Talk:British Isles

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10

Note to all users

This is a talk page for the British Isles article. When using this page please remember Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. In particular, a number of users have broken the following two guidelines on this page in the past; please make sure that you understand them:

• Talk pages are not for general chatter; please keep discussions on talk pages on the topic of how to improve the associated article.
• Talk pages are not strictly a forum to argue different points of view about controversial issues. They are a forum to discuss how different points of view should be included in the article so that the end result is neutral.

This was originally included by Robdurbar 12:23, 13 May 2006 (UTC) and then archived (9). Reinstated, with minor edit, by Abtract 19:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Islands of the Ocean

Hi all. Came across an early Roman reference to "Oceani Insulae" in a text of Pomponius Mela (http://ourworld.cs.com/latintexts/m306.htm), who was a Roman Geographer from around the time of the Claudian invasion of Britain. In that text he calls the islands "Oceani Insulae" and lists Britain, Ireland, etc. in that section. Oceani Insulae is his collective for the islands. This might need a re-write of the section on ancient terms, since it puts that term in use earlier than currently shown. Hughsheehy 10:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Nice find. Since I don't have the Latin, can we find a translation of "Super Britanniam Iverna est"? Also an interesting reference to "In Celticis aliquot sunt, quas, quia plumbo abundant, uno omnes nomine Cassiteridas appellant.", since some historians thought the Cassiterides might be the BI, but sources from the 1st century apparently put them as small islands off Spain, and other historians think it was a name for the tin producing areas of Spain and Cornwall. .. dave souza, talk 12:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

My dodgy latin get me this: "In relation to Britain, Ireland is almost as large in area but equally wide as it is long ..." But the ND dictionary is down so I've stopped at the colon (what's ceolum?). Didn't try the second quote you asked. I have come across a lot of references to the BIs being off Spain - the strangest being the Jordanes text (currently in the article) which is perfectly accurate ... if only the BI's were north of Spain! Was there ever a different definition for Spain e.g. encompasing modern-day France? --sony-youth^talk 12:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

It'd take me a long while to translate all that lot, so I'm looking for an english translation. Seems there's a good one from Golding in 1585. Besides, the kerfuffle over Athelstan makes me unsure of my Latin skills. Oh, it seems that Pomponius is the oldest surviving Roman geography. That's worth something! On Sony-youth's question....as far as I know Spain (Hispania) - has always been south of the Pyrenees. Catalunya extended north of the pyrenees into France but that dates to the time of the Spanish Marches in Carolingian times. Hughsheehy 14:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

One other thing. I believe his collective noun is also sometimes "the Islands of the Northern Ocean" as opposed to just islands of the ocean. Strange that the IONA term (which I personally don't think I like very much) may have classical antecedents! Hughsheehy 14:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, great. So can we expect hot-heads from the Irish Nurses Organisation laying claim to be heirs to the British Isles via the INO (Islands of the Northern Ocean North Atlantic) connection? --sony-youth^talk 14:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC) [Edit: spotted dumb typo sony-youth^talk 16:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)]

That would be the Hibernian Order of Radical Nurses of Ireland...or something. Oh dear. Meantime, to read a more recent translation, go to http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0472084526 and search for "Ireland". The relevant text is on page 116 and 117. Page 115 is the chapter heading but is not included. Hughsheehy 16:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

<reduce indent>Now that we have a very early example of "Islands of the Ocean", it would be interesting to find some late ones. Probably best to look in Latin. Hughsheehy 12:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Neologisms

Has anyone read WP:NEO recently? Permit me to quote a section:

"Reliable sources for neologisms Support for article contents, including the use and meaning of neologisms, must come from reliable sources. Wikipedia is a tertiary source that includes material on the basis of verifiability, not truth. To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term — not books and papers that use the term. (Note that Wiktionary is not considered to be a reliable source for this purpose.)

Neologisms that are in wide use — but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources — are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia. They may be in time, but not yet. The term does not need to be in Wikipedia in order to be a "true" term, and when secondary sources become available it will be appropriate to create an article on the topic or use the term within other articles.

An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs and books that use the term) are insufficient to support use of (or articles on) neologisms because this is analysis and synthesis of primary source material (which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy). To paraphrase Wikipedia:No original research: If you have research to support the inclusion of a term in the corpus of knowledge that is Wikipedia, the best approach is to arrange to have your results published in a peer-reviewed journal or reputable news outlet and then document your work in an appropriately non-partisan manner."

