![]() | 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 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
The following definition is taken from the Oxford English Dictionary:- British adj & n. *adj. 1 of or relating to Great Britain or to the United Kingdom, or to its people or language. 2 of the British Commonwealth or (formerly) the British Empire (British subject) *n. (prec. by the; treated as pl.) the British people.
Please do not change this definition (in the current introduction) which reflects popular English usage within the archipelago to fit one's own agenda. British is not commonly used to refer to the United Kingdom or Great Britain; it is what it is used to refer to. Iolar Iontach 13:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
This reflects the fact that the intended - if not always understood - use here is not of the United Kingdom, but it acts as an explanation for the confusion/offence. -- Robdurbar 20:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
I would like to make one simple point & request to those closely interested in the subject of this page... Whichever way the etymological wranglings of academics may swing, it really is not possible to use a term solely for geographical/ecological purposes that is inescapably bound to significant political implications. Even if unintended - which I assume is in most cases - serious offence is certainly often caused to Irish citizens (like myself) by British citizens who innocently use the British Isles term. Much of the debate here shown rather misses this essential fact. Ideally a politically neutral term should be used; at the very least, people who continue to use the term British Isles should be aware of its contentious nature and know to use it with caution. This should remain part of the article introduction. User: PConlon 24 June 2006
Thank you for your thoughts. I entirely agree that this term, as used by so many people both within Great Britain and beyond, should appear and be properly explained in any thorough encyclopedic work. I was certainly not trying to remove its reference or shut out anyone's point of view, rather just trying to make the article fully represent all views in as balanced and as neutral a way as possible. The offence that the term can cause should be highlighted, precisely to make people aware that this term has a contentuous nature and that its use should be made with sensitivity and caution. I do not believe that easily cited data exists on the numbers of people, within Ireland for example, who are offended with its use - I can only relate my experience that mainstream, moderate society within the Republic of Ireland shys from using the term for the reason above. This is supported by the Irish government's official abandonment of this term. To give a personal recommendation for those non-Irish people interested in fully appreciating this contention, I suggest that they view the recently released film 'The Wind that Shakes the Barley'. This is actually directed by British-born director Ken Loach and is the first UK produced film to win the 'Palme d'Or' at the Cannes Film Festival since 1996. [I have no connection to the producers of this film]. User: PConlon 25 June 2006
The article says: but to end Jacobitism the Scottish clan system was crushed and they became fully British
So what definition of "British" is being used there? Rhion 17:00, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Part of the United Kingdom - 'British' [I think, not sure who wrote that bit!] -- Robdurbar 18:32, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
The following sentence appears inaccurate and pov:British derives originally from Britto or Priteni, the Celtic or pre-Celtic people who populated the islands before the Roman invasion.
Can anyone provide a source which shows that the Priteni populated Ireland? My understanding is that they did not populate anywhere other than Great Britain (and surrounding islands) in the archipelago. Iolar Iontach 03:47, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
How can the British Isles consist of Great Britain, Ireland (usually) and a number of much smaller surrounding islands? Does Ireland float away somewhere else occasionally? The map clearly shows two main islands making up the British Isles — Ireland and Great Britain. I know this caption's wording is trying to avoid the political issues discussed ad nauseam in the article and discussion page, but it doesn't help to use woolly wording in a geographical article. I've changed the wording to make it (a) accurate and (b) as uncontentious as possible. Bazza 18:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Some minor edits to eliminate a few highly irritating mistakes and misconceptions in the Political History section.
From the time of Malcolm III onwards English began to replace Gaelic as the language of the court and the Lowland nobility. I have absolutely no idea who the mysterious 'Germanic peoples' are, who seemingly made an appearance as the ruling class. The Scots people have long been of mixed Celtic and English blood, some parts more Celtic, and other parts more English; but most definitely not 'Germanic' in any shape or form. Speaking a different language did not alter their racial or cultural composition. This artificial classification into 'Germanic' and 'Erse' is very old fashioned, belonging to a ninteenth century school of historical taxonomy.
Very few Scots, Hanoverian or otherwise, embraced the name 'North Britain' for their country, no more than the English adopted 'South Britain' for theirs. The examples mentioned are relics of official reclassification.
To say that the Gaelic-speaking Highlanders 'became fully British' with the end of the clan system is ludicrously incorrect: they had always been British, their political and cultural differences notwithstanding. Rcpaterson 01:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
The lists of islands are divided into sets based around the larger islands in the group. The Ireland set alone is organised around political names (Ulster, Connaught, etc.). This goes against the grain of the rest of the article which does its best to remain apolitical, concentrating on the British Isles as a geographical entity. I propose to remove political names and replace them with compass points or some other non-political names. Bazza 15:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
A large number of Scottish and Welsh people object to the term British - despite requests for citations in this paragraph, I see some people have simply been adding to the number of peoples who object to the term. That's fair enough, but the unwarranted NPOV references to English people is not and, in the absence of the requested citations, I've removed them. Bazza 09:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
You are quite right. I would say, though, whenever and wherever you come across statements like 'a large nunber' of Scottish people think this or say that treat them with a high degree of scepticism. They most often eminate from a voiciferous an unrepresentative minority. I know very few Scots who object to to the term British. Rcpaterson 22:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I have requested a citation for this
Today the term British is used to describe people or things belonging to either the island of Great Britain or the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. This can cause confusion or resentment
The term may cause confusion, especially to people not living the UK or the Republic of Ireland, but it needs to be cited. I think the claim of resentment is more problematic, but even if it is true it needs a citation.
I have also removed this
Many people, particularly those from the Republic of Ireland, find the term British Isles unacceptable and even offensive because of this.
It is unacceptable to say many people (see WP:AWW), how many? is it a minority or majority? What is the number or proportion of people who find it offensive? This needs a hard figure and it needs to be verified, otherwise it is simply the opinion of the person who has made the edit. I think it breaches the neutrality policy and possibly the no original research policy (as it is just a POV, without giving the alternative POV, and it may be based on unpublished material, because it doesn't cite a source). Alun 10:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
The basis for usage of the term is completely flawed logic as it refers to ancient texts etc and precedent for calling them the British isles. Place names reflect current realities, thus we have Istanbul and not Constantinople.
A better example would be the Aegean coast of Turkey and its islands. this whole area was once referred to as the Greek coast and all the islands were Greek islands. since the political landscape has changed and the Turkish state has jurisdiction, the only islands which are now "Greek islands" are those within the jurisdiction of Greece. if you were to rebut by saying that British refers to something more than a political term, but rather than an ethnic or geographical one, then the same argument (or even a better one can be made of Greek). the Greek world once referred to an area far greater than modern or ancient Greece (e.g. southern Italy, Sicily, turkey, Armenia etc) and many of the people residing in those parts of turkey which were formerly designated "Greek" are ethnically and linguistically Greek but live in the state of turkey, and therefore the islands and coast are Turkish.
Thus, you could not refer to the island of Ireland as British. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User talk:62.77.181.16 ( talk • contribs)
Edit summary by PConlon reads:
This article should maintain an inoffensive, neutral stance while remaining factual. It is important that the contentious nature of the term is highlighted, so that users of the term may avoid innocently and unwittingly giving offence
There is no requirement on Wikipedia for articles to remain inoffensive, they should simply be neutral. Neutrality is achieved by including all points of view without prejudice (except for tiny minority points of view). I refer you to the neutral point of view policy. There's also no requirement for information to be factual, this is an encyclopedia, so it's OK to include what people believe, as long as it's referenced and presented neutrally. Please leave a message on the talk page if you make significant edits to an article, giving your reasons for doing so, this will help in discussions about how to improve the article. It's also a good idea to try to find some citations to support your edits. All the best. Alun 17:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, neutrality is crucial and all views should be appropriately accommodated. I have now left a message on this talk page (above). Many thanks & best regards. User:PConlon
It seems that there is some feeling that the term British Isles is unacceptable to some editors. In order to get some sort of consensus I suggest we try to formulate a few basic guidelines. At the start of the article I have included several of the terms used to describe the archipelago, including the British Isles, after all this is an encyclopedia, so we cannot dispense with the term altogether. I suggest that the region be simply called the archipelago in the article after this. This way none of the various terms are given any greater weight by the article. A more extreme solution would be to move the article to one of the alternative names (such as the North-West European Archipelago), but still include the alternative names (such as the British Isles) in the introduction to the article. As this is a geographical article and not a political one, it should matter little IMHO what the article is called, or what terms are used in it, as long as we can get a consensus on the terminology used. There is far too much politics being played here. I have removed the various references to the term British Isles being contentious, if this claim needs to be made at all, then it only needs to be made once, and it needs a source. Alun 05:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Ok, well it looks like the current form of words is not disputed. All the same it is essential to find some sort of citation to back up te claim that British Isles is offensive in the Republic of Ireland. Alun 11:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
An interesting exchange. I would just like to add there are times when the pursuit of consensus is both pointless and dangerous. Will Lilliput and Blefuscu ever settle their differences over the correct way to eat an egg? Just imagine trying to invent a name for Russia that would satisfy all of its varied ethnic groups! British Isles it is and British Isles it will always remain. Rcpaterson 23:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
(UTC)
I believe in truth: I believe that informed debate has to be based on hard empirical evidence, not the pursuit of some silly chimera. There are some times when 'consensus' is just another name for cant and mediocrity. Is a thing 'true' because most people say it is true? What would be the 'consensus' on the Jewish question in Nazi Germany? What is the contemporary North Korean consensus on Kim Jong Il? Any argument has to be based on a core of fact, otherwise one is in danger of sinking into a bog of hopeless relativism, where one position is as good as another. I do not care how many weasel definitions like 'archipelago' are taken into account: in the end the thousand islands or more comes back to one collective British Isles; and it is known by this name to non-British people throughout the world. Much of what you have written above is simply meretricious; and the suggestion that neologisms like 'North-West European Archipelago' be substituted for British Isles is Voltarian in its absurdity. Please try to think clearly. Might I suggest that you read Henrik Ibsen's Enemy of the People? That might get you to reflect on the real difference between truth and consensus. Rcpaterson 07:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Some of you discussed the point of whether or not the term "British Isles" is considered contentious by the Irish, but no one has corrected the spelling of the word in the article. It currently reads "contentuous." Should be, contentious. Thanks.
The article says in the opening line "(also occasionally referred to as the Anglo-Celtic Isles, the British & Irish Isles, the Islands of the North Atlantic, and the North-West European Archipelago)" - er, where? by whom? are these occasional references "notable"? (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notable ) ? If they have been used in some political document or other, let's cite this, otherwise we might as well put in that Mrs J. Brainworthy of Bideford in Devon once referred to them as "Cecil".--
feline1
14:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
This article's very title just reeks of British jingoism and irredentism towards Ireland and the views of Irish people. Ireland is a "British Isle" to the British and their heavingly subsidised "compatriots" in the north-east of Ireland as they strive to delude themselves further regarding the decline of Britain in the past century. This has everything to do with their wounded pride and, knowing that the term is resisted in Ireland, their anti-Irishness. The term is not used by the Irish, a point which is incessantly made here. I have also never heard a British government minister use the term and in the GFA of 1998 the term 'Council of the Isles' is used. Being an agreement based upon respect, "British Isles" appears nowhere. That is an international agreement signed by the two governments. My question therefore is: why is Wikipedia institutionalising British prejudices and denial of the political independence of most of Ireland from British rule? Given our history at the hands of the British, and the first recorded use of the term "British Isles" in the seventeenth century when Britain was trying to expand its rule in Ireland, you don't have to be the most intellectually robust to know that "geographic" is the very very last thing that the expression "British Isles" really is. So spare us the insult. Thank you. 193.1.172.138 16:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, the occupied Six Counties is used in Britain [2], as my cited source proves. Therefore, you must be a vocal, politicised minority pushing your political agenda with your "Northern Ireland" nonsense. 193.1.172.163 22:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I see you are over on the Malvinas pages pushing your " Falkland Islands" line too and resisting 'Islas Malvinas' being on the page introduction, as it has been until this very week. Now, there is proof of the political agenda of the "British Isles" brigade. Your comments there are also very indicative of the type of fanatical British mentality we are up against. Britain will never be enough. Your Empire is over. Get used to it. 193.1.172.163 22:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
"Harold Wilson made an offer to the Irish government that should he ever get back into power (which he did, of course), he would hand Northern Ireland over to the Republic, with the very reasonable stipultation that, as a sop to the loyalists in the North, the Republic should simply rejoin the Commonwealth (whilst still remaining a republic)? The Irish ministers were appalled at the suggestion, knowing that they simply didn't have the resources to police it, and the inevitable result would be a bloodbath."
The Republic's objection, and I think you must know this Tharkun, was the suggestion that Ireland would have to rejoin the commonwealth.-- Salvador Allende 21:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Refer to this which the Irish Examiner decided to included on its editorial page. http://archives.tcm.ie/irishexaminer/1998/07/01/opinion.htm 213.202.177.107 13:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Don't laugh, this is actually true. The town where I live has a very large Irish population, and I am very friendly with many of them (yep, this really is a "some of my best friends are Irish" argument!). Over the years we have had many political, historical, and cultural discussions, and not once have any of them ever objected to the term British Isles. So you see, for every anecdotal Irish opinion that can be produced, I can produce an equal and opposite Irish opinion. That's why anecdotal evidence is so worthless. TharkunColl 16:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually, your sources are worthless above. All you did was use an Irish govt search engine. The links it threw up aren't Irish government sources. Discover Northern Ireland is a UK source. The only one that is actually an Irish state one, OSI, uses 'Ireland and the BI' which is standard state language. It presumes that Ireland is not part of the BI hence it quotes it separately alongside BI. I do wish people would stop using search engines as proof of anything. Most of what is on the net is bullshit. Please quote professional sources, not net rubbish.
FearÉIREANN
\
(caint)
15:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Various editors including myself have been trying to keep the terminology used there consistent with this British Isles article, however are encountering repeated vandalism from anonymous user at 62.77.181.11 . Any editorial assistence would be appreciated.-- feline1 13:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
The reference being used ( http://archives.tcm.ie/irishexaminer/1998/07/01/opinion.htm) to support the use of the other terms seems against the purpose to me. It reads to me that the writer of the article is actually against using any name other than British Isles and is actually deriding those who suggest alternate names or think that the geographical term is inappropriate. The article uses none of the terms that some people seem to be using it to support the idea of other names and seems to state that the population of the Republic of Ireland (this is the opinion in the letter, not my opinion) should mature to separate political history from geography. It seems odd to me that this letter is being used (and it is only a letter to an editor and thus not a source of verification under Wikipedia guidelines anyway) to put forward that for the population of the Republic of Ireland that the term British Isles is actually quite acceptable and doesn't carry political baggage. Ben W Bell talk 17:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
I have changed the opening line from '...are...' to '...is a term traditionally used to describe...' as it seems to me - and I hope to most objective people - that this is as factual as we can get with a general consensus! To say 'are' is to deny that there is any significant dispute over the term, which is clearly not correct. I have also removed the reference to 'Irish Nationalists', as this term only describes Republicans OUTSIDE the Irish Republic. A citizen of the Irish Republic isn't a 'Nationalist'; he/she is a citizen of Ireland/the Irish Republic! To include the significant (and often bitter) contention over the 'British Isles' term in Northern Ireland (not part of the Republic), I have just left 'Ireland' in as a whole. User: PConlon, 15:54, 4 July 2006.
If you are unhappy with my form of words then you should see this edit by User:Jtdirl, this makes outrageous claims that the sorce really does not support. It also uses a footnote as a source that includes claims made later in the article regarding Mikhail Gorbachev and Nancy Reagan that have never been verified. So the edit uses unverified material from the article to try to verify other material in the article, unbelievable. Alun 16:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't know which is more laughable: your arrogance or your ignorance. Gorbachev on a visit to Ireland asked then taoiseach Charles Haughey how come Ireland had a president when the Queen was head of state. Haughey told him that the Queen was not head of state. His response, as recorded in biographies and in contemporary newspaper reports, was "So why then are you in the British Isles?" Haughey told him bluntly that Ireland isn't. Nancy Reagan made a similar fax pas in 1984, again blaming the confusion on the term British Isles. The term is now banned from Irish school books and from Irish state publications and the Irish state makes it quite clear that Ireland is not part of the British Isles. Sir John Biggs-Davison, a Tory MP recommended an alternative term, Islands of the North Atlantic which is now used widely in some contexts. Another alternative, Anglo-Celtic Isles is now used increasingly in academia. You can crusade all you want to push the myth that the British Isles is universally used. The fact is it isn't. Ireland doesn't use it. Scottish Nationalists avoid using it. Welsh Nationalists want it dropped. It is a controversial term which even Blair's government is fazing out, viewing it as outdated and offensive to many throughout the so-called British Isles.
