Talk:British Isles/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

→

Archive 25

Mediation

Seeing as this latest what to put in the article dispute has expanded. Perhaps, ya'll should start considering MEDIATION. PS- Could somebody refresh my memory? What started these latest disputes? GoodDay (talk) 16:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I've already proposed an RFC on this page. I believe that the MEDIATION would be an appropriate next step once, as seems inevitable given the refusal of editors on the page to respect Wikipedia policies, and probably finally Arbcom or some other formal process. The key WP policy that is being ignored here is this.."In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers.". We have ALL of these as sources, and still we have editors asserting that dislike of the term is limited to a "tiny minority". Wotapalaver (talk) 17:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Who said "tiny minority"? You exaggerate almost everything Wotapalava, again and again - it is truly tiring. You are saying: LOOK! We have ALL these sources! In my clear view: taken together they simply prove the word "many" is an exaggeration. There is virtually no evidence of public feeling on the British Isles issue - and there should be masses of it for you to use the word "many"! Istead, there is silence where you expect to be volume, and unashamed usage where you expect to be reticence. The mixed examples merely highlight the striking dearth of evidence - they are the extent of what can be found. In my opinion, the only way to solve this Wikipedia dispute is to cover the issue properly and fairly in one article: but people are refusing to do this. We need to get rid of the fork and focus in one place: we must highlight the terms usage historically, and weight the evidence of use and non-use.

Actually describing a general "dispute" (who else does? It is, in a way, Original Research to use that word) and having this fork is totally unencyclopedic and has made consensus impossible. This is an encyclopedia not a manifesto! Certainly there are and have been people who don't like the term: we must put it all IN CONTEXT, chronologically (no anachronisms), and with no leading rhetoric, no pluralising single 'events', and no ambiguous or exaggerated language. We CAN do this properly in a way we are all happy: it is very hard to do it over two articles though, and there is nothing to warrant having these two articles, other than the 'dispute' adveresly effecting the main article (which is THE worst reasons for a fork).

One other point: Lack of sufficient evidence aside, it is also like saying "many" Welsh object to the term "Principality" - it is too complex and you cannot use language like "many" in this case: Both "British" and "Principality" have older meanings (than English-related ones): and we must be careful to suggest the are always linked to animosity too. We must be careful not to suggest that many Irish currently dislike the British too. I have never been happy that this isn't an intention of some editors (expecially from comments I've read in discussion).--Matt Lewis (talk) 18:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Matt Lewis, I believe that several people have said "tiny minority". As for "unashamed usage where there should be reticence", look at Michelin, Reader's Digest, apparently now Collins, National Geographic, Folens, Irish government, apparently also Irish schoolbooks, newspapers, TV stations, etc. The fact that the term is very widely used in the UK, the USA, the rest of the world, is not contradictory with the well documented fact that the term is offensive, objectionable, rejected, not used, etc.,etc., in Ireland or by the Irish. Read the references. Look at Michelin and Reader's Digest guides and maps from a few decades ago and now. The name has changed. You may not like these facts, but they are verifiable facts. Meantime, Wales and Anglesey are irrelevant to this problem. The problem here is that editors refuse to accept verifiable sources and continue to insist that their own ignorance or political preference should take precedence over serious scholarly view. Wotapalaver (talk) 22:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Your above list is an exaggerated - Folens is the Irish schoolbook publisher and the Irish press reported it, maps have actually used "Britain and Ireland" for years (there are tradionally different Geographical and Political maps in the map business) - National Geographic uses both. They don't edidence dissent - although NG mentions that it can be disliked (whilst still using it). The truth is the media use it all the time - would they if "many" Irish objected? The BBC (which use it even for programme titles) is watchable in Ireland (as you would expect with such close ties between Britain and Ireland) - and don't tell me that Irish TV isn't full of BBC programmes - it simply is. But I've been through it all with you so many times - I'm writing the detailed point-by-point Section I promised to stop you from ignoring me and keeping asking me this stuff, as if I've never heard it from you before (which is extremely rude).

Mark Lewis, can you answer me this question. Is Anglesey a British Isle, or is it a Welsh Isle? And if both, which is it first? 78.19.13.108 (talk) 18:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm dealing with a particularly irritating troll on the Welsh page at the moment, so I'm particularly cautious of IPs. It's part of the archipelagos known as the British Isles as far as I'm concerned: as you are an IP and I'm being trolled I'm not going to go into my feelings on Welsh/British identity.--Matt Lewis (talk) 23:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Matt can obviously answer for himself, see, I've left him some space, but let me explain the situation. This type of question is sometimes asked by people who don't understand the subtle difference in terminologies, and Anglesey indeed serves as a good example. Anglesey is both a British isle and a Welsh isle. As to which comes first is down to personal preference, there's no rule. It's like me; I'm English and British, and I give them equal weight. However, I'm also Eurpoean, but I give that aspect of my nationality less weight. Some English people might consider their englishness to come ahead of their britishness, or vice versa; it's up to them. Now let's look at the island of Ireland. Ireland is only partly a British isle (due to Northern Ireland). Note that the phrase "a British isle" denotes ownership, hence Anglesey is a British isle. The user who asked the question (above) used the words "British Isle" with a capital I (incorrect). So we have Ireland being partly a British isle, but it is undoubtedly one of the British Isles (capital I is correct). The phrase "the British Isles" does not denote ownership. It is merely a geographical term in the same way as Irish Sea is - another term that does not denote ownership. So to summarise the situation regarding Ireland, which is what the original question is really about. Ireland is partly a British isle, and is also, in its entirety, a member of the island group known as the British Isles. The question is irrelevant as far as the Republic or Ireland is concerned - it is not an island. However, the ROI is within the British Isles. Hope this helps. Silas Stoat (talk) 20:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll ask it another way. Is Anglesey one of the British Isles? 78.19.13.108 (talk) 20:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Silas Stoat (talk) 20:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Bingo, actually I was expecting that exact answer, amazing! Long, long ago, before you were born, the British Isles just meant Great Britain and Ireland. There were only two on the list. The rest of the islands were just an ancillary list belonging to either of the two "Isles". Fact, but a long time ago that was. 78.19.13.108 (talk) 20:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't know that, and you may well be correct. However, modern usage, which is prevalent in the article, includes all islands, even the Channel Islands. I personally would exclude the Channel Islands since their inclusion detracts from the purely geographic nature of the term, but the superior race of beings that decide on these matters have included them. Silas Stoat (talk) 20:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Another thought - do we have the concept of an Irish isle? I suppose we do. If so, the island of Ireland is such an isle, in its entirety, I would suggest. Rathlin Island is both, a British isle and an Irish isle. Silas Stoat (talk) 20:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

If it were up to you, then, Matt, what would this article say on this subject? How would you phrase it? The sources that are currently posted at BI variously say that: BI makes the Irish "angry"; It "no longer pleases all the inhabitants of the islands"; "Irishmen reject" it; it is "now a politically incorrect term"; it is "often offensive to Irish sensibilities"; it is "increasingly unacceptable to Irish historians"; and "many within the Irish Republic find it objectionable." (I'm also wondering if someone can lay out in precise terms what we KNOW -- as opposed to what we've heard-tell-of -- about the Atlases. I've seen lists of Atlases that apparently don't use it or no longer use it, but I'm not clear on the precise story of what we know about all of these that have been mentioned. Which do we know once used it but have since removed it, etc.?) I can agree that we need to tread lightly, particularly with a word like "offensive," which is used only by one source. It's not a word I would use. But, collectively, angering/no longer pleasing/rejected/offensive/unacceptable/objectionable all point in the same direction. Something along the lines of "reject its use" might be how I'd word it. And/or maybe "unacceptable." These don't depend on claiming to know the emotional response of individuals (as does a word like "offended"), but comment only on the end result for a term like BI: That is, non-use or wishing for non-use. That wouldn't be an overstatement of the sources, if anything it's understating them--by leaving out the more emotive terms. This then leads to the question of quantifying the rejection, and is it the Irish we reference or 'in relation to Ireland'? and where in the article to place such a statement. Personally, I'd put it in the lead paragraph, because it goes to the very name/topic itself. The other two questions, I haven't figured out a wording for, yet... Nuclare (talk) 20:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, a suggestion: We say something like "It has been used since (a period)...and... its use has been seen as controversial in relation to Ireland since (a period). (("Today" - if it ever was a legal term)) "It is widely regarded as a geographical, not political or legal term." (we can quote the non-legal use statements). We MUST have a Controversy section lower down. Standard Wikipedia stuff, and NO fork. In the Controversy section we can say something like "There is evidence in recent times that map makers are favouring the term "Britain and Ireland" over the more traditionally used "British Isles", and some combine the two terms." (eg National Geographic). I would then have a decent sub paragraph on "History of dissent" - It will be in context then. I just want professionalism, and not propaganda.--Matt Lewis (talk) 23:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Nuclare, I don't know if it can be presented without appearing as OR, but it's easy to look up - for instance - old Michelin and Reader's Digest atlases. The old ones are called something like "Road Atlas of the British Isles". The newer ones are called "Road Atlas of Great Britain and Ireland". Amazon.com sells old books so it's easy to verify, although I'm not sure how easy it is to present without becoming OR, although the simple fact that they used to use the term and they don't use it now is definitely verifiable without any synthesis or dispute. The recent statement about Collins maps is something I haven't tried to check. The National Geographic position is well supported now. As for whether the "dispute" belongs in the lead, for me it's clear. The very name itself is objected-to, so this needs to be stated immediately. Wotapalaver (talk) 22:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd have no problem with putting the 'Name controversy' lower down in the article. GoodDay (talk) 23:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. Given the scale of the problems from a WP:NPOV perspective I'd say the naming issue needs to be highlighted much more strongly in the article lead; at least until the name is corrected. Sarah777 (talk) 00:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Disagree also. The controversy must be highlighted in the lead paragraph - at least until an article called "Great Britain and Ireland" or some such takes over as the main referencable article.... --Bardcom (talk) 15:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

"Although commonly used worldwide, the term British Isles has been controversial in relation to Ireland, where many people over the history of the term have found it objectionable.[4] The term is not part of the legal terminology of the Irish government, and a sokesperson for the Irish Embassy has said "we would discourage it's usage".[5]" I have changed to this, which I'm happy with. I haven't yet found the time to go through all the in Talk evidence as I promised - but it is not enough for me to suggest that "many" NOW object to the term - and I still find the evidence weak ('Oxbridge' I know, I know, I know) overall ie compared to what one would expect, and the wide usage of the word in the face of it. It is also history-based evidence - I've tried to reflect that too (whether the history book is modern or not!). The Irish govt does not discourage everyone using it - we have a 1940's note and an Embassy spokesman quote - neither talk about the people, so we shouldn't suggest it does. Such terms are often not 'legal' ones too.--Matt Lewis (talk) 17:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

this at least is evidence that the Irish government do indeed discourage the use of the name British Isles. --Jack forbes (talk) 18:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes it's the ref that is still in there! It's the one I'm using. In what way does it "discourage its use? Read it!:

"However, Minister for Foreign Affairs Dermot Ahern has ruled that the term is not used by the Government and is without any official status....It was made clear by him that the term is not recognised in any legal or inter-governmental sense....The Irish Embassy in London has also been urged to monitor the media in Britain for "any abuse of the official terms as set out in the Constitution of Ireland and in legislation".

Have I not covered that ref better than merely to say "the Irish gov discourages the term"? It needed clarifying - yet every clarification I make gets reverted. This article has been about controlled exaggeration, and IPs and socks-users (like Wikipeire) have been used to do it. --Matt Lewis (talk) 19:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:SS

Most of this article is pure WP:CFORK. This is supposed to be the article on the archipelago. There are full-blown sub-articles to all topics, history, terminology, geography etc., no need to repeat this at any length, certainly not to draw it out over 100k. dab (𒁳) 08:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Yet another reason to get rid of this politically-motivated "British Isles" article. 86.42.124.125 (talk) 00:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

(Ignoring the troll) I think that's a good point, dab. Each section only really needs to be a summary of what's in the related, more detailed article. There may be one or two bits that don't have separate articles that would need all the text to be here, but in the most part there's probably too much detail and not enough summary on the main BI article. A shorter article would hopefully give those argumentative folks less to argue about, too! Waggers (talk) 07:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Waggers I'd caution you keep WP:CIVIL in mind. The contributor is not a "troll" and makes the excellent point that this is a POV fork. Sarah777 (talk) 09:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

(Ignoring that bit of trolling, too...) Waggers (talk) 11:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Completely agree. See little need for:

• Transport
• Political co-operation within the islands
• Sport and culture
• Most of the History section, but
  • instead populate it with lists of articles where historical information on England, Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales can be found
  • keep section Names of the islands through the ages or make an article of it and point to it. - Bill Reid | Talk 15:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Completely agree, also. See little need for:

• British claims to Ireland in 2008. 86.42.90.145 (talk) 20:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this, summarize and link to main articles on the subject. Keep this article on topic. --neonwhite user page talk 17:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. The only meaningful contributions I see here are those by Users 86.42.124.125 and 86.42.90.145. the rest, in my humble opinion, is, in some cases, uncivil POV pushing. Sarah777 (talk) 09:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Put in or take out what ya'll want. But, don't change the article's title. GoodDay (talk) 18:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. Without the name that is on this article this is simply another jejune article on one of life's less interesting topics. With this name, this article is a claim that me, my family and everybody I know in Ireland is British. That, my friends, is a myth of the most British imperialist proportions. That, dear people, is your British nationalism working very, very hard at imposing identities on another people, my people. So, not to put too fine a point on it my lovely British nationalist and WASP friends, go fuck yourselves. Thank you very much. 86.42.90.145 (talk) 19:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The article makes no such claims. --neonwhite user page talk 23:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Nope; the title stays. GoodDay (talk) 19:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL prevents me from fully endorsing those keenly observed and rather accurate comments by 864290145. Sarah777 (talk) 20:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Giggle, giggle. GoodDay (talk) 20:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

