Talk:British Isles/Archive 20

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

→

Archive 25

Proposal to vote

As far as I can see we have agreement on the Souza proposal. One editor who was against has withdrawn. One editor remaining TharkunColl has both refused to provide a citation for a contrary view, and has also refused mediation. I don't think it is possible to achieve a consensus on that basis.--Snowded (talk) 15:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Vote for the Souza Proposal

(please do not include comments or arguments here use the section below)

• FOR --Snowded (talk) 15:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Agree GoodDay (talk) 15:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Agree --Bardcom (talk) 15:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Agree Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 17:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Agree Wotapalaver (talk) 18:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Agree Bill Reid | Talk 18:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Agree Waggers (talk) 18:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Against --G2bambino (talk) 23:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Agree Nuclare (talk) 01:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Agree Jack forbes (talk) 03:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Agree Crispness (talk) 11:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

We have seveneightnineten in agreement, one against two editors previously engaged not voting and one new editor expressing "dislike". I think that resolves it and we can now change the main page.

Comments

Dislike "...many people may...", sorry for the dissent after everyone's efforts, but i think we should be more assertive in the lead section of the article. My preference would by:

The British Isles (...) known also by several alternative names, is an archipelago off the northwest coast of continental Europe comprised of Great Britain, Ireland and a number of smaller islands. Although still in use, the name British Isles is controversial in relation to Ireland, where many find the term offensive or objectionable.

—eric 18:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Given the length of time this has been going on we really need to resolve it and introducing another phrase at this stage opens everything up again. I would like to make a suggestion. Your sentence above includes the "many", please accept "may" as a compromise for now. The point about alternative names which I think is very valid would then be a new edit --Snowded (talk) 18:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

As pointed out above; there seems to be a consensus in place. GoodDay (talk) 20:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The majority vote doesn't make a consensus, and it doesn't make things right. The qualifier "many" is not properly sourced. Sure, a couple of sources have been dug up in which an individual states that they think many Irish people object to the term, but that isn't definitive proof that many Irish actually do. "Many" is unquantifiable and should be avoided, and its use is the only real problem with the "Sousa proposal." --G2bambino (talk) 23:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

In a single day we've gone from one very pro-BI poster telling us we need no sources to support 'many in Ireland' because it's "bleedin' obvious" that many Irish object, to being told we need more sources. Never a dull moment on Ye Olde British Isles board. Nuclare (talk) 01:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

And I thought we had this one signed, sealed & delivered. GoodDay (talk) 23:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

There comes a point where any discussion has to stop and I think we all reached there. If G2bambino is not prepared to accept this I suggest he moves back to mediation but for the moment leaves the page as it is. Many, was a compromise like many things in Wikipedia. --Snowded (talk) 03:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

"Many" was a compromise but, again, that doesn't mean that it lacks sources. Wotapalaver (talk) 08:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

"Many" may have been a compromise, but it compromises neutrality in the process. How many people in Ireland find the term offencive is so far unquantified - unless there's a poll, out there somewhere, on the issue. So, there's no percentage to compare to the total population and say whether it qualifies as "many" or not; you're just using the seemingly weakly supported personal opinions of other people to support your own. The most simple and npov solution is to just remove the word "many"; Although still in use, the name British Isles is controversial in relation to Ireland, where people may find the term offensive or objectionable. No added personal interpretations there. --G2bambino (talk) 14:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you are in a very clear minority here and the discussion has been extensive. The quote is cited. If you are unhappy with this I think you have to take it to mediation. You are presenting no new arguments which were not part of the original discussion. --Snowded (talk) 19:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd prefer a proper response to the points I raised, as opposed to sarcastic apologies and red herrings. Whether or not the points were raised earlier, they clearly have never actually been tackled. --G2bambino (talk) 20:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

(indent) You have not introduced any new arguments. The response to your point can thus be found by reading back through the material. You are reopening an issue which has been resolved and your statement that they have not been tackled is your POV and not justified by the facts. --Snowded (talk) 23:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

You know this would be re-opening a pandora's box? It could be messy? GoodDay (talk) 14:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

"May" is then unsupported and inaccurate. If you go to "...the name British Isles is controversial in relation to Ireland, where people find the term offensive or objectionable" you'd be fully accurate and NPOV, no personal interpretations. Are you happy with that? Wotapalaver (talk) 14:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

"May" is not unsupported. Sources prove that some people, at least, object to the term; therefore, within a selection of the population, it is completely plausible that one may come across an objector, or may not. Your version without "may" was actually my initial thought; however, it didn't seem to leave room for those who don't find the term offensive. One could say the name British Isles is controversial in relation to Ireland, where people may or may not find the term offensive or objectionable, but it seems redundant to do so, as "may" already implies that others "may not." --G2bambino (talk) 20:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I love it! "May or may not"!!! Wotapalaver (talk) 22:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Calling that redundant would be the understatement of the year: It's not redundant; it renders the statement completely meaningless! And we can't just take "many" out without the implication being that there may be no one in Ireland that objects, which would obviously be false. Nuclare (talk) 22:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

In reference to the MedCab case, Case Closed. Great job coming to consensus without even needing the requested mediation. Thanks to all involved parties, and happy editing! --Iamzork (talk) 21:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

GAA Official and "the British Isles"

In a BBC News report on the deaths of two young GAA players we have the Ulster GAA Secretary stating:

"According to the charity Cardiac Risk in the Young, eight of these deaths happen in the British Isles every week"

GAA deaths 'cannot put kids off'

I thought that was interesting, modern usage from someone from a nationalist background.Starviking (talk) 12:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I'm sure that examples can be found. One question. How do you know he's a nationalist? Wotapalaver (talk) 13:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, he was indirectly quoting a UK-based organisation (Cardiac Risk) (not to mention that the man himself is based in the UK). Wotapalaver - gaelic games in Northern Ireland? - you can almost be certain that the man is of a Catholic/nationalist background, though I wouldn't over politicise the individual just because of the sports he plays. --89.101.102.10 (talk) 21:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough on "almost certain". It's a workable assumption for talk pages, but not for article text. Wotapalaver (talk) 23:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

He's almost certainly from a nationalist background, and probably Catholic. Whilst he was quoting from a UK-based organisation, he could easily have said 'Britain and Ireland' if the term 'British Isles' had been too distasteful for him. I think it's good enough for article text, as the controversy is over usage of the term in Ireland.Starviking (talk) 09:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

He most likely a Catholic, but I'm not sure what this example illustrates that we don't already know. Nuclare (talk) 11:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe he did say that he found the term distasteful but that wasn't reported. Maybe he used the term and then described how silly he found objections to the term. Who knows? I'm sure that many of the anti-BI posters here have used the term British Isles in this discussion and they didn't always append "But of course I find the term distasteful" every time they did. In either case, he was apparently quoting another organization. An individual example of a non-prominent Irish person living in the UK quoting a UK organization using the term "British Isles" is hardly news. Anyway, maybe like many other UK organisations they mean UK when they say British Isles. Wotapalaver (talk) 12:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think "living in the UK" is relevant here. In fact, it's quite possible that Irish Catholics living in NI, as a group, are MORE bothered by the term than any other group in Ireland. I can't prove that, but it certainly wouldn't be surprising. On the other points, I agree. The simple fact is the article wording already accounts for the fact that there are non-unionists in Ireland that use the term. If it were only unionists, we'd be able to say "a majority" or even "most" rather than "many." Nuclare (talk) 03:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe he actually said "Britain and Ireland" and the Beeb changed it to suit the 'house style'? Maybe we should ask him what he actually said? Ask him is he a nationalist? Was he just quoting a term he never use hinself normally? Is he British? So many questions! Sarah777 (talk) 08:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Sarah777, your User Page indicates you are a Citizen of Ireland - so you should know that the GAA is a nationalist organisation - of course he's a nationalist, and probably does not see himself as British. But still he used the term "British Isles".Starviking (talk) 08:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

ROFL!! Just checked the Cardiac Risk website ... turns out our mysterious "British Ises" is actually the UK, and does not included Republic of Ireland! --89.101.102.10 (talk) 20:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, unknown user, what's that got to do with it? If you searched the site you'd see it does not include the term 'British Isles' anywhere on its pages - it's used solely by the GAA Official concerned. He could be referring to the UK by using it - but I've never heard anyone in the North use 'British Isles' for 'UK', in fact a nationalist would prefer to use 'UK' over 'British Isles'. I think it's more reasonable to assume he used 'British Isles' to include the Republic too - however incorrect that may have been due to the statistics quoted being UK-only.Starviking (talk) 08:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Touché! Even the cardiacs are more up-to-date than Wiki! Doubtless that is how our GAA man understood the term as well - it being the COMMON USAGE these days. Sarah777 (talk) 21:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not common usage in the North, UK does not equal British Isles there.Starviking (talk) 08:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

So? BI isn't the common name in the South - it is the most common name for the UK and the various little bits and scraps of islands in general use. Sarah777 (talk) 09:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Never heard it myself, and I've lots of Southern relatives.Starviking (talk) 09:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

(reduce indent)Enough already. Too many "maybes". Wotapalaver (talk) 09:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Exactly why we need a dab page - "relatives in the South" isn't a standard Wiki 'verifiable source'. Sarah777 (talk) 10:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't claiming they were a 'verifiable source'. I was just pointing out I'd never heard 'British Isles' used the way you suggest, even though I had a very good chance to. By the way Sarah, in your post of 08:14, 18 June 2008 you seem to be unaware of the fact that the GAA is nationalist and not in any way British - which begs the question: are you an Irish resident?Starviking (talk) 22:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The Republic of Ireland goes under the British Isles usage (along with the UK). For some Irish? it stinks. But hey, my country is on a continent called -North America-. GoodDay (talk) 20:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

So are you on record now as thinking "North America" stinks? But, don't underestimate the importance of that modifier 'North.' And, as often as Canadians are mistaken for Americans, I think the tendency to *knowingly* treat Canadians and things/places Canadian as a subset of American and, therefore, calling them just American is far less than the frequency with which Irish people/things/places get knowingly called British.

The issue of 'usage' is interesting. When names have no official status, usage is pretty much all that defines them. How much variation in usage can exist before what is 'correct' varies. Something to ponder, anyways... :-) Nuclare (talk) 23:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I've no problem with 'North America'. I was just trying to console the Irish (dishonest? yes; but I'm soft-hearted). GoodDay (talk) 23:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, and it's come up here not too long ago, many South Americans DO have a problem with the USA and USA'ers appropriating the term "American". Still, it's a separate issue. Wotapalaver (talk) 10:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

One last try

We are all going to be a laughing stock if this carries on much longer without a resolution. I want to make one last attempt at suggesting a way forward but suggest that if we can't resolve very quickly then this goes to mediation and the page is protected again during that process.

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

had some consensus, but there was and is controversy over the word "many". Evidence has been presented as to many but it is not conclusive to all editors. There is no evidence that it is not true, although there is argument over the where the burden of proof lies.

So I don't think anyone believes that it is not right to say that there are people who find the use objectionable and that in a political context it still is. What evidence there is for "many" relates to its political use not its geographical use.

So now about this:

The term British Isles is controversial in relation to Ireland, where many people may find the term offensive or objectionable when any political meaning is implied , the Irish government also discourages its usage --Snowded (talk) 19:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

support: Hopefully this version will appease everyone. Jack forbes (talk) 19:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

support: Hopefully this will end the arguing & bring stability to this article. GoodDay (talk) 19:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. "when any political meaning is implied" is speculation, isn't it? Also, the links and refs have disappeared. Wotapalaver (talk) 20:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Refs can go back in - I was trying to get agreement on text. The references also support the above statement. I can't see why you object to a compromise. --Snowded (talk) 20:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment. Why not simply miss out "many" in the original proposal quoted in this section, which would surely resolve the controversy over its use, and would not introduce any uncertainty about whether "when any political meaning is implied" is speculation or not?  DDStretch  (talk) 20:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

That was tried some time ago and failed to get support) mind you nothing may --Snowded (talk) 20:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, but if the objections were different to the one that states that the sentence was not specific enough, then it seems likely that the new proposal is bound to fail to reach consensus if nothing else has changed, because the new proposal only differs in being more specific from the one I suggested. If something else substantive has changed, then perhaps the reaction to my suggestion might possibly be more favourable if put to people?  DDStretch  (talk) 20:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure specific is the right word here. If you read through all the debate, the issue on offence is political not geographic. I am attempting to make that explicit. --Snowded (talk) 03:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I accept that, and I also accept that the term is viewed as offensive because of past outrageous behaviour associated with it, and so it is heavily politicized. In which case, as "many" could be criticized as being in need of additional verification, just miss the word out from the second proposal., or add some verification for its use.  DDStretch  (talk) 05:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

If I could ask a question of Wotapalaver, is'nt it the fact that many Irish people disagree with the term because of the political connection? Jack forbes (talk) 20:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

For anyone who is still trying to include "many", the last thing you should be doing is trying to narrow the objections. I'm sure a lot of the objections to the term are political, but not all. "British" is a disputed concept in Ireland in all respects. Geographical and political. Look at the Irish embassy statement: "we are not part of Britain, not even in a geographical sense." Look at the Sunday Business Post article, for another article, even when the company came back with an explanation that they were only using the term geographically to describe an archipeligo, the objection was not assuaged. Aside from those (such as the Anglo-Irish, Ulster-Scots) with tracable Great Britain lineage, I don't know that there is evidence that the people of Ireland, generally, ever in any sense embraced the concept British for themselves or their island. So that the idea that the attachment of "British" to Ireland is only spoiled by politics is not something I think can be fully supported. Nuclare (talk) 00:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

What do we mean by "political meaning" in this suggestion? Is, for example, classing someone as British because they are from the geographical unit called the British Isles (an argument I've heard a number of times) political? Nuclare (talk) 00:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes that would be and it would be offensive, hence the suggestion. You have the word "many" in the above phrase and its linked to the essence of the objection namely making imperial assumptions--Snowded (talk) 03:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC).

