![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Using quotations around the word "coincidentally" shows a huge POV bias as does claiming that the Lions have been misrepresented as a national team. By who exactly?
While wikipedians are entitled to their political views this is a sports page and if you have a political agenda please take it elsewhere. GordyB 16:14, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
They also wear red and only Wales wear red. Surely this is a Welsh conspiracy. They originally wore blue and the flags of England, Wales and Ireland have never included blue. All sorts of crap can be talked about endlessly.
As for Lions if they uniquely belong to England then why did nobody tell Leinster or Gauteng? The truth is that big cat names are simply very common in rugby union hence Pumas, Cheetahs, Leopards, Tigers etc.
The Lions tag was adopted for the 1950 tour. If the selectors were in love with everything English then why were so few Englishmen selected? The tour was dominated by Welshmen and Irishmen the very same people who apparently have an aversion to Lions.
As for the Englishmen dominating rubbish, is this not unrelated to the fact that England have far more registered players than Ireland, Scotland and Wales put together and more pro teams as well. It is not surprising that more Englishmen are selected than other nationalities. However the fact remains that Ian McGeechan (a Scot) has been head coach rather a lot and twice as many Irishmen (8) have captained the Lions as Englishmen (4).
The Lions aren't a national side otherwise why would the likes of O'Driscoll play for them? Nobody treats them as a national side. In what way was the BBC's coverage of the Lions different from that of RTE?
Basically you are not interested in any of the above facts, nor Wiki's NPOV stance you just want to push your point of view. Try a debating forum. GordyB 19:34, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
@ MacRusgail Please read the following before posting again Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. You can post your POV if a) you follow the guidelines on how to change a POV into a fact b) You do so in a relevant place. Wikipedia is politically neutral which means that if you can post your opinion then others can post theirs, this effectively means that what was once an article on a rugby union team will become a politics article and not just this one. There are people who feel that a United Ireland team wearing green is a 'Feinian plot' but I don't want that on the Ireland national rugby union team page, other people might feel that separate England, Wales and Scotland teams are pandering to separatists or that England should not be represented by a red rose since that is not a symbol accepted by Yorkshiremen. If you want to put your point of view then I suggest you create a Politics surrounding the British and Irish Lions page and link it to this one. GordyB 12:54, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Try finding a Lion on the British and Irish Lions site. They simply do not use it as a symbol, it is just the name of the team. Their symbol is the logo attached to this article. GordyB
The English football team's nickname is also apparently the "lions", according to wikipedia. -- MacRusgail 17:19, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
The lion you are complaining about is so small that it cannot be seen without the logo being blown up. In what way is it therefore important? Wiki also says that '3 lions' is of French origin in any case, symbols pass from one culture to another all the time. In any case '3 lions' represent England, one Lion represents nothing. I have never heard the England football team called 'the Lions', it is utterly obscure.
In any case just post your version onto the link I suggested. If you follow the NPOV guidelines I will not delete what you post but I will add an alternate point of view. GordyB 20:19, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
Especially if like me you are from Yorkshire. "England's" red rose looks decidedly Lancastrian to me.
With reference to some of your other comments. I should point out that I neither said that Scotland / Wales / England should not have their own teams nor compared Yorkshire to Scotland. These are just examples of things other people might say and exactly the sort of thing I don't want to see on sports pages. If somebody has a problem with a united Irish rugby team they should create 'Politics in Irish sport' page and link it.
I've created the page that I mentioned before and tried to present NPOV versions of what you have said along with my own views. It still needs some editing as you need to be more specific about who says what and why. The text in this page says that 'Some Celtic nationalists feel that' - it would be much better if it stated exactly which groups had opinions on this. Are we talking about the SNP, Plaid Cymru, SDLP, Sinn Fein or Fianna Fail or a pressure group? You also refered to the Lions being misrepresented as a national team it would help if you explained exactly who you thought were guilty of doing that and perhaps show how (for example) BBC coverage was different from RTE coverage.
With reference to the Scots players, there is a reference on the 2005 tour (added by me) that the selection of so many Englishmen was controversial. This could be expanded. Most people think that the Welsh were rather hard done by but unfortunately Scottish rugby just isn't very good and there weren't many more Scots that realistically could have made the trip. Selection is always extremely controversial as the Head Coach is usually a serving coach of one of the four national teams, last time around most felt that Graham Henry had selected too many Welsh players. GordyB 08:58, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
Could we please discuss things before reverting all the time? I expect this page will end up at some kind of dispute resolution. I vote that the link the the politics page should be kept. If you agree or disagree please say so below rather than edit the page. GordyB 19:17, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
I have personally followed The Lions for twenty years. I have attended Lions matches and written on The Lions on many occasions in various media. I have spoken with past and present Lions personally. I have never once heard of the political issues that a small minority of those who seek to introduce politics on this entry seem obsessed with. In short whilst a few ignorant obsessives see a political component to The Lions, the Lions office; past and present Lions; the media and most importantly spectators do not. It diminishes the traditions of The Lions for there to be this absurd debate and for politics to be mentioned on the entry. The politics page should be deleted. Let’s keep The Lions page to sport. Paddy Briggs11 August 2005
"Home" Nations! Home of what, exactly?
You quoted the article on home nations. Who says that the usage of home nations is 'technically wrong'? That's very POV, at best some people don't agree with this usage who exactly has the authority to decide what is right or wrong?
Ireland is commonly considered a 'Home Nation' in terms of rugby union as they a) send players to the Lions b) compete for the Triple Crown (France and Italy do not). I haven't come across anyone who objected to this label before. Is this your opinion or is it a common point of view?
The other problem is the reference to British Isles. The early touring parties were called 'British Isles XV' as in those days 'British Isles' was considered a neutral geographic term. Britain and Ireland isn't correct because I think the second tour had a Manxman along, the Isle of Man is neither part of Britain nor part of Ireland. GordyB 22:49, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
I have re-established the entry on the name that seemed to have been accpeted by all. Can we please leave this now as it is beginning to get tedious! Any discussions here please not another edit war! PaddyBriggs 13:09, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
Once again a plea to discuss here. Everytime a non political amendment (by me or others) is made to this page some Irish nationalist comes along and pollutes it again with anti British tosh! Vent your spleens here comrades and leave the main entry about SPORT! PaddyBriggs 08:59, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
Scottish football association say no to British Olympics - about time the anglicised Brits of the SRU followed suite. But of course, politics never enters sport does it? According to some people here. -- MacRusgail 01:38, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
IMHO poltics is part of Sport as it is part of all other aspects of life. The important thing in Wiki is not to ignore any political aspect, but equally not to overstate it and certainly not to distort the NPOV (as the most recent amendment to the Lions entry did).
PaddyBriggs
09:39, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
If you have a problem with the following statement, then let the edit wars begin. Ireland is not a home nation and I will not let ignorant non-Irish wikipedians portray Ireland as a Home Nation. So if you disagree with that statement then let the war begin Ireland is not a Home Nation and you know that full-well. You are being incredibly stubborn(IMHO).-- Play Brian Moore 02:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
I have reverted to the previous version which is accurate. My name should tell you that I am hardly likely to be anti Irish (!), and nor is the entry in this version which I hope will now be left alone by the prejudiced and the ignorant! PaddyBriggs 10:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Whether individuals dislike the term 'Home Nations' is irrelevant. AFAIK the IRFU has never object to the term 'Home Nations' and surely nobody has more to define whether the term is being correctly used or not than them. In any case the article as it stands does not refer to the current Republic of Ireland as a Home Nation and so what is the problem exactly? GordyB 15:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Very well put by both GordyB and by Kwekubo. I suppose that we shouldn't be so wound up by Play Brian Moore as he is clearly a well known trouble-maker! PaddyBriggs 08:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
I am surprised by this very silly ongoing debate. In Rugby terms Ireland is a Home Nation there is nothing offensive or demeaning about this. I think that our Nationalist contributor has a problem which few if any in Ireland would share or even understand. Ireland doesn't need this sort of pettyness and Wiki certainly doesn't! Sports Fan 14:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Home nation is not a term used to describe the parts of the UK. If it was RTE and the IRFU would not use it. Would those who object to said term please state exactly which protocol they feel this term breeches in this article or leave it alone. GordyB 12:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
GordyB I have had a go at the separate Wiki entry for Home Nations and feel that it is accurate and acceptable to anyone. Have a look and let me know what you think. PaddyBriggs 12:55, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Those who are seeking to create a political connotation for the term Home Nations in relation to Ireland are wrong. It was never a political descriptor so the cessation of Ireland's membership of the United Kingdom is not relevent to this issue. PaddyBriggs 09:28, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Apart from the "British and Irish Lion" being obviously off the English royal standard (as featured in the England football top see above), the term "Home Nation" originates in British imperialism, where the local colonies are put in contradistinction to the overseas colonies. In this it's parallel to " Home Islands" which was used by the Japanese to describe their archipelago as opposed to Manchukuo etc. There's also a hint of the "Home Counties" which are all either part of London, or satellites of it. The implication is that the Home Nations are all English, or satellites of England. The English lion (properly "leopard") being called a British lion says it all. It's certainly not a Scottish lion rampant, or anything Welsh or Irish. -- MacRusgail 20:02, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Home island is a translation from Japanese. Not necessarily very accurate either. Trying to prove what English words mean by using Japanese is ridiculous. No linguist would take that seriously. The 'home counties' is a region of England just as the central belt is a region of Scotland. Obvious Central America and Central Africa is simply proof of how imperialistic the evil Scots are. Kent, Sussex etc aren't satelites of London, they've never been ruled by London. This is getting beyond a joke. GordyB 21:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
You've said this a dozen times. Repeating it doesn't make it any less POV. You know what the NPOV guidelines say and why you cannot add this to the article. Can you please just leave the issue alone. This talk page is getting ridiculously long and I'm strongly tempted to edit all of these discussions out. GordyB 11:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Is it correct that each Lion's tour features are least one player from one of the Unions that has not yet had an International cap, thus giving a chance of recognition to potential talent? Dainamo 13:19, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
No, that'd be the Barbarians you are think of. GordyB 14:41, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
In the amateur era they often took an uncapped player on tours - but this hasn't really happened for about 20 years now. (Danny 22nd June 2005)
Will Greenwood was uncapped before he went on the 97 Lions tour. GordyB
No. He had one cap against Canada, coming on as a replacement. As close as can be though. GordyB 20:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Following the edit war between PaddyBriggs and other editors. I'm opening up a discussion on how the 'British and Irish Lions' name paragraph should look. This is obviously a very sensitive area and I think we should try to avoid giving unnecessary offence to any party.