FearÉIREANN
\
(caint)
17:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Ah, another COMPLETELY non-partisan comment from someone with no political leanings at all. /rollseyes/ If the term "British Isles" is not commonly used around the word, how come the president of the USSSR was using it? and the wife of the US president? You just gave two examples of it being used! The fact that these two people were farcically ignorant of what the term they were using MEANT is all the more reason for having a good wikipedia article about it. The article is primarily about what the term MEANS - a geographical term. -- feline1 17:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Laughable paranoia. Your comment says more about you than anyone else. According to [ [7]]CAIN, which is not Nationalist
'British Isles' This was a term used to refer to the group of islands off the north-west coast of Europe comprising Britain, Ireland, and adjacent smaller islands. The term is still widely used in Northern Ireland and Britain. With the independence of the Republic of Ireland the term is no longer strictly accurate and is considered derogatory by some. A more correct term would be the 'British and Irish Isles'.
"British and Irish Isles", "Anglo-Celtic Isles" or "Islands of the North Atlantic" have been used at various times by the BBC, ABC, the Prince of Wales, the US State Department, the Foreign Ministry of the Federal Republic of Germany, Pope John Paul II, academics like Norman Davies, Unionists like Sir John Biggs-Davison, and many others. So much for your wacky theory about it all being some sort of Nationalist conspiracy. The only people doing any censoring are people like you who don't like the fact that there are problems with the so-called "British Isles" being used as the supposedly definitive name of the geopolitical area.
FearÉIREANN
\
(caint)
19:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Maybe, while you are at it, you could provide verification for the claim that "British Isles" is exclusively a geographic term with no political meaning applied to it.
FearÉIREANN
\
(caint)
19:26, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
User:Pconlon has changed most instances of British Isles to archipelago or other neutral terms. On the whole it has not affected the flow of the article, apart from the caption for the satellite photo which is now not fully descriptive. I think it should be and have restored the British Isles wording for that part of the article only. Bazza 18:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Bazza, how about inserting 'the island group traditionally known as' into that caption? I think this wording is more neutral. Haven't made any change...would be interested in your thoughts. Best regards. User PConlon, 22:40, 4 July 2006
The term "archipelago" is never used to refer to the British Isles. At has a wholly different conotation. I have rephrased the first line accordingly. TharkunColl 22:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
To suggest that the term British Isles does not apply to the Republic of Ireland amounts to historical revisionism. The people of these islands were known as British (though in prior form) and the islands themselves as the British Isles (again in prior linguistic form) for around a couple of thousand years. That a nation state has existed for the last thousand years is a separate issue and one that I believe confuses many people with regard to this term. One user pointed out that the people of the Republic of Ireland should perhaps be annoyed by the misappropriation of the term British Isles, rather than annoyed or "offended" by its use today. This misappropriation exists mostly amongst some Irish nationalists, who have confused the nationality of a people with the ancient label given to all the people of these islands. Thus it is not offence, but rather confusion and misunderstanding that appears to have ensued. -- Mal 16:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Even when the UK included all of Ireland. The Isle of Man was never part of the UK. TharkunColl 23:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
The intro of the article now reads like some narco-syndicalist diatribe about how offensive the term is, and is completely out-of-proportion to the rest of the article, much of which just deals straightforwardly with geography. The is a section in the article dedicated to the terms "controversial" nature, but the bloody intro now has more material about that than the subsection! It would be nice is some responsible editors who were more interested in a good article that would make sense to a worldwide audience, rather than indulging in asinine POV bickering which most people outside the British Isle will think is ridiculous, could re-edit the material into a better shape.-- feline1 09:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
To quote what I said earlier on this talk page: The term is used on the official Irish government website no less. Here's an example, from a speech made by Síle de Valera, Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands, on 31/3/2002, when opening the Clare Drama Festival in Scarriff Community College:
"I want to welcome you all to this the 55th Clare Drama Festival. A celebration of the great and good of Irish theatre mixed with the support and enthusiasm of the local community. I have been well informed that although there may be older festivals, none in the British Isles can boast 54 in a row. Until the year 2000 Clare Drama Festival enjoyed an unbroken run of 54 years and although last year was cancelled due to the Foot and Mouth scare this year the festival is back on track and greeted with even more excitement because of the absence. This year the Festival will run for eight nights, from tonight right through to next Sunday, the seventh of April." [8]
If a government figure as concerned with Irish arts and heritage as the Minister for Arts and Heritage can use it without batting an eyelid, then what's all the fuss about? TharkunColl 10:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I've been contributing to the physical geography aspects of this article in the past, but can do nothing to improve it at the moment because of the bickering and unilateral editing being done on the introduction. I expect I'm not the only one in this boat. Before replacing entire swathes of text with their own point of view, users might care to examine this talk page and previous versions of the article first — they would then see that there have been discussions and agreements on how best to accommodate the various views. My own suggestion for bringing back some normality is that (a) this article should remain British Isles as that is a widely recognised term for those not familiar with the political niceties involved; (b) the introduction should be just that — a short description of what follows; (c) that this article be confined to facts on geography and history; (d) the article links to a new article on British Isles terminology conflict or whatever name people choose so that the discussion on the contention can go on in detail elsewhere (other articles suffering the same sort of conflict could also link to it); and (e) that new articles of alternative names are created which redirect to this one. That way Wikipedia can have the best of both worlds — a fine article on the set of islands some of us live on and a well-researched article on why its most common name is a contentious issue. I hope to get some considered feedback on this, rather than the down-your-throat reactions there have been to some other postings on this page. Bazza 11:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
In my opinion the dispute should be mentioned in a proportionate way, and as a first step I've edited the intro to reflect this. As the size of the article may be getting out of hand there's a case for a main article covering the controversy, but in my view there should still be a mention of it in the intro and a (brief) section which would link to such a main article. .. dave souza, talk 11:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately the likes of Souza and in particular TharkunColl don't seem to grasp that their edits are factually wrong. But then TharkunColl's contributions are of the sort where else he deletes any mention of the fact that the biggest lake in Ireland is in Ireland. He has an "issue" about Ireland.
FearÉIREANN
\
(caint)
12:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
It is a fair point. It is however important to mention in the main article that there are divisive issues. I get the impression here that some users (and they seem to edit a series of articles to delete or downplay mentions of Ireland) want any mention of problems to be sidelined in a secondary article rather than in the main one, so that when readers look up British Isles they see an article that whitewashes any difficulties. We wouldn't, for example, sideline all criticism of George Bush to a separate article and leave only positive comments in the main Bush article. The issue is more than mere terminology. It is something as basic as just what are the British Isles?. Contrary to some people's edits here, there is no agreement on what the islands are (exclusively geographic, geopolitical, historic, etc) much less who is in and who is out. Past edits here in the last few months did a good (though false) job of pretending that there are no disputes over what the term means and who it covers. Eventually the agenda-pushing here got too much and users who had avoided this article felt they had no choice but to intervene to tone down the rampant bias and agenda-pushing of some users, notably the likes of TharkunCall, whose antics elsewhere has seen him try to delete the fact that the biggest lake on the island of Ireland is . . . um on the island of Ireland (true to form he wanted it stated simply that it was on the British Isles!!!) and try to rearrange the article on Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, again to push his personal agenda. (His edits on both were reverted by other people.)
The basic problem is that while
Alternative names for Northern Ireland could work because there was no dispute over what Northern Ireland was, merely over its name, on
British Isles the dispute is not over name alone, but over what is it? Who is in it? Who isn't? Those questions can't be left out of the main question, however much some individuals, for their own agenda reasons, might wish them to be.
FearÉIREANN
\
(caint)
13:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
While purists like to claim the term is purely geographic few accept that viewpoint (the fact that this article contains a "history" section itself shows that the geographic definition is bunkum — a review of mentions of "British Isles" even in google searches shows that only in a tiny minority of cases is it used exclusively geographically).
Any article here as a result has to make the point that the term has many resonances beyond geography which many others, for historic reasons, are uncomfortable with, and which some, notably the Irish, disassociate themselves from the any link with the term "British Isles" over. The problem with what to call the islands was shown when a history of the islands found that it itself could not use the name "British Isles" because of the offence such a term would cause in Ireland and parts of Scotland. (The book was simply called The Isles as a result.) As far as the Irish are concerned, they are not part of the British Isles and have not been for nearly a century. As far as Scottish nationalists are concerned, they are part of the isles but want nothing to do with the term British Isles.
FearÉIREANN
\
(caint)
14:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I'd just like to add a further rebuttal to some of the comments expressed by User Feline1; it is simply unsupportable to argue that the term discussed here is purely geographical/geological in nature - and can be reasonably & fairly presented in any thorough encyclopedic work without clear reference to its politically contentious nature (which is clearly far, far more significant than User Feline1 understands). The 'NO DISPUTE BY ANYONE EXCEPT YOURSELF' comment made by Feline1 in answer to my good colleague deserves to be picked out and held up for its remarkable disconnection with reality. It is good to see that good verifiable sources - including the Taoiseach (Prime Minister) of the Irish Republic himself - have now been included in the article, showing that in all official Irish government documents the term 'British Isles' is actively avoided in any context. User PConlon 18:47, 5 July 2006
Right so help me god, I have followed what appears to be the consensus here, and pruned the
British Isles article to be just about geography and history. ALL the other stuff about the NAME "British Isles", both its origins and its current politically contentious nature, have been transferred to
British Isles (terminology).... that article will now need a thorough editing to make all the new material sit properly, and indeed may well require splitting since there is so bloody MUCH of it!! I'm sure many of you will enjoy working away at it. Meanwhile this
British Isles article can return to a sleepy innocence about mountains, rivers, lakes, seabirds, and who's been murdering whom for the last 2 milleniua. Good night and good luck--
feline1
19:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, ain't going to work...any article on the 'British Isles' will have to cover EVERYTHING about the term (in one single, complete article). You can't just pick and choose aspects of something you like and ignore the rest Feline1. Separate sections on 'other aspects' aren't an acceptable solution. Politics and geography are inescapably intertwined you see. The article as I see it now needs further revision and I invite all other Irish Wikipedia users to join me in ensuring that it is complete and factual. User: PConlon, 21:58, 5 July 2006
FearÉIREANN: "You STILL don't get it. There isn't even agreement about what the Isles are and what it contains."
Just to inform you loosely, the British Isles includes the two main islands Britain and Ireland and their smaller, neighbouring islands.
That one individual was ignorant of the fact is not relevant, no matter what his status or position was.
"Ireland believes it isn't part of it."
I beg to differ. Being Irish myself. -- Mal 21:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Just because a number of people, whether that number be large or small, object to, or find offence at, any particular phrase, object or idea, that doesn't mean that phrase, object or idea doesn't exist. (see Historical revisionism section above). -- Mal 21:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Shtove. Feline1, it is not mature, rational behaviour to label as 'nonsense' anything you don't like or agree with. I think you are discrediting yourself by desperately trying to work the unworkable - your vehemence of editing implies a hidden (perhaps subconscious) political motivation...do you really want us all to believe that you are doing this entirely as an act of geographical purism?! I'm new to Wikipedia disputes and am not sure how exactly (and efficiently) do go about formally requesting mediation. Could a more experienced user please complete the request for mediation? You would be doing us all a great service. Best regards to all open-minded and well meaning Wikipedia contributors. User: PConlon 22:43, 5 July 2006
Thanks Dave, seemed like a good idea at the time!!:O) I would add that there's been a lot of deletion on both sides of this dispute. Hey FearÉIREANN, fire me an e-mail when you get a chance. Cheers! User PConlon 23:02, 5 July 2006
Use here:
The article should point out that this is a traditional name. It should point out where it comes from; the British dominance of the islands (hence their not being called, for example, the Celtic Isles). It should point out modern usage (the same as always in the UK, whereas in Ireland it is mostly avoided). If there is a modern British legal definition, include that too, but clearly state that is what it is. It would be interesting to note on usage by other nations (which undoubtedly take their cue from Britain and use a direct translation still today to refer to Great Britain, Ireland, and possibly surrounding islands collectively).
Probably the reasoning behind Irish attitudes to the term should be explained, but they are rather self-explanatory really. A simple link to History of Ireland would provide that information.
Use in other articles:
The term British Isles is a remnant of British Imperialism and London-based dominance over the native cultures of these islands, whether in Scotland, Wales, Ireland, Cornwall or parts of England itself. I am not against the term being used, it is the traditional label for the islands around Britain and Ireland (and including both Great Britain and Ireland), but it should not be used in preference to all others. Its use on Wikipedia should be only where necessary, and with conscious reference to its biased point of view.
zoney ♣ talk 15:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
The OED may be reputable, but it is not always reliable. The claim that it is purely a geographic term is simplistic nonsense. It is like saying that because Iran elects a president, then Iran is a democracy. Or because a supreme court is supposed to interpret a law objectively, therefore they always do so. No lawyer believes that. The term may theoretically be geographic, but few people on the planet use it that way. It is used politically, culturally, socially, ethnically, and in a host of other ways. Dictionaries can afford to be simplistic in their analyses, not least because there is a limit to what they can include. Encyclopaedias can't be.
FearÉIREANN
\
(caint)
18:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Wow, I go away for a month and this page degenerates into a big edit war! For what it's worth, my feeling is that we should follow the solution that appears to have been reached HOWEVER, I think a small section - with a Main article link to British Isles Terminology - would complete the solution, and avoid all accusations of sidelinging the issue, whilst allowing this page to do its job.
Oh and for what it's worth - as has been discussed before, in respect to IONA I think, there are no politically neutral geographical terms I'm afraid. -- Robdurbar 20:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Neither two are acceptable in the opening.
FearÉIREANN
\
(caint)
22:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
User:Feline1 posted the following note, which probably should've been posted on this talk page, on my user talk page: [9] Dumping of the content on the usage of the term in a fork entry does not resolve the concerns that Jtdirl has carefully laid out on this talk page. If Feline1 and the other users feel compelled to shorten the content on the usage, I suggest carefully working out a compromise with Jtdirl on this talk page, without the spurious allegations that he is promoting some sort of Irish nationalist agenda. Jtdirl's nationality has nothing to do with the concerns he is laying out on this page. (Nor do my concerns with the issues he has laid out. By the way, I happen to be another historian, and I have no connection to Ireland.) 172 | Talk 21:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
The problem, Rob, is that the issue isn't terminology. It is more fundamental. What is covered by the terminology, is the issue. And that has to be addressed on the page on the topic. It cannot be forked off to somewhere else. Name disputes can be. Content disputes, by their very nature, can't, because content concerns the content of the main page.
FearÉIREANN
\
(caint)
22:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I've been reverted three times in just about a hour. Feline1's dismemberment of the article is now the current version. [10] I can no longer revert it myself, given the 3RR. 172 | Talk 22:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Neither two are acceptable in the opening.
FearÉIREANN
\
(caint)
22:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Not if that version also claims the term is purely geographic and states as fact that Ireland is in the British Isles. Both of those are highly questionable statements that can't be stated as fact.
FearÉIREANN
\
(caint)
22:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
How do we do this mediation thing then? I followed the link to the mediation page but there was nothing there relating to the British Isles article - do we have to fill it in ourselves? I am confused! -- feline1 22:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
There are a number of joint British-Irish scientific organisations which use the British Isles in their traditional sense to include the whole archipelago as an ecological / biogeographical unit (e.g. the Botanical Society of the British Isles) - this ought to be mentioned - MPF 22:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I suggest the following as the opening paragraph in the article itself:
This article should have a self-contained section concerning the name itself, probably as the first section (the article title is after all "British Isles"), just one or two paragraphs, with a "main article" link to British Isles (terminology).