According to my reading of this, much of the stuff in the modern usage section about alternative terms is in clear breach of this guideline, being original research. If we want to include the term 'BI and Ireland', we need to find articles about it in a tertiary source such as the OED, or at the very least discussion of its use in a reputable newspaper. Finding out it has been used in Twycross Zoo's Gibbon Regional Studbook, or a website on Megalithic Monuments, is original research. Ditto for other terms. I expect there are some differing interpretations of this: I would be grateful for your thoughts.--86.31.225.220 23:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Well first of all you're making the assumptiuon that 'BI and Ireland' is a neologism. With phrases such as that - and 'Britian and Irleand' - its debatable as to whether these are 'names' for the islands or just two descriptions and a conjuction. For example, if I were to say that the Low Countries are often described as 'Belgium, Netherlands and Luxembourg', I don't think I'd be describing a neologism; if I said they were described as 'Benelux' then I would be and I'd need to source it as you state.

There are some sources linked to that talk about the terminology, rather than just use it. I suggest checking the many references in the 'modern useage' section - most of these discuss the terminology, rather than acting as examples for its use. No other alternatives are mentioned here - that might be something to bring up at British Isles naming dispute. Robdurbar 09:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Rob, I think you are mistaken in two ways here.

Firstly the question of neologism. It is not "British Isles and Ireland" that is the neologism but "British Isles" as a name for Great Britain. To extend your simile, reference to British Isles and Ireland is like referring (in English) to the Low Countries and Belgium.

Secondly you say that most of the references discuss the usage rather than acting as examples for its use. In fact I do not believe that there is one that does this. Naomhain 09:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I, for one, am delighted you brought up this point. I had been thinking of making a similar post for a few weeks now but was not sure of how to phrase it. We differ to an extent. I don't think the problem ends at the use of neologisms. The entire "History of the term" is original research. Virtually all of it is reliant on primary sources. Where we may differ (maybe), however, is that I don't see any other way out.

It's clear that the community wants to include an etymology-like section. Judging also from the community’s interest, I would suspect that our readers would like one also. What is clear too, however, is that no (complete) secondary-source etymology exists; otherwise, surely, someone would have "trumped" someone else with it by now.

I think that this is one of those rare appropriate times where that most venerable of rules comes into play – ignore all rules. However, we must do so with caution. It’s good to see that the bitterness that plagued previous editing of this page is behind us, somewhat. Maybe this means that we can work with (not past) our POVs to create sometime that we can all be proud of. We're going to need to if we're going to agree to continue with the original research. (Without it that all that we can say is that the term was coined by Helwyn and is disputed by the Irish government.)

What we are doing here is important. Personally, I'm proud of the section - and I'm proud to have worked with you guys on it. No-one of us could have done it alone. I think it's valuable as it stands, I think it could be even better still. Original research, neologisms, what-have-you - I think it's true (do others?). To make sure it's stays true we need to keep working together - verifying and testing each other’s POV - otherwise, it will drift into untruthfulness, one way or the other. Surely, truth (and knowledge) is most important in an encyclopedia. --sony-youth^talk 09:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, no-one is defining any neologisms. All that has happened is that people have pointed out that an existing term (which is in the dictionaries) is used in widely varying ways. That is not creating a a neologism. Hughsheehy 10:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Besides, what has actually been happening, even in the History of the term section is actually compilation, not original research. I struggle to imagine how anyone could propose to do original research on what's in old texts. (Hi, I spoke to Tacitus today, he said...)

We can compile existing material from old texts, but it's impossible to do original research on it. "Original research is research that is not exclusively based on a summary, review or synthesis of earlier publications on the subject of research. The purpose of the original research is to produce new knowledge, rather than to present the existing knowledge in a new form (e.g., summarized or classified)." Since all that has happened is references to earlier (much earlier) publications, no new knowledge has been produced. Existing knowledge has been compiled. That is eminently permitted. Hughsheehy 10:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

And finally, on the notion from our anonymous editor that we should find "reputable" sources that use "British Isles and Ireland" rather than websites on megalithic tombs, the edit currently has refs from OUP (publishers of OED), Britannica and the UK Hydrographic office (publishers of Admiralty charts) that do exactly that. Sorry to burst the bubble. No neologisms and no original research. If anyone speaks to Tacitus or Pliny to do original research on what they wrote, please let me know. Hughsheehy 10:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Clearly British Isles is not a neologism. But British Isles defined as GB only, or as UK only, is a neologism, unless we can 'cite reliable secondary sources such as books or papers about the term - not books and papers that use the term.'--212.219.56.214 10:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