As I see it the reference to 'arguably correct' is POV even if it tries not to be POV. It is also inaccurate, the Lions are officially known as the 'British and Irish Lions' and therefore that is their correct name.
The other statement that the original name was the the British Isles Lions AFAIK that is not correct I believe they were known as the British Isles XV and the LIons tag was added later.
Some of PaddyBriggs other edits i.e. largely those not listed above are good and I think add to the article. GordyB 12:40, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
I haven't managed to find anything yet on the official reason why the name was changed but this link ( http://www.sluggerotoole.com/archives/2005/04/mccausland_take.php) should show my point about NI Unionists not seeing the change as necessary. One Mr McCausland actually objected to the change.
their is no need for the inclusion of the line "until 2001 known as the british lions" in the opening paragraph as this is not its name now, and this past name is dealt with in the names/symbols section
nor is their any need to state that "the then united kingdom of great britain and ireland" as this non entity is confusing and may lead to incorrect assumptions it should simply state team is composed of players from britain and ireland as this is true then and now
Caomhan27
16:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
im sorry but the article name is the british and irish lions if you want to read about what it was once called this is dealt with aptly in the naming section their is no need to repeat it also their is no need for the mention of the great britain rugby league team at the top of the article because the name of this article is the british and Irish lions as this again confuses the matter Caomhan27 16:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
so your saying that the fact that it was once nicknamed the british lions is a main point really and we would be a surprised later on?? the name is simply the british and irish lions leave the once called take your pick of three to the names section Caomhan27 19:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
if you look up that term british lions you are informed of the distinction and its use only in rugby league today and basically that only occurs because ireland does not play in any real sense the game of league Caomhan27 17:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
i got rid of the off topic discussions, i can put it back if the people involved would like Caomhan27 14:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
The name "British & Irish Lions" is a bit silly, as it is a British Isles team to then specify part of the British Isles separately is superfluous. One might as well call it the "British & Irish, Welsh, Scottish, English & Northern Irish Lions", which would render the term British as superfluous. I did find the IONA debate amusing, though - whatever happened to Iceland?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.30.14.137 ( talk) 18:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I think the song should be refered to in this article and at the very least there should be a link to it. Although it has only been used on the 2005 tour it is likely to be used in future and so should IMO be on the main page. As there seem to be differing views can we please discuss it here before deleting it again. Could those without accounts please create accounts as it is rather easy discussing things with a name rather than an IP address. GordyB 13:54, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Ireland being described as a home nation in the context of rugby union is justified by the following sources, courtesy of Kwekubo (for full discussion see archive).
from the IRFU website: "The IRFU is 'the envy of the other home nations' for the structure that has been put in place [for the Exiles branch]." [www.irishrugby.ie/htmlpage/62519.html];
and from a news item: "Woodward confirmed he will tour each of the home nations' set-ups during the tournament." [4].
the Lions website: "New Zealand continued their victory march through the home nations with an emphatic defeat of Ireland on Saturday which sounded an ominous warning for the rest of world rugby." [5]
From RTÉ News: "The Lions' shortcomings indicated the enormity of the challenge facing the home nations this month..." [ http://www.rte.ie/sport/2005/1110/easterby.html GordyB 14:12, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
I have yet to see from you, MacRusgail, or anybody else a documented reference for any individual (of substance) or organisation (of standing) who thinks that the term is "offensive and contraversial"! PaddyBriggs 16:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
It's not offensive or controversial as far as the IRFU are concerned and it is their opinion which counts. Find a source ot stop spamming. GordyB 16:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Am I wrong for saying that one of the two (although I know this is contested) earliest formed Rugby Football Clubs was in Ireland (I believe Dublin University/Trinity College)? So, wouldn't it then be quite easy to see the whole of Ireland as a Home Nation (this is obviously in addition to the above stream of quotations already supplied from non-arguably reliable sources)? Rowlan 15:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Ireland is a home nation PERIOD! Before 1922 as a home nation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and after 1922 as a home nation of the British Isles. Since 1922 Northern Ireland has inherited Irelands place as a home nation of the United Kingdom. YourPTR! 09:43, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
A nation can't be at 'home' in a place that it does not recognise. Scotland, Wales etc are at home in Scotland and Wales aswell as the UK and whatever dated name you wish to give the islands we inhabit. Ireland however (minus Northern Ireland) is at home in Ireland and in Ireland only and so should not be refered to as being a home nation in this or any context. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.94.192.200 ( talk) 07:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
I have to agree with MacRusgail in reinstating this content, whilst I don't agree with his position on the wording concerning "Home Nations". Nevertheless, if any of this content is to be removed, it should be properly archived and not summarily deleted. If anybody feels anything needs archiving, please say so. -- Cactus.man ✍ 20:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Archive it by all means but take it away. It is repetitive and little to do with the article. What has devolution and the SFA's decision not to participate in a British football team got to do with the Lions? GordyB 20:34, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
My opinion on the Lions cannot be found anywhere in the article. All you need to do is find a suitable source and your opinions can be included. A sentence about the representation of Scots is fine as long as it is NPOV. GordyB 21:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
My edits are based on objective facts. I don't post that the Lions are apolitical (opinion), I post that they don't represent a nation state (objective fact). Show me one of my edits that breaks a Wikipedia protocol. GordyB 16:26, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Could contributors please read and follow the guidelines in Wikipedia:Verifiability Wikipedia:No original research Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. GordyB 14:12, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't post my opinion I post objective facts. GordyB 16:27, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Just read the protocols they explicitly state that your personal opinion is worth nothing as it constitutes 'original research' which is strictly forbidden. GordyB 16:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
That's also 'original research'. Read the protocols. GordyB 20:14, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Original research is a term used on Wikipedia to refer to material added to articles by Wikipedia editors that has not been published already by a reputable source. In this context it means unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, and ideas; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments that, in the words of Wikipedia's founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation".
