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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
Does anyone have a source for the comment about the british isles consisting of 6000+ island and islets, it seems a lot. I'm researching this subject and I'd love to find a source.
DuncanGrey 14:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
The page is currently edit-protected. Would an admin please change "the Pale" in the section Vikings and Normans to " the Pale". The former page was just moved to the latter (after a consensus discussion). Pale is now an article on pales in general (there are several others, besides the famous one).-- Srleffler 03:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
OK, so I've unprotected this article. Now let's see if people can get back to editing it without personal attacks or incivility, eh? What is the general view on how this (and linked articles shcu as Britain and Ireland and British Isles (terminology)) should progess now? -- Robdurbar 20:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
'Rejected by "some" in Ireland' Just what, precisely, is the basis for this false representation of the reality in Ireland? As has been shown relentlessly here, the term is rarely used in Ireland. It's great to see so many experts on Ireland from, well, Britain. The Empire is finished, lads. Get over yourselves. From the fields of Mullaghbawn to the hills of Ard na Caithne to the mountains of Sliabh na mBan this country continues to resist incorporation into the myths of British nationalism, myths which the very term "British Isles" encapsulates so well. Your tribe is just that: your tribe. Only at the heart of the British tribe could you mistake the terminological constructions of the British state, of your institutionalised nationalism, as being representative of the mass of people in Ireland. New word for today: irredentism. El Gringo 20:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Interestingly, and considering the "British Isles" brigade's love for Google, Google has just fought "British Isles" out against "Britain and Ireland". Unfortunately for the British far right here, the results are:
http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=British+Isles&word2=Britain+and+Ireland
Translation: 87 million results for Britain and Ireland; a mere 19.6 million for British Isles. How ironic that the British far right here want the Britain and Ireland article to be deleted as soon as possible because it, in their unique world view, is "not in widespread use". This entire issue is an astounding reflection of British nationalism in 2006. El Gringo 22:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Two things:
No, you meant this: http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=%22British+Isles%22&word2=%22Britain+and+Ireland%22 Jonto 22:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
hehe Jaysas, Mel. I'm buying you a pint if you ever end up in Dublin. Great spirit! El Gringo 22:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Crazy. Was just thinking of it when the sentence was being written. Weird. El Gringo 23:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Jaysus, Mulligans, is it? Mother of divine Lord, wouldn't that now be a great place to go pinting! Could do a survey on "British Isles" — and then run before you get a glass over the head for mentioning that term! lol FearÉIREANN \ (caint) 23:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
In a related article, Gsd2000 is still trying to claim here that the UK and Britain is the same. Intellectually breathtaking, I know. Somebody over there pointed out by way of example that on the Netherlands article it is made clear that Holland is incorrect usage, even if benighted types equate both. This simple flagging suggestion has resulted in apoplexy from the United Kingdom=Britain brigade. Time to end this silliness. El Gringo 01:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi Shtove, I think the pretaniki is a bit of a supposition (after all, for a very long time "British" was supposed to derive from " Brutus of Troy"). However, you can find the most authoritative text of Ptolemy here [3], and Pliny is here [4] (book 4, para 102 onwards), but in Latin only, which is not one of my languages I am afraid. You can actually find images of pre-17th century maps which use the equivalent of British Isles in Latin and French can be seen here [5]. It's a relief to find a comment interested in sources. I think the article is reporting these sources correctly, but see what you think. MAG1 21:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
On what authority have you unilateraly decided that Britain = Great Britain and not the UK. Both the British and Irish governments and media use Britain to refer to the state and usually reserve Great Britain for the island (although the irish consolate used has a Great Britain embassy). josh ( talk) 14:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
"Great Britain" is the island. "Britain" is a vague and informal term which can mean either the island or the state. john k 21:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Maybe out in the eternally benighted 13 colonies it's a bit "vague"; indeed, so "vague" that calling Britain England is very commonplace in 2006. Strangely, I don't see anybody here rushing to support that sort of "vagueness". But that's another matter. At any rate, nothing vague about Britain here in Ireland. In fact, historical, political, cultural and intellectual discourse has been quite taken by the entire British thing for some time now. Precision is everything in such a context. Only an outsider would fail to appreciate the importance of this. And only a sloppy mind would attempt to imbue the ignorance of equating Britain with the UK with the legitimacy of precision. El Gringo 23:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I have had a go at taking up Red King's challenge and revising the history. It's not much shorter, I am afraid, but I have tried to focus it on things best done here rather on national pages. As well as a brief survey of the development of political structures, these include:
I have tried to keep the section NPOV for obvious reasons, so no moral commentary. I have also tried to minimise any Whiggishness- any sense that the past is just a long march to the glorious present. MAG1 22:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
P.S. I have also tried to add just a little social and economic history to go along with the politics. MAG1 23:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I notice that the history of the BI is being purely told through a British perspective. I thought that the name "British Isles" was a neutral term. Well the article seems to be growing political tentacles, and doesn't look too neutral. MelForbes 22:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Try as one might, there is little an editor can do to improve a situation in reaction to such general comments. -- Robdurbar 22:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Well I tried very hard to avoid this (I have rewritten a sizable chunk). Please be explicit in your criticism and what you think should be done about it rather than throwing around wild accusations. MAG1 22:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I must admit, I wouldn't mind removing the history section and replacing it with relevant links; that said, there is room for a section on the history of British-Irish relations and the history section of this page would be as good as anything for that; either way, its not a section that interests me greatly!