As I have already pointed out - it isn't the title "The British Isles" that is under POV attack here; it is the article about Great Britain and Ireland. Sarah777 (talk) 20:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Nice to see an adult conversation. Can those in favour of British Isles not understand the reasons why some editors are offended by it? It would at least go some way to raising this debate above name calling and childish replies if they recognise the other sides opinions whether they agree with them or not! --Jack forbes (talk) 21:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Personal objections are completely irrelevant to editing wikipedia and the development of this article. If you can't edit without turning wikipedia into a soapbox then you shouldnt be editing. Wikipedia is not censored and contains much information that may be objected to --neonwhite user page talk 23:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I do not suggest for one minute someone should make an edit on the basis of hurt feelings, but when you are having a discussion it does no harm to understand the other side of the argument withought agreeing with it. It can often stop the discussion turning into a shouting match. Have you never said to someone "I understand where you are coming from but I don't agree with you?" --Jack forbes (talk) 08:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I do understand the opposition to British Isles. It's the IP's suggestion, that's unacceptable. Anyways, life goes on. GoodDay (talk) 21:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

How do you object to a group of rocks? josh (talk) 21:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, how do you object to a group of rocks? --Jack forbes (talk) 21:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you can avoid the need for an article on "British Isles", but it is clear that the term is an historic artefact of Empire, not in current use (and if so used would be offensive). All of that should be spelt out in the introduction. Technically of course the term British relates to the pre-Roman inhabitants of the various Islands, the subsequent hijacking of the term by the inheritors of the Norman Barbarians and the addition of "Great" is to be regretted. --Snowded (talk) 01:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

"Great" referred and continues to refer to the island's size, not (inter-)national prowess. --Jza84 |  Talk  01:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

That was the origin I agree although it should have been "Greater", but then it was transformed. Although speaking personally (and nothing to do with the debate) the sooner we can talk about Wales, Scotland, England and Ireland without the need for GB or UK the better --Snowded (talk) 02:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Please be mindful that "article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views". --Jza84 |  Talk  10:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Lighten up Jza84 I am not suggesting an edit on the perversity of the English Empire! My edit suggestion above is neutral and respectful of different feelings. If I can't inject a bit of humour into the process then god help us all --Snowded (talk) 10:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm here to write a good encyclopedia. Humour has its place Snowded, but soapboxing personal political aspirations on an already charged talk page doesn't help with the spirit of collaboration or move content along. Indeed thats four wasted messages encounting... --Jza84 |  Talk  10:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

"Collaboration"? Maybe, just maybe, the real problem is that the collaboration you wish for is not forthcoming? Maybe, just maybe, calling this article the "British Isles" is about as likely as being accepted by the vast majority of Irish people as calling the 'African American' article 'Nigger' or the Native American article 'Indian' would be to the majority in those communities? The Irish people are not British, and while every society will have its native collaborators with the coloniser's projects, the coloniser will go home and the natives will ultimately reclaim their own country. This article is going nowhere as long as it claims that my people, the Irish people, are British. It's time a lot of British people grew up and discarded their outdated nationalist claims to Ireland. And that really, really is the problem here. You can make a historic article called the "British Isles" focusing on Ireland under British occupation and assorted joys; expecting that a modern article entitled "British Isles" wins acceptance is utterly inconceivable. 86.42.90.145 (talk) 20:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Writing a good enclyclopedia and having a sense of humour are not mutually exclusive qualities, and lightening the tone on this talk page, given some of the exchanges, seems to be in the sprit of collaboration. Neither by the way am I soapboxing, just being honest. You know my serious intent from other exchanges so please lighten up. --Snowded (talk) 11:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

If that was humour, don't call us, we'll call you. -Bill Reid | Talk 13:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

That's OK Bill, taking yourself too seriously is a sign of pomposity and I would prefer to avoid calls from people who take themselves too seriously .... --Snowded (talk) 17:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem on this article is the one best criticized by an American politician. "You can have your own opinion, but you can't have your own facts". Very few editors on this page will accept this. The name "British Isles" is likely still (and might remain) internationally the most common name, therefore WP policy says it should be the name of the article. Many people don't like this. Many people object to the name. Others don't like that. Both are facts.

The term "British Isles" is less used by many organizations than it was before. Fact. It's still used by lots of others. Fact. All are true and don't contradict each other; facts can't contradict each other. Deal with it. Wotapalaver (talk) 13:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

It sounds as though you are sitting on the fence . You wrote a good piece here and finished with"Deal with it". How would you deal with it? Jack forbes (talk) 16:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Until there's a reference that another term is more common, COMMONNAME should apply, no? If/Once another name is verifiably shown to be more common, or if there's a policy that official views should be respected, the article name should change. In the meantime, the simple fact that the term is disliked and increasingly avoided should be prominently mentioned. Seems simple. Debates on whether the British Empire was a brutalizing or civilizing influence in the world can be kept for other forums. Wotapalaver (talk) 20:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

One can still find people using the term British Commonwealth rather than Commonwealth of Nations. Would that justify a separate article, rather than a redirect? ClemMcGann (talk) 17:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

If the term British Isles were to redirect to another article name which name would that be? --Jack forbes (talk) 17:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

In 1947 Ireland’s Department of External Affairs drafted a letter to the heads of all government departments...... The expression “British Isles” was “a complete misnomer and its use should be thoroughly discouraged”; it should be replaced “where necessary by Ireland and Great Britain.”

We have an answer. We have to acknowledge this -its the Irish government! The 10 downing street website says 'country within a country' and all Scottish, Welsh and English editors start rolling around in it saying 'The government says it..it must be true!' And here is the Irish government expressing its dissatifaction of the term and suggesting an alternative. It has to be likewise accepted.WikipÉire ^♣ 18:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems its a problem among a few Irish editors, not all, but the rest of the world DGAF. - Bill Reid | Talk 18:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Wikipeire here(gasps in shock). I cannot in all honesty defend my own position on Scotland, Wales etc if I don't accept the word of the Irish government! this also confirms it for me.the rest of the world DGAF? Just as well those remaining do GAF! --Jack forbes (talk) 19:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Jack, Folens are only ceasing this map for the Irish schools. The British maps will continue to use British Isles. Alex Salmond is well on board for retaining British Isles. Their manifesto had the following: Finally Scotland will seek to assist in the establishment of an Association of States of the British Isles which will include England, Wales and Ireland. This anti-British Isles is a non-issue for the vast majority of English speakers. Past my bed time. Bill Reid | Talk 19:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Folens also stated that they never had any public complaints, but were pursuing their policy of nipping possible problems in the bud as they appear. 'British Isles' is not a legal term in the Irish gov in the same way that 'Wales' is not a legal term to the UN. They use another term. They may have suggested (on occasion) that the term would be discouraged internally - but what does that really say? The intro currently suggests the Irish government discourage it full stop! Is it right for Wikipedia to suggest that? Beware reports that pull together various quotes and incidences to build a picture that is bigger than the sum of the parts. It's why I keep asking for the Independent, the Guardian and papers like that. Ther Folens example was always a weak one to me (especially as they said they had no public complaints).--Matt Lewis (talk) 15:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The so-called "vast majority of English speakers" that you mention just happen to be the ones who actually live over in Britain, like the Scots. How shocking that the British support the name "British Isles" to include another country. I am really, really surprised that British people might have some sort of tradition of claiming other people's lands as "British". This is shocking. If this heretical train of thought continues we might even discover that the entire basis of the creation of British identity rests upon the English buying off the Scots by allowing them to share in the claims to other peoples' countries via the British Empire. Surely not! 86.42.90.145 (talk) 20:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Certainly not! This is one Scot who has no interest in claims to other countries via the so called British Empire.When the English bought off the Scots it was not the people they bought off, it was those in power, in fact there were riots in the streets as it happened! Please don't paint everyone with the same brush. --Jack forbes (talk) 20:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I know. Jack. That is why I used clarified his 'vast majority' claim with "so-called". I like the Scots. I am surprised to see the Scottish Nationalist Party using the term, though. That does not bode well for Scottish nationalist attempts to break free from English nationalist claims that are in reality the origin of the concept of Britishness. I suspect they may have been trying to include Ireland as a means to separate themselves from England. 86.42.90.145 (talk) 21:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you will find that Alex Salmond is a very clever man and politician. What he does not want to do is alienate many voters, so it is a matter of keeping them onside for the moment. I have no inside information on this but I have kept a close eye on him since he came in to power and before and I think he is doing the smart thing here. Once Independence comes (God willing) I think you will see a different story! --Jack forbes (talk) 21:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Clever he is, but I think he more wise in the way he looks at history. Why would Salmond be against the term just because he is a nationalist? --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Salmond wants Independence, Salmond wants to break up the Union, Salmond does not want to be British! Like I said, I have no inside information but does he sound like the kind of man who would fight tooth and nail to keep the term British Isles? Let's just say, if there was any kind of agreement to stop the use of the term I don't think he would lose any sleep over it. --Jack forbes (talk) 16:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The SNP doesn't see Scotland as being part of the "British Isles" as a political thing. It clearly doesn't make them British in itself, so why would they? It is similar to how the Brazilians don't see themselves as American because they from the Americas. The question is - does Salmond see it as an insult to be connected with the word? Does Salmond dislike the British, or the term Britain in any way? There is no evidence at all that he does - and no necessary connection with being anti-British and Scottish nationalism either. Salmond has always made a point of not being anti-British and of valuing 'British ties'. I see no reason not to believe him, and independence simply would not work without those close ties anyway. It is interesting that you see the SNP "alienating voters" if they were against the term - which voters? Being pro-Scotland cannot possibly be about being anti-British and still succeed.--Matt Lewis (talk) 16:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't you get it? When Scotland becomes Independent we will no longer be British, we will be Scottish and nothing else. Whatever is left of the union can still call themselves British and that's fine, we can all get along with them, but Alex Salmond won't be British and he won't care what the islands are called! I'll take Bill's advice and leave it there, so if you reply to this I'll read it and no more. --Jack forbes (talk) 18:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

"It clearly doesn't make them British in itself... It is similar to how the Brazilians don't see themselves as American because they from the Americas." It's a good point, Matt, but I think there's a difference. Brazilians don't get called and classed as Americans in the frequent way that the Irish get called and classed as British. Some of it is just mindlessly done, but some of it comes with a justification of 'well, they are from the BRITISH Isles" or that sort of thing. Nuclare (talk) 01:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Come on guys, I think we've all had enough now so can we get back to what this thread started off as? Maybe some technocrat could put this debate in one of these drop down banner thingies.Ta. Bill Reid | Talk 17:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit Warring (again)

I'm not certain how everybody here feels. But IMO, the edit warring on this article is getting (putting it politely) annoying. GoodDay (talk) 18:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

What do you think of the edit in question? --Matt Lewis (talk) 18:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Whatever the majority of editors here prefer? use it. GoodDay (talk) 18:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I know you hate all kinds of edit warring GoodDay, but have you ever wondered whether those kind of glib comments might be a just tad (putting it politely) annoying themselves?! In plain speaking: What do you think of my edit?--Matt Lewis (talk) 19:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I've no personal preference, Matt. GoodDay (talk) 19:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Matt Lewis, I don't quite understand your edit summary, "The better ones deal with historic use: the others are not stong enough in the face" - an Irish Times article from 2000 is simply not historical, as you are trying to state, and it is no "better" than a Cambridge University Press publication from 2005 that basically says the same thing. --Schcambo^{aon scéal?} 19:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I've argued this so much but it's scrolled out of view (again). IMO this article has just been bullied out of any sense. --Matt Lewis (talk) 19:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Well in that case, I'll revert. I'd understand if the references were from say, the last century, but saying that a reference from 2005 is "historic" is simply pointless, and it won't advance your own opinions as to the rest of the article any further. --Schcambo^{aon scéal?} 19:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for being a bit terse - bad day. I meant over-weighing history accounts of dissent in the face of prevalent usage. The cited Kearney book "British Isles" covers dissent, but also uses the term for describing contemporary life. An account of dissent is an account of dissent - it has its own context - but we must have a wider one. We are an objective encyclopaedia. It is simply undue to so forcefully weigh a highly-limited group of accounts above the prevalence of modern usage. There is still no real evidence of what people feel now - yet the intro says "many Irish find the term...". I do find it more political than encyclopaedic, but in fighting it I have to fend off that accusation myself. I'm just here for Wikipedia - we can get it all in fairly. In fact, nothing else on this earth offers us the space to say so much. Why demand more? Why must those people who dislike the term "British Isles" have it all - like a forked 'dissent' page, an exaggerated main article, alternative-name pages, huge lists of refs (who else has this?), dominated and 'crossing' talk pages full of IP addresses etc. It's all been about controlled exaggeration, gaming the sytem, and a war of attrition. --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

User Matt Lewis has been promising for weeks to provide some commentary/critique on the sources that document "many" and "often" finding the term offensive/objectionable, since he feels they are "academic tracts" of poor quality, etc, even though they're seriously good references from Oxford and Cambridge, Routledge, MacMillan, broadsheets, etc. This promised critique is still pending, but apparently he still feels that it's OK to revert other editors and text that had started to look stable. As for Schambo removing the "may", I had put that there as a "softener". I thought it worked ok, neither denying the "many" nor being easy to accuse of overstating the case. Wotapalaver (talk) 20:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I've already come up with them repeatedly - but they will be safe all together in my 'user space' when I've finished - away from the scrolling madness of this Talk page (have you seen those archives?), and from your repeated exaggerations like "broadsheet..."! Small reports on the same subject compared to widespread broadsheet usage of the word is undue weight - it's all a motley collection of compiled refs that are most notable in proving the absolutle limit of their scope. They do not warrant "many" in the 'now' sense at all (we still no evidence for that). I change it to being "over history" and I am snidely reverted. I clarfy the Irish gov refs to being more inter-governmental and not a 'message to the country', and I am reverted. Why? Why? Yes I will break it down.--Matt Lewis (talk) 14:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Schambo - did I misread the diffs? It wasn't you with the "may". Wotapalaver (talk) 21:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Section break

Not sure why this thread was so savagely hijacked, but let's try and get back on topic. The wording of each summary section would have to be done pretty carefully. Ordinarily I'd say be bold but instead may I suggest that each summary section be proposed and debated here first? I know it'll be a long and drawn out procedure but hopefully consensus here will reduce future edit warring. (I live in hope...) Waggers (talk) 11:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I've started putting in some additional Main Article links already. It's a small contribution. Wotapalaver (talk) 11:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the list of islands, which overlapped completely with another article. The other article had more information and was better formatted. Wotapalaver (talk) 11:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposed change to Intro (clarifying "many" and the Irish gov)

I posted broadly this same comment in a section above, but am making it again down here - above was the relevant section once, but this talk moves so fast. My edit - now a "proposed change" - got reverted too quickly imo, without any real discussion (apart from some further down under "Editing warring" above).