Which part of 'unpublished theories' do you not understand? GordyB 20:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
British Isles is better than Britain and Ireland. Players can be selected from any of the British Isles territories/islands not just the two islands of Great Britain and Ireland. PaddyBriggs 16:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't know about the Channel Islands but I'm pretty sure that the Isle of Man comes under RFU jurisdiction (so I'd guess that the Channel Islands did as well). Neither field 'national' teams AFAIK and as far as rugby union is concerned they are honourary Englishmen. You must be eligible for one of the four home unions to play for the Lions, AFAIK you could be a New Zealander born and bred but if you qualified for say Scotland you could play for the Lions. I think it is more accurate to say that the Lions can draw from players eligible for one of the home unions rather than they can draw from players from the British Isles. A player might be from England but be qualify to play for a non-home union team and therefore AFAIK make themselves ineligible for Lions selection. GordyB 20:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
According to the IRB who run the game they do not. 'Honorary Englishmen' imperialist good grief! Where did I say that they were English. Your last point is wrong the rules for soccer are different from rugby union. By UEFA rules anybody holding a British passport can play for any of the four 'British' teams, however, there is a gentlemen's agreement between the different associations not to abuse this rule and to restrict selection to those who at least have a grandparent from that country. Channel Islanders and the Manx are exempt from this and can play for any of the four nations. The national teams in fact represent their union which is why teams exist that don't represent nation states England, Scotland and Wales don't exist as nation states and neither does a united Ireland. THe RFU administers the game of rugby union in the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands (AFAIK) and therefore they are eligible for selection by the RFU team i.e. England. GordyB 20:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
A Kiwi who plays for Scotland ain't an 'honorary Scotsman'? And AFAIK they can't play for three other countries re-read what I said. GordyB 21:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
I removed the reference to 'British Isles' as although the IRFU may use the term 'Home Nation' to describe themselves I'm pretty damn sure they'd object to 'British Isles'. IMO this term should only be used in this article when refering to the Lions when they were then known by this name.
I also don't believe it to be accurate. For example Dallaglio (or Lol) could have qualified for England (through birth and residency), Wales (through his mother) or Italy (through his father). As an uncapped player he would have been available for one of two home nations and therefore eligible for Lions selection. If he had chosen to play for either England or Wales he would still be eligible, however if he had chosen to play for Italy he would not be. The fact that he is from the 'British Isles' isn't sufficient. All this is to the best of my knowledge, if you know better then correct me. GordyB 22:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
The British "Lions" are a Rugby League tradition as well and the name "Lions" originated from the 1925 tour. Union copied it. I think that a disambiguation should be created between the two. Licinius
The rugby league Lions did in fact use the name 'Lions' before the rugby union Lions. I have never heard of any allegation of 'name theft' though. If you can find a source, it could be incorporated. I have thought for some time that there should be a disambiguation link between the two pages. GordyB 10:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
This issue seems to have reared its ugly head again. I am very much a league man first and foremost but this 'name theft' allegation is a new one on me. It's also completely unsourced. League had the name first - fact, union copied the name - unsubstantiated. Big cat names are simply very common in either code of rugby. GordyB 23:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Why is their a split between these 2 tables ? ( Gnevin 18:42, 2 April 2006 (UTC))
I took the tricolour flag out because he is from Ballymena, Northern Ireland and to my knowledge does not have a RoI passport. There is an on-going problem with Irish players, using a RoI flag to represent players from the North is nonsensical. There needs to either be a symbol used for both Irelands or use the RoI flag only for those from RoI (or those who have a RoI passport) and the NI flag for the rest. 195.93.21.40 13:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)(GordyB)
I found this text on the official page which is partly identical to sentences in the first few paragraphs. Is there a rational explanation? -- youghal 17:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I edited "However, many Irish people maintain that the term British Isles does indeed carry political overtones and prefer the truly neutral geographical term IONA to describe the British-Irish archipelago." to remove the last clause "...and prefer the truly neutral geographical term IONA to describe..." Why? Because its completely unsourced and far from reality, I imagine. I think Iona, to the average Joe Soap, means the Scottish island, if anything. If User:Vintagekits wants to revert - fine - but show us a verifiable source demonstrating that many Irish people prefer the term IONA to describe the British Isles. Bastun 15:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
An Irishman's Diary Myers, Kevin; The
Irish Times (subscription needed) 09/03/2000, Accessed July 2006 'millions of people from these islands — oh how angry we get when people call them the British Isles'
Debate in the Oireachtas, Written Answers - Official Terms", Dáil Éireann - Volume 606 - 28 September, 2005. In his response, the Irish Minister for Foreign Affairs stated that "The British Isles is not an officially recognised term in any legal or inter-governmental sense. It is without any official status. The Government, including the Department of Foreign Affairs, does not use this term. Our officials in the Embassy of Ireland, London, continue to monitor the media in Britain for any abuse of the official terms as set out in the Constitution of Ireland and in legislation. These include the name of the State, the President, Taoiseach and others."
[7]: "New atlas lets Ireland slip shackles of Britain: A spokesman for the Irish Embassy in London said: “The British Isles has a dated ring to it, as if we are still part of the Empire. We are independent, we are not part of Britain, not even in geographical terms. We would discourage its useage [sic].".
-- MacRusgail 16:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
The article deals with this POV far more already than it should. Remove IONA, leave the fact that some in Ireland disagree with the term British, even though the name dates from the Romans and possibly derives from a celtic word. Why do people object? ignorance? hate? political gain? insecurity? Whatever it is it is not an issue for this article. Besides this, has an Irish player ever refused selection because of the name? -- Bob 07:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
This debate seems rather pointless. The team is now called the British and Irish Lions. Historically it has been called the British Isles, it's not anymore so who cares. If anyone can find a match programme that calls the team the IONA Lions then let me know, otherwise this is a waste of time. I think some of the discussions mentioned here go well beyond the scope of an article about a combined team that represents the home unions. I think the major points regarding the name have been covered pretty comprehensively in the article. No point continuing this debate. - Shudda talk 08:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
The British tag is increasingly dated in Scotland and Wales too. This just goes to prove what an anachronism this whole nonsense is.
Given a few years, with the current trend, most Scots will not consider themselves Brits at all. Even the Welsh are on their way:
Sorry to break it to all you Brits who seem to think the Lions are somehow representative, but they aren't in name, and they are decreasingly so in number. Scots don't even figure in that side. I wish the SRU would move away from this Victorian rubbish and into the future with the rest of us. -- MacRusgail 16:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Note the Wikipedia is not subject to censorship section. That means that no matter how offensive it may be to some, reality is reality. The British and Irish Lions are called the British and Irish Lions and not the IONA Lions. If this policy was not in place then there would be no religious pages (since they would offend somebody), no page on evolution and probably no articles stating that the world is in fact round.
If you can source a major controversy about the Lions this can be incorporated but in reality the Lions aren't all that controversial. Alex Salmond may have said he wanted a Scottish Olympic team but he said nothing about the Lions changing their name. If you persuade him to make a speech on the need for the Lions to be further renamed or disband then it would be worth noting (the title should stay the same though). GordyB 20:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Provide references and stick to a neutral POV, whilst also not giving undue weight to minority opinion. -- Bob 16:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Whether or not Britishness is in decline is not the point. You are not a rugby man and you don't really know what you are talking about with representation. The last two tours had lots of Englishmen because it was a golden era for English rugby, there were very few Englishmen in previous tours. The Welsh dominated the Lions in the 70s and the Scots had loads of players in the eighties but then Scotland was much more of a rugby power back then. The current English team is poor and the next tour will not have nearly so many.
As for neutrality, if you feel that it is biased then there are places you can take this too such as dispute resolution. I'll tell you in advance that you haven't got a leg to stand on but you are welcome to try.
However I must ask to to keep making the same points endlessly. It's just spamming to keep saying that Britishness is in decline as it has nothing to do with the article. GordyB 19:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
References
Both the words "British" and "Irish" have ambiguous definitions.
In political sense, "British" means "of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" and "Irish" does "of (the Republic of) Ireland". In geographical sense, on the other hand, they means "of (the island of) Great Britain" and "of (the island of) Ireland" respectively.
Thus, the "British and Irish Lions" can be understood slightly differently according to the two different sense: "Players from UK + Players from the Republic of Ireland" (in political sense) or "Players from Great Britain + Players from the island of Ireland" (in geographical sense).
Is there the official definition of "British" and "Irish" in "British and Irish Lions"? ― 韓斌/Yes0song ( 談笑 筆跡 다지모) 19:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
British people are from Britain; Irish people are from Ireland. It really is not that complicated unless people in Britain are trying to assert a political claim over a part of Ireland and redefining the meaning of "British" to suit their political agenda. That would never happen, would it? As for this "British Isles" claim over Ireland; your empire is over. Get over it, and yourselves. 86.44.34.19 ( talk) 13:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone know the cities where the Lions played their Argie Tours. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.64.171.242 ( talk) 15:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't see the relevance of this. Rugby union is not an olympic sport and even if it was the British and Irish Lions would not compete because they aren't the British rugby union team nor the UK team either.
Back in the days when union was an Olympic sport, Britain was not represented by a team drawn from the four home nations. One year the British representative was the Cornwall county team, another year it was Moseley Rugby Club. And nor was the term "Lions" applied to this team.
If rugby sevens ever gets to be an olympic sport then Irish players won't be eligible (unless from Northern Ireland and even then it is unlikely that any would play for Britain rather than Ireland).