As for Mel's comments... I don't see how any of us can do this given that very few of the editors here know anything about Irish history. Perhaps we could ask those who have contributed to the History of Ireland page to have a look here? -- Robdurbar 10:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Interestingly enough, I barely changed any of the early history as I could not see how it could be improved. There is a bit on the Celts/Gaels/Britons/Brythons in the first para of the "Pretani, Romans and Anglo-Saxons" section.
As to the replace-with-a-list-of-articles idea, this was my starting point; however, there are aspects, as discussed above, which are not dealt elsewhere, and there are things which can only be dealt with on an all-archipelago basis (again, see above). Now, if people want to generate the articles elsewhere within Wikipedia, then that would be great, but until then this is probably the best place for the material. I have tried, and I think it is a good principle, not to reproduce substantial chunks from other articles. MAG1 11:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Just to note, a history of the "British Isles" ought not concern itself solely with "British-Irish relations," which at least implies, to my mind, the history of relations between Ireland and the present-day British state. It should, I think, be about the history of the islands as a unit. There's a ton of stuff that doesn't full under the rubrik of "British-Irish relations" - the effects of the Viking Invasions, for instance, make a great deal of sense to discuss in a broad view as to their effects on the British Isles as a whole. So does the spread of Norman-style feudalism, which occurred in different ways in England, Wales, Scotland, and Ireland. Relations between Scotland and Ireland (which are, I suppose, technically covered by the term "British-Irish relations," but which, in practice are likely to be ignored) are also worth discussing. A history section seems essential to me. If the current one is bad, improve it. john k 20:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Shtove's argument sounds like an argument against encyclopaedias: classifications never can be applied rigorously; therefore things should not be classified. Taken to its extreme, there should be just one article. There is, I believe, currently a live debate on how navel gazing were the Victorians and Edwardians; however, I do not think that it is really possible to stick the concept of the British Isles on the Victorians trying to make the world fit in with their ideas of what it should be like: it existed before the heyday of the Empire, and you would havve to be well into yopur fifties by now to have had an 'Our Island History' type of education. While there are always connections to the rest of Europe and the world, the British Isles have been seen as distinct from continental Europe: originally it was seen as being ethnically different (hence the name), and, then for better or worse, they remained out of European political structures from the Reformation until 1974, and the societies were developed by people from the British Isles or at least those who lived there. It would be difficult, for example, to describe any effect that Desmond had on Spain or Milan, or indeed the effects that Spain or Milan had on British society (with the exception of Philip's influence on Mary. During the Middle Ages, they were part of transnational feudal structures, but developed distinctively from the continent. Christianity is a particularly interesting (and neglected) part of British Isles history with the assimulation of Celtic Christianity by the Roman sort, and again while obviously it has many outside influences, but this is an area where the British Isles is precisely the right scale. Yes, it is different now and it may become even more different if Northern Ireland is ever sorted out, but that does not affect the past unless you are a fully paid-up post modernist. That the world can be described using several different scales is not an argument for ignoring them, but trying to reflect them all. I think (as I have said consistently) is that a test for this section is that it should not merely parrot what can be found in other articles, but should be introducing new material or maiking connections between existing material that have not been made. MAG1 11:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Dublin: "Baile Átha Cliath or simply Áth Cliath was founded in 988 nearby: the two towns eventually became one." Eblana was a separate settlement. As for the High King not being weak - read the article. Maybe the mythological High Kings weren't, but the 'modern' office was certainly so; figureheads, compromise candidates, etc., elected from the fine. Bastun 00:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Could you recommend me some good books about geography of British Isles, avaiable now in British bookstores? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.179.53.89 ( talk • contribs) 19:15, 8 September 2006
Warning Don't feed anonymous coward trolls! ... dave souza, talk 01:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I didn't ask what it consists of but what its name should be. By your logic it should be changed from Ireland because that name is already 'owned' by the state. josh ( talk) 23:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Is Darren Clarke Irish? He must be, because he cries a lot and skulls pints of guinness. Or is he European?-- Shtove 00:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
No confusion about it. The term is objectionable to me and any Irish person I know. That this discussion continues is testimony to how controversial the term is. And that some British people think it's an acceptable term (just as the British Empire was acceptable to their compatriots in former days) makes the term very controversial indeed. El Gringo 17:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
No better people for the euphemism than those claiming something they have no right to claim. And I'll leave my general observation at that. Anyway, a quick Google of that "British Isles" phrase on Google's Pages from Ireland function gives the following results:
"British Isles"= 56,900 [7];
"Britain and Ireland"= 71,800 [8];
"Ireland and Britain"= 40,800 [9].
