Wikipedia

Talk:Names of the British Isles/Archive 6

< Talk:Names of the British Isles
Latest comment: 1 year ago by Firsteleventh in topic Page should be deleted.
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9

User Bastun's edits.

Latest comment: 6 years ago69 comments8 people in discussion

So let's get into it.

On March 18th user Bastun edited this article 3 times without prior discussion or consensus, changing the nature of several paragraphs to imply lack of unanimity in Ireland on the position of the naming dispute. That position - that Ireland objects to the term "British Isles" is unanimous by any nature. Poll after poll reflects that Irish people see themselves as Irish, not British, and the official position of the sovereign government of Ireland is that they object to the term "British Isles" when used to include Ireland and her isles. As the government speaks for the people of Ireland, the position is unanimous. Where then does user Bastun receive the mandate to unilaterally insert the implication that this is only "some" Irishmen and women holding this opinion? That it is perhaps and somehow a niche position in this sovereign country not to be labeled as a possession of another? Would you call the Dutch German possessions? Would you call Portugal the Spanish Coast? Where does this come from?

For convencience, user Bastun's changes are listed below in bold:

16:55, 18 March 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+8)‎ . . British Isles naming dispute ‎ (Per source) ((Note: no source listed or referenced)

For this reason, the name British Isles is avoided by some in Hiberno-English as such usage could be construed to imply continued territorial claims or political overlordship of the Republic of Ireland by the United Kingdom

17:03, 18 March 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+11)‎ . . British Isles naming dispute ‎ (→‎Republic of Ireland: more accurate) (Note: blatant POV)

Use of the name "British Isles" is often rejected in the Republic of Ireland, because some claim its use implies a primacy of British identity over all the islands outside the United Kingdom,

17:00, 18 March 2018 (diff | hist) . . (-392)‎ . . British Isles naming dispute ‎ (→‎Republic of Ireland: ce, remove personal opinion with confusing wording) (Note: Bastun's removal of an entire paragraph without discussion)

From the Irish perspective, it is considered as a political term and does not constitute a geographical naming for the archipelago. The British isles includes the Channel Islands, which is British territory off the coast of France and not in the Atlantic archipelago, while it also excludes the Danish territory of the Faroe Islands, which are a part of the European Atlantic archipelago. The phrase British isles is deemed to constitute a collection of British territorial claims, which Ireland has long been for Britain.

This user has a clear agenda to insinuate that the unified and official national stance of the Irish people and government of Ireland is somehow niche and fragmented. I would be grateful to hear his reasoning before he makes any more such reversions.198.103.152.51 (talk) 18:07, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I would say: start with giving sources for your edits. The Banner talk 18:24, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
As my edits are simply reverting his, which he made a few days ago, which flew against the narrative of the article without any evidence provided by him, I am going to ask that user Bastun substantiate himself first. If he is not able to, then we can all agree his edits should be removed for being false and NPOV. If he can substantiate himself, which I doubt, I will refute it. I would also appreciate if The Banner could be a little bit more impartial and show a little less obvious bias, seeing as he's deflected this question twice now.198.103.152.51 (talk) 20:04, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm absolutely with you here. Bastun seems to be clearly violating NPOV by inserting weasel-words and removing whole tracts of text simply because he disagrees with it, and his entire defence seems to be hoping that nobody would catch him. His edits clearly need to be reverted.135.23.153.86 (talk) 20:40, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
To be clear, I am the previously anonymous user 135.23.153.86.Hibarnacle (talk) 21:03, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Do we know which sock? Apollo again, or someone else? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 21:26, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, no. I took the wrong article to hat. Apollo was active on "Irish people", not here.The Banner talk 21:28, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
No worries. I guess that means I'm supposed to refute the assertion that because the government says something, it must be true, and automatically overrides the free will of every citizen? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 21:38, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
So Bastun's entire arguement is "I disagree with the government of Ireland's position on this matter"? No, sorry, that's not an arguement. You're clearly violating NPOV and should have your edits removed. Either do better or admit your fault, Bastun.135.23.153.86 (talk) 20:38, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
I am still waiting on your evidence that Bastun is wrong. The Banner talk 20:53, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Hello, it's me you're looking for. You're asking for evidence for what exactly? Please be precise. I'm operating under the good faith assumption that if you were to actually LOOK at Bastun's original NPOV edits you'd see them for what they are, rather than this knee-jerk defense you are mounting where you are requesting evidence that the government of a country speaks for that country.Hibarnacle (talk) 21:01, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
You are claiming that Bastuns stance is incorrect. Now I am waiting for evidence that proves that Bastun is wrong. The Banner talk 21:16, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
A government speaks for it's country. That is the literal definition of sovreignty. Bastun's insertion of weasel-words and removal of entire tracts of texts is a clear NPOV meant to reflect his personal interpretation that this is a niche position, when it is the unified and official position of the national government. Hibarnacle (talk) 21:19, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
A nice slogan but no evidence. The Banner talk 07:27, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
You seem to be confused The Banner; Reddit is THAT way. Please take your nonsense there. I'm going to assume you can't defend your actions from now on.Hibarnacle (talk) 03:41, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
A government may speak for its country, well that's true to an extent but one can hardly say everyone in Britain agrees with Brexit for example. Personally I don't mind them being called the British Isles though I know others object and the Irish government has no power over me to coerce me to think otherwise. Dmcq (talk) 13:37, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
A government does speak for it's country; this isn't open to interpretation. That's the literal point of the government on the international stage. Nobody is talking about affecting Dmcq's ability to make his own decisions; we're talking about the opinion of the naming dispute specifically among Irish people, where the position has never been proven to be anything but unanimously opposed to it.Hibarnacle (talk) 03:41, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
If it is the government saying something then say 'the Irish government' not Irish people. Substituting one for the other is not a reasonable thing to do. It verges on saying 'the American people say' every time Trump tweets. And the government says only when the government says through an official spokesman and it isn't denied afterwards, otherwise it is some specific member of the government. Dmcq (talk) 08:38, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm honestly not sure whether you're trolling; or just, I dunno, maybe a schoolkid, or something? Your argument is really that a government speaks for its entire population? That nobody is allowed to have their own opinion that differs from the government's position? This isn't even the case in North Korea... Nope, I'm afraid it simply isn't the case that the Irish government speak for everyone, with no dissent; it isn't the case that everyone believes use of the term "implies a primacy of British identity over all the islands outside the United Kingdom"; and it most certainly isn't the case that the Irish government endorses the position that "The phrase British isles is deemed to constitute a collection of British territorial claims, which Ireland has long been for Britain." (Their grammar is generally better, for a start.) The most that can be claimed is that "some" hold those positions. (Though usually also expressed with better phrasing and grammar). BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:50, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
You are literally admitting that your entire arguement is based upon your opinion instead of the official position of the Irish state. That is the very definition of NPOV. I'm not interested in dealing with a British person who doesn't respect the views of the Irish people and state; either substantiate your views through something more than your own opinion or this page is getting reverted.Hibarnacle (talk) 03:41, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Hibarnacle, while a government speaks 'on behalf of a nation, its official views may or may not represent a majority or super majority opnion. Also, please to do not threaten or imply an edit war.