As there is no commonly used alternative name for the entire group of islands, I think it is fair enough that the article remain under this title, as long as the level of introduction suggested above is included.
zoney ♣ talk 23:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
The problem is, Zoney, as has been repeated ad nausaum, your version states as fact things that are a matter of opinion, with different sources saying different things, as the article makes clear.
FearÉIREANN
\
(caint)
23:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Looking at it fresh after a few weeks away, it seems to me that Jtdirl's phasing is the most NPOV. Zoney's and Feline1's versions are equally PoV. So I've reverted. -- Red King 23:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks guys, I deliberately didn't say that Ireland is or is not in the British Isles, simply because it is an issue where there are different viewpoints and we have to reflect them, not state categorically one side or the other. Similarly I did not say that it was not a geographic term, or that it is. I said that it may have begun that way and then developed other meanings because to a significant degree the British Isles in physical terms were coterminus with the then United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Because there are so many ifs about the whole issue the article cannot under NPOV state something categorically when it is an issue of debate, without breaching NPOV. The earlier versions, by stating categorically that Ireland was in the BI, and that it was purely a geographic term, breached NPOV because it stated as fact something that is opinion, not proven fact. That is the heart of the issue.
FearÉIREANN
\
(caint)
00:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
As an admin I have blocked Feline1 for 24 hours. I would not normally have done so, having been a party to the edit war. As with normal procedure a complaint over his breach of 3RR had been registered. Normally users at that point cease edit warring. Before other admins could intervene Feline1 abused his position by engaging in 5 reverts. In the circumstances immediate action was needed. As no other admin was available at the time I had to act. I have notified admins at
WP:ANI and asked them to review the block. Where admins in edit wars have to intervene, often what happens is that another admin will unblock the user and then impose their own block. As I have said, in the absence of another admin to take immediate action against a user who had climbed to 5 reverts, was taunting other others that they could not go beyond 3, and given the fact that an independent party had reverted Feline's last revert, I felt I had no option but to intervene as an admin. I'm putting it on record here and elsewhere so that users know what happened.
FearÉIREANN
\
(caint)
23:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
It was a last resort when no other admin was available despite requests and he was on his fifth revert and indicating that he was going to keep doing so, taunting other users that they could only do three while he could keep getting away with doing it again and again. I alerted admins at the two relevant pages so that they could assess it independently and if they saw fit unblock him, shorten the block (I gave him the standard 24 hour block for breaching 3RR) or lengthen it. It is rare that these situations happen, but they sometimes do where immediate action is needed and no admin can be found at that moment to do it. I made sure it was all above board (hence listing it here, at
WP:ANI and on the 3RR page). The feedback there was that in the circumstances the block was correct and not an abuse of process. I had already reverted three times but if I hadn't I wouldn't have taken any more role in reverting the page until the block had been independently assessed by another admin. I also only did so once another third party had intervened to revert his edit. If there had been an alternative then I would have gone for it. In the absence of another admin available I did contact Feline1, point out that he had breached 3RR and advised him to revert his last reversion to avoid a block by an admin. (At that stage I never expected it would fall to me to enforce it.) His response was dismissive. Instead he just kept reverting, despite an explicit warning that breaching 3RR automatically would produce a block. Usually when a user breaches 3RR they either revert their last reversion, or stop editing. It is very rare for someone to be so arrogant as to keep reverting over and over having exceeded the 3RR. At that stage someone had to block him immediately and unfortunately, despite his behaviour having been reported, no-one was available to deal with it. Someone had to, and it fell to me as an admin.
FearÉIREANN
\
(caint)
02:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
May I use an illustrative example to make my point…Imagine, if you will, the ludicrousness of an article about Adolf Hitler that relates only to how he was big in politics in the 1930s-40s, made great contributions to moustache culture, had considerable talent as an architectural artist and had a remarkable ability to get a party going. Then having a separate, link-connected article entitled ‘Adolf Hitler (Nasty Aspects)’, covering the repression of German intellectuals, World War 2 and the Holocaust. Thankfully, the 'Adolf Hitler' Wikipedia page is complete and thorough in covering all these aspects (and more). I would like to make the argument that the ‘British Isles’ article should remain a single article, thoroughly presenting all aspects of the term – geological, geographic, cultural, political, historical… I see attempts to compartmentalise inescapably intertwined aspects in separate pages causing even greater conflict among contributors than a single, complete article. Personal note: Some rash things have been said and done in this recent dispute that aren’t constructive and I would like to ask everyone (including myself) to pause for breath and remember what this remarkable website we are contributing to is all about – the thorough explanation of any term that a user wishes to increase their knowledge on. If terms have political ramifications, these should be fully and sensitively included in the article. Enthusiastic re-enactments of past battles however should just be left to members of historical societies who like to get all dressed up and run around a field at weekends! Lighten up everyone and have a pleasant weekend wherever you are. User PConlon, 13:17, 6 July 2006
Two separate articles make sense - one would be about the actual British Isles, and the other would be about the term British Isles. And just because it's a geographical region, doesn't mean it doesn't have a history. To separate that history into two arbitrarily defined regions would distort the nature of the relationship between the islands, which have seen large movements of people, culture, and ideas between them throughout history and going right back to the Neolithic. This needs to be stated. TharkunColl 15:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
We could even call it European Isles! -- Red King 16:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
This problems we have had are not unique to this article. If you look at other articles about geographic regions, many (like Scandinavia, Central Europe, Midwestern United States, South Asia, Middle East) spend a lot of time discussing difficulties of definition and usage of terminology. That said, there is sense in moving general information about physical geography (geology, climate, biology) from Great Britain and Ireland to here, but little point in simply duplicating (or triplicating) information. As regards human geography and history, anything more than a cursory overview could be seen as POV that "Britain and Ireland are very similar". Copious linking to other articles would be less contentious than putting more detail here, without compromising the usefulness of this article. There is also too much overlap between Britain, British, British Isles and British Isles terminology; I suggest the first two are merged, the fourth tidied and a new British Isles name controversy be split out of the relevant bits.
On a related note, consider if you will the Category:British Isles; there are almost no articles directly contained within it; most are within subcats specific to Ireland, Great Britain et al; many of those that are there should be within a subcat. (The same is true of Category:Scandinavia, for one.) Very interestingly, there is currently no Category:Great Britain. There is a Category:History of Britain; I have no idea to what extent this is intended to encompass Ireland. In short, this article is part of a wider problem. jnestorius( talk) 17:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
<Just a thought> is someone going to start campaigning to have Postman Pat moved to Pàdraig Post since Postman is sexist and politically incorrect? .. dave souza, talk 19:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
While most users on both sides of the argument here have shown themselves willing to discuss issues and try to work to achieve a consensus that reflects all viewpoints, TharkunColl and Dave souza seem intent on doctoring the article to force their personal POV as if it was fact. In this edit TharkunColl, as before, sought to hide the fact that he was deleting any neutral working and footnotes, to push his own widely disputed claim that the Republic of Ireland is part of the British Isles (the wording that had been there was deliberately worded to avoid saying that it was, or wasn't, merely that it is a controversial issue of debate), and to push his claim that British Isles is exclusively a geographic term, a demonstrably false claim. Other users, not noticing his careful gutting of the opening, made genuine efforts to clean up what they thought was the NPOV paragraph. When TharkunColl's dodgy edit was corrected, souza, true to form, reinserted it, claiming that the neutrally agreed version was added in sneakily.
Since TharkunColl and souza seem to have missed it, it was agreed to use that opening because it was seen as the more NPOV. But instead of constructive debate, TharkunColl seems to want simply to delete anything that does not reflect his opinion, and remove any footnotes that don't push his agenda, to insert a set of claims that are widely disputed.
FearÉIREANN
\
(caint)
22:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
A lie. You removed a statement that the issue of whether Ireland is or is not in the BI is a matter of controversy. You removed a statement that the BI originally was a geographic term, but is seen by some as having political, historical and cultural meanings because for much of the last two centuries the BI and the UK of GB and I were largely coterminus. You deliberately removed qualifications and explanations and replaced them with your own, widely disputed, bold assertions. It would be nice if you had the decency to tell the truth about your edit, rather than lie about it.
FearÉIREANN
\
(caint)
22:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Jtdirl/FearÉIREANN, you are in clear breach of Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:Assume good faith here. Regrettably I must ask you to moderate your language in future. Regarding your insulting suggestion about buying a dictionary and looking up the meaning of the word neutral, I would have hoped that you would realise that Wikipedia:Neutral point of view sets the standard. For the record, your reversion with the comment (remove yet more sneaked in POVing by TharkunColl.) removed the efforts of several editors in what I thought was a promising development to a more neutral opening. I changed it back with a comment about your sneaky revert for which I apologise: neither your edit nor TharkunColl's should have been described in this way. You then reverted it again with the comment (rv to accepted version - removing footnotes and adding in propaganda is vandalism), removing a footnote and thus vandalising the article by your own standards. I accepted the point and worked on a version keeping all footnotes which I posted at almost the same time as you posted this section on the talk page. I am glad to see that editing to improve the balance of this article has continued, and hope that you can see the need to avoid giving undue weight to one viewpoint. .. dave souza, talk 19:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
By a judiscious use of anonymous sockpuppets you have forced me to dely any further reversion. But rest assured I shall. This article is not a soapbox for political agendas. TharkunColl 22:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
The current version claims that the term only acquired cultural and political meanings because of the UK - where is the evidence for this? And where is the evidence that the Irish rejected the term in 1922? Some of them still use it today! TharkunColl 22:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
For a statement that the term is avoided by institutions in Ireland, the footnote gives two bodies that do use it (RNLI and Irish Lights).
The claim is made that the term only aqcuired cultural meanings because of the UK before 1922 - no evidence is given for this at all.
The Lloyd George statement is, at best, ambiguous - "propinquity", a rare word, has connotations of kinship that go beyond mere proximity. His statement could easily be read to imply that Ireland is indeed in the British Isles. It has no worth as evidence. TharkunColl 23:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Wrong on every point. The RNLI and the Irish Lights are British institutions that were not passed over to the Irish Free State due to a technical error in 1922. They are paid for by the Irish taxpayer and are referred to, as were other institutions pre-1922, as British Isles institutions.
Your second point suggests you don't know your history.
Propinquity has a clear dictionary meaning. It would not be used if Lloyd George thought Ireland was part of the British Isles. It has every worth as evidence. Your claim to the contrary just shows how poor your research skills and judgement are. The footnote is directly relevant and will be re-inserted, as will everything else, as often as necessary.
The only bias is your inability to recognise that, as the rest of the planet but you seems to grasp, the British Isles is not merely a geographic term, and the claim that Ireland is in the British Isles is a matter of considerable controversy. As a result to state categorically that the term only has a geographic meaning, and that Ireland definitely is in the BI, is a falsehood, a deliberate mispresentation to push your personal agenda. It will be removed and an NPOV statement placed there, as often as necessary. If that means inserting it daily for the next week, month or year, various users will do that. Dodgy POV-pushing about the term's meaning and Ireland's status cannot be allowed to stand under NPOV rules and will not be. Various users, from Ireland, Britain, the US and elsewhere will be correcting any false claims such as those added in, every time they are added in.
FearÉIREANN
\
(caint)
23:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Jtdirl/FearÉIREANN, your assertion that others "state categorically that the term only has a geographic meaning" is a straw man, and seems to arise from an inability to realise that "widely" does not mean "universally". However, your stated intention to edit war is noted. .. dave souza, talk 20:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Dear all, I have strong concerns about User:Jtdirl's conduct & impartiality as an WP:ADMIN in this " Edit war". With many of his comments to other editors (e.g. calling their edits " vandalism", talk contributions "lies", "net rubbish", "bullshit", "laughable", "deluded", "wacky", accused them of "arrogance", "ignorance"... etc etc), I feel he is paying scant regard to wikipedia policies such as WP:CIVIL, WP:ATTACK and WP:FAITH.
I also have strong concerns about the current state of this British Isles article and User:Jtdirl's contribution as an editor. I feel he is paying scant regard to wiki guidelines such as WP:CON and the WP:NPOV policy. My reading of this talk page is that most editors feel that (i) "British Isles" is the most appropriate title for the article in line with WP:NAME, (ii) the article is currently out-of-balance and should focus more on geography and history (iii) some much briefer mention of the contentious nature of the name "British Isles" should be present (my own editorial attempt at this was an italicised disclaimer at the top), but that the bulk of this material is better handled by the British Isles terminology article (which currently contains duplicates of all that stuff). User:Jtdirl is continuing to revert edits which seek to achieve particularly the latter.
The issue of the neutral point of view and in particular WP:NPOV#Undue weight have been raised by editors above, although ignored by User:Jtdirl. I believe the WP:NPOV#Undue weight aspect is the key to this whole edit war (it is certainly what piqued my personal involvement). Currently most of the article intro and 3 more entire sections are devoted to the "naming dispute" aspect. Since the present naming dispute is a Meta-issue, and will not change the height of Mt Snowdon or the length of the river Shannon by one inch, or affect the events of history stretching back 2 millenia into the past, I feel this meta-issue can be usefully dealt with largely by British Isles terminology. I do not think there is much disagreement that the term "British Isles" is contentious amoung those with what might be very broadly described under an Irish Nationalist political POV (which probably includes by far the greater part of people on the island of Ireland, and also amoungst other nationalist groups in the UK (Scots, Welsh, Cornish...). However with the population of the United Kingdom at just under 60 million, Republic of Ireland at just over 4 million, and the share of the vote in elections for parties such as Plaid Cymru and the Scottish National Party relatively poor considering the UK electorate overall, the number of people resident in the "British Isles" who find the term contentious/offensive is with reasonable likelihood quite substantially in the minority. Moreover the term is widely known throughout the world, where people are largely unaware of the controversy (cf. examples of figures such as the President of Russia and spouse of the President of the USA - hardly people ignorant of international affairs). It is very much my view, and I believe also the view of other impartial editors, that the "naming dispute" aspect of the article is falling foul of WP:NPOV#Undue weight. Also, whilst stressing that I am in NO way trying to be offensive or make assumptions about people, I have been examing the user:talk pages of most of the editors involved in this edit war. Amoungst those who maintain the "naming dispute" aspect is NOT unduly weighted, I detect a majority who identify themselves as Irish Wikipedians and/or have done much fine work editing articles relating to Ireland. I respectfully suggest that these people are something of a "special interest group" on this naming dispute issue and cannot be taken as representative of the Neutral Point of View.
To make particular reference with respect to my dealings with User:Jtdirl - I appreciate I am often more withering in my comments than is desirable, and apologise for any offence caused. (Suggestions such that we instead all strip naked and club each other to death in a xenophobic rage are, I assure you, intended to be light-hearted :) and diffuse the situation by making us see how ridiculous it is becoming, rather than an attempt to inflame it. I would refer you to the fight between the Judean Peoples' Front and the People's Front of Judea in Life of Brian...) With regard to my WP:3RR violation, I was annoyed that my edits were reverted and called "vandalism" when I had been trying to enact what I perceived to be the editorial consensus. You approached User:172 on their talkpage User_talk:172#Soapbox articles asking for their collaboration (I know that you have worked with 172 before). 172 proceeded to revert my edits 3 times and you then did twice more. I believed the pair of you to be acting in consort to revert me, effectively giving yourselves an 6RR limit! You described your edit http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=British_Isles&oldid=62270897 "reinsert opening" when in fact it is a simple reversion (thus reinstate much more "naming dispute" material than just the opening para)! I felt this was an attempt to disguise your behaviour. Above anything else, I feel it is deeply improper for you to use your admin powers to block me under 3RR when you are an antagonist in said edit war. (I do not accept that "no other admins were available" - surely you can leave details on the WP:AN/3RR noticeboard and someone in another time zone would have acted?) When I have complained about your conduct via my own talk page, you simply accused me of making personal attacks and threatened to block me for yet longer periods. With all due respect, I feel this is an abuse of your admin role - you cannot adjudicate on an issue you yourself are so embroiled in.
