![]() | 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 20 | ← | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | → | Archive 30 |
This debate is absurd.
The British Isles means the Island of Great Britain and Island of Ireland.
ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! ( talk) 04:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
This is what I wrote here earlier today and a wikipedia editor who has
this on his User Page was clearly offended. My oh my. My bad. So, here it is again:
No more of this kind of chat or
WP:SOAPBOX messages, please. I have struck out comments that clearly violate
WP:TALK and ask editors to not reply to any of them. The anonymous IP editor who made them (and using different IP addresses to make very similar comments in the past) has made the IP address temporarily unavailable for any other anonymous IP editors.
DDStretch
(talk)
23:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:British_Isles&oldid=268474905
Now can we end three or four years of chatter? 129.234.4.1 ( talk) 14:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
How should the references be included in the article to fairly represent what they actualy say. The authors of the refs say Britain and Ireland is becoming the preferred term. Should we quote that directly or say that some commentators ie: the authors, prefer it? I include here both refs. [1] [2] — Titch Tucker (via posting script) 01:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
How can we iterpret the references as saying "Britain and Ireland is becoming the preferred term for some commentators"? The commentators/authors of those refs do not at any point say that they prefer that term. What they do say is that Britain and Ireland is becoming the preferred term, two entirely different things. If people are happy to use these refs then we must represent them properly, not include wording which does not exist. Titch Tucker ( talk) 12:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Has anyone considered, merely pointing out Britain and Ireland as an alternative name, without mentioning it's being used more or used less then British Isles? GoodDay ( talk) 21:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Is there any specific disagreement over the proposal put forward by DDstretch? Titch Tucker ( talk) 23:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
This article will ultimately have to be sent to an arbitration committee in the next couple of years or so, when indeed Wikipedia becomes a more serious encyclopedia. In the meantime, it should be stated in the article, (as per editor GoodDay), that the islands are also know as Britain & Ireland, and that should be said. It may take some time for this debate to resolve, but it's surely on the horizon. PurpleA ( talk) 00:31, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
After reading Siobhán Kilfeather's essay (currently reference #11) as far as Google Books allows, that is, I find it peppered with inaccuracies, misleading weasel worded statements and bias. If it was a WP article it would be NPOV tagged; it doesn't really provide confidence in it as a good source. - Bill Reid | Talk 19:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
CommentTo change the name of a distinct geographical region takes more than a couple of books. The British Isles has been known by that name for centuries. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 22:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
@BillReid. You might be right, but the reference is not a Wikipedia article. It's a reputable published work. In addition, just as a note, the author of that article was a highly regarded international scholar and a senior lecturer in Queen's University Belfast. I believe this is her Obituary in the Guardian (
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/2007/apr/27/guardianobituaries.booksobituaries) and here is the note from Queen's (
http://www.qub.ac.uk/schools/SchoolofEnglish/NewsandEvents/DrSiobhanKilfeather/). I look forward to seeing your credentials as a scholar in the area.
@Martin. You might be right too. The point is that the books report that the change is happening. You may agree or disagree that it should happen (which is irrelevant on WP) but unless you can provide reference you cannot really argue about whether it is happening.
@All. Again, these are typical credentials of references that some editors here are denying existed, are describing as a bad sources, etc. It's apparent that the sources are absolutely eminently reliable and reputable and that - therefore - something else is going on here. That something is IDONTLIKEIT, as always. Should I now change my position and insist that we describe the credentials of the sources in the text? Ooh, tempting.
Wotapalaver (
talk)
19:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Inaccuracies:
Misleading weasel worded statements:
No sources to back up any of the above, just pure POV.
Bias
Comment on BBC style guide reference As someone previously uninvolved in this discussion, I have had a look at the BBC style guide, which is causing some contention. It is clear to me that the 'Confused already? Keep going.' comment is in reference to the previous two paragraphs which define various terms such as United Kingdom, Great Britain and British Isles. It is a fair enough comment that it is confusing. However, the article is currently wrong to state The BBC style guide's entry on the subject of the British Isles remarks, "Confused already? Keep going." . The BBC style guide entry is not on the subject of the British Isles, but on the matter of devolution. In addition, the comment quoted is in reference to the previous two paragraphs talking about both the British Isles and the UK, Great Britain etc. A more accurate statement might be: The BBC style guide's entry on the subject of devolution remarks, with respect to the British Isles, United Kingdom, Great Britain and crown dependancies, "Confused already? Keep going." I can see that that may be a bit wordy though!
I do not see how the quote fits in with the section headed "Alternative names and descriptions". The source actually defines what the British Isles refers to, and does the same for the UK etc. It does not offer any alternative description for the British Isles. The quote taken in context does not fit into where it is currently positioned in the article, and certainly needs a more adequate description than currently offered to explain what is being meant by "Confused already?". Quantpole ( talk) 12:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
There are two main standards of the English Language of concern here. One is British English, the second is American English. There former is governed by the Oxford Style Manual (2003), whereas the latter by the Chicago Manual of Style.
The Oxford Style Manual (2003) does not advocate the capitalisation of island on its own. It advocates its capitalisation
Island of Great Britain,
Island of Ireland,
Channel Islands,
Isle of Wight,
Isle of Man,
Isles of Scilly
of the word Island (and Isle(s)) within their long-form names (Island of Great Britain and Island of Ireland).
I would prefer to use the Oxford Standard for the British Isles.
ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! ( talk) 20:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Howdy GoodDay.
I am proposing this
Archipelago
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/archipelago
How about this ...
How is that folkes?
ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! ( talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 21:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC).
Off Topic discussion |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Hello EndrickShellycoat. Thank you very much for the "Heads-up" ... I appreciate it eh. ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! ( talk) 21:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello PurpleA. MY Great-GrandDad was from Dolgelley, Menionthshire, Wales. Take care eh.
|
Off Topic discussion (See above) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Ahem... British = (English + Welsh + Scottish + Irish)
ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! ( talk) 21:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC) |
Archipelago
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/archipelago
How about this ...
How is that folkes?
ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! ( talk) 15:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello
BritishWatcher (
talk), and
Ghmyrtle (
talk).
I apologise for being un-clear. That was not my intent.
I propose that we replace the whole first paragraph,
with this paragraph listed below,
How is that folkes?
ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! ( talk) 19:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Howdy, howdy.
