Talk:British Isles/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

→

Archive 25

Editing wars will continue unless...

It is interesting to see how editting wars break out over this article periodically…it’s been the same for several years now! It’s always down to one of two things – an Irish contributor goes too far in making the article anti-British, or a British/Northern Irish contributor tries to eliminate mention of Irish dislike for the ‘BI’ term. The article needs to be balanced and include, at appropriate length, everything that is interesting and important about the word/term covered. Important aspects need to be included in the article introduction - that often being all that people read.

I am Irish myself and can attest that for a collective description of these islands, ‘Britain and Ireland’ or ‘Ireland and UK’ is used here in Ireland. ‘BI’ is avoided in both common use and officially by our Government (that's undeniably on the record). The adjective ‘British’ implies ownership by, dependence on or allegiance to the British system - this is why the term ‘BI’ is, obviously, unacceptable to us. The deeply controversial nature of this term has to be recognised by everyone here (how can there not be agreement on this?!) and be properly mentioned in the article introduction. Kind regards, Pconlon 19:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit wars also break out when a single Irish editor presumes to speak for everyone in Ireland (and of course likewise for British editors) ;-) The controversy has indeed been in the lead section (first or second paragraph) for several years now. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 18:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

A single person can fairly represent the views of many - in this case, if the other Irish contributor holds up strong and general Irish dislike for the 'BI' term, he/she is right. Some contributors incidentally argue strongly that the 'BI' term is 'purely geographic' in nature, but where does their passion to maintain this position come from? A deeply ingrained and single-minded love of pure geography?! Anyway, the mention made of the controversy in earlier article editions was quite fair in my opinion. Kind regards, Pconlon 19:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can see the current version acknowledges that the term is historical, offensive and can only be used now in a purely geographical sense. There is no evidence of any substance that there is any linguistic conspiracy to use the BI term to reincorporate Ireland into the former Empire. Is there a concrete proposal to change, or have we got something which can be a compromise? --Snowded (talk) 19:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Bastun, what is your view of the current wording of the lead? Nuclare (talk) 21:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

My view is that the current (protected) version is reasonable enough, except for the two non-translations from Irish and the weasally "Although still in use", which should be removed. I'd also like to remove "many", per Ben below. "Some" certainly object, strenuosly - and I think most of them are on WP! -, "many" might object if there were ever a poll taken (but until then, its just conjecture), and "most" never think about it! Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 00:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

So, is your suggestion to replace "many" with "some"? I doubt all the objections are of the 'strenuous' variety. So if you add the 'some' strenuous objectors to the 'some' not so strenuous objectors, could not 'some' + 'some' = "many" :-) ;-) In any event...given that we can't quantify it in precise terms, to me, 'some' seems even more weaselly than 'many.' "Many," at least comes from a source and is implied by the other sources. Do you really believe that most of the objectors are at WP? Or is that humour? But if it is just "some" or if 'some' is all we can say, than why put it in the lead at all? Do you genuinely believe it belongs in the lead or is that just an appeasement on your part? If 'many' has to go (which I'm not convinced it does), I'd think leaving out all such words and just saying something like "where there are objections to the term" would be preferable to mucky "some." I get the feeling we are worrying too much about 'many' and perhaps would be better served focusing more on the adjectives being used to describe what "many" Irish feel on the matter -- 'objectionable' and "offensive" are kind of heavy, emotive terms. Perhaps there's a more tempered way to describe Irish feelings that could rise to a level we can agree is "many." Nuclare (talk) 04:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me - can you give one example of where a so-called 'British' editor has tried "to eliminate mention of Irish dislike for the ‘BI’ term"? It is not impossible, of course - but where has it been done? I’ve followed this debate a while - and that it simply a sky-high exaggeration. You have done nothing but rehash all the clichés here! And as for you speaking of knowing what terms the Irish "avoid using" - are you Mystic Meg?

I don't know if anyone has directly deleted all mention of Irish dislike of the term or directly stated that it should be, but there certainly has been eye-rolling, general dismissiveness of the issue. And there have been accusations of the issue being soley a Wiki editor invention, which, if true, would mean that it should be eliminated from mention in the article. Nuclare (talk) 04:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

You ask "How can there not be agreement on British Isles...being "deeply controversial" and "obviously unacceptable"? I use the standard Wikipedia method of looking for weight. I've seen a few (varied) academics referring to "many" - but they give no refs themselves, and I have seen no real-terms proof given. Why is British Isles so widely used if it is so disliked? Where is the dissent? Real-life examples are what the encyclopedia-compiler inside of me needs to see: I simply expect them to back-up the massive weight the issue of dissent' is given on Wikipedia. I can't see them - where are they? Terms like BI are never "legal" terms in an inter-governmental sense - so more is needed than that. Its all about keeping things fair and honest on Wikipedia - and not allowing it to be abused by those with a bias. The weight is already overblown and much of the "warring" starts when certain editors move to protect the exaggerations that through their perseverance they have previously bullied through. "Many" is weaselly - "many may" is just double-weaselly!--Matt Lewis (talk) 19:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Matt, with respect I think this is provocative and it will get almost certainly get flamed. --Snowded (talk) 19:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

No Matt is right. I've asked several times for the "many" to be supported and verified, but it never is other than quotes of others using the word "many". There have been no polls in Britain or Ireland on the levels of like or dislike of the term. While Google is not necessarily a source of all that is right and true, simple searches show the extent of the term. It is often argued that "Britain and Ireland" is often used instead of BI, but many hits for that just aren't the same as BI and often refer to the two governments. On one side there is the argument that if it isn't used in Ireland, then why are there minutes and reports of the senate using the term, why is it used in Ireland on occasion to support the size of the Shannon? Why does the Ireland tourist site use the term? Then there is the argument that to object to the inclusion of Ireland in the term is incorrect, and those who claim Ireland is no longer part of the British Isles which by explanation shows that then it is accepted that it once was. There is mass inconsistency and no clear cut arguments against the term, most falling back on a government statement that it isn't used (though you can't prove a negative, especially when it is used), or the fact a couple of publishers removed it from a map. The removal from the Atlas argument especially is quite telling, as it shows that it was used until they decided to remove it, not that it was an error.

Ultimately it comes down to the core tenant of Wikipedia, verifiability. It simply cannot be verified that "many" or "most" people in Ireland don't use the term or object to its usage. It is verifiable that it is in use around the world, including Ireland. It is verifiable that it is used in other languages around the world, not just English. It is verifiable that some object, but no verification on whether it's more than just a vocal few. Canterbury Tail talk 19:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Ben, or Canterbury. The "many" is supported rather extensively by reputable references. Wotapalaver (talk) 10:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Not really. People are quoted saying "many", yes - but there's nothing on where they're getting that from. Until we do, it's just opinion. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 11:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, really. It's from a reputable source of the highest quality. Even if we take this idea that it's only opinion, which is speculation, the opinion of someone published by publishers of this grade counts. Your and mine doesn't. Wotapalaver (talk) 11:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to answer some of your questions and address some of your points.

• The policy WP:V states All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.. The word many has been quoted from just such a source. Trying to ignore this fact by challenging the academic's methodologies or credentials is beyond the scope of this policy - for example asking if there have been any polls is a moot point. Either the source is credible and the quote verifiable, or it isn't.
• There is often a difference between government policies and individual incidents. So, while the British government insists that it was correct to go to war in Iraq, I can find lots of official government records where ministers and officials condemn the decision. To the same extent, the incidents where editors have turned up the term "British Isles" in government documents are actually either made through ignorance or because the utterences were made by people having a Hiberno-British background. It also doesn't alter the fact that official governemt policy (with reference provided) states otherwise. It also meets WP:V.
• The size of the Shannon is a good example of where consensus on the term exists - as a geographic term. Therefore reporting the size of the Shannon in relation to the British Isles is accepted through a tested consensus. Equally, Ben Nevis is the tallest mountain, Lough Neagh is the largest lake, etc.
• The Ireland tourist site is just that - one for both North and South. See the preceding point on it's use as a geographic term.
• There is no mass inconsistency - in fact it is very clear. It is a geographic term. It's use as a geo-political term is viewed as historic. Sometimes you will find the term used as it would have been historically - and this is objectionable.
• Finally, the overriding tenet is not verifiability, or even truth - it's consensus! The policies exist to enable a consensus to form, so while they are important, please keep in mind that the real goal is consensus. --Bardcom (talk) 11:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Most of what you say here makes good sense, but I think the answer to the use of statements like "Shannon is longest river in BI" within Ireland doesn't lie in consensus, so much as it is explained by the same factor which leads this article to say "many" rather than "all" or even "most." My sense of Ireland is that there is no consensus on its use as either geographical or geo-political (although pressumably geo-political would be seen as MORE problematic and by more people), but it is not all one or the other. Do you really feel there is consensus in Ireland (which is what Ben is referring to) about using BI geographically? Nuclare (talk) 12:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Good question! The consensus I refer to is the consensus on Wikipedia, not in Ireland. Within Ireland, I doubt very much if the term would find favour used in any sense, political or geo-political. For most people, it doesn't matter if there existed a correct context or not - the term itself implies "ownership", and this is what people object to. So to answer your question, I would say that the consensus in Ireland is that the term should not be used for any reason. But that is different to Wikipedia where the consensus is that it is a valid geographic term. --Bardcom (talk) 12:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

And as a small follow on. It is sometimes also used on Wikipedia in an avoidable manner, and this can cause friction. For example, look at the article on Hampshire where the term is used to describe climate. Ignoring other issues, is this a valid use of the term? By current consensus, yes. Now take a look at the article England National Football Team. Is this a valid use of the term? Now we're on more difficult ground. Why is the term used in this context, etc, etc. Put simply, the context of it's use in this article is to denote ownership (British Isles meaning the local British territories) - and this is an example of objectionable use. --Bardcom (talk) 12:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I'm still not quite grasping all of what you mean, but I don't think there is such a consensus, even at Wiki--not in relation to things/places on Ireland. Neither the Shannon page nor Lough Neagh have 'BI' on them, nor would it be likely to last there. Nuclare (talk) 15:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Matt is almost certainly right on the facts. So lets keep the discussion at that level. --Snowded (talk) 19:48, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Are polls the only acceptable form of verification for claims that it is not a 'vocal few'? I feel the need to keep saying this around here, lest I get unjustifiably flamed -- I mean this as a genuine question to someone more versed in Wiki ways. Are polls, rather than academic claims or other kinds of published references/inferences, always needed to support a claim such as 'many Irish' or 'many [anybody],' for that matter. Nuclare (talk) 04:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think a poll would make sense. Overall I think this is a very simple issue. There are citations for "many" and the historical legacy of the inclusion of Ireland within Britain cannot be denied. Its part of a more general issue, I resent being described as English overseas, and the way that many people use the words England and Britain interchangeably is offensive. There is a political legacy from the British Empire, and preceding that the English Empire (Wales and Ireland were conquered, Scotland chose to join). An article which does not acknowledge that is going to be subject to constant edit wars which will sap energy and take people away from the real content of the article. I would strongly recommend not trying to change many, or change the descriptors. I suggest a simple section here to see if the current wording is acceptable. If it is then I suggest we all move on. --Snowded (talk) 04:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

At least three people here clearly don't accept the "many" part of it. But I wasn't advocating a poll here of Wiki editors (if I'm understanding you correctly). Ben seems to be implying that absent a (pressumably published, professional) poll of the Irish people, no quantifying claims of Irish opinion beyond "some" can be made--regardless of how many academic texts we find that use or imply "many". I was just asking if verifiable always requires polls for that sort of claim. Nuclare (talk) 05:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Live with many. It has got some citations and some support and avoids edit wars. --Snowded (talk) 05:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Neutral on that. But please get rid of the cod-Irish "translations". We don't use dictionaries as sources here, and having three purported Irish names is undue weight. --John (talk) 05:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

(reduce) "Many", "objectionable", "offensive", have sources. The translations have sources. (and I suggest editors should read the guidelines on reputable sources before calling for "better" sources) Also, from reading up on the dictionaries a little I suggest John should review the status of Dineen before calling it "cod-Irish". The intro now is accurate, sourced well, in non-emotive language. The word that's potentially not 100% sourced is "may". Wotapalaver (talk) 10:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

As Ben says, the sources for "many" are merely quotes saying many object... with no definition of who these "many" are or where the information is coming from. I agree with Nuclare that the best solution would be to try to not quantify the level of objection - I'm pretty sure we did have a form of words like that some time ago (sorry, no time to check right now).

Re the Irish "translations" - two of them simply aren't; they're alternative terms: Western European Isles, and Britain and Ireland. Alternative terms for BI are properly dealt with in the Terminology of the British Isles article, not in this one. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 10:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, will wars ever end? Looking again at these troubles which I'd hoped had reached a peaceful resolution, the phrase "Although still in use" is ambiguous and problematic. It would be best deleted, but could be clarified as "Although in widespread use in many countries and still in occasional use in the Republic of Ireland, 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." My feeling is that the phrase at present is unnecessary and misleading, and should not appear in the lead. . . dave souza, talk 11:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I doubt you will get peace with proposals like that. "Widespread" and "in the Republic of Ireland" are dubious and unsupported. "in use" is indisputable, "widespread" is ambiguous and problematic. I suggest "Although still in use, 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" --Snowded (talk) 11:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, in fairness, not quantifying wasn't my suggestion for the best solution. That was my "it's better than 'some'!" suggestion, although depending on the wording I might be okay with it. It seems sort of wimpy, though. It's as if we half trust the sources: we trust them enough to put this comment in the lead, but not enough to use their 'many' or implied 'many.' I don't know enough about Irish to have a firm opinion on the translations. I understand the objections to having 3 for Irish; on face, it does seem excessive. But it's been said here many times that this is the article for the islands themselves and not about the phrase BI, in which case, the best version for the islands themselves, not necessarily the most literal translation of the phrase BI might be the best??? Which (if not all or maybe none) fits that, I've no idea. Nuclare (talk) 11:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

My issue with the translations is that all of them are from apparently serious and reputable dictionaries. Unless we have a source that tells us which is the most common it's pure speculation that the version which is a literal translation of "British Isles" is the most common or correct. As said before, the English Channel is called "La Manche" in French so literal translations may not be the "real" name in another language. So far no-one is producing anything to indicate which translation is most common or correct in Irish. Until then there's no basis to pick which one to remove, even if there was a good reason. There has been one editor saying that they "knew" which was most common, and then other people who don't necessarily speak Irish insisting that only the one which looks most like a literal translation should be used. Sorry, but personal opinions of non-Irish speakers cannot be taken seriously and even the personal knowledge of a single Irish speaker doesn't count much either. Also, it's actually interesting that there are several different translations, isn't it? Why censor two of the three? Wotapalaver (talk) 11:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions

The word "many" has just been 'appropriated' - it is not even used in quotes. I originally tried different wording (always straight-reverted), then tried this compromise in the section above and elsewhere too. Another problem is that the next line on the Irish gov is an exaggeration - we should use a quote here too. This is how the controversial line stands:

Although still in use, 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]

Even "Although still in use" sounds "weaselly" to me - it's just all careful bias in my opinion. The term "British Isles" is manifestly still in use, and the Irish gov is more complex than we portray: they do not discourage the Irish people at all. It's partly inter-gov "legal" term usage, partly a 1948 document, and partly a statement from an Embassy spokesman. A suggestion could be:

1.Although commonly used worldwide, the term British Isles has been controversial in relation to Ireland, where many people 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]

I don't mind the word "many" used without quotes when describing the objections over time - but we simply don't have the evidence to explicitly say that "many people" object now'. The fundamental disagreement between me and Wotapalaver (our views of what Wikipedia is there for aside) is that I personally think people are less inclined to kick a fuss right now (ie not the climate) - but he/she feels that more Irish are feeling inclined to object to it now. We need serious evidence for that though - it could be just a personal feeling of some editors. Certainly Wikipedia MUST NOT be used for political gain, and objectivity must be the order of the day. The OTT use of quoted text and bold in the Refs (that hide the paucity of refs) must be looked at too.