WP policy is that we should not make new articles on neologisms or use them in articles. Here we are discussing use of an existing term and how that varies. This is not creation of a neologism. The idea now seems to be that - even in a section specifically on modern usage - and even with reputable sources to demonstrate that usage is varied, we should not give these examples because that would constitute creation of a neologism, even where we specifically indicate each example as being an example. That's a stretch. If someone wishes to create an article on "British Isles and Ireland" then we can have that discussion there (I don't even know if one exists, but if there were maps with that title, would the page then be valid?). Meantime, if people want to start deleting refs to Britannica and OUP and Admiralty charts then we have a problem. Hughsheehy 11:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding British Isles being used in contexts where it does not include RoI (e.g. "British Isles and Ireland") please look at footnote 59 on page 19 of this document where British Isles is defined as "England and Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man." Point 4 on page 35 notes that in the during drafting of this Act it was "thought better not to use ['British Isles'] as it is unfamiliar and is often assumed to include the whole of Ireland."

Actually what it actually says "it was thought better not to use the latter expression", where the "the latter expression" is clearly "the British Islands as defined in the Interpretation Act 1889". And more relevantly, we have now have British (well Scottish) statute law that explictly says that the RoI is not part of the British Isles! (interjected by --Red King 00:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC))

As a side note, since the Belfast Agreement the UK government has agreed that the name of the RoI is Ireland. Thus, "British Isles and Ireland".

As Hugh noted earlier this use of the term is very common - although not often defined - especially among clubs and associations. See for example this yach club who describe a yacht race to around "all islands (except Rockall and the Channel Islands) which comprise the British Isles and Ireland," Clearly by their description of the race when they say "British Isles and Ireland" they mean a dictionary definition of the British Isles. --sony-youth^talk 13:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, didn't notice that we'd said 'British Isles and Ireland' (I'd read 'Britian and Ireland' in my head!) Yeah, still don't see how this counts as a neologism, unless we view the whole phrase as a neologism. I think its fair for us to say 'BI is defined x, but is sometimes used y'.

As for references discussing the terminology, rather than examples of usage: [1], [2], [3], [4] to name a few used in the article. In paticular, the first one does so with reference to all the terms (although its subscription, its only €2 to check it!). Robdurbar 14:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

It's the 'is sometimes used y' is what makes it a neologism. As yet we have many references that define it as x but none that define it as y. The extrapolation of a list of example uses is original research. It may well be valid but Wikipedia is not the place for this.

I assumed when you said "I suggest checking the many references in the 'modern useage' section" that you were suggesting checking the references in the 'modern useage' section! ;-). More seriously, the references you cite here refer to the perceived offensiveness of the term (which, it seems to me, is well sourced) or define its meaning as the whole archipelago. It is the 'y' meaning that is not yet well sourced. Naomhain 15:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The UK govt. document I cited above should suffice as a definition of 'y'. It is explicit in saying that BI is not x, but y. --sony-youth^talk 15:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

And we're still not creating neologisms. What we might have is a disputed or varied usage. We don't have a neologism. Please keep it serious here. If someone starts creating pages called "The Irish Isles" or "The Rainy Isles" and/or replacing every occurrence of "British Isles" in WP with something else, then there might be grounds for complaining. Meantime, it's a presentation of usage, which is often disputed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_words_with_disputed_usage Hughsheehy 15:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Let us indeed be serious. If a word has a new meaning then it is a new word. Neologism : "Neologisms can also refer to an existing word or phrase which has been assigned a new meaning." Naomhain 16:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

While it is of limited value because it specifically limits the definition to "in this act" and the act was repealed 20 years ago, it certainly is a considerably better reference than anything that is cited in the article. Why do you not cite it? Naomhain 16:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't think I agree with you here. As you note it is a narrow legal definition and very much obsolete, certainly not modern usage. I prefer the references to actual use, although as with all primary sources they need to be treated with caution. Too much can be read into them. The section is much improved now that most of the interpretation layer has been removed from these although there still remains some work to be done. Mucky Duck 20:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Right. I'm done with this. This is silly. There are sufficient refs to many cases of usage to validate that this is a widespread usage. We're not talking neologisms here....and EVEN IF WE WERE we're discussing them in a section on modern usage of an existing term. Hughsheehy 16:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I could separate a few issues here. Firstly on the Origins of the Term section. I am not really sure what this section is for. It is very long, and doubtless interesting to many, but does it belong in an encyclopedia? What is essentially an etymology section surely belongs in Wiktionary – we do not usually include extensive etymological details on Wikipedia entries – why is this article different? See WINAD – we are not a usage guide.