Exisiting text:

Although commonly used worldwide, the term British Isles is controversial in relation to Ireland, where many people may find the term offensive or objectionable;[4] the Irish government also discourages its usage.[5]

Proposed change:

Although commonly used worldwide, the term British Isles has been controversial in relation to Ireland, where many people thoughout the term's history have found it objectionable.[4] The term is not part of the legal terminology of the Irish government, and a spokesperson for the Irish Embassy has said "we would discourage its usage".[5]

The verry long References list with all the bold in it is exactly the same (though I'm not happy with the way that "Footnotes" is exploited here - this is the 'British Isles' article, not a second fork of itself). I've changed two parts - the words surrounding the controversial and loaded word "many", and have tried to better represent the actions of the Irish govt (which we actually have little evidence of).

There is not enough evidence to suggest that "many" Irish object to the term RIGHT NOW - and I still find the evidence weak overall when compared to the evidence we should expect to find - and when compared to the wide usage of the word in the face of any 'dissent' (and though some 'Oxbridge' is there - that means nothing in itself). Most of the refs are also history-based evidence (whether the history book is current or not!) - I've tried to reflect that too in the proposal. In his "British Isles" book, Kearney consistently uses the term himself for life today, and does not give any evidence for the "invitably many find the term objectionable" in his preface: on Wikipedia we need to find and show evidence, and to weight that evidence according to our own wider context. The examples of dissent given are by no means all Irish either - and in my opinion filter out into 'tracts' (whoever the publisher is - and it is very easy to get published today). I have never found the evidence for this 'level of current dissent' strong enough: the limited amount of it has always told me its own story. Where are the major broadsheets? I see a very small Times report on the 'mixed' Folens example (a preemtive change to an Irish school encyclopedia after just the one complaint).

The Irish govt does not discourage everyone on Ireland using it - we have a 1947 inter-departmental note, and a recent Embassy spokesman quote - neither explicitly talk about the people, so we shouldn't suggest they do. We can't find similar official comments backing them up - so they need this clarification. Terms such as "British Isles" are often not 'legal' terms in 'official' situations. --Matt Lewis (talk) 17:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

There is not enough evidence to suggest that "many" Irish object to the term RIGHT NOW Where is there evidence that many Irish right now don't object? You acknowledge many used to. Where is your evidence that it has changed? Other than an actual official survery on the matter, government announcements and newspaper do show it is a current problem and issue in Ireland. It is a lot more concrete than you saying its not an issue for most without any sources, this edit you propose is you reading into things and your Original Research rather than backed by any real evidence. If you want to change it you will have to back it up.WikipÉire ^♣ 20:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The "many" in this more reasonable context (given the scattered evidence) is over time, obviously. If newspapers showed it as an "issue in Ireland" (ie RIGHT NOW) like you say, I would not be writing this - but they simply DO NOT show this. Far from it - examples like Folens show there is (unsurprisingly given the time) no public apetite for it at all.

How is my clarification "Original Research"? I am not offering anything new, but better using the provided evidence, and am avoiding the exaggeration that has dogged this subject. I am not removing any of the evidence, but am compromising here by keeping it all. What do I need to "back up"? That's just an impossible demand, and is simply stonewalling imo. --Matt Lewis (talk) 20:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Newspapers do show it is an issue in Ireland. The Kevin Myers piece from 2004 is a good example of that. What is wrong with that? The term 'British Isles' is very seldom heard in Ireland so you can't expect loads of articles on the subject. Howver when it is mentioned, it does cause offence. Asking for a reference on how many Irish people find British Isles offensive is about as hard as finding a source which says how many Welsh people find being called English offensive. There is no direct source. However when a government expresses a wish as seen above, it is on behalf of the people. You can't disprove that.WikipÉire ^♣ 21:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The "Kevin Myers" ref is a dead link (that is subscription too) but nobody dares to remove it - or even touch those extended refs do they? This article has been hijacked by bullies and socks, and nobody has the appetite for the inevitable 3RRs. I could counter-balance it with something like this, but what's the point? I'm not getting in a ping-pong argument over support/no-support evidence: the issue is about exaggerating the word "many" and the intentions of the Irish gov. You are simply wrong about the government talking "on behalf" of the people: you ask for "proof" but it is simply obvious I'm afraid. --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Many of the references on the page are to printed books, not online versions of anything. Many libraries will have back issues of the Irish Times. A reference need not be online. Many are not. Your point on the government not speaking on behalf of the people is correct and Wikipeire is wrong. As in the UK, in Ireland the government speaks only on behalf of the government. Only the Head of State, Queen or President, has the right to speak on behalf of the people. She may decide to do so on instruction or suggestion of the government. However, the text of the article correctly reflects the reference and doesn't claim that the government represents the people. Wotapalaver (talk) 22:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Over the history of the term? Sokesperson? Apart from the grammar and spelling, you're complicating something simple. The sources are reputable, verifiable, eminent, timely, etc. and they say many and often, if they use modifiers at all. Unless you can actually find a contradicting source the text and the references are well matched. If you can find contradicting references, great. If you can't, great, but keep the OR to yourself. Wotapalaver (talk) 21:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Interesting that you say the same thing: what is the "WP:Original Research" I have commited? And "Timely"? How do you work that one out? Is that a political comment from you? The truth is the provided sources (that have slowly built up over a year or so) are in short supply and tail off quickly. There are never counter-references to such matters: that is another impossible request - I would have to find "It is not true that many Irish dislike the term British Isles". The broadsheets simply have NOT dealt with it either way, and the media simply use the term. So how am I supposed to find a quote like that? All the media usage of the term, and the pausity of evidence for it being disliked (especially regarding public support) is all self-evident (and the only evidence I need to objectively weigh things up) but you simply refuse to aknowledge it.--Matt Lewis (talk) 21:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Your view that there is a paucity of evidence is only your view. Your view that the references "tail off quickly" is only your view. Your view that it is impossible to find counter-examples is only your view. Using "only your view" as the basis for text is OR, plain and simple. Wotapalaver (talk) 21:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I wish I never asked you to ignore spelling and typos - you have digged your claws into them ever since. It won't endear you to people. I am making simple sense - and you are ignoring it because it is not on your "timely" agenda: that is the issue here isn't it?. --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Changed to: "where many people thoughout the term's history have found it objectionable." Better grammar? I am trying to keep the word "many" remember.--Matt Lewis (talk) 22:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

IIRC there is reference to show that the term was entirely or almost entirely uncontroversial at various times in the past (e.g. the 19th century). I believe your proposal is not factually correct. Wotapalaver (talk) 22:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

So you think there is more dissent now than in the 19C? I don't see any great evidence for dissent right now - in the 19C Ireland was British due to conquest - are you saying they were happy with the term 'British Isles' during that time? Perhaps you could point me to that evidence - it's interesting. The line "many people thoughout the term's history have found it objectionable" is not that exacting - can you show how it is factually incorrect? --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I am thinking of one reference in particular, which is the page of references I have pointed towards several times. You keep claiming that you're doing a one-by-one critique of the evidence, so you should know the one. Please just read the references. I'm tired of pointing you towards them. Wotapalaver (talk) 09:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

You make the claim, but you wouldn't point the exact evidence would you? You always "etc, etc..." when referring to your evidence - you rarely point anything out. I totally resent having to do write the thing I'm writing, by the way - it is essentially because of you, and I know how you will treat it. All the criticisms and suggestions I'm compiling you have heard and either ignored or bludgeoned past with your Andrex-roll page-movement tactics - you have no right to say "C'mon where are they then?". It's been a thoroughly unpleasant experience working on this article, and I can't see a way out even if I continually refer to the points in my user space - as 24/7 people like you have all the power on so many subjects. In short - you have ignored me in your own snotty and demeaning way up to now whatever I have said or suggested (even on an admin's talk page I had nothing to do with - just to make me sound like an incompetent vandal), and I run the risk of being similarly brushed-off when I have finished the "critique". I have seen no evidence of anyone being willing/able to stand up to you and it's not a pleasant feeling knowing I'm probably wasting my time. You yourself have a POV fork, a biased article, a scrolling refs-list full of bold text, 'alternative name' articles, a page that just lists "evidence" (convincing only in that it is its own page), IPs and a sock user around that help remove edits you dislike, plenty of time obviously, few it seems other Wikipedia interests, and only the occasional "problem" like me (in your own words) to bother you. --Matt Lewis (talk) 11:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

(reduce indent) The reference I mention is pretty clear in what it says. Just read through the references (PLEASE, FINALLY) and you'll see it. As for the rest of your post, unless you provide references to support your views you are probably wasting your time, yes. If all you can do is continue to claim that Oxford and Cambridge published reference books are POV academic tracts then your views won't ever carry much weight. Meantime, the references that exist are from reputable sources, are clear, and are reflected accurately in the article text. The content fork was TharkunColl's idea. Attack him about it. Wotapalaver (talk) 11:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

One of the problems with "throughout the term's history" is that it raises the issue of what IS the term's precise history? Are the Greek/Latin versions of the name part of 'the term's history' -- if, yes -- and yes seems a reasonable answer -- one has to wonder how many people in Ireland even knew that their island had been dubbed part of something called Pret/Brit. At what point did they? Did they pick up on using it? If so, when? Even in much later centuries, how much was 'BI' actually used by average people or in contexts available to average people? (These aren't rhetorical questions, btw -- do we know the answers?) The other problem is that--even if you don't find them convincing--the sources we have don't speak of 'throughout the term's history,' they seem to speak of the present. The interesting thing about the one source, the Kearney book, is that the first edition of the book didn't have any mention in the intro. of the objections to the term in Ireland. That was added to the intro. in a re-printing. (I didn't re-read the whole intro., much less the whole book, so I've no idea what other changes were made.) Make of that what you will. :-) Nuclare (talk) 00:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Many publishers even outside Ireland have stopped using the term in their maps and atlases, and AFAIK they've done it in the last couple of decades. The Folens example was a late example. Others had done it before. As for whether the term was used, there's reference that it wasn't in common use in Britain until at least the late 17th century, maybe later. References indicate that before that time other terms (non Pretanic) were used in Britain and Ireland for approx 1500 years. Other reference says British Isles was generally accepted up to at least 1914. Irish government objection is dated, so far, to no earlier than 1947. The references now are mostly from the last several years. At least one mentions "increasingly" in describing how "British Isles" is avoided or how other terms are used, even in Britain. I don't think there is reference to support any presentation of objection to the term with any confidence other than now, recently, at the moment, so the Matt Lewis suggestion doesn't work for me. Wotapalaver (talk) 09:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Folens said they no public complaints - where is the evidence of public dissent "right now"? it might be your time for it Wotapalava, but is it really anyone elses (a few of your fellow Wikipedias excepted)? We have programmes called British Isles, we have common usage. We have virtually no examples of broadsheet/public/media dissent. Where is the evidence of "many Irish" objecting to it now? I think they have other things on thier minds right now, a peaceful future being one of them. It may be "timely" for you, but who else? --Matt Lewis (talk) 11:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

(reduce indent). OK, deep breath. The evidence is in the references. I'm sure that we could all have a more peaceful future if you'd read the references and try to ignore your own preconceptions for a moment. Don't expect more responses from me today. I've said the same thing enough times already. Wotapalaver (talk) 11:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Neither should be in the lead at all. The lead is a summary of the article and this does not feature in the article to any extent that i can see. It needs moving to a 'controversy' section as having it in the lead is giving it undue weight. --neonwhite user page talk 21:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Neon, there's a whole fork article about the controversy, hence this needs to be in the intro. Wotapalaver (talk) 22:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The fork creates massively undue weight on the subject. And a main article intro too? And all the forked refs and exaggerations? It is serious having your cake and eating it. --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Only if you believe, as you seem to, that there is little or no actual dislike of the term. The references say otherwise. Please find contradicting references or stop this continual harping on about your opinion. Wotapalaver (talk) 09:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I think this is where you are most misguided: Please have a look around Wikipedia and see how other articles deal with controversy. The do not hijack the article with huge 'ref lists' full of bold, and have a fork article (and if they do they often get deleted). If you disagree with the fork article by the way (which you often hint at), why didn't you say so in my Merge proposal? Many people said "No" to it largely because of you, and worries about what this article could get like with a controversy section - ironic don't you think? The only way we will ever deal with it properly is in one article.