So I can't see any relevance to this article. GordyB ( talk) 16:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
NO. Just officially from 1950, but the usage of the nickname is well attested to from the early 1920s Jatrius ( talk) 16:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Having looked again at the passage, I think you have a point. However I think it needs a rewrite. The paragraph really should not start with the IOC's view on non-sovereign nations. GordyB ( talk) 21:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
The name "British and Irish Lions" goes back before 2001 as stated in the article. The "Irish Times", a newspaper of record, is using the term "British and Irish Lions" before 2001. The Irish Times digital search only goes back to 1996, and the term is then. PurpleA ( talk) 01:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
This source certainly sheds some light on it, and casts some doubt on the Irish Times' impartiality - "in rugby, the 'British Lions' (officially the 'British Isles') have come to be described, in Irish publications at least, as the 'British and Irish Lions'" (Jeffery, K., An Irish empire?: aspects of Ireland and the British Empire, Manchester University Press ND, 1996) -- hippo43 ( talk) 17:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
From some memorabilia sites, I was able to check out most of the Lions programmes available since the 1950s, which give some idea of what the team was called at the time. From my totally unscientific survey:
'British Isles' was last used in 1993. 'British Lions' was last used in 1997. There has been a general, but overlapping, progression from British Isles - British Lions - The Lions - British & Irish Lions. -- hippo43 ( talk) 23:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
John Hopkins's book on the 1977 Lions tour states that the Lions tours, and incoming tours to Britain and Ireland, were organised by the "Four Home Rugby Unions' Tours Committee", and later that the players' holdalls were stamped "1977 B I R U T" - for 1977 British Isles Rugby Union tour.-- Bcp67 ( talk) 19:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I propose removing all the flagicons from the infobox at the top of the article. It looks a real mess right now, both because of the whole Ireland flagicon issue, and because there is a flag for Great Britain, but not the B&I Lions, as well as non-national teams not having flag icons. The current state can't be at all clear for readers who aren't familiar with the issues. No flags will be much cleaner and less confusing for all. Thoughts? -- hippo43 ( talk) 19:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
How can you have an article on the Lions which does not mention the apartheid scandals? I wonder if some people would like to whitewash (pun intended) the history of the Lions, and ignore their unsavoury relationship with racist regimes in South Africa and Rhodesia. That and the fact that the criticism section has been completely removed, makes this article a joke again...-- MacRusgail ( talk) 18:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
<--MacRusgail, I guess they don't go to Argentina because the team is now too strong, but who knows, I don't have the sources! Have you got any sources to contribute to the SA/Rhodesia problems? Bigger digger ( talk) 15:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
The subject is definitely relevant to the story of the Lions and the South African tours. I put a small section in the article on the 1980 tour, intending to expand it at some point and have just added a link to the Gleneagles Agreement. The 1980 tourists originally had a fixture scheduled against Rhodesia but from memory this was cancelled and replaced with a game against Eastern Transvaal though I can't find a ref for this. Zimbabwe had become independent earlier in 1980 and a Lions visit there probably didn't fit with the new government.-- Bcp67 ( talk) 19:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
So as I understand it, the reason the article has been tagged as POV is because it contains no critical information, or mention of the controversies in 1974 and 1980 in particular? There's talk of a criticism section having been removed, but I can't find it in the rather large history :) I agree the article needs information about the controversial 1974 and 1980 tours, and more perspective on objections to the "British" etc. The 1980 article has a minor mention of the controversy, the 1974 article nothing. The article mentions Irish nationalist concerns with the old name fairly neutrally, and otherwise the problem seems more one of omission than of neutrality, as the issue is about the article being incomplete, rather than providing undue weight to one side of a conflict. If anyone can find sources for criticism of the tours during the apartheid era, and related issues, let's add them. If anyone can point me to the deleted criticism, please do so. Greenman ( talk) 19:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
I turned the game on at the 5 minute mark and missed the anthems. Are the Lions still using that "Power of Four" song from the NZ tour or has it been cast aside (which would be no loss - it's a hideously bad song!). 58.178.30.40 ( talk) 04:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Are we having Irish flags in this article or not? Personally no problem either way, although I am aware there has been an ongoing debate on the subject of what symbol should represent Irish rugby. If we are, all the people in the results table ought to be shown with an Irish flag, and if not, none of them. For the moment I'll take them out again as its quicker than putting ones back in for all the ones which aren't currently aren't there!-- Bcp67 ( talk) 20:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Martin Corry was a Lions captain and should be listed because he is is listed on the Lions captain template as one of the 39 who have had the honour of captaining the Lions The C of E ( talk) 07:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Snowded. It's not notable. MITH 17:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
This article barely mentions that he organised the first British Isles tour, should be expanded perhaps.-- MacRusgail ( talk) 14:01, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
I notice a recent addition and then reversion surrounding some non-Test matches against international sides. Would the article benefit from a section on these matches. It would seem a shame to lose or disregard this information. Kwib ( talk) 10:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Can I suggest two tables, one for "Results in tour test matches" and one for "Results in other international matches", that would look something like the below example (essentially for tour tests remains the same, for others just some minor column heading changes). There are a number of matches already in the Results that perhaps should not be there using the logic extended to matches against the likes of Canada, and I think this would help to fix that, and to highlight important matches against other international sides (in some cases very important to history of the team playing the Lions).
Introduction explaining what constitutes tour test match...
Year | To | Captain | Head coach | Top Scorer in Tests | Result | Tests record |
---|
Introduction explaining some on tour other's one-off, some at home etc...
Year | Against | Captain | Head coach | Top Scorer | Result | Related tour |
---|
As the matches have now been annouced and the tour is only 18 months away, isn't it time there was a page specifically for the 2013 tour? The 2009 tour page was created in October 2007. 90.198.203.3 ( talk) 10:37, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
An edit I made to this section has just been reverted on the grounds that it "could confuse readers". The original text read:
My version read:
Note that the original/current text ignores the fact that Northern Ireland was also created in 1922. That, I think, might confuse some readers, so I have part-reverted to include "and Northern Ireland", but would ask for views on the rest of the text. Brocach ( talk) 18:27, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
I think referring to northern ireland in the first part is fine but still not entirely necessary as the name change only occured due to the old name name not incorporating any recognition of the the players who where citizens of the subsequent state of "Ireland" and so the creation of NI has no real bearing on the issue being discussed, also the link to the free state article would infrom the reader of the status of northern ireland, I think leaving the second part at UK makes way more sense. Caomhan27 ( talk) 19:16, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Just a note of courtesy here to say that I have tweaked the naming section to get the team's first name in (why was this left out before?) and to split the first paragraph into two for the sake of readability. I suggest that it is best to avoid getting unnecessarily sucked into the 'British Isles' geography debate - we have to accept and respect that the Irish officially do not recognise this as a geographic term. The team was named 'British Isles' for a time and it is advisable to simply state this as an undisputed fact and move on. pconlon 22:10, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
The new kit pictures don't quite tally with the descriptions in the section above. For example, "The 1924 tour returned to South Africa, retaining the blue jerseys but now with shorts to match" - this isn't reflected below, and nor is "1938 became a green turnover (although on blue socks thus eliminating red from the kit)". I don't know enough myself to be able to change the images - would someone be able to bring them in line with the written descriptions? Thanks. -- Bcp67 ( talk) 19:33, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
The list of tests and tours is inconsistent. The 2005 tour has three captains listed - O'Driscoll (the original tour captain), Corry (his on-field deputy in the first test) and Thomas (the permanent replacement). It doesn't include Michael Owen, who captained the match v Argentina which is counted an official Lions test [13]. Earlier tours either do or don't reflect "stand-in" captains - for example the 1966 tour includes David Watkins, who stood in for Mike Campbell-Lamerton, but the 1930 tour doesn't show Carl Aarvold, who also captained in a test match. The Lions captain template is similarly inconsistent. Any thoughts on which way to go with this? Seems that the choice is either (1) include everyone who captained the Lions in a test or (2) just list the actual official tour captain. -- Bcp67 ( talk) 20:13, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
British and Irish Lions. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 15:15, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
The page currently says: Most caps Ireland Willie John McBride (17) Most appearances Ireland Willie John McBride
The term "cap" is defined on the linked page, "In British sport, a cap is a metaphorical term for a player's appearance in a game at international level." Why have both? I suggest choosing the more widely known word: `Most appearances Ireland Willie John McBride (17)` — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.52.60.67 ( talk) 05:08, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Should the statistics follow the official British and Irish Lions web page? https://www.lionsrugby.com/historical-statistics/ If so, Andy Irvine is the top scorer. Which source should be used for the official statistics? Unfortunately, World Rugby don't appear to have a records or statistics page. TGB13 ( talk) 19:47, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Using quotations around the word "coincidentally" shows a huge POV bias as does claiming that the Lions have been misrepresented as a national team. By who exactly?