Additionally much of the Origins of the Term section is primary research. Why is there a section on Oceani Insulae? Why is there a long quote on the identity politics of 18th century geographers? This is an article on an island group, not an article on the history of the nomenclature of that island group. At present the focus reflects the interests of editors, not readers. There seems to be a sub-surface battle between one set of editors trying to show that BI has been used since Adam and Eve so is somehow a ‘natural’ and ‘virtuous’ term and another trying to show it was only invented in the 17th century so is an ‘artificial’ and ‘imperialist’ term. None of which matters for Wikipedia purposes…

On the Modern Usage section, everything on there is true, as far as I can see, but that does not necessarily mean that it is worthy of inclusion. Take the bit about ‘British Isles and Ireland’. It meets the Wikipedia definition of a neologism. To support the use of a term we need to cite reliable secondary sources such as books or articles about the term – can anyone find any about BI and Ireland? ‘An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs and books that use the term) are insufficient to support use of (or articles on) neologisms because this is analysis and synthesis of primary source material’. This is just what editors have been doing. PS - I would be grateful if genuine concerns weren't dismissed as silly. --86.31.231.79 18:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I should have stayed away from my PC. Anonymous is back.

From the section "Wikipedia is not a usage guide". "Wikipedia is not in the business of saying how words, idioms, phrases etc., should be used (but it may be important in the context of an encyclopedia article to discuss how a word is used". In the context of a demonstrably disputed term, usage is important in understanding meaning and what the meaning includes.

Again, NONE of the Origin of the Term section is Original research. None of it. It is compilation at most.

From the section on "No Original Research". "All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia."

Are we going to have a ref war from WP policies? The content is - as you say - interesting and there is no reason to exclude it. Hughsheehy 19:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I am no more or less anonymous than User:Hughsheehy, who may be called Hugh Sheehy or Minnie Mouse. I am also known as User:Triglyph if that makes anyone happier. I agree that it may be important in the context of an article to discuss how a word is used, but where we seem to differ is that I think such discussion should be based solely on published reliable secondary sources such as journal articles about the use of a term, or tertiary sources such as encyclopedia entries on a term. You seem to think such discussion can be based on finding examples of usage on websites. I think this is far too low a threshold for inclusion in a reputable encyclopedia: the fact that a self-published website, or even a description of a book in an OUP website uses a term is not in itself significant; if there genuinely is a significant constituency for the term, it will have been discussed by linguists, journalists and academics in reputable articles, and be defined (perhaps as an alternative) in encyclopedia and dictionary definitions. And I don't mean encyclopedias of trees.

Also I make no comment on the interest of the Oceani Insulae stuff: I just fail to see how it is relevant.--86.31.231.79 21:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

If we are to decide to reject some sources like encyclopedias of trees and Admiralty charts and BBC web pages and UK legal documentation and Britannica articles and OUP refs and to accept others, who decides? 83.38.59.125 21:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not a question of rejecting sources. Clearly a citation showing that the UK Hydrographic Office has used the term 'BI & I' in a description of a chart is a 100% reliable source for the claim that the UK Hydrographic Office has used the term 'BI & I' in a description of a chart. But this does not tell us anything in itself. Was the use of the term deliberate or accidental? Was it a personal decision on the part of the person who wrote the description, or a corporate decision by the UKHO? Does it reflect international agreements on chart nomenclature? Does it reflect ignorance of the dictionary definition of the term? Is it consistent with the actual description on the paper chart? Are other charts entitled the same way? Did the person who wrote it have an axe to grind? Is it indicative of a trend? Depending on the answers to these questions the statement is anything from irrelevant to demonstrative to important in the question of modern usage. Without the answers it is basically meaningless. And we cannot speculate on these questions - that would be original research. Which is why we need reliable secondary sources discussing use of the term.--86.31.231.79 22:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