In other words, 112,600 hits for two of the most common alternatives for British Isles, and a mere 56,900 hits for "British Isles" on Irish webpages. (and I note that many of the latter involve a discussion on Politics.ie about the phrase). So, again, tell us what British historian is the basis for misrepresenting the reality by saying "some" instead of "most"? Only somebody who is not Irish would deny that the phrase is not used by the majority of people in Ireland. It is only British nationalist delusions, from over there, which is refusing to face the reality in Ireland and trying to falsely represent the reality in Ireland when it comes to this most British, and most colonial, of terms. The correct adjective in this article is 'most' not 'some'. Not being wanted is a consequence of being a colonial power. It is time for you all to grow up and accept yout rejection by us natives rather than being dishonest about it. You are, collectively, being profoundly immature on this issue. As a mural in the Short Strand puts it, Slán Abhaile. El Gringo 18:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
"North America" gets 199,000 hits [11]
"United States and Canada" gets 13,900,000 hits [12]
"Canada and United States" gets 294,000 hits [13]
So does this mean that North America is a controversial term. People obviously prefer "United States and Canada" as a term for the region. I suggest you come up with a stronger argument, with proper references, next time. josh ( talk) 17:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
I suggest you find a better definiton of North America first. You left out quite a few member countries. Not surprising really given your understanding of Irish geography. After that, I suggest you address the issue of the phrase British Isles being only used by some in Ireland, with an overwhelming majority using alternative phrases. This is the reality which is in contrast with the claim in this article. This line of inquiry would be more respectful than going off in some ridiculous sophism which does your comprehension skills no credit. El Gringo 18:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Whilst wanting to ignore the many personal attacks from pretty much all of the users above (I exclude Josh and MelForbes from that criticism, though I haven't read the whole thing through), I'd like to say something about that first. Frankly, the conduct on this is embarassing at times, and I am quite serious that I will report any further personal attacks to the relvant admin noticeboards; this has really got to stop.
As for the issue here, it seems to me that we have a reality in which 'most Irish people' (paticularly in the indepdent part) never use British Isles, not through any political choice but through habit and a simple lack of contact with the term. However, I think that my experience on here and my discussions with friends indicate that the term is fairly common in Northern Ireland, and can be used there as a geographical term (Im not saying its never political - it has been historically and can be now).
However, my 'evidence' for all this only from my interactions and discussions with irish friends, or with Irish users on here. As a result, it is effectively useless for Wikipedia. Google searches, whilst often helpful, are not on their own a good enough source for using a term in Wikipedia.
So, whilst I would like to see us being able to change this to 'most' - I think it would reflect the reality of the situation - I do not see how we can do this until we can find some sort of newspaper survey, or a thick bank of newspaper/academic articles, which make the same claim. -- Robdurbar 11:23, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
This article got in mention in today's Irish Times (2 Oct 2006) - the article is available online here at eircom.net.
The interesting thing is an Irish schoolbook publisher got it wrong! The remark about the Irish embassy being urged to monitor British media is interesting.
zoney ♣ talk 09:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
I have removed the following for the time being:
It is far too simplistic without an explanation. Quite often the histories are not treated separately, and what is meant by "national" is open to interpretation - certainly it is usually the case that the history of Ireland is dealt with on a national basis (i.e. across the whole island) prior to 1922 (and in the case of history *in* the south, across the whole island subsequently too - in fairness the southern *news* refers to the North most days!). Going further back, Scottish and English history can be regarded separately, but anytime in recent centuries it is invariably considered across the United Kingdom.
I think this sentence is just causing trouble - at best it is imprecise, at worst, just flat out wrong.
zoney ♣ talk 09:53, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, I certainly don't live on a British island. I live in Dublin. The "British Isles" was a geographical term invented when the islands dominated by the London Government. Persia was once inhabited by Persians. Names change to reflect demographic and political change. You can't get Peking Duck in Peking anymore, there is no such place as Siam. The entire Spanish speaking world knows "The Falklands" as the "Malvinas". There is no such thing as "politically neutral" geographic names.
I might also add that some of the "British" contributors here lend way too much authority to colonial British Law in supporting their definitions of Irish and British.
( Sarah777 22:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC))
"British Isles" actually predates London's dominance of the islands. Iran is still inhabited by Persians, and although there are other groups there as well (Azeri Turks, Kurds, various other Iranian peoples), they are still the dominant ethnicity. I'm also entirely unclear on what "colonial British law" has to do with anything. john k 13:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I actually very much enjoy the historical debate provided it is historical rather than polemical. This is particularly interesting as an example of a false etymology, and they can matter. Shtove is not quite telling it as it is- here is my own quote from the section above in reply to his original point about the Pretaniki:
I think the pretaniki is a bit of a supposition (after all, for a very long time "British" was supposed to derive from " Brutus of Troy"). However, you can find the most authoritative text of Ptolemy here [18], and Pliny is here [19] (book 4, para 102 onwards), but in Latin only, which is not one of my languages I am afraid. You can actually find images of pre-17th century maps which use the equivalent of British Isles in Latin and French can be seen here [20].