But why is it necessarily an 'imperial assumption' that someone from a place called "British" is British? The people I'm talking about tend to respond that they are not making imperial/political assumptions; they are just speaking purely geographically: The Irish are from a geographical place called the British Isles, so they are part of a subset of the concept "British," in a geographical sense--in the same way people from geographical Europe are Europeans, geographical North America are North American. I'm not saying they are correct, I'm asking how (actually I'm struggling here to word this the way I mean it...Augh!) can this sort of thing be summed up as political? Nuclare (talk) 04:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It is very political. Names have great power and if you look at the systematic attempt by the "English" dominated British government to eliminate the Irish and Welsh languages, to rename places to confirm with the dominant language you will see the way that language is used in the exercise of power. I do a lot of work with aboriginal people around the world and it is interesting to see my grandmothers experience (being beaten for speaking welsh in the playground of her school and being humiliated in the class room for the same) matched by First National people in Canada and elsewhere. There is a massive history associated with the word "British" which is less the case for concepts such as Europe and North America which have never been used as names for political powers, they have always been geographical. To say that the Irish are in any way a subset of "British" even as a concept is to ignore history. Can I commend to you the compromise I have suggested. We need to move on here. --Snowded (talk) 04:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sort of losing you Snowed. It's not that I disagree with what you are saying; I'm just not following how anything you are saying supports the accuracy of contending that Irish object to the term British Isles only when it is used politically? We need to be accurate more than we need to move on. I'm not convinced that this suggestion is accurate. The Irish embassy spokesman doesn't seem to agree with it either. Nuclare (talk) 05:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about (sort of losing you). I was trying to explain why some of the phrases you were using wre offensive. If in the pursuit of accuracy you ignore political reality and history then we will not move on. I think the very clear context of the Irish embassy spokesman and the much discussed dust jacket are political not geographical In twenty years time the phrase "British Isles" may have been replaced by "Atlantic Archipelago " or similar. For the moment we are stuck with a geographical term which has strong political associations. So in the interests of accuracy and moving on I have suggested acknowledging that. I think my suggestion is accurate. --Snowded (talk) 05:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I am ignoring political reality and history. Of course, there are objections to political use of the term. But keep in mind there have been edit wars at Wiki over the (indisputably only meant as geographical)statements "Lough Neagh is the largest lake in the British Isles" and "The River Shannon is the longest river in the British Isles." The Irish embassy statement seems rather political-usage at first glance, but there's that zinger tossed in there: "even in the geographical sense." Phrasing the objections in relation to Ireland as if BI is only objectionable when its given "political meaning" doesn't strike me as accurate. (BTW, there is no "dust jacket".) Nuclare (talk) 05:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

In part that is why I used the word "implied" to cover offensive use of the geographical term (the Irish Embassy zinger). The point is that they think the geographical term can be used politically and suspect (as to other editors) that is is being used carelessly at least. So I do think my proposal is accurate but I am open to changes. What is very clear is that the some qualification is needed, we are not going to resolve the "many/not many dispute otherwise and we do need to move on. --Snowded (talk) 05:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

(indent) OK taking all of the above into account let me make another minor modification: The term British Isles is controversial in relation to Ireland, where many people may find the term offensive or objectionable when any political meaning is implied or interpreted; the Irish government also discourages its usage The references would also go back in here (to deal with an earlier point from User:Wotapalaver). Will that do it? --Snowded (talk) 07:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Works for me. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 09:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy with that (anything to stop the bickering!) Waggers (talk) 10:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Look, I'm not an edit warrior. You've never to worry about me on that account. But there is something about it still that rubs me as dubious. It's not that this version isn't true, so much as it sounds like we are stretching meaning to the point of making something akin to a statement of the obvious. Its got one of these 'we're trying too hard' vibes about it. But my addled brain is beyond the point of being able to explain what I mean in a coherant fashion, so...I'm hardly an editor that will stand in your way. I just wish maybe there is one living soul here who might get the gist of what I'm trying say. Or not as its probably not clear. LOL! Nuclare (talk) 11:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I agree - the "when any political meaning is implied or interpreted" seems to have come from nowhere and also seems to dilute things too much. Do you think it's better without it? Waggers (talk) 12:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It hasn't come from no where, its an attempt to distil the substantive argument or difference between warring editors. Remove that and you are straight back into the win loose argument. It doesn't dilute, it clarifies. --Snowded (talk) 14:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Its not that I think this wording is coming out of nowhere; it's more that in this case I think there is evidence that counters tying the objections only to politics, even though there are sources that seem to do just that. I would rather lose "many people" altogether and use something like "where there are often objections to the term" than straightjacket the issue in regards to Ireland as being *only* and always definable as "political". Nuclare (talk) 14:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, the objections to the geographic use are its political associations. You can try out another phrase but I think you will just move us back into a sterile "many" "not Many" dispute. --Snowded (talk) 15:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

"the objections to the geographic use are its political associations." Not always. Some of it can be more pro-Irish at its root rather than anti-British-political associations. Nuclare (talk) 00:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose: Once again you are attempting to negate objections by qualifying them. There is no other interpretation of the term "British" used over Ireland than political. This proposal implies that there is. I'm certain if somebody attempted to claim your country as being in an entity named after another country (not to mention that one that brutalised your people for centuries- but let's avoid that most unpleasant of matters) you would have greater clarity on this issue. 86.42.91.234 (talk) 21:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Would you please stop with the ranting? GoodDay (talk) 21:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Well technically I could reclaim "British" as something to which Anglo-Saxons and Normans have no entitlement. I could complain about any recognition of the word Irish given their behaviour in Anglesey in the early years of the Kingdom of Gwynedd. The history of these Isles is complex and not susceptible to stereotypical good guy and bad guy arguments. The term British Isles is used without political intent its a legacy term, in a decade it may have died out for now it is still in use. --Snowded (talk) 21:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect to Snowded' efforts here, I do have some issues with both the wording and meaning of the last suggestion, so I thought I'd throw out another suggestion. It's a bit of a departure and may be rejected outright, but...:

The term British Isles is controversial in relation to Ireland, where its use may cause offense and is often rejected in favor of alternative ways of referencing the islands. Referring to "British Isles," a spokesperson for the Irish Embassy to the UK has stated, "we would discourage its usage." Well, voila. Nuclare (talk) 01:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Never sure what someone means when they say "with all due respect" but I would accept the above. --Snowded (talk) 03:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

"is controversial" implies universality... replace that with "can be" or "is often" and I could cerainly go with that. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 07:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Nuclare's version plus Bastun's tweak looks good. Bill Reid | Talk 08:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree - looks good although sounds awkward if "is often" is used twice, and I'd prefer (but not mind otherwise) if the phrasing is like this:

The term British Isles is often controversial in relation to Ireland where its use may cause offense and alternative terms may frequently be used. Referring to "British Isles," a spokesperson for the Irish Embassy to the UK has stated, "we would discourage its usage". --Bardcom (talk) 08:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there were too many "is oftens" and you've done well to get rid of them, but now there are too many "may"s! How's this: (outdented)

I don't reject the tweak, but I would dispute that the universality of "is controversial" implies all uses are always controversial. Its universal only in the sense that "is controversial" means it *is* ongoingly controversial. Nuclare (talk) 11:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The term British Isles is often controversial in relation to Ireland where its use may cause offense and alternative terms are frequently used. Referring to "British Isles," a spokesperson for the Irish Embassy to the UK has stated, "we would discourage its usage". Waggers (talk) 09:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Support - Perfeck. --Bardcom (talk) 09:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Support --Snowded (talk) 10:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

No. It's too long and convoluted - typical Wikispeak. All we need to say is that it can be contoversial in Ireland, though is still used there, followed by a link to the dedicated article. We also need to remove most of notes 4 and 5, which virtually constitute an article in their own right, and represent a sneaky way of putting back into this article information that belongs in the controversy article. TharkunColl (talk) 11:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. It's long and convoluted, on that I agree with TharkunColl. The term IS controversial in Ireland. The "may" was an attempt to soften "many" to reach acceptability. Without "many", "may" just isn't right. The term IS controversial in Ireland and does cause offense. Look at the additional Irish Times ref that Nuclare provided, which describes "British Isles" as unsayable in Ireland. I don't understand what was wrong with dave souza's suggestion. Wotapalaver (talk) 11:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Is there any tweak that stays with this basic form that you would accept? I went through about a dozen different versions of wordings concerning "offense"--with the understanding that "many" wasn't going to fly: "it can cause offense," "can sometimes cause offense," "sometimes causes offense", etc. Will any of these be accepted by you (or Bastun, for that matter)? This version does have "frequently" as far as chosing to use alternatives, which, frankly, I think is more interesting than quantifying how many Irish get steam rolling out of their ears when they do hear BI. Where is the 'convoluted'? The second sentence? If so, I don't care much about that, but I thought it was more precise. Nuclare (talk) 13:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Or, wait a second: Bastun, didn't you imply above you were okay with the source that said "often offensive to Irish [somethingorother]? Would some form of "often cause offense" go beyond what would be acceptable? Nuclare (talk) 13:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

No, that would be absolutely fine with me. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 14:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay. So, how 'bout this: The term British Isles is controversial in relation to Ireland where its use can often cause offense and alternative terms are frequently used. Referring to "British Isles," a spokesperson for the Irish Embassy to the UK has stated, "we would discourage its usage". Nuclare (talk) 14:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support Waggers (talk) 15:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 20:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

(indent) Does anyone see any alternative to mediation? Any attempt to make progress here is rejected by one or another faction for whatever motivation. --Snowded (talk) 11:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Hang on :-) Hereby withdrawing my objection to "is controversial", per Nuclare and Wotapalaver. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 11:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem is, for every statement saying how "offensive" and "unsayable" it is in Ireland, we need an equal statement pointing out that the opposite is also true, and that it's even used by government ministers and MP's, to name just a few. To do anything else would be dishonest. It's best to say hardly anything. TharkunColl (talk) 11:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, this one again. TD's often use the term "British Isles" in a way that excludes Ireland, as TharkunColl knows well. Not saying that they never use it the "normal" way, but certainly not how it's always used - if it's used at all. Wotapalaver (talk) 12:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

To check Batsun would now support The term British Isles is controversial in relation to Ireland where its use may cause offense and alternative terms are frequently used. Referring to "British Isles," a spokesperson for the Irish Embassy to the UK has stated, "we would discourage its usage". I can go with that Tharkun's point is covered as the statement is only made about Ireland. --Snowded (talk) 11:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I was referring to Ireland, where Irish government ministers and MPs, to name a few, still use the term. TharkunColl (talk) 11:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Well you reveal ignorance, there are no MPs in the Dáil Éireann they have deputies. Even if they do I don't see how it negates the phrase controversial --Snowded (talk) 11:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

So does Ordnance Survey of Ireland. Bill Reid | Talk 11:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

A search on their web site reveals one paper on a new geoid model authored in the main by peope from the UK, Scnadinavia and Northern Ireland, the last listed authors (and its not alphabetic so they were no major authors) are from OS Ireland. Not much evidence --Snowded (talk) 12:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Not much evidence of what? Bill Reid | Talk 12:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Of the OS Ireland using the term British Isles in any meaningful way --Snowded (talk) 13:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Not only is the OSI a major partner in producing that document which quotes: "In 2001 a consortium consisting of the Ordnance Surveys of Great Britain (GB), Northern Ireland (NI) and Ireland invited tenders for the computation of a new geoid model for the British Isles," – couldn't be more meaningful than that. Bill Reid | Talk 15:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't change my view. One example (on the whole of their web site) and very very geographical --Snowded (talk) 16:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)As has been said before, those who don't like the term are against it whether its use is geographical or anything else. The point is that an Irish quango has no problems with using the term.Bill Reid | Talk 17:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Imagine the headlines!

New Admiralty chart uses "British Isles and Ireland"! (true)

Admiralty officially rejects term "British Isles" (probably false).

One swallow does not make a spring.Wotapalaver (talk) 12:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)Wasn't going to bother replying to smart alicky remarks such as this but I need to know the truth of the Admiralty statement so please give me the chart reference number so that I can check it on Monday. The Admiralty continue to use the term British Isles as their website attests so probably false is definitely false. Bill Reid | Talk 17:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

You haven't read the article well, have you, before you threw "smart alecky" remarks around? In any case, my point is that the fact that they have used the term "British Isles and Ireland" doesn't indicate that they don't use "British Isles" any more. Wotapalaver (talk) 21:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Can't help yourself, can you. New Admiralty chart uses "British Isles and Ireland"! (true) – False. An ADMIRALTY NOTICES TO MARINERS used the term in 2005 but the UK Hydrographic Office website does not have the phrase British Isles and Ireland anywhere on their website and their most recent notice to mariners (April 2008) [1] provides the following in page 1A.3: British Isles - continued it states IRELAND - West Coast, Killarly Harbour and approaches. I just wonder why an old mistaken phrase is referenced while the uptodate version clearly puts Ireland in the British Isles. Bill Reid | Talk 17:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Well fair enough, so change my text above from "chart" to "Admiralty NOTICES TO MARINERS". The point remains the same. One swallow does not a summer make. Wotapalaver (talk) 09:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Northern Ireland? Hmm, last time I checked, that was actually part of Ireland. TharkunColl (talk) 12:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Its part of Ireland (the island) but it isn't part of Ireland. Sarah777 (talk) 15:43, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

You mean (of course), not part of the Republic of Ireland (better known as Ireland). GoodDay (talk) 15:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Culture Section

I've begun looking for citations for the unsourced statements in it, but I think everyone can agree it needs some serious trimming. Any proposals? (Please don't let this be another fight starter...) -MichiganCharms (talk) 17:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I guess my question with that section is "What's it for?". Is it to show similarities, differences, what? If it's to show similarities, do they have to be more similar than similarities with other European countries? Ditto with differences. Or, could it just be a semi-random collection of generally interesting stuff? Wotapalaver (talk) 11:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Similarities or differences between who or what? (rhetorical question). The section is there to explain the culture(s) of the people(s) that populate the British Isles, not to promote any point of view around whether there are broad similarities or differences across the islands and their people. I agree the section is quite long as it stands - a quick win would be to add some subheadings or split it into three sections (culture, media, sport). Waggers (talk) 11:40, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Cultural similarities or differences between the cultures. Otherwise you have to assert that there's a single culture, which would be difficult. As for "promoting" a point of view, I'll assume the remark isn't supposed to mean anything in particular. Wotapalaver (talk) 12:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