<reducing indent> : The section is certainly overkill. I hadn't realised that the current state was one sentence dealing with the common usage and four paragraphs dealing with problems. It reads as POV right now - factually correct or not - unless the heading is changed to "Problems with the term in modern usage". Despite what I said before, actually there is very little original research in there after all:

* In "Ancient terms":

** The paragraph on Ptolomy

* In "Oceani insulae":

** The paragraph on Jordanes

** The paragraph on Bede

* In "British Isles":

** The clause in a sentence beginning "... although Tacitus himself had ..."

** The last two paragraphs

* In "Modern usage"

** The sentence beginning "Road and rail maps ..."

** The sentence beginning "In addition ..."

** The sentence beginning "Encyclopedia Britannica ..."

Personally, losing these would not cause me to lose much sleep - although, either they all should be removed or none at all.

As Triglyph points out (I, for one, would prefer if you signed in, it makes it easier recognize people and so to communicate) the entire "Origins of the term ..." section is disproportionately large. Shrinking it down would make a whole lot of sense, in my opinion. The issue is how to do it properly. We've collected a lot of info and I wouldn't like to loose it, I'm sure neither would anyone else. Doing so would also necessitate a narrative, which is fire for a cinder. (Narrative is also the reason for the section "Oceani insulae" at present, since without it there is a ~1,500 year gap between Ptolomy's Britannica Insula and Heylyn's British Isles - of course we can loose all of that and just start at Heylyn if we throw out Ptolomy as original research.) What think others? --sony-youth^talk 23:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Another approach could be to take the hard interpretation of "no original research" in which case we could only talk about Heylyn (maybe Dee) and then say that currently the name is disputed by the Irish government and disliked in Ireland. The main body of text we have now could be branched off into History of names for the British Isles or some other such article (we could not call it Etymology of British Isles as we do not have any secondary sources for a proper etymology). This new article could be linked to from the rewritten "History of the term" section. --sony-youth^talk 23:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Now you come to mention it, I've been rather slowly developing a sort of expanded timeline to try to get my sourced information into order: it seems to me that this combined with info from your template and further input could make a useful resource for all the articles which at present have origins of names sections. It could form a main article, and each article could have a brief summary style section of relevant info. My thought was of naming it something like Development of names for Britain and Ireland so that it could link to these articles as well as articles on Wales, Scotland etc. Comments? .. dave souza, talk 00:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

A quick rename of the "Origins" section to "Names of the archipelago through the ages" solves the whole issue. In reality that section isn't an etymology of anything, especially since the references to Oceani Insulae have been added, it's a history of the names the archipelago has been given over the last two thousand years. Deleting it is like having an Encyclopedia article on New York that neglects to point out it used to be called New Amsterdam, or an article on St.Petersburg that ignores the fact that it was called Leningrad for a while or an article on Den Haag which doesn't link the name of the place to the history of the place. All would be poor Encyclopedia entries. As has been said, there is also no original research in that section as it stands. The page is based on reference to published texts.

As for POV in the "Modern Usage" section, the edit already states clearly that the most dictionaries define the archipelago as the "British Isles", although there are differences on whether the Channel Islands should be included or not. Ignoring the demonstrable fact that several different names and descriptions are used to describe the archipelago is POV and unhelpful to the reader who may well encounter these other descriptions in the real world; talking about these common other names is not POV and denying their existence is just unhelpful, so why do it? Since the article is about the archipelago these other names commonly given to the archipelago should be included in any reasonable article on the archipelago. In any case, the issue about names for the archipelago is well attested in reputable secondary sources like the BBC style guide and other reputable sources.

As for moving the content into another page, that is just moving and doubling the problem by creating a content fork (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content_forking) since a NPOV summary would have to be left on this main page. Good luck writing an NPOV summary if the extended facts are already so controversial and good luck stopping it from expanding to its original size again. The facts as they are can speak for themselves, a summary is automatically an interpretation, and that will be difficult to sustain. WP does not need to be short. There is no need for concise articles to save paper. 83.38.59.125 07:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

An additional point. If the "Origins" section is disproportionately large, a solution is for people to write more on other sections. There was activity recently in the sports section and that has been about it. Let people add to the page rather than proposing to delete from the page. 83.38.59.125 07:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure. What I meant by POV in the Modern Usage section was just its disproportionate character, not individual content. It reads a little strangely, but if you read it carefully it is not POV - but just how many people read so carefully and should we expect it of people.