I have read the reference for the first quote in English, and explicitly it is a historical use- it has nothing to do with James I. Judging from the rest of the relevant sections Heylin would have had no hesitation in asserting a political rather than historical use should he wanted to have done so. In fact, I don't think British had much of a political charge at his time of writing, away from the Court anyway: Shakespeare used it without any gloss or qualification twenty years previously to describe ancient Britons. Incidentally, this is the earliest surviving reference, it is not necessarily the earliest usage. Anyway it is far from clear what the point of this conversation (again) is.
For the record, I agree with Zoney's action: the statement had truth in it, but it's complicated, and perhaps this is not the place for it unless anyone wishes to write a section or even an article on the changing historiography of the British Isles. MAG1 19:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
There really needs to be a mention of this famous rugby team, made of of players from the British Isles. They used to be called the British Lions, but the PC has brought in the Irish part. Worthy of a mention in this article.-- Hamedog Talk| @ 02:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
In no less than four locations - including a banner and a whole section - was reference made to the view that some people in Ireland don't like the term British Isles. This article had become a vehicle for POV pushers who don't like the term. By all means make reference to it, but don't labour the point. I've removed some of the duplication and unnecessary references, but it's still highly POV. Please also, stop reverting to put this POV back. The term British Isles IS NOT confusing - it's just that some don't like it. To try and justify the term being confusing, one editor made reference in his reverting edit summary to a Texan who thought Edinburgh was in England. That's not confusion, that's stupidity! Arcturus 17:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Banner read; Quote "The term "British Isles" can be confusing and is objectionable to some people, particularly in Ireland. See the Terminology section below for details of the controversy." Unquote. This banner had been agreed upon, seemingly to skew the edit wars which may ensue, and which were a feature of the past. Prudent editors to this page should put fundamental changes to talk first, before proceeding with their view. MelForbes 19:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
The quote "the very existence of an article on the term British Isles" says a lot about El Gringo's attitude to this article. It is not an article about the term, or at least it shouldn't be. The fact that you believe it is causes the problems with the article becoming overwhelmingly bogged down in the fact that the term is disliked in Ireland. There is no-one here banging on about how the term must be promoted for the glory of the empire. In case you hadn't noticed, the empire is dead. Everyone else has moved on. You seem to be the only one who hasn't got over it. Its just left behind a language with a load of inaccurate terms that people just use without caring how they came about.
The only thing the banner does is say "Ignore the the article just read the controversy section". Banners are there for the benifit of readers, not editors. They point them in the correct direction if they end up at the wrong article so using it to promote the controversy section is an abuse of the technique. josh ( talk) 00:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Reference No.1 is a duplicate. The same material appears twice in the article. Suggestions as to which item to remove please. Arcturus 17:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with using the same reference twice; that's why the 'ref name' syntax exists. As for the material appearing twice; I agree it does. The point of the intro/opening section is to repeat what its the main article, only succicntly. -- Robdurbar 17:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
BTW Arcturus, I notice you're from Ulverston, and you started the Islands of Furness series; kudos to you for all that! -- Robdurbar 17:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I've edited towards the top of the page to include the fact that the Channel Islands like the Isle of Man are considered to be part of the British Isles. The fact they are closer to the European continent is irrelevant. They are still well within "territorial limits" of the British Isles to be included (there are islands further from the coasts of the two main islands that are still considered part of the British Isles) and have always been considerd to be part of the British Isles. I was surprised and puzzled to see they were excluded! YourPTR! 05:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I've also edited the section that starts: "The islands encompass an area south to north from..." to include the approx 76 square miles of the Channel Islands (including Chausey which is geographically part of the Channel Islands but claimed by France. I say claimed by France because I dispute their rightful ownership of those islands. Therefore sovereignty over them is in dispute). Obviously the most southerly part of the British Isles will have to be edited. Not sure what it is. A small reef south of Jersey I expect but I am not sure of it so have left it alone for now. YourPTR! 05:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Obviously other sections will also have to be edited later to correct the blatant error of the Channel Islands being originally excluded as being part of the British Isles such as this nonsense "The following islands are sometimes also included, though officially are not geographically part of the archipelago: Rockall and the Channel Islands." Since when? Both are part of the British Isles as legitimately as any other part. YourPTR! 05:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
This is part of the reason that many Irish people object to this misnomer. "Territorial limits" would lead me to believe that you think of the archipelago as a political construct. This term is not purely geogrphical as is delineated by the comments by YourPTR!. Iolar Iontach 08:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
How the Ancient Greeks or Romans ever used the term "British Isles" is beyond me; as they didn't speak English, in fact the language didn't exist at that time! The banner at the top of the article should read "this article is jingoistic nonsense and a relic of British imperialism." Iolar Iontach 20:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC) Actually to say that the term is merely objectionable to some is a gross understatement; since we can't say many (which is more accurate) repugnant would be more appropriate adjective. Iolar Iontach 20:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi Shtove, sorry you've had such difficulty finding a reference. This example may assist: Donnchadh O Corrain, Professor of Irish History at University College Cork, writing in The Oxford History of Ireland. Oxford University Press. ISBN 019280202X. As for the Stuarts, the map to the right is from Tudor times. ... dave souza, talk 19:23, 12 October 2006 (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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
Does anyone have a source for the comment about the british isles consisting of 6000+ island and islets, it seems a lot. I'm researching this subject and I'd love to find a source.