In British English the Oxford Style Manual (2003) [Chapter 4] would have
in American English the Chicago Maunal of Style would have
Similarly, in British English the Oxford Style Manual (2003) [Chapter 4] would have
in American English the Chicago Maunal of Style would have
Since are discussing the British Isles ... I would personally prefer that one utilises the Oxford Standard (i.e, the Oxford Style Manual).
Just a thought, eh.
ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! ( talk) 21:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
(outdent)It's pretty good intentions, but I for one would like to continue to see the lede make it clear that the term is contentious. -- HighKing ( talk) 22:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Ghmyrtle ( talk) 22:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)The British Isles are a group of islands off the northwest coast of continental Europe. They comprise the island of Great Britain, the island of Ireland and a number of smaller islands.
There are two sovereign states located on the islands: the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and Ireland. The group also includes the Crown dependencies of the Isle of Man and, by tradition, the Channel Islands, although the latter are not physically a part of the archipelago. [I would propose deleting the next sentence: There are other common uncertainties surrounding the extent, names and geographical elements of the islands.]
The term British Isles is controversial in relation to Ireland, where many people find the term objectionable; the Irish government also discourages its usage. Britain and Ireland is an alternative term in use for the archipelago.
Hello Ghmyrtle.
The sentence below in American English,
How using British English below,
Eh?
ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! ( talk) 23:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello Ghymrtle.
The Oxford Style Manual (2003) does not advocate the capitalisation of island on its own. It advocates its capitalisation
Island of Great Britain,
Island of Ireland,
Channel Islands,
Isle of Wight,
Isle of Man,
Isles of Scilly
of the word Island (and Isle(s)) within their long-form names (Island of Great Britain and Island of Ireland).
ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! ( talk) 03:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Ghmyrtle ( talk) 09:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)The British Isles are a group of islands off the northwest coast of continental Europe, including Great Britain, the island of Ireland, and a number of smaller islands. There are two sovereign states located on the islands: the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and Ireland. The group also includes the Crown dependencies of the Isle of Man and, by tradition, the Channel Islands, although the latter are not physically a part of the archipelago.
The term British Isles is controversial in relation to Ireland, where many people find the term objectionable; the Irish government also discourages its usage. Britain and Ireland is the most commonly used alternative name for the archipelago.
But Wotapalaver never did supply the sources, even when reminded by a number of editors, including myself:"Yes, they are all easily verified and I will provide sources."
Instead, Wotapalaver seemed to abandon that article after a number of extra comments (none of which supplied the requested sources), and increased his contributions here in this general thread. Now we see edits from the same editor which make a very similar statement here. I think that unless the editor is prepared to come up with the goods of verified reliable sources, adequately referenced here to back up the claim about the relevant issues being "easy to provide reference" for (in a similar form for which I asked the same editor on Talk:United Kingdom), we might consider simply ignoring this opposition so that we could then proceed with a consensus view of all the other editors. DDStretch (talk) 17:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)"You say that all your statements are easily verified, but you do seem to be having remarkable difficulty in verifying them when asked. To recap: the two claims you made which you claim are easily verified are: (i) "plenty of sources do not describe them as countries", and (ii) "the vast majority of the international sources (do not describe them as sources)". Now, are you going to supply the verification, please? As I said above, reviewing WP:RS, WP:V and WP:CITE may help you see exactly what I am asking you to kindly supply. If you are interested in contributing to the improvement of this article, and of persuading others that your claims have merit, then you would surely satisfy this request, wouldn't you? Thanks."
(ec) There is no ambiguity in saying sovereign states. Most of the ledes of country lists use it. In this context I think state reads better than country. As far as I can see, with one exception there is agreement to that. Just to help you out here Oxford definition is below, and is here being used in respect of meaning 2. Your references link to meaning 4 and do not contradict the proposed use. state
• noun 1 the condition of someone or something at a particular time. 2 a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government. 3 a community or area forming part of a federal republic. 4 (the States) the United States of America. 5 the civil government of a country. 6 pomp and ceremony associated with monarchy or government. 7 (a state) informal an agitated, disorderly, or dirty condition.
-- Snowded TALK 10:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
(reduce) We should not point at that list nor use the term "sovereign state". The term "sovereign state" is all over WP and it's usually shown with a link to an article called "Sovereign State", even though that article has been deleted and the links all bounce on to another article on "sovereignty" or something. All the places that link exists will have to be re-written. The page "list of sovereign states" is a confused list of various things, but it isn't a full list of "sovereign states", and it caveats itself to death in the first paragraph. The commonly used and appropriate term is the simple term country. France is a country. Spain is a country. Germany is a country. The USA is a country. There are two countries in the British Isles; the UK and Ireland. Scotland and England are parts of the UK. They're historical countries, but for the purposes of a multi-country article the relevant country is the UK. It may be appropriate to have a technical discussion on the status of Scotland in the article on Scotland or in the article on the UK, but it's not appropriate in this article. Unless we start counting things like the Texas Hill Country or Kentucky Horse Country or the the Kentucky bluegrass country (also known as the Kentucky bluegrass region) as countries too, then - in any international discussion - the UK is one country. Its internal arrangements are entirely relevant within the UK, but not in an article like this. Wotapalaver ( talk) 14:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Off Topic discussion |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Have you a source for that claim, TharkunColl? As far as I can see the term "British Isles" has been dropped by most if not all British media organisations. It is very rare to hear it on BBC, or even the tabloid-style news reports of ITN and Sky News. It has also been removed by most if not all of the major atlas makers in the anglophone world - Phillips, Collins, and National Geographic spring immediately to mind. The term is expressly avoided by the British state itself which instead incorporates terms such as "these islands" and "Britain and Ireland" or the "United Kingdom and Ireland" into the international treaties it signs. As this article shows the term has even been removed from use by the main French language television station. In a nutshell, therefore, the evidence produced in this article overwhelmingly supports that the term "British Isles" is now far less common throughout the anglophone world, and avoidance of the term has seeped into other languages. The sources in this article are very clear about this development. 213.202.155.211 ( talk) 00:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
After the Battle of Hastings (1066), William the Conquer ruled, the Kingdom of England, Duchy of Normandy, so the Channel Islands are the last remants of the Duchy of Normandy, left in British-hands. ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! ( talk) 22:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
|
As a result of these problems, "Britain and Ireland" is becoming a preferred description.