By moving the section to a seperate article, I certainly did not mean a content fork - just creating a new a new article and allowing this one to be about BI, with a summary explaination of it's name and current complexities of it (right now the section is large enough to merit one). Regarding, how to summarise, this would not be easy, for sure - but I don't think impossible. --sony-youth^talk 08:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Navigation Break

Ok, there seem to be two seperate issues here:

• Length of the origins section. My personal view is that this is a dull and uninteresting section, but, I don't see any harm if others find it interesting. Equally, splitting it out is no bad thing and could allow a more general article on toponyms in the British Isles
• Neolgoisms. I think I'm fairly conivinced that, to the letter of the law, any claims that that British Isles means the islands of the UK is a neologism. However, I think this is a situation in which we could invoked WP:IAR. As we are discussing uses of the term, any alternative uses of existing terms are worthy of mention, even if they are being used as neologisms. More pointedly - by removing a mention of this, we'd be worsening the article, which is why IAR is there. Robdurbar 12:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Nice word, Toponymy. Links lead on to British toponymy and Place names in Irish as well as Placename etymology and List of country name etymologies. None of which seem to quite cover the subject as developed here. History of toponyms in the British Isles might be a possible name for a main article which could be summarised here, as well as in other related articles – other ideas for the wording welcome.

As for neologisms, noting verifiable developing use of terms is welcome as long as we don't breach WP:NOR#Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position by collating facts in a synthesis which hasn't been made by a reliable source. ...dave souza, talk 15:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

By removing a mention of this, we'd be worsening the article. Would we, though. The point here is that a synthesis is being made that this list of references clearly demonstrates modern usage of the term. But Wikipedia is not equipped to say whether this is true or not. Who is to say, for example, that these are not simply errors (some clearly are). A reference to a reputable linguistic source that says that this is modern usage is required. That is what the original research policy is about. Naomhain 16:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Well 'British Isles and Ireland' is an error. That's what we say, isn't it? Robdurbar 08:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, we say it contradicts the definition, which is almost the same thing. --Robdurbar 08:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is not a usage guide. Wikipedia is not in the business of saying how words, idioms, phrases etc., should be used (but it may be important in the context of an encyclopedia article to discuss how a word is used: e.g. freedom)." We can say how it is used, not how it should be used. 83.38.59.125 09:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Exactly which is why we don't say this is a mis-use. All we are saying is that it contradicts the dictionary definition. This is one of those articles where it is important to discuss how a term is used (or at least, important to have a section on it).--Robdurbar 14:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Why? Firstly Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary and secondly we only have original research , no verifable sources that this is modern usage. 193.113.57.161 14:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The edit cites Britannica, Admiralty charts, the BBC and others. These are not OR. Please read the definition of OR. 83.38.59.125 15:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

<reduce indent>I have read the defintion of OR, thank you. I quote it for you here:

An edit counts as original research if it does any of the following:

It introduces a theory or method of solution;

It introduces original ideas;

It defines new terms;

It provides or presumes new definitions of pre-existing terms;

It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position;

It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source;

It introduces or uses neologisms, without attributing the neologism to a reputable source.

Any of those, note.

This section does "introduce a theory" (that modern usage treats BI as synoinymous with the UK).

It does "introduce original ideas (as above)

It does "presume new definitions of pre-existing terms. (Britsh Isles)

It does "introduce an argument withoput citing a reputable source for that argument (That British Isles is a synonym for UK)

A list of errors (and we cannot say that these are not errors) does not constitute a reliable source as to the usage of the term. Nor does a list of publications that do not use it.

193.113.57.161 09:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Quite. And quoting from the same article:

The differences between encyclopedia and dictionary articles

Wikipedia

Articles are about the people, concepts, places, events, and things that their titles denote. The article octopus is about the species of animal: its physiology, its use as food, its scientific classification, and so forth.

Wiktionary

Articles are about the actual words or idioms in their title. The article octopus is about the word "octopus": its part of speech, its pluralizations, its usage, its etymology, its translations into other languages, and so forth.