More than one other editor has already made an appeal that we seek mediation under WP:RFM. I support this request. It is also clear that some editors (myself included) are uncertain how to use the relevant template to achiece this. I suggest that if User:jtdirl was a responsible and honorable admin, he would [ Disengage for a while] and assist us in setting up an WP:RFM.
TharkunColl; please don't take this off topic. -- Robdurbar 11:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I was wrong about Derry - if the majority of its citizens are Nationalists then Derry is the correct name. As for the Falklands, a majority (in fact, 100 per cent) of its inhabitants don't want them to be called Malvinas. As for British Isles, a majority of their inhabitants - perhaps by a ratio of 60:4, have no problem with the term. Can you see my reasoning here? It's not that difficult really you know. TharkunColl 13:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I noticed there is some talk of filing an WP:RFM. My other case appears to be going slowly, so Im willing to help out in any way I can here. Please file first though. Cases can be assigned with or without mutual agreement from parties, though refusal of mediation typically means moving on to WP:RFA.- Ste| vertigo 18:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Just returned and seen that discussion continues! 'British Isles' is a term in common usage and so, without question, needs a Wikipedia article to cover it. I've already given my opinion, at some length, that the article should in cover everything associated with the term. The idea of making the 'British isles' article solely about geography and sweeping every other issue (some of which some people may not like but exist none-the-less) under the carpet on a side article is ridiculous. Incidentally, my Hitler example (given above) was certainly an extreme one - as many good illustrative examples often are - but hopefully made the general point. I wasn't aware of this Godwin's Rule thing, but it seems a good one to me and will be respected henceforth. For another example then, imagine a 'King George III' article that refers in passing to 'medical issues' before going on to talk about his wonderful accomplishments...the user would have to go to 'George III (Medical Issues)' to read that the man went absolutely barking mad for a long period when he ruled the Empire! No, I'm with: One term, one article, one thorough explanation. User: PConlon 13:50, 7 July 2006
You still miss the point...I'm not typing the same thing over and over again, as it must bore others (it does me). If you willfully choose not to get my point, that's your own issue. A complete article on the term 'British Isles' with a separate 'terminology' article linked to it is ridiculous. Btw, how did you manage to respond to my point before I wrote it?! User: PConlon 15:14, 7 July 2006
I assumed it, but since then I've seen little evidence of it from you. Your attitude appals me; as others have already said, it appears to be uncompromising, bigoted and imperialistic. Also, sheer volume of argument does not make up for anything it might lack in substance - just a general point. User: PConlon 15:35, 7 July 2006
I agree fully with you, User:Pconlon, that 'the idea of making the 'British isles' article solely about geography and sweeping every other issue...under the carpet on a side article is ridiculous.' Removing the context from this article and placing it in a "terminology" page is simply a way for nationalistically-minded British wikipedians to attenuate the widespread Irish rejection of the term, to confine that objection to some remote part of wikipedia and get on with advancing this particular product of their country's relationship to Ireland, this aspect of their nationalist mythology. With this term, context is everything- which is why of course the aforementioned wish to remove it. Felicitously on this point, Edward Said wrote brilliantly many years ago (in Orientalism) about the need for colonial countries to control the representation of the natives to the outside world. New World, it may be, but alas some of the old dogs with their old tricks are with us yet. El Gringo 14:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Take a look at Geographical_renaming#Naming_disputes; every article listed there is about a naming dispute, and separate from the article about the entity whose name is in dispute. With one exception: British Isles. Take a look at Derry. A good article about the city; the first section after the intro is about the naming dispute (already entioned in the intro) with a link to the separate article about the dispute. The rest of the article takes the name "Derry" which is the title of the article and uses that in discussing all other aspects of the city. I think that is a good model for British Isles. Let us take "British Isles" to mean "Great Britain, Ireland and the rest"; mention that (1) many people dislike "British Isles" and use some other words to mean "Great Britain, Ireland and the rest" and (2) some people use "British Isles" to mean something else; link to another article discussing these issues; then move on and discuss the other aspects of the isles. What other aspects? A few examples: Geology of the British Isles and Trees of Britain and Ireland; Climate of the United Kingdom could be expanded into Climate of the British Isles since Ireland#Climate is pretty sparse; likewise British avifauna as against Ireland#Fauna. I don't think nationalist sensibilities can be offended by observing that the climate, plants and animals in Britain and Ireland are similar; a single article to cover both is better than nothing for Ireland (it can be refactored later when an Irish expert becomes available). How much of Category:British Isles needs to be summarised in the head article is just a detail. jnestorius( talk) 18:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
How should the history of the islands be presented here? It is a shame that the current article does not lead the reader directly to Prehistoric Britain and Early history of Ireland as well as the other relevant articles. In my opinion outline form would be best, attempts to summarize the numerous articles would quickly bloat the article. EricR 16:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Now, this claim is one which I would dearly love to have evidence for, and I'm not the first here to ask this. Irish is a Q Celtic language as is, obviously, Scottish Gaelic. Welsh, in contrast, is a P Celtic language. I know of nobody who claims that Irish is a British/Brythonic language. So, how did our politically motivated wikipedians manage to delve into some past and throw Goidelic Ireland into the Brythonic/British world? El Gringo 17:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I hope you don't mind a Welshman butting in on the Anglo-Irish War Part 2 (I hear that Ken Loach is already hard at work on the film), but I notice that the section on terminology says that the archipelago includes " ... the crown dependencies, the Isle of Man, Guernsey and Jersey, which are direct possessions of the British Crown and not part of the United Kingdom". I always understood that Guernsey and Jersey were not considered to be part of the archipelago. Does anybody have a citation? Rhion 06:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
...With reference to the area of coverage this in some way has been shaped by the political history of the islands that make up the British Isles.
These islands encompass both the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, which have maintained their own separate (from Westminster) system of government. The largest set of islands is Great Britain, comprising England, Wales and Scotland which have been joined under one monarch since 1603. For the period 1801-1920, Ireland was ruled directly from Westminster. Thus, for books printed before 1920, the British Isles was the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (and the Channel Islands, the Isles of Scilly and the Isle of Man). Since 1920, Ireland has been divided into Northern Ireland and Eire (the Republic of Ireland). Some texts produced in the period of post-Irish partition explored the British Isles (Demangeon 1927; Stamp and Beaver 1933; Watson and Sissons 1964); others the UK (Gardiner and Matthews 2000; Mohan 1999) and some Great Britain (Mitchell 1962).
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
EricR
08:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Regrettably, some editors seem to have difficulty in following the policy that conflicting views should be presented fairly, but not asserted, and that significant viewpoints should be represented in proportion to the prominence of each. While the shorter lead has come much closer to WP:LEAD, an intro is being pushed for that reads like the start of a "we hate this term" pamphlet. It's important to let readers know about the dispute, but it should also reflect the wide usage and acceptance of the term by people who know of the existence of the two sovereign states and don't consider that the term implies anything else. The Terminology section is currently inaccurate and needs work to improve neutrality. One alternative that seems common but isn't mentioned is simply referring to "Britain and Ireland", which is inoffensive but rather ambiguous: this should be discussed. However, the first priority must be to improve the lead. .. dave souza, talk 21:53, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
I have removed the following reference from the article:
<ref.> A minister is asking for easier access to birth certificates which "is the norm throughout the rest of the British Isles including Northern Ireland" The term 'British Isles' is not officially recognised by the Irish Government.</ref.>
far from supporting the assertion that the Irish government never uses the term British Isles, this reference does the opposite. If the British Isles includes Northern Ireland, then ipso facto, the British Isles also includes the Republic of Ireland, what with them being on the same island and all. Regardless, saying that it is not "officially recognised by the Irish government" is something of a red herring. As far as I'm aware the term is not "officially recognised" by anyone; one might as well say that the fact the indigenous inhabitants of the Amazon have not "officially recognised it" means they find it offensive too. Martin 23:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
(New subsection to avoid discussion of the intro from getting mixed up with the deletion of references issue.)
Jtdirl/FearÉIREANN, your credentials are impressive. As you surely know, I don't have so much experience, and can only read carefully the policies as written down. I wonder if you also worked on Wikipedia:No personal attacks? From a quick look there seems to be nothing saying that it's acceptable to attribute an agenda to me that I don't hold and use that to dismiss my point of view: perhaps you can elucidate. By the way, people tend to call me dave for short: using a second name tends to look a little hostile, but of course customs may differ where you come from.
Regarding the introduction, you appear to feel that it should be framed to discredit the term, with all of it except the last short paragraph emphasising doubts about the term and the grievance that some people feel against it. In my opinion the introduction should state what the term usually refers to, state that there is a controversy but no alternative term has yet gained widespread use, and briefly list the area encompassed as it does at present. Details of the dispute from either viewpoint should be avoided in the lead. The controversy is also referred to in the italic disambiguation line at the top of the page. To me this better reflects npov and makes the controversy clear without giving a (perhaps substantial) minority view undue weight. The detailed points of argument should then be set out in full in the terminology section, or fully outlined there with full detail going in the British Isles (terminology) article.
From your comments and reverts it seems that we may have some difficulty in agreeing a balance here, and perhaps it would help now to get impartial outside comment on the best way forward? ... dave souza, talk 09:26, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Are they in some way unacceptable? TharkunColl 19:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
In 84 years of Irish "govt" (most of your citations were from politicians, not the government) the amount of citations you have referenced is very tiny. How many comments were made in the Oireachtas in this period? That is the context, whether you like it or not. You list people such as Mary Henry, a mere senator, of TCD (yes, Trinity College Dublin) who is playing to a certain, shall we say, "audience". Only the most wilfully blind would think such a person was representative of Irish society. 193.1.172.163 22:08, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Anyone with the slightest understanding of sourcing knows that sources have to be
Your links aren't. Mary Henry is a classic example. Mary is a senator from the University of Dublin, a former bastion of Irish unionism - where I studied too. As such it would be remarkable if she hadn't used the term, given that her electorate would expect her to. (Quoting Mary as an example is a bit like quoting a reference to royal weddings as evidence that most people still get married wearing morning suits. Royalty, by definition of course wear morning suits or military uniforms. So sourcing them isn't proof of anything.) Of course Mary uses British Isles, just as Tories like singing Rule Britannia and Labour people like singing the Red Flag. It goes with the territory and is evidence of nothing except either your scraping the barrel for evidence or your complete lack of understanding of context. Having Mary Henry, given her electorate, use the term would be no more unusual than her colleague, gay rights campaigner Senator David Norris, delivering a speech defending gay rights, or Pope Benedict delivering a speech attacking gay rights, or George Bush speaking about how marriage must be between a man and a woman, Her Majesty delivering a speech on the value of the Crown in Australia, or Gerry Adams defending the role of the IRA in the Troubles.
Informative sources would be where Mary Henry attacked the use of British Isles, David attacked gay rights, the President praised gay marriage, Her Majesty urged Australia to become a republic, or Adams attacked the IRA's role in the Troubles.
Similarly your reference to Síle de Valera is evidence of how little you know about the topic. Anyone who know's Síle's viewpoint knows very well as that she hold extreme republican views — she played a key role in forcing Jack Lynch out of the party leadership by expressing a republican attack on him. And anyone who knows how ministers operate know very well that they don't write their own speeches; they don't have the time to. If they have time they proof-read the speech in advance. If they don't they read what is written. In Síle's case, as is well known, she went ballistic when she realised that the speech she was reading included phraseology she would never use. She bollocked the speechwriter afterwards over it and AFAIK never used him again. Either you know that and deliberately mislead people by not mentioning it, or you didn't know that, in which your research was incompetently done and amateurish.
But then your contributions here show no evidence of professional sourcing, just POV-pushing.
Proper professional sourcing would know the difference between ministers reading speeches on automatic pilot that were written by others (George Bush recently had the same problem. A speechwriter used a term he would never ever use himself but he was literally reading the words off the teleprompter when he realised "oh. For fuck sake. Who wrote this?" But at that stage it was too late. He had read the words.) and people delivering their own words, and would seek sources that reflect the speaker's words (for example, in interviews, unscripted parliamentary debates, in televised debates, in newspaper articles, etc). Your contributions show no evidence of professional sourcing, just a lot of evidence of taking things out of context, or not letting other contributors here know the context, to push your agenda.
FearÉIREANN
\
(caint)
23:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Source for this business about Síle de Valera? john k 23:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Also, Ben Bell posted a bunch of links above to mentions of "British Isles" Irish people. I don't think anybody is disputing that there are various Irish people who find the term offensive and don't use it. But it also seems clear that various people in the Republic do use the term, including various people in parliamentary debates and reports. Even if some of them are quasi-unionists, and others are only using it because a scriptwriter fucked up, the fact remains that the term is used in the Republic, and it is used to include Ireland. There has still been almost no evidence presented to support the idea that much of anyone uses the term "British Isles" in a way which excludes Ireland. john k 23:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
John,
You'd be lucky to find 20% of Irish people who use it in a way that includes Ireland. There is an overwhelming consensus in Ireland that it does not cover Ireland. There is also growing opposition to the term among both the Scottish Nationalists and the Scottish Labour Party. Even the Scottish Conservative Party shies away from using British that much. Only last week the Record recorded Scottish Labour Party embarrassment that Gordon Brown endorsed the English soccer team in the World Cup and spoke of the team "representing Britain". And the Scottish Tories too were annoyed that Cameron used "British pride" to describe the reaction to the fact that England actually didn't get knocked out in the first round. To rebuild their electoral prospects the Scottish Tories have been replacing the word "British" with "Scottish" in leaflets of late. Even in England, some Tories have been using "English" rather than "British" more and more, while the National Front disown the word "British" in their most recent policy statements and stress their Englishless. Similarly the Royal Family lays far more emphasis on its individual Scottish and English origins than a shared Britishness. (The Princess Royal, in Holyrood, stresses that she is the granddaughter of a Scottishwoman and works with the Scottish Rugby Football Union, while Prince William associates with English organisations like the Football Association. The BBC and the Guardian both ask that "British Isles" not be used, or in the latter case, that "British Isles and Ireland" be used if at all possible, while in legislation British Islands is used in preference to British Isles where possible. The Foreign Office also recommends that "British Isles" no longer be used. Recently both Blair and Ahern, in a speech, used "Islands of the North Atlantic" where in the past British prime ministers at least would have said "British Isles". I think you seriously overestimate the extent to which the term is used, and underestimate the extent to which everyone, from the Irish to the British Foreign Office, the BBC to the Royal Family, the Labour Party to the National Front, try to avoid using it. In large parts of British academia, it is seen as politically incorrect to use the term, with many campuses and many academics either discouraging its use, or in some case, banning it altogether. (I have been at 3 conferences in the last 2 years where the term "British Isles and Ireland" or the "Anglo-Celtic Isles" were used and where academics were explicitly told not to use it, because it was "potentially offensive to millions on these islands, in Ireland, Wales and Scotland".)
FearÉIREANN
\
(caint)
00:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
How about this for the name of the islands? After all, the vast majority of their inhabitants speak English as a first language, and of the tiny minority that don't, the vast majority still speak it. I must emphasise, of course, that the phrase "English" in this context must not be confused with the very similar sounding word "English" which means something of, or pertaining to, England. These two words, "English" and "English", despite a superficial resemblance, have actually no etymological connection whatsoever. TharkunColl 12:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
This comment can clearly be seen as flaming: less inflammatory posts have already been removed from this tail page, and I propose that this section be deleted. Any comments? .. dave souza, talk 17:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:British Isles/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
Comment(s) | Press [show] to view → |
---|---|
Ireland is NOT part of the British Isles. The British Isles Wikipedia article is bringing Wikipedia into disrepute and is insulting and innacurate. Ireland once was part of British Isles but not any longer. Please have the decency to correct the article. In the same way that the term Belgian Congo is nolonger used, the term British Isles is no longer used when speaking of ireland. Queennivea ( talk) 20:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC) Ireland (Republic of) is no longer part of the political entity the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. British Isles is a geographic term and political status doesn't affect this. The British Isles also include the Isle of Man and commonly the Bailiwicks of Jersey and Guernsey, none of which are part of the United Kingdom. Belgian Congo was a political term for the successor to the Congo Free State, and the term is only applied to the political entity (now defunct). Peridon ( talk) 20:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC) |
Last edited at 20:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 20:17, 2 May 2016 (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 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
The following definition is taken from the Oxford English Dictionary:- British adj & n. *adj. 1 of or relating to Great Britain or to the United Kingdom, or to its people or language. 2 of the British Commonwealth or (formerly) the British Empire (British subject) *n. (prec. by the; treated as pl.) the British people.