DuncanGrey 14:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
The page is currently edit-protected. Would an admin please change "the Pale" in the section Vikings and Normans to " the Pale". The former page was just moved to the latter (after a consensus discussion). Pale is now an article on pales in general (there are several others, besides the famous one).-- Srleffler 03:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
OK, so I've unprotected this article. Now let's see if people can get back to editing it without personal attacks or incivility, eh? What is the general view on how this (and linked articles shcu as Britain and Ireland and British Isles (terminology)) should progess now? -- Robdurbar 20:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
'Rejected by "some" in Ireland' Just what, precisely, is the basis for this false representation of the reality in Ireland? As has been shown relentlessly here, the term is rarely used in Ireland. It's great to see so many experts on Ireland from, well, Britain. The Empire is finished, lads. Get over yourselves. From the fields of Mullaghbawn to the hills of Ard na Caithne to the mountains of Sliabh na mBan this country continues to resist incorporation into the myths of British nationalism, myths which the very term "British Isles" encapsulates so well. Your tribe is just that: your tribe. Only at the heart of the British tribe could you mistake the terminological constructions of the British state, of your institutionalised nationalism, as being representative of the mass of people in Ireland. New word for today: irredentism. El Gringo 20:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Interestingly, and considering the "British Isles" brigade's love for Google, Google has just fought "British Isles" out against "Britain and Ireland". Unfortunately for the British far right here, the results are:
http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=British+Isles&word2=Britain+and+Ireland
Translation: 87 million results for Britain and Ireland; a mere 19.6 million for British Isles. How ironic that the British far right here want the Britain and Ireland article to be deleted as soon as possible because it, in their unique world view, is "not in widespread use". This entire issue is an astounding reflection of British nationalism in 2006. El Gringo 22:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Two things:
No, you meant this: http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=%22British+Isles%22&word2=%22Britain+and+Ireland%22 Jonto 22:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
hehe Jaysas, Mel. I'm buying you a pint if you ever end up in Dublin. Great spirit! El Gringo 22:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Crazy. Was just thinking of it when the sentence was being written. Weird. El Gringo 23:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Jaysus, Mulligans, is it? Mother of divine Lord, wouldn't that now be a great place to go pinting! Could do a survey on "British Isles" — and then run before you get a glass over the head for mentioning that term! lol FearÉIREANN \ (caint) 23:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
In a related article, Gsd2000 is still trying to claim here that the UK and Britain is the same. Intellectually breathtaking, I know. Somebody over there pointed out by way of example that on the Netherlands article it is made clear that Holland is incorrect usage, even if benighted types equate both. This simple flagging suggestion has resulted in apoplexy from the United Kingdom=Britain brigade. Time to end this silliness. El Gringo 01:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi Shtove, I think the pretaniki is a bit of a supposition (after all, for a very long time "British" was supposed to derive from " Brutus of Troy"). However, you can find the most authoritative text of Ptolemy here [3], and Pliny is here [4] (book 4, para 102 onwards), but in Latin only, which is not one of my languages I am afraid. You can actually find images of pre-17th century maps which use the equivalent of British Isles in Latin and French can be seen here [5]. It's a relief to find a comment interested in sources. I think the article is reporting these sources correctly, but see what you think. MAG1 21:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
On what authority have you unilateraly decided that Britain = Great Britain and not the UK. Both the British and Irish governments and media use Britain to refer to the state and usually reserve Great Britain for the island (although the irish consolate used has a Great Britain embassy). josh ( talk) 14:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
"Great Britain" is the island. "Britain" is a vague and informal term which can mean either the island or the state. john k 21:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Maybe out in the eternally benighted 13 colonies it's a bit "vague"; indeed, so "vague" that calling Britain England is very commonplace in 2006. Strangely, I don't see anybody here rushing to support that sort of "vagueness". But that's another matter. At any rate, nothing vague about Britain here in Ireland. In fact, historical, political, cultural and intellectual discourse has been quite taken by the entire British thing for some time now. Precision is everything in such a context. Only an outsider would fail to appreciate the importance of this. And only a sloppy mind would attempt to imbue the ignorance of equating Britain with the UK with the legitimacy of precision. El Gringo 23:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I have had a go at taking up Red King's challenge and revising the history. It's not much shorter, I am afraid, but I have tried to focus it on things best done here rather on national pages. As well as a brief survey of the development of political structures, these include:
I have tried to keep the section NPOV for obvious reasons, so no moral commentary. I have also tried to minimise any Whiggishness- any sense that the past is just a long march to the glorious present. MAG1 22:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
P.S. I have also tried to add just a little social and economic history to go along with the politics. MAG1 23:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I notice that the history of the BI is being purely told through a British perspective. I thought that the name "British Isles" was a neutral term. Well the article seems to be growing political tentacles, and doesn't look too neutral. MelForbes 22:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Try as one might, there is little an editor can do to improve a situation in reaction to such general comments. -- Robdurbar 22:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Well I tried very hard to avoid this (I have rewritten a sizable chunk). Please be explicit in your criticism and what you think should be done about it rather than throwing around wild accusations. MAG1 22:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I must admit, I wouldn't mind removing the history section and replacing it with relevant links; that said, there is room for a section on the history of British-Irish relations and the history section of this page would be as good as anything for that; either way, its not a section that interests me greatly!