While wikipedians are entitled to their political views this is a sports page and if you have a political agenda please take it elsewhere. GordyB 16:14, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
They also wear red and only Wales wear red. Surely this is a Welsh conspiracy. They originally wore blue and the flags of England, Wales and Ireland have never included blue. All sorts of crap can be talked about endlessly.
As for Lions if they uniquely belong to England then why did nobody tell Leinster or Gauteng? The truth is that big cat names are simply very common in rugby union hence Pumas, Cheetahs, Leopards, Tigers etc.
The Lions tag was adopted for the 1950 tour. If the selectors were in love with everything English then why were so few Englishmen selected? The tour was dominated by Welshmen and Irishmen the very same people who apparently have an aversion to Lions.
As for the Englishmen dominating rubbish, is this not unrelated to the fact that England have far more registered players than Ireland, Scotland and Wales put together and more pro teams as well. It is not surprising that more Englishmen are selected than other nationalities. However the fact remains that Ian McGeechan (a Scot) has been head coach rather a lot and twice as many Irishmen (8) have captained the Lions as Englishmen (4).
The Lions aren't a national side otherwise why would the likes of O'Driscoll play for them? Nobody treats them as a national side. In what way was the BBC's coverage of the Lions different from that of RTE?
Basically you are not interested in any of the above facts, nor Wiki's NPOV stance you just want to push your point of view. Try a debating forum. GordyB 19:34, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
@ MacRusgail Please read the following before posting again Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. You can post your POV if a) you follow the guidelines on how to change a POV into a fact b) You do so in a relevant place. Wikipedia is politically neutral which means that if you can post your opinion then others can post theirs, this effectively means that what was once an article on a rugby union team will become a politics article and not just this one. There are people who feel that a United Ireland team wearing green is a 'Feinian plot' but I don't want that on the Ireland national rugby union team page, other people might feel that separate England, Wales and Scotland teams are pandering to separatists or that England should not be represented by a red rose since that is not a symbol accepted by Yorkshiremen. If you want to put your point of view then I suggest you create a Politics surrounding the British and Irish Lions page and link it to this one. GordyB 12:54, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Try finding a Lion on the British and Irish Lions site. They simply do not use it as a symbol, it is just the name of the team. Their symbol is the logo attached to this article. GordyB
The English football team's nickname is also apparently the "lions", according to wikipedia. -- MacRusgail 17:19, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
The lion you are complaining about is so small that it cannot be seen without the logo being blown up. In what way is it therefore important? Wiki also says that '3 lions' is of French origin in any case, symbols pass from one culture to another all the time. In any case '3 lions' represent England, one Lion represents nothing. I have never heard the England football team called 'the Lions', it is utterly obscure.
In any case just post your version onto the link I suggested. If you follow the NPOV guidelines I will not delete what you post but I will add an alternate point of view. GordyB 20:19, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
Especially if like me you are from Yorkshire. "England's" red rose looks decidedly Lancastrian to me.
With reference to some of your other comments. I should point out that I neither said that Scotland / Wales / England should not have their own teams nor compared Yorkshire to Scotland. These are just examples of things other people might say and exactly the sort of thing I don't want to see on sports pages. If somebody has a problem with a united Irish rugby team they should create 'Politics in Irish sport' page and link it.
I've created the page that I mentioned before and tried to present NPOV versions of what you have said along with my own views. It still needs some editing as you need to be more specific about who says what and why. The text in this page says that 'Some Celtic nationalists feel that' - it would be much better if it stated exactly which groups had opinions on this. Are we talking about the SNP, Plaid Cymru, SDLP, Sinn Fein or Fianna Fail or a pressure group? You also refered to the Lions being misrepresented as a national team it would help if you explained exactly who you thought were guilty of doing that and perhaps show how (for example) BBC coverage was different from RTE coverage.
With reference to the Scots players, there is a reference on the 2005 tour (added by me) that the selection of so many Englishmen was controversial. This could be expanded. Most people think that the Welsh were rather hard done by but unfortunately Scottish rugby just isn't very good and there weren't many more Scots that realistically could have made the trip. Selection is always extremely controversial as the Head Coach is usually a serving coach of one of the four national teams, last time around most felt that Graham Henry had selected too many Welsh players. GordyB 08:58, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
Could we please discuss things before reverting all the time? I expect this page will end up at some kind of dispute resolution. I vote that the link the the politics page should be kept. If you agree or disagree please say so below rather than edit the page. GordyB 19:17, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
I have personally followed The Lions for twenty years. I have attended Lions matches and written on The Lions on many occasions in various media. I have spoken with past and present Lions personally. I have never once heard of the political issues that a small minority of those who seek to introduce politics on this entry seem obsessed with. In short whilst a few ignorant obsessives see a political component to The Lions, the Lions office; past and present Lions; the media and most importantly spectators do not. It diminishes the traditions of The Lions for there to be this absurd debate and for politics to be mentioned on the entry. The politics page should be deleted. Let’s keep The Lions page to sport. Paddy Briggs11 August 2005
"Home" Nations! Home of what, exactly?
You quoted the article on home nations. Who says that the usage of home nations is 'technically wrong'? That's very POV, at best some people don't agree with this usage who exactly has the authority to decide what is right or wrong?
Ireland is commonly considered a 'Home Nation' in terms of rugby union as they a) send players to the Lions b) compete for the Triple Crown (France and Italy do not). I haven't come across anyone who objected to this label before. Is this your opinion or is it a common point of view?
The other problem is the reference to British Isles. The early touring parties were called 'British Isles XV' as in those days 'British Isles' was considered a neutral geographic term. Britain and Ireland isn't correct because I think the second tour had a Manxman along, the Isle of Man is neither part of Britain nor part of Ireland. GordyB 22:49, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
I have re-established the entry on the name that seemed to have been accpeted by all. Can we please leave this now as it is beginning to get tedious! Any discussions here please not another edit war! PaddyBriggs 13:09, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
Once again a plea to discuss here. Everytime a non political amendment (by me or others) is made to this page some Irish nationalist comes along and pollutes it again with anti British tosh! Vent your spleens here comrades and leave the main entry about SPORT! PaddyBriggs 08:59, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
Scottish football association say no to British Olympics - about time the anglicised Brits of the SRU followed suite. But of course, politics never enters sport does it? According to some people here. -- MacRusgail 01:38, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
IMHO poltics is part of Sport as it is part of all other aspects of life. The important thing in Wiki is not to ignore any political aspect, but equally not to overstate it and certainly not to distort the NPOV (as the most recent amendment to the Lions entry did).
PaddyBriggs
09:39, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
If you have a problem with the following statement, then let the edit wars begin. Ireland is not a home nation and I will not let ignorant non-Irish wikipedians portray Ireland as a Home Nation. So if you disagree with that statement then let the war begin Ireland is not a Home Nation and you know that full-well. You are being incredibly stubborn(IMHO).-- Play Brian Moore 02:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
I have reverted to the previous version which is accurate. My name should tell you that I am hardly likely to be anti Irish (!), and nor is the entry in this version which I hope will now be left alone by the prejudiced and the ignorant! PaddyBriggs 10:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Whether individuals dislike the term 'Home Nations' is irrelevant. AFAIK the IRFU has never object to the term 'Home Nations' and surely nobody has more to define whether the term is being correctly used or not than them. In any case the article as it stands does not refer to the current Republic of Ireland as a Home Nation and so what is the problem exactly? GordyB 15:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Very well put by both GordyB and by Kwekubo. I suppose that we shouldn't be so wound up by Play Brian Moore as he is clearly a well known trouble-maker! PaddyBriggs 08:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
I am surprised by this very silly ongoing debate. In Rugby terms Ireland is a Home Nation there is nothing offensive or demeaning about this. I think that our Nationalist contributor has a problem which few if any in Ireland would share or even understand. Ireland doesn't need this sort of pettyness and Wiki certainly doesn't! Sports Fan 14:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Home nation is not a term used to describe the parts of the UK. If it was RTE and the IRFU would not use it. Would those who object to said term please state exactly which protocol they feel this term breeches in this article or leave it alone. GordyB 12:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
GordyB I have had a go at the separate Wiki entry for Home Nations and feel that it is accurate and acceptable to anyone. Have a look and let me know what you think. PaddyBriggs 12:55, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Those who are seeking to create a political connotation for the term Home Nations in relation to Ireland are wrong. It was never a political descriptor so the cessation of Ireland's membership of the United Kingdom is not relevent to this issue. PaddyBriggs 09:28, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Apart from the "British and Irish Lion" being obviously off the English royal standard (as featured in the England football top see above), the term "Home Nation" originates in British imperialism, where the local colonies are put in contradistinction to the overseas colonies. In this it's parallel to " Home Islands" which was used by the Japanese to describe their archipelago as opposed to Manchukuo etc. There's also a hint of the "Home Counties" which are all either part of London, or satellites of it. The implication is that the Home Nations are all English, or satellites of England. The English lion (properly "leopard") being called a British lion says it all. It's certainly not a Scottish lion rampant, or anything Welsh or Irish. -- MacRusgail 20:02, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Home island is a translation from Japanese. Not necessarily very accurate either. Trying to prove what English words mean by using Japanese is ridiculous. No linguist would take that seriously. The 'home counties' is a region of England just as the central belt is a region of Scotland. Obvious Central America and Central Africa is simply proof of how imperialistic the evil Scots are. Kent, Sussex etc aren't satelites of London, they've never been ruled by London. This is getting beyond a joke. GordyB 21:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
You've said this a dozen times. Repeating it doesn't make it any less POV. You know what the NPOV guidelines say and why you cannot add this to the article. Can you please just leave the issue alone. This talk page is getting ridiculously long and I'm strongly tempted to edit all of these discussions out. GordyB 11:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Is it correct that each Lion's tour features are least one player from one of the Unions that has not yet had an International cap, thus giving a chance of recognition to potential talent? Dainamo 13:19, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
No, that'd be the Barbarians you are think of. GordyB 14:41, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
In the amateur era they often took an uncapped player on tours - but this hasn't really happened for about 20 years now. (Danny 22nd June 2005)
Will Greenwood was uncapped before he went on the 97 Lions tour. GordyB
No. He had one cap against Canada, coming on as a replacement. As close as can be though. GordyB 20:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Following the edit war between PaddyBriggs and other editors. I'm opening up a discussion on how the 'British and Irish Lions' name paragraph should look. This is obviously a very sensitive area and I think we should try to avoid giving unnecessary offence to any party.