Please do not change this definition (in the current introduction) which reflects popular English usage within the archipelago to fit one's own agenda. British is not commonly used to refer to the United Kingdom or Great Britain; it is what it is used to refer to. Iolar Iontach 13:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
This reflects the fact that the intended - if not always understood - use here is not of the United Kingdom, but it acts as an explanation for the confusion/offence. -- Robdurbar 20:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
I would like to make one simple point & request to those closely interested in the subject of this page... Whichever way the etymological wranglings of academics may swing, it really is not possible to use a term solely for geographical/ecological purposes that is inescapably bound to significant political implications. Even if unintended - which I assume is in most cases - serious offence is certainly often caused to Irish citizens (like myself) by British citizens who innocently use the British Isles term. Much of the debate here shown rather misses this essential fact. Ideally a politically neutral term should be used; at the very least, people who continue to use the term British Isles should be aware of its contentious nature and know to use it with caution. This should remain part of the article introduction. User: PConlon 24 June 2006
Thank you for your thoughts. I entirely agree that this term, as used by so many people both within Great Britain and beyond, should appear and be properly explained in any thorough encyclopedic work. I was certainly not trying to remove its reference or shut out anyone's point of view, rather just trying to make the article fully represent all views in as balanced and as neutral a way as possible. The offence that the term can cause should be highlighted, precisely to make people aware that this term has a contentuous nature and that its use should be made with sensitivity and caution. I do not believe that easily cited data exists on the numbers of people, within Ireland for example, who are offended with its use - I can only relate my experience that mainstream, moderate society within the Republic of Ireland shys from using the term for the reason above. This is supported by the Irish government's official abandonment of this term. To give a personal recommendation for those non-Irish people interested in fully appreciating this contention, I suggest that they view the recently released film 'The Wind that Shakes the Barley'. This is actually directed by British-born director Ken Loach and is the first UK produced film to win the 'Palme d'Or' at the Cannes Film Festival since 1996. [I have no connection to the producers of this film]. User: PConlon 25 June 2006
The article says: but to end Jacobitism the Scottish clan system was crushed and they became fully British
So what definition of "British" is being used there? Rhion 17:00, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Part of the United Kingdom - 'British' [I think, not sure who wrote that bit!] -- Robdurbar 18:32, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
The following sentence appears inaccurate and pov:British derives originally from Britto or Priteni, the Celtic or pre-Celtic people who populated the islands before the Roman invasion.
Can anyone provide a source which shows that the Priteni populated Ireland? My understanding is that they did not populate anywhere other than Great Britain (and surrounding islands) in the archipelago. Iolar Iontach 03:47, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
How can the British Isles consist of Great Britain, Ireland (usually) and a number of much smaller surrounding islands? Does Ireland float away somewhere else occasionally? The map clearly shows two main islands making up the British Isles — Ireland and Great Britain. I know this caption's wording is trying to avoid the political issues discussed ad nauseam in the article and discussion page, but it doesn't help to use woolly wording in a geographical article. I've changed the wording to make it (a) accurate and (b) as uncontentious as possible. Bazza 18:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Some minor edits to eliminate a few highly irritating mistakes and misconceptions in the Political History section.
From the time of Malcolm III onwards English began to replace Gaelic as the language of the court and the Lowland nobility. I have absolutely no idea who the mysterious 'Germanic peoples' are, who seemingly made an appearance as the ruling class. The Scots people have long been of mixed Celtic and English blood, some parts more Celtic, and other parts more English; but most definitely not 'Germanic' in any shape or form. Speaking a different language did not alter their racial or cultural composition. This artificial classification into 'Germanic' and 'Erse' is very old fashioned, belonging to a ninteenth century school of historical taxonomy.
Very few Scots, Hanoverian or otherwise, embraced the name 'North Britain' for their country, no more than the English adopted 'South Britain' for theirs. The examples mentioned are relics of official reclassification.
To say that the Gaelic-speaking Highlanders 'became fully British' with the end of the clan system is ludicrously incorrect: they had always been British, their political and cultural differences notwithstanding. Rcpaterson 01:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
The lists of islands are divided into sets based around the larger islands in the group. The Ireland set alone is organised around political names (Ulster, Connaught, etc.). This goes against the grain of the rest of the article which does its best to remain apolitical, concentrating on the British Isles as a geographical entity. I propose to remove political names and replace them with compass points or some other non-political names. Bazza 15:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
A large number of Scottish and Welsh people object to the term British - despite requests for citations in this paragraph, I see some people have simply been adding to the number of peoples who object to the term. That's fair enough, but the unwarranted NPOV references to English people is not and, in the absence of the requested citations, I've removed them. Bazza 09:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
You are quite right. I would say, though, whenever and wherever you come across statements like 'a large nunber' of Scottish people think this or say that treat them with a high degree of scepticism. They most often eminate from a voiciferous an unrepresentative minority. I know very few Scots who object to to the term British. Rcpaterson 22:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I have requested a citation for this
Today the term British is used to describe people or things belonging to either the island of Great Britain or the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. This can cause confusion or resentment
The term may cause confusion, especially to people not living the UK or the Republic of Ireland, but it needs to be cited. I think the claim of resentment is more problematic, but even if it is true it needs a citation.
I have also removed this
Many people, particularly those from the Republic of Ireland, find the term British Isles unacceptable and even offensive because of this.
It is unacceptable to say many people (see WP:AWW), how many? is it a minority or majority? What is the number or proportion of people who find it offensive? This needs a hard figure and it needs to be verified, otherwise it is simply the opinion of the person who has made the edit. I think it breaches the neutrality policy and possibly the no original research policy (as it is just a POV, without giving the alternative POV, and it may be based on unpublished material, because it doesn't cite a source). Alun 10:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
The basis for usage of the term is completely flawed logic as it refers to ancient texts etc and precedent for calling them the British isles. Place names reflect current realities, thus we have Istanbul and not Constantinople.
A better example would be the Aegean coast of Turkey and its islands. this whole area was once referred to as the Greek coast and all the islands were Greek islands. since the political landscape has changed and the Turkish state has jurisdiction, the only islands which are now "Greek islands" are those within the jurisdiction of Greece. if you were to rebut by saying that British refers to something more than a political term, but rather than an ethnic or geographical one, then the same argument (or even a better one can be made of Greek). the Greek world once referred to an area far greater than modern or ancient Greece (e.g. southern Italy, Sicily, turkey, Armenia etc) and many of the people residing in those parts of turkey which were formerly designated "Greek" are ethnically and linguistically Greek but live in the state of turkey, and therefore the islands and coast are Turkish.
Thus, you could not refer to the island of Ireland as British. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User talk:62.77.181.16 ( talk • contribs)
Edit summary by PConlon reads:
This article should maintain an inoffensive, neutral stance while remaining factual. It is important that the contentious nature of the term is highlighted, so that users of the term may avoid innocently and unwittingly giving offence
There is no requirement on Wikipedia for articles to remain inoffensive, they should simply be neutral. Neutrality is achieved by including all points of view without prejudice (except for tiny minority points of view). I refer you to the neutral point of view policy. There's also no requirement for information to be factual, this is an encyclopedia, so it's OK to include what people believe, as long as it's referenced and presented neutrally. Please leave a message on the talk page if you make significant edits to an article, giving your reasons for doing so, this will help in discussions about how to improve the article. It's also a good idea to try to find some citations to support your edits. All the best. Alun 17:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, neutrality is crucial and all views should be appropriately accommodated. I have now left a message on this talk page (above). Many thanks & best regards. User:PConlon
It seems that there is some feeling that the term British Isles is unacceptable to some editors. In order to get some sort of consensus I suggest we try to formulate a few basic guidelines. At the start of the article I have included several of the terms used to describe the archipelago, including the British Isles, after all this is an encyclopedia, so we cannot dispense with the term altogether. I suggest that the region be simply called the archipelago in the article after this. This way none of the various terms are given any greater weight by the article. A more extreme solution would be to move the article to one of the alternative names (such as the North-West European Archipelago), but still include the alternative names (such as the British Isles) in the introduction to the article. As this is a geographical article and not a political one, it should matter little IMHO what the article is called, or what terms are used in it, as long as we can get a consensus on the terminology used. There is far too much politics being played here. I have removed the various references to the term British Isles being contentious, if this claim needs to be made at all, then it only needs to be made once, and it needs a source. Alun 05:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Ok, well it looks like the current form of words is not disputed. All the same it is essential to find some sort of citation to back up te claim that British Isles is offensive in the Republic of Ireland. Alun 11:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
An interesting exchange. I would just like to add there are times when the pursuit of consensus is both pointless and dangerous. Will Lilliput and Blefuscu ever settle their differences over the correct way to eat an egg? Just imagine trying to invent a name for Russia that would satisfy all of its varied ethnic groups! British Isles it is and British Isles it will always remain. Rcpaterson 23:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
(UTC)
I believe in truth: I believe that informed debate has to be based on hard empirical evidence, not the pursuit of some silly chimera. There are some times when 'consensus' is just another name for cant and mediocrity. Is a thing 'true' because most people say it is true? What would be the 'consensus' on the Jewish question in Nazi Germany? What is the contemporary North Korean consensus on Kim Jong Il? Any argument has to be based on a core of fact, otherwise one is in danger of sinking into a bog of hopeless relativism, where one position is as good as another. I do not care how many weasel definitions like 'archipelago' are taken into account: in the end the thousand islands or more comes back to one collective British Isles; and it is known by this name to non-British people throughout the world. Much of what you have written above is simply meretricious; and the suggestion that neologisms like 'North-West European Archipelago' be substituted for British Isles is Voltarian in its absurdity. Please try to think clearly. Might I suggest that you read Henrik Ibsen's Enemy of the People? That might get you to reflect on the real difference between truth and consensus. Rcpaterson 07:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Some of you discussed the point of whether or not the term "British Isles" is considered contentious by the Irish, but no one has corrected the spelling of the word in the article. It currently reads "contentuous." Should be, contentious. Thanks.
The article says in the opening line "(also occasionally referred to as the Anglo-Celtic Isles, the British & Irish Isles, the Islands of the North Atlantic, and the North-West European Archipelago)" - er, where? by whom? are these occasional references "notable"? (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notable ) ? If they have been used in some political document or other, let's cite this, otherwise we might as well put in that Mrs J. Brainworthy of Bideford in Devon once referred to them as "Cecil".--
feline1
14:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
This article's very title just reeks of British jingoism and irredentism towards Ireland and the views of Irish people. Ireland is a "British Isle" to the British and their heavingly subsidised "compatriots" in the north-east of Ireland as they strive to delude themselves further regarding the decline of Britain in the past century. This has everything to do with their wounded pride and, knowing that the term is resisted in Ireland, their anti-Irishness. The term is not used by the Irish, a point which is incessantly made here. I have also never heard a British government minister use the term and in the GFA of 1998 the term 'Council of the Isles' is used. Being an agreement based upon respect, "British Isles" appears nowhere. That is an international agreement signed by the two governments. My question therefore is: why is Wikipedia institutionalising British prejudices and denial of the political independence of most of Ireland from British rule? Given our history at the hands of the British, and the first recorded use of the term "British Isles" in the seventeenth century when Britain was trying to expand its rule in Ireland, you don't have to be the most intellectually robust to know that "geographic" is the very very last thing that the expression "British Isles" really is. So spare us the insult. Thank you. 193.1.172.138 16:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, the occupied Six Counties is used in Britain [2], as my cited source proves. Therefore, you must be a vocal, politicised minority pushing your political agenda with your "Northern Ireland" nonsense. 193.1.172.163 22:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I see you are over on the Malvinas pages pushing your " Falkland Islands" line too and resisting 'Islas Malvinas' being on the page introduction, as it has been until this very week. Now, there is proof of the political agenda of the "British Isles" brigade. Your comments there are also very indicative of the type of fanatical British mentality we are up against. Britain will never be enough. Your Empire is over. Get used to it. 193.1.172.163 22:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
"Harold Wilson made an offer to the Irish government that should he ever get back into power (which he did, of course), he would hand Northern Ireland over to the Republic, with the very reasonable stipultation that, as a sop to the loyalists in the North, the Republic should simply rejoin the Commonwealth (whilst still remaining a republic)? The Irish ministers were appalled at the suggestion, knowing that they simply didn't have the resources to police it, and the inevitable result would be a bloodbath."
The Republic's objection, and I think you must know this Tharkun, was the suggestion that Ireland would have to rejoin the commonwealth.-- Salvador Allende 21:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Refer to this which the Irish Examiner decided to included on its editorial page. http://archives.tcm.ie/irishexaminer/1998/07/01/opinion.htm 213.202.177.107 13:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Don't laugh, this is actually true. The town where I live has a very large Irish population, and I am very friendly with many of them (yep, this really is a "some of my best friends are Irish" argument!). Over the years we have had many political, historical, and cultural discussions, and not once have any of them ever objected to the term British Isles. So you see, for every anecdotal Irish opinion that can be produced, I can produce an equal and opposite Irish opinion. That's why anecdotal evidence is so worthless. TharkunColl 16:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually, your sources are worthless above. All you did was use an Irish govt search engine. The links it threw up aren't Irish government sources. Discover Northern Ireland is a UK source. The only one that is actually an Irish state one, OSI, uses 'Ireland and the BI' which is standard state language. It presumes that Ireland is not part of the BI hence it quotes it separately alongside BI. I do wish people would stop using search engines as proof of anything. Most of what is on the net is bullshit. Please quote professional sources, not net rubbish.
FearÉIREANN
\
(caint)
15:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Various editors including myself have been trying to keep the terminology used there consistent with this British Isles article, however are encountering repeated vandalism from anonymous user at 62.77.181.11 . Any editorial assistence would be appreciated.-- feline1 13:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
The reference being used ( http://archives.tcm.ie/irishexaminer/1998/07/01/opinion.htm) to support the use of the other terms seems against the purpose to me. It reads to me that the writer of the article is actually against using any name other than British Isles and is actually deriding those who suggest alternate names or think that the geographical term is inappropriate. The article uses none of the terms that some people seem to be using it to support the idea of other names and seems to state that the population of the Republic of Ireland (this is the opinion in the letter, not my opinion) should mature to separate political history from geography. It seems odd to me that this letter is being used (and it is only a letter to an editor and thus not a source of verification under Wikipedia guidelines anyway) to put forward that for the population of the Republic of Ireland that the term British Isles is actually quite acceptable and doesn't carry political baggage. Ben W Bell talk 17:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
I have changed the opening line from '...are...' to '...is a term traditionally used to describe...' as it seems to me - and I hope to most objective people - that this is as factual as we can get with a general consensus! To say 'are' is to deny that there is any significant dispute over the term, which is clearly not correct. I have also removed the reference to 'Irish Nationalists', as this term only describes Republicans OUTSIDE the Irish Republic. A citizen of the Irish Republic isn't a 'Nationalist'; he/she is a citizen of Ireland/the Irish Republic! To include the significant (and often bitter) contention over the 'British Isles' term in Northern Ireland (not part of the Republic), I have just left 'Ireland' in as a whole. User: PConlon, 15:54, 4 July 2006.
If you are unhappy with my form of words then you should see this edit by User:Jtdirl, this makes outrageous claims that the sorce really does not support. It also uses a footnote as a source that includes claims made later in the article regarding Mikhail Gorbachev and Nancy Reagan that have never been verified. So the edit uses unverified material from the article to try to verify other material in the article, unbelievable. Alun 16:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't know which is more laughable: your arrogance or your ignorance. Gorbachev on a visit to Ireland asked then taoiseach Charles Haughey how come Ireland had a president when the Queen was head of state. Haughey told him that the Queen was not head of state. His response, as recorded in biographies and in contemporary newspaper reports, was "So why then are you in the British Isles?" Haughey told him bluntly that Ireland isn't. Nancy Reagan made a similar fax pas in 1984, again blaming the confusion on the term British Isles. The term is now banned from Irish school books and from Irish state publications and the Irish state makes it quite clear that Ireland is not part of the British Isles. Sir John Biggs-Davison, a Tory MP recommended an alternative term, Islands of the North Atlantic which is now used widely in some contexts. Another alternative, Anglo-Celtic Isles is now used increasingly in academia. You can crusade all you want to push the myth that the British Isles is universally used. The fact is it isn't. Ireland doesn't use it. Scottish Nationalists avoid using it. Welsh Nationalists want it dropped. It is a controversial term which even Blair's government is fazing out, viewing it as outdated and offensive to many throughout the so-called British Isles.