Another suggestion:

2.Although commonly used worldwide, the term British Isles has been controversial in relation to Ireland, where the anachronistic nature of the word 'British' has been objected to.[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]

Now we are all on this I think we should get something properly encyclopedic done here. Lets not appropriate weasel words like many: we can always use direct quotes - they are not illegal! Regarding our use of "has been" / "is/do" dislike(d): Saying "has" covers both now and the past. Using "is/do" covers now - but is just too strong (given the available evidence) when placed alongside "many" without quotes. The tense of "...has been objected to" is 'never' used to solely suggest the past: "was" and "in the past" are used for that. The sense simply shows that it is something that we can at-best qualify over time. --Matt Lewis (talk) 12:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Great post Matt, moving things forward. My preference is for your last suggestion. --Snowded (talk) 13:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Here's another try. Just as objectionable as Matt's but shorter.

Although more common historically, the use of term British Isles is declining[1] as the anachronistic nature of the word 'British' is avoided. The term is considered controversial in relation to Ireland [2]. --Bardcom (talk) 13:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• "The word "many" has just been 'appropriated' - it is not even used in quotes." I see what you are saying, but I don't know if its so much appropriating as synthesizing. All of the sources either say or imply 'many' (some imply even more than 'many'), which could be argued makes the term a reasonable summation of the sources.
• "then tried this compromise in the section" And I hope you did read and at least understand that the objections articulated to that version were genuinely meant.

Who are you speaking for though? The first two responses were by a now-banned sock-user. The revert was knee-jerk, and the talk page was moving so fast at the time the compromise generally wasn't regarded at all after the revert - the talk got bogged down in what I see as stanewalling debate. I've slightly changed the "over history" element now, which was criticised. --Matt Lewis (talk) 11:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• "The line on the Irish gov is an exaggeration as well - we should use a quote here too." I agree about using a quote with this, and attributing the comment to a spokesman for the Embassy, which is what it is, is a good idea.
• "Even "Altough still in use" sounds "weaselly" to me - it's just all careful bias in my opinion." I would take that whole wording out altogether. Unless we specially say that the phrase is archaic or out of present use, it seems a statement of the obvious that its in use. Feeling the need to claim 'commonly' used right in front of the comments about Irish objections, just sounds like careful bias of a different variety.
• "The fundamental disagreement between me and Wotapalaver is that I think people are less inclined to kick a fuss right now" But I guess I just don't know quite where you are getting the "has been" stuff from. Is it personal opinion? Because I don't see it in sources. You can debate the sources if you like, but I do at least know where Wotapalaver is getting the present tense idea--its coming from the cited sources. And, in fairness, Wotapalaver hasn't suggested inserting "many Irish are inclined now to kick a fuss." "Kicking a fuss" is beside the point. Quietly rolling one's eyes at BI use or politely suggesting that alternatives be used is also objecting to the term. Sources don't have to be found to support kicking a fuss; that is not what is being claimed.

Wotapalaver's "present tense idea" it NOT covered by the cited sources at all! That is my stongest objection! There is no strong evidence regarding present Irish mood (Folens is ambiguous - and can be used to suggest there is not the climate) - it must be summised from the non-backed up "many" - which gives no tense. Kearney (who wrote it) actually uses "British Isles" term in a modern-day context. Unfortunately compromises are often imperfect when the original issue is so problematic. I'm doing my best. --Matt Lewis (talk) 11:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• "Saying "has" covers both now and the past." Uhhh, sort of. It's rather wimpy on the now, though, no? It makes it *seem* more past. Nuclare (talk) 13:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

It is generous on the "now", not "wimpy"! There is no real evidence of the "now"!

Just to clarify, my suggestion would be on the lines of :

The term British Isles is controversial in relation to Ireland, where many people find 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]

That leaves an ambiguity about usage in NI, but that doesn't need going into detail in the lede. . . dave souza, talk 15:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

That just has too many statements about Ireland, three in all when one is all that is needed. I'd still vote for Matt's number 4 and can live with the one from Bardcom. --Snowded (talk) 15:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, now I'm really confused. :-) Doesn't Matt's last suggestion--the one I thought you were voting for--have the same number of comments about Ireland? Nuclare (talk) 20:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

My fault, I meant Matt's first! Apologies for that --Snowded (talk) 22:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Accepting that point, my preference would be –

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]

"Although still in use" seems to me to poison the well, and is unclear about where it's still in use, aspects which are dealt with in the linked article but are too complex and unnecessary in the lead. . . dave souza, talk 22:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

'The term British Isles is widely accepted but for historical reasons is controversial in relation to Ireland where a proportion of its people find the term offensive or objectionable. The Irish government also discourages its use. Bill Reid | Talk 23:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Why "for historical reasons"? There are perfectly good present reasons for the Irish not to want BI as a name for their island. I'm also not sure why we feel the need to have to say some form of 'it's widely accepted.' Isn't the fact that Wiki is using it as the name of the islands sufficient? Nuclare (talk) 02:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

(reduce indent)I don't know how, or why, people are still pushing the idea that the term "many" is unsupported. It's from highly reputable sources and several other (equally reputable sources) hint at general objection, so "many" is already a reasonable compromise (look in the back-up references for the sources that aren't immediately in the article). Editors don't get to reject sources just because they don't like what they say. I commented already on the "still widely used" piece, which seems a strange phrasing to me. IIRC my original suggestion there was "Although still in widespread use globally", or something like that. As for the Irish govt, the 1947 ref sources recommendation that the term be avoided/not used because it's a misnomer. The recent references say that the govt regards the term as having no legal meaning and the Irish Embassy spokesman in London (embassies represent goverments) said that they discourage use of the term on the basis that it's a misnomer - but that's all a lot to put in the lead so the short version seems sensible. Meantime, none of the references describing the term as politically incorrect, insulting, etc., are being used at all, but they're certainly available. My suggestion would be this; Although still in widespread use around the world, 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] If people want more detail on the government aspect then we could say the Irish government has long described the term as a misnomer and a spokesman for the Irish Embassy in London recently stated that "we would discourage its usage". With a couple of references we might be able to comment on whether usage is decreasing or not, and if so where, but I'm not sure that the references are available. Wotapalaver (talk) 10:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you exaggerating even now? No-one is "still pushing the idea 'many' is usupported" - nobody ever did! The argument it that we have to consider it and use properly per weight and verifiability - see Canterbury Tail in the section above, and myself made countless times now - you MUST address the arguments surrounding that. To ignore it time after time is just stonewalling. Simply finding a quote does not mean an article can simply appropriate it. The burden is not then to find the 'counter-quote' you demand - which would mean finding "many Irish do not find the word objectionable" - and those kind of quotes cannot be found (especially-so considering the simple lack of "many" actually in use - why would people counter-quote what isn't common use?). --Matt Lewis (talk) 11:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Why not just take Matt's number one which says the same thing more elegantly, or Bardcoms's alternative? --Snowded (talk) 10:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

After thinking about it I came back here to support dave souza's suggestion. My concern about the whole "still in use" piece is that it hints at a decline in use that is - AFAIK - not supported by reference for anywhere except Ireland. My suggestion around "widely" or "generally" was meant to address that, but dave souza's suggestion may do it better. I'm unaware of sources to support declining use, so Bardcom's suggestion doesn't seem supported. I believe Matt's "number one", is the existing text, which is generally fine except for the "still in use" subtlety. Wotapalaver (talk) 10:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I've numbered my suggestions to clarify this. --Matt Lewis (talk) 11:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I can live with Dave Souzas --Snowded (talk) 11:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Ditto, dave souza's is good. On Matt's point above. "Many" is in reputable sources. The way it's used now is (accidentally) almost verbatim identical to a Cambridge published source which got positive review in the journal Foreign Affairs. There, I've addressed it. On the renumbering, neither Bardcom's suggestion nor Matt's number 1 are acceptable. Barcom's because it's unsupported and Matt's because its use of tenses is misleading and unsupported. Wotapalaver (talk) 11:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

You constant stonewalling argument of "reputable sources" is meaningless! Almost all sources are "reputable"! It is not an argument! I am still unsure whether you actually understand that or not - and whether you are allowing me to write thousands of words now without reading them. Your ignoring of the Talk process - specifically the weight and verifiability issues - is torturous. You cannot keep bleating "reputable sources"! It makes a mockery of Wikipedia.--Matt Lewis (talk) 11:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Not all sources are reputable. Cambridge, Oxford, Routledge, etc., are HIGHLY reputable, and they're what the text reflects. Wotapalaver (talk) 12:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record I think you are wrong about Matt and Barcoms versions, but if Souza's is an acceptable compromise to all for whatever reasons I suggest we go with it --Snowded (talk) 11:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Show me the sources to support Bardcom's version and I'm happy to agree to it. Matt Lewis is so desperate to argue with the sources that he's now proposing odd tense structures. Next we'll have suggestions straight from the HHGTTG book on grammar for time travellers. Wotapalaver (talk) 11:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Not a helpful comment when a solution may be close, calm down, stop attributing bad faith. --Snowded (talk) 11:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

We MUST NOT appropriate the word "many" in this way (which Souza's suggestion still does). It makes a mockery of Wikipedia. --Matt Lewis (talk) 11:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that's a bit extreme Matt. --Snowded (talk) 11:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Snowded, but in the interest of finding a resolution, how's this:

The term British Isles is controversial in relation to Ireland, where it is reported that many people find 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] Waggers (talk) 11:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

(reduce indent) The structure "it is reported" is a textbook example of weasel words. Wotapalaver (talk) 11:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any interest on resolving this at all? "Many may" are weasel words! It is simply less weaselly than what we already have: at least it clarifies that "many" is not a "set in stone" present-tense fact - as you have been revert-forcing without the required weight and verified refs.--Matt Lewis (talk) 11:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Remove "may". I put it in as a softener and yes - it's possibly slightly weaselly. I thought it would help reach an end to this. However, "may" is not in the sources. Simply saying "many" will make the text most accurately reflect highly reputable sources. Wotapalaver (talk) 11:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

"highly reputable sources" again? I think I'm happy calling you a fully-fledged troll now. --Matt Lewis (talk) 12:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with you there (weasel words). Its a statement of what can be proved that might allow us to move forward. However this is becoming a nonsense with no signs of any movement from the competing parties which is depressing really. We are not going to get agreement on "many" so instead of asserting the position again and again how about trying to work up a definition that achieves a similar result in a less controversial way? Not being willing to move something forward is as bad if not worse than weasel words and I begin to question your good faith in this --Snowded (talk) 12:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

QUESTION: Which is more accurate;

• "Many sources say that many people find it objectionable"
• "Some sources say that many people find it objectionable"
• "A few sources have eventually been found on the controversial online encyclopedia Wikipedia, saying many people find it objectionable, but clear verifiable evidence has proved hard to find on how the Irish feel about the term today"

There are simply too few sources to appropriate the word, and countless examples of it widespread use, even in Ireland. Weight and verifiability. --Matt Lewis (talk) 12:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

@ Snowded, If you wish to question my good faith, please illustrate somewhere that I've said something on WP that wasn't backed up by sources. I've supported dave souza's suggestion, as have you. Meantime, verifiability is what I go by on WP. The fact that Matt Lewis won't stop attacking reputable sources isn't my fault. I've previously suggested that he start an RFC on this, since he refuses to believe the sources. He hasn't. He's often said, over MANY weeks, that he would write a critique of the sources. He hasn't and I don't believe he ever will. He simply keeps hammering away at the sources, which are from eminent scholars and published by highly reputable (mostly British) publishers. As for "is is reported", it's 100% classic weasel words and doesn't belong in a lead. I'm surprised an admin like Waggers would even suggest it. @ Matt Lewis, reputable sources say that many people find it objectionable. There aren't any kind of sources saying anything else. Many people finding it objectionable and widespread use are not necessarily contradictory. Wotapalaver (talk) 12:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I am questioning your good faith because you seem completely unwilling to move towards a compromise, you just keep hammering away at the same point --Snowded (talk) 12:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC).