Why are these references considered so good as to go in the first paragraph? We could could cite any number of references - dictionaries, encyclopedias etc. - that don't say anything of the sort. In short, why does the article's first paragraph cherry-pick citations to give the "anti" view? ðarkun coll 00:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Editors are reminded of the behavioural guideline concerning appropriate messages on talk pages: WP:TALK. DDStretch (talk) 22:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
The article needs to make it clear that when writers used the term British Isles in the 16th and 17th centuries, the word "British" meant what we today would call "Celtic" - and was therefore specifically not an English claim to hegemony. It was not until later - 1707 to be precise - that the British state appropriated the word "British" for itself. ðarkun coll 12:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
AS I promised DDStretch (talk) on my userpage, I am not going to wade into this British Isles "thing", anymore.
Parting thoughts ... Europe has been historically described in the English Language as being composed of three regions, namely,
(1). the British Isles,
(2). Scandinavia,
(3). The Continent.
Nothing exists in a vacuum, so once you folkes finish butchering the British Isles, there are two more terms left to throttle.
ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! ( talk) 21:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Ghmyrtle ( talk) 10:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)The British Isles is a group of islands off the northwest coast of continental Europe, including Great Britain, the island of Ireland, and a number of smaller adjacent islands. There are two sovereign states located on the islands: the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and Ireland. The group also includes the Crown Dependencies of the Isle of Man and, by tradition, the Channel Islands, although the latter are not physically a part of the archipelago.
The term "British Isles" is controversial in relation to Ireland, where many people find the term objectionable because the word "British" is associated with the United Kingdom; the Irish government discourages its usage. [1] [2] [3] "Britain and Ireland" is a commonly used alternative name for the archipelago.
Would this be better? It is a bit more clumsy, but removes the adjectives that seem to be the problem. DDStretch (talk) 13:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)The term "British Isles" is controversial in relation to Ireland, where objections have been raised because the word "British" is associated with the United Kingdom, leading the Irish government to discourage its usage. [18] [2] [19] "Britain and Ireland" is a commonly used alternative name for the group. [20] [21]
Ghmyrtle ( talk) 21:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)The British Isles is a term traditionally used for a group of islands off the northwest coast of continental Europe which
compriseinclude the island of Great Britain, the island of Ireland and a number of smaller islands...
Ghmyrtle ( talk) 21:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)The British Isles is a traditional and still widely used term for a group of islands off the northwest coast of continental Europe which include the island of Great Britain, the island of Ireland and a number of smaller islands. [29] There are two sovereign states located on the islands: the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and Ireland. [30] The British Isles also includes the Crown Dependencies of the Isle of Man and, by tradition, the Channel Islands, although the latter are not physically a part of the island group. [31]
The term "British Isles" is controversial in relation to Ireland, where objections have been raised because the word "British" is associated with the United Kingdom, leading the Irish government to discourage its usage. [32] [2] [33] "Britain and Ireland" is a commonly used alternative name for the group. [34] [35]
Ah - this comes down to a discussion we've had before; the question is, is the article about the group of islands or is it about the term British Isles? And the answer is, it's about the island group, not the term. So per MOS:BEGIN, the first sentence should begin "The British Isles are a group of islands..." not "British Isles is a term...". waggers ( talk) 22:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
⬅ Agree with Ghmyrtle, we went through a long process on this and it is a controversial term so the sentence is key - otherwise we will end up with another edit war. The link is also important. -- Snowded TALK 16:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
more trolling |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
I'm confused about which wording we are now discussing. Personally, I accept some of the points that have been made, but not others. If it is accepted that the second paragraph should discuss the controversy over terminology, I can accept as a compromise that the word "term" is not needed in the first paragraph. I also think that there needs to be some explanation of the controversy in relation to Ireland, and a brief reference to the use of the word "British" as being seen to apply to the country/state of the UK (as well as to the geographical island of Great Britain) seems to me the best way to summarise this. But this may not have directly led to the Irish government position. So:
The British Isles is a group of islands off the northwest coast of continental Europe which includes the island of Great Britain, the island of Ireland and a number of smaller islands. [42] There are two sovereign states located on the islands: the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and Ireland. [43] The British Isles also includes the Crown Dependencies of the Isle of Man and, by tradition, the Channel Islands, although the latter are not physically a part of the island group. [44]
The term "British Isles" is controversial in relation to Ireland, where there are objections becausethe word "British" is associated withthe modern association of the word "British" is with the United Kingdom; the Irish government discourages its use. [45] [2] [46] "Britain and Ireland" is a commonly used alternative name for the group. [47] [48]
Ghmyrtle ( talk) 18:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I still say, mention Britain and Ireland is the alternative name & leave it at that. GoodDay ( talk) 18:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
So if we change:
The term "British Isles" is controversial in relation to Ireland, where there are objections because the word "British" is associated with the modern association of the word "British" is with the United Kingdom; the Irish government discourages its use.
to:
The term "British Isles" is controversial in relation to Ireland, where there are objections to the use of the phrase in relation to the Irish state; the Irish government discourages its use.
Does that suffice? waggers ( talk) 13:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Although I think it is something of a shame to lose any mention of why it is controversial in this sentence, any other wording seems problematic, and interested readers would surely seek a fuller explanation either in the article itself or (more likely) at the "naming dispute" page. Ghmyrtle ( talk) 13:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)"The term "British Isles" is controversial in relation to Ireland, where there are objections to the use of the phrase; the Irish government discourages its use."