FearÉIREANN
\
(caint)
17:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Ah, another COMPLETELY non-partisan comment from someone with no political leanings at all. /rollseyes/ If the term "British Isles" is not commonly used around the word, how come the president of the USSSR was using it? and the wife of the US president? You just gave two examples of it being used! The fact that these two people were farcically ignorant of what the term they were using MEANT is all the more reason for having a good wikipedia article about it. The article is primarily about what the term MEANS - a geographical term. -- feline1 17:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Laughable paranoia. Your comment says more about you than anyone else. According to [ [7]]CAIN, which is not Nationalist
'British Isles' This was a term used to refer to the group of islands off the north-west coast of Europe comprising Britain, Ireland, and adjacent smaller islands. The term is still widely used in Northern Ireland and Britain. With the independence of the Republic of Ireland the term is no longer strictly accurate and is considered derogatory by some. A more correct term would be the 'British and Irish Isles'.
"British and Irish Isles", "Anglo-Celtic Isles" or "Islands of the North Atlantic" have been used at various times by the BBC, ABC, the Prince of Wales, the US State Department, the Foreign Ministry of the Federal Republic of Germany, Pope John Paul II, academics like Norman Davies, Unionists like Sir John Biggs-Davison, and many others. So much for your wacky theory about it all being some sort of Nationalist conspiracy. The only people doing any censoring are people like you who don't like the fact that there are problems with the so-called "British Isles" being used as the supposedly definitive name of the geopolitical area.
FearÉIREANN
\
(caint)
19:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Maybe, while you are at it, you could provide verification for the claim that "British Isles" is exclusively a geographic term with no political meaning applied to it.
FearÉIREANN
\
(caint)
19:26, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
User:Pconlon has changed most instances of British Isles to archipelago or other neutral terms. On the whole it has not affected the flow of the article, apart from the caption for the satellite photo which is now not fully descriptive. I think it should be and have restored the British Isles wording for that part of the article only. Bazza 18:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Bazza, how about inserting 'the island group traditionally known as' into that caption? I think this wording is more neutral. Haven't made any change...would be interested in your thoughts. Best regards. User PConlon, 22:40, 4 July 2006
The term "archipelago" is never used to refer to the British Isles. At has a wholly different conotation. I have rephrased the first line accordingly. TharkunColl 22:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
To suggest that the term British Isles does not apply to the Republic of Ireland amounts to historical revisionism. The people of these islands were known as British (though in prior form) and the islands themselves as the British Isles (again in prior linguistic form) for around a couple of thousand years. That a nation state has existed for the last thousand years is a separate issue and one that I believe confuses many people with regard to this term. One user pointed out that the people of the Republic of Ireland should perhaps be annoyed by the misappropriation of the term British Isles, rather than annoyed or "offended" by its use today. This misappropriation exists mostly amongst some Irish nationalists, who have confused the nationality of a people with the ancient label given to all the people of these islands. Thus it is not offence, but rather confusion and misunderstanding that appears to have ensued. -- Mal 16:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Even when the UK included all of Ireland. The Isle of Man was never part of the UK. TharkunColl 23:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
The intro of the article now reads like some narco-syndicalist diatribe about how offensive the term is, and is completely out-of-proportion to the rest of the article, much of which just deals straightforwardly with geography. The is a section in the article dedicated to the terms "controversial" nature, but the bloody intro now has more material about that than the subsection! It would be nice is some responsible editors who were more interested in a good article that would make sense to a worldwide audience, rather than indulging in asinine POV bickering which most people outside the British Isle will think is ridiculous, could re-edit the material into a better shape.-- feline1 09:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
To quote what I said earlier on this talk page: The term is used on the official Irish government website no less. Here's an example, from a speech made by Síle de Valera, Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands, on 31/3/2002, when opening the Clare Drama Festival in Scarriff Community College:
"I want to welcome you all to this the 55th Clare Drama Festival. A celebration of the great and good of Irish theatre mixed with the support and enthusiasm of the local community. I have been well informed that although there may be older festivals, none in the British Isles can boast 54 in a row. Until the year 2000 Clare Drama Festival enjoyed an unbroken run of 54 years and although last year was cancelled due to the Foot and Mouth scare this year the festival is back on track and greeted with even more excitement because of the absence. This year the Festival will run for eight nights, from tonight right through to next Sunday, the seventh of April." [8]
If a government figure as concerned with Irish arts and heritage as the Minister for Arts and Heritage can use it without batting an eyelid, then what's all the fuss about? TharkunColl 10:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I've been contributing to the physical geography aspects of this article in the past, but can do nothing to improve it at the moment because of the bickering and unilateral editing being done on the introduction. I expect I'm not the only one in this boat. Before replacing entire swathes of text with their own point of view, users might care to examine this talk page and previous versions of the article first — they would then see that there have been discussions and agreements on how best to accommodate the various views. My own suggestion for bringing back some normality is that (a) this article should remain British Isles as that is a widely recognised term for those not familiar with the political niceties involved; (b) the introduction should be just that — a short description of what follows; (c) that this article be confined to facts on geography and history; (d) the article links to a new article on British Isles terminology conflict or whatever name people choose so that the discussion on the contention can go on in detail elsewhere (other articles suffering the same sort of conflict could also link to it); and (e) that new articles of alternative names are created which redirect to this one. That way Wikipedia can have the best of both worlds — a fine article on the set of islands some of us live on and a well-researched article on why its most common name is a contentious issue. I hope to get some considered feedback on this, rather than the down-your-throat reactions there have been to some other postings on this page. Bazza 11:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
In my opinion the dispute should be mentioned in a proportionate way, and as a first step I've edited the intro to reflect this. As the size of the article may be getting out of hand there's a case for a main article covering the controversy, but in my view there should still be a mention of it in the intro and a (brief) section which would link to such a main article. .. dave souza, talk 11:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately the likes of Souza and in particular TharkunColl don't seem to grasp that their edits are factually wrong. But then TharkunColl's contributions are of the sort where else he deletes any mention of the fact that the biggest lake in Ireland is in Ireland. He has an "issue" about Ireland.
FearÉIREANN
\
(caint)
12:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
It is a fair point. It is however important to mention in the main article that there are divisive issues. I get the impression here that some users (and they seem to edit a series of articles to delete or downplay mentions of Ireland) want any mention of problems to be sidelined in a secondary article rather than in the main one, so that when readers look up British Isles they see an article that whitewashes any difficulties. We wouldn't, for example, sideline all criticism of George Bush to a separate article and leave only positive comments in the main Bush article. The issue is more than mere terminology. It is something as basic as just what are the British Isles?. Contrary to some people's edits here, there is no agreement on what the islands are (exclusively geographic, geopolitical, historic, etc) much less who is in and who is out. Past edits here in the last few months did a good (though false) job of pretending that there are no disputes over what the term means and who it covers. Eventually the agenda-pushing here got too much and users who had avoided this article felt they had no choice but to intervene to tone down the rampant bias and agenda-pushing of some users, notably the likes of TharkunCall, whose antics elsewhere has seen him try to delete the fact that the biggest lake on the island of Ireland is . . . um on the island of Ireland (true to form he wanted it stated simply that it was on the British Isles!!!) and try to rearrange the article on Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, again to push his personal agenda. (His edits on both were reverted by other people.)
The basic problem is that while
Alternative names for Northern Ireland could work because there was no dispute over what Northern Ireland was, merely over its name, on
British Isles the dispute is not over name alone, but over what is it? Who is in it? Who isn't? Those questions can't be left out of the main question, however much some individuals, for their own agenda reasons, might wish them to be.
FearÉIREANN
\
(caint)
13:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
While purists like to claim the term is purely geographic few accept that viewpoint (the fact that this article contains a "history" section itself shows that the geographic definition is bunkum — a review of mentions of "British Isles" even in google searches shows that only in a tiny minority of cases is it used exclusively geographically).
Any article here as a result has to make the point that the term has many resonances beyond geography which many others, for historic reasons, are uncomfortable with, and which some, notably the Irish, disassociate themselves from the any link with the term "British Isles" over. The problem with what to call the islands was shown when a history of the islands found that it itself could not use the name "British Isles" because of the offence such a term would cause in Ireland and parts of Scotland. (The book was simply called The Isles as a result.) As far as the Irish are concerned, they are not part of the British Isles and have not been for nearly a century. As far as Scottish nationalists are concerned, they are part of the isles but want nothing to do with the term British Isles.
FearÉIREANN
\
(caint)
14:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I'd just like to add a further rebuttal to some of the comments expressed by User Feline1; it is simply unsupportable to argue that the term discussed here is purely geographical/geological in nature - and can be reasonably & fairly presented in any thorough encyclopedic work without clear reference to its politically contentious nature (which is clearly far, far more significant than User Feline1 understands). The 'NO DISPUTE BY ANYONE EXCEPT YOURSELF' comment made by Feline1 in answer to my good colleague deserves to be picked out and held up for its remarkable disconnection with reality. It is good to see that good verifiable sources - including the Taoiseach (Prime Minister) of the Irish Republic himself - have now been included in the article, showing that in all official Irish government documents the term 'British Isles' is actively avoided in any context. User PConlon 18:47, 5 July 2006
Right so help me god, I have followed what appears to be the consensus here, and pruned the
British Isles article to be just about geography and history. ALL the other stuff about the NAME "British Isles", both its origins and its current politically contentious nature, have been transferred to
British Isles (terminology).... that article will now need a thorough editing to make all the new material sit properly, and indeed may well require splitting since there is so bloody MUCH of it!! I'm sure many of you will enjoy working away at it. Meanwhile this
British Isles article can return to a sleepy innocence about mountains, rivers, lakes, seabirds, and who's been murdering whom for the last 2 milleniua. Good night and good luck--
feline1
19:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, ain't going to work...any article on the 'British Isles' will have to cover EVERYTHING about the term (in one single, complete article). You can't just pick and choose aspects of something you like and ignore the rest Feline1. Separate sections on 'other aspects' aren't an acceptable solution. Politics and geography are inescapably intertwined you see. The article as I see it now needs further revision and I invite all other Irish Wikipedia users to join me in ensuring that it is complete and factual. User: PConlon, 21:58, 5 July 2006
FearÉIREANN: "You STILL don't get it. There isn't even agreement about what the Isles are and what it contains."
Just to inform you loosely, the British Isles includes the two main islands Britain and Ireland and their smaller, neighbouring islands.
That one individual was ignorant of the fact is not relevant, no matter what his status or position was.
"Ireland believes it isn't part of it."
I beg to differ. Being Irish myself. -- Mal 21:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Just because a number of people, whether that number be large or small, object to, or find offence at, any particular phrase, object or idea, that doesn't mean that phrase, object or idea doesn't exist. (see Historical revisionism section above). -- Mal 21:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Shtove. Feline1, it is not mature, rational behaviour to label as 'nonsense' anything you don't like or agree with. I think you are discrediting yourself by desperately trying to work the unworkable - your vehemence of editing implies a hidden (perhaps subconscious) political motivation...do you really want us all to believe that you are doing this entirely as an act of geographical purism?! I'm new to Wikipedia disputes and am not sure how exactly (and efficiently) do go about formally requesting mediation. Could a more experienced user please complete the request for mediation? You would be doing us all a great service. Best regards to all open-minded and well meaning Wikipedia contributors. User: PConlon 22:43, 5 July 2006
Thanks Dave, seemed like a good idea at the time!!:O) I would add that there's been a lot of deletion on both sides of this dispute. Hey FearÉIREANN, fire me an e-mail when you get a chance. Cheers! User PConlon 23:02, 5 July 2006
Use here:
The article should point out that this is a traditional name. It should point out where it comes from; the British dominance of the islands (hence their not being called, for example, the Celtic Isles). It should point out modern usage (the same as always in the UK, whereas in Ireland it is mostly avoided). If there is a modern British legal definition, include that too, but clearly state that is what it is. It would be interesting to note on usage by other nations (which undoubtedly take their cue from Britain and use a direct translation still today to refer to Great Britain, Ireland, and possibly surrounding islands collectively).
Probably the reasoning behind Irish attitudes to the term should be explained, but they are rather self-explanatory really. A simple link to History of Ireland would provide that information.
Use in other articles:
The term British Isles is a remnant of British Imperialism and London-based dominance over the native cultures of these islands, whether in Scotland, Wales, Ireland, Cornwall or parts of England itself. I am not against the term being used, it is the traditional label for the islands around Britain and Ireland (and including both Great Britain and Ireland), but it should not be used in preference to all others. Its use on Wikipedia should be only where necessary, and with conscious reference to its biased point of view.
zoney ♣ talk 15:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
The OED may be reputable, but it is not always reliable. The claim that it is purely a geographic term is simplistic nonsense. It is like saying that because Iran elects a president, then Iran is a democracy. Or because a supreme court is supposed to interpret a law objectively, therefore they always do so. No lawyer believes that. The term may theoretically be geographic, but few people on the planet use it that way. It is used politically, culturally, socially, ethnically, and in a host of other ways. Dictionaries can afford to be simplistic in their analyses, not least because there is a limit to what they can include. Encyclopaedias can't be.
FearÉIREANN
\
(caint)
18:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Wow, I go away for a month and this page degenerates into a big edit war! For what it's worth, my feeling is that we should follow the solution that appears to have been reached HOWEVER, I think a small section - with a Main article link to British Isles Terminology - would complete the solution, and avoid all accusations of sidelinging the issue, whilst allowing this page to do its job.
Oh and for what it's worth - as has been discussed before, in respect to IONA I think, there are no politically neutral geographical terms I'm afraid. -- Robdurbar 20:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Neither two are acceptable in the opening.
FearÉIREANN
\
(caint)
22:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
User:Feline1 posted the following note, which probably should've been posted on this talk page, on my user talk page: [9] Dumping of the content on the usage of the term in a fork entry does not resolve the concerns that Jtdirl has carefully laid out on this talk page. If Feline1 and the other users feel compelled to shorten the content on the usage, I suggest carefully working out a compromise with Jtdirl on this talk page, without the spurious allegations that he is promoting some sort of Irish nationalist agenda. Jtdirl's nationality has nothing to do with the concerns he is laying out on this page. (Nor do my concerns with the issues he has laid out. By the way, I happen to be another historian, and I have no connection to Ireland.) 172 | Talk 21:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
The problem, Rob, is that the issue isn't terminology. It is more fundamental. What is covered by the terminology, is the issue. And that has to be addressed on the page on the topic. It cannot be forked off to somewhere else. Name disputes can be. Content disputes, by their very nature, can't, because content concerns the content of the main page.
FearÉIREANN
\
(caint)
22:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I've been reverted three times in just about a hour. Feline1's dismemberment of the article is now the current version. [10] I can no longer revert it myself, given the 3RR. 172 | Talk 22:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Neither two are acceptable in the opening.
FearÉIREANN
\
(caint)
22:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Not if that version also claims the term is purely geographic and states as fact that Ireland is in the British Isles. Both of those are highly questionable statements that can't be stated as fact.
FearÉIREANN
\
(caint)
22:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
How do we do this mediation thing then? I followed the link to the mediation page but there was nothing there relating to the British Isles article - do we have to fill it in ourselves? I am confused! -- feline1 22:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
There are a number of joint British-Irish scientific organisations which use the British Isles in their traditional sense to include the whole archipelago as an ecological / biogeographical unit (e.g. the Botanical Society of the British Isles) - this ought to be mentioned - MPF 22:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I suggest the following as the opening paragraph in the article itself:
This article should have a self-contained section concerning the name itself, probably as the first section (the article title is after all "British Isles"), just one or two paragraphs, with a "main article" link to British Isles (terminology).