To assert that there is a single culture (without references) would be asserting/promoting a particular point of view. Equally, to assert that there are several different cultures (without references) would also be asserting/promoting a particular point of view. The purpose of the culture section is to describe the culture of the British Isles. I don't think starting this discussion with a loaded question is a helpful way forward. Anyway, back to the point - what do you think about subsections, or even separate media and sport sections? Waggers (talk) 19:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I think subsections is the way to go. As to the why, all it does is show the culture of the Isles, some of it is is shared, some of it is distinct... in the end, though, the existence of a culture can't be denied. On another topic, finding a cite that British people don't often watch Irish programs or read Irish papers is very hard, any suggestions? -MichiganCharms (talk) 20:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

That is a tricky one, I'll have a think about it. I also think it's worth mentioning that although there isn't a great audience for Irish media in the UK, Irish people on British media are hugely popular. The most listened to radio show in the UK is that of an Irishman (Terry Wogan) and there's no getting away from likes of Graham Norton, Louis Walsh, and Diarmuid Gavin on TV. Waggers (talk) 20:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Subsections are fine by me. Wotapalaver (talk) 17:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

a cite we can add for WP:NPOV

just noticed this page and chipping in with cites I found:- Other Irish people are less concerned about the use of the term [2] One letter to the editor showed an English person thought avoiding use of the term was "political correctness gone mad." [3]. Ok you might not like to use a letter to the editor one, but we could use the 'others are less concerned' one. Sticky Parkin 02:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

May I point out that the gentleman in question did have an English father and may have been influenced by his politics. I'm not sure he would be typical of the general population of Ireland. Jack forbes (talk) 10:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a fine cite for the naming dispute page. Unless we want to re-open the discussion on the lead?? (not me!) Wotapalaver (talk) 11:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

It said 'others are less concerned' not just one bloke. And in another article the atlas creator said he personally had received no compaints from parents, only a geography teacher. That implies not everyone sees it as a big issue. If this article is going to say that it's an offensive term or something, this article should include that it's not all irish people are that annoyed by it, at least some of them. Whether it's in the lead or not is up to you lot. :) Sticky Parkin 12:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe they say others, then choose one man to give an opinion whose father was English. (nothing wrong with that, but as I said, it may influence his opinion). Anyway, as GoodDay say's below, the article says many not all. --Jack forbes (talk) 13:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

But the article doesn't say all people in Ireland; it says many. Besides, we've already settled things. GoodDay (talk) 13:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, some of us hope it's settled. I do anyway! However, here's an interesting "letter to the paper" from a pro-British Isles write in an Irish newspaper 10 years ago who describes the term as "almost taboo among those of Irish nationality". [4]. Hardly Oxbridge, but still. Wotapalaver (talk) 14:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Even though he thinks there is nothing wrong with British Isles, he gives another alternative because so many Irish people disagree with the term British Isles. This is someone willing to negotiate. :) --Jack forbes (talk) 15:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

just an fyi, I found a series of letters to the editor in the Irish Times archive. I only posted the one at the ref page, since it was from someone identified as a rep for a TV network, rather than just random individuals. But, for amusement's sake--since we may or may not need a bit of that 'round here--I'm going to post one, which I hope at least GoodDay will enjoy: "Sir, - In the ongoing debate about the use of this term [BI], the fact that the sea between Britain and Ireland is called the "Irish Sea" has been mentioned. I am sure that the good people of Britain would not begrudge us a little bit of sea. After all, we never had a grand empire on which the sun never set. Nevertheless, perhaps we should change the name of the sea to the "British Sea". Maybe then Britain would be less keen to dump all its nuclear waste in it. - Yours, etc.,...Belfast." Nuclare (talk) 23:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Giggle giggle, it's been awhile since I used the Irish Sea in my arguments. GoodDay (talk) 23:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Augh, maybe I shouldn't have posted that then! You're not going to start bringing that up again are you?? :-)) Nuclare (talk) 01:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Nope; too risky. GoodDay (talk) 15:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Hang on a minute? "others are less concerned"- and the "others" is...David Norris. Have you ever every heard Dáithí speak? You can hear the fine Irish accent of this individual here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayMtgwkH0C4. It's not from An Cheathrú Rua that he is now, is it? David Norris is a legend precisely because he... how does one put this...stretches the bounds of Irishness? [God, I should be in politics] Oh, and he's also the senator for Trinity College Dublin, that bastion of Elizabethan civilisation in this dark barbarous land. You certainly choose your "Irish" supporters of the term "British Isles". 86.42.91.234 (talk) 00:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

It may be the IP's opinion that David Norris "stretches the bounds" of Irishness, but that's an opinion. Interesting that the current president of Ireland was born in the UK. Ireland may be comfortable with people who stretch the bounds. Jack Charlton was granted honorary Irish citizenship, so don't be too sure that David Norris isn't 100% Irish. Some would say that Ian Paisley is 100% Irish too - it's complicated. Wotapalaver (talk) 22:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Just what is "interesting" about the fact that Irish people living in Ireland are still being born in the country while its under British occupation, an occupation that is currently going under the guise of the "United Kingdom"? It must have been "interesting" for all the people of Ireland prior to 6 December 1622, then? I'm sure you have a point...somewhere. Or, wait, are you saying all the Irish were not actually Irish because they were born in Ireland when all the country was under British rule? We, the fortunate Irish, were "foreigners" until we broke free from the UK? And we suddenly became Irish again? Go on, go on: let's hear this one out. We "stretched the bounds" of Irishness because our country was under foreign rule? Go on, Einstein. Let's hear it for the Americans, formerly Iraqis, of Iraq in 2008. Mary McAleese is Irish born and bred regardless of the British state's occupation of a small part of our country. There is no "stretching the bounds" of anything about her Irishness. She is as Irish as Aodh Mór Ó Néill and Gearóid Óg Mac Gearailt. This evidently bothers you, and it most certainly bothers your powers of logic. David Norris is neither Irish born, nor very acclimatised to his new environment. 86.42.91.234 (talk) 19:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

86.42.91.234, would you please stop with the 'ranting'? GoodDay (talk) 19:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

If you want to be offensive- and evidently you do- then here's my brief psychoanalysis of your fine self, God bless you. I strongly suspect that you are ultra-conservative because you are acutely aware of your limitations; clearly on to a "great line" you have repeated the "ranting" accusation many times now. I notice you have similarly repeated some vacuous "love these British-Irish disputes" line elsewhere many times as well. Try, please try, and be somewhat more creative in your insults. Bring something: some passion, some conviction, some heart and most of all some knowledge to this discussion. It is far superior to your currently jejune contributions; you have yet to display a scintilla of understanding of what this term means, what it is designed to mean, and what it is designed to negate. Although paradoxically your support for the term attests to much of that raw tribal WASP instinct to represent the native world in terms which fit into your own tribe's understanding of the world. Alas, us natives are still alive, online, and worse, with no intention of allowing your tribe to represent Ireland as a "British Isle". 86.42.91.234 (talk) 20:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

OOOh....I'm all a-quiver. Only days ago I was part of a nationalist plot and now I'm bothered by Mary McAleese being born in Belfast, apparently on the grounds that I'm a British stooge. I love it! Of course, Eamon de Valera was born where again? Oh yeah...outside Ireland to a Spanish/Cuban father. It didn't seem to limit his idea of his Irishness, but it's pretty non-standard profile really. Meantime, I can't for the life of me figure out what happened on 6 December 1622. Wotapalaver (talk) 21:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

And alas that indicates too much about the historical knowledge behind your views on Mary McAleese's Irishness- you're not Nora Owen, by any chance? Your view on Mary McAleese is a minority one, as McAleese's election following Owen's remark demonstrated. On 6 December 1922 the Free State took over from your friends, precisely one year after the Anglo-Irish Treaty. So everybody in Ireland before that day, being "born in the UK", must also have been "British" in the world according to you. 86.42.91.234 (talk) 11:12, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Heavens..86.xx.xx is a funny guy but he's going to get a hernia trying to set up so many straw men all at the same time! Apparently now I'm either a British stooge or a former Irish government minister. Either way "the historical knowledge behind my views on Mary McAleese's Irishness" is indicating something to dear old 86.xx.xx. Cool! I just wish I could understand anything dear old 86 is talking about. Wotapalaver (talk) 16:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed solution to the problem

Rock, I was just kicking off the conversation but I see the problem. How about this:

• British Isles may refer to
• - The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
• - A group of islands in Northwest Europe sometimes known as the British Isles

So, we move "British Isles" (the article) to British Isles (archipelago) and create a dab page for "British Isles". Sarah777 (talk) 00:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. British Isles must remain an article. GoodDay (talk) 00:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Must? Is there some Law I am not familiar with?! Sarah777 (talk) 00:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Nope, just my personal opinon (which isn't worth anything). GoodDay (talk) 00:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I also disagree with this solution. It just seems to be an Irish POV solution to the British Isles issue based on one source. I acknowledge that the term BI eis a problem but this is not the solution.Pureditor 00:27, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I see Sarah. I think there is a policy problem though, because the point of disambiguation is to direct readers to articles of the same name. What we would essentially be saying here is British Isles may refer to the British Isles or it may refer to the UK. The UK clearly isn't the same title as British Isles, so this example is not what we use disambigs for. What we do need to do, is direct readers to is the difference between the British Isles and the British Islands (since they sounds sufficiently similar, but have different meanings). I think the dablink at the top of the page does that pretty well though. So I guess I do not endorse this proposal. Sorry. Rockpocket 03:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough Rock - but in fact I've had the experience of having articles moved to a dab page because the title only roughly resembles a different thing/place. From my perspective I always seem to be playing uphill on the field of inconsistency in Wiki. And into the wind. And the slope is slippery. 'Cos of the torrential rain. Sarah777 (talk) 12:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Surely, as I've already suggested, placing

Not to be confused with the United Kingdom.

at the top of the article would suffice. Waggers (talk) 21:12, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't

Not to be confused with the British Islands.

be more appropriate? Though I agree that some sort of hatlink is far more appropriate than making British Isles a dab. ras52 (talk) 01:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I'd perfer ... 'To be confused with the United Kingdom.' :) --62.24.204.7 (talk) 15:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Given that we already have a dablink to British Islands at the top of the page, it seems we've already solved this problem. Job done, end of. Waggers (talk) 08:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Waggers, I'd disagree less with your suggestion of 21:12, 22 June 2008 (UTC) than your suggestion of 08:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC) Sarah777 (talk) 20:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

(indent) We all went though this at length, neared mediation, pulled back and agreed an acceptable compromise. No new information of any substance has been introduced that I can see. --Snowded (talk) 21:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

What was the compromise? Can you show me diffs? Sarah777 (talk) 02:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I will shortly take the failure to show the diffs confirming the "consensus" as evidence that there wasn't any. Sarah777 (talk) 18:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Whatcha mean, exactly? GoodDay (talk) 18:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Just look back on the history, multiple arguments over weeks a vote, sock puppets the lot. All the excitement of anything in the BI/UK/Ireland pages ..--Snowded (talk) 18:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

This article shall not be moved, re-directed, deleted, disambiguated. It must remain in place as is (an article). GoodDay (talk) 19:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

(reduce indent) Consensus on the lead was achieved here. [5]. Of course, consensus can change but it needs some valid reason. Wotapalaver (talk) 17:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Wota, the issue we are addressing here is the incorrect Article Title; not the issue of the consensus you refer to. Sarah777 (talk) 13:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The thing is (aswell), the term British Isles is still being used. Again, I've no problem with the article's content being altered (to exclude Ireland, in the present sense). GoodDay (talk) 14:01, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I haven't come across any definition of the British Isles that excludes Ireland, so I would definitely object to such a change - but I don't think anyone's proposed it. The entity in question contains Ireland, and the most common name for the said entity is "British Isles". That's all there is to it. Waggers (talk) 19:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Has there been any kind of agreement between opposing opinions that British Isles could be used as just an archipelago article withought the politics involved, and perhaps a different article explaining the political history and reasoning for naming it British Isles. I say this knowing it may sound naive, and that somewhere it could have been mentioned before, but it appears to me (not an expert) that withought some compromise that would satisfy everyone this discussion could go on for ever. Celt 63 (talk) 12:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Unclear descriptions of images

One image has this:
"Number able to speak indigenous languages as a percentage of appropriate population area in the British Isles. Note: Figure for English is for whole of the British Isles and includes native speakers only."
which I changed to:
"Percentages able to speak indigenous languages of appropriate population area in the British Isles. Note: Figure for English is for the whole British Isles and includes only native speakers."
but what does it mean?
What is or defines an "appropriate population area"? Can Kilburn be an appropriate area for the Irish language? Maybe Ireland (somehow chosen) is a example where nearly half can speak Irish but on what area is Shelta's figure based? If the speakers are numerically few but geographically wide-spread (letting their area be all the UK) their "statistic" cannot be used to compare or contrast with, say, the Welsh's.
Shouldn't "in the British Isles" be immediately after (my) "Percentages"?
"British Isles" is an ill-defined (malevolently-defined) multiply-defined term. JHC knows why but see the reams of 'Tis/'Tisn't on the talk pages, there is no English Academy and what people mean by certain noises is what language is. Since "British Isles" is ill-defined (not because it may be disputed) the term should be avoided or explained when used.
The first nine words of "Figure for English is for the whole British Isles and includes only native speakers" seem to be a deliberate contrast with the undefined "appropriate population area"s
What are "indigenous languages"? Looks like it means "honky-talk". But then is Cornish (a tweely artificially restored language) indigenous? What about third-generation Britons of, for example, subcontinental origin?
Who is caught or lost by "native speakers"?
What about British Sign Language, surely indigenous (ASL is different), even at only one in a thousand?
Another image said it was "data-generated", What's that? A plot, however imperfect, from any record, however imperfect, is generated from data yet data per se cannot create anything unless perhaps the collapse of a table under the weight of books on it.
The map of population densities is based on some unspecified regionalisation (and once more, sorry about Éire).--SilasW (talk) 11:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

On the language section: You could certainly apply percentages for the whole area as well as per "appropriate area". I think the appropriate areas would be as follows; English (whole area), Irish (ROI and Ireland as a whole), Scots (Scotland), Ulster Scots (NI), Welsh (Wales), Channel Islands Languages (CI), French (CI and whole area), Manx (IoM), Scots Gaelic (Scotland), Cornish (hmmm..dunno), Shelta (hmmm...dunno). Main problem is that there's no source. Wotapalaver (talk) 23:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The figure is silly and should be removed. 0% speak Shelta? 0% of whom? Of travellers? Of Irish? Of Irish, English, Scots etc. combined? It's meaningless. I'm pretty sure it's a bit of OR. Scolaire (talk) 23:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the vote of confidence, Scolaire. Wotapalaver is right in his guesses. For those he didn't get, Cornish if (unsurprisingly) for Cornwall and Shelta is for the island of Ireland. The figures are readily available from cso.ie and ons.gov.uk.