My earlier comment suggesting a tighter wording got lost in the fuss about "comprises" (which I had no view on but simply copied and pasted), so I'll restate it here in a simpler fashion: "...the island of Great Britain, the island of Ireland and a number of smaller islands." would be better worded "...the islands of Great Britain and Ireland, and many other smaller ones." Bazza ( talk) 13:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
The only problematic piece that I presently see with the opening paragraph is that which I have underlined. It doesn't necessarily follow that "Britain & Ireland" is becoming the preferred term because of the objections of Ireland being called British. My understanding is that "Britain & Ireland" is a preferred term among many people, governments, and organisations throughout the world. The article should read, "As a result of these problems, "Britain and Ireland" is alternative description." PurpleA ( talk) 00:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
I think we're now looking at something like this:
The British Isles is a group of islands off the northwest coast of continental Europe which includes the islands of Great Britain, Ireland and numerous smaller islands. [55] There are two sovereign states located on the islands: the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and Ireland. [56] The British Isles also includes the Crown Dependencies of the Isle of Man and, by tradition, the Channel Islands, although the latter are not physically a part of the island group. [57]
The term "British Isles" is controversial in relation to Ireland, where there are objections to the use of the phrase and the Irish government discourages its use. [58] [2] [59] "Britain and Ireland" is a frequently used alternative name for the group. [60] [61]
Howzat? waggers ( talk) 11:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
etc. Otherwise it's like saying "islands of numerous smaller islands." Bazza ( talk) 13:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)...which includes the islands of Great Britain and Ireland, and numerous smaller islands.
Agreed -- Snowded TALK 16:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Done - Ok, the wording has been changed as agreed. May I suggest we look at the references in a separate thread in order to prevent this one from becoming even longer than it is?
waggers (
talk)
08:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Off-topic discussions, soapboxing and increasing tetchy arguments that do not conform to WP:TALK guidelines |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
A refusal to sever ties incorporating the whole island of Ireland into the British state is unthinkingly demonstrated in naming and mapping behaviour. This is most obvious in continued reference to 'the British Isles'.
Usage is not consistent as to whether the Channel Islands are included [in the British Isles] - geographically they should not be, politically they should.
A refusal to sever ties incorporating the whole island of Ireland into the British state is unthinkingly demonstrated in naming and mapping behaviour. This is most obvious in continued reference to 'the British Isles'.
Usage is not consistent as to whether the Channel Islands are included [in the British Isles] - geographically they should not be, politically they should.
A refusal to sever ties incorporating the whole island of Ireland into the British state is unthinkingly demonstrated in naming and mapping behaviour. This is most obvious in continued reference to 'the British Isles'.
A refusal to sever ties incorporating the whole island of Ireland into the British state is unthinkingly demonstrated in naming and mapping behaviour. This is most obvious in continued reference to 'the British Isles'.
Usage is not consistent as to whether the Channel Islands are included [in the British Isles] - geographically they should not be, politically they should.
A refusal to sever ties incorporating the whole island of Ireland into the British state is unthinkingly demonstrated in naming and mapping behaviour. This is most obvious in continued reference to 'the British Isles'.
Usage is not consistent as to whether the Channel Islands are included [in the British Isles] - geographically they should not be, politically they should.
A refusal to sever ties incorporating the whole island of Ireland into the British state is unthinkingly demonstrated in naming and mapping behaviour. This is most obvious in continued reference to 'the British Isles'.
Usage is not consistent as to whether the Channel Islands are included [in the British Isles] - geographically they should not be, politically they should.
Usage is not consistent as to whether the Channel Islands are included [in the British Isles] - geographically they should not be, politically they should.
A refusal to sever ties incorporating the whole island of Ireland into the British state is unthinkingly demonstrated in naming and mapping behaviour. This is most obvious in continued reference to 'the British Isles'.
Retrieved 17 July 2006[The] "Last Post has redoubled its efforts to re-educate those labouring under the misconception that Ireland is really just British. When British Retail Week magazine last week reported that a retailer was to make its British Isles debut in Dublin, we were puzzled. Is not Dublin the capital of the Republic of Ireland?. When Last Post suggested the magazine might see its way clear to correcting the error, an educative e-mail to the publication...:
"...I have called the Atlantic archipelago – since the term ‘British Isles’ is one which Irishmen reject and Englishmen decline to take quite seriously." Pocock, J.G.A. [1974] (2005). "British History: A plea for a new subject". The Discovery of Islands. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 29.
OCLC
60611042.
"...what used to be called the "British Isles," although that is now a
politically incorrect term." Finnegan, Richard B.; Edward T. McCarron (2000). Ireland: Historical Echoes, Contemporary Politics. Boulder: Westview Press, p. 358.
"In an attempt to coin a term that avoided the 'British Isles' - a term often offensive to Irish sensibilities - Pocock suggested a neutral geographical term for the collection of islands located in northwest Europe which included Britain and Ireland: the Atlantic archipelago..." Lambert, Peter; Phillipp Schofield (2004). Making History: An Introduction to the History and Practices of a Discipline. New York: Routledge, p. 217.
"..the term is increasingly unacceptable to Irish historians in particular, for whom the Irish sea is or ought to be a separating rather than a linking element. Sensitive to such susceptibilities, proponents of the idea of a genuine British history, a theme which has come to the fore during the last couple of decades, are plumping for a more neutral term to label the scattered islands peripheral to the two major ones of Great Britain and Ireland." Roots, Ivan (1997). "Union or Devolution in Cromwell's Britain". History Review.
The British Isles, A History of Four Nations, Second edition, Cambridge University Press, July 2006, Preface, Hugh Kearney. "The title of this book is ‘The British Isles’, not ‘Britain’, in order to emphasise the multi-ethnic character of our intertwined histories. Almost inevitably many within the Irish Republic find it objectionable, much as
Basques or
Catalans resent the use of the term ‘Spain’. As Seamus Heaney put it when he objected to being included in an anthology of British Poetry: 'Don’t be surprised If I demur, for, be advised My passport’s green. No glass of ours was ever raised To toast the Queen. (Open Letter, Field day Pamphlet no.2 1983)"
(Note: sections bolded for emphasis do not appear bold in original publications)
In 1947 Ireland’s Department of External Affairs drafted a letter to the heads of all government departments...... The expression “British Isles” was “a complete misnomer and its use should be thoroughly discouraged”; it should be replaced “where necessary by Ireland and Great Britain.”
Written Answers - Official Terms",
Dáil Éireann - Volume 606 - 28 September 2005. In his response, the Irish Minister for Foreign Affairs stated "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."
"
New atlas lets Ireland slip shackles of Britain". The Times, London, 3 October 2006. 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 usage.”
(Note: Sections bolded for emphasis do not appear in bold in the original publications)
Usage is not consistent as to whether the Channel Islands are included [in the British Isles] - geographically they should not be, politically they should.
A refusal to sever ties incorporating the whole island of Ireland into the British state is unthinkingly demonstrated in naming and mapping behaviour. This is most obvious in continued reference to 'the British Isles'.