As for Mel's comments... I don't see how any of us can do this given that very few of the editors here know anything about Irish history. Perhaps we could ask those who have contributed to the History of Ireland page to have a look here? -- Robdurbar 10:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Interestingly enough, I barely changed any of the early history as I could not see how it could be improved. There is a bit on the Celts/Gaels/Britons/Brythons in the first para of the "Pretani, Romans and Anglo-Saxons" section.
As to the replace-with-a-list-of-articles idea, this was my starting point; however, there are aspects, as discussed above, which are not dealt elsewhere, and there are things which can only be dealt with on an all-archipelago basis (again, see above). Now, if people want to generate the articles elsewhere within Wikipedia, then that would be great, but until then this is probably the best place for the material. I have tried, and I think it is a good principle, not to reproduce substantial chunks from other articles. MAG1 11:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Just to note, a history of the "British Isles" ought not concern itself solely with "British-Irish relations," which at least implies, to my mind, the history of relations between Ireland and the present-day British state. It should, I think, be about the history of the islands as a unit. There's a ton of stuff that doesn't full under the rubrik of "British-Irish relations" - the effects of the Viking Invasions, for instance, make a great deal of sense to discuss in a broad view as to their effects on the British Isles as a whole. So does the spread of Norman-style feudalism, which occurred in different ways in England, Wales, Scotland, and Ireland. Relations between Scotland and Ireland (which are, I suppose, technically covered by the term "British-Irish relations," but which, in practice are likely to be ignored) are also worth discussing. A history section seems essential to me. If the current one is bad, improve it. john k 20:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Shtove's argument sounds like an argument against encyclopaedias: classifications never can be applied rigorously; therefore things should not be classified. Taken to its extreme, there should be just one article. There is, I believe, currently a live debate on how navel gazing were the Victorians and Edwardians; however, I do not think that it is really possible to stick the concept of the British Isles on the Victorians trying to make the world fit in with their ideas of what it should be like: it existed before the heyday of the Empire, and you would havve to be well into yopur fifties by now to have had an 'Our Island History' type of education. While there are always connections to the rest of Europe and the world, the British Isles have been seen as distinct from continental Europe: originally it was seen as being ethnically different (hence the name), and, then for better or worse, they remained out of European political structures from the Reformation until 1974, and the societies were developed by people from the British Isles or at least those who lived there. It would be difficult, for example, to describe any effect that Desmond had on Spain or Milan, or indeed the effects that Spain or Milan had on British society (with the exception of Philip's influence on Mary. During the Middle Ages, they were part of transnational feudal structures, but developed distinctively from the continent. Christianity is a particularly interesting (and neglected) part of British Isles history with the assimulation of Celtic Christianity by the Roman sort, and again while obviously it has many outside influences, but this is an area where the British Isles is precisely the right scale. Yes, it is different now and it may become even more different if Northern Ireland is ever sorted out, but that does not affect the past unless you are a fully paid-up post modernist. That the world can be described using several different scales is not an argument for ignoring them, but trying to reflect them all. I think (as I have said consistently) is that a test for this section is that it should not merely parrot what can be found in other articles, but should be introducing new material or maiking connections between existing material that have not been made. MAG1 11:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Dublin: "Baile Átha Cliath or simply Áth Cliath was founded in 988 nearby: the two towns eventually became one." Eblana was a separate settlement. As for the High King not being weak - read the article. Maybe the mythological High Kings weren't, but the 'modern' office was certainly so; figureheads, compromise candidates, etc., elected from the fine. Bastun 00:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Could you recommend me some good books about geography of British Isles, avaiable now in British bookstores? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.179.53.89 ( talk • contribs) 19:15, 8 September 2006
Warning Don't feed anonymous coward trolls! ... dave souza, talk 01:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I didn't ask what it consists of but what its name should be. By your logic it should be changed from Ireland because that name is already 'owned' by the state. josh ( talk) 23:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Is Darren Clarke Irish? He must be, because he cries a lot and skulls pints of guinness. Or is he European?-- Shtove 00:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
No confusion about it. The term is objectionable to me and any Irish person I know. That this discussion continues is testimony to how controversial the term is. And that some British people think it's an acceptable term (just as the British Empire was acceptable to their compatriots in former days) makes the term very controversial indeed. El Gringo 17:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
No better people for the euphemism than those claiming something they have no right to claim. And I'll leave my general observation at that. Anyway, a quick Google of that "British Isles" phrase on Google's Pages from Ireland function gives the following results:
"British Isles"= 56,900 [7];
"Britain and Ireland"= 71,800 [8];
"Ireland and Britain"= 40,800 [9].