As I see it the reference to 'arguably correct' is POV even if it tries not to be POV. It is also inaccurate, the Lions are officially known as the 'British and Irish Lions' and therefore that is their correct name.
The other statement that the original name was the the British Isles Lions AFAIK that is not correct I believe they were known as the British Isles XV and the LIons tag was added later.
Some of PaddyBriggs other edits i.e. largely those not listed above are good and I think add to the article. GordyB 12:40, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
I haven't managed to find anything yet on the official reason why the name was changed but this link ( http://www.sluggerotoole.com/archives/2005/04/mccausland_take.php) should show my point about NI Unionists not seeing the change as necessary. One Mr McCausland actually objected to the change.
their is no need for the inclusion of the line "until 2001 known as the british lions" in the opening paragraph as this is not its name now, and this past name is dealt with in the names/symbols section
nor is their any need to state that "the then united kingdom of great britain and ireland" as this non entity is confusing and may lead to incorrect assumptions it should simply state team is composed of players from britain and ireland as this is true then and now
Caomhan27
16:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
im sorry but the article name is the british and irish lions if you want to read about what it was once called this is dealt with aptly in the naming section their is no need to repeat it also their is no need for the mention of the great britain rugby league team at the top of the article because the name of this article is the british and Irish lions as this again confuses the matter Caomhan27 16:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
so your saying that the fact that it was once nicknamed the british lions is a main point really and we would be a surprised later on?? the name is simply the british and irish lions leave the once called take your pick of three to the names section Caomhan27 19:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
if you look up that term british lions you are informed of the distinction and its use only in rugby league today and basically that only occurs because ireland does not play in any real sense the game of league Caomhan27 17:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
i got rid of the off topic discussions, i can put it back if the people involved would like Caomhan27 14:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
The name "British & Irish Lions" is a bit silly, as it is a British Isles team to then specify part of the British Isles separately is superfluous. One might as well call it the "British & Irish, Welsh, Scottish, English & Northern Irish Lions", which would render the term British as superfluous. I did find the IONA debate amusing, though - whatever happened to Iceland?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.30.14.137 ( talk) 18:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I think the song should be refered to in this article and at the very least there should be a link to it. Although it has only been used on the 2005 tour it is likely to be used in future and so should IMO be on the main page. As there seem to be differing views can we please discuss it here before deleting it again. Could those without accounts please create accounts as it is rather easy discussing things with a name rather than an IP address. GordyB 13:54, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Ireland being described as a home nation in the context of rugby union is justified by the following sources, courtesy of Kwekubo (for full discussion see archive).
from the IRFU website: "The IRFU is 'the envy of the other home nations' for the structure that has been put in place [for the Exiles branch]." [www.irishrugby.ie/htmlpage/62519.html];
and from a news item: "Woodward confirmed he will tour each of the home nations' set-ups during the tournament." [4].
the Lions website: "New Zealand continued their victory march through the home nations with an emphatic defeat of Ireland on Saturday which sounded an ominous warning for the rest of world rugby." [5]
From RTÉ News: "The Lions' shortcomings indicated the enormity of the challenge facing the home nations this month..." [ http://www.rte.ie/sport/2005/1110/easterby.html GordyB 14:12, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
I have yet to see from you, MacRusgail, or anybody else a documented reference for any individual (of substance) or organisation (of standing) who thinks that the term is "offensive and contraversial"! PaddyBriggs 16:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
It's not offensive or controversial as far as the IRFU are concerned and it is their opinion which counts. Find a source ot stop spamming. GordyB 16:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Am I wrong for saying that one of the two (although I know this is contested) earliest formed Rugby Football Clubs was in Ireland (I believe Dublin University/Trinity College)? So, wouldn't it then be quite easy to see the whole of Ireland as a Home Nation (this is obviously in addition to the above stream of quotations already supplied from non-arguably reliable sources)? Rowlan 15:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Ireland is a home nation PERIOD! Before 1922 as a home nation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and after 1922 as a home nation of the British Isles. Since 1922 Northern Ireland has inherited Irelands place as a home nation of the United Kingdom. YourPTR! 09:43, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
A nation can't be at 'home' in a place that it does not recognise. Scotland, Wales etc are at home in Scotland and Wales aswell as the UK and whatever dated name you wish to give the islands we inhabit. Ireland however (minus Northern Ireland) is at home in Ireland and in Ireland only and so should not be refered to as being a home nation in this or any context. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.94.192.200 ( talk) 07:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
I have to agree with MacRusgail in reinstating this content, whilst I don't agree with his position on the wording concerning "Home Nations". Nevertheless, if any of this content is to be removed, it should be properly archived and not summarily deleted. If anybody feels anything needs archiving, please say so. -- Cactus.man ✍ 20:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Archive it by all means but take it away. It is repetitive and little to do with the article. What has devolution and the SFA's decision not to participate in a British football team got to do with the Lions? GordyB 20:34, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
My opinion on the Lions cannot be found anywhere in the article. All you need to do is find a suitable source and your opinions can be included. A sentence about the representation of Scots is fine as long as it is NPOV. GordyB 21:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
My edits are based on objective facts. I don't post that the Lions are apolitical (opinion), I post that they don't represent a nation state (objective fact). Show me one of my edits that breaks a Wikipedia protocol. GordyB 16:26, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Could contributors please read and follow the guidelines in Wikipedia:Verifiability Wikipedia:No original research Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. GordyB 14:12, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't post my opinion I post objective facts. GordyB 16:27, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Just read the protocols they explicitly state that your personal opinion is worth nothing as it constitutes 'original research' which is strictly forbidden. GordyB 16:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
That's also 'original research'. Read the protocols. GordyB 20:14, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Original research is a term used on Wikipedia to refer to material added to articles by Wikipedia editors that has not been published already by a reputable source. In this context it means unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, and ideas; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments that, in the words of Wikipedia's founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation".