193.113.57.161 13:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, come on! There is a section that explains how this place came to be called "British Isles", by far the major part of the article is about the place itself. Sure, it has blown out of proportion, but is still a minority element. And it does not dicuss it "proper" usage - for example should British Isles take a verb in the singular or plural form (i.e. "The British Isles are ..." or "The British Isles is ...")? I am off the opinion that the section is long enough to merit a seperate article, and that this article would benefit from explainations of the term being reduced, but it is certainly not a dictionary article or section. --sony-youth^talk 15:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and an article about these islands should discuss what these islands have been called through the ages. See the example of the WP pages on a few other places; New York/New Amsterdam (which was only New Amsterdam for a few decades), Mumbai (Mumbai (Marathi: मुंबई, IPA:/'mumbəi/ (help·info)), formerly known as Bombay) and where the first section in the article is about the name, Den Haag (The Hague (with capital T; Dutch: originally Image:Ltspkr.png's-Gravenhage (literally "Counts hedge"), officially Image:Ltspkr.pngDen Haag) and where the second item in the history is about the name. Again, the content in the "Origins" section is about the names of the islands through the ages and is not a grammatical discussion that belongs in Wiktionary. Rename the section to be "names of the islands through the ages" and it is all perfectly within policy and guideline to be in WP. The history of the names of these islands is interesting and merits proper discussion. It's also apparently a "hot" topic. Maybe the current presentation is slightly too long, but that is not a reason to delete it. 83.38.59.125 15:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

You're missing the context of the comment. I don't disagree with the view that an explanation of the reason the place came to be called the British Isles belongs here provided that can be properly sourced (as I believe it can). It is the modern usage section that was being discussed. 193.113.57.161 09:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Fine, so if it's OK to talk about what the island group used to be called, how can it not be OK to talk about what it's called now? Hughsheehy 17:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The introduction states that "The term British Isles can be misunderstood.." Surely any term can be "misunderstood"? Shouldn't Wikipedia stay out of the debate, remain neutral and simply state that it is not generally used in Ireland? Readers can make their own minds up about whether the term is misunderstood or understood differently.

I think that the phrase misunderstood is in the article as a pointer to the separate British Isles terminology article, where the issues around terminology are discussed in depth, and where there are many non-controversial issues. The disagreement/controversy, again in a separate page, on whether the term should include Ireland is linked from the word objectionable. The BI article itself doesn't take any sides on either debate, simply records the facts in both cases. Recording facts does not constitute taking a side in the debate. Misunderstood is not necessarily the right word, but it was as close as could be found at the time. Have you an alternative suggestion? 83.38.59.125 11:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Simply delete the words "can be misunderstood". They add nothing to the article. At best they state the obvious; at worst they take a particular side in a debate. The terms England, United Kingdom, Ireland can be all misunderstood but this is not stated in the article. Recording facts does not of course constitute taking a side in the debate. However, if it is suggested that those (such as the Irish government) who do not accept the definition offered in the article are "misunderstanding" the term rather than interpreting it differently it, then it is clearly taking sides.

The references in the page suggest that the Irish govt understands it and objects to it, while the BBC doesn't understand it.  ;-) In any case they're different issues. As for the other terms being "misunderstood", that IS stated in the BI terminology article. 83.38.59.125 16:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

And let's not forget that Scottish divorce act, which decided that British Islands might be misunderstood to include Ireland (Republic of), whereas British Isles clearly [!] does not include it - thus saying the exact opposite of English law. Seems to me that "can be misunderstood" is beyond dispute. --Red King 20:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Other than the "British Islands might be misunderstood" bit the act did not say anything of the kind. It said (my emphasis) "In this Act "the British Isles" means the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man" and explained that it was creating this definition because it had been decided "not to use the latter expression [British Islands] as it is unfamiliar and is often assumed to include the whole of Ireland". It said nothing at all like "British Isles clearly [!] does not include it". What's more even if it had this would not be "the exact opposite of English law" since English law has nothing to say about the meaning of the term. It is a geographical, not a legal, entity. Naomhain 09:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

There are session transcripts online in Hansard where this exact same discussion is repeated...people saying "British Isles" but meaning "British Islands" and vice versa, and Lords hauling each other up to make sure they understand what the other is talking about. Same could probably said about sessions in the Dáil and Senate in Ireland, where "British Isles" often means British Isles excluding ROI. As for it being a geographical entity, that's true, but the entity is not the term and, as several (mostly Irish, I suspect) people have said in the discussion pages, they don't accept that the term is a purely geographical term. If I remember correctly, "misunderstood" was a compromise word but seemed about as good as could be got. 83.38.59.125 17:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, on Naohmain's assertion that the Law Commission report (which was England/Wales/Scotland) doesn't say that anything that the British Isles clearly does not include ROI. I fail to see how such an assertion can be supported. That is EXACTLY what that document says - whatever its terms of reference or scope. Quoting directly; "In this Act "the British Isles " means the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man." It doesn't include ROI, France, Brazil, New Zealand or the People's Republic of China. 83.38.59.125 17:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The act does not say (as Red King asserts) that "British Isles clearly [!] does not include it [Ireland]". It defines (rather strangely, but that's another matter) British Isles for the purpose of the act as the UK, Channel Islands and Man. That is an entirely different thing. And English law does not have a general definition of British Isles - it is not a legal entity - so this is not and cannot be "the exact opposite of English law". Naomhain 09:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