Why have English contrasted with the other indigenous languages of the region? Well, because showing English as being spoken only in England would be an utter POV nonsense, whereas showing speakers of other languages as a percentage of the BIs as a whole would just produce a whole lot of 0%s. English is spoken throughout the BIs. Irish, Scots, Welsh, etc. have specific and identifiable areas.

Non-spoken languages, such as BSL and ISL, could also be added.

The map on population densities is also mine. It is again drawn from CSO and ONS figures and regions. --78.152.198.249 (talk) 12:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Still OR, though. You have taken CSO figures and used them in your own way, not followed a secondary source. And still silly IMO - showing Shelta as a percentage of Irish people is just as useless as "showing speakers of other languages as a percentage of the BIs", since Shelta is not an Irish language per se; it is the language of the travelling community. In other words, the figure is just a large crate of apples, oranges and pears. And just for curiosity, why did you remove your username from my post? It's on the image page anyway. Scolaire (talk) 15:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Images and diagrams are generally exempt from rules on OR (see specifically WP:OI). The secondary sources in this case are the basic publication from CSO and ONS. There is a bit of apple-and-orange-ism about it - in that English and the "other" languages are not compared on equal terms. And I take your point re: Shelta, it's definately drops a "pear" in there.

In my defense, with the exception of Shelta (and Cornish? what is the status of it recongition under the EU Charter?), each of the languages shown enjoy the status of either official langauge or are in some other way recognised officially by the various jurisdictions of the BIs. Those are the regions used in the chart. Showing the relative 'popularity' of the linguistic heritage of the BIs is difficult due the very nature of that diversity - there's a whole lot of language spoken in a whole lot of places and one (English) is an apple while all other are oranges (or pears as you correctly point out). The density of population of England also fecks up attempts to compare figures across the whole of the BIs because you will just end up with a whole lot of 0%s for any language not spoken in England. I think that that would be more 'POV' than showing the proportion of speakers of each of the minority languages in it's own 'territory'.

That said, any ideas on how to improve a chart of this kind would be more than welcome. Maybe use of a map to emphasise that the figure are for each of the jurisdictions and split Enlgish apart. Giving Shelta (and Cornish) a nominal mention, rather than in the chart itself? As well as mentioning ISL and BSL?

I removed the name because of "vanished" (it was quite accidental that I happened on the comment above). --62.24.204.7 (talk) 09:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's what I think is needed:

1. The separate treatment of English is reasonable, but should be in the heading itself rather than a note e.g. "Percentages able to speak indigenous languages of appropriate population area in the British Isles compared with percentage able to speak English in the whole British Isles (Note: figure for English includes only native speakers)."
2. The choice of "appropriate population area" should be more specific (see below)
3. Brackets should be used consistently to indicate the area e.g. English (whole area), Welsh (Wales), French (Channel Islands). Other qualifiers such as (native) and (estimated) should go in the legend.
4. Languages with fewer than 1% speakers should not be included; they can be dealt with in the article.
5. Sign language is not a language, it is a representation of a language. Users of BSL are English speakers by definition.
6. You might give consideration to grouping related languages or areas esp. Channel Islands, rather than keeping it strictly in descending order of percentages.
7. Per User:Wotapalaver, the source should be cited, both here and on the image page i.e. the specific publications from CSO and ONS used to compile the data.

Specifically, with regard to individual languages:

1. There should be only one figure for Irish. Since the article is about a geographical, not a political, area the appropriate figure is the one for the whole island.
2. Scots (Scotland and Ulster) should be dropped. It gives the appearance (I'm sure unintended) of trying to raise the profile of Ulster Scots while not actually giving an indication of the strength of the language in "Ulster". If the figure for Ullans in NI (or NI and Donegal) is >0% it should be included separately.
3. Scottish Gaelic is the language of the Highlands and Islands; The whole of Scotland is not the "appropriate population area", as it gives a misleading impression of the strength of that language.
4. Shelta is probably best left off, not only because of the wide geographical distribution of its speakers but also because it is a cant, which makes it different from the others.

I hope you're not sorry you asked :-) Scolaire (talk) 09:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Re Irish..if the sources give data for Ireland (island) then there might be a reason to go for Ireland (island) only. However, geographically there's no difference between England and Wales or England and Scotland, so on that logic we'd have to give Scots for the whole of Britain, which is silly. We can, with no problem, use political distinctions that people are familiar with, e.g. Scotland Vs England or Ireland (ROI) vs Northern Ireland. With Scots Gaelic, its relevant area is Scotland. Saying that we should only give the percentage of speakers for areas where it's spoken is a tad circular in its logic. As for Shelta being a cant...no comment. Wotapalaver (talk) 21:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

If we don't only give the percentage of speakers for areas where it's spoken then there's no problem: give them all for the whole of the UK and Ireland and let them all be 0%. What I'm interested in is data that is meaningful. Gaelic for the Scottish Highlands is meaningful, Gaelic for the whole of Scotland is not. Similarly Irish is spoken throughout Ireland, so there's no need to compare South with North, just say how many people in Ireland (island) can speak Irish. And the data is already there; I only said that one of the two should be dropped. Scolaire (talk) 22:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

When you say Gaelic for the whole of Scotland is not meaningful Im not sure that is true. I only recently heard that outside the Gaelic traditional stronghold the next largest Gaelic speaking area is Glasgow. I would have to check the figures, but I presume it must be a fair amount to have been mentioned. Celt 63 (talk) 22:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I too would simply stick to whatever regions are given by the various statistics offices. It also seem odd to not use RoI as a region because it is "political" but to use Wales or Scotland - would the same logic not be use Britain as the region for Welsh speakers? Also, how would you define the Highlands in Scotland? Do you mean the council area (surely too "political") or the loosely defined region (which lead to the obvious problems)? Just questions, I don't mean to put anyone's ideas down.

(Scolaire, I think you would run into some trouble were to to try to insert this sentence onto the British Sign Language page: "Sign language is not a language, it is a representation of a language. Users of BSL are English speakers by definition.") --78.152.219.251 (talk) 22:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I just checked, the figure given is 10% of Gaelic speakers live in Glasgow. Celt 63 (talk) 22:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

See the map here. There are pockets of Gaelic in Edinburgh and Glasgow, but they are cities. All the country around them is Scots (and English) speaking. Basically I'm saying the figure should show either how many people in the Gaelic-speaking area can speak Gaelic, or how many people in the whole of the UK and Ireland can. It's the apples and oranges thing again. Scolaire (talk) 22:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I understand where you are coming from, but if you think of Gaelic as being a Scottish language I think the figure should apply to Scotland. Just as Irish should apply to Ireland (Island) and Welsh to Wales. Celt 63 (talk) 22:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, a problem with a Gaelic-speaking area is that it is quite scattered over the Highlands and Islands. Celt 63 (talk) 22:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

To put it another way: Excluding English, there is only one spoken language in Wales, so numbers of Welsh speakers in Wales is appropriate, but there are two very different languages in Scotland, and Scotland can be divided between the Scots-speaking area (Lowlands) and the Gaelic-speaking area (Highlands). Therefore, for proper comparison the appropriate areas should be chosen. In Ireland there are also two languages, but one is spoken throughout the island of Ireland - in Derry, Tyrone and Armagh as well as Galway and Kerry - while the other is confined to Northern Ireland and parts of Donegal. Again, for proper comparison the appropriate areas should be chosen. BTW my "political" comment was misinterpreted. I said that there should not be two percentages for Ireland, and that the percentage used should be based on geographical area rather than national boundries. I'm not saying that anything should be excluded just because it is political. Does that make sense? Scolaire (talk) 22:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

@78.152.219.251 I wasn't intending to edit British Sign Language, but why should I get in trouble for it? You can speak English, you can write it or you can sign it - it's still English. Should Writing be a separate language too then? Scolaire (talk) 22:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I do believe we could be on the same wavelength, my only problem is that Gaelic was once spoken over a much larger area than now, so giving only the areas that now speak it may give the impression it was never spoken elsewhere. I don't know for sure, is it the same in Ireland? Celt 63 (talk) 23:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Ireland is kind of unique. If you only consider native speakers of Irish you would have very few areas, called the Gaeltacht, almost all of it on the west and south coasts. However, revival of the language has been state policy since independence, including compulsory teaching in schools, so the area that people can speak Irish covers the whole of the Republic. There has also been a revival in Northern Ireland, independent of the republican tradition, although mostly confined to the nationalist population, and the language was given recognised status in the Good Friday Agreement, so the whole of the island is, if you like, a potentially Irish-speaking area and is the appropriate area for inclusion. My understanding of Welsh is that it underwent a similar revival in the 20th century and that it is spoken to some extent nearly everywhere in the country. In Scotland (please correct me if I'm wrong) Gaelic does not appear to have been spoken in the Lowlands for centuries, and if there were to be a revival, it would be unlikely to be particularly strong in the Lowlands, because they already have their own, unique language. If that is the case, then taking Highlands and Lowlands together would be essentially the same as taking Scotland and England together: apples and pears. 78.192 asked me last night what would be the appropriate area. Comparing the map here with the map here I would think the Highland Council area plus Argyll and Bute plus the Western Isles would define it fairly well. Would you agree? Scolaire (talk) 07:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

In retrospect, I would have no objection to using the areas you suggest. I would like to make one small point though, hoping I don't upset too many people, from my experience many Scots don't believe the lowlanders actually have their own unique language, rather, they have their own unique dialect, a dialect of English. I know of course that it is recognised as official in the Scotish parliament. It would certainly be interesting to see how the public would react to Gaelic becoming compulsory in schools, however unlikely that may seem. I get the impression it would not go too smoothly as it did in Ireland, well, I presume it went smoothly in Ireland? Celt 63 (talk) 10:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Every school-child still hates it ;-) Scolaire (talk) 11:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Re Scots, I would agree with that POV, but for the purposes of the figure I'm happy for it to be called a language. Scolaire (talk) 11:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Neglecting to differentiate between the number of Irish speakers in the Republic and the number in Northern Ireland would be misleading and gloss over a very important point in relation to the language. The 26 counties has had almost a century of compulsory education in Irish, whereas the teaching of Irish has only recently become common in Northern Ireland. The 26 counties has also had explicit government policies towards revival/maintenance of the language, whereas Northern Ireland has not (and indeed in civil society the speaking/non-speaking of the language is a political identifier). For all the desire to "keep politics out of it", the island of Ireland is not a valid pot to count the number of Irish speakers, as it mixes apples and oranges (I was guilty of making this error in the original image).

Drawing distinction between Highland and Lowland Scotland is a bit too fuzzy too, IMHO, unless a clear and authoritative secondary source citation can be got.

(With regard to BSL, the issue people might have is the perception that BSL is based on English. It is a distinct language, no more based on English than than ISL is based on Irish - or, actually, French. American Sign Language and British Sign Language are incomprehensible to each other, for example, even though the spoken language of both countries of origin is English.) --78.152.245.180 (talk) 18:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that means that I have to restate my original position: the figure as it stands is misleading on many levels and, since we can't seem to get consensus on how to make it more meaningful, it needs to be removed. That doesn't preclude further discussion on how it might be replaced, but I for one am not interested in a debate that involves "thank you for your valued input, but I reject all of it." Scolaire (talk) 08:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Ehm...it's not misleading. There may be debate over whether the presentation could be improved, or whether other categories might be better, but it's not misleading. The only reason to delete it is if it's not sourced correctly. Is it sourced correctly? I understand that it's from the CSO of Ireland and the UK statistics office. Yes? If so, then it should be put back. Wotapalaver (talk) 08:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

It's still mixing apples with oranges, and it's confusing. I looked at it, and I don't understand it. Is it trying to represent spoken language for all the British Isles? For example, are there stats for people who can speak Irish in Jersey? Or Manx in Ireland? If not, why try to force different numbers together on the same graph. And the last sentence implies that there's something different about the English speakers number. The sources may be fine, but trying to represent it on a single graph for all of the British Isles isn't making sense to me. --Bardcom (talk) 09:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

And the sources are not fine. All we have is this on the talk page: "The secondary sources in this case are the basic publication from CSO and ONS." That is not a proper citation in any sense of the word. Scolaire (talk) 11:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, then take it out and stop worrying about it. (Incidentally, you presented 11 points, I disagreed with two of them and raised concerns about a third, that's hardly "thank you for your valued input, but I reject all of it.") --89.101.101.231 (talk) 20:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

and which of the eight did you embrace enthusiastically? Scolaire (talk) 23:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

All of them. silence is consensus. --62.24.204.7 (talk) 08:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

(reduce indent) No dispute from me on the source. I was the first one to raise the issue of sources. However, it's not "misleading" to give numbers for the area for one language (e.g. English) and numbers for smaller areas for other languages, as long as it's labeled as such, which it was. The choice of areas may be somewhat arbitrary but would basically have to follow whatever the sources give, which is likely to be along political boundaries. Wotapalaver (talk) 17:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

New Serious Problem with the term "British Isles"

See the section above. It is now clear that there are serious disambiguation problems with the term "British Isles" as it appears it is commonly used to mean "the UK". We need to move it to a dab page that gives the options of (1) The Archipeligo sometimes known as the BI and (2) the UK and surrounding minor islands. Sarah777 (talk) 21:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

What, move this article? GoodDay (talk) 21:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree Sarah777, for reasons outlined in the above section.Starviking (talk) 08:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