I don't need to 'counterbalance' a phrase that I don't agree with! You act like you've planted a flag! I have never ever said "some Irish do not object", or "they have never objected" - I am saying we do not have anywhere near enough evidence to say "many do object". We categorically not have the evidence required for the use of such a word in the context of an encyclopedia! You completely misunderstand Wikipedia if you think word appears in citation = so word is used 'freely' in article = is something that now must be disproved is the formula to use. Consensus via Talk is supposed to iron this kind of thing out. --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Neon, furthermore, on WP:UNDUE. Since the references on the objectionability (wd?) of the term include several reputable reference books, it's actually perfectly supportable that the majority view is that the term is objectionable to many in Ireland, meaning that UNDUE doesn't apply. Even if you were to argue that it's a minority view, there are unarguably several eminent adherents. Wotapalaver (talk) 22:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't get a single response when I suggested a controversy section. Probably bacause it could involve merging the fork and nobody has the appetite for that.--Matt Lewis (talk) 21:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

If you made a section I would certainly support it - some editors will expect an introductory statement though, so I do think we have to get this one right. I don't mind dissent mentioned in the Intro myself - but it must be done objectively and fairly.--Matt Lewis (talk) 22:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Once again, the current introductory text is objective and fair. It reflects serious references concisely, clearly, and honestly. Wotapalaver (talk) 09:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

That doesnt mean it's anymore than a WP:FRINGE view in one single country based on politics, severly misguided in some cases [1] that differs from the mainstream view. Political boundaries and geographical naming is unrelated. There is no evidence whatsoever that a majority have this view. We cannot make assumptions on this it has to be sourced better and as there is an article on this all it really needs is a section title naming controversy that says something like 'The use of the term British Isles can be controversial see...' and link to that article as is done in many articles or we have severe overlap. Let the article deal with the details are it is redundant. --neonwhite user page talk 13:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

If it's a fringe view, please supply reference that it's a fringe view. Others have supplied reference that it's not a fringe view. Wotapalaver (talk) 15:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Wota said Many publishers even outside Ireland have stopped using the term in their maps and atlases, and AFAIK they've done it in the last couple of decades. Can you list for me please, thanks (oh, I know about Folens who are to make changes to the map for Irish schools only) Bill Reid | Talk 14:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Read the talk archives. Examples include Michelin and Reader's Digest, whose guides used to be called "British Isles", now aren't. National Geographic recently commented on the name. Collins have apparently also recently changed, although I haven't seen a reference. Of course, these are all fringe publications. Wotapalaver (talk) 15:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The term has gradually been used less over the past couple of decades in maps - maybe over longer - I've noticed that myself. It's worth noting that some maps are "geographical" and some are "political" (they are two different formats - with different colours and labels etc) - so I wouldn't trust any refs from "the archives" without following them up. I had a "Britain and Ireland" road map years ago, as I've said, and I see it as a perfectly natural progression - things change in these kinds of way all the time. The National Geographic map called "The British Isles" has "Britain and Ireland" in big letters and the term "British Isles" in a small block of text. Doesn't it show how changes are often gradual?

Our problem is that these examples are being used to 'fill out' a very motley and highly limited list of references - that are compiled almost solely to try and prove with their 'combined weight' that "many Irish find the term objectionable". I find their combined weight far too light, and I have tried various alternative wording here - but it is exaggeration or nothing for some people I'm afraid. --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The "many people think" thing is an example of an argumentum ad populum and is listed (among the "other problems") at WP:WEASEL as something to be avoided. That one source outside of Wikipedia uses that the word "many" doesn't change the fact that it is against WP's style guidelines and should be avoided in a neutral encyclopaedia. That doesn't mean we should ignore the controversy issue, it just means that we should use wording that accords with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines if we can. Waggers (talk) 19:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The above is very well put. --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Except that it's not an argumentum ad populum at all. Argumentum ad populum is quite different. Wotapalaver (talk) 22:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

What language, in regards to defining the nature of the controversy, would you accept, Waggers? (and I agree with Wotapalaver, I don't think this is an argumentum ad populum.) btw, how many is 'many'? Nuclare (talk) 01:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

It's an "argumentum ad populum" through 'intent', but not quite technically, no. The intent is to suggest that "many" Irish find the term offensive, and therefore that it must be offensive. How many is many? Well, quite: Not exactly encyclopedic language is it? Given the huge amount of weight given to the 'dissent' issue now, people might be forgiven for thinking "many" is hell of a lot - and the term is objectionable indeed. If many people think it, it must be true.--Matt Lewis (talk) 02:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, so, as long as we interpret "intent" into it, *then* it's argumentum ad populum. Right. Got it. :-) I say keep "many," dump 'offensive.' Heck, we don't need to subliminally throw off 'intent'. How 'bout "...where many object to the term"? That leaves the "many" free to find it offensive, or objectionable, or angering or slightly annoying or inaccurate, or archaic, etc. etc. Nuclare (talk) 11:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Concerning the reference no. 4, well, it seems four people at least consider the term controversial - the authors of those referenced items. Their assertions are, in each case, backed up with weasel words, so we are really none the wiser. Now, if someone can find a reference to a public opinion survey carried out in Ireland about this issue, then we might be getting somewhere, and we could have a reasonable reference. As it stands the reference is worthless, so it, and the statement, should be removed. Can anyone justify inclusion of this trumped-up statement that "many" in Ireland find the term objectionable? I know Ireland quite well but I've never come across anyone complaining about the term. I suspect it's just a small number of opinionated busy-bodies, who can't find decent references themselves. Most Irish people are just not interested in this non-issue. So - please find a verifiable, meaningful reference to back up this assertion, or goodbye statement. 81.5.133.201 (talk) 21:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Here we are again, this is perhaps why more and more references have to keep getting added. In any case, there are more where those came from. Should I add more? Also, those people are authors of reference books published by highly reputable publishing houses and they say "many" and they say "often". The Reputable Sources noticeboard thinks they're valid sources. The fact that "you suspect that it's just a small number of highly opinionated busy-bodies" may be something you find interesting, but your suspicions are exactly worthless unless there are references that say the same. So, either counter-references, which I've been asking about for weeks, or statement stays. Wotapalaver (talk) 22:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

No, you're talking utter rubbish there Wot. First point, my view that ...it's a small minority etc... is just that - a view. I'm not claiming it as fact, and importantly, it's not in the article. Next, there is an assertion in the article backed up by poor references (opinions of authors who don't back up their opinions with any sort of objective assessement), so the assertion has to go. As for counter-references, what a totally bizarre concept! How can you have a reference to a non-assertion. You mean something like "there's no controversy and here's a reference that says there isn't"? No, the reference has to back up the assertion. In this case it doesn't, well, not adequately. Get rid! 81.5.133.201 (talk) 22:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

"You mean something like "there's no controversy and here's a reference that says there isn't"?" That's not an unreasonable expectation. Given that the controversy has been stated a number of times by historians in scholarly texts, it wouldn't be at all strange, particularly if these claims are indeed utter rubbish, for another scholar or a reviewer of these sorts of texts to call them on it. Is there any refutation amongst scholars to the sorts of controversy claims made by the sources? Nuclare (talk) 01:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Nobody is saying that there hasn't been controversy! It's about the word "many" - how many Irish people object to the word? The article currently provides a motley collection of evidence and opinion, and it hasn't been said a great deal of times in scholarly texts at all! The evidence it equivalent to an annual meeting in a Monty Python sketch. It's a mishmash of spam. It doesn't amount to a hill of beans. If it's not a real issue then no one will comment on it will they?

Kearney, the guy who's latest dust jacket provides the word "many" (and he may not have actually written the DJ by the way) actually happily uses the "British Isles" in his book ("The British Isles, A History of Four Nations") to describe life in both Britain and Ireland today: why would people then contest his "many"? The IP above should have said "how do we find a quote that says: "It is not true that "many" find the term objectionable"? All the compiled evidence is a contrived and ill-fitting mash (Folens, the gov, mixed atlases, Kearney, tracts - all but the tracts have mixed messages) - all squeezed together for the purpose of this article! They do not represent a recognisable 'movement' in any sense - so how could any historian refer to it? --Matt Lewis (talk) 02:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Who's talking about a 'movement'? And again, which 'tracts' do you refer to, or are you just being randomly disparaging about the references again? The references are mostly scholarly references, they're clear, from eminent sources, and they say 'many' and 'often'. The fact that many atlases apparently no longer use the term "British Isles" is not even used anywhere as part of any argument about 'many'. Perhaps it should be. It's a good point. I must think about how or whether that could be used without being OR. And, in line with Nuclare, we have scholarly references that clearly say the term is offensive/objectionable to many/often. Those references exist and are available. If other scholars thought this was nonsense then there would surely be counter-references, and Wikipedia policies talk about counter-references in discussion of verifiability. Perhaps other scholars think that the first lot are wrong but just haven't written their books yet. If so, we'll have to wait until they do. Wikipedia depends on verifiability and we have verifiable reputable sources of the first order. Wotapalaver (talk) 07:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

You are obliged to consider discussion you have had, yet you consistently talk as if conversations have not existed (like about maps atlases, which you often bring up yourself). Your opinion of Talk is appalling - you use it to say the same comments repeatedly, but totally discredit it as a means of discussing the texts. You care nothing for consensus either.

We will NOT have to "wait" for books about "the first lot" appear: there is no significant "first lot" to write about: they are a disparate construction built SOLELY on Wikipedia over time (and boy did they take looking for! - I've watched a lot of it happen). Again you follow the formula: Wotapalava finds word in citation = word from a citation used openly in introduction = nobody is allowed to remove it unless 'diametrically counter' textual evidence for exact word is found = edit wars and page locking happens if they try to re-write around the word It's bullshit. --Matt Lewis (talk) 14:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, we're still waiting for your long promised critique of the references. Perhaps, instead of ranting at me, you should address the references and explain why they're all unreliable and why Oxford and Cambridge etc., shouldn't have published these books because their views disagree with your personal knowledge. Meantime, I'm discussing this in tedious depth, but it comes back to one thing. I, and others - including people from the Reliable Sources noticeboard, consider the references good. You don't, but you refuse to say why beyond that they are a "disparate construction", whatever the heck that means, or that following references is bullshit. I, and others, and Wikipedia policy, disagree. Again, if you're right there will be counter-references. Go find them and we can have an intelligent conversation. Until then you're arguing with reputable sources, not with me. You can dislike that, but it's the fact of the matter. Wotapalaver (talk) 14:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

"tedious detail"? You have shown no depth at all - you are all "etc, etc..." and insults (which I cannot help but return). The 'Reliable Sources noticeboard' do not weigh the sources or get involved at all - stop conning people that they are rubber stamping you - THEY ARE NOT. I feel obliged to stay in touch with your exaggerated way of getting the last word and misleading people - it is relentless. I leave Talk for a bit and all my points are scrolled out of view. I happen to resent strongly that I have to write this 'critique' just to deal with you - this a highly negative Wikipedia situation here - a real example of how it can fail to work. How dare you say "I don't explain"? Nothing I will cover I haven't already been through with you in detail (apart from some new suggestions), and will have to deal with your arrogant distain when I've done it. It is hard to complete because I usually have to work in bursts - and unlike you it's a long time since I've been to school. A thorough piece-by-piece detailing is all I can now do. Why should people put up with this crap? Who are hell do you think you are? Apart from clearly a wind-up merchant. --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

(reduce indent) Please keep it civil. As for reliable sources, an editor who's a regular on that page even came here and commented on the specifics of some of the sources and even added some suggested additional sources. As for your explanations, I simply don't understand what a "disparate construction" is and it was your idea to go through the references one-by-one. Don't blame me if it's harder to trash the references one-by-one than to broadly damn them all as "academic tracts". I eagerly await your reasoning to explain how Cambridge and Oxford references are to be ignored. Oh, I think I'm a Wikipedia editor who respects sources. Who do you think you are? Wotapalaver (talk) 16:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Collins Atlas

I noticed today that Collins Atlas latest edition has dropped all reference to the "British Isles" - check the index; you'll find everything from "British Solomon Islands" to British Guyana - nothing to indicate anywhere called the "British Isles" exists. Sarah777 (talk) 00:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

If true (which I don't dispute) then there´s potential support for the whole "increasingly disputed" point, or a "less used" point. Michelin, Collins, Reader's Digest, National Geographic all avoiding it. Probably take another century for other languages to catch up, but potentially an interesting language study case. Wotapalaver (talk) 00:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

But other languages don't matter on EN:Wiki do they? They aren't called the "British Isles" in Irish and nobody seems to consider that relevant. Sarah777 (talk) 00:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

No, other languages don't really matter. I can't comment on what they're called or not called in Irish. Wotapalaver (talk) 01:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Yup, looks like there's definitely a case to be made for saying its now being used less often in publications, at any rate. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 08:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Jesus. Fuck. Honesty! 86.42.90.145 (talk) 11:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Objections? Mar dheá.

There is no controversy attached to this title, and certainly no objection to it. The Irish people are resolutely delighted to be part of the British Isles. Did the Irish Privy Council and Her Majesty's Privy councillor Dermot Ahern have any permission from Her Majesty or the Privy Council to issue a statement to the contrary?It is mere contrivance to suggest that the Irish people would not be enthralled at being considered British. Any minute now these loyal lieges shall storm Her Majesty's realm, fall to their knees, proclaim their Britishness, and beg for forgiveness for their alleged objections to Britain's gentle loving concern for the Irish people since 1603. 86.42.90.145 (talk) 00:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how this helps 86.42... If you have an objection to a certain aspect (or series of aspects) within an article, it would put you in good standing with others if you a) state it, calmly and politely, b) explain why you have this objection c) bring some citation to the discussion, d) suggest an alternative approach, and, e) allow others to share their thoughts.

Bringing personal perspective and personal politics in a way that disparages a certain group of editors is likely to elevate levels of stress and conflict, and make people go on the defensive, or worse, offensive, and is against the spirit of WP:TALK. The type of contribution above has many elements of those discouraged in our policy, WP:TROLL, violations of which could lead to restrictions upon your editting capabilities.