Bastun as the changes were introduced by you, you bear the burden of supporting them. Can you provide any evidence that a significant number of inhabitants of Ireland approve of the term "British Isles" for the group of islands including Ireland? Or is this a minority or even hypothetical view? Hibarnacle, can you provide evidence to the contrary, perhaps a reliable poll, to show what the actual views of the Irish are? DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 05:38, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. Wikipedia is supposed to be based on reliable sources, not on editors assumptions and extrapolations. Dmcq (talk) 08:38, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
DESiegel, I could argue the opposite, that I was not introducing changes but removing the biased and patently untrue statements already introduced by someone else. In any case, the phraseology I changed implied unanimity. Indeed, Hibarnacle states above that this is literally what the text was supposed to mean. As I and other Irish citizens, living in Ireland, and indeed, commenting on this page now and in the past, have no particular objection to the use of the term "British Isles" when used in the correct geographical context, then, well... Q.E.D.. (Use of Latin should not be taken to imply that I support any claims that the Holy Roman Empire may have over the territory of Ireland. (Likewise for any claims originating from the Holy See of Rome)). With respect, a lot, if not all, of what you're looking for has already been demonstrated multiple times and is present in the archives. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 08:59, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
But sure no harm in having recent examples to hand, I suppose. I'll bite:
  • Hits confined to .ie: 228,000. Caveat: those 228,000 results subsume the 1,031 results already captured above, so really that's only just under 227,000 results.)
So. Yeah. It's not used a huge amount, but I think you can conclude that yes, the term "British Isles" is in somewhat widespread use in Ireland. Despite the best efforts of the Irish government's sekrit unanimity mind control project. Can we put this to bed now? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:23, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
You've simply googled the term "British Isles" in Irish domains and linked, as evidence, among other things, an article referencing how disputed the term is and an article referring to "the British and Irish Isles." I dare say this should be obvious enough of the wafer-thin nature of this arguement by now.Hibarnacle (talk) 07:45, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
In plain original research (the opinion of friends here in Co. Clare) it is clear that most people just do not care about the term. No support, no offence, just acceptance, like the acceptance of the rain. But a few of them (all strong SF and/or IRA-supporters) take offence of the term. The Banner talk 10:58, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Even as a political term rather than a geographical one I think live and let live is best. Lots of unionists call themselves British, who am I to say otherwise if they wish to do that? On the other hand I have no problems with the Irish government avoiding use of the term. Going an telling other countries the term should not be used though is I think just making trouble. Their saying 'not official' in their capacity as a political organisation is about right I think. Dmcq (talk) 11:07, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Bastun, I am afraid that as an editor who changed article languages that had been stable for some time, WP:BURDEN applies to your edit. There it says: The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. The previous text implies that an overwhelming majority, of the Irish, if not all of them, object to the use of the term "the British Isles". I cant regard the list of google hits from searches you cite as a reliable source to the contrary, because they show that the term has been used, but not how it has been used, whether with acceptance or with scorn, or what. They also do not show who wrote the documents thus searched, nor when. The Banner, your informal OR would seem to support the use of "some", but of course is not anything that could be cited in the article. Dmcq, your personal opinion may be sensible, but tells us nothing about how widely it is shared. This has been a vexed point for a long time -- surely someone reliable has done some sort of opinion research, a poll or set of interviews or some such, to determine just how widespread such objections are? Failing this, we could point to published opinion pieces, I suppose, to document how widely the objections are shared. While Bastun's edit has been challenged and needs to be sourced or removed, this discussion seems to have also challenged the previous wording, which was also not supported by any cited source. Can any of you suggest a reliable source or sources that would be usable in the article on this issue?
I am neither Irish nor British, I hold no particular views on the issue. I merely want to uphold Wikipedia policy and improve the article. I came here because of the Teahouse post -- I often respond to questions there. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 12:45, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
I know that what I know is not usable as a source but it is my experience. And no, I am not Irish or British either. The Banner talk 13:10, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