• *Yawn*. Or, y'know, we could leave it as is, and thereby educate people... Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 22:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Trust me, this article is not gonna be moved. At the very least, the term British Isles did exist. GoodDay (talk) 22:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Trust me, it still does ;-) Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 22:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I trust ya. GoodDay (talk) 22:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying it didn't exist or that it doesn't exist. I'm saying there is no clarity around what it refers to. Hence it should be moved to a dab page. Bastun, I am preparing a formal proposal in this regard and you can give yer smug facetious remarks a further workout then. I note an increasing level of remarks that breach WP:CIVIL coming from you Bastun and frankly I'm a bit disappointed. Sarah777 (talk) 09:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Oo. Who's your mentor again? Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 09:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as no admin has ever had a problem with my civility, I think I'll let our respective block logs spek for themselves. Suffice it to say you're in no position to question my civility. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 10:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I am especially well qualified to question your civility as I have an absolute right to expect the "community" which imposes such extraordinarily and exceptionally high standards of 'civility' on me makes sure that any incivility towards me is dealt with. Sarah777 (talk) 10:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

(Interjection about the interchanges developing between Bastun and Sarah777) Can I suggest that this nascent dispute between Sarah777 and Bastun ends immediately? First, the fact that Sarah777 is trying to reform her behaviour is not giving any editor leave to refer, even if joking, to any mentoring as if some drawing of attention of the mentor to this discussion would be appropriate. So, Bastun, enough of this "Oo Who's your mentor again?" Secondly, the use of unwise language that makes inferences and assumptions about the intentions of others is cetainly to be avoided. So, to Sarah777, I think your choice of words like "smug" and "facetious" were unwise and could hardly be supported given the medium of communication we have here, where intentions and other aspects of communication are lacking. Even if either of you suspect your comments could be true, then it is not helping this discussion to make them. If you cannot discuss matters in an appropriate manner, walk away from the matter. Thank you.  DDStretch  (talk) 10:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

You are of course right; I was mildly ribbed and I characterised the ribbing as "smug and facetious" (which it certainly read like) but I would have been better to ignore the remarks. Still, if I hadn't raised them nobody else would (see Bard's comments on Rockpocket's page) - so how do I address incivility towards me if the very act of doing so is interpreted as an offence?) But it is my fault for including "smug and facetious" in my response and I apologise. (I wonder will Bastun apologise for his part in this?) As far as I'm concerned this incident is now over. Sarah777 (talk) 11:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll reply on your talk page.  DDStretch  (talk) 11:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

(reduce indent) It's not a "new" problem. There are references on the page already that show that many organizations who say "British Isles" mean UK, or even Great Britain. I'm not for or against any idea on what to do about it, just noting that it's not new. Wotapalaver (talk) 09:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

It is new in the sense that I only became aware of it when the GAA man above was quoted. Clearly a dab page is required. Sarah777 (talk) 10:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

One GAA official quoted in the context of accident statistics? Come on, that is hardly a significant issue.--Snowded (talk) 10:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

It drew my attention to a significant issue. Sarah777 (talk) 11:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not anything is done about it, or whether or not it's significant that a GAA official recently MAY have done it too, it's not a new issue. For quite a while (although not any more) if you googled for "British Isles" you'd see this page [6] in the top 5 of results. It's a "British Isles" association but it's only active in Great Britain, uses /gbr as the index for its webpages, and is described elsewhere as the "British" association. It's just one small example, but it's not a new issue. Wotapalaver (talk) 12:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Quite amusing. Since they're seagoing boats, the national boundaries won't mean much, and indeed Irish boats competed at Largs recently.[7] Oddly enough, "FFAI or Flying Fifteen Association of Ireland. This is the national association, to which the local clubs affiliate to."[8] So that would seem to exclude the NI clubs, while doubtless RoI clubs would turn up their nose at BIFFA. So it goes. . dave souza, talk 16:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Flying Fifteens are not seagoing in any realistic sense of the word. They're racing dayboats. I'm sure that Irish boats also competed in events all over Europe recently, it's beside the point. The "British Isles" association is GB only. This isn't a new issue. Wotapalaver (talk) 08:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

"So that would seem to exclude the NI clubs ..." Not according to their list of members. Oh, it just gets so confusing, Dave, we have to get to the root of this Mountain with Three Peaks before it drives us all mad. --89.101.102.10 (talk) 23:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, the "Ireland" association includes the clubs in NI. In fact, I think that 4 of the 5 clubs listed on the "Ireland" webpage are in Northern Ireland. In any case, it isn't about the Flying Fifteen association. That's just one example. This isn't new. Wotapalaver (talk) 08:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Just so. It seems rather insensitive to proclaim "the national association" when it should be "the multinational association", then of course the BIFFA name is inaccurate if it excludes Ireland, and insensitive to anti-British sentiment if it includes Ireland. The joys of changes in language. Goes off to suck Imperial mint :-/ dave souza, talk 08:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

What exactly do you suggest we disambiguate this page to? And on what basis? I don't think one quote from a GAA chap on the BBC is particularly good evidence that it is commonly used to mean "the UK", particularly considering a search of the BBC website shows many other uses where Ireland is explicitly included. But even if that is true, lots of terms are used incorrectly (I'm thinking particularly that England is often used when people actually mean the UK or Britain), but clearly we don't disambiguate England for that purpose. Why should this be any different? Rockpocket 01:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC

Maybe "England" should be disambiguated for that purpose? Many people do say England when they mean the UK and probably search on WP for England when they want the UK. In any case it's a separate argument. Various organizations, beyond this one one GAA official, have used "British Isles" and mean the UK, or Great Britain. It's not a new thing. Wotapalaver (talk) 08:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely we should - great idea Rock - we need another lateral thinker here - I was starting to feel lonely. After all we dab call Ireland the "Republic of Ireland" because we want to cater for our confused readership - why should "England" be any different. I'll work on a proposal. Sarah777 (talk) 09:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The issue here is with the use of the word "British", not the term "British Isles". British, and indeed Britain, are already disambiguation pages. There's no need for a third, which would largely mimic one or both of those. Instead, as a compromise, I suggest that links to these be added as "See also"s or "not to be confused with"s, using {{distinguish}}, {{otheruses}} or similar. Waggers (talk) 13:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

@Waggers, I disagree that the issue - however large it is or isn't - is with "British" and not "British Isles". The issue may be that when some/many/a few people say "in the British Isles" then mean "in Britain" or "in Great Britain" or "in the UK". Now that may mean that the issue is with "British" and with "British Isles". Now, I haven't been advocating anything but I'm curious how those tags would work? Is there an example somewhere? Wotapalaver (talk) 14:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

See Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Distinguish and Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Otheruses. Waggers (talk) 14:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

"British Isles" isn't "commonly used to refer to the UK", that's a surreal suggestion. "British Isles" is the common term in English for the Arcipelago britannico. I know more can be said about it, that's why we have "Terminology of the British Isles". I really don't see what there is left to discuss here. There is most certainly no grounds for a move. dab (𒁳) 18:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

@dab. Are you setting up a straw man to knock down? You're the first person to say "commonly used to refer to the UK", so why are you putting it in quotes? Wotapalaver (talk) 08:47, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Lol - over here in the Arcipelago Hibernofactotum we have a phrase..."stirring the pot" ;) Sarah777 (talk) 09:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

To business: the dab page would look like:

• British Isles may refer to
• - The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
• - A group of islands in Northwest Europe

Sarah777 (talk) 09:30, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Sarah. That doesn't explain where we disambiguate the article to. One of them would be United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, what would the other article be? A group of islands in Northwest Europe isn't particularly helpful. If you have concerns that people (incorrectly) say British Isles when they mean the UK, I think we should use the {{distinguish}} template at the top of this article. Rockpocket 23:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Moving this article to anything, just doesn't seem advisable. GoodDay (talk) 13:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

As an outsider who has been observing with interest, I'm reluctant to delve into this minefield of a subject (my utmost respect to all those willing to take on the behemoth), but I have to note my disagreement with the suggested disambig page. The term British Isles doesn't mean the UK, just as England doesn't mean UK, and we shouldn't create dab pages because people don't know the difference, because it's quite simply wrong. -Toon⁰⁵ 13:55, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

But we do, in fact, create dab pages for that very reason. And we take the apparent level of confusion of the random reader as the key determinant. I'm not saying the dab should only refer to the UK and the island group as possibilities; the term is also used to mean Mainland Britain and surrounding islands and may include or exclude the Channel Islands. But the commonest meaning is probably the UK. Sarah777 (talk) 15:35, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The commonest meaning (I thought) is Great Britain & Ireland. GoodDay (talk) 15:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

No G'day; GB & I refers to the entire group of islands bar the Channel Islands whereas the "British Isles" usually refers to the UK only and usually includes the Channel Islands. Sarah777 (talk) 15:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not certain of that; but I won't get too deep into it. GoodDay (talk) 15:56, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I have never come across that meaning for "British Isles" in Ireland or Great Britain Sarah. Where in Ireland or Great Britain is it used, in your experience?Starviking (talk) 02:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Do we have any sources to back up such a move? --Cameron (T|C) 19:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Google results for "British Isles and Ireland": http://www.google.ie/search?hl=ga&q=%22british+isles+and+ireland%22&meta=; 1st Google result for "British Isles" after the two wikipedia entries: http://www.the-british-isles.com/ Clearly, Ireland is not part of the British Isles. There are very many other sources. At the very least, what the term includes is, like the term itself, controversial. 194.125.126.237 (talk) 23:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

'Tis best to leave the article as is (as an article). To change it into something else, mean creating alot of headaches. GoodDay (talk) 23:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Headache or not, getting it right is the important thing. Would not a headache be worth it if the truth were written? Celt 63 (talk) 01:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes: the truth. I believe we have an essay about that: Wikipedia:The Truth. Rockpocket 03:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't say what the truth is, I say giving the reason for not changing an article because it will cause headaches is no argument. Celt 63 (talk) 01:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

True. Rockpocket 05:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the truth doesn't matter at all on Wiki; verified lies are much preferred. I have no less an authority than Jimbo Wales for this. But, in fact, the naming of this article has little to do with truth or lies and is all about the simple insertion of majority (US/UK) pov into the article title - a title which also happens to be grossly offensive. (Though of course that doesn't matter in Wiki either - unless the majority think it does, in which case the rules can be set aside to support majority POV). Sarah777 (talk) 13:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, as I grumped before; if yas wanna tweak the content & omit Ireland from the BI's description (putting it in a historically wording)? be my guest. Heck, gut the whole article out (if yas want); just don't move the article. GoodDay (talk) 13:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems the article causes headaches whether the name is changed or not. What happens when both sides of the argument can cite sources, is it then a matter of a majority concensus? Personaly, I have no strong opinion either way, but it seems bringing in people who don't feel too close to the debate could bring in a more neutral view. The difficulty being of course, how do you know when someone is being politicaly neutral. Celt 63 (talk) 16:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Someday (IMO) this article will be giving a 6-months rotation on it's Title. Rotaing the names British Isles & British-Irish Isles. GoodDay (talk) 16:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Great idea Good Day! I am 100% behind this idea. How can I do this?

Johnpigg (talk) 10:40, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

British Isles usage

Hi, recapping numerous discussions here, I believe that a consensus had been reached on the British Isles being a valid geographical term. As a guideline, this has been very helpful in helping editors form opinions and reach consensus on individual articles. All great. Unfortunately there are a number of different type of uses which are not clearcut. Is there an interest in developing general guidelines, perhaps using examples? Just indicate here if you are interested or not. If there's enough interest, we'll work out the next steps... --Bardcom (talk) 12:56, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

It is worth noting here that the term geography covers human geography just as much as it covers physical geography. TharkunColl (talk) 13:56, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Having (maybe) got the country debate out of the way for a bit, it would make sense to try and resolve this related issue. Makes sense --Snowded (talk) 16:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Ehm, I'm not aware of any consensus that the term "British Isles" is a "valid" geographical term. It is widely used. That's a fact. Whether or not it's "valid" is a value judgement. There are different opinions on its validity. In any case, I saw a recent reference to a dictionary that describes the term as obsolete. I must dig it up. Can it be obsolete and valid at the same time? Wotapalaver (talk) 10:01, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we need our to make our own guidelines for when it is and isn't appropriate to use the term - just stick to what references say. If a reference says "British Isles" and you think it's meant to say "United Kingdom" then leave it as "British Isles". Verifiability, not truth. Besides, any such guideline would have to acknowledge that Ireland is part of the British Isles and that the term should therefore appear on the Ireland article, and a number of other Ireland related articles. Sadly there's currently too much WP:OWNing going on with those articles for that to ever happen, even if there's a Wikipedia-wide consensus that WP:CENSOR should be applied (which, of course, there already is). Waggers (talk) 10:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the first step is to "frame" the discussion and it might be best to use examples from articles to help group similar usage together. Once that is done, we can discuss each usage type. I used to follow the References and Verifiability guidelines, but recently this is no longer acceptable by some - see River Thames frost fairs as an example. At least with community agreed guidelines, it's progress of a sort... --Bardcom (talk) 11:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Why is discussion necessary in the first place? I don't see this happening for other terms on Wikipedia - even controversial ones. If an editor finds a reference that says "X is the biggest Y in the British Isles" and adds a sentence to that effect to an article, why do we need to discuss it here? Just let it be. Waggers (talk) 12:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Because we've now seen two articles where this isn't the case. This article appears to be governed by an agreement reached whereby the term British Isles wouldn't be inserted into Ireland-related articles if it wasn't already there. There are also a number of other articles, such as River Thames frost fairs, Furry Dance, Guernsey Pound, and Unitised insurance fund with no references and a number of editors fighting to keep the term in. Having simple guidelines would help resolve these and related matters. Alternatively, if you like to visit the articles I've mentioned and have success in changing them, perhaps the objections are really only stemming from the fact that I'm an Irish editor....which would really be a nasty problem to confront. --Bardcom (talk) 13:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no such agreement. No discussion has taken place, nor consensus reached. TharkunColl (talk) 13:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

"with no references and a number of editors fighting to keep the term in." - certainly some of those articles do have references, and editors would only "fight" to keep the term in if there were other editors "fighting" to take the term out. As I said, just let it be. Then there'll be no conflict and we can all get on with doing something a bit more constructive. Waggers (talk) 13:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