We all have an opinion here, and each have perspectives that are culturally informed. Shouting the loudest here or making coy, sarcastic comments will have little, if any effect upon editorial decisions for the main article, I can assure you. --Jza84 |  Talk  01:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The basic fallacy here appears to be the assumption that just because Ireland is one of the British Isles, its inhabitants, the Irish, must necessarily be "British". Now, I do not suppose there is any controversy surrounding the fact that Ireland and Great Britain are part of the same archipelago geographically? In this case, in order to claim there is a controversy, what alternative suggestions to "British Isles" are there as to the name of said archipelago? It sort of stands to reason that a group of islands may be called after the largest island it contains. There are some suggestions, such as "IONA", but clearly none of them is an arguable competitor to "British Isles" within WP:NAME. Accepting that, I wonder what the {{POV}} template is doing here. There may be a real world dispute, but the {{POV}} template isn't intended to draw attention to real-world disputes, it is used for unresolved disputes on-wiki. Once a real world dispute is detailed fairly and exhaustively, there is no reason to keep arguing about it on-wiki. It may be useful to keep in mind, too, that Πρεττανικη has been the term for the group of islands, not of Great Britain, from its first appearance in the 4th century BC or so. Thus, the British Isles aren't even called after Great Britain, it is Great Britain (formerly known as Albion) that takes its name from the name of the archipelago. dab (𒁳) 14:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

There seem to be a variety of facts. The islands are apparently most commonly called The British Isles if they are referred to as a group, although alternatives appear to be getting more common. Many people in Ireland don't like the term "British Isles" to be applied to Ireland. Some other people don't like that people in Ireland don't like the term to be applied to Ireland. Your other points have been mentioned MANY times before. If nothing else, AFAIK there's no evidence that the term Πρεττανικη or any similar or derivative terms were ever applied (or commonly applied) in Ireland until the 17th century, but which time "British" meant "relating to Britain" and Britain had been Britain, not Albion, for a LONG time. Wotapalaver (talk) 15:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

well, but what "alternatives"? If "IONA" becomes current, fine, but I had never heard of that term before I saw the Wikipedia article. The term "British Isles" isn't "applied to Ireland", it is applied to an archipelago of which Ireland is the second largest member. If my points have been mentioned many times before, what is there left to discuss (WP:FORUM)? I am aware of the imperial history of the Kingdom of Great Britain. It's still as simple as WP:NAME: if a term like "Hiberno-British Isles" should ever become current, I'll be most happy to concede it is more neutral, but until it does, there is really nothing to discuss on WP:TALK. This is a debate within the real world, not within Wikipedia. WP:FORUM says it doesn't belong here. dab (𒁳) 16:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

wow, there is even a single (1) google hit for "Hiberno-British Isles": The Long and Winding Road to Union: Scotland and the Hiberno-British Isles, 1560-1750 by Raymond P. Wells, University of Edinburgh (1999). I say that's a great term. Add to that three hits for Hiberno-British archipelago. Now if you can raise the number of hits to, oh, some 10 million (about half the number of hits for "British Isles") by 2020, we will be able to move this article to another title, in 2020. dab (𒁳) 16:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I haven't been advocating any other name. Even if I were to prefer another name it's not relevant here. Besides, if another name emerges it'll do so without my help, I'm sure, and it's only up to WP to report it once/if it does. Personally I doubt it'll be IONA. Some variant of "Britain and Ireland" or "The British Isles and Ireland" seems more likely. Meantime the article is called "British Isles". The "what's left to discuss" is what I mentioned above.."Some other people don't like that people in Ireland don't like the term to be applied to Ireland." Reading the talk archives is like watching time lapse of multiple seasons go by. The same arguments keep reappearing and keep needing to be addressed again, and again. Wotapalaver (talk) 16:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

so, according to you, this article has an "NPOV" template, because "Some other people don't like that people in Ireland don't like the term to be applied to Ireland". I'm sorry, are you saying this to justify the presence of the NPOV template, or are you just being sarcastic? I appreciate there is a dispute. The article duly notes its existence. Then why is there a {{NPOV}} template? dab (𒁳) 17:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I also agree with the underlying sentiment expressed above. Current consensus is that the term relates to the archipelago and that it is a geographical term (i.e. name given to the group of islands). But there are problems with the principal that the term purely geographical. For example, technically, the Channel Islands do not belong - the reason they are included appears to be rooted in political history. And the political undercurrent carries over into other sections of the article too. There is an argument that the "History" and "Political Cooperation" sections, etc, do not belong in a geographical article (as it is currently written). And there's also lots of articles in Wikipedia that use the term "Britain" but link to "British Isles" - clearly demonstrating that to many editors that their interpretation is different that the consensus reached here. And I'm sure lots of people are aware of the objections raised when articles are corrected to use more appropriate terms (let's not go there). Clearly, the term is associated with "British" as meaning "of Britain", and this is primarily the objection that (few/some/many/none/all) Irish people have. There's no right or wrong, that's just the way it is. And clearly, that same amount of Irish people will push for change. But change doesn't/won't happen on Wikipedia. I suggest that this article is re-written as a purely geographical article, and the political stuff should be placed into a separate "History and Politics of the British Isles" article. --Bardcom (talk) 17:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Whatever happens, the title "British Isles" ensures that this article is most certainly not a "geographical article". A geographical article could be done, but not while carrying the name of one of the two states in the archipelago. And we will not get into the fact that the British state in question has, since its invention, been holding a claim to Ireland. This minor detail sort of annihilates (to be euphemistic) the whole "it's only geographical" argument. 86.42.90.145 (talk) 09:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry dab, I wasn't defending the POV template on the article at all. I was just adding my view of what goes on here and why the POV tag was added. You'd have to read the article history to see who added it. IIRC (and I'm not sure I do) it was Sarah777 and she was reverting to some edits by either TharkunColl or Matt Lewis. Wotapalaver (talk) 21:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

dab wrote: "The basic fallacy here appears to be the assumption that just because Ireland is one of the British Isles, its inhabitants, the Irish, must necessarily be "British." It may not necessitate it, but the reality is that Irish people do get called and classed as British quite often. I agree with you, dab, about the naming of the article issue, but the objections to the term are understandable. Nuclare (talk) 02:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

British Isles name, historical only or not

People, please bring the dispute here (instead of edit warring). GoodDay (talk) 00:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Snowded, this article is about the British Isles - geography, history, flora, fauna, etc. - the article about the name is at British Isles (terminology). As is clear from your edit summary "There has to be some acknowledgement that the term reflects historical but not current reality", you are claiming that the term isn't current. It is, even if WP:IDONTLIKE or you don't. Please revert. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 00:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

How about "current" with jingoistic British? [as obviously ordinary British would not claim Ireland to be British]86.42.90.145 (talk) 08:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Bastun, I made a few attempts with different wordings but you seem intent on direct reversal It seems to be that regardless of the various disputes above the article needs to start with an acknowledgement that the term is historic in nature. To say that is not to deny that it may be in current use. A few changes like this might (just might) make this into a geography article rather than a source of mass political controversy. How about trying to come up with a form of words which does that? I am not wed to my suggestion but I am sick and tired of the controversy over what should be, as you say a geography page --Snowded (talk) 00:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Why not use both as in The British Isles is the historical and geographical name for a group of islands.....--Jack forbes (talk) 00:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that would make sense. Such a change would also I think justify the removal of the POV title. Does anyone have any objection? If so then I think we need a list of what aspects of the article are considered POV --Snowded (talk) 05:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

You are completely right that the current article is, in reality, about a historical entity. However, it is historical and "geographical" (sic) only in the period from the 17th century. In 16th century Ireland or England the "British" were, consistently, equated with "Britons" who were, consistently, the people of Britanny ["little Britain"]. Holinshed's Chronicles, for instance, made this equation often. When he referred to "the Britons here in this Isle[Britain]" he was treating them as an ethnic minority from the past and their affect on English [ooops! "British"]history. Not once did he equate or imply that British or Briton was the name of all the people in Britain. In fact, the "British" were frequently banned by the sixteenth-century English Tudor colonial governors of Ireland from Ireland!(especially for taking fish which the Tudors claimed to be for English fishermen](See, for example, Calendar Patent Rolls Ireland, vol i, page 389 from September 1557-58] But this does not fit in at all, at all with British nationalist claims to Ireland since the 17th century. That last sentence sums up this entire article. This entire term is completely and entirely representative of a political claim to Ireland and to the Irish people since the defeat of the Irish in the seventeenth century. This political context is the clear and unequivocal history of the term "British Isles". Irish people know this; modern "British" people obviously would prefer to keep their nationalist egos alive by denying the political origins of the term in order to keep the current name as "British Isles". The title on this article makes the entire article a sham article, nothing but a vehicle for British jingoistic claims to Ireland. Most despicable of all is the dishonesty of wikipedia editors about the political agenda at the heart of this article. 86.42.90.145 (talk) 08:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Personally I find the term "United Kingdom" offensive on the grounds that Wales was united by force, but I am not so far gone as to deny the legitimacy of and article entitled United Kingdom and Northern Ireland. I know of no current British Claim to Ireland and your last two sentences are a nonsense and bad faith. A recognition of the historical origins of the term and its limitations is surely enough. --Snowded (talk) 09:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

1. Another sophism; the majority of Welsh people clearly want your United Kingdom; you personally are therefore in a minority in Wales. In contrast, British rule has been ousted from most of Ireland, a clear sign that British rule has been viewed as a hostile foreign occupying force by the vast majority of people in Ireland. Ergo, claiming Ireland is in your "British Isles" is simply a political assertion which is rejected by the vast majority of the population of Ireland, the entire country. The Welsh, on the other hand, are seemingly delighted to ride on the back of Englishness with a nod to Welsh identity once in a while sufficient to assuage their sense of regionalism. An entirely different situation, in other words.

2.Let me get this straight: you know of no "current British claim to Ireland"? Have you been hiding in a bunker since around 14 August 1969? Are they red postboxes I see from Newry on? Or British Union Jack flags flying over British military garrisons in Derry today in 2008? Wakey, wakey.

3. As for your view that "a recognition of the historical origins of the term... is surely enough", I propose that we now recognise the historical origins of 'Nigger' as sufficient and continue calling African-Americans "Niggers".

4. If there is as you claim "nonsense" being said here, I submit that it is a lot closer to you and your fellow British nationalist posters than me. I am fully cognisant of Britain's ignominious role in Ireland, both in the past and up to the present. You, and other people of your national disposition, are clearly intent upon keeping your heads in the sand about what has been carried out in Ireland in the name of Britain and Britishness. You really still think of yourselves as "civilisers" serving, at the end of your very long day, some "greater good" in Ireland. That suits where you all are coming from, doesn't it. Ireland in your "British Isles"? How dare you. The rapist is not naming his victim. 86.42.90.145 (talk) 10:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Anon, please remember the talk page guidelines and WP:SOAPBOX and WP:NPA. Please also stop making assumptions about editors. I'm not, and never have been, a British Nationalist (capital or small 'n'). My view on the term are set out (somewhere) above on this page. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 11:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

That is fine that you have set out your views. I have set out mine and when I am accused to talking 'nonsense' for expressing those views I will respond likewise. That you decide you do not like my reaction does not give you, or those of your frame of mind, the right to starve my views of the oxygen of publicity, as one nice Englishwoman put it in 1988. I do not have to accept any British nomenclature for my home. I live in Ireland; I therefore am Irish. I live in Europe; I therefore am a European. To claim that I live in what British people have termed the "British Isles" is, despite the wire-balancing act by some wikipedia editors, ultimately an explicit claim that I am British. That, son, is a profoundly political claim. It is hostile, aggressive and completely about imposing a British nationalist identity upon me, my family and everybody I know. It doesn't get any more political. Anybody who partakes in that British nationalist project is of that 'national disposition'. They are aligning themselves with that agenda for who I am. You cannot censor this view simply because it doesn't accord with your British Comics outlook on the world. While you were reading British Comics I was reading books like Edward Said's Orientalism (book) and Declan Kiberd's Inventing Ireland (book), both of which are books that emphasise the importance to colonial powers of controlling the representation of countries they have conquered. Claiming Ireland to be in this "British Isles" is precisely about that, about controlling Irish identity, Irish direction. It is disingenuous in the extreme to claim this title is merely geographic: it is merely political! 86.42.90.145 (talk) 11:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Whatever, "son". My contributions to this project listed on my user page (you're definitely not registering as an editor yourself, then? - how convenient!) may or may not bear any relationship to my other reading material, then or later. In any case, my reading of anti-establishment, anti-Thatcherite comics is irrelevant to this article. "the right to starve (your) views of the oxygen of publicity"? Er, sorry, you're here on exactly the same basis as the rest of us. That includes adherence to various policies such as WP:FORUM, WP:SOAPBOX and WP:NPA. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 12:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

(reduce indent) I can't see any reference in Edward Said's Orientalism to the British Isles. Maybe I miss it. However, if 86.42.90.145 is so well read perhaps he could focus on contributing citations to books or other documents that do mention the British Isles and discussion on the name. Wotapalaver (talk) 14:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I seriously doubt you've ever read Orientalism, considering you have a marked inability to read my single sentence mentioning Edward Said. When you do actually read Orientalism you will discover that the entire book is about how the control of nomenclature/representation was vital in shaping occidental perceptions of, and demands from, what they termed the "Orient". If you do, however, want to read Edward Said on Ireland and how controlling representation through names was vital to the British colonial project, try Culture and Imperialism. He even devotes a section to Ireland under British colonialism, entitled 'Yeats and Decolonisation'. There you will find gems like: "One of Brian Friel's most powerful plays, Translations (1980), deals with the shattering effect of the Ordnance Survey on the indigenous inhabitants. 'In such a process,' Hamer continues, 'the colonised is typically [supposed to be] passive and spoken for, does not control its own representation but is represented in accordance with a hegemonic impulse by which it is constructed as a stable and unitary entity.' And what was done in Ireland was also done in Bengal or, by the French, in Algeria." (Vintage, 1994, page 273). And, felicitously, wasn't it Nicholas Canny, the foremost historian of Early Modern Ireland, who described the term "British Isles" as 'hegemonic locution' according to the long list of citations from academics in the archives of this Talk Page. 86.42.90.145 (talk) 16:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Anon, you are "beyond the pale" and I think beyond hope. Dpn't impute motives where you know nothing. Some of us were on civil rights marches in Belfast several decades ago and were then and now beyond this type of crude stereotyping. No one is making a claim that you are British. You aren't worthy of the inheritance that won most of Ireland independence, or of the modern day where the Boyne site can see a meeting that would have been inconceivable when I was growing up. You shame that inheritance by your intemperate language. --Snowded (talk) 15:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

But that British Isles = British equation is precisely the only conclusion to this article. If I live in Derry, I am a Derryman, if I live in Ireland, I am Irish, in Europe, I am European. If people accept the insistence of British nationalists that Ireland is in an entity they are calling the "British Isles" the only logical conclusion is that I am "British". That's not going to happen. It is illogical to say I am not British if you say I am in the entity you are naming the "British Isles". PS I accept the 'Beyond the Pale" comment with the greatest pride, and would believe my "Get your grubby hands off my country's name" attitude to this article is part of the finest historical tradition of all, a tradition from the glens of Wicklow in 1580 to Cath Chéim an Fhia in 1822 to the Bogside in 1969 which I am speechless with pride about. The British will never take my Irishness and impose the shame of their name on me. 86.42.90.145 (talk) 16:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

What if you live in the Americas? I'm sure the Mexicans et al will be happy to here you calling them American. josh (talk) 16:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Us Americanos get along very well, thank you. Excepting the Canucks, that is.—eric 17:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you should stop picking fights with people who have sympathy for your point of view. It makes me wonder what you would say to someone who did'nt! Jack forbes (talk) 17:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Anon - I am genuinely sorry for you, to live in a world characterised by so much hatred cannot be good for you. To believe that labelling a geography article by its historic name (and making that history evident) is part of some British conspiracy to takeaway your Irishness is absurd and if you genuinely believe it then you must be taking slight at so many things that you can't sleep at night. I had a drink in Belfast a month or so ago with a friend who is a Unionist. During the troubles we were at various times on opposite sides of the barricades although I could retreat for extended periods to Wales or Dublic. I remember being told one night during that time I could not go out because "I looked like a Protestant" and where the innocent question "which school did you go to" was far from innocent. Now we can have a drink and call each other Fenian Bastard and Proddy Dog as an affectionate reference to a past that is now behind us.