In other words, 112,600 hits for two of the most common alternatives for British Isles, and a mere 56,900 hits for "British Isles" on Irish webpages. (and I note that many of the latter involve a discussion on Politics.ie about the phrase). So, again, tell us what British historian is the basis for misrepresenting the reality by saying "some" instead of "most"? Only somebody who is not Irish would deny that the phrase is not used by the majority of people in Ireland. It is only British nationalist delusions, from over there, which is refusing to face the reality in Ireland and trying to falsely represent the reality in Ireland when it comes to this most British, and most colonial, of terms. The correct adjective in this article is 'most' not 'some'. Not being wanted is a consequence of being a colonial power. It is time for you all to grow up and accept yout rejection by us natives rather than being dishonest about it. You are, collectively, being profoundly immature on this issue. As a mural in the Short Strand puts it, Slán Abhaile. El Gringo 18:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
"North America" gets 199,000 hits [11]
"United States and Canada" gets 13,900,000 hits [12]
"Canada and United States" gets 294,000 hits [13]
So does this mean that North America is a controversial term. People obviously prefer "United States and Canada" as a term for the region. I suggest you come up with a stronger argument, with proper references, next time. josh ( talk) 17:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
I suggest you find a better definiton of North America first. You left out quite a few member countries. Not surprising really given your understanding of Irish geography. After that, I suggest you address the issue of the phrase British Isles being only used by some in Ireland, with an overwhelming majority using alternative phrases. This is the reality which is in contrast with the claim in this article. This line of inquiry would be more respectful than going off in some ridiculous sophism which does your comprehension skills no credit. El Gringo 18:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Whilst wanting to ignore the many personal attacks from pretty much all of the users above (I exclude Josh and MelForbes from that criticism, though I haven't read the whole thing through), I'd like to say something about that first. Frankly, the conduct on this is embarassing at times, and I am quite serious that I will report any further personal attacks to the relvant admin noticeboards; this has really got to stop.
As for the issue here, it seems to me that we have a reality in which 'most Irish people' (paticularly in the indepdent part) never use British Isles, not through any political choice but through habit and a simple lack of contact with the term. However, I think that my experience on here and my discussions with friends indicate that the term is fairly common in Northern Ireland, and can be used there as a geographical term (Im not saying its never political - it has been historically and can be now).
However, my 'evidence' for all this only from my interactions and discussions with irish friends, or with Irish users on here. As a result, it is effectively useless for Wikipedia. Google searches, whilst often helpful, are not on their own a good enough source for using a term in Wikipedia.
So, whilst I would like to see us being able to change this to 'most' - I think it would reflect the reality of the situation - I do not see how we can do this until we can find some sort of newspaper survey, or a thick bank of newspaper/academic articles, which make the same claim. -- Robdurbar 11:23, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
This article got in mention in today's Irish Times (2 Oct 2006) - the article is available online here at eircom.net.
The interesting thing is an Irish schoolbook publisher got it wrong! The remark about the Irish embassy being urged to monitor British media is interesting.
zoney ♣ talk 09:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
I have removed the following for the time being:
It is far too simplistic without an explanation. Quite often the histories are not treated separately, and what is meant by "national" is open to interpretation - certainly it is usually the case that the history of Ireland is dealt with on a national basis (i.e. across the whole island) prior to 1922 (and in the case of history *in* the south, across the whole island subsequently too - in fairness the southern *news* refers to the North most days!). Going further back, Scottish and English history can be regarded separately, but anytime in recent centuries it is invariably considered across the United Kingdom.
I think this sentence is just causing trouble - at best it is imprecise, at worst, just flat out wrong.
zoney ♣ talk 09:53, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, I certainly don't live on a British island. I live in Dublin. The "British Isles" was a geographical term invented when the islands dominated by the London Government. Persia was once inhabited by Persians. Names change to reflect demographic and political change. You can't get Peking Duck in Peking anymore, there is no such place as Siam. The entire Spanish speaking world knows "The Falklands" as the "Malvinas". There is no such thing as "politically neutral" geographic names.
I might also add that some of the "British" contributors here lend way too much authority to colonial British Law in supporting their definitions of Irish and British.
( Sarah777 22:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC))
"British Isles" actually predates London's dominance of the islands. Iran is still inhabited by Persians, and although there are other groups there as well (Azeri Turks, Kurds, various other Iranian peoples), they are still the dominant ethnicity. I'm also entirely unclear on what "colonial British law" has to do with anything. john k 13:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I actually very much enjoy the historical debate provided it is historical rather than polemical. This is particularly interesting as an example of a false etymology, and they can matter. Shtove is not quite telling it as it is- here is my own quote from the section above in reply to his original point about the Pretaniki:
I think the pretaniki is a bit of a supposition (after all, for a very long time "British" was supposed to derive from " Brutus of Troy"). However, you can find the most authoritative text of Ptolemy here [18], and Pliny is here [19] (book 4, para 102 onwards), but in Latin only, which is not one of my languages I am afraid. You can actually find images of pre-17th century maps which use the equivalent of British Isles in Latin and French can be seen here [20].