And therein lies the problem. Of the article I've mentioned, perhaps Guernsey Pound has a reference, but the rest most certainly don't. And of course you'd prefer if everyone just left it be.... --Bardcom (talk) 13:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I just don't see the point in creating a lot of fuss and getting a lot of people's backs up over such a small issue. It's nothing more than WP:POINTing. Waggers (talk) 13:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree, better handled article by article or use a work around (as happened on Frost Fair from what I can see). --Snowded (talk) 13:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)I see. SO Waggers starts out by justifying the editing of the River Shannon article by saying If an editor finds a reference that says "X is the biggest Y in the British Isles" and adds a sentence to that effect to an article, why do we need to discuss it here?, but when it's pointed out that there are many unreferenced uses, it's now a case of 'nothing more than WP:POINTing. Double standards anyone? @Snowded, up till now, I was editing on the basis of it being handled article by article - and indeed it would continue to be my preference, but a number of editors are now unhappy with this approach and simply revert any edits that result in the term "British Isles" being removed from an article. Doesn't matter if it's a good edit. So in order to avoid edit wars, the choices appear to either agree on guidelines, leave the articles (incorrect usage or not), or edit war. --Bardcom (talk) 17:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Basically the problem is one where the two "sides" are not listening to each other. Some people point out - correctly - that the term is widely used and others point out - correctly - that the term is not generally acceptable in Ireland if it's used to describe Ireland. The side that say the term is widely used are inclined to deny that the term is offensive in Ireland, which is rather more relevant than if it were offensive in Thailand. The side that say the term is offensive in Ireland don't want to see the term used anywhere on WP, despite the fact that the term is widely used around the world. Worse there are partisans on both sides but - from what I see mostly {and I don't claim that my view is complete} - there are more partisans trying to unnecessarily insert the term into Ireland related articles than to unnecessarily remove it from indubitably British related articles. Also, the "pro" side tend to present "anti" arguments as unreasonable and political - even though they're very well referenced. A little courtesy and listening might help! Wotapalaver (talk) 17:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The term is used in Ireland. TharkunColl (talk) 17:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is, just not very often. Similarly terms like "British Isles and Ireland" are used in Britain, just not very often. Wotapalaver (talk) 10:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Anf the term, British state terrorism in Ireland, is used in Britain to describe the actions of your most civilised state in Ireland. I trust you will now accept the legitimacy of that term as impartial and apolitical? You have your tribe, and the Irish have theirs. You just want the "British Isles" myths of your tribe to win this one. Unfortunately, the Irish still remember, and feel...the hyprocrisy of the British on, well, everything connected with political power and colonial claims and misrepresentation of Irish identity. You, being what you are, will never wish to conceive of the true gulf between your British nationalist claims to Ireland, and the opinions of the vast majority of the people on this island. How many bombs does it take? How many Irish people must vote for explicitly Irish nationalist parties; is 83% of the island's population not enough? "British Isles"? You people are nutjobs. Fanatical scum without your empire to be sent to, to smash the skulls of blacks and Paddys alike. Instead, in 2008, you are stuck on wikipedia trying to lord it over the native Irish. Roll on smart bombs... and a lower birth rate among the plebian class in mother England. Censor this, but you will never censor the resistance to your self-serving British nationalist claim that we, the Irish people, are British. You people, the British, murdered and slaughtered and dispossessed us for centuries. And then, from the Ashbourne Land Act in 1885, you made us pay for our own land back. Civilised British? Impartial British? Disgusting. Rapists. Jesus Christ. I better stop (in the English language). 86.42.100.185 (talk) 20:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I was considering 'deleting' your hate-posting 'again'. But perhaps it's better to let you show all of us your 'political views'; let you show your true emotions. GoodDay (talk) 20:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, and maybe then I'll start deleting Tharks hate-posts. Sarah777 (talk) 21:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

If it'll help create a calmer enviroment? go ahead. GoodDay (talk) 21:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

(references)The idea of references is turning into a laughable concept. There are many articles without references that are being "protected" by a group of like-minded admins and editors. Trying to discuss the article or point out references is met with name-calling and derision. Attempting to bring the item to the notice of admins results more of the same. The idea that a minority of editors can act in a coordinated way in an attempt to hijack the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia is worrying. More than that, the silent majority sit on the sidelines. Come on people - let's hear you. Good or bad, agree or not agree, this is *our* project. What is the consensus here over the term British Isles? Geographical? Political? Change existing article for correctness? Leave alone? --HighKing (talk) 21:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The real problem is that a small group of editors have worked together to spread anti-BI propaganda across Wikipedia - claiming, for example, that the term is universally hated in Ireland, and suppressing evidence to the contrary. It is they who have distorted facts for political reasons, not anyone else. TharkunColl (talk) 21:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Objection. There is a difference between pointing out the term is political, not NPOV and that it is "universally hated in Ireland". We know the British living in Ireland don't hate it for example. Sarah777 (talk) 21:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Check my compromise-proposal at British Isles naming dispute article. It ain't perfect - but neither is edit wars & page protections. GoodDay (talk) 21:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Your suggestion was very good (and similar to what was previously agreed), however it is obvious that any compromise that doesn't involve shoving the term BI down our necks is totally unacceptable to the British Nationalist editors and their Admin support. Sarah777 (talk) 21:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Ditto to the objection on TharkunColl's assertion of anti-BI "propaganda". If nothing else, the person that Thark himself found to have first used the term in English is described as writing propaganda. So, the Greeks first used the term in ignorance and then it was used as propaganda? Cool. The fact remains that there are eminent references that the term is offensive and widely unacceptable in Ireland (note widely not universally). This is verifiable fact, whether TharkunColl likes it or not. Wotapalaver (talk) 10:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

For the umpteenth time, please show us where it was "previously agreed". TharkunColl (talk) 21:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Bardcom/HK, would you ever link to where that was agreed? Sarah777 (talk) 21:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)"British Nationalist editor" could be viewed as a pejorative term and I suggest those using it watch their step. CarterBar (talk) 21:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

But edit comments about editors being "terrorist supporters" wouldn't be pejorative? (Of course not - I forgot the judges (Admins) in all of this are mainly British). And the Irish ones are struck dumb while Irish editors, one after another, are blocked and banned. Sarah777 (talk) 22:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Having abusive terms aimed at one does not justofy using similar terms back: we are meant to have matured beyond that stage. Do not use "British Nationalist" again, and if you see similar terms aimed at yourself, merely alert an administrator. Action may be taken if such insult-swapping is continued.  DDStretch  (talk) 22:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully all those hurtful terms: Irish Nationalist, British Nationalist, terrorist, suppressors etc; will someday ceased to occur. It's pains me to see my cousins, tear each other apart (printing wise). GoodDay (talk) 22:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Interestingly, I recently read a bit of Davies - he of the Isles - and IIRC part of his argument was that the "British Isles" idea was part of a conscious nationalist English (or Tudor, so therefore Welsh/English) attempt to create separation from the mainland of Europe.

You see, the reality is that we're all cousins..including the Dutch (all those Orangemen, see!), the French (all those Hugenots), the Germans (all those Kings and Queens of England), the Norwegians, Swedes and Danes (all those Vikings). It wasn't in Davies but it was somewhere similar that said that part (part) of the reason that Ireland didn't like the British Isles map image was because it was isolationist and cut the islands off from their cultural heartland. Anyway, apart from all the nearer nationalities, nowadays we need to include the Poles, the Lithuanians, the Russians, West Indians, etc.,etc.,etc. as "cousins" Wotapalaver (talk) 13:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Read yesterday in the Oirish Times that the (British) mandarins produced a report on the Common Travel Area in which they kept calling the island of Great Britain the "UK"; to distinguish it from the island of Ireland. Progress continues....Sarah777 (talk) 13:17, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Or perhaps they were just stupid. The British authorities were originally quite happy to use .gb as the top level country domain for the UK, until someone realised it left out NI. ðarkuncoll 13:21, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Thark, being optimistic by nature I'd reject the "stupidity" theory and take it as an indication of official thinking. All-ways look on the briiii-hight sigh-hide of life...whoo whoo, whoo whoo, whoowhoo whoowhoo whoowhoo whoowhoo whoowhoo...Sarah777 (talk) 13:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Never, ever underestimate the capacity for official stupidity. It can be truly astonishing at times. Like when a civil servant posted a cd containing the personal details of every single mother in the country receiving child benefit, and it got lost. Or the same thing with all driving license holders in NI (I think it was). ðarkuncoll 13:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Well TG I'm not a Public Servant or I'd have to report you for WP:NPA. Phew! That was close :) Sarah777 (talk) 15:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I think some people are exempt from that rule, such as politicians for example. How do you know a politician is lying? Because he's got his mouth open. ðarkuncoll 15:53, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

RE: .gb ad "forgetting" about Northern Ireland, no great shakes there. GB was registed by the state centred mainly on the island to my right as their 2-character code in 1974. It was "Great Britain", apparantly all on it's own, that faught in the first World War, so I cannot see how they could complian if we would not join them in the second. It was a "Great Britain" olympic team that took such exception to Irish athletes refusing to compete under that name (something missing form the WP article) or flying their own flag. One wonders why bother with a union at all, if you will call yourself Great Britain (and British) before and expect the other person to call themselves that after. But then, we only have to look to the island to our right to see that "English" is normal, and attesting any other national character is deviant and subversive. --62.24.204.7 (talk) 18:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

(reduce)While I've read the same story about the Irish athletes in a couple of places, that source on the 1908 Olympics has to be regarded as dodgy since it describes the Finnish athletes refusing to parade for the Soviet Union. Wotapalaver (talk) 15:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Channel Isles

See John Cary's A New Map of the British Isles, from the Latest Authorities 1807. This is the earliest map that I can find that categorically excludes the Channel Islands. Is anyone aware of an earlier reference that includes the Channel Isles? Is anyone aware of an earlier map that refers to the British Isles? Lucian Sunday (talk) 08:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

A good place to look is Google Books. For example, this children's atlas from 1834 explicitly includes them. How do you mean that John Cary categorically excludes them? --89.101.103.144 (talk) 22:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

To use the book you mention to include Channel Isles as Part of BI would need some creativity - it is not the explicit reference I am looking for -and it lumps in Jersey & Guernsey as part of Hampshire! You can see John Cary's map on his wikipage; Shetland is off the map but is displayed via an inset; Alderny & part of Guernsy are not detailed like the BI and there is no inset of the Channel Islands. Lucian Sunday (talk) 07:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

"some creativity"?? See the table of contents for England and Wales, they are listed as Jersey and Guernsey (i.e. the Channel Islands). Maps are on page 312. That (like the OED definition) is an explicit reference. You are right that the Channel Islands do not appear in detail in the map shown on Cary's Wiki page, but that is an inference - and a long way off "categorically" excluding them.

I wouldn't be so surprised about the Channel Islands being included as part of Hampshire. They are still treated along with Hampshire for many sporting associations, for example athletics, golf and rugby. --89.101.103.144 (talk) 20:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I propose we merge this conversation with Talk:Terminology of the British Isles#Are the Channel Islands part of the British Isles? Lucian Sunday (talk) 15:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Attempt to vary agreed consensus on use of term

TharkunColl is attempting to modify the previously agreed consensus on the words in respect of the Irish Government's attitude the term British Isles. I have opened this section so he can bring the discussion to the talk page rather than initiating an edit war. --Snowded TALK 23:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The consensus reached, should be respected. GoodDay (talk) 23:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

What's there to discuss? That particular Irish government is no more. We have no idea what the current one thinks. ðarkuncoll 23:28, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Then you will have to go through every Government article on every country page modifying any statement for any prior administration. Government's have continuity of policy. At any rate TharkunColl that is not really the point. You know how long it took to get an agreement on the text, you know the change would be controversial, why not just raise it here first given the history and suggest the change? Why reject the request to take it to the talk page? That is normal practice on any issue which had this level of discussion. --Snowded TALK 23:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

So is it still British government policy to try and recover Normandy and other lost possessions of the crown in France? When was this centuries-long policy rescinded? ðarkuncoll 23:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Nice debating point, but I think the claim and any reversal precedes Hansard so its a bit difficult to check. Going back to the middle ages is an interesting tactic. Given that the statement is in the recent past I think my point stands. It is completely normal for a statement of this type to stand unless it is rebutted by the government. This seems like an attempt to reopen an issue which was put to bed in the fairly recent past rather than an attempt to improve the article. --Snowded TALK 23:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

It's just an attempt at truth, that's all. Not that that ever cuts much ice around here. ðarkuncoll 23:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

You do throw the words "truth" and "fact" around a lot you know. Either way I think my view above stands, lets see if anyone else wants to disrupt the previous consensus. --Snowded TALK 23:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) TharkunColl does have a point, but it should have been brought here first rather than edit-warred about given the previous history. It seems to me that the two versions of the phrase under dispute are these: (a) "the Irish government also discourages its usage." (b) "a previous Irish administration has also discouraged its usage.", with (a) being the one achieved by means of consensus. I suggest that a possible compromise might be to consider the wording (c) "an Irish administration also discouraged its usage." which would make it much more stable in terms of not having to be attended to if the administration changes, or its opinion changes (at which point, a suitable addition to the phrase could be appended, such as ", though the current one has a different opinion..." Of course, they need to be suitably sourced. It maintains the continuity idea, though suitably weakened in the light of the uncertainty brought by the change in administration.  DDStretch  (talk) 00:14, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I would not object to your "an" compromise per se, but the manner of the attempted change was at best insensitive to the history. However I think we should see what other people think. If there is no evidence of the current Irish Government using the term I don't see the need for a change. I also note that other editors on other pages have argued that the term is less likely to used now than in the past. They might want to provide some evidence along those lines. I suggest we leave it for other comments for a day or so and see. If no one feels strongly and Tharky wants to press the issue then your compromise would be a reasonable way forward. I do think that the continuity of government issue is key however. On Tharky's argument we would have to go through thousands of articles every time a government changed --Snowded TALK 00:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I quite agree that a consensus is needed for any change given the history of the matter. My compromise was just one way of trying to reach some common ground to see if that might help a consensus emerge. It does need discussion, however.  DDStretch  (talk) 00:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I have to say the prior supposed "consensus" (ie 'eventual vote' - when did they become the same thing?) over this Irish gov line was a bloody circus, IMO. A total clumsy farce, in fact. I object to the maximum in it being alluded to as any kind of sensible consensus! A couple of new faces go involved, that's all, and one is currently not allowed to edit here. If if people give up in utter disgust it doesn't make outcomes of poll etc credible. In a true consensus, people like me would be happy - I couldn't be less happy with this line. It is simply a wind-up to call it "consensus" when it is so contentious. It's just gloating from a currently victorious side. Winning little 'votes' and consensus - why do people confuse them so much? They are not the same!