Until you live in the current day we will get nowhere. ' So to other editors.' If we label this article as using language which, while still in current use (ignorant, but innocent of deliverate imperial pretension), is historic and geographical but no longer currently political then can it go back to being a geography article?

@86, you have no idea what I've read. However, if Said doesn't refer to the British Isles as a term, then it would be your interpretation that he means to include it in his ideas about domination through naming. I expect he would include it if it was discussed with him, but if his books don't mention it - and I can't see that they do - then a discussion of Ireland in general isn't "admissible evidence" about a term in specific, at least unless you've got a specific section in ming that you'd care to share. Canny is already on the page of references you encourage me to read, although not with the specific example you mention. Instead of questioning people's reading skills you might add references. At least that's productive. As for the America's, like Scandinavia, it may be controversial or not. Either way it's a separate issue. Wotapalaver (talk) 19:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

"Still in use". Just on the intro. This makes it sound (to my ear) as if the term is "still in use" by some odd wierdos in sandals or in the hills of Kentucky. Is that just how I read it? If other's read it the same, can we agree that the term still in widespread global use? Surely, apart from the fact that that's a fact, if you oppose the term "British Isles" isn't it important to stress that it's still widely used and shouldn't be, and if you support the term "British Isles" isn't it important to stress that it's still widely used, and if you're just interested in the facts isn't it important to say that it's still widely used? Is this something all "sides" can agree on? Wotapalaver (talk) 19:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

"still in use" means just what it says, it means it is still in use and is the most neutral statement. Widely not not is irrelevant, it adds no value and is easier to read as biased. I think we all know that (i) if it was named today it would not be called British Isles and (ii) that is what it has been known as. Keep it as "still in use" and we have a chance of agreement, add "widely" and I will begin is suspect another agenda. --Snowded (talk) 20:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) I'm suspecting an agenda too... The term is, like it or hate it, still the most widely used name for the island group. Including "still in use" is not a neutral statement. On another issue - this article is about the archipelago - not the terminology. Can people therefore please leave the intro as "are a group of islands" (or archipelago, but in that case I want a decent climate!), not "a name for the island group". Feel free to write about the terminology at Terminology of the British Isles. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 21:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

You might want to try an atoll chain, calling it an archipelago won't help the climate.—eric 04:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

actually I don't think it is the most widely used term. There is no political agenda in "In use". I would be happy to say a "group of islands", but you need to state that the term is geographical not political and is historical in origin if still in use. I am proposing a simple device here to resolve a conflict and get this back to a geography article. Trying to divert it to Terminology of the British Isles is to be almost as intransigent as our anon contributor. The essence of WIkipedia is some give and take. --Snowded (talk) 03:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

@Snowded. Why don't you think it is the most widely used term? Wotapalaver (talk) 08:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Firstly whether it is or is not the most widely used term is irrelevant, "In use" is enough and non-controversial. Secondly I don;t often hear it any more, an internet search reveals it in use for Wales, Scotland and England but not Ireland, as well as all four. I think it is unnessarily provocative to say "most widely" and it adds nothing. --Snowded (talk) 10:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

And one other thing. If we describe it as geographical now, there are two questions. First, is it? Second, what about the past? Wasn't it a largely political term in the past? Wotapalaver (talk) 09:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

What about keeping the "past" in a separate article(s). The term is accepted by consensus here to be a geographical term, it makes sense for the bulk of the article to be non-geo-political. --Bardcom (talk) 09:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't like that because then you'd lose the section on the names of the islands through the years, which is the most interesting bit on the whole page, IMHO. Wotapalaver (talk) 09:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't see why you'd have to necessarily lose all of that section, and could certainly appear in summary with the main parts moved to their own articles - could even have a "History of the term British Isles" article. Guarantee that no information would be lost, and that this article would be shorter, better, and with a lot less to arguments. --Bardcom (talk) 10:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree --Snowded (talk) 10:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

(reduce) Two things. Let's try, as suggested before and started a little with the list of island names, to reduce the overlap with other articles. This is probably possible with the history sections, where there are lots of main articles already. Second, the specific piece on "the names of the islands throughout the ages" (which is different from "the history of the term British Isles") doesn't appear anywhere else so should be kept and should also be easy to retain after the other sections are shortened. Wotapalaver (talk) 12:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Originally it was a political term, but I don't think that there ever was a name for the group of Islands. Iceland was once included in an older related name. The Faroe Islands are in the same group, so they should be included in the archepelago list too. The Channel Islands are off-shore France, and do not belong to the group. So it mainly was a political name that has come down from the past. I know a lot of people in Ireland avoid the name, and see it as a political relic on older maps. It's rarely seen on modern mapmaking and printing. I have travelled far and wide, and have never heard the term being used in conversation. that's my 2 cent input here. Cherry rose (talk) 13:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

BBC TV (and radio) weather forecasts use the term to refer to all the islands; presumably because there isn't another name for it. A bit difficult to cite as they're broadcast rather than printed. Bazza (talk) 15:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Protected (again)

Right I've protected the page for a two week period. I had hoped it wouldn't be necessary but this continually warring over the placement of a tag is dragging the article down. Please discuss it, and please remember the protected version is not an endorsed version but just the version it was on at the time it was protected. Canterbury Tail talk 18:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

Could those that currently see a need for the NPOV tag at the top of the article please briefly list their reasons below? It's at times difficult to follow every happening on this talk page.—eric 21:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The chances of this article being viewed as NPOV (no matter what's in the content)? is very slim. GoodDay (talk) 22:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't give up that quickly. If (as it is now) the term is acknowledged as being geographical not political, its origins are clear and offence noted then I can't see any rational for keeping the NPOV tag other than an argument for deletion or renaming. That needs to be resolved - let someone propose it, discuss it and agree or go to mediation. --Snowded (talk) 11:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Since no reason has (yet) been given for the tag, I'm removing it. Waggers (talk) 13:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe that there are people who edit this page who still regard it as in dispute. Just because they didn't come here today doesn't mean they'll agree. Wotapalaver (talk) 16:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Wikipéire - can you outline concisely why you feel the article is not NPOV? Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 17:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The article swings between being a political entity and a geographical one. The argument can't be made that its a geo entity considering the channel islands is defined as being in it. There's also the name issue and whether how offensive it is in relation to Ireland. Various editors opinions are defining whats being said. Therefore its not neutral. There's other reason too but you get the idea that the article needs to be sorted out.WikipÉire ^♣ 17:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I have to say that I agree and the current article is very confusing in that it certainly combines these different "concepts" throughout the article. The consensus is that this is a geographical term. The historic/political stuff should be moved (and referred to where appropriate). THat would remove the NPOV objection (and about 90% of the arguments). --Bardcom (talk) 17:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I started out thinking a purely geographical article could be done but I now think the article can't avoid being geo-political in nature. Its easy to say its one or the other but in practice its difficult. If an article is written about a British Isle say the Isle of Lewis, it contains geography, geology, history, politics, economy, religion, etc. How is it going to be possible to have BI article that doesn't touch on these sort of areas. It must surely be possible, with good will, to write a neutral article that gives an in depth view of the islands collectively. -Bill Reid | Talk 18:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I thought about this, but I think that it can be done. The article on Isle of Lewis includes politics/economy/religion but it's not contentious or divided. It's not like you need a "North Lewis" article and a "South Lewis" article. There are better examples of articles - for example Outer Hebrides can summarize "The Hebrides under Norse Control" and point to a more detailed article "History of the Outer Hebrides". This is the model for the British Isles article. What do you think? --Bardcom (talk) 11:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, Billreid....you long for good will! Good luck! Wotapalaver (talk) 19:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The article is not a political article. The article is not a geographic article. The article is an encyclopaedic article on the British Isles. That includes geography AND politics (and history, and much more). As with every other area of Wikipedia, we report what reliable sources say without injecting our own spin on them. So if some sources include the Channel Islands and others don't, then we report that. If some sources say the term is offensive to some people, then we report that. We avoid weasel words (like "many") and try to adhere to the other style guidelines. I really don't see why this is so difficult for some users to understand. Waggers (talk) 12:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

@Waggers, possibly, we are agreeing, but possibly not. It is a fact that the article is about the "British Isles". The British Isles has many different meanings/interpretations going back over time, but the current understanding is that it is a geographical term. Therefore the encyclopedic article should reflect this. What that also means is that it is NOT a political term or geo-political term. So this article, as an encyclopedic article, should reflect the consensus that it is a geographical term. If we can't get a general agreement on this point, then we need to re-test consensus - perhaps a straw poll will quickly do this. It's a very fundamental point, and requires consensus. --Bardcom (talk) 14:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the problem is with the definition of "geography". Geography includes both political geography and physical geography. The inclusion of the Channel Islands (which seems to be the biggest stumbling block at the moment) doesn't stop the British Isles from being a geographical entity. The other point I'd make here is that verifiability is more important than talk page consensus. It's not for us as editors to decide how to define the British Isles or what kind of entity it is; we just report what the reliable sources say, no more, no less. Waggers (talk) 10:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

@Waggers, I agree with most of what you say, but "many" in the context it's in is not a weasel word. The only category of "weasel word" that might apply is the one where the weasel statement is "There is evidence that...", to which the Weasel Word policy asks "What evidence? Is the source reliable?". In this case the sources are reliable and they say "many" and "often". There's no weasel wording. Saying "some" would be weasel wording since it contradicts cited reputable sources.

<irony>If one wanted to do weasel wording in the introduction one could say 'There is evidence that the term "British Isles" is regarded as grossly insulting to Irish people.' One or other of the Canny references could well be used to argue that such a characterization would not generally be regarded as unacceptable to popular wisdom and that up to 90% of people regard the term as inappropriate in modern use. That might lead to a situation that some people might view as weasel wording. </irony> Wotapalaver (talk) 14:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the problem is that "many" just doesn't read as encyclopaedic language. It doesn't actually mean anything different to "some" or "a few" - it's somewhere between "one" and "all". "Many" and "a few" have unquantifiable implications behind them (does "many" mean "the majority" and "a few" "a minority"?) and therefore could carry undue weight. Personally though I don't have a problem with using "many" in this case since, as you say, it's used in the source.

What we do need to avoid though is the implication that the majority feel incredibly strongly about the issue. I suspect that a minority feel very strongly, and the majority aren't really bothered but would say they don't like the term "British Isles" if they were pushed to make a decision. What we must avoid is combining sources that say these two things to imply that the majority strongly dislike the term. (I don't think that has happened, I'm just flagging it as something we need to look out for). Waggers (talk) 10:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Systematic elimination of British Isles

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
If you think there's a problem with this page, and with Great Britain and Ireland, it's nothing compared to what's going on elsewhere. I've been looking at edit histories of interested parties and it turns out that User:Bardcom has been systematically removing British Isles links from Wikipedia. Going back to about March, this user has removed literally hundreds of instances of British Isles. A whole range of reasons are given, including WP:NOR, removal of unreferened facts (where he has added the cite tag some time earlier), not being wholly geographic, subject not including ALL areas of the British Isles, and many others. In fact, User:Bardcom seems to have a priority mission for the removal of British Isles. So ... the arguments about this article will, in time, be academic. It will become an orphan article ... then deletion beckons. Just thought you'd all like to know. Oh, and another user's doing it as well - User:Crispness (to a lesser extent) 141.6.8.89 (talk) 11:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC) (Yawn) Another anon IP editor. The IP address traces back to BASF IT services in Mannheim Germany. --Bardcom (talk) 00:18, 24 May 2008 (UTC) Please note, the comments in this archive are very relevant to the British Isles article. Please read them. I too have noticed what's going on here. CarterBar (talk) 17:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC) This section has been archived for a reason. If you wish to discuss other users' editing patterns, then take it somewhere else, please. --Schcamboaon scéal? 17:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC) This is the place to take it, because it affects this article - big time! Failing that, where should it go? CarterBar (talk) 17:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC) Don't worry about it. The term British Isles, can never be completely deleted from Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 18:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC) Another conspiracy theory. there not always true you know! Jack forbes (talk) 19:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC) If you don't believe that a group of people are trying to remove where possible, or negatively 'taint' the term "British Isles", you should check their edits histories (as the IP above suggets), and the archives too for the odd off-guard comments! Some editors would probably even admit it. It's hardly "X-Files" stuff! --Matt Lewis (talk) 20:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC) Hey I ain't denying that; I'm sure you'll agree though that there are also many editors intent on adding it where either "Britain" or "the UK and Ireland" would be far more appropriate. Probably balances itself out, I daresay. --Schcamboaon scéal? 20:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Archiving

This talk page is still incredibly long. At the moment threads are archived once they have been inactive for 4 weeks. Does anyone have any objections to reducing this to 2 weeks? Waggers (talk) 10:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

There were some very active threads recently. Best let them fade away then the page will be short enough on 4 weeks. Wotapalaver (talk) 12:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