The sources that are already cited say some or often or many, none of them support having a blanket "For this reason, the name British Isles is avoided in Hiberno-English as such usage could be construed to imply continued territorial claims or political overlordship of the Republic of Ireland by the United Kingdom" without a by some or by many. I would have put it as by many as that goes with often as well which is in the cites of the statement, but some is supported by the sources. Reliable citations take precedence over stable for some time. 13:22, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm not aware of any Teahouse post. No, there is no official poll, because - aside from a tiny minority of diehard republicans and schoolkids getting their "800 years!" lectures from Christian Brothers - nobody really cares that much whether the term British Isles is used, or who by. Unless some moron like Richard Suchet comes out with an idiotic statement, in which case yes, obviously, there's some righteous indignation. I think what you're asking me, DESiegel, though, is to prove a negative, which obviously I can't do. Look at the changes I made, though, please. They are neutral and balanced - some might even say blatantly obvious. The article previously stated "From the Irish perspective, it is considered as a political term and does not constitute a geographical naming for the archipelago." Who considers it thus? It's a universal opinion? Does nobody dissent from this opinion?! Citation (currently entirely absent!) very much needed if it were to remain or be re-inserted. The article previously stated "The phrase British isles is deemed to constitute a collection of British territorial claims, which Ireland has long been for Britain." Who, exactly, deems it such? Both the UK and Ireland are signatories to the Good Friday Agreement and aren't in any way confused about their respective borders (Brexit aside). So, again, citation needed - especially for where the British are making territorial claims over Irish territory! (And again, that sentence really does look like it was written by a secondary school student). The article previously stated "Use of the name "British Isles" is often rejected in the Republic of Ireland, because its use implies a primacy of British identity over all the islands outside the United Kingdom" so was already qualified before I amended it to "because some claim its use implies a primacy..." The anon IP with the chip on their shoulder hasn't been around in five days, so I'm not going to waste more time here on the talk page. I'll continue to keep an eye on the article, but if people are going to make outlandish claims such as Ireland's government imposing unanimity on its population's views, then I'll be looking for reliable sources to back those claims. Per policy. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:03, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
I was referring to this Teahouse thread, Bastun.
You do have a point, and a source is really needed whichever way the statement is worded, with or without "some", in my view. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 15:01, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the link and acknowledging my point. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:38, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
There are citations on the statement in the lead and they say some most and often. It is up to someone who disagrees to provide a citation that would justify removing any qualification like that. I think it would be justified to say that the Irish government does not consider it an official term. Dmcq (talk) 17:20, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Agreed - and that's currently stated in both this article and the main British Isles article. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 18:04, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
"No, there is no official poll, because - aside from a tiny minority of diehard republicans and schoolkids getting their "800 years!" lectures from Christian Brothers - nobody really cares that much whether the term British Isles is used, or who by." Enough of this, already. Users outside of Ireland and the UK may not recognize political language when they see it but I certainly do. You are constantly employing personal opinion in face of fact and have failed to provide evidence for your original removals to the text AT ALL. Worse, this is the sectarian language of an Ulster Loyalist trying to ridicule 800 years of British occupation in Ireland and attacking Catholic schooling systems. That's not something that can be permitted when editing a public article. As you yourself have admitted you can't prove your own arguement to substantiate your removal of text that was validated by links IN THIS ARTICLE, I'll give you one last chance to substantiate yourself. If you provide claims to back yourself up then we'll call it at that. If you don't, we can all agree your NPOV is getting reverted. End of.Hibarnacle (talk) 05:20, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Your argument is baseless and just proof by assertion. I am not an Ulster Loyalist - far from it. "I'll give you one last chance" - excuse me?! Good luck with that. "We can all agree" - previously you tried to imply that the government speaks for every citizen in the state; at least now you're only trying to speak for every other Wikipedia article on this article. That's progress, I guess? You are threatening to edit disruptively - that will get you blocked. But please, first, have a read of WP:CONSENSUS - it's an actual policy you need to follow. Also please read and try to understand WP:V and WP:NPOV. Yes, the "BI" term is contentious to some, avoided by some and disliked by many in Ireland. But that isn't unanimous. Far from it. As demonstrated by the links above. That's reflected in the article. Most of us, genuinely, don't GAF what term is used because we've overcome our inferiority complex about Britain and no longer have a well-balanced chip on both shoulders... BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 07:59, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
"I'll admit there's no source for my arguments and then attack everyone who notes that" is the sign of a flawed argument, Bastun. You've failed to satisfy WP:BURDEN, proceeded to link several articles which appear to defeat your own claim, and then attacked the very concept of people disagreeing with you as "diehard republicans and schoolkids." No, thanks. You've had more than enough time now, your edits should be reverted. 198.103.152.51 (talk) 21:29, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
And once again the sectarian, prejudicial language comes out from you. You've been given ample time to substantiate your sources for your removals and have utterly failed to do so. Your original removal of text and insertion of weasel-words to support your personal viewpoint lacked any kind of consensus and served only to push your personal views. Your prejudice should and will not be reflected in the article. If there are no further complaints I will be reverting user Bastun's NPOV edits.Hibarnacle (talk) 02:10, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