Which part of 'unpublished theories' do you not understand? GordyB 20:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
British Isles is better than Britain and Ireland. Players can be selected from any of the British Isles territories/islands not just the two islands of Great Britain and Ireland. PaddyBriggs 16:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't know about the Channel Islands but I'm pretty sure that the Isle of Man comes under RFU jurisdiction (so I'd guess that the Channel Islands did as well). Neither field 'national' teams AFAIK and as far as rugby union is concerned they are honourary Englishmen. You must be eligible for one of the four home unions to play for the Lions, AFAIK you could be a New Zealander born and bred but if you qualified for say Scotland you could play for the Lions. I think it is more accurate to say that the Lions can draw from players eligible for one of the home unions rather than they can draw from players from the British Isles. A player might be from England but be qualify to play for a non-home union team and therefore AFAIK make themselves ineligible for Lions selection. GordyB 20:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
According to the IRB who run the game they do not. 'Honorary Englishmen' imperialist good grief! Where did I say that they were English. Your last point is wrong the rules for soccer are different from rugby union. By UEFA rules anybody holding a British passport can play for any of the four 'British' teams, however, there is a gentlemen's agreement between the different associations not to abuse this rule and to restrict selection to those who at least have a grandparent from that country. Channel Islanders and the Manx are exempt from this and can play for any of the four nations. The national teams in fact represent their union which is why teams exist that don't represent nation states England, Scotland and Wales don't exist as nation states and neither does a united Ireland. THe RFU administers the game of rugby union in the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands (AFAIK) and therefore they are eligible for selection by the RFU team i.e. England. GordyB 20:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
A Kiwi who plays for Scotland ain't an 'honorary Scotsman'? And AFAIK they can't play for three other countries re-read what I said. GordyB 21:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
I removed the reference to 'British Isles' as although the IRFU may use the term 'Home Nation' to describe themselves I'm pretty damn sure they'd object to 'British Isles'. IMO this term should only be used in this article when refering to the Lions when they were then known by this name.
I also don't believe it to be accurate. For example Dallaglio (or Lol) could have qualified for England (through birth and residency), Wales (through his mother) or Italy (through his father). As an uncapped player he would have been available for one of two home nations and therefore eligible for Lions selection. If he had chosen to play for either England or Wales he would still be eligible, however if he had chosen to play for Italy he would not be. The fact that he is from the 'British Isles' isn't sufficient. All this is to the best of my knowledge, if you know better then correct me. GordyB 22:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
The British "Lions" are a Rugby League tradition as well and the name "Lions" originated from the 1925 tour. Union copied it. I think that a disambiguation should be created between the two. Licinius
The rugby league Lions did in fact use the name 'Lions' before the rugby union Lions. I have never heard of any allegation of 'name theft' though. If you can find a source, it could be incorporated. I have thought for some time that there should be a disambiguation link between the two pages. GordyB 10:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
This issue seems to have reared its ugly head again. I am very much a league man first and foremost but this 'name theft' allegation is a new one on me. It's also completely unsourced. League had the name first - fact, union copied the name - unsubstantiated. Big cat names are simply very common in either code of rugby. GordyB 23:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Why is their a split between these 2 tables ? ( Gnevin 18:42, 2 April 2006 (UTC))
I took the tricolour flag out because he is from Ballymena, Northern Ireland and to my knowledge does not have a RoI passport. There is an on-going problem with Irish players, using a RoI flag to represent players from the North is nonsensical. There needs to either be a symbol used for both Irelands or use the RoI flag only for those from RoI (or those who have a RoI passport) and the NI flag for the rest. 195.93.21.40 13:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)(GordyB)
I found this text on the official page which is partly identical to sentences in the first few paragraphs. Is there a rational explanation? -- youghal 17:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I edited "However, many Irish people maintain that the term British Isles does indeed carry political overtones and prefer the truly neutral geographical term IONA to describe the British-Irish archipelago." to remove the last clause "...and prefer the truly neutral geographical term IONA to describe..." Why? Because its completely unsourced and far from reality, I imagine. I think Iona, to the average Joe Soap, means the Scottish island, if anything. If User:Vintagekits wants to revert - fine - but show us a verifiable source demonstrating that many Irish people prefer the term IONA to describe the British Isles. Bastun 15:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
An Irishman's Diary Myers, Kevin; The
Irish Times (subscription needed) 09/03/2000, Accessed July 2006 'millions of people from these islands — oh how angry we get when people call them the British Isles'
Debate in the Oireachtas, Written Answers - Official Terms", Dáil Éireann - Volume 606 - 28 September, 2005. In his response, the Irish Minister for Foreign Affairs stated that "The British Isles is not an officially recognised term in any legal or inter-governmental sense. It is without any official status. The Government, including the Department of Foreign Affairs, does not use this term. Our officials in the Embassy of Ireland, London, continue to monitor the media in Britain for any abuse of the official terms as set out in the Constitution of Ireland and in legislation. These include the name of the State, the President, Taoiseach and others."
[7]: "New atlas lets Ireland slip shackles of Britain: A spokesman for the Irish Embassy in London said: “The British Isles has a dated ring to it, as if we are still part of the Empire. We are independent, we are not part of Britain, not even in geographical terms. We would discourage its useage [sic].".
-- MacRusgail 16:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
The article deals with this POV far more already than it should. Remove IONA, leave the fact that some in Ireland disagree with the term British, even though the name dates from the Romans and possibly derives from a celtic word. Why do people object? ignorance? hate? political gain? insecurity? Whatever it is it is not an issue for this article. Besides this, has an Irish player ever refused selection because of the name? -- Bob 07:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
This debate seems rather pointless. The team is now called the British and Irish Lions. Historically it has been called the British Isles, it's not anymore so who cares. If anyone can find a match programme that calls the team the IONA Lions then let me know, otherwise this is a waste of time. I think some of the discussions mentioned here go well beyond the scope of an article about a combined team that represents the home unions. I think the major points regarding the name have been covered pretty comprehensively in the article. No point continuing this debate. - Shudda talk 08:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
The British tag is increasingly dated in Scotland and Wales too. This just goes to prove what an anachronism this whole nonsense is.
Given a few years, with the current trend, most Scots will not consider themselves Brits at all. Even the Welsh are on their way:
Sorry to break it to all you Brits who seem to think the Lions are somehow representative, but they aren't in name, and they are decreasingly so in number. Scots don't even figure in that side. I wish the SRU would move away from this Victorian rubbish and into the future with the rest of us. -- MacRusgail 16:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Note the Wikipedia is not subject to censorship section. That means that no matter how offensive it may be to some, reality is reality. The British and Irish Lions are called the British and Irish Lions and not the IONA Lions. If this policy was not in place then there would be no religious pages (since they would offend somebody), no page on evolution and probably no articles stating that the world is in fact round.
If you can source a major controversy about the Lions this can be incorporated but in reality the Lions aren't all that controversial. Alex Salmond may have said he wanted a Scottish Olympic team but he said nothing about the Lions changing their name. If you persuade him to make a speech on the need for the Lions to be further renamed or disband then it would be worth noting (the title should stay the same though). GordyB 20:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Provide references and stick to a neutral POV, whilst also not giving undue weight to minority opinion. -- Bob 16:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Whether or not Britishness is in decline is not the point. You are not a rugby man and you don't really know what you are talking about with representation. The last two tours had lots of Englishmen because it was a golden era for English rugby, there were very few Englishmen in previous tours. The Welsh dominated the Lions in the 70s and the Scots had loads of players in the eighties but then Scotland was much more of a rugby power back then. The current English team is poor and the next tour will not have nearly so many.
As for neutrality, if you feel that it is biased then there are places you can take this too such as dispute resolution. I'll tell you in advance that you haven't got a leg to stand on but you are welcome to try.
However I must ask to to keep making the same points endlessly. It's just spamming to keep saying that Britishness is in decline as it has nothing to do with the article. GordyB 19:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
References
Both the words "British" and "Irish" have ambiguous definitions.
In political sense, "British" means "of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" and "Irish" does "of (the Republic of) Ireland". In geographical sense, on the other hand, they means "of (the island of) Great Britain" and "of (the island of) Ireland" respectively.
Thus, the "British and Irish Lions" can be understood slightly differently according to the two different sense: "Players from UK + Players from the Republic of Ireland" (in political sense) or "Players from Great Britain + Players from the island of Ireland" (in geographical sense).
Is there the official definition of "British" and "Irish" in "British and Irish Lions"? ― 韓斌/Yes0song ( 談笑 筆跡 다지모) 19:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
British people are from Britain; Irish people are from Ireland. It really is not that complicated unless people in Britain are trying to assert a political claim over a part of Ireland and redefining the meaning of "British" to suit their political agenda. That would never happen, would it? As for this "British Isles" claim over Ireland; your empire is over. Get over it, and yourselves. 86.44.34.19 ( talk) 13:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone know the cities where the Lions played their Argie Tours. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.64.171.242 ( talk) 15:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't see the relevance of this. Rugby union is not an olympic sport and even if it was the British and Irish Lions would not compete because they aren't the British rugby union team nor the UK team either.
Back in the days when union was an Olympic sport, Britain was not represented by a team drawn from the four home nations. One year the British representative was the Cornwall county team, another year it was Moseley Rugby Club. And nor was the term "Lions" applied to this team.
If rugby sevens ever gets to be an olympic sport then Irish players won't be eligible (unless from Northern Ireland and even then it is unlikely that any would play for Britain rather than Ireland).