There is no defining number to the word many. If the sources say many I see no reason not to use it, if it said a few would people be happier? If someone does not agree that there are many then they should find a source to back their opinion up. I thought that was what wiki was about! Jack forbes (talk) 12:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

What the hell? This is why I've tried to stay in touch with Wotapalaver single-minded political drive over the weeks - but it is just ridiculous now. Jack - you must go back and read through the debate. This is torturous! Is this really what Wikipedia is all about?????????? Then the media is 100% right - Wikipedia is mindless bullshit. --Matt Lewis (talk) 12:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The term British Isles, is considered offensive in Ireland. Try that solution, there' no mention of many, some, few etc; just a general reading, that's all. GoodDay (talk) 12:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

"Is" on its own is more definitive and powerful than "many". --Matt Lewis (talk) 14:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

@Snowded, is it good faith to insist on verifiability? I don't think so. @Jack Forbes, I agree. Unfortunately, many don't. @GoodDay, I don't think the sources support your suggested text, which seems to me to imply that the term is always considered offensive. Wotapalaver (talk) 12:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

And Jack Forbes (another itinerant nationalist) agrees. Great. Does anyone care about Wikipedia here, or just their own bloody nationalism? Don't give me 'AGF' - I'm tired of seeing this again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again. It's like the twightlight zone.--Matt Lewis (talk) 12:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Have you just insulted me Matt? You really need to keep that temper under control!Jack forbes (talk) 13:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be a wise-guy, folks. But (repeating myself), unless somebody can get a head count from Ireland, as to how many are offended by the term? It'll be difficult to accurately choose the right word (many, some, few etc). GoodDay (talk) 12:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Why can we not rewrite it? Wotapolaver isn't God. --Matt Lewis (talk) 12:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

No wise-guy accusations GoodDay, just saying (A) that suggesting all find the word offensive isn't reasonable and (B) that we don't have the challenge of picking a good word. Scholars and experts have done it already. I'm not suggesting "most", or "mostly", or "all", or "always" or "few" or anything that isn't directly from a reputable source; "many" or "often" are from reputable sources. As for the suggestion that I'm not God, I heartily agree. However, even God isn't a reputable source. Cambridge and Oxford published reference volumes are. Wotapalaver (talk) 13:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, though I didn't mean it that way, my suggestion does create the impression that all are offended in Ireland (I see that now). PS- as for the God stuff? I'm an atheist. GoodDay (talk) 13:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

If I asked every Irishman/woman what they thought of the term British Isles and 1 in 10 or 20 or 30 disagreed with it being associated with Ireland would that constitute many? Of course it would! Many does not mean majority and along with the sources there is no reason not to use it. Jack forbes (talk) 13:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, back to the (possible) solution. We seem to have all but one editor (Matt Lewis) in favour of Dave Souza's suggestion. So it's not unanimous, but it's still a consensus. So...

1. Does anyone (other than Matt) object to Dave's suggestion?
2. Does anyone (including Matt) have any NEW reasons why we shouldn't implement it?
3. Does everyone (especially Matt) agree to abide by this consensus? Waggers (talk) 13:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I support Dave's suggestion. GoodDay (talk) 13:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

support --Snowded (talk) 13:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

support Jack forbes (talk) 13:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

support Wotapalaver (talk) 13:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Support although I'd like to add in that the term is also not part of the legal terminology of the UK as this is also very relevant as it shows it ain't a one-sided thing from the Irish side. --Bardcom (talk) 13:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, as so "many" of you are supportive the suggestion must be true! At least Souza's first suggestion (with the embassy quote in) addresses half of the paragraph. His second is not different to what we have. I'm actually tired of this crap and am going elsewhere: this is guaranteed to be quoted as "consensus" by certain editors from now on. This Talk page has been rendered completely pointless as far as I'm concerned - and it's been like that for a good while. Is "where many people" encyclopedic language? No. Is it verifiably backed up? No. Does it have sufficient weight? No.--Matt Lewis (talk) 14:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Support this: 'The term British Isles is controversial in relation to Ireland, where many people find 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 past-participle 'has been' is not clear about current objections. Second, wotapalaver is wrong: there is substantial evidence that there is a decline in usage far beyond Ireland. This ranges from National Geographic to Collins (and a whole lot more publishers many of whom have been listed before): 'although still in use' is, therefore, very accurate if not an understatement. In fact, my objection to the proposal I'm supporting is that it does not make this decline very clear. My fundamental objection to this article stands: "British Isles" should be a historic article, leaving Atlantic Archipelago as the modern article. It is ironic that Matt Lewis accuses those who oppose this most British nationalist of names of being "nationalist"! Like British state claims to Ireland, "British Isles" is going nowhere. It's 2008 not 1708. 86.42.91.234 (talk) 16:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi (again?) 86.xx. I may well be wrong. The issue of declining use was mentioned before in this part of the discussion [1] and [2] but no-one had unambiguous references so we kinda left it alone. Help out and find a reference that's unambiguous. or figure out a way of sticking all the individual facts together in a way that isn't OR. Prove me wrong! No objection from me if you do! Wotapalaver (talk) 16:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Although commonly used worldwide, the term British Isles has been controversial in relation to Ireland, where the anachronistic nature of the word 'British' has been objected to.[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]

• Support (or similar - see 'suggestions' at top of section). This is honest and accurate: the term has an anachronistic nature - it has been objected to. People on this page have in the past suggested a dislike of the British causes offense. Let's be real - and be honest too. Can we? The above lines paint a sufficient picture - why is it some must demand more and more? 'Has been' fully covers 'is' (it could be this morning), in the absence of examples of a definitive 'is'.--Matt Lewis (talk) 14:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. For a variety of reasons, not all mentioned here. Apart from anything else, "Has been" clearly implies "isn't", as in the classic description of ex-stars "he's a has been". The suggested text loses "many" and now implies that it's all in the past anyway. (is there a single source for this recent change of feeling?) Also, a phrase like "not part of the legal terminology" is basically an evasion of what the ref actually says, and what's a "legal terminology" anyway? Then, excuse me, but the word "British" isn't an anachronistic word and that isn't necessarily the reason for the objection to the term "British Isles" in Ireland. Interestingly, I always thought the Irish Embassy quote was odd. Why did the quote say "we would discourage its usage"? What was the conditional? Just looked now and I found this on the Hiberno English page. "Conditionals have a greater presence in Hiberno-English due to the tendency to replace the simple present tense with the conditional (would) and the simple past tense with the conditional perfect (would have)." The accompanying reference [3] is educational, meaning that the spokesman basically said "we (do) discourage its usage". Wotapalaver (talk) 15:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem here, of course, is that too many editors are trying to edit on the basis of what they think is right, rather than what is. I would oppose any addition to the lead paragraph that gives undue weight to the tiny minority of the population of the British Isles that might object to the term. TharkunColl (talk) 22:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The term British Isles can be controversial in relation to Ireland, where its use may cause offense or be objected to.[4] The term is not part of the legal terminology of the Irish government, and a spokesperson for the Irish Embassy to the UK has said "we would discourage its usage".[5] is my proposal. No quantification, because, simply, we can't quantify it. But still recognising that there is objection. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 23:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Except that we can. We can say "many" and "often" because reputable sources do. Wotapalaver (talk) 06:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

But why even give that much space to a government that represents less than 1 in 15 of the population of the British Isles, and one that was moreover gerrymandered to have such a view in the first place? TharkunColl (talk) 23:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Please, Thark, no need for trolly comments. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 23:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I actually had to read the comment twice. Is it a joke? Pro-British POV at it's worst. Jack forbes (talk) 23:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

How come the anti-BI brigade can get away with all sorts of accusations of bad faith, but if I made a similar accusation about one of them I'd be pounced on immediately? TharkunColl (talk) 05:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I had to access something out of the Irish Times archive, and with my whole week of access paid for (oh joy!?) I couldn't resist a wee "British Isles" search. So, I found some references to the BI name issue there that I don't think (of course I could be wrong???) I've seen referenced at Wiki before. They're nothing earthshattering--just comments/complaints here and there--I'm not claiming they 'prove' anything in particular, but if anyone wants the quotations, I can post them here or somewhere 'round these parts. Nuclare (talk) 04:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Put them on the additional references page. Wotapalaver (talk) 06:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay. It won't be today, but I'll put them up. Nuclare (talk) 11:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

We don't need any more citations saying exactly the same thing. Incidentally, did you find any normal use of the term British Isles in the archive? TharkunColl (talk) 05:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting they be added as citations. Since there are suggestions that there isn't much evidence for the objections, I was just curious what other kinds of references are out there in ye olde real world. Yes, there is 'normal' use of the term BI. But I didn't do an intense study of all the references. I was scanning through a lot of it. I also noticed a number of "British Isles and Ireland" uses and some putting British Isles in quotes as in "what he refers to as 'the British Isles'"--that sort of thing. Nuclare (talk) 06:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I do not object to mentioning the "controversy" at all, since it is evidently on record, but please remember WP:DUE. This isn't relevant to this article and can be treated in a short paragraph. There is a full article where you can disect the question to your hearts' content, at Terminology of the British Isles. I find instructive a google .ie domain search for the term. 21,900 hits for "British Isles" within Republican Irish domains, and only very few in the top pages seem to address any sort of political controversy. Yes, the Irish government objects to the term. To outsiders, that's about as interesting as the Greek government objecting to the name "Macedonia" used by the Republic of Macedonia: classic Balkans politics. "British Isles" is the standard name of the archipelago, and this is the article on the islands, not on any naming dispute. dab (𒁳) 12:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

As per WP:DUE, "If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts". It is substantiated with reference to commonly accepted reference texts, so WP:DUE doesn't apply. It seems that - for many editors - the applicable policy is WP:IDONTLIKEIT or WP:IDONTBELIEVEIT. Wotapalaver (talk) 12:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

And it's funny to look at dab's hits from "Republican Irish" domains. #1 is a blank page. #2 is an ebay listing of a version of the old Michelin "British Isles" road atlas, which Michelin now call the "Great Britain and Ireland" road atlas. #3 is an ebay listing of an - apparently old - British Isles jigsaw. Yeah! That's evidence of widespread use! Wotapalaver (talk) 12:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

And more! One has to wonder whether dab read the Republic of Macedonia article before using it as an example. The "controversy" is in the lead. Wotapalaver (talk) 12:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

And MORE! I got curious. The jigsaw on the .ie version of ebay also appears on the .de version of ebay, and the vendor is in the UK anyway. Does this count as use in Germany? [4] The Michelin roadmap doesn't come up in the google results anymore, for me at least. Maybe someone in Germany bought it.Wotapalaver (talk) 13:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Methinks this was perhaps an own goal. Is there anything left once you remove the references to books, flora and fauna, and geography? --Bardcom (talk) 13:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps. The (antique) Michelin map is now appearing in the results again [5] The vendor is in the UK. The map also appears on the ebay.de website [6] So, two of the top three uses of "British Isles" on .ie domains are ebay listings by UK vendors of apparently old items and the other one is a blank page. Cool! Wotapalaver (talk) 14:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

PLEASE

We have just started up the same discussion yet again. It looked like we had agreement on Dave Souza'ssuggestion, bar one. That is the best we are going to get how about we agree to do it? --Snowded (talk) 03:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose "British Isles" is not a "has been controversial" topic where people "have found it objectionable". It will become a "has been" topic when the term becomes a "has been" term. In the meantime, the term is controversial and people do find it objectionable as at 8:40am on Tuesday 3 June 2008 (Gregorian Calendar), the feastday of Naomh Caoimhín of Gleann Dá Loch (ob. 618AD). 86.42.91.234 (talk) 07:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

1.Although commonly used worldwide, the term British Isles has been controversial in relation to Ireland, where many people 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]

Hi 86.xx. Rather than saying which one you oppose, could you say whether there is one you support? There are a number of editors already supporting dave souza's suggestion, which is on the talk page above. dave souza put it on the page at 22:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC) (to help you find it among all the text) Wotapalaver (talk) 09:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose for the same reasons as 86. I'd like to know why the present tense is not acceptable. Also, can someone who opposes the use of the term many post a precise explanation as to why the sources quoted are not acceptable - it is very difficult to follow the discussions above and I don't understand the argument against. Thank you. --Bardcom (talk) 09:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be some confusion, Dave Souza's suggestion does use the present tense. Jack forbes (talk) 10:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Silly me, I was looking at a different version. --Bardcom (talk) 13:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

To make things clearer Dave Souza's suggestion was as follows: The term British Isles is controversial in relation to Ireland, where many people may find the term offensive or objectionable , the Irish government also discourages its usage. Jack forbes (talk) 13:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

What? This is the current line:

Although still in use, the term British Isles is in relation to Ireland, where many people may find the term offensive or objectionable; the Irish government also discourages its usage.

All your preferred suggestion does is remove the first few words that say people still actually use the term!! Do you think that is funny? How in Christ's sake is that a compromise? I'm just speechless at the way this has been warped here. And the word "contoversial" links to the POV-fork 'dispute' page currently too - the weight here is grossly NOT how an article on the British Isles should begin: if you care about Wikipedia being an encyclopedia, that is. If you only care about the independence of your own country then it's another game altogether. This article is over-run by anti-encyclopedic POV. How the hell did it happen? --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Why do you think "Although still in use" is needed? Saying that the term is controversial in Ireland makes it clear that it is. And Matt, when I first joined wiki just a few months ago one of the first thing I got involved in was a dispute with a now banned user in which I defended your position. Since then I have disagreed with you over a couple of things, which resulted in you claiming on a couple of occasions I was using pro-nationalist POV. You have got to come to terms that some people will not agree with you all of the time, and when they don't it is not anti-encyclopedia POV, or even that they are doing it to be difficult. I have said it before, you should count to ten or more before you reply to suggestions or comments you don't agree with. Jack forbes (talk) 21:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Just like to add, I'm not religious myself, but some words you use might be offensive to many people. Jack forbes (talk) 21:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for the religious language. So we have got as far as removing the first few lines that say people currently use the term? Forgive me for saying that this is more than a little like a political farce!

I'm disagreed with often (aren't we all?) - of course I can take it. It's nationalist motivations that bother me, not the disagreement (I'm not an ego maniac!). --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Except that dave souza, whose suggestion people are voting for and who you are accusing of anti-encyclopedic POV and nationalist motivations (A) isn't Irish (at least as far as I can see from his page) and (B) is an apparently well regarded admin. So, if we can accept that he probably doesn't have nationalist motivations to make anti-encyclopedic edits, can we agree on his proposed edit now, since you're not an ego maniac? Wotapalaver (talk) 08:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

(indent) We seem to have most people agreed on souza. Matt can you live with that? --Snowded (talk) 12:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Matt Lewis editing his earlier talk page entries.