There are citations in the lead supporting what Bastun says. Personal attacks on editors are not welcome, see WP:NPA, please stick to the topic. You seem to feel passionately that you are right, have you considered that you might only have friends that think the same way as you and so you think it is general? That is one of the reasons that having reliable sources are so important rather than just depending on ones own observations. And personally my observations differ from yours. Dmcq (talk) 08:25, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
There were no personal attacks, Bastun intentionally inserted weasel-words. I can see why you'd view that as a personal attack if you weren't familiar with the term weasel-words itself; perhaps look up the article regarding them? Regardless it's not up to me to prove a negative; it's up to Bastun to validate his removals. Which he hasn't done, in fact linking an article complaining about the use of the term British Isles in his quick Googling of sources. Additionally neither of our opinions matter - what matters is what's provable, that's the entire problem - Bastun's edits are NPOV and he's acknowledged that they AREN'T provable, stating there was no data he could draw on. If you've got evidence that firmly establishes him as correct, by all means correct me. Hibarnacle (talk) 21:20, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
I just said there were citations for it in the lead. That is what is required and that is what is there. The political leanings of other editors are irrelevant whatever you imagine they are but for future reference it might perhaps be better to refer to unionists rather than ulster loyalists as that has become rather associated with paramilitaries. Even better not to try labeling other editors at all thanks. Dmcq (talk) 23:53, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Citations need to support your narrative. Bastun's do not. Speaking as someone who grew up here Ulster Unionism and Ulster Loyalism are as similar as Nationalist and Republican with very little discrepancy in their meaning. But I don't want to intentionally offend anyone, so I'll not refer to it. I do, however, expect this nonsense to end at last. Bastun has had his opportunity to provide sources for his arguement and has decided not to despite being given a truly absurd amount of time to do it.Hibarnacle (talk) 23:59, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Well this is getting tiresome. The article tried to state a universal position apparently held by every Irishman. I've demonstrated amply that this simply isn't the case. This was already supported by references in the article, as Dmcq points out, and other editors have pointed out you'd need references to back your proposed edits. You have no consensus to revert and the current version satisfies WP:NPOV. I think we're done. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 00:01, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Neither references in the article nor the ones you supplied supported this point. In fact, several of your own sources CONFLICTED with your arguement. You've failed to satisfy WP:BURDEN and didn't have concensus to make your original removals, which we can clearly see are based in personal politics. I'm giving everyone else 1 day to comment before I revert your edits. You've had 2 weeks to defend your narrative pushing and I'm done indulging you.Hibarnacle (talk) 00:02, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Do you even read, bro? Your threat to edit against consensus is noted. I look forward to seeing how that works out for you... BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 08:39, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Reverting edits that don't meet site rules, such as yours, do not require consensus.Hibarnacle (talk) 15:20, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Just so you can see why a 'weasel word' like 'some' is reasonable, the citations say things like "Since the early twentieth century, that nomenclature has been regarded by some as increasingly less usable", "some will find certain of our terms offensive", "Many Irish object to the term the 'British Isles", " a term often offensive to Irish sensibilities". They do not say things like "Irish people in general", or "most people in Ireland" which is what would be required to remove the 'weasel word'. Dmcq (talk) 10:06, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
They all support the same narrative - that the Irish people object to the term. Moreso not a single link states that the Irish people are fine with the term. Taking this with the official position of the sovereign state itself being official political objection to and rejection of the term, I'd imagine the sentiment was clear.Hibarnacle (talk) 15:20, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
So you're seeing the bit where the sources say "some"; not "all"; not "univeral"; not "unanimous". "Some" is now what the article says. In accordance with the sources. Nobody has suggested inserting a sentence saying "Irish people are fine with the term." BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:31, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm not, no. I'm seeing a massive number of sources supporting a particular outlook. Even user DMCQ acknowledges the language they see refer to "most" and "often", whereas you are changing this to mean "some", which is not only a significantly different interpretation, it OPPOSES THE POINT THE SOURCES ARE MAKING. Perhaps you could show me the particular items you're basing your interpretation on?Hibarnacle (talk) 23:48, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Please see WP:OR "...This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources". The sources provided do not agree with you. Even if your reasoning were right which it isn't it would still be irrelevant. Dmcq (talk) 16:36, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
This applies to your defence of user Bastun's NPOV and unsupported edits, which you yourself acknowledges used different language than he inserted into the article.Hibarnacle (talk) 23:48, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