I've revised the new guideline at WP:BRITISHISLES if anyone wants to look - and corrected the mistakes in it that were in there when I first put it up. --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Eleven editors were involved in the Souza proposal, with only one dissent to the final phrasing. That is kinda of how it works around here. Making everyone happy is not possible. Using phrases like "bloody circus" and "clumsy farce" is hardly assuming good faith in respect of those eleven editors. If something is to change, then it will change by discussion here. --Snowded TALK 01:06, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Come on, they just wanted it over - and there was only one option on table in the end. Souza himself supported my own proposal, as did Waggers and others, til I retired after the "Souza" nonsense took over. Having just jumped into the article, did you even realise the supposed "proposal" was only an insignificant single-word change to the article as it stood?? I ended up retiring as a direct consequence of this, albeit for just a month. What you Christened the "Souza proposal" (though you kept confusing what the actual words were at first!) was just little more than a question by him!!! He didn't even vote (having not "proposed " anything) - or even comment again after posing it!! I simply cringe when I hear the words 'Souza proposal'. People bow to the extremism in this article as it gets fought with by brandished claws - it's the fulcrum - the melting pot - the main article. And the Inro counts.

I had been working on this line in the Intro for a couple of months - and the way my initial proposal went from my choice of sensible options (which were being discussed and developed by people) to an insignificant one-word-change championed by you and the article-blocked Jack Forbes, was just typical of how people get quickly pissed off with things here. It was ultimately an acceptance of non-change - a finalisation to a pointless poll. Nobody was proposing anything for most of it! Sometimes lines in articles have to stabilise for a while for sake of sanity - it does NOT equal consensus. It just simply suits you personally, Snowded. Others - no. It is no consensus. --Matt Lewis (talk) 02:07, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Matt, when an agreement has been reached on things, then the general process is to discuss changes here before changing them again. That is all that anyone is saying here. If you want to attribute motives to people (including me) then feel free but you are addressing the person rather than the content. Whatever your frustration it might make sense for you to check out WP:NPA --Snowded TALK 02:21, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring

I have completely protected the article and urge those engaged in gaming the system by going up to the 3rr limit on edit warring without discussion that this is not good behaviour: it will lead to consequences if it is shown again. I completely protected the article as a preventative measure to try to minimize disruption and to ensure discussion takes place here without any editor getting a block for edit-warring.  DDStretch  (talk) 23:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

In agreement. GoodDay (talk) 23:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

He's the one, by the way, who gave me a two-week block for merely making a comment on a talk page. It seems that uncongenial opinions really aren't welcome around here. ðarkuncoll 23:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

No, it is edit warring up to the 3rr limit that aren't welcome, and you know it.  DDStretch  (talk) 23:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

And how about blocking for refusing to be told not to comment? ðarkuncoll 23:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Thark; you are going over old ground here. I supported you (as did others) and you were unblocked. I'm not a fan of invoking edit-war blocks before 3RR; way too much Admin discretion. As we Roman Catholics were taught; such power may become an Occasion of Sin. Sarah777 (talk) 22:51, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Non-censored proposal for Introduction

I'm making this a proposal, as it appears the article is currently locked due to this matter! --Matt Lewis (talk) 17:23, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Current line:

The term British Isles is controversial in relation to Ireland,[ref group] where many people may find the term offensive or objectionable; the Irish government also discourages its usage.[ref group]

Proposed lines:

"Although the term is used worldwide in sciences like geography, geology, archaeology, and natural history, it is periodically criticised for the way the political term "British" suggests that Britain owns all the isles.[r][r}[r] This is controversial in relation to the dual-nationality island of Ireland, as the Republic of Ireland and its islands are not part of Britain, and the citizens of Northern Ireland can have Irish, British, or joint identities and citizenship. The term is not generally used by the Irish government, and a spokesperson for the Irish embassy in London has said "we would discourage its usage".[r] A number of alternatives have been proposed throughout the history of the term, although many have been criticised themselves[r][r][r], and only variations of 'Great Britain and Ireland' have been widely used. There is evidence that forms of "Britain and Ireland" have been increasingly used by cartographers over recent years.[citation needed]"

• Revision made: "specifically" for "especially" in first line.

• Revision made: "The term is not generally used by the Irish government" for "The term is not part of the legal terminology of the Irish government"

• Revision made: "Although the term is used worldwide in sciences like geography, geology, archaeology, and natural history, it is periodically criticised for having the political term "British" within it.[r][r}[r]" for "Although commonly used worldwide, especially as a 'technical' term in sciences like geography, geology, archaeology, and natural history, the term 'British Isles' has been criticised for having the political term "British" within it."

• Revision made: "criticised for the way the political term "British" suggests that Britain owns all the isles." for "criticised for having the political term "British" within it." --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• Revision made: "and its islands" added after Republic of Ireland in the second line. --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

For me the proposal is simply a standard unbiased Wikipedia style approach. It uses notability, verifiability and weight. --Matt Lewis (talk) 17:23, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I've no problem with this proposal. GoodDay (talk) 17:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

A much simpler approach for the lede, linking back to extensive and recent discussions would be : The term British Isles is controversial in relation to Ireland,[ref group] where many people may find the term offensive or objectionable; the Irish government has also discourages its usage.[ref group]. I have inserted "has" in deference as a compromise with Tharky's original proposal. Of course if additional citable material is available then then might change. The material on changing use of language in respect of atlases is I think a useful addition for the main body but not the lede (although I think National Geographic are using "Britain and Ireland" as a geographical not a political term by the way). The issue on citizenship and identity is inappropriate for a geography article (which has already got enough political issues). A variation of that, incorporating some of the above text would be: The term British Isles is controversial in relation to Ireland,[ref group] where many people may find the term offensive or objectionable; 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". I prefer the shorter version but the second version is also fine. There may also be an argument for a note containing some of the additional text in Matt's proposal. --Snowded TALK 17:41, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I've no prob with this proposal, too. GoodDay (talk) 17:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Come on - the "extensive and recent discussions"? You know how long I've been at this, Snowded, as I've told you. Your word "recent" simply starts where you want it to! The real 'extensive discussions' (including thousands of words from myself) have gone back for much longer: You are rather casually ignoring all the work I and others have put in more much of the year! The words "many"/"many may" have never been a happy solution since long before you joined the discussion, I have to say. And what have we got now? Another locked article. "Many may" has to go - and we have to move forward. We can only do it by being open and honest about the situation: and the above is all relevant.

To answer your question on the map, "British and Ireland" is the new National Geographic "political" map. You should not go around Wikipedia telling people that things are inappropriate when they cross geographical/political lines, especially when it happens to suite your own politics (no less)! It's stonewalling progress to the max.--Matt Lewis (talk) 18:06, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Matt it went to mediation at one point, then was settled by 11 editors (you withdrew I think). I'm allowed to reference that and even to suggest it is left in place for a period. I have a different interpretation of the National Geographical site to the one you do. I also think we need a short sentence not an elaborate paragraph with material which is better handled elsewhere. None of that is stonewalling and you really need to stop making accusations, every intervention you make is becoming personal, please engage with the content not the person and remain calm. --Snowded TALK 18:14, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

You are the biggest wind-up merchant on Wikipedia. Nothing was settled by 11 editors but the 'status quo' after the initial proposals were left behind. It was a total shambles, and your part in it was simply embarrassing ("Souza proposal" indeed!). And you know damn well why I withdrew. You are totally full of it! I stuggle with AGF because I cannot stand dishonesty. You are a total bully against progress - you simply don't want to see any. --Matt Lewis (talk) 18:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

This diff speaks for itself Matt and to quote the mediator at the end of the process Case Closed. Great job coming to consensus without even needing the requested mediation. I'm trying to stay polite in face of the increasing vehemence of your attacks, if you want to interpret that as a wind up then so be it. --Snowded TALK 18:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Your constant provocations are the worst I've seen. You threw my last Proposal off track, I got distracted, and despite early support for my change, people in the end simply voted for no change - ie your inconsequential one-word difference!! It was a simple status quo job, and my proposal was usurped - it never even got to a vote! It was your farcical "Souza proposal" or nothing. How fair was that? That is ALL that happened before. Your edit-buddy Jack tried his hardest and succeeded to get me blocked (which he later admitted to) and I retired - you were as quiet as a lamb to me when that all happened. Not a peep. Neither event will happen again - I'm following this through to the end and no block nonsense is going to happen to stop me. --Matt Lewis (talk) 19:00, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's wait to see what others think; we've got time. GoodDay (talk) 18:12, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree --Snowded TALK 18:14, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Just popping in from my self imposed exile. I fear that Matt Lewis's and Snowded's attempts at squaring the circle are near impossible. But here am I with my input. I find it a wee bit incongruous to say many people may find the term offensive. If its a may, then you could say a small number of people may find the term offensive with equal validity. Better to say (verifiably) a number of people find the term offensive—the numbers of people are unquantifiable. AFAIK, the Irish government haven't legislated on the term BI so I don't think the term legal terminology of the Irish government could be valid here. So may I suggest a simplified section of the lede:

"Although commonly used worldwide in sciences like geography, geology, archaeology, and natural history, the term 'British Isles' has been criticised in Ireland for the use of the word British and has been discouraged from use by Irish goverment officials. Alternative terms have been proposed although none have found universal favour."

That's it, good luck, I'm off.-Bill Reid | Talk 19:29, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll look again at the "legal terminology" bit - I didn't mean it in the leading 'legal' sense - maybe it's too wordy. It's a shame you feel negative, and feel the need to stay in exile. Your simplified version (although a bit too curtailed re techincal use/common usage at the begining for me) is certinly a lot better than the one we currently have. --Matt Lewis (talk) 20:17, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

"The term is not part of the legal terminology of the Irish government" - Actually it is. [9] But not used again since 1928. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 20:01, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm looking at this part again. --Matt Lewis (talk) 20:17, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

"Is" - present tense Bastun. Sarah777 (talk) 23:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Why on earth is it relevant whether it's part of the "legal terminology" of the Irish government? Governments don't define language. The term is valid because it is used in English to refer to the islands that it names. ðarkuncoll 20:21, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

As I've said (twice) - I'm looking at this part again . Would you rather the article just suggested that the Irish gov discouraged the term's usage wholesale? As it currently does, in fact? It's a compromise - or rather an elucidation. The Irish gov is relevant in a line about the Irish gov. I could easily be stuck in a two-way shitstorm here, so you could be a little more helpful.--Matt Lewis (talk) 21:13, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

It's hard to do better than "not generally used by the Irish government". It's true - they don't generally use it, but at times they have. We can't do any better than tell the truth. --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:09, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

If we keep to the word "generally" the line "and a spokesperson for the Irish embassy in London has said "we would discourage its usage".[r]" could probably be removed?--Matt Lewis (talk) 22:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Reading it through again, what I like about the new approach is that it manages to impart a feeling that the term is genuinely used partly for want of a better option. This, to a large degree, is very much true. I think what personally upsets me so much is the constant (though sometime subtle) drive or assumption placed in the text that the term is being actively used in the face of dissent, to make a political claim. It is simply being used by 99.9999999% percent of the people who use it, to describe the islands of Great Britain and Ireland, without any malice intended at all. The vast majority of those who use it simply do not stop to consider any eternally-arguable element of 'dissent'. This version gives more of a flavour of that reality. Currently the article is very much 'oppression-heavy', and I've always found that genuinely upsetting. I know some people will say "well I find the very term upsetting!" - but it's not comparable at all. The term simply exists, and Wikipedia exists only to describe things properly. We must do all the aspects of the term justice, and not fight like rats to push any one particular point of view. --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem here Matt is that the term is being actively used in the face of dissent, to make a political claim. The fact that some folk may use it apolitically is neither here nor there. Sarah777 (talk) 23:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes - your dissent. You'll have to play ball sooner or later, because when things get back to the edit tables, blocks will eventually be dished out. Sooner or later less-friendly admins will step in, and simply not accept having locked articles all the time. --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I take that as a threat Matt; and another example of the way British POV is nakedly imposed on Wiki through the blocking and banning of numerous Irish Editors. Please note that I am FAR from the only voice of dissent here - also note that you have several times now stepped over the bounds of WP:CIVIL in your remarks to me. A short while ago you were complaining that you were representing the British Nationalist pov here because they were not here to represent themselves. Not it appears I'm a lone voice. Make up your mind Matt. Sarah777 (talk) 23:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

checkpoint

Actually Matt I don't have any great objection to the paragraph as it is developing (assuming some tweaks) but it is just too long for the lede. Given this is a geography article a single sentence is needed there at most, with either a note or a subsidiary section. You could for example take the first sentence of your paragraph (I would remove worldwide as too wordy but otherwise fine) and substitute that for the current sentence, then have the rest in a note for those who want to read it. --Snowded TALK 03:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean here by "current sentence" - if the one here is fine (apart from "worldwide), why then substitute it? --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you ike parts of it, but I'm still not happy with your insistence that this article must be 'pigeon holed' as a "Geographical Article", and therefore 'political terms' are not suitable for the Intro. We must surely move out the reference to 'dissent', if that is true: is that what you are suggesting - I'm not sure? Although we are trying to build Wikipedia-specific usage guidelines at WP:BITASK, in the wider world the term is used in both a technical and a cultural/political sense, as you surely know. Why can't we accept that and build an introduction that accepts it too? There are far too many "notes" here as it stands. It's a 'cop out' (at best) in my eyes, and I am certain that things have to be done properly if this article is going to settle. According to WEIGHT, if the dispute can only be fairly represented via notes, then the dispute simply shouldn't be mentioned in the Lead - as we cannot misinform people. But I think we can cover it faily and concisely in the lead. Either that or we keep the 'dissent' issue to its own paragraph, which I know some people think should happen anyway (though I think it is Intro material myself).

Note on Introduction size: Leads (or ledes) can be up to four paragraphs long, according to Wikpedia's Manula of Style. We have a very short Intro here, and in my honest experience of Wikipedia introductions (and I've contributed to a number of them), the shorter they are, the more edit warring and general fighting occurs over the inclusion of relevant information that suits more than just the one point of view. Sometimes covering the all the wished-for relevant issues concisely is simply the best route:

Guide to intro building

1) The four-paragraphs max recommendation must be considered.