I have read the reference for the first quote in English, and explicitly it is a historical use- it has nothing to do with James I. Judging from the rest of the relevant sections Heylin would have had no hesitation in asserting a political rather than historical use should he wanted to have done so. In fact, I don't think British had much of a political charge at his time of writing, away from the Court anyway: Shakespeare used it without any gloss or qualification twenty years previously to describe ancient Britons. Incidentally, this is the earliest surviving reference, it is not necessarily the earliest usage. Anyway it is far from clear what the point of this conversation (again) is.
For the record, I agree with Zoney's action: the statement had truth in it, but it's complicated, and perhaps this is not the place for it unless anyone wishes to write a section or even an article on the changing historiography of the British Isles. MAG1 19:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
There really needs to be a mention of this famous rugby team, made of of players from the British Isles. They used to be called the British Lions, but the PC has brought in the Irish part. Worthy of a mention in this article.-- Hamedog Talk| @ 02:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
In no less than four locations - including a banner and a whole section - was reference made to the view that some people in Ireland don't like the term British Isles. This article had become a vehicle for POV pushers who don't like the term. By all means make reference to it, but don't labour the point. I've removed some of the duplication and unnecessary references, but it's still highly POV. Please also, stop reverting to put this POV back. The term British Isles IS NOT confusing - it's just that some don't like it. To try and justify the term being confusing, one editor made reference in his reverting edit summary to a Texan who thought Edinburgh was in England. That's not confusion, that's stupidity! Arcturus 17:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Banner read; Quote "The term "British Isles" can be confusing and is objectionable to some people, particularly in Ireland. See the Terminology section below for details of the controversy." Unquote. This banner had been agreed upon, seemingly to skew the edit wars which may ensue, and which were a feature of the past. Prudent editors to this page should put fundamental changes to talk first, before proceeding with their view. MelForbes 19:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
The quote "the very existence of an article on the term British Isles" says a lot about El Gringo's attitude to this article. It is not an article about the term, or at least it shouldn't be. The fact that you believe it is causes the problems with the article becoming overwhelmingly bogged down in the fact that the term is disliked in Ireland. There is no-one here banging on about how the term must be promoted for the glory of the empire. In case you hadn't noticed, the empire is dead. Everyone else has moved on. You seem to be the only one who hasn't got over it. Its just left behind a language with a load of inaccurate terms that people just use without caring how they came about.
The only thing the banner does is say "Ignore the the article just read the controversy section". Banners are there for the benifit of readers, not editors. They point them in the correct direction if they end up at the wrong article so using it to promote the controversy section is an abuse of the technique. josh ( talk) 00:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Reference No.1 is a duplicate. The same material appears twice in the article. Suggestions as to which item to remove please. Arcturus 17:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with using the same reference twice; that's why the 'ref name' syntax exists. As for the material appearing twice; I agree it does. The point of the intro/opening section is to repeat what its the main article, only succicntly. -- Robdurbar 17:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
BTW Arcturus, I notice you're from Ulverston, and you started the Islands of Furness series; kudos to you for all that! -- Robdurbar 17:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I've edited towards the top of the page to include the fact that the Channel Islands like the Isle of Man are considered to be part of the British Isles. The fact they are closer to the European continent is irrelevant. They are still well within "territorial limits" of the British Isles to be included (there are islands further from the coasts of the two main islands that are still considered part of the British Isles) and have always been considerd to be part of the British Isles. I was surprised and puzzled to see they were excluded! YourPTR! 05:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I've also edited the section that starts: "The islands encompass an area south to north from..." to include the approx 76 square miles of the Channel Islands (including Chausey which is geographically part of the Channel Islands but claimed by France. I say claimed by France because I dispute their rightful ownership of those islands. Therefore sovereignty over them is in dispute). Obviously the most southerly part of the British Isles will have to be edited. Not sure what it is. A small reef south of Jersey I expect but I am not sure of it so have left it alone for now. YourPTR! 05:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Obviously other sections will also have to be edited later to correct the blatant error of the Channel Islands being originally excluded as being part of the British Isles such as this nonsense "The following islands are sometimes also included, though officially are not geographically part of the archipelago: Rockall and the Channel Islands." Since when? Both are part of the British Isles as legitimately as any other part. YourPTR! 05:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
This is part of the reason that many Irish people object to this misnomer. "Territorial limits" would lead me to believe that you think of the archipelago as a political construct. This term is not purely geogrphical as is delineated by the comments by YourPTR!. Iolar Iontach 08:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
How the Ancient Greeks or Romans ever used the term "British Isles" is beyond me; as they didn't speak English, in fact the language didn't exist at that time! The banner at the top of the article should read "this article is jingoistic nonsense and a relic of British imperialism." Iolar Iontach 20:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC) Actually to say that the term is merely objectionable to some is a gross understatement; since we can't say many (which is more accurate) repugnant would be more appropriate adjective. Iolar Iontach 20:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi Shtove, sorry you've had such difficulty finding a reference. This example may assist: Donnchadh O Corrain, Professor of Irish History at University College Cork, writing in The Oxford History of Ireland. Oxford University Press. ISBN 019280202X. As for the Stuarts, the map to the right is from Tudor times. ... dave souza, talk 19:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)