There are plenty of sources using "some"; read the links. If you can't really understand the difference between "many" and "most" not meaning "unanimous", or acknowledge that "some" is in plenty of sources, then I can only conclude nothing anyone says is going to convince you otherwise. There is no point in continuing this conversation. Bottom line here is the current wording, using "some", is supported by many sources, does not involve WP:SYNTHESIS as your own proposed edit does, satisfies WP:NPOV, and has WP:CONSENSUS. You can either accept that and move on; or edit war and get blocked. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 07:45, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Except that there aren't, and when asked to point to any to substantiate your NPOV violating removals you provided links that contradicted you. Once again, I am not proposing new inclusions to the article - I am going to revert edits that violate this site's policies: yours. If you attempt to edit war, you'll get blocked. So be smart, accept you were wrong, and don't. You were the one who made the original edits without evidenece. You've been arrogant and condescending the entire time since and failed what should've been a very simple task of SUBSTANTIATING YOUR EDITS. You didn't, and they are therefore NPOV and will be reverted. I'm done indulging you.Hibarnacle (talk) 01:06, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Agree this discussion has gone on too long with Hibarnacle repeatedly directly contradicting what is said. There is no requirement to discuss any more if this is all they have to say. Dmcq (talk) 16:11, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
I've contradicted myself? Where? You've repeatedly failed to respond to me until user Bastun posts, and failed to substantiate your defence of his NPOV edits. The both of you being in lockstop doesn't defend NPOV violations. If you can't do that, then just accept they should never have been made.Hibarnacle (talk) 01:06, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
For starters, up to know you have failed to provide evidence that the text from Bastun was incorrect and POV. Please prove your case with independent, reliable sources first. The Banner talk 09:17, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
I do not have to. He has to prove his removals from the article to frame his narrative were not NPOV. Please stop trying to abuse site policy for your own preferences. You're an old user - you should frankly know better.Hibarnacle (talk) 19:53, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
And you should know better too. You are telling stories but when asked to prove them you claim I do not have to. That does not make your case stronger. You are clearly disruptive, just to make a point. The Banner talk 21:09, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm not telling any stories. I asked a user to substantiate his NPOV edits and he could not. You are attempting to defend him breaking site rules, as you have from literally your first post in this article, by deflecting onto me rather than dealing with the person who has broken NPOV. It doesn't MATTER if you like his point better than you like me, or if you think I'm being arrogant or rude - he is breaking site rules to push a personal narrative. Quite honestly attempting to label me as disruptive when I've patiently spent weeks asking for substantiation here, after first posting in the TeaHouse, and while not reverting Bastun's NPOV edits AT ALL, speaks VERY poorly of you, Banner. Now for goodness sake stop attacking me and address the issue; either substantiate Bastun's edits (as he has failed to) or concede they are NPOV and admnit I've been VERY patient in indulging this nonsense.Hibarnacle (talk) 21:33, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
And again you come with stories and accusations but not with evidence that Bastun is wrong. Indeed I admit that you are very persistent in your unsourced stories and the community is very patient with your pointy behaviour. The Banner talk 09:27, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Hibarnacle, you're clearly not actually reading what people are writing. All you are doing is repeating the same thing over and over and denying what's been put in front of you. You've completely failed to gain consensus for your proposed reversion. If you won't accept WP:CONSENSUS based on the arguments above, and the sources above plainly demonstrating that boycott of the BI term is far from unanimous, then maybe considering opening a case at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. But first, have a read of WP:BLUDGEON. I'm not wasting any more time here. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:42, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Well that's that - Bastun has failed to provide evidence that substantiates his NPOV edits. Discussion over.Hibarnacle (talk) 19:53, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Seems like all Bastun's edits contested by the IP user(s) are uncontroversial and more fitting NPOV. To say the term British Isles "implies ownership over island" (it doesn't), rather than some people claim it does, is much more neutral than a blanket statement speaking on behalf of EVERYONE IN IRELAND, whose many millions of individual people are supposedly united in their hatred for the name. — Jon C.ॐ 10:58, 27 April 2018 (UTC) — Jon C.ॐ 10:58, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Not hatred, objection. Ireland left the British Empire and has a united policy of rejection of the term "British Isles" in each of it's successive governments. If you as non-Irish disagree, that's fine, but it doesn't change our views.Hibarnacle (talk) 19:53, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
If they even had a citation saying something like 'most' they'd have a point to discuss. But the citations don't say that. They say things like 'some' or 'many' which don't imply that at all. Dmcq (talk) 18:53, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
They don't, though. And when asked to point to the ones that do, you were unsurprisingly unable to do so. Rather says it all.Hibarnacle (talk) 19:53, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Read the citations at the end of the first paragraph in the lead. They support saying 'some'. Produce a citation that supports what you say. Do not waste peoples time by arguing without a citation to support what you say. Dmcq (talk) 11:20, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Guys, seriously. The SPA account has basically reiterated the same point over and over, and refuses to read the sources which demonstrate anything other than universal unanimous support for its position. Don't feed the troll. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:06, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