3) The info must be covered elsewhere in the article.

4) WP:VERIFY: VERIFIABLE information must be used.

5) WP:NOTABILITY must exist for both the article and the introduction too.

6) WP:WEIGHT in representation must be correct according to VERIFIABILITY and NOTABILITY.

7) WP:WEIGHT between any opposing points must be correct according to VERIFIABILITY and NOTABILITY.

In difficult Introductions like this one, this is the best way to go for everyone. There is certainly a 'technique' to making a good lead - but it can be done. Keeping it as short as possible is never going to make everyone happy – on the contrary, it makes life very unhappy, as this article has proved. --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Matt, you've hit the nail on the head with your comment that in the wider world the term is used in both a technical and a cultural/political sense. This is the point that I believe distills the argument.

Some will assert your statement is true. But others disagree. (As an aside, personally I wonder if a trend towards the cultural/political use of the term could be correlated with historical usage, or with cultures that are heavily influenced by the UK. We'll probably never know....)

But I believe that there is also widespread recognition that the statement is insensitive. In one respect, it's an evolution of language and the assertion of an Irish identity, and a respect for the sensitivities of people from the North and South of Ireland, etc.

But so what. The question we need to ask is, where is the term today? Since Wikipedia is there to inform, and not necessarily be politically-correct or sensitive, does the term still carry enough common usage to still qualify as a "cultural/political" term? This is the crux of the current argument that has split this editing community.

In my opinion, this question was already asked and answered in the recent past, and back then the response was that it was no longer a cultural/political term - although it is accepted that it was in the past, therefore in a historical context it can still be used in this way, but it is not acceptable any longer. It was accepted though as a valid Geographical term. More recently though, even that appears to be objectionable on Irish-heavy articles....

In summary, consensus can change. I believe the community can express some extreme views, but that it is also ready to acknowledge what the majority can agree on. Perhaps we should avoid any conceptions made in previous agreements and test consensus from this basic starting point? --HighKing (talk) 17:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that we should start afresh from now, especially with the WP:BITASK taskforce under way. Currently the proposed Guideline at BITASK is explaining the term fully - ie addressing all the aspects of the term, and I think that is wisest. It is also focusing more towards 'physical geography' for it's use on Wikipedia. You are right - it doesn't matter so much what the sensitivities (etc) are, ar are not, outside of Wikipedia. This is a consensus-driven place, so the guidelines must suit us, and suit us all - and per the general guidelines on Wikipedia that already exit, of course.

I'm happy for Wikipedia to define a 'preferred use': it should be Geography-preferable with British Isles, and we should also go for it to ideally not include the Channel Islands too, imo. These are what guidelines are for - Wikipedia is entitled to choose an approach in these particular situations where ambiguity exists. To enforce anything though is to go against one of Wikipedia's strongest rules - no censorship. We can still make some very strong guidelines however.--Matt Lewis (talk) 21:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

response

There was considerable debate when this first came up and a group of editors (of which I was not one) wanted no mention at all of the controversy arguing that the article was geographical. It was finally agreed on the grounds of citation that the controversy should be mentioned. There was debate about that sentence which has been previously referenced.

My view is simple on this, I like your first sentence and I think that is better than the sentence which was previously agreed (that is what I mean by current sentence). I think the rest should be a note not in the lede. If those who argued that should be no political reference are happy to something more lengthy then I would have no objection, but I think you will have problems. At the moment there is here (and on the task group) too little involvement. --Snowded TALK 18:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Which first debate are you alluding too? It sounds like it was quite a while ago. When I encountered you in here myself you pushed for no change: and at the moment the Intro is very political indeed! (in fact, it couldn't be more in my eyes - it's basically a form of propaganda as it stands, IMO.) We need to sort this now - the WP:BITASK taskforce is now, and it is all about now - especially as the article is locked over the issue.

RE editor involvement: when is this page due to be unlocked? I can't believe it's got locked over this again - It was so 'out of the blue' that I actually missed it happening. Looking at the edit history, it seems to be just you and Tharkuncoll 'edit warring' - I'm not sure at all that DDStretch should have moved in to lock it when he did, esp as he was very involved in the Taskforce at the time. No 3RR seemed to happen - you surely would have both just stopped, but it got locked instead. Why? You calling the line a "hard won consensus" in an edit note wasn't fair in my opinion as I have said - your "consensus" was a farcical single-option poll at the end of broken and hijacked debate! Whatever else it was, it was no true consensus however you go on about the eventual 'landslide' vote for the only option on the table: no change and it get's back to normal.

This article shouldn't be locked, and locking it hasn't helped proceedings at all. Actions like this just demoralise and entrench people. We need people to be positive.

I'm still not clear on what you want to keep in the Intro. Perhaps you could write your own version? Maybe then we can later have a fair poll that actually offers some choice, and offers something more than a single word-change too. --Matt Lewis (talk) 19:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Matt I really wish you would stop this confrontational style. Tharky modified the previous stable version and I asked him to take that change to the talk page. A position that was finally forced by locking the page. Your disagreement and comments on prior consensus are noted, it is however how things ended up; it is not wrong simply because you say it is wrong. My suggestion is to take your first sentence, use it to replace the existing sentence and then take your additional material and make it a note for those who want to know more. Whatever it needs more editors involved. --Snowded TALK 20:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Matt, I must agree that your rather petulant approach here is not helping. it's basically a form of propaganda as it stands, IMO - what is? Apart from the actual article title itself, where is the "propaganda"? Sarah777 (talk) 22:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

How am I not helping? I am spelling everything out clearly, when some around me are simply fudging. The irony is that you think I'm not helping your own concerns, but I actually am. You can "agree" with Snowded, but he formulates all his reactions to me in a tired "oh dear, yet again..." format, while very rarely saying anything. But it will all come out in the wash - because what exists exists, and Wikipedia (for all its faults) is strong about core realities: Censorship, verifiability and 'common names' - all these 'core policies' have cemented this whole place surrounding us. Wikipedia is build on a foundation of rules. No minority can forever break it down, for all the fiercely emotional, guilt-loaded, foot-plodded, cabal-achieved shenanigans of the past. Things will find their place - and it will happen fairly!.

What is the "propaganda"? The "propaganda" I refer to is in the immediate reverting of every honest and fair edit, it is in the scrolling dissent notes that run dry as the bold ink runs out. Where is the evidence today of people (real people) not wanting the term? Where is the ref? Even when compiled (over a number of months) from self-verifying accounts of the past, there is nothing to warrant the censorship that is demanded here! No evidence at all exists to warrant exerting the one-sided weight to the 'dissent' you demand. The "propaganda" is in the quickly-archived blast-out of every sensible talk page and poll. It is in this supposedly huge weight of 'dissent', that can only actually be 'proven' in terms of the small-but-vocal presence on WIkipedia itself. It is in the battle of attrition that makes so many neutral editors recoil in either despair, or the realisation that life is more important elsewhere. It is the 'whoopsadaisy' article-locks for no valid reason by people who should (and probably do) know better. It is in the inflammatory 'fork' pages that make people elsewhere think twice before 'offending'. It is in the single-minded hours of the extremist at night, personal contributions that show little or no other interest at all. It is in the oft-spoken desire to see the end Britain, and the tragically blind belief that what could exist directly equals what does. It is the crazy insistence that what is and what 'can be' can be effectively bargained against each other! It is in the lowering of the bar, the sleazy approach, the gut prodding force. Who really cares about the words within the term "British Isles", apart from the simple acceptance that it actually is used and exists?

Only Wikipedia's rules will ultimately have their way, however strong some of its contributors feel they can be. Those like yourself can meet reality in the middle, or you can make it is hard as you possibly can for others to represent you more-than-fairly (as they will). Either way you will win! Not the all-out Europa you want, but your POV will certainly win thorough, you can be absolutely assured of that. Wikipedia is consensus-driven, and you and Snowded are nothing but determined (and thus strong) forces in this place. It is simply because you are both committed and do not stop. It's the same with myself. Anyone who thinks Wikipedia represents the masses democratically is completely misguided: outside of hobbyists Wikipedia is effectively a finite amount of very committed people - and that is it. It is true, isn't it? Look around you. We are completely consensus-driven - but we do have those rules. And that 'policy' will come into play - and when the British Isles guidelines go through the proposal process, a far wider audience will get a very good look at this too. --Matt Lewis (talk) 01:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Matt you are seeing conspiracies where none exist, you are reacting by preaching. It has become impossible to collaborate with you on this page (which is now a largely solo effort). You persist in saying that anyone who disagrees with you wants to see the end of Britain (your talk page diatribe about nationalists made so many assumptions about other people based on so little evidence I gave up counting). Calling people's approach sleazy, making the sort of accusations you make above and elsewhere is against every principles of the WIkipedia. If someone dates challenge you you "take it mediation" trying to get others to back you up. They don't, then a mediator arrives and you run away closing the request (I suppose an honest reaction as your behaviour would not stand up to independent scrutiny) I see from your talk page that you have take offence elsewhere and threatened to take someone else to mediation demanding apologies over what seems a storm in the proverbial tea cup. Can't you see a pattern here? All we have above is a diatribe of personal abuse which does you little or no credit and is becoming increasingly tiresome. Just complete your set of guidelines, base on your assumptions and put them out for public comment. Then it may be worth reengaging. For the moment this is Matt's personal page, Matt's personal project and Matt has some real ownership issues. --Snowded TALK 01:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The guy at MEDCAB asked me if I still needed the mediation, and I said "no" simply because nobody had commented on the page for a while (a clear dead end), and the whole issue is clearly about Policy to me now. He said I can re-open the mediation at any point - and I'm sorely tempted to do it now after your comment, but to argue with you Snowded, is a complete and utter waste of time. I stand by every comment I made in MEDMOS, but I'm going to push on with the taskforce and this article (which your like-minded email buddy DDStretech shamelessly locked to save you from 3RR I might add - I have no problem with saying that - it is as clear as a bloody bell, and if I could I'd support-edit the revision right now. Bloody scandalous - only you two were around and it gets locked after 30 mins just at that 'key moment'. I can't tell you how bad it looks - bloody appalling). --Matt Lewis (talk) 02:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Seeing more conspiracies Matt? I've never been blocked or exceeded 3RR and don't plan to be. We had an editor (with a history of edit warring) who refused to discuss a controversial change on the edit page - that got it blocked. Your accusations against DDStretch are becoming seriously out of line by the way and I strongly recommend you cross that one out and apologise. Re-open MEDCAB, you could do with someone taking an objective look at your contributions to this. --Snowded TALK 02:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I would agree that it is serious, yes. I can't prove anything, but it fits in with a wider pattern I've seen, and what would it look like to you? Seriously - take a step back and ask yourself that. Why did you take it to 3RR? And why can't any of us edit it the page now? because it is locked. I'm entitled to be unhappy. You talk to me about "ownership issues" - you did it to defend your cynical "Souza proposal". To 3RR? No way should the page be locked because of this. And it's negatively effected the British Isles Taskforce as it has just pissed needed people off - as both you and DDStretch were fully aware of, I'm absolutely certain. --Matt Lewis (talk) 02:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) this is getting sad Matt. I made three attempts to get Tharky to discuss his change rather than edit warring on what he knew would be a controversial and provocative. I'm unhappy that its locked and I dislike any editor who refused to discuss changes and just reverses, but that is the behaviour. Any admin would have done what DDStretch did, its basic Wiki process. Your Souza proposal red herring is a nonsense you know. When the mediator asked us to try and resolve it I went back over weeks of exchanges and the solution which had the most support was the Souza one (not mine, not my ideal solution but it had support), so I re-proposed it and 10 out of 11 editors agreed. If you check above you will see that I have been more than happy to change the sentence, even suggested one of yours, I just don't think a paragraph is necessary. Please calm down, look at the content not your conspiracy theories about other editors, apologise to DDStretch who does not deserve you accusation and get someone to look at the MEDCAB and related material and give an objective response. Refusing mediation, but continuing to throw out accusations is not good behaviour. --Snowded TALK 03:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll re-open the MEDCAB case - I'm not having you saying I'm "refusing mediation", it's a bare-faced lie as you know damn well I have refused nothing. Don't think it will be big 'high five' for you or any other usual suspect who will pop in to support you - you know how badly I think of how you have behaved on the whole matter, and I'll pull no punches with anyone if it's a proper mediation case. I may be pissed off right now but I had enough of your provocative approach and little digs. Souza's initial suggestion was based on my own proposal - it immediately got all confused (mostly down to yourself completely mistaking the "page as it stands" for a proposal by myself - you weren't following things properly) during which Dave Souza simply left the debate altogether! There was no 'proposal' by him all - it was something you took up and ran with when I was not around. I've seen you do nothing but game, game and game on nationality issue ever since, and wherever you have gone.

How you can you say any editor would have "done the same" as DDStretch and locked this article is beyond me. Half of Wikipedia would be shut down if all admin "did the same" as DDStretch and simply supported their favoured edit and editor on 2RR by locking an article. Neither of you would have 3RR'd - you know that damn well. And if it wasn't locked we wouldn’t be having this conversation - it is pure frustration, and all brought about by an admin and an editor sharing a single-minded pursuit. As for apologising to him - he knows where I am and can speak for himself. His lock was at once another stupid play against Tharkuncoll (all of which I would say has got none of us anywhere), another move to support yourself (and as an admin he has absolutely no right at all to take sides) and a clear move to prejudice the guideline towards his own clear 'use-limit and dispute-heavy' POV. To prejudice the building of a Wikipedia guideline is a serious matter. It doesn't get much more serious than that in here, surely. And I can do without your constantly personal edit notes too. So you are tired of me? I am tired of you. I don't care what tracks you leave - you don't have a leg to stand on. I'll see you back at MEDCAB - at least it will keep this crap out of here. --Matt Lewis (talk) 07:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Pleased to see the intent of opening the MEDCAB Matt, look forward to the reality. I'll ignore the chain of insults that follow. --Snowded TALK 11:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The MEDCAB that I originally opened all about you has now been requested to be re-opened. You must think people are as daft as brushes. --Matt Lewis (talk) 13:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)