered? I realize we all dislike footnotes in the lead, but hopefully a citation will provide a bit of inertia. Please change to better wording, but let's try for awhile backing that initial objection with a reference.EricR 14:48, 26 August 2006 (UTC) Or use a different source, i don't mean to imply that this is the only one appropriate.EricR 14:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

They made a desert and they called it peace.

Another reason why Ireland would generally not like to be associated with the term British, is British foreign policy and all of it's ramifications. British involvement in the illegal invasion of Iraq (120,000 dead), and their support of the pulverization of Lebanon are only 2 examples. Ireland would distance itself from these sorts of conflicts, and usually end up as peace-keepers after the big-boy war-games have ceased. MelForbes 16:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

A) What the hell does this have to do with a WP article on the British Isles?
B) Since when do you speak for 'Ireland'?
C) I've listened on the radio to people living/working in Shannon who seem quite happy to have the U.S. military using our airport en route to Iraq and wish the anti-war protestors would go away... Bastun 23:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
The Irish are justly famous the world over for many things, but I humbly suggest that keeping the peace is not one of them... TharkunColl 17:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
35 Irish soldiers died while helping to bring peace to Lebanon. They were part of the United Nations peace-keeping forces. MelForbes 17:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
It was meant to be a joke. Are you familiar with Kent Brockman? TharkunColl 17:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Is this British-bashing really relevant to the article? Jonto 17:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

No, just of general relevance.--Shtove 20:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I am really very sorry, it wasn't my intention to upset all you good people. I was just making a point about the word British and it's ramifications. Alas, I saw little sympathy for Lebanon and it's people. Bastun, what you claim about Shannon is ill-informed, are you sure you are from Ireland? Well 2 weeks ago a protester was facing a court in Ireland with causing $5,000,000 worth of damage to an American military jet at Shannon, with a hatchet. He probably would have got 5 years in the slammer if found guilty. Yes, he admitted causing the damage to the military airplane. He pleaded innocence on the grounds that he was trying to save lives. What did the Irish jury do, they found the accused unanimously not-guilty. The American embassy went ballistic! MelForbes 23:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
That's an example of the cowardice of Irish juries. If the guy's guilty, then declare him so - there's everything right with making people take the consequences of their protests: it lets us know where we stand, and if the verdict is unpopular then the politicians will feel the heat. Letting this guy off was just feeble. How many true criminals in Ireland walk free from court because the jury thought, Ah, sure, he's some mother's son ..? Spineless.--Shtove 00:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Shtove, your understanding of law appears to be zilch. The guy pleaded innocence of criminal damage. MelForbes 00:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Damn, MelForbes, you're just too clever for me. You caught me out. You're right, I'm not really from Ireland, I'm really a conservative, retired British Colonel living in the Home Counties... Or, actually, no, I happen to be Irish and Dublin born-and-bred, who no longer has a chip on his shoulder about 800 years of history and has both eyes open. Please the ad hominem attacks just because someone has the temerity to challenge you. Re-read your paragraph again. "American military jet at Shannon." Do you know just how much the use of Shannon has contributed to "the illegal invasion of Iraq (120,000 dead)"? Ireland is fully complicit, like it or not, even though a hugely significant number of people are opposed to its use by the U.S. military (myself included). But despite that hugely significant number in the rest of the country, many of the locals are well aware of the benefit to the local economy in terms of jobs, etc. (as vox pops on RTÉ Radio 1 demonstrated), and the Government seem quite happy with the income, too. Bastun 10:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Bastun, you know so little about Ireland and Irish attitudes that you could be from Pluto. I see you still call sovereign Ireland by the term Irish Republic, a term that ceased to exist some 80 odd years ago. Ireland has agreements with the USA going back to the 1950's, per the use of Shannon airport, nobody at that time imagined that people like Bush could occupy the White House. These agreements carry strict rules about arms and the carrying of prisoners of war etc, which you conveniently choose to ignore. I note you abject and total lack of sympathy for the victims of war. I didn't say it was right for the Irish govt to allow Shannon's use, but the Irish govt didn't decide to kill so many people. That was a British and American decision. Sorry for upsetting you so much. MelForbes 13:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Once again, cease your personal and ad hominem attacks. Yep, in one place, I called Ireland the Irish Republic. It happens to be quicker to type than RoI. Mea culpa, for not being so PC and offending your sensibilities. Your latest points about Shannon make no sense whatsoever. On the one hand, you condemn the British for Iraq. Now, you're defending Ireland's complicity, because of an agreement from the middle of the last century? I'm well aware of the agreement - how am I ignoring it? "I note you abject and total lack of sympathy for the victims of war." WTF?! Did you even read my response? Bastun 13:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Don't shoot the messenger, please! MelForbes 13:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I won't, but if the message is illogical, biased, claims to represent others' viewpoints or is downright nonsensical, then I will ignore the messenger. I see from your user page that you've only been on WP for a month and a bit (at least under that ID), yet you've already received several requests for apologies and cessation of personal attack. Can I suggest you go read the five pillars, and maybe spend a while contributing to articles less obviously close to your heart and controversial? This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a soapbox. Bastun 14:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Yup, and they are all from British Wikipedians. Please read the top of this section for substantive point, and stop your personal attacks. Remember you personally attacked first! MelForbes 14:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Where people are from is irrelevant - the rule about no personal attacks still applies. This is the second time in recent weeks you've alleged that I'm not Irish. No, I haven't personally attacked you. Bastun 14:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I beg your pardon, but you did personally attack me first. MelForbes 14:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC) Add edit---And you attacked me about 3 weeks ago. MelForbes 14:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Where; and where? Bastun 14:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia

If all the Irish PoVers here really despise the label "British" so much (which geographically you ARE), then I suggest that you abandon every single piece of influence that exists in the Republic of Ireland from the rest of the British Isles.

For a start, one thing that definitely is a common influence across the archipeligo is that virtually everyone speaks British English. If you don't like the STANDARD ENGLISH geographical terminology for the archipeligo, then I suggest that you all stop speaking the ENGLISH language at once. I suggest you should post your alternative terminology in the Irish Gaelic Wikipedia instead. :P Jonto 17:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Bejasus, that's threw. I only write English, as speaking the language would befoul my mouth. On a wider point, I'm pretty sure WP will be standardised in to American spelling.--Shtove 20:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Maybe this is a good time to remind everybody that this is supposed to be a page to discuss the writing of an encyclopedia article, not the Anglo-Irish War Part II ;) Rhion 19:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. This discussion stops here, lest we descend into racism and I brin out my warning templates. HawkerTyphoon 22:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree. The last two sections on this talk page have convinced me to avoid this page in future. It has demonstrated all the worst features of Wikipedia: petty nationalism (on both sides), personal rivalries, off-topic rants, arguments that are never resolved but repeated every month, inability to compromise or see the other person's point of view etc. A lot of intelligent people are wasting a lot of time that would be better spent on LIVING... Ciao.--Stonemad GB 22:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Stone is correct. However as the issue of English usage on the archipelago was raised, it needs correction. "Virtually everyone in the archipelago speakings British English " is wrong. English people, particularly in the south of the country, speak what is known as English English which is different in idiomatic structure to British English. Irish people use Hiberno-English. Welsh people speak a version of Welsh English that is closer to Hiberno-English than British English. In the north-east of England people speak another variant on English that is also closer to Hiberno-English than classic British English. (HE uses some of the linguistic structure inherited from Old English and Elizabethan English. The same is also true of Yorkshire English.) Scottish English (sometimes called Scots English) is also different to what is known as British English. And English speakers internationally do not use British English they use International English. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 01:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Biology section

Er, is it just me or does this section seem a little odd? I'd expect a section like this to start off with (higher) mammals and the like rather than marine algae. Is someone adding to this section? Does it need to be cleaned up, or be removed, or be split off to a 'Biology of the British Isles' article? Bastun 10:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)