British English/Hiberno-English?

Latest comment: 5 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

In the opening paragraph of the article -- What went into the choice to word this issue in terms of speaking "British English" and then later reference to "Hiberno-English"? Do we honestly believe that this is an accurate way of talking about this? Does someone even have a source for it? By wording it that way, how are we claiming English-speakers who aren't strictly from Britain or Ireland think about and use the term British Isles? Do, for example, North American English-speakers not use the term "British Isles"? And do no Americans/Canadians connected to, interested in, reading about, studying about or visiting Ireland ever share the objections to the term expressed in this article? The current article wording confines both use of the term BI and objection to the term BI strictly to English speakers from within Britain and Ireland. Is that even true?! I'd also point out that the opening paragraph frames objection to BI strictly in political terms, which also seems lacking... Nuclare (talk) 15:01, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Have you got any sources about any of that? Dmcq (talk) 15:13, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
I have slapped a failed verification tag on because the sentence starts "In British English" then goes on to use an American dictionary as a citation. Eckerslike (talk) 19:38, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
And the Hiberno-English reference should be marked as unverified too: When the Guardian (in the article footnotes) says in its style guide the term BI should be avoided, that's not in Hiberno-English. Does the first academic quoted in the footnotes (Bronwen Walter) criticizing BI usage speak Hiberno-English? Unless someone can support the 'Hiberno-English' wording, the wording should be changed. Nuclare (talk) 13:11, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm ASKING what the source is for saying that 'British Isles' is British English. If I had a source for it I wouldn't be asking. As Eckerslike points out, the footnote goes to an American dictionary and the entry certainly doesn't call it British English. In fact, the argument people on these talk pages make all the time is that the term BI is used all over the world, so what does the British English phrasing even mean? And also what does it mean to say that the objections to the name British Isles exist as part of Hiberno-English?
As for the not 'strictly political' issue. It's a separate issue and I probably shouldn't have thrown it together, but even in the current footnotes one can find language that doesn't frame the issue purely in political terms. At this point, I'm just curious--is it the accepted position here that the objections are purely political?--That there isn't a broader cultural, etc. objection to the 'British' of 'British Isles' as a label applying to Ireland? Given that the term "British" has such a big, long and varied association culturally and geographically with just Great Britain, I'm curious why the conclusion would be that it's purely about the political? Nuclare (talk) 21:56, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
On the language issue, per Nuclare above, I've removed the reference to "British English" and "Hiberno-English" in the lede. Makes no sense to include them. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:35, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Island of Sian?

Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

In para 4 of Pretanic Islands and Britanniae is this: Around AD 70, Pliny the Elder, in Book 4 of his Naturalis Historia, describes the islands he considers to be "Britanniae" as including Great Britain, Ireland, Orkney, smaller islands such as the Hebrides, the Isle of Man, Anglesey, possibly one of the Frisian Islands, and islands which have been identified as Ushant and Sian.