![]() | 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 20 | ← | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | → | Archive 30 |
This debate is absurd.
The British Isles means the Island of Great Britain and Island of Ireland.
ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! ( talk) 04:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
This is what I wrote here earlier today and a wikipedia editor who has
this on his User Page was clearly offended. My oh my. My bad. So, here it is again:
No more of this kind of chat or
WP:SOAPBOX messages, please. I have struck out comments that clearly violate
WP:TALK and ask editors to not reply to any of them. The anonymous IP editor who made them (and using different IP addresses to make very similar comments in the past) has made the IP address temporarily unavailable for any other anonymous IP editors.
DDStretch
(talk)
23:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:British_Isles&oldid=268474905
Now can we end three or four years of chatter? 129.234.4.1 ( talk) 14:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
How should the references be included in the article to fairly represent what they actualy say. The authors of the refs say Britain and Ireland is becoming the preferred term. Should we quote that directly or say that some commentators ie: the authors, prefer it? I include here both refs. [1] [2] — Titch Tucker (via posting script) 01:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
How can we iterpret the references as saying "Britain and Ireland is becoming the preferred term for some commentators"? The commentators/authors of those refs do not at any point say that they prefer that term. What they do say is that Britain and Ireland is becoming the preferred term, two entirely different things. If people are happy to use these refs then we must represent them properly, not include wording which does not exist. Titch Tucker ( talk) 12:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Has anyone considered, merely pointing out Britain and Ireland as an alternative name, without mentioning it's being used more or used less then British Isles? GoodDay ( talk) 21:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Is there any specific disagreement over the proposal put forward by DDstretch? Titch Tucker ( talk) 23:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
This article will ultimately have to be sent to an arbitration committee in the next couple of years or so, when indeed Wikipedia becomes a more serious encyclopedia. In the meantime, it should be stated in the article, (as per editor GoodDay), that the islands are also know as Britain & Ireland, and that should be said. It may take some time for this debate to resolve, but it's surely on the horizon. PurpleA ( talk) 00:31, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
After reading Siobhán Kilfeather's essay (currently reference #11) as far as Google Books allows, that is, I find it peppered with inaccuracies, misleading weasel worded statements and bias. If it was a WP article it would be NPOV tagged; it doesn't really provide confidence in it as a good source. - Bill Reid | Talk 19:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
CommentTo change the name of a distinct geographical region takes more than a couple of books. The British Isles has been known by that name for centuries. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 22:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
@BillReid. You might be right, but the reference is not a Wikipedia article. It's a reputable published work. In addition, just as a note, the author of that article was a highly regarded international scholar and a senior lecturer in Queen's University Belfast. I believe this is her Obituary in the Guardian (
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/2007/apr/27/guardianobituaries.booksobituaries) and here is the note from Queen's (
http://www.qub.ac.uk/schools/SchoolofEnglish/NewsandEvents/DrSiobhanKilfeather/). I look forward to seeing your credentials as a scholar in the area.
@Martin. You might be right too. The point is that the books report that the change is happening. You may agree or disagree that it should happen (which is irrelevant on WP) but unless you can provide reference you cannot really argue about whether it is happening.
@All. Again, these are typical credentials of references that some editors here are denying existed, are describing as a bad sources, etc. It's apparent that the sources are absolutely eminently reliable and reputable and that - therefore - something else is going on here. That something is IDONTLIKEIT, as always. Should I now change my position and insist that we describe the credentials of the sources in the text? Ooh, tempting.
Wotapalaver (
talk)
19:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Inaccuracies:
Misleading weasel worded statements:
No sources to back up any of the above, just pure POV.
Bias
Comment on BBC style guide reference As someone previously uninvolved in this discussion, I have had a look at the BBC style guide, which is causing some contention. It is clear to me that the 'Confused already? Keep going.' comment is in reference to the previous two paragraphs which define various terms such as United Kingdom, Great Britain and British Isles. It is a fair enough comment that it is confusing. However, the article is currently wrong to state The BBC style guide's entry on the subject of the British Isles remarks, "Confused already? Keep going." . The BBC style guide entry is not on the subject of the British Isles, but on the matter of devolution. In addition, the comment quoted is in reference to the previous two paragraphs talking about both the British Isles and the UK, Great Britain etc. A more accurate statement might be: The BBC style guide's entry on the subject of devolution remarks, with respect to the British Isles, United Kingdom, Great Britain and crown dependancies, "Confused already? Keep going." I can see that that may be a bit wordy though!
I do not see how the quote fits in with the section headed "Alternative names and descriptions". The source actually defines what the British Isles refers to, and does the same for the UK etc. It does not offer any alternative description for the British Isles. The quote taken in context does not fit into where it is currently positioned in the article, and certainly needs a more adequate description than currently offered to explain what is being meant by "Confused already?". Quantpole ( talk) 12:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
There are two main standards of the English Language of concern here. One is British English, the second is American English. There former is governed by the Oxford Style Manual (2003), whereas the latter by the Chicago Manual of Style.
The Oxford Style Manual (2003) does not advocate the capitalisation of island on its own. It advocates its capitalisation
Island of Great Britain,
Island of Ireland,
Channel Islands,
Isle of Wight,
Isle of Man,
Isles of Scilly
of the word Island (and Isle(s)) within their long-form names (Island of Great Britain and Island of Ireland).
I would prefer to use the Oxford Standard for the British Isles.
ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! ( talk) 20:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Howdy GoodDay.
I am proposing this
Archipelago
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/archipelago
How about this ...
How is that folkes?
ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! ( talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 21:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC).
Off Topic discussion |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Hello EndrickShellycoat. Thank you very much for the "Heads-up" ... I appreciate it eh. ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! ( talk) 21:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello PurpleA. MY Great-GrandDad was from Dolgelley, Menionthshire, Wales. Take care eh.
|
Off Topic discussion (See above) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Ahem... British = (English + Welsh + Scottish + Irish)
ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! ( talk) 21:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC) |
Archipelago
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/archipelago
How about this ...
How is that folkes?
ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! ( talk) 15:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello
BritishWatcher (
talk), and
Ghmyrtle (
talk).
I apologise for being un-clear. That was not my intent.
I propose that we replace the whole first paragraph,
with this paragraph listed below,
How is that folkes?
ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! ( talk) 19:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Howdy, howdy.