As there is no commonly used alternative name for the entire group of islands, I think it is fair enough that the article remain under this title, as long as the level of introduction suggested above is included.
zoney ♣ talk 23:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
The problem is, Zoney, as has been repeated ad nausaum, your version states as fact things that are a matter of opinion, with different sources saying different things, as the article makes clear.
FearÉIREANN
\
(caint)
23:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Looking at it fresh after a few weeks away, it seems to me that Jtdirl's phasing is the most NPOV. Zoney's and Feline1's versions are equally PoV. So I've reverted. -- Red King 23:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks guys, I deliberately didn't say that Ireland is or is not in the British Isles, simply because it is an issue where there are different viewpoints and we have to reflect them, not state categorically one side or the other. Similarly I did not say that it was not a geographic term, or that it is. I said that it may have begun that way and then developed other meanings because to a significant degree the British Isles in physical terms were coterminus with the then United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Because there are so many ifs about the whole issue the article cannot under NPOV state something categorically when it is an issue of debate, without breaching NPOV. The earlier versions, by stating categorically that Ireland was in the BI, and that it was purely a geographic term, breached NPOV because it stated as fact something that is opinion, not proven fact. That is the heart of the issue.
FearÉIREANN
\
(caint)
00:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
As an admin I have blocked Feline1 for 24 hours. I would not normally have done so, having been a party to the edit war. As with normal procedure a complaint over his breach of 3RR had been registered. Normally users at that point cease edit warring. Before other admins could intervene Feline1 abused his position by engaging in 5 reverts. In the circumstances immediate action was needed. As no other admin was available at the time I had to act. I have notified admins at
WP:ANI and asked them to review the block. Where admins in edit wars have to intervene, often what happens is that another admin will unblock the user and then impose their own block. As I have said, in the absence of another admin to take immediate action against a user who had climbed to 5 reverts, was taunting other others that they could not go beyond 3, and given the fact that an independent party had reverted Feline's last revert, I felt I had no option but to intervene as an admin. I'm putting it on record here and elsewhere so that users know what happened.
FearÉIREANN
\
(caint)
23:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
It was a last resort when no other admin was available despite requests and he was on his fifth revert and indicating that he was going to keep doing so, taunting other users that they could only do three while he could keep getting away with doing it again and again. I alerted admins at the two relevant pages so that they could assess it independently and if they saw fit unblock him, shorten the block (I gave him the standard 24 hour block for breaching 3RR) or lengthen it. It is rare that these situations happen, but they sometimes do where immediate action is needed and no admin can be found at that moment to do it. I made sure it was all above board (hence listing it here, at
WP:ANI and on the 3RR page). The feedback there was that in the circumstances the block was correct and not an abuse of process. I had already reverted three times but if I hadn't I wouldn't have taken any more role in reverting the page until the block had been independently assessed by another admin. I also only did so once another third party had intervened to revert his edit. If there had been an alternative then I would have gone for it. In the absence of another admin available I did contact Feline1, point out that he had breached 3RR and advised him to revert his last reversion to avoid a block by an admin. (At that stage I never expected it would fall to me to enforce it.) His response was dismissive. Instead he just kept reverting, despite an explicit warning that breaching 3RR automatically would produce a block. Usually when a user breaches 3RR they either revert their last reversion, or stop editing. It is very rare for someone to be so arrogant as to keep reverting over and over having exceeded the 3RR. At that stage someone had to block him immediately and unfortunately, despite his behaviour having been reported, no-one was available to deal with it. Someone had to, and it fell to me as an admin.
FearÉIREANN
\
(caint)
02:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
May I use an illustrative example to make my point…Imagine, if you will, the ludicrousness of an article about Adolf Hitler that relates only to how he was big in politics in the 1930s-40s, made great contributions to moustache culture, had considerable talent as an architectural artist and had a remarkable ability to get a party going. Then having a separate, link-connected article entitled ‘Adolf Hitler (Nasty Aspects)’, covering the repression of German intellectuals, World War 2 and the Holocaust. Thankfully, the 'Adolf Hitler' Wikipedia page is complete and thorough in covering all these aspects (and more). I would like to make the argument that the ‘British Isles’ article should remain a single article, thoroughly presenting all aspects of the term – geological, geographic, cultural, political, historical… I see attempts to compartmentalise inescapably intertwined aspects in separate pages causing even greater conflict among contributors than a single, complete article. Personal note: Some rash things have been said and done in this recent dispute that aren’t constructive and I would like to ask everyone (including myself) to pause for breath and remember what this remarkable website we are contributing to is all about – the thorough explanation of any term that a user wishes to increase their knowledge on. If terms have political ramifications, these should be fully and sensitively included in the article. Enthusiastic re-enactments of past battles however should just be left to members of historical societies who like to get all dressed up and run around a field at weekends! Lighten up everyone and have a pleasant weekend wherever you are. User PConlon, 13:17, 6 July 2006
Two separate articles make sense - one would be about the actual British Isles, and the other would be about the term British Isles. And just because it's a geographical region, doesn't mean it doesn't have a history. To separate that history into two arbitrarily defined regions would distort the nature of the relationship between the islands, which have seen large movements of people, culture, and ideas between them throughout history and going right back to the Neolithic. This needs to be stated. TharkunColl 15:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
We could even call it European Isles! -- Red King 16:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
This problems we have had are not unique to this article. If you look at other articles about geographic regions, many (like Scandinavia, Central Europe, Midwestern United States, South Asia, Middle East) spend a lot of time discussing difficulties of definition and usage of terminology. That said, there is sense in moving general information about physical geography (geology, climate, biology) from Great Britain and Ireland to here, but little point in simply duplicating (or triplicating) information. As regards human geography and history, anything more than a cursory overview could be seen as POV that "Britain and Ireland are very similar". Copious linking to other articles would be less contentious than putting more detail here, without compromising the usefulness of this article. There is also too much overlap between Britain, British, British Isles and British Isles terminology; I suggest the first two are merged, the fourth tidied and a new British Isles name controversy be split out of the relevant bits.
On a related note, consider if you will the Category:British Isles; there are almost no articles directly contained within it; most are within subcats specific to Ireland, Great Britain et al; many of those that are there should be within a subcat. (The same is true of Category:Scandinavia, for one.) Very interestingly, there is currently no Category:Great Britain. There is a Category:History of Britain; I have no idea to what extent this is intended to encompass Ireland. In short, this article is part of a wider problem. jnestorius( talk) 17:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
<Just a thought> is someone going to start campaigning to have Postman Pat moved to Pàdraig Post since Postman is sexist and politically incorrect? .. dave souza, talk 19:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
While most users on both sides of the argument here have shown themselves willing to discuss issues and try to work to achieve a consensus that reflects all viewpoints, TharkunColl and Dave souza seem intent on doctoring the article to force their personal POV as if it was fact. In this edit TharkunColl, as before, sought to hide the fact that he was deleting any neutral working and footnotes, to push his own widely disputed claim that the Republic of Ireland is part of the British Isles (the wording that had been there was deliberately worded to avoid saying that it was, or wasn't, merely that it is a controversial issue of debate), and to push his claim that British Isles is exclusively a geographic term, a demonstrably false claim. Other users, not noticing his careful gutting of the opening, made genuine efforts to clean up what they thought was the NPOV paragraph. When TharkunColl's dodgy edit was corrected, souza, true to form, reinserted it, claiming that the neutrally agreed version was added in sneakily.
Since TharkunColl and souza seem to have missed it, it was agreed to use that opening because it was seen as the more NPOV. But instead of constructive debate, TharkunColl seems to want simply to delete anything that does not reflect his opinion, and remove any footnotes that don't push his agenda, to insert a set of claims that are widely disputed.
FearÉIREANN
\
(caint)
22:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
A lie. You removed a statement that the issue of whether Ireland is or is not in the BI is a matter of controversy. You removed a statement that the BI originally was a geographic term, but is seen by some as having political, historical and cultural meanings because for much of the last two centuries the BI and the UK of GB and I were largely coterminus. You deliberately removed qualifications and explanations and replaced them with your own, widely disputed, bold assertions. It would be nice if you had the decency to tell the truth about your edit, rather than lie about it.
FearÉIREANN
\
(caint)
22:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Jtdirl/FearÉIREANN, you are in clear breach of Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:Assume good faith here. Regrettably I must ask you to moderate your language in future. Regarding your insulting suggestion about buying a dictionary and looking up the meaning of the word neutral, I would have hoped that you would realise that Wikipedia:Neutral point of view sets the standard. For the record, your reversion with the comment (remove yet more sneaked in POVing by TharkunColl.) removed the efforts of several editors in what I thought was a promising development to a more neutral opening. I changed it back with a comment about your sneaky revert for which I apologise: neither your edit nor TharkunColl's should have been described in this way. You then reverted it again with the comment (rv to accepted version - removing footnotes and adding in propaganda is vandalism), removing a footnote and thus vandalising the article by your own standards. I accepted the point and worked on a version keeping all footnotes which I posted at almost the same time as you posted this section on the talk page. I am glad to see that editing to improve the balance of this article has continued, and hope that you can see the need to avoid giving undue weight to one viewpoint. .. dave souza, talk 19:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
By a judiscious use of anonymous sockpuppets you have forced me to dely any further reversion. But rest assured I shall. This article is not a soapbox for political agendas. TharkunColl 22:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
The current version claims that the term only acquired cultural and political meanings because of the UK - where is the evidence for this? And where is the evidence that the Irish rejected the term in 1922? Some of them still use it today! TharkunColl 22:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
For a statement that the term is avoided by institutions in Ireland, the footnote gives two bodies that do use it (RNLI and Irish Lights).
The claim is made that the term only aqcuired cultural meanings because of the UK before 1922 - no evidence is given for this at all.
The Lloyd George statement is, at best, ambiguous - "propinquity", a rare word, has connotations of kinship that go beyond mere proximity. His statement could easily be read to imply that Ireland is indeed in the British Isles. It has no worth as evidence. TharkunColl 23:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Wrong on every point. The RNLI and the Irish Lights are British institutions that were not passed over to the Irish Free State due to a technical error in 1922. They are paid for by the Irish taxpayer and are referred to, as were other institutions pre-1922, as British Isles institutions.
Your second point suggests you don't know your history.
Propinquity has a clear dictionary meaning. It would not be used if Lloyd George thought Ireland was part of the British Isles. It has every worth as evidence. Your claim to the contrary just shows how poor your research skills and judgement are. The footnote is directly relevant and will be re-inserted, as will everything else, as often as necessary.
The only bias is your inability to recognise that, as the rest of the planet but you seems to grasp, the British Isles is not merely a geographic term, and the claim that Ireland is in the British Isles is a matter of considerable controversy. As a result to state categorically that the term only has a geographic meaning, and that Ireland definitely is in the BI, is a falsehood, a deliberate mispresentation to push your personal agenda. It will be removed and an NPOV statement placed there, as often as necessary. If that means inserting it daily for the next week, month or year, various users will do that. Dodgy POV-pushing about the term's meaning and Ireland's status cannot be allowed to stand under NPOV rules and will not be. Various users, from Ireland, Britain, the US and elsewhere will be correcting any false claims such as those added in, every time they are added in.
FearÉIREANN
\
(caint)
23:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Jtdirl/FearÉIREANN, your assertion that others "state categorically that the term only has a geographic meaning" is a straw man, and seems to arise from an inability to realise that "widely" does not mean "universally". However, your stated intention to edit war is noted. .. dave souza, talk 20:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Dear all, I have strong concerns about User:Jtdirl's conduct & impartiality as an WP:ADMIN in this " Edit war". With many of his comments to other editors (e.g. calling their edits " vandalism", talk contributions "lies", "net rubbish", "bullshit", "laughable", "deluded", "wacky", accused them of "arrogance", "ignorance"... etc etc), I feel he is paying scant regard to wikipedia policies such as WP:CIVIL, WP:ATTACK and WP:FAITH.
I also have strong concerns about the current state of this British Isles article and User:Jtdirl's contribution as an editor. I feel he is paying scant regard to wiki guidelines such as WP:CON and the WP:NPOV policy. My reading of this talk page is that most editors feel that (i) "British Isles" is the most appropriate title for the article in line with WP:NAME, (ii) the article is currently out-of-balance and should focus more on geography and history (iii) some much briefer mention of the contentious nature of the name "British Isles" should be present (my own editorial attempt at this was an italicised disclaimer at the top), but that the bulk of this material is better handled by the British Isles terminology article (which currently contains duplicates of all that stuff). User:Jtdirl is continuing to revert edits which seek to achieve particularly the latter.
The issue of the neutral point of view and in particular WP:NPOV#Undue weight have been raised by editors above, although ignored by User:Jtdirl. I believe the WP:NPOV#Undue weight aspect is the key to this whole edit war (it is certainly what piqued my personal involvement). Currently most of the article intro and 3 more entire sections are devoted to the "naming dispute" aspect. Since the present naming dispute is a Meta-issue, and will not change the height of Mt Snowdon or the length of the river Shannon by one inch, or affect the events of history stretching back 2 millenia into the past, I feel this meta-issue can be usefully dealt with largely by British Isles terminology. I do not think there is much disagreement that the term "British Isles" is contentious amoung those with what might be very broadly described under an Irish Nationalist political POV (which probably includes by far the greater part of people on the island of Ireland, and also amoungst other nationalist groups in the UK (Scots, Welsh, Cornish...). However with the population of the United Kingdom at just under 60 million, Republic of Ireland at just over 4 million, and the share of the vote in elections for parties such as Plaid Cymru and the Scottish National Party relatively poor considering the UK electorate overall, the number of people resident in the "British Isles" who find the term contentious/offensive is with reasonable likelihood quite substantially in the minority. Moreover the term is widely known throughout the world, where people are largely unaware of the controversy (cf. examples of figures such as the President of Russia and spouse of the President of the USA - hardly people ignorant of international affairs). It is very much my view, and I believe also the view of other impartial editors, that the "naming dispute" aspect of the article is falling foul of WP:NPOV#Undue weight. Also, whilst stressing that I am in NO way trying to be offensive or make assumptions about people, I have been examing the user:talk pages of most of the editors involved in this edit war. Amoungst those who maintain the "naming dispute" aspect is NOT unduly weighted, I detect a majority who identify themselves as Irish Wikipedians and/or have done much fine work editing articles relating to Ireland. I respectfully suggest that these people are something of a "special interest group" on this naming dispute issue and cannot be taken as representative of the Neutral Point of View.
To make particular reference with respect to my dealings with User:Jtdirl - I appreciate I am often more withering in my comments than is desirable, and apologise for any offence caused. (Suggestions such that we instead all strip naked and club each other to death in a xenophobic rage are, I assure you, intended to be light-hearted :) and diffuse the situation by making us see how ridiculous it is becoming, rather than an attempt to inflame it. I would refer you to the fight between the Judean Peoples' Front and the People's Front of Judea in Life of Brian...) With regard to my WP:3RR violation, I was annoyed that my edits were reverted and called "vandalism" when I had been trying to enact what I perceived to be the editorial consensus. You approached User:172 on their talkpage User_talk:172#Soapbox articles asking for their collaboration (I know that you have worked with 172 before). 172 proceeded to revert my edits 3 times and you then did twice more. I believed the pair of you to be acting in consort to revert me, effectively giving yourselves an 6RR limit! You described your edit http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=British_Isles&oldid=62270897 "reinsert opening" when in fact it is a simple reversion (thus reinstate much more "naming dispute" material than just the opening para)! I felt this was an attempt to disguise your behaviour. Above anything else, I feel it is deeply improper for you to use your admin powers to block me under 3RR when you are an antagonist in said edit war. (I do not accept that "no other admins were available" - surely you can leave details on the WP:AN/3RR noticeboard and someone in another time zone would have acted?) When I have complained about your conduct via my own talk page, you simply accused me of making personal attacks and threatened to block me for yet longer periods. With all due respect, I feel this is an abuse of your admin role - you cannot adjudicate on an issue you yourself are so embroiled in.