Is /was Sian a real island or just mischief? - I can find no trace of it on the web.

cheers Geopersona (talk) 05:01, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Maybe Sein? Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:59, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
It's an 1854 translation, the website appears to have been updated; the relevant page has "Below it are the islands called Samnis and Axantos 14" linked to note "14 According to Brotier these islands belong to the coast of Britanny, being the modern isles of Sian and Ushant."
Axantos was apparently a Roman name for Ushant, and "Sian" might be an old spelling of Île de Sein, or from a google books search Corps du droit français, ou recueil complet des lois, décrets, arrêtés, ordonnances, sénatus-consultes, réglemens, avis du conseil d'état ...: 1789-1854. 1829. p. 2065. (top of first column) has both "Pleibercbrist , I R Sian , Landivisiau , Plouneventer , Plou zevede , SaintBourg , Blaye ... Ile - de - Sein , Cleden - cap - Sizun ," – the ellipsis hides the arrondissement implying they're in different districts. There are other copies of the same translation online, can't find a newer one, or a better link for Samnis. . . dave souza, talk 20:12, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Yep, Île de Sein looks likely. Ptolemy seems to have got his info from Pytheas, and "Ouexisame is most likely to be Ushant, twenty kilometres off the west coast of Cape Finistère in Brittany, while Kabaion may be Pointe du Raz, beyond which lies Île de Sein. Pytheas recorded a sun height ...", Barry W. Cunliffe (2017). On the Ocean: The Mediterranean and the Atlantic from Prehistory to AD 1500. Oxford University Press. p. 312. ISBN 978-0-19-875789-4. . . dave souza, talk 20:46, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Subjective POV implied as fact?

Latest comment: 3 years ago10 comments7 people in discussion

To say "More neutral proposed alternatives for the British Isles include..." implies that "British Isles" is not neutral, and that, I think is subjective - subject to your understanding of the history of the islands and of their naming. I changed that phrase to the more neutrally worded "Proposed alternatives for the British Isles include..." and was reverted by Snowded with the edit summary "There isn't any question that BI is controversial". Well I didn't say it was't controversial, just that to imply it isn't neutral is subjective. Being controversial does not imply that it is necessarily not neutral. Perhaps it would be better as "Less controversial alternatives for the British Isles include...". Any thoughts? -- DeFacto (talk). 15:59, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Happy with less controversial although I don't see any real issue -----Snowded TALK 16:41, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, I made that change instead. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:50, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
...or just say "Suggested alternatives...." ("Proposed..." would imply, to me, some degree of status). Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:56, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
We have already dropped 'proposed', now (per Snowded's reply) we have "Less controversial alternatives for the British Isles include..." -- DeFacto (talk). 20:09, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
I think 'Suggested alternatives' is better than 'less controversial alternatives', because its not clear that say 'Atlantic Archipelago' is not controversial either. Every term discussed, both British Isles and the alternative are all controversial, or at least would be if taken more seriously. There are no non-controversial names, that is the very problem. 2A00:23C8:7607:3801:1D62:ED73:9ADB:D16E (talk) 19:59, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm Irish and a majority of people in Ireland reject this term. So I thi k it's offensive that somebody above cannot accept that yes, 'British Isles' is not a neutral term. it is an offensive term to the people who live in Ireland or do we not count in your world view? 'Britain and Ireland' will do.— Preceding unsigned comment added by A PhD in History (talk • contribs) 09:07, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Something being 'offensive' is not an argument for change. Irish people (or anyone else) can call the archipelago 'Britain and Ireland' (and that term may in time become the one used). But presently reliable sources support 'British Isles'. But to the discussion in question: 'Suggested alternatives' seems better to me as it is a neutral phrase. Robynthehode (talk) 09:56, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Interesting. I am not Irish but live in Ireland since 15 years. In plain original research (the opinion of friends here in Co. Clare) it is clear that most people just do not care about the term. No support, no offence, just acceptance, like the acceptance of the rain. Only a few of them (all strong SF and/or IRA-supporters) take offence of the term. The Banner talk 10:48, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
"...a majority of people in Ireland reject this term..." definitely needs a WP:RS. In any case it's not clear what "rejecting" it would mean, given that it remains a term used globally and this is a global (not British, not Irish) encyclopedia. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:11, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

St. Agnes Isles

Latest comment: 2 years ago9 comments6 people in discussion

This term is a great alternative. It has the advantage of being less ambiguous and confusing than the other terms. Self-published literature is acceptable on Wikipedia for suggestions such as this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.79.174.240 (talk) 20:58, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Whether you think it's a "great alternative" or not is of no relevance whatsoever. Where is its coverage in reliable sources? Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:27, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
No, self-published literature isn't acceptable for suggestions such as this. We report on what's published in reliable secondary sources, as Ghmyrtle says. And it will only be published if it's due. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:17, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
Seriously, Anthony - not here. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:58, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
Self-published literature is acceptable on Wikipedia for suggestions such as this - No it's not. Rangeblocked. OhNoitsJamie Talk 00:52, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

