Template talk:History of Christianity in the British Isles

Why does this template use the inappropriate term "British Isles"?

Why is this part of the British Isles naming dispute ? ClemMcGann (talk) 10:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

It is not part of it unless you make it so. The template is very unpopular for a variety of reasons and only appears on eight of the articles it is supposed to navigate to/from. The entire template should probably be done away with judging from the reaction I got last year when I tried to rescue, improve, and distribute it. That said, those complaints had nothing to do with the term "British Isles", which is a geographic (not a political) expression that is understood to include the islands of Great Britain, Ireland, Jersey, Man, Wight, et cetra. -- SECisek (talk) 16:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

as can be seen from Talk:British Isles, the term British Isles is a contentious issue. What happened when you tried to improve the template? Do you intend to keep or delete it? Would you object to 'Great Britain & Ireland'? ClemMcGann (talk) 17:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Last year, I found the template largely red-linked and almost orphaned. I added some sensible links and tried to distribute it, however editors objected to articles being included in a series on "Christianity in the British Isles" with the rub being that Christianity in Ireland, Wales, Scotland, and England are each unique enough to have their own series. This seemed sensible, so I left it as I found it, almost dead. I would not bother spreading the anti-Isles Crusade here, as the offending template appears almost nowhere in the encyclopedia.

As for the disagreement about the term, Iberia, Scandanavia, the Balkans, and the British Isles are all non-political, geographic expressions. Neither a Serb nor an Albanian would identify themselves as a "Balkan", yet they both live in the Balkan region of Euorpe. I have not read the link you provided, but I have a good idea what the dispute is about and this is a fact: Nobody can declare that the island of Ireland is outside of the British Isles. This would be akin to saying that Portugal is not part of Iberia because it isn't ruled by Juan Carlos.

If the island of Maui were to declare its independence tomorrow, it would no longer be part of the country of the U.S.A. - furthermore, it would no longer be part of the state of Hawai'i. NONE of these facts would change the reality that Maui would remain part of the Hawai'ian islands. That is geography, not politics. That is where it is and there is no way around this. As for renaming the British Isles, the term is still in common use in the English language and literature to refer to the chain. If you think it should not be used, remember Wikipedia is NOT the place to right great wrongs.

I hate these petty arguements about geographic names here at WP. It burns up a good deal of effort that could be spent improving articles. Among subjects covered by the Oreintal Orthodox wikiproject, I have seen massive edit wars over the names of places and peoples in stub articles. The fights never end, nothing is settled and, worst of all, nobody bothers to improve the stubs. The combatants just click on "what links here" and move the fight to another place and carry on.

You would think that with 1,000+ years of political fighting and almost 500+ of religious fighting, the people of the Isles that were until now known as British would have better things to discuss. -- SECisek (talk) 18:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I asked "Would you object to 'Great Britain & Ireland'?" I still await your answer.

I am disappointed with your reply. The term is, at best, archaic. As it is inaccurate, it is inappropriate in Wikipedia. Others are prepared to correct such an error, see [1]. Perhaps you might reconsider your position? ClemMcGann (talk) 03:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, it seems from your arguments above that you're not familiar with the debate to date. Please don't try to belittle other people's opinions as petty - for some, this is an important point. If you find it petty, don't get involved and you won't burn any of your effort. Although judging from your response, you seem to have already taken sides.... I for one object to the term used in this way, and it is historically inaccurate. Bardcom (talk) 20:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for changing it. ClemMcGann (talk) 21:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

You misread my position. I am indifferent to the name. The problem here is content and use. The template has serious problems. You have fixed none of them. It remains every bit as useless as it did before. Is this the most constructive use of your time? The term is not archaic nor inaccurate in the sense used here. It is current, particuarly in geographic circles. I am famillar with the debate and it has nothing to do with geography and everything to do with politics. Wikipedia is not the place right great wrongs. I would have supported a call to delete this template, but you don't seem to care at all about its content, just its name. I am disapointed in your behavior and urge you to consider more constructive edits than this in the future. I am sure you are off now to find another correct use of the term British Isles to remove from the encyclopedia. Best wishes, --SECisek (talk) 17:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about the other problems. I've fixed only one problem, which is a contructive edit. I would support the deletion of the template based on the fact that Christianity developed differently in each region. Finally, I prefer my encyclopedia to be "correct", and not reflect inaccurate language and terminology. Bardcom (talk) 19:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC) --Bardcom (talk) 19:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

If you perfer the encyclopedia to be "correct", how about nominating this misleading template for deletion. You corrected nothing by changing the name. The template still created the misleading illusion that the history of Christianity some how delvolped in a related way all over British Isles, which it did not. I improved it by focusing it on one island, however it still is of questionable value. Wikipedia policy is quite clear that edits are NOT to be made for the sole purpose of changing one disputed name to another. I know of many of other places in WP where this term is in use and it is my hope that neither of you ever edit across my path again.

Contact me if you do nominate this template for deletion as I will support. Otherwise, I am now dropping this orphaned template - which you only edited to advance a controvesial agenda - from my watch list.

Happy St. Patrick's day. -- Secisek (talk) 22:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

"representing mariners of Great Britain and Ireland"

So,you say “I am disapointed in your behavior”. I asked a question and still await a reply. I am disappointed with your intransigent stance. You remain of the opinion that the term “is current, particuarly in geographic circles”. Did you even read the reference which I made? [2]

Can you not recognise in inconsistency of having an article such as Catholic Emancipation which opens “a process in Great Britain and Ireland” with an infobox which excludes Ireland?

You now “hope that neither of you ever edit across my path again.” To the best of my knowledge I never edited your words. I asked a question and still await a reply. Now that there are good relations between Christians in these islands, perhaps you might revise on your position. ClemMcGann (talk)

P.S. The history of Christianity in these islands is inter-related ClemMcGann (talk) 22:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I have just removed the template from the article Celtic Christianity. It is wholly inaccurate (and deeply offensive to many Irish people) to imply that Ireland is or ever was a part of "Great Britain".

Please do not reinstate this template unless it can be amended to use terminology which is acceptable to Irish people. (And no, "British Isles" is not an acceptable alternative) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The name of the template isn't important, as it doesn't show up in the text of any articles. It used to cover the entire British Isles, but got moved. Anyways, a template covering just Great Britain is pointless. No reason to group England and Wales with Scotland but not with Ireland. As far as I can tell, even Irish historians use the term "British Isles" now, so if a few people are gonna let contemporary politics continue to intervene in a historical template, the template will just have to be about England, and I'll away and created one for Scotland. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Celtic Christianity is not a uniquely Irish movement and it is highly relavent to the history of religion on Great Britian. We are talking about the islands - not the nations. It could appear on an article about Germanus of Auxerre without suggesting that Ireland was some how part of France. In the face of fact, what you deem as "acceptable" is irrelavent here at WP. -- Secisek (talk) 20:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Nominate for deletion

Hi, I'm nominating this template for deletion for the reasons given in the discussion above, mainly by Secisek. Bardcom (talk) 19:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Why hasn't it been deleted yet? It is just duplicating other British stuff but trying to claim Ireland as "British". Dunlavin Green (talk) 17:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

There was no consensus. SeeWikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_May_6#Template:History_of_British_Christianity --Rumping (talk) 00:05, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

People in this template

My suggestion is that we remove the people form this template. Those currently included are a somewhat random sample and it is not possible to be comprehensive. If readers want to find articles on people they will do it through the other articles.--SabreBD (talk) 16:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)