More than one other editor has already made an appeal that we seek mediation under WP:RFM. I support this request. It is also clear that some editors (myself included) are uncertain how to use the relevant template to achiece this. I suggest that if User:jtdirl was a responsible and honorable admin, he would [ Disengage for a while] and assist us in setting up an WP:RFM.
TharkunColl; please don't take this off topic. -- Robdurbar 11:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I was wrong about Derry - if the majority of its citizens are Nationalists then Derry is the correct name. As for the Falklands, a majority (in fact, 100 per cent) of its inhabitants don't want them to be called Malvinas. As for British Isles, a majority of their inhabitants - perhaps by a ratio of 60:4, have no problem with the term. Can you see my reasoning here? It's not that difficult really you know. TharkunColl 13:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I noticed there is some talk of filing an WP:RFM. My other case appears to be going slowly, so Im willing to help out in any way I can here. Please file first though. Cases can be assigned with or without mutual agreement from parties, though refusal of mediation typically means moving on to WP:RFA.- Ste| vertigo 18:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Just returned and seen that discussion continues! 'British Isles' is a term in common usage and so, without question, needs a Wikipedia article to cover it. I've already given my opinion, at some length, that the article should in cover everything associated with the term. The idea of making the 'British isles' article solely about geography and sweeping every other issue (some of which some people may not like but exist none-the-less) under the carpet on a side article is ridiculous. Incidentally, my Hitler example (given above) was certainly an extreme one - as many good illustrative examples often are - but hopefully made the general point. I wasn't aware of this Godwin's Rule thing, but it seems a good one to me and will be respected henceforth. For another example then, imagine a 'King George III' article that refers in passing to 'medical issues' before going on to talk about his wonderful accomplishments...the user would have to go to 'George III (Medical Issues)' to read that the man went absolutely barking mad for a long period when he ruled the Empire! No, I'm with: One term, one article, one thorough explanation. User: PConlon 13:50, 7 July 2006
You still miss the point...I'm not typing the same thing over and over again, as it must bore others (it does me). If you willfully choose not to get my point, that's your own issue. A complete article on the term 'British Isles' with a separate 'terminology' article linked to it is ridiculous. Btw, how did you manage to respond to my point before I wrote it?! User: PConlon 15:14, 7 July 2006
I assumed it, but since then I've seen little evidence of it from you. Your attitude appals me; as others have already said, it appears to be uncompromising, bigoted and imperialistic. Also, sheer volume of argument does not make up for anything it might lack in substance - just a general point. User: PConlon 15:35, 7 July 2006
I agree fully with you, User:Pconlon, that 'the idea of making the 'British isles' article solely about geography and sweeping every other issue...under the carpet on a side article is ridiculous.' Removing the context from this article and placing it in a "terminology" page is simply a way for nationalistically-minded British wikipedians to attenuate the widespread Irish rejection of the term, to confine that objection to some remote part of wikipedia and get on with advancing this particular product of their country's relationship to Ireland, this aspect of their nationalist mythology. With this term, context is everything- which is why of course the aforementioned wish to remove it. Felicitously on this point, Edward Said wrote brilliantly many years ago (in Orientalism) about the need for colonial countries to control the representation of the natives to the outside world. New World, it may be, but alas some of the old dogs with their old tricks are with us yet. El Gringo 14:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Take a look at Geographical_renaming#Naming_disputes; every article listed there is about a naming dispute, and separate from the article about the entity whose name is in dispute. With one exception: British Isles. Take a look at Derry. A good article about the city; the first section after the intro is about the naming dispute (already entioned in the intro) with a link to the separate article about the dispute. The rest of the article takes the name "Derry" which is the title of the article and uses that in discussing all other aspects of the city. I think that is a good model for British Isles. Let us take "British Isles" to mean "Great Britain, Ireland and the rest"; mention that (1) many people dislike "British Isles" and use some other words to mean "Great Britain, Ireland and the rest" and (2) some people use "British Isles" to mean something else; link to another article discussing these issues; then move on and discuss the other aspects of the isles. What other aspects? A few examples: Geology of the British Isles and Trees of Britain and Ireland; Climate of the United Kingdom could be expanded into Climate of the British Isles since Ireland#Climate is pretty sparse; likewise British avifauna as against Ireland#Fauna. I don't think nationalist sensibilities can be offended by observing that the climate, plants and animals in Britain and Ireland are similar; a single article to cover both is better than nothing for Ireland (it can be refactored later when an Irish expert becomes available). How much of Category:British Isles needs to be summarised in the head article is just a detail. jnestorius( talk) 18:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
How should the history of the islands be presented here? It is a shame that the current article does not lead the reader directly to Prehistoric Britain and Early history of Ireland as well as the other relevant articles. In my opinion outline form would be best, attempts to summarize the numerous articles would quickly bloat the article. EricR 16:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Now, this claim is one which I would dearly love to have evidence for, and I'm not the first here to ask this. Irish is a Q Celtic language as is, obviously, Scottish Gaelic. Welsh, in contrast, is a P Celtic language. I know of nobody who claims that Irish is a British/Brythonic language. So, how did our politically motivated wikipedians manage to delve into some past and throw Goidelic Ireland into the Brythonic/British world? El Gringo 17:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I hope you don't mind a Welshman butting in on the Anglo-Irish War Part 2 (I hear that Ken Loach is already hard at work on the film), but I notice that the section on terminology says that the archipelago includes " ... the crown dependencies, the Isle of Man, Guernsey and Jersey, which are direct possessions of the British Crown and not part of the United Kingdom". I always understood that Guernsey and Jersey were not considered to be part of the archipelago. Does anybody have a citation? Rhion 06:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
...With reference to the area of coverage this in some way has been shaped by the political history of the islands that make up the British Isles.
These islands encompass both the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, which have maintained their own separate (from Westminster) system of government. The largest set of islands is Great Britain, comprising England, Wales and Scotland which have been joined under one monarch since 1603. For the period 1801-1920, Ireland was ruled directly from Westminster. Thus, for books printed before 1920, the British Isles was the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (and the Channel Islands, the Isles of Scilly and the Isle of Man). Since 1920, Ireland has been divided into Northern Ireland and Eire (the Republic of Ireland). Some texts produced in the period of post-Irish partition explored the British Isles (Demangeon 1927; Stamp and Beaver 1933; Watson and Sissons 1964); others the UK (Gardiner and Matthews 2000; Mohan 1999) and some Great Britain (Mitchell 1962).
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
EricR
08:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Regrettably, some editors seem to have difficulty in following the policy that conflicting views should be presented fairly, but not asserted, and that significant viewpoints should be represented in proportion to the prominence of each. While the shorter lead has come much closer to WP:LEAD, an intro is being pushed for that reads like the start of a "we hate this term" pamphlet. It's important to let readers know about the dispute, but it should also reflect the wide usage and acceptance of the term by people who know of the existence of the two sovereign states and don't consider that the term implies anything else. The Terminology section is currently inaccurate and needs work to improve neutrality. One alternative that seems common but isn't mentioned is simply referring to "Britain and Ireland", which is inoffensive but rather ambiguous: this should be discussed. However, the first priority must be to improve the lead. .. dave souza, talk 21:53, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
I have removed the following reference from the article:
<ref.> A minister is asking for easier access to birth certificates which "is the norm throughout the rest of the British Isles including Northern Ireland" The term 'British Isles' is not officially recognised by the Irish Government.</ref.>
far from supporting the assertion that the Irish government never uses the term British Isles, this reference does the opposite. If the British Isles includes Northern Ireland, then ipso facto, the British Isles also includes the Republic of Ireland, what with them being on the same island and all. Regardless, saying that it is not "officially recognised by the Irish government" is something of a red herring. As far as I'm aware the term is not "officially recognised" by anyone; one might as well say that the fact the indigenous inhabitants of the Amazon have not "officially recognised it" means they find it offensive too. Martin 23:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
(New subsection to avoid discussion of the intro from getting mixed up with the deletion of references issue.)
Jtdirl/FearÉIREANN, your credentials are impressive. As you surely know, I don't have so much experience, and can only read carefully the policies as written down. I wonder if you also worked on Wikipedia:No personal attacks? From a quick look there seems to be nothing saying that it's acceptable to attribute an agenda to me that I don't hold and use that to dismiss my point of view: perhaps you can elucidate. By the way, people tend to call me dave for short: using a second name tends to look a little hostile, but of course customs may differ where you come from.
Regarding the introduction, you appear to feel that it should be framed to discredit the term, with all of it except the last short paragraph emphasising doubts about the term and the grievance that some people feel against it. In my opinion the introduction should state what the term usually refers to, state that there is a controversy but no alternative term has yet gained widespread use, and briefly list the area encompassed as it does at present. Details of the dispute from either viewpoint should be avoided in the lead. The controversy is also referred to in the italic disambiguation line at the top of the page. To me this better reflects npov and makes the controversy clear without giving a (perhaps substantial) minority view undue weight. The detailed points of argument should then be set out in full in the terminology section, or fully outlined there with full detail going in the British Isles (terminology) article.
From your comments and reverts it seems that we may have some difficulty in agreeing a balance here, and perhaps it would help now to get impartial outside comment on the best way forward? ... dave souza, talk 09:26, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Are they in some way unacceptable? TharkunColl 19:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
In 84 years of Irish "govt" (most of your citations were from politicians, not the government) the amount of citations you have referenced is very tiny. How many comments were made in the Oireachtas in this period? That is the context, whether you like it or not. You list people such as Mary Henry, a mere senator, of TCD (yes, Trinity College Dublin) who is playing to a certain, shall we say, "audience". Only the most wilfully blind would think such a person was representative of Irish society. 193.1.172.163 22:08, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Anyone with the slightest understanding of sourcing knows that sources have to be
Your links aren't. Mary Henry is a classic example. Mary is a senator from the University of Dublin, a former bastion of Irish unionism - where I studied too. As such it would be remarkable if she hadn't used the term, given that her electorate would expect her to. (Quoting Mary as an example is a bit like quoting a reference to royal weddings as evidence that most people still get married wearing morning suits. Royalty, by definition of course wear morning suits or military uniforms. So sourcing them isn't proof of anything.) Of course Mary uses British Isles, just as Tories like singing Rule Britannia and Labour people like singing the Red Flag. It goes with the territory and is evidence of nothing except either your scraping the barrel for evidence or your complete lack of understanding of context. Having Mary Henry, given her electorate, use the term would be no more unusual than her colleague, gay rights campaigner Senator David Norris, delivering a speech defending gay rights, or Pope Benedict delivering a speech attacking gay rights, or George Bush speaking about how marriage must be between a man and a woman, Her Majesty delivering a speech on the value of the Crown in Australia, or Gerry Adams defending the role of the IRA in the Troubles.
Informative sources would be where Mary Henry attacked the use of British Isles, David attacked gay rights, the President praised gay marriage, Her Majesty urged Australia to become a republic, or Adams attacked the IRA's role in the Troubles.
Similarly your reference to Síle de Valera is evidence of how little you know about the topic. Anyone who know's Síle's viewpoint knows very well as that she hold extreme republican views — she played a key role in forcing Jack Lynch out of the party leadership by expressing a republican attack on him. And anyone who knows how ministers operate know very well that they don't write their own speeches; they don't have the time to. If they have time they proof-read the speech in advance. If they don't they read what is written. In Síle's case, as is well known, she went ballistic when she realised that the speech she was reading included phraseology she would never use. She bollocked the speechwriter afterwards over it and AFAIK never used him again. Either you know that and deliberately mislead people by not mentioning it, or you didn't know that, in which your research was incompetently done and amateurish.
But then your contributions here show no evidence of professional sourcing, just POV-pushing.
Proper professional sourcing would know the difference between ministers reading speeches on automatic pilot that were written by others (George Bush recently had the same problem. A speechwriter used a term he would never ever use himself but he was literally reading the words off the teleprompter when he realised "oh. For fuck sake. Who wrote this?" But at that stage it was too late. He had read the words.) and people delivering their own words, and would seek sources that reflect the speaker's words (for example, in interviews, unscripted parliamentary debates, in televised debates, in newspaper articles, etc). Your contributions show no evidence of professional sourcing, just a lot of evidence of taking things out of context, or not letting other contributors here know the context, to push your agenda.
FearÉIREANN
\
(caint)
23:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Source for this business about Síle de Valera? john k 23:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Also, Ben Bell posted a bunch of links above to mentions of "British Isles" Irish people. I don't think anybody is disputing that there are various Irish people who find the term offensive and don't use it. But it also seems clear that various people in the Republic do use the term, including various people in parliamentary debates and reports. Even if some of them are quasi-unionists, and others are only using it because a scriptwriter fucked up, the fact remains that the term is used in the Republic, and it is used to include Ireland. There has still been almost no evidence presented to support the idea that much of anyone uses the term "British Isles" in a way which excludes Ireland. john k 23:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
John,
You'd be lucky to find 20% of Irish people who use it in a way that includes Ireland. There is an overwhelming consensus in Ireland that it does not cover Ireland. There is also growing opposition to the term among both the Scottish Nationalists and the Scottish Labour Party. Even the Scottish Conservative Party shies away from using British that much. Only last week the Record recorded Scottish Labour Party embarrassment that Gordon Brown endorsed the English soccer team in the World Cup and spoke of the team "representing Britain". And the Scottish Tories too were annoyed that Cameron used "British pride" to describe the reaction to the fact that England actually didn't get knocked out in the first round. To rebuild their electoral prospects the Scottish Tories have been replacing the word "British" with "Scottish" in leaflets of late. Even in England, some Tories have been using "English" rather than "British" more and more, while the National Front disown the word "British" in their most recent policy statements and stress their Englishless. Similarly the Royal Family lays far more emphasis on its individual Scottish and English origins than a shared Britishness. (The Princess Royal, in Holyrood, stresses that she is the granddaughter of a Scottishwoman and works with the Scottish Rugby Football Union, while Prince William associates with English organisations like the Football Association. The BBC and the Guardian both ask that "British Isles" not be used, or in the latter case, that "British Isles and Ireland" be used if at all possible, while in legislation British Islands is used in preference to British Isles where possible. The Foreign Office also recommends that "British Isles" no longer be used. Recently both Blair and Ahern, in a speech, used "Islands of the North Atlantic" where in the past British prime ministers at least would have said "British Isles". I think you seriously overestimate the extent to which the term is used, and underestimate the extent to which everyone, from the Irish to the British Foreign Office, the BBC to the Royal Family, the Labour Party to the National Front, try to avoid using it. In large parts of British academia, it is seen as politically incorrect to use the term, with many campuses and many academics either discouraging its use, or in some case, banning it altogether. (I have been at 3 conferences in the last 2 years where the term "British Isles and Ireland" or the "Anglo-Celtic Isles" were used and where academics were explicitly told not to use it, because it was "potentially offensive to millions on these islands, in Ireland, Wales and Scotland".)
FearÉIREANN
\
(caint)
00:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
How about this for the name of the islands? After all, the vast majority of their inhabitants speak English as a first language, and of the tiny minority that don't, the vast majority still speak it. I must emphasise, of course, that the phrase "English" in this context must not be confused with the very similar sounding word "English" which means something of, or pertaining to, England. These two words, "English" and "English", despite a superficial resemblance, have actually no etymological connection whatsoever. TharkunColl 12:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
This comment can clearly be seen as flaming: less inflammatory posts have already been removed from this tail page, and I propose that this section be deleted. Any comments? .. dave souza, talk 17:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:British Isles/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
Comment(s) | Press [show] to view → |
---|---|
Ireland is NOT part of the British Isles. The British Isles Wikipedia article is bringing Wikipedia into disrepute and is insulting and innacurate. Ireland once was part of British Isles but not any longer. Please have the decency to correct the article. In the same way that the term Belgian Congo is nolonger used, the term British Isles is no longer used when speaking of ireland. Queennivea ( talk) 20:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC) Ireland (Republic of) is no longer part of the political entity the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. British Isles is a geographic term and political status doesn't affect this. The British Isles also include the Isle of Man and commonly the Bailiwicks of Jersey and Guernsey, none of which are part of the United Kingdom. Belgian Congo was a political term for the successor to the Congo Free State, and the term is only applied to the political entity (now defunct). Peridon ( talk) 20:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC) |
Last edited at 20:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 20:17, 2 May 2016 (UTC)