You must be joking! You are the last person we need in control of archiving: you are the ultimate stonewaller, and endless repetition and chatter suits you perfectly. If the page is long at 4 weeks it's long at 4 weeks - it's the minimum archive time as far as I'm concerned. People are entitled to refer back without being either forced into the archives or made to start again. You can't have it all!?--Matt Lewis (talk) 13:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Only had time to take quick looks in recently - followed thread wrongly so apologise for inaccurate commentabove .--Matt Lewis (talk) 14:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

ad hominen attacks are not tolerated. Your comment below makes it obvious that you were venting at Wotapalaver, regardless of what he said. Please WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. --Bardcom (talk) 16:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for ignoring my apology and explanation, Bardcom - and for originally inserting your finger-wagging little comment just above it, calling it "your comment below". Bit of a hostile thing to do in itself, imo.--Matt Lewis (talk) 12:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. Nice that what I write is read with such care. Meantime, I added another reference to the references page. It says "Many Irish object to the term the 'British Isles';". The publisher is Cambridge University Press, 1996. The book received positive reviews in Foreign Affairs and The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute (whatever that is).Wotapalaver (talk) 23:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

How about thinking with care? What new ref have you added in "the meantime"? You never had (and still don't have) anything like the evidence to support the way you exploit the word "many" (in Wikipedia's encyclopedic terms - not just your own biased terms) - but that will dealt with in time. Kearney, who wrote the book you keep quoting (but did he actually write the dust jacket, where the quote is from?) consistently uses the name "British Isles" for contemporary society within the book - a book, incidentally, you repeatedly refer to but never actually name: is that because it is embarrassingly called "British Isles", Wotapalava? --Matt Lewis (talk) 12:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear. Let's look at two diffs. [2] and [3]. The first is evidence of someone neither reading nor thinking clearly (Matt Lewis), and the second is someone providing references to add value to the article (me). As for the title of the book, like the article, I am not advocating a change, I am simply pointing out that reputable sources say that the term "British Isles" is often offensive to many Irish. Sorry if you don't agree but it's not me you don't agree with, it's a bunch of Cambridge and Oxford published scholars. Once more I am forced to suggest that you READ THE REFERENCES. (oh yeah, Eric R added another reference which is worth reading too. [4]) Wotapalaver (talk) 15:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Obviously apologies for inaccuracies mean nothing to you - how foolish you are. As a general character ref it was certainly spot on. As far as new refs added to the British Isles article is concerned: Eric R added "British History: A Plea for a New Subject" on May 13th - it is a second ref by J.G.A. Pocock, left next to the single quote from his 3-page tract (so presumably the quote is the same in both refs). So hardly a compelling new reference!! Now what was it you recently added yourself?

Of course you are referring to the highly-irregular "Talk:British Isles/References" page, aren't you? (though you wouldn't want to make that clear when you shout "READ THE REFERENCES", would you?). Only you and Eric R have added a little to that motley list since the time I told you I have indeed studied it. Eric R added a large quote which says this: "It may seem at first bizarre and evasive, but it may be that within a generation or two 'These Islands' will be boldly emblazoned on maps where 'British Isles' once stood.". How does that back-up your enforced "many Irish" - the line I am concerned with? As for your own new ref to that 'ref-page' (added yesterday, for heaven's sake - and you have the rudeness to shout "READ THE REFERENCES"!!) - I have to take your word it includes the exact phrase "many Irish find the term offensive" (ie the exact way you want it, and not just a quote of the Kearney jacket either), as I haven't read the book. Considering your constant exaggeration and gaming (by which I'd simply refer to most of what you write - especially the above), I would like to see the book, to be frank.--Matt Lewis (talk) 18:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah. You would like to see the book. So, you haven't read the references. It's not hard. The ref EricR added discusses how the term "The British Isles" may disappear within a generation. Maybe it will, maybe it won't. Meantime I suggested you READ THE REFERENCES because you asked 'What new ref have you added in "the meantime"?' indicating that you hadn't yet read the additional reference that I said I had recently added to the (perfectly regular) back-up page (the page which you previously said you were perfectly familiar with and which we're waiting for you to critique). I could easily move all the references into the article, but consensus has indicated that this shouldn't be necessary. As for me "gaming", I (a) reject the suggestion and (b) ask you to read the references. This is tiresome. Just read the references. They provide plenty of back up for "many" and - in a curious inversion - the reference discovered most recently is actually verbatim almost identical to the text in the article. I'm done talking to you until you read the references and/or provide some counter references. Otherwise no progress can be made. Wotapalaver (talk) 19:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

"Progress" - you have some gall! Try reading again my comment above - I said not having the book I will have to take your word for it, and I find that difficult to do. You have about 20 times now practically called me a liar regarding reference reading (telling me again and again to read them), so you can hardly take offense over that. The extra ref does not make any difference at all to the phrasing of the introduction, and the issues of bias, forking, ref-list abuse and weight surrounding it (all mainly down to you, and just a couple of other people). I don't have your kind of time at all, as I have said (where the hell do you get it from?). ALL your combined references are simply lacking in the context of your politically-driven weight. There could not possibly be any less amount of references available on any similar subject than those that you (and a dedicated few) have found over the past year or two for this one - it actually always surprises me how few you have, even providing for the widespread and totally unapologetic usage of the word. It is why you have to exaggerate and bully, and spin the context so much. If universal encyclopedias like this one cannot be freed from the likes of you, where would we all be? Totally controlled – ironic maybe (given that you feel such a 'victim'), but true. Wikipedia has to have it's own objective context - IT DOES NOT BELONG TO YOU. As you love repetition with capitals so much you can have some back - Wikipedia DOES NOT BELONG TO YOU. However much of a righteous 'anti-unionist' battle you think you are in. People like me are simply trying to protect Wikipedia (and for the best of reasons), not defending some kind of Modern British Empire. Can't you see that?--Matt Lewis (talk) 20:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

A digitized google books version of Wotapalaver's reference can be found at this link, page xiv. Do not accuse other editors of falsifying quotes without any evidence. If you take issue with the way references are used within this article, please make your case on the reliable sources noticeboard or start an article RfC to gather input from other editors, these continuing unsupported assertions are unproductive.—eric 22:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

What "continuing unsupported assertions"? I object to that: and I am a continuing discussion (though the way this page moves you may not have noticed that - I cannot support all my comments every time, though I take the pains to do it). I'd appreciate you just giving me the ref without taking an ambiguous and generalising swipe! The ref is another by Pocock, and just like the Kearney one (Kearney, who unlike Pocock actively favours using the term "British Isles") does not back up the claim - it is an unsupported bit of prose. At Wikipedia we have to treat it as such, and judge it based on ALL the available counter evidence we can find. I originally looked for evidence to support this claim, and have found endless 'real life' counter-evidence. You cannot directly counter a weaselly word like "Many" but you can ask salient questions: How many quotes like this would you expect? (more than a couple surely?) What evidence is there of reporting of this? Is the second/third stage notability quality? What do people think now? Is there evidence? Does it stand up (evidence like Folens actually suggest "many" Irish are not bothered). Remember that "many" is not put in quotes (and it has been reverted when I tried that): the article has simply appropriated the word as fact! Wikipedia now states "the term British Isles is controversial in relation to Ireland, where many people may find the term offensive or objectionable": OK, the word "may" has been placed as a 'compromise', but it is all too weaselly and leading for an encyclopedia. People simply forget that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. The way the Ref Section scrolls onwards with bold text is a scandalous spinning of a paucity of refs, and we have a "naming dispute" article too: It's all too much weight for the "dispute", and it has been kept that way through stonewalling and edit warring by a very small group of committed people.--Matt Lewis (talk) 23:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Matt Lewis again seems to think that I'm on some political campaign, "anti-unionist" no less. Nope. Just on a reference campaign. I know very well that I don't own Wikipedia and that the only thing Wikipedia should respect is reputable references. If Matt Lewis can find some references to support his feelings then he should get them, otherwise we should believe them as much as we believe (to quote Matt Lewis) that Hitler was a Finnish pole vaulter. There are no references to support Hitler being a Finnish pole vaulter, and no references to support Matt Lewis's beliefs about the term British Isles not being disliked in Ireland. Perhaps both are true, but until we have references they're stuck in an endless loop until Matt Lewis reads the references; and I mean read them, not just sneer at them. Wotapalaver (talk) 07:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Is exaggeration your middle name? I dare to complain that "many" is being used incorrectly in the context of an encyclopedia and you claim that I believe the term in not disliked by people in ireland! Why don't you show some perspective, just for once, and stop playing with the truth? You didn't grasp my Hitler example at all did you? I asked you: If someone somewhere says "Hitler is a Finnish Pole vaulter", must we then find a reference that says "Hitler was not a Finnish Pole vaulter" to disprove it? I used an extreme example to try and make the point. Either you have never bothered to understand me, or you are happy to perpetually exaggerate and play with the truth. You always ask me to counter-ref you, but you have a weaselly word "many" to counter ref! I would need to find "It is not true that "many" Irish find the term objectionable"! Things just don't work like that, and I consider your demand to be wikilawyering and stonewalling: WP guidelines are not behind you, as you claim they are. We have to deal with the refs fairly and objectively, and look for due weight - but you are determined to stop that from happening. According to you: now that you have appropriated (not just "quoted") a ref - it's up to the everyone else to "disprove" it. I find it controlling, and completely anti the encyclopedic philosophy of Wikipedia.--Matt Lewis (talk) 20:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

(reduce indent) What part of providing several reputable sources and then reflecting what they say in the text is "unencyclopedic"? As far as I can see it meets all of the criteria for WP and passes all of the test on the page that says what Wikipedia is not. [5]. If you think that the references are bad then put together an RFC, notify it here and see what admins and people from reputable sources think. Otherwise please stop accusing me of things and accept the facts, even if you don't like them. Wotapalaver (talk) 15:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

To clarify a point, if someone said that Hitler was a pole vaulter, and a reputable source or quote is provided as a reference, and it meets WP guidelines, etc, then an article can state this. If you want to counter it, then the onus is on you to find a reputable source that meets WP guidelines, etc, etc, that says something different or contradicts it. (Even in that case, both points of view would be represented.) Wotapalaver is stating that he has provided references that meet WP criteria. , and can therefore use the content. Disagreeing and personal opinions aside, if this is true, then he appears to be correct, and can use the material in the article. If you find material that counters this, you can use it in the article too. --Bardcom (talk) 16:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

section break

(unindenting)How can you possibly be putting down this source? It is laughable saying that your made up everyday evidence somehow conteracts this. You clearly have not been to Ireland. You have no legitimate source to indicate otherwise. The Folens evidence you are talking about was a kids school's atlas. A teacher complained. Who else was going to complain, an 8 year old kid? This book thatWotapalaver sourced says many Irish find it offensive. You can ignore that, but Wikipedia can't and won't.WikipÉire ^♣ 23:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

the above user now banned as a sock user.--Matt Lewis (talk) 20:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

You guys ain't gonna agree, so why bother pestering each other here. Take your dispute to your personal pages. GoodDay (talk) 20:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

How many more rounds are the two of you, gonna go? Why are you both arguing here (under the Archive posting section)? GoodDay (talk) 15:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

As long as there are editors (any editors) who prefer their own knowledge to reference then I'll keep supporting references. Wotapalaver (talk) 16:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

"spinning certain references" you mean. The word "many" cannot be counter-reffed, as it is too weasely and generalistic: it is not an encyclopedic word: and there is still no evidence of what present-day feeling is in Ireland (there is a very telling lack of it). --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Could I just verify a factual point here. Matt made reference to Kearney's (Hugh Kearney rather than Richard Kearney, I assume??) comments being on the "dust jacket," which he implies may not be written by Kearney. Do we know that Hugh's comments are on the dust jacket and only the dust jacket? I thought it was in the Introduction. Is that not true? Nuclare (talk) 00:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

To answer my own question, here's the Cambridge site on Hugh Kearney's book. It is here The "many in the Irish Republic..." comment is in the Preface. Specifically, the Preface to the Second Edition. Hugh Kearney's name is at the bottom of the preface. These comments are not from a dust jacket and they are being attributed directly to Kearney. Assuming this is the Kearney you are talking about, I don't know what the talk of dismissing the source by referencing 'dust jackets' is for. btw, the second preface is an interesting read, particularly given that the comments on the name "BI" are a second edition addition. Nuclare (talk) 03:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The dust-jacket factor was pointed out on this Talk page (I can't find it to say by who). It is actually extraneous to all my points and not a major argument of mine at all, and I have certainly not used it to 'base' anything on! I simply don't need to. I have always used the dustjacket point with a question mark anyway - this is just a case of someone chasing after a weak point, so I won't use it again. --Matt Lewis (talk) 20:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Similarly, as far as I can see, the comments in the reference EricR found are also an addition to the introduction in the 2003 version of a book originally published in 1973. Wotapalaver (talk) 07:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

That would appear to be rational, yes - but where is the evidence of the increasing public support that this is supposed to show?? We are supposed to look for support for these kinds of generalising words (providing we consider ourselves serious encycolopedia compilers). I cannot, nor ever have, seen the kind of support for "many" that we would need to justify approprating it the way you have (as oppose to just using it - possibly quoting it - fairly). I find it expoloiting the article for political motives - as with the blown-out references, and "dispute" page - it's all exploitation of the "British Isles" article. But behind it all is a just a hollow wind where the daisies should be growing. You are absolutely fixated on your own hard-won and mixed-quality gang of references, and are just ignoring the lack of available evidence for the 'real life' public support (esp the papers - major or not - that feed the public) that we need. This evidence should be very easy to find indeed if we are to appropriate the word "many" in this way - where the hell is it?--Matt Lewis (talk) 20:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it would appear to be rational. As for me seeing "public support", I've seen it. However, my personal experience doesn't count. However, I've also seen the references. They do count. You say you haven't seen "public support". Your personal experience doesn't count. Also, you have seen the references, if you've read them by now. They're from solid, scholarly sources and they say "many" and "often". Wotapalaver (talk) 07:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

In other words you have no references that directly shows public support. I did not allude to my personal experience, so don't misrepresent me: it simply makes no difference what either of us have seen in our lives - you have no single reference that directly shows public support. --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