In British English the Oxford Style Manual (2003) [Chapter 4] would have
in American English the Chicago Maunal of Style would have
Similarly, in British English the Oxford Style Manual (2003) [Chapter 4] would have
in American English the Chicago Maunal of Style would have
Since are discussing the British Isles ... I would personally prefer that one utilises the Oxford Standard (i.e, the Oxford Style Manual).
Just a thought, eh.
ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! ( talk) 21:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
(outdent)It's pretty good intentions, but I for one would like to continue to see the lede make it clear that the term is contentious. -- HighKing ( talk) 22:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Ghmyrtle ( talk) 22:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)The British Isles are a group of islands off the northwest coast of continental Europe. They comprise the island of Great Britain, the island of Ireland and a number of smaller islands.
There are two sovereign states located on the islands: the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and Ireland. The group also includes the Crown dependencies of the Isle of Man and, by tradition, the Channel Islands, although the latter are not physically a part of the archipelago. [I would propose deleting the next sentence: There are other common uncertainties surrounding the extent, names and geographical elements of the islands.]
The term British Isles is controversial in relation to Ireland, where many people find the term objectionable; the Irish government also discourages its usage. Britain and Ireland is an alternative term in use for the archipelago.
Hello Ghmyrtle.
The sentence below in American English,
How using British English below,
Eh?
ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! ( talk) 23:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello Ghymrtle.
The Oxford Style Manual (2003) does not advocate the capitalisation of island on its own. It advocates its capitalisation
Island of Great Britain,
Island of Ireland,
Channel Islands,
Isle of Wight,
Isle of Man,
Isles of Scilly
of the word Island (and Isle(s)) within their long-form names (Island of Great Britain and Island of Ireland).
ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! ( talk) 03:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Ghmyrtle ( talk) 09:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)The British Isles are a group of islands off the northwest coast of continental Europe, including Great Britain, the island of Ireland, and a number of smaller islands. There are two sovereign states located on the islands: the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and Ireland. The group also includes the Crown dependencies of the Isle of Man and, by tradition, the Channel Islands, although the latter are not physically a part of the archipelago.
The term British Isles is controversial in relation to Ireland, where many people find the term objectionable; the Irish government also discourages its usage. Britain and Ireland is the most commonly used alternative name for the archipelago.
But Wotapalaver never did supply the sources, even when reminded by a number of editors, including myself:"Yes, they are all easily verified and I will provide sources."
Instead, Wotapalaver seemed to abandon that article after a number of extra comments (none of which supplied the requested sources), and increased his contributions here in this general thread. Now we see edits from the same editor which make a very similar statement here. I think that unless the editor is prepared to come up with the goods of verified reliable sources, adequately referenced here to back up the claim about the relevant issues being "easy to provide reference" for (in a similar form for which I asked the same editor on Talk:United Kingdom), we might consider simply ignoring this opposition so that we could then proceed with a consensus view of all the other editors. DDStretch (talk) 17:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)"You say that all your statements are easily verified, but you do seem to be having remarkable difficulty in verifying them when asked. To recap: the two claims you made which you claim are easily verified are: (i) "plenty of sources do not describe them as countries", and (ii) "the vast majority of the international sources (do not describe them as sources)". Now, are you going to supply the verification, please? As I said above, reviewing WP:RS, WP:V and WP:CITE may help you see exactly what I am asking you to kindly supply. If you are interested in contributing to the improvement of this article, and of persuading others that your claims have merit, then you would surely satisfy this request, wouldn't you? Thanks."
(ec) There is no ambiguity in saying sovereign states. Most of the ledes of country lists use it. In this context I think state reads better than country. As far as I can see, with one exception there is agreement to that. Just to help you out here Oxford definition is below, and is here being used in respect of meaning 2. Your references link to meaning 4 and do not contradict the proposed use. state
• noun 1 the condition of someone or something at a particular time. 2 a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government. 3 a community or area forming part of a federal republic. 4 (the States) the United States of America. 5 the civil government of a country. 6 pomp and ceremony associated with monarchy or government. 7 (a state) informal an agitated, disorderly, or dirty condition.
-- Snowded TALK 10:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
(reduce) We should not point at that list nor use the term "sovereign state". The term "sovereign state" is all over WP and it's usually shown with a link to an article called "Sovereign State", even though that article has been deleted and the links all bounce on to another article on "sovereignty" or something. All the places that link exists will have to be re-written. The page "list of sovereign states" is a confused list of various things, but it isn't a full list of "sovereign states", and it caveats itself to death in the first paragraph. The commonly used and appropriate term is the simple term country. France is a country. Spain is a country. Germany is a country. The USA is a country. There are two countries in the British Isles; the UK and Ireland. Scotland and England are parts of the UK. They're historical countries, but for the purposes of a multi-country article the relevant country is the UK. It may be appropriate to have a technical discussion on the status of Scotland in the article on Scotland or in the article on the UK, but it's not appropriate in this article. Unless we start counting things like the Texas Hill Country or Kentucky Horse Country or the the Kentucky bluegrass country (also known as the Kentucky bluegrass region) as countries too, then - in any international discussion - the UK is one country. Its internal arrangements are entirely relevant within the UK, but not in an article like this. Wotapalaver ( talk) 14:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Off Topic discussion |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Have you a source for that claim, TharkunColl? As far as I can see the term "British Isles" has been dropped by most if not all British media organisations. It is very rare to hear it on BBC, or even the tabloid-style news reports of ITN and Sky News. It has also been removed by most if not all of the major atlas makers in the anglophone world - Phillips, Collins, and National Geographic spring immediately to mind. The term is expressly avoided by the British state itself which instead incorporates terms such as "these islands" and "Britain and Ireland" or the "United Kingdom and Ireland" into the international treaties it signs. As this article shows the term has even been removed from use by the main French language television station. In a nutshell, therefore, the evidence produced in this article overwhelmingly supports that the term "British Isles" is now far less common throughout the anglophone world, and avoidance of the term has seeped into other languages. The sources in this article are very clear about this development. 213.202.155.211 ( talk) 00:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
After the Battle of Hastings (1066), William the Conquer ruled, the Kingdom of England, Duchy of Normandy, so the Channel Islands are the last remants of the Duchy of Normandy, left in British-hands. ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! ( talk) 22:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
|
As a result of these problems, "Britain and Ireland" is becoming a preferred description.