This suggestion has been on this article for two years and there seems to have been a consensus that it should remain until last month when it was removed. It appears that the guidelines cited are for entire articles, and the guidelines seem to be far less strict for individual statements within articles. Wikipedia does allow self-published sources. The undue weight problem was solved at the last edit. The suggestion was introduced in a pamphlet, so it is not being introduced here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.76.147.14 (talk) 20:56, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Unless the suggestion has been reported in reliable sources, it doesn't belong here, period. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:09, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

The source is not original research and is reliable as it can be verified that it has indeed been suggested that the British Isles should be called the St. Agnes Isles. But I know when I'm beaten. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.77.192.137 (talk) 19:35, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Declaring a pamphlet that you self-published as "reliable" is a novel interpretation of WP:RS. OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:40, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

De Valera anecdote

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Robynthehode (talk · contribs) has asked me to discuss my reverting Toploftical (talk · contribs)'s deleting of a blockquote I added to the article some years ago. The quote is is relevant because:

  • It involves de Valera, a person whose views on the subject are obviously relevant.
  • It is an example of the linguistic workarounds and dilemmas that the lack of a consensus on the "correct" phrase to describe the islands in question causes. In other words, it aptly summarizes the section the quote appears at the top of, as well as the article as a whole.
No strong feelings either way, but on balance it seems trivial so I would support the deletion -----Snowded TALK 10:38, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Page should be deleted.

Latest comment: 1 year ago18 comments8 people in discussion

This supposed "British Isles naming dispute" is not a verified or notable thing. There is no start date or end date of such a thing. This page exists only for some wikipedia editors to avoid mention of the well attested problems with the term "British Isles" on the main page. Twasonasummersmorn (talk) 12:50, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Feel free to nominate it for deletion, so. WP:DELETION explains the background and how to go about the process. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:13, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
Indeed. I will. Twasonasummersmorn (talk) 13:17, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
So hold on, you're now saying that there's no dispute over the name despite posting extensively elsewhere about how Irish people don't like the name and want it called something else? Canterbury Tail talk 13:19, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
That does not constitute a notable article by itself it pretty clear. It's not notable. Twasonasummersmorn (talk) 13:39, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
Okay so the dispute is not notable. Fabulous. Can you stop edit warring on other articles then to increase it's prominence? You're saying one thing in one article and another in other articles. Canterbury Tail talk 13:41, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
This. - Roxy the dog 17:03, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
I concur, I would also support deleting the article and would endorse a deletion request. I consider it to be on par with people who say "Britain is not in Europe" for similarly political reasons, there is no article about that issue and given the much larger population of Great Britain than of Ireland would theoretically be more notable. CorwenAv (talk) 18:19, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
There is an article named Brexit. :-) The Banner talk 18:45, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
I am talking about geography, not politics. CorwenAv (talk) 18:50, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Maybe I have missed something, but I have never heard about that point. Do you have more background and information about it? The Banner talk 18:59, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
It is certainly a viewpoint one hears articulated, it always has a political bias embedded within it. I dare say I could find references (though I don't have any on hand as I type). It seems to be exactly the same as the subject of this article because of the conflict between ideology and established geographical toponymy. CorwenAv (talk) 19:26, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
I'm torn on this. The controversy definitely exists and there are lots of sources that make reference to it (as demonstrated by the references in the article). But I'm not convinced (m)any of them would meet our definition of significant coverage. The right place to discuss this is of course at AfD; it would be interesting to see what the wider community make of it. WaggersTALK 11:22, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
This was pointed out back on 29 December, along with a link for our new editors to the deletion process, where instructions can be found on initiating an AfD proposal. Nothing has happened since, apart from a couple of comments by new editors who stumbled across this talk page... BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:08, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Well, looking through some of the references in this article, I'm satisfied that at least this one and this one constitute significant coverage of this subject, and it's likely there are others that can be found. So my view now is that the subject is notable enough for an article to exist. My concern is only really with the title - the term "British Isles naming dispute" isn't used anywhere in the sources that I've looked at. "Dispute" in particular has misleading connotations. Even "controversy" overstates it a bit; "disagreement" is probably a more accurate word to use, or maybe "contention".
Of course it's also true that more has been written about this subject on Wikipedia talk pages than all the reliable sources that mention it put together. It just about scrapes enough significant coverage to merit an article but it's obscure, a niche topic that receives far more attention on this project than it merits. WaggersTALK 11:22, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
It's worth having a read of the previous deletion discussion. There might be merit in either renaming this article; or in merging it to British Isles (terminology). BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:47, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Yeah I read through it the other day. TBH it's such a fringe issue I don't intend to spend more time on it at the moment. WaggersTALK 12:00, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
This page seems to be relatively settled and fills, in my experience, a clear need given how often the topic crops up on related pages. Firsteleventh (talk) 18:24, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Names_of_the_British_Isles/Archive_6&oldid=1193359233"