Hi all. Just in case anyone is reading earlier entries on this talk page, Matt Lewis has "re-edited" a bunch of his earlier contributions. see [7] There are appreciable changes to some of the entries. Wotapalaver (talk) 19:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

As I said clearly in my revising 'edit note' - I originally opened the "Suggestions" section above in a hurry: the first edit to that is the only "entry" I've changed - so why the plural here? I often have to make edits while I'm working - for my sins. The slightly revised version Wotapalaver links to above is only more what I intended to write (and I removed typos etc) - I haven't changed any of my actual suggestions. I've no idea what crime Wotapalaver thinks he's seen - but I'm fine with people reading it again! Why else would I change it?--Matt Lewis (talk) 21:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Cool. GoodDay (talk) 22:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Uncool. I mention it because of guidelines [8] which state, among other things, "It is best to avoid changing your own comments. Others may have already quoted you...". Wotapalaver (talk) 08:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

An Intro without weasel words?

"Although widely used globally as a geographical name for the archipelago, the term remains controversial in relation to Ireland, which was part of the United Kingdom between 1801 and 1927. The anachronistic nature has been objected to,^[4] and a number of alternative names that exclude "British" have been proposed. The term is not part of the legal terminology of the Irish government, and a spokesperson for the Irish Embassy to the UK has said "we would discourage its usage".^[5"]

I made the above edit. What the hell. The line on the Embassy is perhaps too much for the intro, but I have always tried to compromise: I've done nothing else. Too add balance, I thought of inserting (before the last line on the Embassy) something like "Some people have argued that the term "British" pre-dates the idea of the United Kingdom, and need not be seen as offensive" - but know too little about that. Maybe if someone is interested they can develop that: I know someone has said this is an issue.

I strongly believe that the weasel-word "many" has tied this article back too long - it is simply not verifiable according to me (and others) so I can never agree with appropriating it as a present-tense fact just because someone has found a couple of un-supported refs. I would appreciate some support in advancing a re-write along my attempt above. I don't understand where the words "geographical and "archipelagos" have gone? I feel this article about a group of Islands (whatever they are called) has been taken over by the dispute far too long. It's simply got farcical. There is even a 'dispute' fork article for the dispute - how can we let it take over the Introduction here too? This article is supposed to be about the archipelagos, not just the name!!--Matt Lewis (talk) 22:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

"whatever they are called"????? So, you have no objection to us renaming the article Atlantic Archipelago?? Fantastic! It is so refreshing to see such an eschewing of British jingoistic claims to Ireland. Thank you! 86.42.91.234 (talk) 02:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, whether it is "verifiable" to you is, with all due respect, irrelevant; what is relevant is that anybody who bothers to read that book will find, in the preface: "Almost inevitably many within the Irish Republic (sic) find it objectionable". And, for the record, Hugh Kearney is clearly not an Irishman, and almost certainly British: no Irishman would refer to the Republic of Ireland by the incorrect term "Irish Republic".(never mind write a book entitled "British Isles"). When such a basic fact as the description of the state of Ireland cannot be grasped, it just goes to show the quality of research by those who use the term "British Isles". 86.42.91.234 (talk) 02:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not a case that "some people have argued" that the term British predates the UK, it's a fact that it really does. If the first mention of "British Isles" in English comes from the 16th century (which it does, so it seems), then this is proof that it was not an English plot to subvert the language. In the 16th century, the English were not British. The term applied to the Welsh. The English would have been grossly insulted to be called British. TharkunColl (talk) 23:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't mean the UK in the exact sense - the term "Great Britain" predates that - I was actually thinking of even earlier variants. Maybe I should have left this out right now - one thing at a time, perhaps. As I said, I know too little about the history of the word (I've been meaning to buy the Kearney book but forgetting to look in town!): I just tried to formulate the kind of line that might possibly go here - in a wobbly kind of way. Obviously we would have to get it right before putting in a line like this - this article is a nightmare for "edit wars" and getting protected. What do you think of the change I actually put down?---Matt Lewis (talk) 23:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

1621, when the term "British Isles" is first recorded is in the seventeenth century, Thark ( unless the OED is now party to this big Irish conspiracy). Maybe you should read the article a bit? 86.42.91.234 (talk) 02:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The term is first recorded in English in the 1570s, and was used by John Dee. The OED is wrong - maybe you should read the article a bit. TharkunColl (talk) 08:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Comparing the before and after of the intro, I have to be honest and say I don't see how Matt Lewis' version brings about any improvement; it seems to say the same thing but in more words. --G2bambino (talk) 02:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

With respect, that isn't really fair. The initial problems were with the word "many" being appropriated and attributed to the present tense, and the Irish gov line seeming to say they universally discourage the term: two generalisations that are not backed-up by the refs. The correction had to be longer in size - because I've had to give everyone something as close as possible to what they want (ie compromise), and make it fair too. We can seldom do that in LESS words, esp when generalisions have been involved - that's just a fact of life. I added some detail on Irelands history, which I think is useful for the Introduction (given that the UK and Ireland have crossed paths in the past - and this is about Britain and Ireland in a large sense).

Matt Lewis's suggestion wasn't an improvement, apart from the fact that he stated that Ireland was all in the UK until 1927. Oh dear. Basic general knowledge would be useful. Deep breath; 1927 is when the UK finally changed its name, not when the partition occurred. On a different topic, I came across a partial text of the Dee quote that TharkunColl has previously used (all in good faith, no argument here) to put "British Isles" in the 16th century. I need to look it up again, but the sentence that "British Isles" appeared in suggested to me that he used "British Isles" to refer to the smaller islands only, not to the whole group. I'll look for it. Wotapalaver (talk) 08:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you just improve what I wrote instead of just insulting me? --Matt Lewis (talk) 14:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Attacks

Please excuse the aside, but I'm directing this to anon IP 86.42.91.234, because it is more likely he or she will see it here than on the IP talk page. This is completely unacceptable, so I have removed it. If you cannot discuss content without resorting to abusive ad hominem attacks then you will not be permitted to contribute to the content or discussion again of this page. Consider this your last warning. Rockpocket 02:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Who is that mysterious masked man, 86.42.91.234, anyway? Definitely not a new user. Grounds for a CU?

There's been an 86.xx user on the page for a while. WHOIS says it's an Eircom IP address, I guess probably a dynamic IP. Wotapalaver (talk) 09:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe that IP (or at least a similiar IP) was blocked (about 2-weeks earlier) for stirring up trouble. GoodDay (talk) 13:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Page protect?

Wow. Discussion is ongoing, consensus seems to be forming around a proposal by dave souza, protection is removed from the page for 1 day and Matt Lewis and TharkunColl are trying to start edit wars again! Time for some page protect to keep specific editors off the page? Wotapalaver (talk) 06:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I can't have you saying I am trying to start an edit war: apologise now, or I'll take that one up - I'm just so tired of it. You mustn't ask for user-bans like this either. After so much of getting your own way, do you now think you can now do and say anything you want? You have done nothing for consensus at all - and it is clear for people to see: It is your way or no-ones. That particuar "Sousa" suggestion (not a 'proposal' at all) which you chose to put your name against simply removed the first few words that say "British Isles" is widely used!!! It's the biggest insult I've seen on Wikipedia in terms of compromise: it does the opposite of compromise - it makes the Introduction completely what you want. What a total insult. Apologise here for the above comments or I will request some attention here: I am totally sick of this now - this little "Page protect" section has simply shown this Talk to now be a lawless playground, like some kind of teenage forum. --Matt Lewis (talk) 14:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The nomination of this article for Wikipedia: LAME is getting stronger by the day. GoodDay (talk) 14:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

You say that after putting your name to the Sousa suggestion? I'm seriously starting to wonder about this self-made "enigma" called GoodDay. What is your game here? My estimation of you has plummetted - It seems to me you are just having a laugh at people's expense (as all these little comments of yours are starting to collectively suggest). What do you have to say for yourself here? When I've asked you about detail before you have said you don't get involved!--Matt Lewis (talk) 14:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm against edit wars on article. I supported Sousa's proposal, because most of the others did (therefore, supporting it in hopes of ending the conflict). I'd be more then happy to request Page protection again, if ya'll can't keep your fingers off your revert buttons. Honestly, all this fuss over a single word? GoodDay (talk) 14:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

So that is why you supported it? I'm speechless. The suggestion (not proposal) you supported merely removed the line saying "British Isles is widely used". And it's now it is (unsurprisingly) being claimed as a road to consensus. It is just so ignorant to say this is just a silly fuss about the single word "many"!! If you can't see the ambiguities and subtleties involved then why on earth are you always around these UK/Ireland articles? I've tried and tried and tried and tried with this article. And it's real work too - real graft - not the odd enigmatic comments like yours. I'm appalled. Wikipedia is the only place in the world where the WP-branded "British Isles dispute" is hammered home like this - we simply need to apply delicacy and subtlety to the problems and issues surrounding the term, but there is not a miocrobe of subtlety on this Talk page - it's all about as subtle as the use of bold in the scrolling Refs section: it is gross political shouting. Is that what Wikipedia is really about? Or is it a balance-orientated encyclopedia? Which is it?

And one more point now my blood's up - most 'edit wars' begin as simple edit exchanges: are you against them too? With IPs involved in the last two 'wars' I've seen, unfortunately things have got difficult. Can we revert an IP? How about an IP who says you are a member of the BNP - like I felt I was entitled to revert today? I've actually seen relatively few real wars in here - but a LOT of crocodile tears over reverting. It does suit some, you know, to keep things from changing. You could 'WP:AGF' a little over the problems people find on the edit-table - you often talk as if people fully intend to go out to war! It is so sanctimonious! Editing is crucial to Wikipedia - and nobody should be made to feel afraid to follow the vitally-important 'be bold' philosophy. I've seen that 'fear-factor' being brought into play a lot of late, and I don't like it at all.--Matt Lewis (talk) 18:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you feel that way. GoodDay (talk) 18:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Matt, I don't think you will ever be "speechless" --Snowded (talk) 18:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The word "Many"

Can someone (probably one who opposes the use of the term many) post a precise explanation as to why the sources quoted are not acceptable - it is very difficult to follow the discussions above and I don't understand the argument against. Thank you. --Bardcom (talk) 13:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Because precisely one of the sources used in reference 4 actually states that "many" find it objectionable. "Almost inevitably many within the Irish Republic find it objectionable, much as Basques or Catalans resent the use of the term ‘Spain’." This is from a preface to a book, "The British Isles, A History of Four Nations", Second edition, Cambridge University Press, July 2006. So presumably the author and publishers also decided that the strength of objection wouldn't be enough to persuade them to change the title... One also wonders where is this "Irish Republic" of which the preface writer speaks.

Of the other references which are being used to support "many", the Myers' reference shouldn't be there, it's patently obvious he's being ironic. The second reference quotes "This title no longer pleases all the inhabitants of the islands" - hardly a justification for "many", or limiting objection to Ireland. The third reference is a columnist objecting on his/her own behalf to the label British, and making no mention of how "many" object. The fourth makes a blanket statement: "the term ‘British Isles’ is one which Irishmen reject and Englishmen decline to take quite seriously" which is obviouly incorrect as the term is still used by Irishmen. The fifth is a partial quote: ""...what used to be called the "British Isles," although that is now a politically incorrect term." Again, incorrect, as the term is still in use. And finally, the sixth: " a term often offensive to Irish sensibilities " - ah, accurate, NPOV, and not actually attributing a number! Maybe something we could use here! In fact, why not?! There is just as much support in the references for this last assertion as there is in the same references for the inclusion of the word "many". Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 13:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Missed this reference: "..the term is increasingly unacceptable to Irish historians in particular," - again, no mention of how "many" Irish historians object. (How small a subset of Irish people are Irish historians?)

And re the one actual mention of "many", there is nothing supporting the use of "many" - where or how was this descriptor arrived at? So, ultimately, use of the word "many" in this article is being supported by one reference which is a quote from the preface of a book that itself uses the title "British Isles." Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 13:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Read the additional references in the Talk:British Isles/References page, then comment. There are more references that say "many", others that say "often", some that don't qualify it at all. The references on the article itself are very limited, limited because the "deniers" don't want too many references to facts they apparently don't like. Wotapalaver (talk) 14:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, thank you both. I'll read from the references link later. Not having access to the book dustjacket, who is the quote attributed to, and is it in inverted commas or definitely a spoken rather than written word. --Bardcom (talk) 14:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Matt Lewis kept going on about a dust jacket earlier. Nuclare (somewhere above) found the quote on the publisher's website in the introduction of the 2nd edition of the book. There's no comment in the first edition. Wotapalaver (talk) 14:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Here's the place where Nuclare talked about dust jackets. [9] Wotapalaver (talk) 16:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• "So presumably the author and publishers also decided that the strength of objection wouldn't be enough to persuade them to change the title" First of all, I'm not really certain what difference it makes whether they chose to continue using the title 'BI' or not. What are you claiming? That Kearney was just kidding about many Irish being offended? Secondly, as has been stated several times in these discussions, Kearney added the comments about Irish objections to a later edition (such comments didn't exist at all in the early edition)--one published more than a decade after the book was originally published. Yes, I suppose they could have changed the title and radically re-written the book, but that's not something I'd expect of them, nor is it even meaningful to this debate. Thirdly, Kearney explains his continued use of the term in the preface. I don't remember the exact wording but he, like others, acknowledges the problems with the term, but believes that there presently is no better, fully usable alternative. Lastly, the suggested wordings here with "many" do not imply that these "many" Irish are soooooo very offended by the term that they will keel over and die or some such horrible fate if others continue to use the term. Kearney can make the choices he wishes; it has no effect on whether "many" Irish people do or do not object to the term. If you don't trust Kearney as a source on this, okay, but the fact that he chose to call the book BI is irrelevant.
• "Of the other references which are being used to support "many", the Myers' reference shouldn't be there, it's patently obvious he's being ironic." If the Myers' reference is meant to directly support "many," I would agree with you. Pressumably he is not himself angered by the term BI, but the statement implies that he does believe other people in Ireland are angered by the term. It sounds more sarcastic than ironic. On its own, the value of his opinion is dubious, but it does document that this is an issue in Ireland.
• "The fourth makes a blanket statement: "the term ‘British Isles’ is one which Irishmen reject and Englishmen decline to take quite seriously" which is obviouly incorrect as the term is still used by Irishmen." I think you are taking the wording a bit too literally, no? Its obviously meant as a clever phraseology. Inserting words like "many" wouldn't have the same sonic effect, eh? :-) I don't think it can be dismissed as 'incorrect'; the phrasing doesn't need to be read as "every single Irishman rejects it." Its being used as a generality, which isn't really the same as a blanket statement. I seem to recall you saying your preference is to use alternatives to BI (or am I misremembering?)--if so, that itself seems a kind of 'rejecting.'
• "And finally, the sixth: " a term often offensive to Irish sensibilities " - ah, accurate, NPOV, and not actually attributing a number! Maybe something we could use here! In fact, why not?!" Are you being serious here? So "often offensive to Irish sensitivies" is something you could support? It would be fine with me, if the whole thing were written properly. Although I don't know what you mean by it doesn't actually attribute a number: "often" is a quantifier. It's simply counting the offenses rather than the offended. Nuclare (talk) 02:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I think, on quick think, that "often" would be fine by me. It's sourced.