So I can't see any relevance to this article. GordyB ( talk) 16:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
NO. Just officially from 1950, but the usage of the nickname is well attested to from the early 1920s Jatrius ( talk) 16:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Having looked again at the passage, I think you have a point. However I think it needs a rewrite. The paragraph really should not start with the IOC's view on non-sovereign nations. GordyB ( talk) 21:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
The name "British and Irish Lions" goes back before 2001 as stated in the article. The "Irish Times", a newspaper of record, is using the term "British and Irish Lions" before 2001. The Irish Times digital search only goes back to 1996, and the term is then. PurpleA ( talk) 01:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
This source certainly sheds some light on it, and casts some doubt on the Irish Times' impartiality - "in rugby, the 'British Lions' (officially the 'British Isles') have come to be described, in Irish publications at least, as the 'British and Irish Lions'" (Jeffery, K., An Irish empire?: aspects of Ireland and the British Empire, Manchester University Press ND, 1996) -- hippo43 ( talk) 17:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
From some memorabilia sites, I was able to check out most of the Lions programmes available since the 1950s, which give some idea of what the team was called at the time. From my totally unscientific survey:
'British Isles' was last used in 1993. 'British Lions' was last used in 1997. There has been a general, but overlapping, progression from British Isles - British Lions - The Lions - British & Irish Lions. -- hippo43 ( talk) 23:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
John Hopkins's book on the 1977 Lions tour states that the Lions tours, and incoming tours to Britain and Ireland, were organised by the "Four Home Rugby Unions' Tours Committee", and later that the players' holdalls were stamped "1977 B I R U T" - for 1977 British Isles Rugby Union tour.-- Bcp67 ( talk) 19:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I propose removing all the flagicons from the infobox at the top of the article. It looks a real mess right now, both because of the whole Ireland flagicon issue, and because there is a flag for Great Britain, but not the B&I Lions, as well as non-national teams not having flag icons. The current state can't be at all clear for readers who aren't familiar with the issues. No flags will be much cleaner and less confusing for all. Thoughts? -- hippo43 ( talk) 19:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
How can you have an article on the Lions which does not mention the apartheid scandals? I wonder if some people would like to whitewash (pun intended) the history of the Lions, and ignore their unsavoury relationship with racist regimes in South Africa and Rhodesia. That and the fact that the criticism section has been completely removed, makes this article a joke again...-- MacRusgail ( talk) 18:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
<--MacRusgail, I guess they don't go to Argentina because the team is now too strong, but who knows, I don't have the sources! Have you got any sources to contribute to the SA/Rhodesia problems? Bigger digger ( talk) 15:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
The subject is definitely relevant to the story of the Lions and the South African tours. I put a small section in the article on the 1980 tour, intending to expand it at some point and have just added a link to the Gleneagles Agreement. The 1980 tourists originally had a fixture scheduled against Rhodesia but from memory this was cancelled and replaced with a game against Eastern Transvaal though I can't find a ref for this. Zimbabwe had become independent earlier in 1980 and a Lions visit there probably didn't fit with the new government.-- Bcp67 ( talk) 19:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
So as I understand it, the reason the article has been tagged as POV is because it contains no critical information, or mention of the controversies in 1974 and 1980 in particular? There's talk of a criticism section having been removed, but I can't find it in the rather large history :) I agree the article needs information about the controversial 1974 and 1980 tours, and more perspective on objections to the "British" etc. The 1980 article has a minor mention of the controversy, the 1974 article nothing. The article mentions Irish nationalist concerns with the old name fairly neutrally, and otherwise the problem seems more one of omission than of neutrality, as the issue is about the article being incomplete, rather than providing undue weight to one side of a conflict. If anyone can find sources for criticism of the tours during the apartheid era, and related issues, let's add them. If anyone can point me to the deleted criticism, please do so. Greenman ( talk) 19:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
I turned the game on at the 5 minute mark and missed the anthems. Are the Lions still using that "Power of Four" song from the NZ tour or has it been cast aside (which would be no loss - it's a hideously bad song!). 58.178.30.40 ( talk) 04:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Are we having Irish flags in this article or not? Personally no problem either way, although I am aware there has been an ongoing debate on the subject of what symbol should represent Irish rugby. If we are, all the people in the results table ought to be shown with an Irish flag, and if not, none of them. For the moment I'll take them out again as its quicker than putting ones back in for all the ones which aren't currently aren't there!-- Bcp67 ( talk) 20:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Martin Corry was a Lions captain and should be listed because he is is listed on the Lions captain template as one of the 39 who have had the honour of captaining the Lions The C of E ( talk) 07:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Snowded. It's not notable. MITH 17:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
This article barely mentions that he organised the first British Isles tour, should be expanded perhaps.-- MacRusgail ( talk) 14:01, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
I notice a recent addition and then reversion surrounding some non-Test matches against international sides. Would the article benefit from a section on these matches. It would seem a shame to lose or disregard this information. Kwib ( talk) 10:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Can I suggest two tables, one for "Results in tour test matches" and one for "Results in other international matches", that would look something like the below example (essentially for tour tests remains the same, for others just some minor column heading changes). There are a number of matches already in the Results that perhaps should not be there using the logic extended to matches against the likes of Canada, and I think this would help to fix that, and to highlight important matches against other international sides (in some cases very important to history of the team playing the Lions).
Introduction explaining what constitutes tour test match...
Year | To | Captain | Head coach | Top Scorer in Tests | Result | Tests record |
---|
Introduction explaining some on tour other's one-off, some at home etc...
Year | Against | Captain | Head coach | Top Scorer | Result | Related tour |
---|
As the matches have now been annouced and the tour is only 18 months away, isn't it time there was a page specifically for the 2013 tour? The 2009 tour page was created in October 2007. 90.198.203.3 ( talk) 10:37, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
An edit I made to this section has just been reverted on the grounds that it "could confuse readers". The original text read:
My version read:
Note that the original/current text ignores the fact that Northern Ireland was also created in 1922. That, I think, might confuse some readers, so I have part-reverted to include "and Northern Ireland", but would ask for views on the rest of the text. Brocach ( talk) 18:27, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
I think referring to northern ireland in the first part is fine but still not entirely necessary as the name change only occured due to the old name name not incorporating any recognition of the the players who where citizens of the subsequent state of "Ireland" and so the creation of NI has no real bearing on the issue being discussed, also the link to the free state article would infrom the reader of the status of northern ireland, I think leaving the second part at UK makes way more sense. Caomhan27 ( talk) 19:16, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Just a note of courtesy here to say that I have tweaked the naming section to get the team's first name in (why was this left out before?) and to split the first paragraph into two for the sake of readability. I suggest that it is best to avoid getting unnecessarily sucked into the 'British Isles' geography debate - we have to accept and respect that the Irish officially do not recognise this as a geographic term. The team was named 'British Isles' for a time and it is advisable to simply state this as an undisputed fact and move on. pconlon 22:10, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
The new kit pictures don't quite tally with the descriptions in the section above. For example, "The 1924 tour returned to South Africa, retaining the blue jerseys but now with shorts to match" - this isn't reflected below, and nor is "1938 became a green turnover (although on blue socks thus eliminating red from the kit)". I don't know enough myself to be able to change the images - would someone be able to bring them in line with the written descriptions? Thanks. -- Bcp67 ( talk) 19:33, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
The list of tests and tours is inconsistent. The 2005 tour has three captains listed - O'Driscoll (the original tour captain), Corry (his on-field deputy in the first test) and Thomas (the permanent replacement). It doesn't include Michael Owen, who captained the match v Argentina which is counted an official Lions test [13]. Earlier tours either do or don't reflect "stand-in" captains - for example the 1966 tour includes David Watkins, who stood in for Mike Campbell-Lamerton, but the 1930 tour doesn't show Carl Aarvold, who also captained in a test match. The Lions captain template is similarly inconsistent. Any thoughts on which way to go with this? Seems that the choice is either (1) include everyone who captained the Lions in a test or (2) just list the actual official tour captain. -- Bcp67 ( talk) 20:13, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
British and Irish Lions. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 15:15, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
The page currently says: Most caps Ireland Willie John McBride (17) Most appearances Ireland Willie John McBride
The term "cap" is defined on the linked page, "In British sport, a cap is a metaphorical term for a player's appearance in a game at international level." Why have both? I suggest choosing the more widely known word: `Most appearances Ireland Willie John McBride (17)` — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.52.60.67 ( talk) 05:08, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Should the statistics follow the official British and Irish Lions web page? https://www.lionsrugby.com/historical-statistics/ If so, Andy Irvine is the top scorer. Which source should be used for the official statistics? Unfortunately, World Rugby don't appear to have a records or statistics page. TGB13 ( talk) 19:47, 4 July 2017 (UTC)