There are several references that do exactly that. Wotapalaver (talk) 15:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Direct public support? You don't have one. An academic saying "many Irish object to it" (without needing to have any refs of his own) is not the same as evidence of newspapers and the media referring to real people objecting to it today. Where are the rallies? The groups? The reports? The complaints? (apart from the Folens one, that states there is - in fact - an absence of complaints). Why are we seeing the same few Wikipedians argue the dissent? You are over-blowing it for your own political reasons and I don't like it. I'm entitled to ask for real-world weight for a weasel word like "many". And I don't like articles 'appropriating' words that I cannot find enough evidence to give that kind of weight to. --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

(reduce indent)Bring it to an RFC or stop harping on about it. Wotapalaver (talk) 21:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Is there anybody out there, willing to do a door-to-door head count across the island of Ireland, to determine how many dislike the term British Isles? GoodDay (talk) 21:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Leave it at 4-weeks. GoodDay (talk) 13:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, 4 weeks it is. Waggers (talk) 13:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Roger, over & out. GoodDay (talk) 13:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Fixed the archives

The Autoarchive User:Miszabot was told to archive using a poor choice of parameters which resulted in 1 thread per archive page. I've merged pages 14-32 into 13-16 and also turn on an indexer. I hope this is better for everyone -- KelleyCook (talk) 02:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that KelleyCook. I notice you've also just reduced the archiving time from 4 weeks to 3 despite the consensus in the above thread (before it was hijacked by the usual suspects). Personally I agree with shortening the time, but we should really get consensus here before making such a change. I won't change it back right now, but thought I should raise the issue here for discussion. (Let's hope it can remain on topic this time) Waggers (talk) 08:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

4 weeks. Wotapalaver (talk) 11:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

 Done [6] Waggers (talk) 11:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The Politics of the "British Isles" in 2008

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Somebody above says, 'Historically, the term was geopolitical. Current consensus is that it is solely a geographical term.' There is a school of history today in 2008 termed "New British" which contends that Ireland is part of what they term the "British Isles". The chief proponent of this school is a British historian called Steven Ellis. His specialisation is English administrative structure in late medieval Ireland. From this standpoint he has come to the conclusion that Ireland has been, as the English sources claim, a legitimate part of England's domains. He especially equates Ireland with his native northern England, claiming that Ireland was a border region of the English state from the late medieval period. For Ellis, the Gaels and Normans were simply variations in what he considers a diverse state. His thesis is that Ireland is a "British" region; his latest book 'The Making of the British Isles' contends that it is only the Irish education system from 1922 that started introducing a concept of Irishness uniting Gaels and Normans and that Ireland is, essentially, an integral part of Britain that has been undermined by what he terms Irish nationalism. The "British Isles" for him is explicitly a political entity breached by Irish rebellion against the English crown, the entity he promotes as the legitimate ruler of Ireland. Rather than varieties of Irishness in Ireland, Ellis speaks of varieties of Englishness in Ireland. This goes far beyond what even doyens of revisionism like Roy Foster contend. To Ellis, Irish independence from 1922 is the abberation, and English rule the impartial norm. Instructively in understanding his views, he travelled to Queen's University in Belfast to do his PhD, and has consistently linked his views on the past with his sympathies with unionism- most infamously in a History Ireland article in 1998 where he contended that the Good Friday Agreement of that year was simply an acknowledgement of British right to rule in Ireland. One of his articles complaining about Britishness being left out can be read here: http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.cgi?path=30886960844883 and another arguing for making Ireland British here: http://www.stm.unipi.it/Clioh/tabs/libri/7/02-Ellis_21-32.pdf This is despite the fact that the British in sixteenth-century Ireland were foreigners to not only all the people in Ireland but to the English Tudor state. There is not a scintilla of evidence to say otherwise. As with much of Ellis's work, these issues are not addressed, and he has been in more spats than you could shake a stick to, most famously with Kenneth Nicholls in 1998. Nevertheless, Ellis's views are very much part of a British nationalist view of Ireland's position. They, therefore, cannot be dismissed as being simply in the past. In short, people are very wrong to argue that the term "British Isles" is not viewed in political- indeed, imperialist- terms by its proponents in 2008. The term is immensely political to them. Ellis should be read by everybody in this argument, if only to clarify the historical and political perspective motivating the remaining proponents of the term "British Isles" in academia today. 86.42.111.160 (talk) 12:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC) and the point is? Ellis is in the same category as Holocaust deniers, he exists but any support is marginal and I'm not sure that a British Nationalist perspective exists as a coherent position. This article while geographical needs to acknowledge the historical political use and current sensitivity just as an article on the Falklands would have to reflect the politics of naming and ownership but could still be about geography. --Snowded (talk) 12:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC) The point is that there remains a strong ideological perspective perceiving Ireland to be, politically, part of a greater union with Britain. That union, its proponents believe, is the "British Isles"- as the title of Ellis's book "The making of the British Isles" makes very, very clear. (Obviously, a geographical entity cannot be made by politicians or anybody else). In this modernday context, it is disingenuous for people to say "British Isles" is simply a geographical term. There are very many people who are clearly perceiving Ireland's position in traditional "British Isles" political perspectives, and this book, (published in 2007) is the most recent in this (albeit decreasing) tradition. The utilisation of the concept of 'making' the "British Isles" is especially significant and is an explicit rebuff to contentions that "British Isles" is a geographical term. 86.42.111.160 (talk) 13:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC) Its years since I came across anyone in Britain with any aspiration for Ireland to be part of a union with Britain. The odd nutter maybe, but its in no political manifesto, there is no evidence of poplar support, no significant movements or lobby groups. OK so one book makes some outrageous claims. What other evidence is there? Looks like conspiracy theory to me. Have you any evidence for the "very many people" statement? One book does not a theory make and you are also not addressing my point. I think it is vital for the article to acknowledge the past geopolitical use of the name and current sensitivities, but that acknowledgement is enough, then it can be georgraphy --Snowded (talk) 13:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC) Ah yes, Ellis. Many people don't share the ...intensity... of his conclusions. Nevertheless, there's two points to keep in mind. First off, he's a historian, and he's reflecting on the past and trying to draw insights from this. He is an academic in a minority. Furthermore, as you've point out already, he acknowledges that modern Ireland today is not a part of the British Isles thanks to the (nefarious) Irish nationalist educational system (although he concludes that it should be. But shudda/wudda/cudda..). Second, wikipedia is about consensus, and the consensus here is that the term "British Isles" today refers to a geographic region, and not a geo-political region, or British ownership. His opinion is noted, and can help to develop consensus, as can all the other sources of information available. --Bardcom (talk) 13:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC) Yup - views about as mainstream as David Irving. In other words, not to be taken seriously. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 13:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC) There's something familiar looking about that IP 86.42.xxx. GoodDay (talk) 14:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC) "m User talk:86.42.90.145‎; 22:26 . . (+3,104) . . Akendall (Talk | contribs) (Reverted 1 edit by 86.42.111.160 identified as vandalism to last revision by John. (TW)) " BastunBaStun not BaTsun 15:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC) 86.42.111.160 above has recently cleared 86.42.90.145's talk page from warnings. I think it's a "dynamic" IP.--Matt Lewis (talk) 21:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC) Not another sock puppet - will this never end? --Snowded (talk) 21:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC) In my judgment, no. Sarah777 (talk) 21:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC) Well lets hope not. ~But its not a good record, one clear act of vandalism in March, deleting the banning record of another similar IP and now yet another stream of dubious sources quoted ad nauseam. Its a pattern but for the moment will assume good faith, although such assumption does not require tolerance! --Snowded (talk) 22:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC) Unfortunately it's an Eircom dynamic IP, so blocking is pointless, and rangeblocks would affect many Irish users. Black Kite 22:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC) (reduce indent) Steven Ellis is at University College Galway since 1976 and lectures in English and Irish. I don't see how that makes him easy to categorize as a mad Unionist or "about as mainstream as David Irving" or "in the same category as Holocaust deniers". Are these descriptions based on something that can be shared with the rest of us, or are they just random insults (and possibly libelous) because he's saying awkward things? Wotapalaver (talk) 11:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC) He is very welcome to say what he wants within the limits of the law and others are entitled to disagree with him. The point is that his position is isolated and does not constitute evidence of any British conspiracy to take control of Ireland. Finding one person to say something (the evidence) is equivalent to saying that David Irving is mainstream. It does not mean that Steven Ellis has the same politics as Irving, the comparison is to the nature of the evidence not the person. --Snowded (talk) 11:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC) That's fine, but who says he's not mainstream, or that he's like Irving in terms of the "non mainstreamness" of his views? The views of Snowded and Bastun don't count! Wotapalaver (talk) 13:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC) Using that logic (what? logic?), neither does yours. I actually like/agree with a lot of Ellis's research - I just don't accept his (deliberately) controversial findings. It's pretty easy for any historian to paint any picture they want by ignoring aspects that don't fit and they don't like, and Ellis is as guilty of this as the Irish educational system is as guilty for teaching a completely anti-British view. It's easy to knock Ellis based on the fact that he is British, and it's easy to state that this view could never have been reached by an Irish person. But that fails to acknowledge the massive influence that the British had on Ireland, and Ellis is very good and pointing this out. It reminds me of the Monty Python sketch "What did the Romans ever do for us"!?. Today, most historians are less polarized and take the view that some parts of Ireland were more influenced than others (i.e. the Pale), but that for the most part, Irish culture remained distinguishably and separately Irish, and not British (and many Scots would say the same ....confused?). It's probably true to say that in the last 20 years, Ireland has become more homogenized and less distinct (approaching apathy sometimes) that at any other time in it's past (reasons: Wealth, massive immigration, TV - 57 channels and nothing on, end of struggles, righteousness (tribunals), recognition on a world stage, Jack's army, Riverdance, loadsajobs => confidence). ah .. I'm off topic... --Bardcom (talk) 14:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC) No, my opinion doesn't count much either. That's why I try to stick to reference or not put forward too many opinions about content. My question is simply "who says he's controversial?" Wotapalaver (talk) 14:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC) So try an find some evidence that his view has any other support. Finding one reference to support such a controversial opinion (and please don't dissemble about this, its controversial) from a maverick does not a conspiracy make. --Snowded (talk) 19:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC) Maverick? Please retract your libellous comment immediately. --Bardcom (talk) 21:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC) (reduce indent) I didn't bring him up. 86.xx.whatever brought him up. He was immediately attacked as a Holocaust denier and Irving-like by you, not by me. I'm not talking about any controversy, I've asked who describes him as controversial! All I know is that he lectures at UCG (that hotbed of radical holocaust denying historians??) and that he apparently describes "British Isles" as a political term. Others do too. Wotapalaver (talk) 20:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC) I disagree. He describes the term in a historical context, and argues that Ireland should really be a British nation based on shared cultural experiences, etc. My understanding is that he does not argue that the term British Isles is a policitical term in modern usage. --Bardcom (talk) 21:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC) I don't know. 86.xx.whatever brought him up, saying that he described the "British Isles" as a political construct or term (or something similar) then everyone jumped on him as a holocaust denier and Irving alike. All I've asked is who describes him as controversial. Bloody heck, can't people answer a straight question without assuming there's some wierd motivation behind it? There isn't. Wotapalaver (talk) 21:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC) No need to jump on me either! I disagreed with your assertion that he apparently describes BI as a political term as a point of clarification. I'm not calling anyone any names. --Bardcom (talk) 21:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC) And I said "apparently" because I was reflecting what 86.xx.xx said, not what I independently read or know. Now, who says that Ellis is controversial? Wotapalaver (talk) 22:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC) One swallow does not a summer make. Lots of people make controversial statements, some for publicity purposes, others political, others because they really believe it and that category can include professional historians. However to make a controversial claim that there is some British intent to subsume Ireland on the basis of one such claim is arrant nonsense. You need to produce far more evidence than that to be taken seriously. Not only that, in the context of this debate the article clearly states that the term is now geographical but has historically been political. That seems to me enough --Snowded (talk) 00:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC) Swallows and summers are proverbs, not references. Again, no idea if Ellis makes a claim that there is "some British intent to subsume Ireland" or not. IIRC some of the texts referenced on the reference page mention how "British Isles" was a political half-way-house to calling the whole archipelago "Britain". Meantime, the question is simply who (a suitable reference please) calls him controversial, like a Holocaust denyer (sp?), Irving like, etc. Then we can discuss whether 86.xx.whatever's points are worth pursuing. Wotapalaver (talk) 00:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC) (reduce) Canny, in this document [7] is interesting. (See page 738 in particular). He sees the "New British History" as something new and different and says about it; "This desire to assume, if not prove, similarity, at least for the early modern period, has brought its practitioners to attribute an integrity to Britain and Ireland as a historical and political unit that exceeded the reality." Does Ellis fit in this "New British History" movement (if that's not a pejorative word)? Wotapalaver (talk) 01:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC) New British History, is as far as I am aware a theory which asserts in part that welsh and irish identity is in part a result of Britain and whole bunch more beside. None of it relates to a current view that Ireland should be a part of Britain, or that the British Isles is in any meaningful way a current political term. You can read Ellis as proof of this - he is railing against the orthodoxy which sees them as separate so if you want we can cite Ellis against the point being made by 86.xx (assuming same is not yet another sock puppet infesting these and related articles). The current wording makes the historical position clear and states that the article relates to the geographical term. That is enough. --Snowded (talk) 01:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC) Wow. An artful flamebait by 86.x there. We should probably delete this section, any objections?—eric 03:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC) please do and I must stop feeding trolls --Snowded (talk) 06:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC) Please don't. Can someone please explain to me why Ellis should be likened to a Holocaust denyer? If 86.xx.xx is trolling or flamebaiting then surely the bait (Ellis) would be fishy. Snowded says it is, as does Bastun. All I've asked is for some explanation. So far we have none. Wotapalaver (talk) 09:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC) I am trying not to, however no one is saying that Ellis is a holocaust denier. What we are saying is that many people take an extreme position (like holocaust denial) but it does not mean that they have to be taken seriously in respect of that position. As one person said Ellis has done some good work in history, but some of his conclusions seem provocative. Now all of that was said several times above and I am repeating myself here which I am happy to do once. --Snowded (talk) 09:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC) Per Snowded. Its not difficult. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 09:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)