Why are these references considered so good as to go in the first paragraph? We could could cite any number of references - dictionaries, encyclopedias etc. - that don't say anything of the sort. In short, why does the article's first paragraph cherry-pick citations to give the "anti" view? ðarkun coll 00:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Editors are reminded of the behavioural guideline concerning appropriate messages on talk pages: WP:TALK. DDStretch (talk) 22:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
The article needs to make it clear that when writers used the term British Isles in the 16th and 17th centuries, the word "British" meant what we today would call "Celtic" - and was therefore specifically not an English claim to hegemony. It was not until later - 1707 to be precise - that the British state appropriated the word "British" for itself. ðarkun coll 12:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
AS I promised DDStretch (talk) on my userpage, I am not going to wade into this British Isles "thing", anymore.
Parting thoughts ... Europe has been historically described in the English Language as being composed of three regions, namely,
(1). the British Isles,
(2). Scandinavia,
(3). The Continent.
Nothing exists in a vacuum, so once you folkes finish butchering the British Isles, there are two more terms left to throttle.
ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! ( talk) 21:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Ghmyrtle ( talk) 10:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)The British Isles is a group of islands off the northwest coast of continental Europe, including Great Britain, the island of Ireland, and a number of smaller adjacent islands. There are two sovereign states located on the islands: the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and Ireland. The group also includes the Crown Dependencies of the Isle of Man and, by tradition, the Channel Islands, although the latter are not physically a part of the archipelago.
The term "British Isles" is controversial in relation to Ireland, where many people find the term objectionable because the word "British" is associated with the United Kingdom; the Irish government discourages its usage. [1] [2] [3] "Britain and Ireland" is a commonly used alternative name for the archipelago.
Would this be better? It is a bit more clumsy, but removes the adjectives that seem to be the problem. DDStretch (talk) 13:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)The term "British Isles" is controversial in relation to Ireland, where objections have been raised because the word "British" is associated with the United Kingdom, leading the Irish government to discourage its usage. [18] [2] [19] "Britain and Ireland" is a commonly used alternative name for the group. [20] [21]
Ghmyrtle ( talk) 21:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)The British Isles is a term traditionally used for a group of islands off the northwest coast of continental Europe which
compriseinclude the island of Great Britain, the island of Ireland and a number of smaller islands...
Ghmyrtle ( talk) 21:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)The British Isles is a traditional and still widely used term for a group of islands off the northwest coast of continental Europe which include the island of Great Britain, the island of Ireland and a number of smaller islands. [29] There are two sovereign states located on the islands: the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and Ireland. [30] The British Isles also includes the Crown Dependencies of the Isle of Man and, by tradition, the Channel Islands, although the latter are not physically a part of the island group. [31]
The term "British Isles" is controversial in relation to Ireland, where objections have been raised because the word "British" is associated with the United Kingdom, leading the Irish government to discourage its usage. [32] [2] [33] "Britain and Ireland" is a commonly used alternative name for the group. [34] [35]
Ah - this comes down to a discussion we've had before; the question is, is the article about the group of islands or is it about the term British Isles? And the answer is, it's about the island group, not the term. So per MOS:BEGIN, the first sentence should begin "The British Isles are a group of islands..." not "British Isles is a term...". waggers ( talk) 22:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
⬅ Agree with Ghmyrtle, we went through a long process on this and it is a controversial term so the sentence is key - otherwise we will end up with another edit war. The link is also important. -- Snowded TALK 16:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
more trolling |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
I'm confused about which wording we are now discussing. Personally, I accept some of the points that have been made, but not others. If it is accepted that the second paragraph should discuss the controversy over terminology, I can accept as a compromise that the word "term" is not needed in the first paragraph. I also think that there needs to be some explanation of the controversy in relation to Ireland, and a brief reference to the use of the word "British" as being seen to apply to the country/state of the UK (as well as to the geographical island of Great Britain) seems to me the best way to summarise this. But this may not have directly led to the Irish government position. So:
The British Isles is a group of islands off the northwest coast of continental Europe which includes the island of Great Britain, the island of Ireland and a number of smaller islands. [42] There are two sovereign states located on the islands: the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and Ireland. [43] The British Isles also includes the Crown Dependencies of the Isle of Man and, by tradition, the Channel Islands, although the latter are not physically a part of the island group. [44]
The term "British Isles" is controversial in relation to Ireland, where there are objections becausethe word "British" is associated withthe modern association of the word "British" is with the United Kingdom; the Irish government discourages its use. [45] [2] [46] "Britain and Ireland" is a commonly used alternative name for the group. [47] [48]
Ghmyrtle ( talk) 18:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I still say, mention Britain and Ireland is the alternative name & leave it at that. GoodDay ( talk) 18:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
So if we change:
The term "British Isles" is controversial in relation to Ireland, where there are objections because the word "British" is associated with the modern association of the word "British" is with the United Kingdom; the Irish government discourages its use.
to:
The term "British Isles" is controversial in relation to Ireland, where there are objections to the use of the phrase in relation to the Irish state; the Irish government discourages its use.
Does that suffice? waggers ( talk) 13:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Although I think it is something of a shame to lose any mention of why it is controversial in this sentence, any other wording seems problematic, and interested readers would surely seek a fuller explanation either in the article itself or (more likely) at the "naming dispute" page. Ghmyrtle ( talk) 13:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)"The term "British Isles" is controversial in relation to Ireland, where there are objections to the use of the phrase; the Irish government discourages its use."