As for the unqualified statements, they are awkward. Some will read them to imply "ALL", whereas they don't necessarily mean to. They probably do imply "many" or "often" or "generally", but it's a question of interpretation. For instance, I'd say that if someone said "gangrene is a condition that Scotsmen suffer from" it would seem wierd, because gangrene doesn't impact Scotsmen that often and affects people irrespective of national origin so a qualifier would be advisable in such a sentence. If - in a discussion of heart disease - someone said "heart disease is a problem which Scotsmen suffer from" then you could safely accept that they mean that Scotsmen suffer from it in some particular or general way, more than others, often, many of them. It still wouldn't mean ALL of them. If the writer meant that only a few Scotsmen suffer from heart disease then - in such a context - they'd say so with a specific qualifier. Anyway, the unqualified generalizations could be support for "all" but it's potentially/probably unreasonable and not what the authors meant. However, a point. If a reputable reference were to say that "all" Irishmen rejected the term (which I don't believe exists) Bastun's own status as an Irishman who doesn't reject the term would be irrelevant. His knowledge about himself or others that didn't reject the term would be OR and unverifiable. Ditto with the not infrequent rantings against the term that appear here on occasion. Wotapalaver (talk) 08:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I've read the references pointed out, thank you. It seems that there are two issues. The first issue is that a number of editors wish to express in the lead that the term "British Isles" is contentious and objectionable, and they wish to quantify it to express a large number e.g. a majority, etc. Going back over the archives, this ran into trouble as there was difficulty in finding a qualified reference. The second issue is a derivitive of the first, finding a reference. Looking at what people have stated about the Kearney reference (which I don't have to hand myself), it appears that:

• It is a quote that uses the term "many"
• It is attributed to Kearney
• It is attributed to a reliable, published source (reliable, third-party published source)
• As per WP:V Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require high-quality reliable sources

By this measure, it would seem to be a valid reference. For clarification, why is this source/reference being rejected? @Batsun states "So presumably the author and publishers also decided that the strength of objection wouldn't be enough to persuade them to change the title", but doesn't outright reject the reference. Thank you. --Bardcom (talk) 19:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The reference has been challenged as isolated, but even if we accept it then it relates to the use of "British Isles" as a political term which is clearly offensive given the history. I think with all the debate we have lost the original issue here. The need to make this a geography article again. Hence my suggestion to acknowledge the source as validating "many" in the context of politics. --Snowded (talk) 19:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The other references demonstrate that it is not an isolated view. Neither does the reference state that it is only offensive as a political term. While a consensus has formed on Wikipedia that it a valid geographic term, the consensus does not extend to include Irish people also accepting it as a geographic term.

I agree that this article needs a lot of work to get it back to a geographic term. Unfortunately there appears to be a reluctance to let go of the political angle. I'm tempted to resurrect the "Great Britain and Ireland" article and write it as a geographic article so that we can show what this article, as a geographical article, is supposed to be like. That was the original intention for the GB&I article... Here's my own attempt at a BI article I did earlier by taking out the editorial axe on an earlier version of the article User:Bardcom/BritishIsles --Bardcom (talk) 09:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

John Dee and the first use in English of "British Isles"

The article currently lists first use of the phrase "British Isles" as being in 1577 in a book from John Dee. I haven't seen the actual text of the book. I believe TharkunColl provided the source. Can he please provide the relevant text? I ask because I came across a mention of Dee and it suggests that Dee's use of the term "British Isles" doesn't refer to the British Isles as meant in this article. The piece I found is from the book "The Ideological Origins of the British Empire" (Armitage, Cambridge University Press), page 106, seems to paraphrase or quote Dee, references the 1577 work and says "..over all of the oceans adjoining Britain, Ireland and the British isles". If that's the way that Dee used the term then it doesn't mean the same as the "British Isles" now and that the first use of "British Isles" with the modern meaning goes back to 1621, as per OED. So, I'm asking for verification of the Dee reference. Wotapalaver (talk) 09:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Care to give us the full quote, rather than a small extract, so we can all get the context, not just your interpretation of it? If its paraphrasing a 1577 work, it could quite likely be talking about countries (political) and islands (geographical). Without the context, we have no idea. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 09:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The full quote is LONG, so I gave only a little. But, thanks to Google, here's the book. [10]. Look on page 106, middle of the page. The text reads to me as if Dee's British isles are the Channel Islands, Isle of Man, maybe Shetlands, etc. Maybe the full reference is clearer but I don't have that. As I say, I believe that TharkunColl put it in the article so he should have it. Wotapalaver (talk) 09:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The source is here [11], but I'm not a subscriber to JSTOR so can't access it. I indeed found it on a hunch, and if you go here [12] you'll see the only bit I was able to access. However - and this is most important - acting on my tip off SonyYouth accessed the whole article and wrote the section in question. The paraphrased reference from the book mentioned above is a tertiary source and is not therefore reliable. TharkunColl (talk) 11:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

So are you saying that we can't actually check or verify the text in the cited reference? (the first reference you gave above is a sample from Jstor which doesn't contain the whole paper and the second is a link to a google search that gives a bunch of wiki mirrors) Meantime, the book I mentioned is a Cambridge University Press reference book which is eminently reliable. (quote from NOR "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.") Meantime, if the quote is as it appears in the book I can read then Dee's "British Isles" is not the same as the "British Isles" in this article. Wotapalaver (talk) 11:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

JSTOR is a peer reviewed journal and any subscriber can access it. Wikipedia is full of citations from such. SonyYouth accessed it and wrote the section in question. Why don't you ask around if anyone is a subscriber? TharkunColl (talk) 11:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Can SonyYouth produce the text from the reference? If he wrote it he has to produce it. At the moment we have an unverifiable reference that says one thing and a verifiable reference that says something different, about the same thing. Wotapalaver (talk) 12:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Speaking from the grave, S-Y cannot veryify this claim by Thark. Indeed, S-Y doesn't even know what Thark is talking about. --84.203.238.83 (talk) 12:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Is that you Sony? Sorry, I thought it was you who wrote that section. Was it someone else? TharkunColl (talk) 14:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Unlikely (to be Sony); Sony wasn't living in Cork, or Ireland. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 17:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

(reduce)First mention I can find of the reference is by TharkunColl on 25 November 2006. It's in a talk archive page, [13], and you can just search for "Dee" in your browser window. As far as I can see, after discussion on the talk page, the information given by TharkunColl in talk was subsequently put into the page text by another editor during December 2006. I don't see any mention of paid JSTOR access in talk. Wotapalaver (talk) 13:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The reference in Elizabeth as Astraea is on page 47 of the journal, and the paragraph in question reads:

As is well-known, it was Gemistus Pletho who gave the impulse to those philosophical studies which, as devloped by Ficino and the Florentine Academy, had such a far-reaching influence on Renaissance thought. There was a political as well as a philosophical side to Gemistus Pletho. About the year 1415, he addressed two orations to the Emperor Manuel and to his son Theodore on the affairs of the Peloponnesus and on ways and means both of improving the economy of the Greek islands and of defending them.² A Latin translation of these orations had recently been published,³ and Dee is of the opinion that they would be of use "for our Brytish Iles, and in better and more allowable manner, at this Day, for our People, than that his Plat (for Reformation of the State at those Dayes) could be found, for Peloponnesus avaylable."⁴ In spite of the difficulties of Dee's style and punctuation his meaning is clear, a meaning which he repeats on subsequent pages, namely the advice given to the Byzantine Emperor by Pletho is good advice for Elizabeth, Empress of Britain. He therefore reprints at the end of his work the greater part of the first oration, and the whole of the second, with curious marginal notes.

[2] The orations are reprinted in Migne, Patr. graec., CLX, pp 822 ff

[3] The orations, with a Latin translation by Gulielmus Canterus, were printed in the volume containing the Ecolgues of John Stobaeus, published at Antwerp by Plantin in 1575.

[4] Op. cit., p. 63.

I've had to transcribe this by hand as the journal is scanned (and so doesn't support copying and pasting); it's possible that the odd typo may have slipped in as a result. I hope this is helpful.— ras52 (talk) 18:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, that's very useful. It is now clear from the context that Dee is referring to the whole British Isles, and not just minor outlying islands as has been suggested. It also seems clear, to me at least, that the term is not a new coinage in English, by the almost off hand way Dee uses it. Still, we'll have to wait until an earlier citation turns up before we can say that in the article. TharkunColl (talk) 19:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed! Thank you Ras52. However, I have to say that it's NOT clear to me from the context that Dee means what we currently mean by "British Isles". There's no definition implied in the sentence and given that the OED says that the first use of British Isles is 45 years later we should have something like clarity before we make brave claims. Wotapalaver (talk) 20:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It is perfectly clear that Dee is referring to the whole archpelago and not just minor outlying islands. The OED is simply wrong. It's not unknown. In fact it regularly sponsors events, such as the TV programme Balderdash and Piffle, to improve its knowledge and find earlier citations. I've just e-mailed the OED to bring to their attention this Dee quote. Maybe it will appear in the next edition. TharkunColl (talk) 22:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks indeed, Ras. Wotapalaver, I fail to see how you can assume he's not talking about the British Isles. Funny how when I say that some author giving his opinion that "many" object, without saying what he's basing that on, is not a useable reference, you respond that it can be used; but when the tables are turned, you use the same (my) argument to say it doesn't matter what the reference says, we don't know what Dee really meant... Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 23:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Bastun, there are refs in the /References page that explain "many", including one that says almost verbatim what's in the intro, complete with "many". The reason I say that I'm not sure that the "British Isles" in the Dee quote aren't the same as in modern meaning are that there's a similar quote (ref'd in a talk contribution by me above) which has Dee saying "Britain and Ireland and the British Isles". In that case he seems to mean the smaller islands only to be "British Isles". In the case here immediately above it's possible that he meant to include Iceland, the Faroes, etc. Did he? IIRC the Tudors considered seizing Iceland (came across the reference in an old talk page) and Dee considered Iceland (as Thark mentions below) part of the British sphere of influence. I merely ask a simple question. Have we any good indication of what he meant - from the sources available to us? So far I think not. Wotapalaver (talk) 12:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow - I'm extremely impressed! The OED have written back, and this is what they said:

Thank you for your message. As it happens, we have recently revised all the entries dealing with BRITAIN and BRITISH, and these entries will be published in the online dictionary later this year. I cannot quote from unpublished text, but I can tell you that the first quotation for BRITISH ISLES is now dated 1577 and is taken from John Dee's Arte Navig.

It was kind of you to write about Dee's use of the phrase.

[name]

Oxford English Dictionary

So my hunch has now been confirmed - excellent! TharkunColl (talk) 10:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Very interesting indeed. I wonder where the OED initally heard about this - from here perhaps? Anyway, the quote says our Brytish Iles, and the date is 1577. It's clear that the term is used in a way that denotes ownership - Our Brytish Iles. I can only assume that the reference is in relation to those islands that made up the Kingdom of England and the Kingdom of Ireland. Scotland had a different monarch until 1603, while England and Ireland shared a monarch. Hard to know if Scotland was considered Brytish at that time or not... So it's definitely a political term, not a geographical term, since its first usage was in relation to a region that had an economy and required defense. --Bardcom (talk) 16:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the OED have indeed been watching this page. But as for your assumptions, they are wrong - no Englishman would have called either himself or his political institutions "British" in the 16th century. The fact that the term was used very strongly implies an attempt to be non-political, or at any rate all-inclusive. As for the Scottish issue, Scotland was already de facto under Elizabeth's control, with James VI (and his advisors when he was still a child) doing everything he could to stay on her good side so he could inherit her throne. Elizabeth did indeed control the whole British Isles, in one way or another. But Dee's use of "our" doesn't even imply any sort of political control. I could just as easily say "our" British Isles today, meaning ours - the place where we live, collectively. TharkunColl (talk) 16:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

A quick search in Google Books for "The Ideological Origins of the British Empire" and "Dee" confirms beyond doubt that Dee used the phrase as a political claim. 86.42.91.234 (talk) 21:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you are not reading the passage in context. The context of the passage seems clear to me that the term is being used as a political term, as I said, especially when you take into consideration the context the term was used - referring to both an economy and defense. --Bardcom (talk) 18:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Elizabeth ruled the British Isles. There is no contradition in using a geographical term to describe the extent of someone's political authority. Why is this such an important issue for you? TharkunColl (talk) 19:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

In fact, even a carrot could tell you that in 1577 Elizabeth I of England was in rebellion against the entire island and was, since spring 1570, deemed to be a heretic in the small area of Ireland that was under direct English occupation, the Pale (in fact, I'm certain you'll find that in 1577 the "old English of the Pale" were imprisoned in huge numbers for resisting the English crown's occupation of the Pale). But let not historical reality impede your traditionally teleological British jingoism. Oh, and I'm off to ask the OED are they going to place a usage guide next to the term. 86.42.91.234 (talk) 20:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Mary then James VI ruled Scotland, and the politics were of course more complex than you suggest. More significantly, the Tudors weren't exactly English – they reinvented British identity to reinforce their claim as descendants of Arthur to rule the island as a whole. . . dave souza, talk 19:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Elizabeth I ruled the British Isles? NOT. She only ruled England & Ireland, if my memory is in tacked. GoodDay (talk) 20:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

She didn't even rule the so-called "English Pale" of Ireland. Where do you people get off with your acceptance of English and British masterrace claims over the Irish as being the reality. Pathetic. 86.42.91.234 (talk) 20:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

86.xx.xx, weren't you given a warning at your IP page (days ago); to keep your opinons in check? PS- You look familiar to another 86.xx.xx IP, that was blocked (weeks ago). GoodDay (talk) 21:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Who do you think you are? You want to steal my country, rename it and then deny me my right to defend my Irishness and my country's history. Go keep your own "opinions in check" you arrogant WASP bastard. Oh, and I do hope that I have made myself impeccably clear. 86.42.91.234 (talk) 21:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes you've certainly made yourself clear, to all of us. GoodDay (talk) 21:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Scotland, to use a modern term, was a satellite state. The deposed Mary was imprisoned in England and the Scottish king, James VI, did everything in his power to keep Elizabeth happy in order to be declared her heir. It's true that she had no legal position in Scotland, but her will was exercised there nevertheless. It's also true, in answer to the previous point, that the Tudors were originally a Welsh family. However, Elizabeth was born in England, was self-consciously and extremely patriotically English ("I may have the body of a weak and feeble woman, but I have the heart and stomach of a king, and a king of England too..."). Her mother was English, and her father's mother was English. To say she wasn't English is simply untrue. As for Dee, he was of Welsh family, which may account for his favouring the term British Isles, but in fact the Latin version had been appearing on maps all that century, and Dee was a great scholar and geographer, and would have had copies of them. It was most assuredly not his invention. TharkunColl (talk) 20:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Last point first, I think it's fair to say he was the first known to use it in translation from the Latin term which had been rediscovered from Ptolemy's geography. Looking again at the brief history of the term, Snyder's point is that British wasn't seen as an alternative to English (or Scottish) identity, it was an additional prestigious identity tracing back genealogy to pre-English times, used by earler English monarchs and picked up by the Tudors (including Elizabeth) to celebrate rather than be ashamed of their Welsh ancestry. . . dave souza, talk 21:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

More John Dee:

Diary entry for 30 June 1578:

I told Mr Daniel Roger and Mr Hackluyt... that King Arthur and King Maty, both of them did conquer Gelinda, lately called Friseland.

On a map he drew in 1580:

Circa Anno 530 Kyng Arthur not only Conquered Iseland, Groenland, and all the Northern Iles compassing unto Russia, but even unto the North Pole (in manner) did extend his jurisdiction and sent Colonies thither, and unto all the isles between Scotland and Iseland, whereby yit is probable that the last-named Friseland Island is of Brytish ancient discovery and possession: and allso seeing Groeland beyond Groenland did receive their inhabitants by Arthur, it is credible that the famous Iland Estotiland was by his folke possessed.

He seems to be basing his claims to British rule in the North Atlantic on supposed conquests of those places by King Arthur, some of which he has taken from Geoffrey of Monmouth and others I have no idea. All this is steeped in Welsh legend, not English. Dee was Welsh, and he sought to flatter a Welsh-descended monarch by urging these claims on her. It would be a great irony of history if the British Empire did indeed come about through the urgings of this rather intriguing individual - he was also a clairvoyant and ceremonial magician, who called on spirits and looked into crystal balls, indulged in wife swapping with his Irish friend and assistant Edward Kelley a.k.a. Talbot (who had had his ears chopped off for some criminal offence), and would later tour Europe to try and con the Holy Roman Emperor out of a huge fortune. He was also Elizabeth's chief spy on the Continent, and used the codename 007. TharkunColl (talk) 22:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Proposal to completely merge British Isles naming dispute with this British Isles article. I've kept the merge discussion here rather than on the MERGEFROM page (the normally recommended place) for obvious reasons. The fork isn't huge - it's half of it refs, many of which are duplicated here. This article should maintain all aspects of the term "British Isles". --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

For merge: Lets deal with this in one place. We can deal with WP:weight better then. Having this fork is posing all sorts of problems IMO: this article keeps getting locked partly due to disagreement over how to summarize this in one line. Some editors trying to get links in to that other article is part of the problem IMO.--Matt Lewis (talk) 21:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose merge; I thought editors were supposed to shorten the British Isles article? 78.19.213.117 (talk) 21:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed 78.19.213.117. And by far the best way to do that would be to remove all reference to Ireland from the article. Then there'd be no need for this article either. A win-win. Sarah777 (talk) 22:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

'And by far the best way to do that would be to remove all reference to Ireland from the article.' Absolutely. With this "British Isles" article the British just want to let on to the world that they have more power than they really have. It's pathetic. 86.42.124.125 (talk) 13:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

There is a basis to removing Ireland from this articles as there are many people British who like the Irish use the term British Isles just to refer to Isles that are just British. 1, 2, 3, 4, many more.WikipÉIRE\^(caint) 14:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

We can remove some of the long quotes in the "Footnotes section" for a start (this only happens on controversial topics where some people cannot trust the public to follow a link - very telling IMO). We can merge and keep this under 100K. Many historically-based 'Featured Articles' are 100K. --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose merge; pointless move which will lead to drama and warring. Sarah777 (talk) 21:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Unlike now? How can a fork article help when weight is an issue?--Matt Lewis (talk) 22:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Weight an issue? Not with you Matt....Sarah777 (talk) 22:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Bad faith. --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose merge; because if those articles were merged; they'd eventually be split up 'again' or another article would be created similar to British Isles naming dispute. -- GoodDay (talk) 22:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

How do you know? And even if that happened it is important for the subject to be got right in the main article - splitting is supposed to happens afterwards. I suspect this fork was the 'bad kind' stemming from disagreement or propaganda (ie a POV fork). I personally don't think it warrants its own article on 'weight' grounds, though I'm not focusing on this reason for the proposed merge.--Matt Lewis (talk) 22:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

If we merge? This article will become dominated by the 'name controversy'. PS- Could somebody out there, go door-to-door throughout Northern Ireland & the Republic of Ireland, to find out how many people are offended, by the BI word? GoodDay (talk) 15:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose also, because it would be better to tackle one thing at a time, and we're already trying to get agreement on the lead paragraph. Trying to get a merge discussion going in the middle of this would only serve to distract. --Bardcom (talk) 22:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

We haven't managed it over a long time - I believe the fork is one of the problems. --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose for the reasons above.WikipÉIRE\^(caint) 22:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The ones you've given yourself? Sock-user alert. 'Gang' alert, in fact. The sad truth is it will help.--Matt Lewis (talk) 22:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Matt; I expect User:John will be warning you about WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and WP:AGF for that disgraceful comment above. Consistency is the least we may expect from him so you are forewarned. Sarah777 (talk) 22:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipeirre has used socks and trolls me. --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I think we know the lay of the land now. Wikipedia comes first? Hmmm. Forks double the work for everyone but the supporters of the fork. These forks are strangling Wikipedia. This is number one priority for me: We have to make this a reputable Wikipedia article first - and that means no pointless undue fork. --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I just stumbled across this disgraceful hysteria [14]. Is that you Matt? 78.19.213.117 (talk) 22:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes - though I promised the editor to archive it (thanks for reminding me). Why is it disgraceful? I've had my own up and down history with that editor, and he admitted error too. It's hardly brave for someone to act like you are doing, by the way. I've never personally used an IP and never will.--Matt Lewis (talk) 23:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Just to defend Matt here, the main protagonist (and initiator) of that mediation has just been banned from editing indefinitely for repeated use of sock puppets. A few of us got sucked into that exchange. --Snowded (talk) 05:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm no fan of the British Isles naming dispute article. However, I've been around Wiki long enough to know, this British vs Irish struggle isn't going to cool off or end. GoodDay (talk) 22:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Please stop characterising this as British vs Irish. It isn't. Sarah777 doesn't speak for every Irish editor, and TharkunColl doesn't speak for every British one. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 10:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

She, and the very many other editors who have opposed this article, certainly speak for me. Indeed the very first edit to this article in 2001 was opposing the name "British Isles". Is it all a "minority" conspiracy? Why is the term avoided in the Irish media? And by all the leading Irish academics? Is that also another "minority" conspiracy? The views of all these people are also far closer to the stated Irish government position. This is very much a British v. Irish conflict. You clearly have extremely close roots in British society, even if you do claim to be living in Ireland now. That, with all due respect, is your problem. Maybe your children or grandchildren will grow out of this emotionally fragile "oh don't offend the Brits" mentality. This "British Isles" claim is a claim that me, my family, my friends are something we most expressly are not: British. This claim is more of the traditional identity-destroying and identity-imposing actions of British colonialism in Ireland. We are not their people. The arrogance. This is Ireland, European Union. British? With all due respect- and due is clearly the operative word- fuck the British. Culturally, the British who make this claim do not understand the concept of "live and let live". They have to take everything from their neighbours. They can never take our dreams (obviously if they could see them they would). I don't understand women, alas, but I can appreciate and even enjoy them. I can neither understand, appreciate nor enjoy British people when they feel an impulse to claim Ireland and the Irish as "British". Did you ever. It's bad form, bad breeding and downright indecent behaviour from our neighbours. That, I thought, was confined to past. If the British want to carry on that past in the "British Isles" title of this article, I'll take them on with all the antediluvian canons of that past. Your choice for this article: the past or the future? 86.42.124.125 (talk) 14:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

To my request that Sarah and other (mostly) Irish editors not to presume to speak for me or everyone in Ireland, I'll add a request to you, anon IP, not to presume to interpret me or my views. I'm Irish, working class, born and bred. Far from "obviously having close roots in British society", I've spent no more than a month there, in total, including holidays and work. I've had family living there, but then that's true for most Irish families. Where have I said its a minority view? Read elsewhere on this page and you'll see I've said no-one knows the number actively objecting. My own view? Its a non-issue. The vast majority of Irish people couldn't care less and don't spare a thought for what the island group is called. And if pressed would probably go for "Ireland and Britain" - which would be my own preference, too. Why? Because It. Doesn't. Matter. Ireland's better than that, a thriving modern country punching above its weight in international terms. All this chip-on-shoulder, 800 years stuff is of no relevance or interest to the vast majority of Irish people. Its the 21st century. We've moved on. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 17:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm descended from an earl, the "Earl of *****", but that doesn't give me any edge here either. The big problem here Bastun it trying to get a balanced article. I too don't give a frig about the name, but why let British Nationalism have dominance over every sentence an reference. That's my view. 78.19.13.108 (talk) 17:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Batun, it evidently does, in fact, matter if people avoid using the term, a reality which you are acknowledging. Non-use is a statement, assuming you accept that people think about the words they use. It is extraordinarily intellectually inconsistent to state "we've moved on" from 800 (sic) years and then advocate that we accept a label which was created in 1621 as an assertion of British hegemony over Ireland. It is utterly patronising to hold your "British Isles" claim while telling us, from your pedestal, to "move on". Things will not "move on" while these claims remain current. Why on earth is this very, very basic point so hard to understand? Again, the past or the future. The choice is yours. 86.42.124.125 (talk) 17:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, 78..., I do care entirely about the name. Names form worlds and pictures and representations. Controlling representations of people has been central to every colonial power in world history. It has been at the heart of dehumanisation and dis-empowerment of societies, and much else. The "British Isles" is designed to assert a British claim to Ireland and the Irish world. That outdated term is a symbol of the dynamics at the heart of the British state's historic relationship to Ireland and the Irish. It is a completely and utterly unacceptable term in a modern society. It reeks with layers of unacceptable and pre-modern meaning. 86.42.124.125 (talk) 17:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I thought we had a balanced article here a month or so ago. Recognition that the term is used and what its used for; that it can be confusing (with an appropriate link); and that it is disliked in Ireland and avoided (with a link to the naming dispute article) - all in the lead. That seemed to cover all the bases and had been relatively stable for quite some time. (And as an aside, when we have to reference Kevin bloody Myers to show its objected to... ) Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 17:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem with merging the dispute article into this one is that those editors who love the dispute will be loath to see any information be lost, no matter how trivial or repetitive. Such a merger will overburden this article with political POV - in orders of magnitude greater than it already is. TharkunColl (talk) 22:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

We have to at least try things the proper way though, don't you think? I'm happy for all the information to be in one article - covered fairly. --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose per... well, various, including Sarah777 and TharkunColl :-P Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 10:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose The dispute page was created to relieve this article with the burden of explaining the entire dispute. Without it over half this page was concerned with the name. josh (talk) 10:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Dunno. The history of this page seems to be people on one "side" saying that the term "British Isles" is found offensive and objectionable and producing references that clearly state this. The other "side" insists that the term is not objectionable or offensive and producing not a single reference to support this. These are the two "sides". As far as I can see user TharkunColl, who insists that the dispute is overstated but produces no references to support this, was the user who created the dispute page. Now we have user Matt Lewis saying that the dispute is overstated (and similarly producing not a single reference) who says the dispute page should be rolled back in here. Meantime, both of them deny that the dispute exists and both insist - without producing a single reference - that the dispute exists only among a tiny minority. Either Wikipedia goes by verifiable sources or it does not. If it does, then it doesn't matter whether there is a separate dispute page or not, but the dispute is clearly documented. If WP doesn't go by sources then the bizarre views of Matt Lewis and TharkunColl might prevail, the "dispute" doesn't exist and there shouldn't be a dispute page. Wotapalaver (talk) 12:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

As you have hitherto expressed the need for a merge, it's a shame you couldn't simply put the "for" word here - I vainly hoped you would (and I think this is what I mean by "pack" mentality). I always point to your own examples to explain why then word "many" is too strong: they are not good enough examples, and they would have to be overwhelming ones (instead they are limited). As for finding examples that say "The term 'many Irish...' is incorrect": I go back to my "Hitler is NOT a Finnish pole vaulter" example: there are never 'reverse' quotes like that. Not appreciating that is just not playing fair.--Matt Lewis (talk) 15:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment: The article is not foundationally strong with the fork around - it has broken the article. We need to make a proper article which covers the British Isles properly. I find some of the above lazy-minded: Wikipedia does not like forks like this for a reason - no one can deny that. Difficulty is no reason not to do something properly!!! We are certainly getting nowhere in the present state: the fork is the overriding reason as far as I'm concerned. --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment:, most of the article is a POV-fork. All the bits of history and geography are done on other respective pages. Wikipedia does not like pov-forks. 78.19.13.108 (talk) 16:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose seems to be the conclusion here. For the moment I'm removing the merge proposal tag from this article. Wotapalaver (talk) 13:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi all. Should we replace the proposed Merger tag on this article? As per my note here, I removed the tag from this article on May 13th or so and no-one objected. By some oversight I didn't immediately remove it from the other article. I did that yesterday [15] and Matt Lewis has reverted the change today saying "when close this when so much has been 'open' for so long? It is not closed.. " [16]. I don't know what the heck his comment means, but if there's a merge tag on the other article there should really be a merge tag here too, or if there's no merge tag here there shouldn't be a merge tag there. Which should it be? I felt & feel that the consensus was no merge. Wotapalaver (talk) 14:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