My earlier comment suggesting a tighter wording got lost in the fuss about "comprises" (which I had no view on but simply copied and pasted), so I'll restate it here in a simpler fashion: "...the island of Great Britain, the island of Ireland and a number of smaller islands." would be better worded "...the islands of Great Britain and Ireland, and many other smaller ones." Bazza ( talk) 13:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
The only problematic piece that I presently see with the opening paragraph is that which I have underlined. It doesn't necessarily follow that "Britain & Ireland" is becoming the preferred term because of the objections of Ireland being called British. My understanding is that "Britain & Ireland" is a preferred term among many people, governments, and organisations throughout the world. The article should read, "As a result of these problems, "Britain and Ireland" is alternative description." PurpleA ( talk) 00:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
I think we're now looking at something like this:
The British Isles is a group of islands off the northwest coast of continental Europe which includes the islands of Great Britain, Ireland and numerous smaller islands. [55] There are two sovereign states located on the islands: the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and Ireland. [56] The British Isles also includes the Crown Dependencies of the Isle of Man and, by tradition, the Channel Islands, although the latter are not physically a part of the island group. [57]
The term "British Isles" is controversial in relation to Ireland, where there are objections to the use of the phrase and the Irish government discourages its use. [58] [2] [59] "Britain and Ireland" is a frequently used alternative name for the group. [60] [61]
Howzat? waggers ( talk) 11:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
etc. Otherwise it's like saying "islands of numerous smaller islands." Bazza ( talk) 13:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)...which includes the islands of Great Britain and Ireland, and numerous smaller islands.
Agreed -- Snowded TALK 16:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Done - Ok, the wording has been changed as agreed. May I suggest we look at the references in a separate thread in order to prevent this one from becoming even longer than it is?
waggers (
talk)
08:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Off-topic discussions, soapboxing and increasing tetchy arguments that do not conform to WP:TALK guidelines |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
A refusal to sever ties incorporating the whole island of Ireland into the British state is unthinkingly demonstrated in naming and mapping behaviour. This is most obvious in continued reference to 'the British Isles'.
Usage is not consistent as to whether the Channel Islands are included [in the British Isles] - geographically they should not be, politically they should.
A refusal to sever ties incorporating the whole island of Ireland into the British state is unthinkingly demonstrated in naming and mapping behaviour. This is most obvious in continued reference to 'the British Isles'.
Usage is not consistent as to whether the Channel Islands are included [in the British Isles] - geographically they should not be, politically they should.
A refusal to sever ties incorporating the whole island of Ireland into the British state is unthinkingly demonstrated in naming and mapping behaviour. This is most obvious in continued reference to 'the British Isles'.
A refusal to sever ties incorporating the whole island of Ireland into the British state is unthinkingly demonstrated in naming and mapping behaviour. This is most obvious in continued reference to 'the British Isles'.
Usage is not consistent as to whether the Channel Islands are included [in the British Isles] - geographically they should not be, politically they should.
A refusal to sever ties incorporating the whole island of Ireland into the British state is unthinkingly demonstrated in naming and mapping behaviour. This is most obvious in continued reference to 'the British Isles'.
Usage is not consistent as to whether the Channel Islands are included [in the British Isles] - geographically they should not be, politically they should.
A refusal to sever ties incorporating the whole island of Ireland into the British state is unthinkingly demonstrated in naming and mapping behaviour. This is most obvious in continued reference to 'the British Isles'.
Usage is not consistent as to whether the Channel Islands are included [in the British Isles] - geographically they should not be, politically they should.
Usage is not consistent as to whether the Channel Islands are included [in the British Isles] - geographically they should not be, politically they should.
A refusal to sever ties incorporating the whole island of Ireland into the British state is unthinkingly demonstrated in naming and mapping behaviour. This is most obvious in continued reference to 'the British Isles'.
Retrieved 17 July 2006[The] "Last Post has redoubled its efforts to re-educate those labouring under the misconception that Ireland is really just British. When British Retail Week magazine last week reported that a retailer was to make its British Isles debut in Dublin, we were puzzled. Is not Dublin the capital of the Republic of Ireland?. When Last Post suggested the magazine might see its way clear to correcting the error, an educative e-mail to the publication...:
"...I have called the Atlantic archipelago – since the term ‘British Isles’ is one which Irishmen reject and Englishmen decline to take quite seriously." Pocock, J.G.A. [1974] (2005). "British History: A plea for a new subject". The Discovery of Islands. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 29.
OCLC
60611042.
"...what used to be called the "British Isles," although that is now a
politically incorrect term." Finnegan, Richard B.; Edward T. McCarron (2000). Ireland: Historical Echoes, Contemporary Politics. Boulder: Westview Press, p. 358.
"In an attempt to coin a term that avoided the 'British Isles' - a term often offensive to Irish sensibilities - Pocock suggested a neutral geographical term for the collection of islands located in northwest Europe which included Britain and Ireland: the Atlantic archipelago..." Lambert, Peter; Phillipp Schofield (2004). Making History: An Introduction to the History and Practices of a Discipline. New York: Routledge, p. 217.
"..the term is increasingly unacceptable to Irish historians in particular, for whom the Irish sea is or ought to be a separating rather than a linking element. Sensitive to such susceptibilities, proponents of the idea of a genuine British history, a theme which has come to the fore during the last couple of decades, are plumping for a more neutral term to label the scattered islands peripheral to the two major ones of Great Britain and Ireland." Roots, Ivan (1997). "Union or Devolution in Cromwell's Britain". History Review.
The British Isles, A History of Four Nations, Second edition, Cambridge University Press, July 2006, Preface, Hugh Kearney. "The title of this book is ‘The British Isles’, not ‘Britain’, in order to emphasise the multi-ethnic character of our intertwined histories. Almost inevitably many within the Irish Republic find it objectionable, much as
Basques or
Catalans resent the use of the term ‘Spain’. As Seamus Heaney put it when he objected to being included in an anthology of British Poetry: 'Don’t be surprised If I demur, for, be advised My passport’s green. No glass of ours was ever raised To toast the Queen. (Open Letter, Field day Pamphlet no.2 1983)"
(Note: sections bolded for emphasis do not appear bold in original publications)
In 1947 Ireland’s Department of External Affairs drafted a letter to the heads of all government departments...... The expression “British Isles” was “a complete misnomer and its use should be thoroughly discouraged”; it should be replaced “where necessary by Ireland and Great Britain.”
Written Answers - Official Terms",
Dáil Éireann - Volume 606 - 28 September 2005. In his response, the Irish Minister for Foreign Affairs stated "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."
"
New atlas lets Ireland slip shackles of Britain". The Times, London, 3 October 2006. 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 usage.”
(Note: Sections bolded for emphasis do not appear in bold in the original publications)
Usage is not consistent as to whether the Channel Islands are included [in the British Isles] - geographically they should not be, politically they should.
A refusal to sever ties incorporating the whole island of Ireland into the British state is unthinkingly demonstrated in naming and mapping behaviour. This is most obvious in continued reference to 'the British Isles'.