OK. There's silence here. I'm going to remove that tag from the naming dispute article again.Wotapalaver (talk) 17:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Mediation

This is getting no where. We have three groups

• Get rid of British Isles, or at least state than many people find the term controversial
• Opposed to above do not want many
• Neutrals trying to find a way to accommodate the disputants

It is not going to be resolved here. I suggest mediation and it would not surprise me if this ended up in arbitration. --Snowded (talk) 12:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Not sure that there's a connection between (a) "Get rid of British Isles" and (b) "state that many people find the term controversial". I, for one, haven't pushed a but I do agree with b, because it's from reputable sources. Wotapalaver (talk) 12:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Your perception is *your* reality, but it's very pointed to make the assumption that the people who are trying to state that many people find the term controversial are also trying to get rid of the term. That's not true in *my* reality. --Bardcom (talk) 15:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Not my intent, but some would like to get rid of the term completely if you look back over the threads (and they go on for a long time). I actually think its controversial but don't want to get rid of the term so I should maybe have put four groups. However, for the purpose of moving to mediation I will amend it. --Snowded (talk) 15:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it's time for Mediation. PS- Who'd a thought? all this disputing over a single word. GoodDay (talk) 21:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, a single word that's supported by reference! Wotapalaver (talk) 22:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

(indent)So do all editors agree to mediation? As I recall it has to be a consensual process and we need to agree a statement of the issue. Anyone want to volunteer to state their position (one per faction)? --Snowded (talk) 22:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I honestly have no personal preference. Let's just say, I have no problem with using the word many. GoodDay (talk) 22:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

If we say that many people find it offensive, we also have to say that many don't. TharkunColl (talk) 22:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. GoodDay (talk) 22:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course, TharkunColl will provide references that say "many don't", won't he? Wotapalaver (talk) 16:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

(indent) so can I take it that User:TharkinColl will draft a paragraph for the "many do and many don't position" and User:Wotapalaver will do the same for the "many position? Any others? --Snowded (talk) 23:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Gotta say I heartily dislike this "factions" idea. I've said that I support the dave souza suggestion from a while ago. I stand on that suggestion. It's accurate, as short as reasonably possible, supported by reference, unemotive and well phrased. If someone believes that dave souza is in a "faction" then they should go inform him. I think he might find the idea that he's in a faction to be slightly amusing. Wotapalaver (talk) 16:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

No, there is no need to say it at all. We should just direct people to the controversy page. However, if we do say "many" people object, we must also say that many don't. TharkunColl (talk) 23:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

With the same criteria being applied as to the quality of references and citations, of course...otherwise, we don't have to say many don't. Fair's fair, considering the amount of pressure over the past months to produce references for many. --Bardcom (talk) 12:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, I agree with Bardcom. If TharkunColl can provide references, then perhaps we'll say it. Of course, reading the talk pages people have been asking TharkunColl for references like that for a LONG time. So far, not one has been produced. Wotapalaver (talk) 16:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

As it happens, I have no particular objection to "many" (and have not argued against it here). The problem is that "many" is so imprecise. It could just mean half a dozen, but in the context of a country of five million people (north and south), one would really expect it to mean at least more than half, which is of course a ridiculously impossible thing to prove. The word "some" is even more imprecise, but because of this it may be preferable. TharkunColl (talk) 17:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Does this mean that you are saying that you cannot provide references as to many do? --Snowded (talk) 19:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the beauty of using a quotation is that an interpretation does not need to be provided. "Many" can mean anything the reader wishes it to mean.... --Bardcom (talk) 17:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

In such cases, then, we need to apply Wikipedia guidelines on sources as strictly as possible. Newspaper articles are simply not good enough, yet that's what most of the references saying "many" are. Are there any peer-reviewed academic papers that say "many"? TharkunColl (talk) 17:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think any of the sources saying "many" are newspaper articles. Nuclare (talk) 02:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Mediation cabal request now made --Snowded (talk) 23:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Please note that consent to mediation is required from all editors --Snowded (talk) 04:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Probably easier to assume that silence = assent. Perhaps if the editors that object could make their objection here. --Bardcom (talk) 12:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

We might have to, however the mediator has requested assent on the mediation page so I suggest we respect that wish --Snowded (talk) 12:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Does the mediator require assent from everyone, or a majority? --Bardcom (talk) 14:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that is up to the mediator. However this stage cannot mandate a resolution, its open to one person to refuse to accept. However once we have been through this we can go up a level for resolution so we have to go through it. --Snowded (talk) 14:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I consent. Nuclare (talk) 12:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't. TharkunColl (talk) 12:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Why not? Nuclare (talk) 13:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Because any change is just going to tip the article even more towards a certain POV. TharkunColl (talk) 15:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Now you are being perverse. mediation means bringing in someone from outside to see if a compromise can be achieved. Refusing that can make no sense unless you think you don't have a case to make. Does anyone support TharkunColl --Snowded (talk) 15:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think mediation is necessary, but I'm not going to stand in the way of consensus if everybody else does think it's needed. I have two reasons: firstly that the problem is simply that we're struggling to establish consensus, and frankly I don't think mediation is going to help us do that; and secondly, I still think we pretty much have a consensus on Dave Souza's suggestion; there was only one editor who opposed that, and the said editor has now apparently retired from Wikipedia (although I hope he changes his mind on that). Waggers (talk) 21:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

If everyone is now OK with Dave Souza's suggestions then we can withdraw from mediation - but I think it has to be an "agree" not an "agree but .." which reopens the whole debate. --Snowded (talk) 21:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair play. In that case, I agree! Besides, the mediator seems to have read this and all the associated articles, and is still interested. Now that can't be bad! Waggers (talk) 22:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• My name is Iamzork, and I am the mediator for the Mediation Cabal case 2008-06-06 British Isles. It seems you guys (no offense intended to any female users - the internet is somewhat ambiguous in that sense) are starting to come to a solution by yourselves. Thanks for making my job easy so far. If you do end up wanting to withdraw from mediation, that is a simple enough process - I can just close the case (and I can reopen it if a proposed solution is not reached). Regardless, you all are doing a great job working this out yourselves. Until consensus is reached (by yourselves or with my help) or until all parties who have agreed to mediation agree to close the case, I will leave it open. Thank you for your cooperation. (By the way, with reference to Waggers' comment above mine, I would like to thank all parties involved for introducing me to this interesting topic.) --Iamzork (talk) 23:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Souza proposal

A reminder, this was: The term British Isles is controversial in relation to Ireland, where many people may find the term offensive or objectionable , the Irish government also discourages its usage The "many' needs the citation inserted (would someone give it here)? Can we now put this one to bed? --Snowded (talk) 05:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Rather than have edit wars on a tag in the main article would

• [[User:Bardcom}} and User:TharkunColl confirm if they are happy with the Souza proposal above.
• Wotapalaver please provide the citation for "many" ideally a referenced document
• If User:TharkunColl has citations that say many people in Ireland are happy to use the term would s/he provide them and as per Wotapalaver earlier agreement we can add them

--Snowded (talk) 14:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with it. --Bardcom (talk) 15:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The citation says that many people in the "Irish Republic" object to the term. What's that? TharkunColl (talk) 14:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

It's suppose to be the Republic of Ireland (another potential discussion, in itself). GoodDay (talk) 15:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The important point I was making, of course, is that how can such a source be trusted, if it is ignorant of the name of the state? And as far as I can tell, that's the only source that uses "many". This is an extremely flimsy citation. TharkunColl (talk) 15:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The citation says that many people in the "Irish Republic" object to the term. What's that? TharkunColl (talk) 14:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Lets get the citation or citations listed here and see. Please answer the question on citations that many people find it acceptable. There was an evident consensus earlier that if you could do this people would be happy to say that as well. --Snowded (talk) 15:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Many people use the term - even Irish government ministers and MPs. Why is a citation necessary when we all know it's true? TharkunColl (talk) 15:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

You can't insist on a citation one way, but deny its need the other. Please provide a citation to support your view --Snowded (talk) 15:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

As I said above, I have no particular objection to saying that "many" object, because it's clear that many do (at least half a dozen or so and probably more). By the same token, many don't object, and in the interests of balance this too needs to be said, if we say that many object. TharkunColl (talk) 15:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

If you can find a citation them people will accept that. Please do so then we can end this. --Snowded (talk) 15:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

You don't need a citation for the patently obvious. To insist on one is obstructionism. I'm not insisting on a citation for "many object", because I know it's true. What I was doing above was pointing out the flimsiness of the current citations - just get rid of them and state the obvious, that many do and many don't object. TharkunColl (talk) 15:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. So you were the one that insisted on a citation to state that "many" object (and are even objecting to the reference), but you don't see the irony of stating that "You don't need a citation for the patently obvious".  :-) You made me laugh!! Can I give you a barnstar for that.  :-) I'm still smiling. --Bardcom (talk) 15:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, I was highlighting just how flimsy the citation actually is. The facts that many object, and many don't, come under the category of the bleedin' obvious and don't require citations. But both must be included, or - my preference - neither. TharkunColl (talk) 15:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

If it is patently obvious then it should be easy to find a citation. If you can't or won't then there is no basis for including the statement.--Snowded (talk) 15:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

No, the bleedin' obvious is often the most difficult thing to find citations for. Not including it is just obstructionism. TharkunColl (talk) 15:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

What's the ratio between 'many do's and 'many don't's? If they are not close to equal your proposed wording could be deceptive. The "many" documents that there is controversy. I don't know that we have to document that which isn't part of the controversy. If we were saying "all" or "the vast majority" than that would imply no or few "many don't"s. "Many" leaves plenty of room without having to state it that not everyone is part of the controversy. Nuclare (talk) 15:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Here's another source for "many": "Geographical terms also cause problems and we know that some will find certain of our terms offensive. Many Irish object to the term the 'British Isles';..." The Dynamics of Conflict in Northern Ireland: Power, Conflict and emancipation. Joseph Ruane and Jennifer Todd. Cambridge University Press. 1996. ISBN:052156879X. Nuclare (talk) 15:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Excellent lets use that one --Snowded (talk) 15:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Another source doesn't mean delete the existing ones... Wotapalaver (talk) 21:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

True, you can always add them back in

Done. Particularly for two reasons. (1) We have editors again saying that there is insufficient reference. Should we somehow point people at the whole /References page? (2) The single reference re the Irish Government that was left on the page dated to 1947. There are more recent references too. Having refs from as long ago as 1947 and the more recent ones indicates to readers that this topic isn't a wiki-fantasy, as often asserted. Wotapalaver (talk) 08:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, hopefully that will close it off. I don't think we should let ourselves get sucked into repeating this debate unless substantial new material is introduced. Its had a good airing and a fairly solid vote. --Snowded (talk) 08:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

(reduce) Note, dave souza's original proposal was ever so slightly different from the transcription that Snowded put here above, e.g. a semi-colon instead of a comma.. I've made a couple of edits to bring the page text into line with the original Souza proposal. Wotapalaver (talk) 11:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

My fault for picking up a copy not the original - thanks for making the corrections. --Snowded (talk) 11:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

2 weeks excessive.

I think that a 2 week article lock is excessive. How can this be reviewed or changed? --Bardcom (talk) 11:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure it could be lifted if all the disagreements are sorted out before then.WikipÉire ^♣ 11:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

What about a policy of blocking any user who interferes with the POV flag before consensus has been shown to have changed (i.e. while discussion is ongoing)? That would encourage discussion and stop the edit-warring and leave the article unblocked. --Bardcom (talk) 11:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not sure that 2 weeks is excessive. Either that or all the recent edit warring editors should be blocked from editing the article for a similar period. I mean, really, there was an edit war about a dispute banner! It must be a candidate for silliest edit war ever. Wotapalaver (talk) 14:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

If there is consensus before such date then I'll lift it. However look at the page history. Look at the talk page. Is it really excessive? Considering the number of times this article has been locked an indefinite lock and admin only edits wouldn't be unheard of. Canterbury Tail talk 21:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Believe me, 2-weeks is not excessive. Infact, it might be too short. GoodDay (talk) 22:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I support removing the protection as Ben has clearly locked the article in a pro-British pov state (accidentally, no doubt). We should replace the tag and then lock it if necessary. Sarah777 (talk) 10:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

If there's consensus for a change to be made, it can still be made by an admin while the page is protected. Given the behaviour of some editors recently (and particularly every time protection expires or is lifted) I'm almost inclined to support indefinite protection, to make sure there is indeed consensus for any change. Waggers (talk) 10:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Faroe Islands, geographically, is an intergal part of the group.

The article should be quite clear on some points, or some readers could become quite confused. Is the article about an entity called the British Isles, or is it about the main archipelago that lies off Western Europe? If it's about the archipelago, then we must include the Faroe Islands, as they were formed from the same Thulean basin that the rest of the islands emerged from, during the Paleogene period. Channel Islands are out, as they are not in the archipelago. As regards edit-warring, this particular article is a bit "untouchable", and judging by the edit history, it appears to be well-watched, watched like a hawk! Cherry rose (talk) 14:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Are the Faroes on the same part of the shelf? There's an image on the page that shows a "gap" in the continental shelf before the Faroes. Citation please! And yes, this article is a delicate beast. Wotapalaver (talk) 14:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Philip's Concise World Atlas, 8th edition, shows the sea floor dropping to between 500 m and 1000 m between Britain and the Faroe Islands, which means it is not on the continental shelf. The same is true of Rockall. If you're after a geographical definition based on the continental shelf, rather than a geopolitical definition, neither should be included. The Atlantic Ocean is separated from the Norwegian Sea by a submarine ridge running from Scotland to Greenland via North Rona, the Faroes and Iceland. It appears that the lowest point on this ridge is the Wyville-Thomson Ridge between the Faroes and North Rona. (This can be confirmed more authoritatively with GEBCO data, but the site is currently broken.) I hope we can all agree that Greenland is not in the British Isles, so we need to draw a line and say everything on one side is in the British Isles, and anything on the other side is not. From a bathymetric point of view, one obvious line is the Rockall Trough which runs up to the W-T Ridge, and separates the Faroes and Rockall from the main part of this island group. — ras52 (talk) 17:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Iceland and Denmark argue that Rockall is outside the jurisdiction of either the UK or Ireland. They argue that the continental shelf marks the limit on any claim. Denmark claims Rockall on behalf of the Faroe Islands. This matter is still to be settled by the four governments. This map (Icelandic law) [17] shows the sea to the west of Ireland to be Icelandic territory! - ClemMcGann (talk) 18:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

(reduce)The term dates from a time before there were bathymetric surveys of the Atlantic so the current knowledge wouldn't necessarily mean that they couldn't be included. The Channel Islands are included for (purely) political reasons rather than geography. It's more a question of whether people mean the Faroes when they say "British Isles". My experience is that they don't, and similarly with Rockall. Wotapalaver (talk) 18:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Actually, that map suggests that the island of Rockall is in undisputed British territory — the island is on the far east of the Rockall Plateau, and within the UK's EEZ (the area delimited by a black line) . My understanding is that the governments of Denmark, Ireland and Iceland no longer Rockall per se, rather they claim that it is an uninhabitable rock and that Britain can't use it to claim an extended EEZ further out into the Atlantic. (And this is what the Wikipedia article on Rockall states too.) But lets not argue about this, as it's not particularly relevant to the current discussion. Irrespective of which countries claims Rockall, the geographical status of Rockall is similar to that of the Faroes — they are islands outside of the continental shelf. And the map you link to makes this very clear. — ras52 (talk) 18:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I was off reading the Rockall article too. It says that the UK claims Rockall and administers it as part of Harris, i.e. part of Scotland, i.e. part of Great Britain. Not sure how to fit that in with the definition of "The British Isles" Wotapalaver (talk) 19:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, this paper confirms that geographically Rockall, and the whole Rockall Plateau, is not considered part of the British Isles. The Rockall Plateau is an extensive shallow water area located south of Iceland and west of the British Isles: it is separated from the British Isles by the 3000 m deep Rockall Trough. I think it has already been established that the term "British Isles" has both geographical and geopolitical meanings, and that the geographical and geopolitical regions are not necessarily coterminous. Perhaps Rockall is an example of something that is generally excluded geographically yet included geopolitically? — ras52 (talk) 19:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Historically, the term was geopolitical. Current consensus is that it is solely a geographical term. But perhaps your assertion is closer to reality - and if so, it lends an enormous weight to those editors seeking a POV tag on the entire article. Geographically, as a term, it should exclude Rockall, and the Channel Islands. If consensus needs testing on whether the term is still a geopolitical term, then it's easy to test it. --Bardcom (talk) 21:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

And if you want a reference for the UK's claim to Rockall, you probably can't get much more authoritative than the Isle of Rockall Act (1972). — ras52 (talk) 19:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

so, Rockall can be part of Scotland but not part of the BIs ??? ClemMcGann (talk) 21:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Geo-politically, yet. Geographically, doesn't appear so... --Bardcom (talk) 21:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

British Isles used as a geographic term, yes! Jack forbes (talk) 21:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, it may wish it was a geographic term and is often described as a geographic term, but many scholars also describe it as a political term, or politically loaded, or politically incorrect, or various. It's hard to sustain an argument that it's a purely geographic term. Wotapalaver (talk) 15:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a purely geographic term. Political connotations are POV attachments. I imagine you're worried about a slippery slope whereby people will go from understanding that Ireland is a British Isle to thinking that it is or should be be part of Britain. I think you're worrying too much. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 19:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing pure about geography, though. BI is used as an identity term. The claim that the Irish are British because they are from the British Isles is something I hear often, even amongst people who know that Ireland is not nor believe that it should be part of Britain. Nuclare (talk) 03:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I just thought I'd add my 2 cents because I came here wondering about the Faroe Islands myself. Why aren't these generally considered part of the British Isles? Their closest neighbour is Shetland and they are about as remote to Shetland as Shetland is to Orkney. If Shetland is a geographical extension of the British Isles why wouldn't the Faroes by as well? They are not that remote from the rest of the British Isles and certainly the Rockall archipelago (YES! it is TWO islands not just the one) is far more remote than the Faroes!

Being a part of the United Kingdom is not essential criteria for being part of the British Isles as the Republic of Ireland, Channel Islands and the Isle of Man are all part of the British Isles without being part of the United Kingdom. British Isles is solely a geographical term and has been for the far greater part of the history of the term. The term has existed for approximately two thousand years, long before the United Kingdom existed and it's always included both Great Britain AND Ireland. Great Britian and Britain are not the same thing. Britain refers to the whole archipelago (or at least in a political sense Great Britain and Northern Ireland), which is why the archipelago is not called the Great British Isles.

The British Isles only gained a political context when Ireland and Great Britain were united politically in 1801, before then and since 1923 they have been solely a geographical term, but they have always been a georgraphical term. The Irish have just as much a claim to be British as anyone else in the archipelago and they shouldn't view it as diminishing their Irishness, but rather as something that is in addition to it. There are four similar but distinct major and unique nations that form the British Isles, England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales and together those four form Britain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.135.96.234 (talk) 11:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm also curious to how the Irish are not British? Aren't those in Northern Ireland, which is part of the UK, Irish people who are British? Aren't there people there that consider themselves to be both Irish and British like a person in England may consider himself English and British (a Catholic Unionist for example)? Aren't there even people throughout the island of Ireland that consider themselves Irish and British? Does Irish and British have to be mutually exclusive? Isn't Irish the equivalent of English, Scottish and Welsh and isn't English, Irish, Scottish and Welsh together the four main "ethnicities" that make up the British people? Since when was British only a political definition? If the Republic of Ireland can be part of the British Isles, which it is, then it proves that British is not mearly and doesn't have to just have a political definition. The Irish are British by their culture, history, heritage, geography and genetical makeup. The only definition where they are not British is politically and that limitation only applies to the Republic, the people of Northern Ireland are British in every sense of the word.

The British Isles was a geographical term first and foremost and only acquired a political meaning in 1801 until late december 1922. Since then, it reverted back to principally a geographical definition again. Perhaps its meaning could be viewed like this: Geographical (prinicpal meaning) - Either: Great Britain, Ireland and the Isle of man and their surrounding islands Or ("extended" geographical term): Great Britain, Ireland, Isle of Man, their surrounding islands + Rockall, the Faroes and the Channel Islands (including Chausey). Political definition: The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland, the Lordship of Man and the Duchy of Normandy (the British Channel Islands). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.135.96.234 (talk) 21:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

If you mean British as in the UK? then yes, the people of Northern Ireland are British. But, if you mean British as in the island of Great Britain? then no, they're not British. GoodDay (talk) 21:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I mean British as in part of the British Isles. A geographical definition of British is not limited to just Great Britain. Geographically, British has always included both Great Britain and Ireland so the people of Ireland are British as they are part of the British Isles. Those in the Republic may not be politically British, but British is not limited to solely politics. The people of Northern Ireland on the other hand are usually both geographically and politically British. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.135.96.234 (talk) 22:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

By that definition New Zealanders can consider themselves Australians as they are part of Australasia. Don't tell a Kiwi he is an Aussie, he/she won't take too kindly to it, just as people from the republic of Ireland won't take too kindly to being called British. --Jack forbes (talk) 22:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no continent called Australasia, it is simply called Australia. So New Zealanders can consider themselves Australians in the same way that United Kingdomers can consider themselves European. New Zealanders are part of the continent of Australia and not the country that also has the same name. New Zealanders can also consider themselves British New Zealanders if they are descended from the people of the British Isles. The Irish can consider themselves British as they are from the British Isles and have British Isles descent. The Republic of Ireland being a currently seperate sovereign state does not change this and neither does the citizens of the Republic of Ireland's unwillingness to define themselves as British either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.135.96.234 (talk) 23:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I was actually referring to Australasia. You say New Zealanders can consider themselves Australians due to living in the continent of Australia, well my previous point stands, they would never call themseves Australians, I know, I lived there for some time. There is no such thing as British New zealander, unless they are new immigrants. They are very proud of being New Zealanders and don't need any other names for themselves. --Jack forbes (talk) 23:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I also think a people and their government can call themselves what they want! I don't comprehend what you mean by British Isles descent, how can you be descended from a geographical term? --Jack forbes (talk) 23:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Australasia is still not a continent though, rather it is a geographical region. Not that I see much point, but New Zealanders could refer to themselves as Australasians, as Irish people could refer to themselves as British islanders (Britain being an alternative name to British Isles in the geographical sense). New Zealanders wouldn't usually refer to themselves as Australians of course because although they are part of the continent of Australia they are not part of the country of Australia, so to call themselves Australian would be viewed as them claiming to be part of the Australian nation. They are still however Australians in the same way that the British are Europeans. Context and understanding that context when applying terms that have multiple meanings is the key! Now is someone of British (Isles) descent who has New Zealand citizenship not a British New Zealander? Is someone with Canadian citizenship who has French descent not called a French Canadian and is someone who has Irish descent in the United States not called an Irish American? Why then would someone of British or English descent for example, in New Zealand not be refered to as an British New Zealander or Anglo New Zealander? Even if they are not refered as such or they do not define themselves that way, are they still at least technically not that anyway? Yes, people can call themselves what they want, but if someone is a French Canadian without being a recent immigrant, and someone is Irish American without being a recent immigrant, than someone is also a British New Zealander without being a recent immigrant. Whether any inidividual defines themselves in those or differing terms is another issue entirely.

I use the term British Isles descent because I believe that whether someone is Irish, English, Scottish or Welsh they are British overal and that their Britishness does not contradict or lesson their Irishness, Englishness, Scottishness or Welshness, it does in fact compliment it. It is nothing to do with politics and it does not imply that the Irish are part of the UK, as only part of them currently are, in Northern Ireland. Descent and nationality aren't necessary the same thing and can't be considered the same in relation to the British Isles when they are currently divided into two sovereign states. A so-called Ulster Unionist is still Irish and a so called Irish Republican is still British. The people of the British Isles are Irish, English, Scottish and Welsh as well as being British. The only difference is when it comes to their nationality. They may either be British nationality (UK), Irish nationality (Republic) or both (NI).

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.135.96.234 (talk) 00:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I think your understanding of certain issues is...well...lacking in subtlety, if I can put it that way. But your arguments do point precisely to one of major reasons why many Irish dislike and reject the term 'British Isles'. So, in that respect, thanks! You are a living illustration of the reasons for some of the objections. Your entire definition of the Irish as British is dependent on the term 'British Isles' being the accepted name of the islands (and even in Northern Ireland, British, as an identity, is, by international agreement, now optional.) Nuclare (talk) 00:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

With respect, it is just my sincerest of beliefs that Britishness does not necessarily have to be so narrowly defined to exclude Ireland just because most of Ireland is no longer part of the United Kingdom. The Isle of Man is not part of the United Kingdom and it never has been but it is still part of the British Isles. British Isles is simply the name for the archipelago that Great Britain and Ireland belong, whether that archipelago contains 1 sovereign state, 2 or 20. There are several different ways to define what is British and just because the Republic of Ireland cannot be defined British politically that doesn't mean it can't be using other definitions, geographically being the perfect example. So Ireland is British depending on what definition is being used - British in the sense of its culture, heritage, history, the descent of its people, language etc certainly as well as Irish, just as England, Scotland and Wales would be both English, Scottish, Welsh and British using those criteria, but in terms of its nationality and politics, Ireland is only Irish when referring to the Republic of Ireland.

The Irish, unlike the English, Scottish or Welsh, are more complexly defined due to the prevaling political situation that exists within the British Isles, specifically in relation to Northern Ireland. Generally, citzens of the United Kingdom within the mainland home nations, ie England, Scotland and Wales, are either English/Anglo British, Scotch/Scottish British or Welsh British. Citzens of the Republic of Ireland are British Irish. Their nationality is Irish but they are British by descent, Ireland being part of the British Isles and the British family of nations alongside England, Scotland and Wales. For example, a very similar situation exists concerning the Irish American. The Irish American is Irish in the same sense that the Irish is British, by descent rather than nationality. So the Irish American is in fact a British American, just like the English, Scottish or Welsh Americans are British Americans. The Irishness, Englishness, Scottishness or Welshness being just one of the components that make up peoples of British descent.

Specifically concerning Northern Ireland, the situation is more complex. Northern Irelanders could be chiefly defined as either:

A) Irish British - The equivalent to Scotch/Scottish British, Anglo/English British and Welsh British. B) Irish British AND British Irish! - Both United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland citizenship. C) British Irish - Only Republic of Ireland citizenship, the normal situation that also exists within the Republic of Ireland.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.135.96.234 (talk) 01:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but It's not about your sincere beliefs. It's not about what CAN be in some great theoretical. It's not about you at all. It's about what the Irish people choose. Theoretically, the Irish could consider themselves anything: in fact, as residents of an island that looks distinctly like some McDonald's Chicken McNuggets, I hereby propose the Irish be called McNuggites. Or they could call themselves These-ers, in deference to a much used alternative to to BI, 'these islands.' Or DrinkalotofGuinness-ites. Or anything. Most Irish people, however, (certainly Northern Ireland unionists being the most numerous exception--some of whom do not consider themselves Irish, btw) do NOT consider themselves British and do not wish to be considered as such, regardless of what you think they can or should be. Only someone who takes some perserve pleasure in calling people that which they do not wish to be called would in 2008 make the arguments you are making. That there are people in Ireland who consider themselves both Irish and British is an absolute statement of fact. That British and Irish is the identity of most is absoultely not true. I think the Irish are well aware that they **COULD** accept being classed and called British. Most, however, have chosen otherwise. (btw, there's a source at the BI references page that disputes some of the historical claims about the term you've made here. It's the John Morrill quotation. Nuclare (talk) 01:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Here's a link to the references page I mentioned: [18]. The quotation starts "Geographers may have formed the habit..." Nuclare (talk) 01:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

It's interesting..a question above is "I'm curious how the Irish are not British", based on the idea that they're from the British Isles. A better expression of the problem many Irish people have with the term "British Isles" could hardly be attempted. The clearest expression I've heard of the issue is "Irish is not a sub-set of British. They're friendly and related, but one is not a sub-set of the other".

That awful phrase "parity of esteem", which was used in the NI negotiations and treaties applies too and represented official British recognition of the same thing, that Irish isn't a lesser identity. One could reverse the IP's question to see the full problem, as seen by many Irish people. "I'm curious how the British are not Irish". That way around there's obviously a problem. Funny that many people don't understand that. Wotapalaver (talk) 15:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, The ip's argument should be kept and cherished for any future discussion concerning the naming of the British Isles. Jack forbes (talk) 17:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)