<reduce indent> English law may not have a "general definition", but it may have multiple definitions. This looks like one. Others may be in documents like "Foreign Fishing Rights and Concessions within the Fisheries Limits of the British Isles", prepared by the Hydrographer, 1965, and there are probably SI's that mention it too. Irish statutes (e.g. http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/ZZSI1Y1924A.html) suggest that "British Isles" did - at least at one time - have a legal definition in UK law, since the Irish law specifically mentions it. Again, it would be interesting if the 1889 Interpretation Act mentioned the British Isles, while the 1978 act doesn't, instead using British Islands. Has anyone got the text of that 1889 act? This article (not the best article and not good enough as a reference) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/570395.stm suggests that it used the term British Isles. 83.38.59.125 12:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, perhaps, but certainly not supporting Red King's assertions about how the divorce act said that BI "clearly" excludes Ireland or that there is any contradiction with English law. Naomhain 14:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, if it doesn't say that it clearly excludes it, it pretty clearly doesn't include it. 83.38.59.125 15:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The act defines it for the purpose of the act as excluding it. It does not say "British Isles clearly [!] does not include it". That, especially the "[!]" is spin, pure and simple. Naomhain 16:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

You're right, that [!] is pure spin. You're so right. That's important, that is. Hughsheehy 19:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Good. So now we've established that perhaps we can move forward without the spin, distortion and personal interpretation and with the context when discussing sources. Naomhain 09:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes. Absolutely. I'm sure that everyone is suitably aligned now. No more [!] from anyone. I'm sure that anyone reading "In this Act "the British Isles " means the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man." wouldn't dare to use an [!] in suggesting that this definition clearly excludes ROI. That would be spin and distortion, pure and simple. Worse, it would be an unsupported personal interpretation of the source. Oh yes. Hughsheehy 10:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Well not quite. Saying that the act said that "British Isles clearly does not include it" and citing the fact that it says that "British Islands might be misunderstood" as a justification for keeping the statement that the British Isles can be misunderstood would be the unsupported personal opinion. But you're getting there. Naomhain 11:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, so "British Isles" actually potentially has legal definitions that exclude ROI, and "British Islands" can only be misunderstood. Fine. Now I get it. This has been quite educational, but I'll leave the last word to you. I'm sure it'll be something insightful. From my point of view the last word is from the act, which says "In this Act "the British Isles " means the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man." Hughsheehy 13:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Exactly so - that is the last word, and all you can read into it - none of this stuff about how it says that British Isles can be misuderstood or that it "clearly means" that it excludes Ireland. Naomhain 14:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Oceani Insulae?

I have found a few problems with the interpretation of the quotes in this section. Bede refers to 'Brittania Oceani insula,' which is translated by the source as 'Britain, an island in the ocean'. Clearly the translator thought this was a simple geographic description, rather than a name for the island group ('Britain, an Oceanic Isle'), and I share this interpretation. I feel the bit on Jordanes is misleading. It says that he 'describes Oceani insulas as an island group...' The bit quoted from his book mentions that some consider two Galician peninsulas as being island of Ocean, and says that they are discounted not because they are a long way from the British Isles, but because they aren't strictly islands. To me this implies that 'islands of Ocean' is being used similarly as a general phrase for islands in the Ocean, rather than being limited to any particular islands. I cannot comment on the third source, the Life of St Columba, as it is not available online, but the fact that the interpretations of the other two quotations are, at the very least, highly debateable, does not fill me with confidence. I think this is an example of the dangers of interpreting primary sources, rather than relying on peer-reviewed secondary sources.--86.31.232.231 18:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and this is the problem with primary sources (primary sources = original research). Oceani insula is, in my opinion, a general term. I believe a previous editor expressed a similar opinion, but I cannot find a source to support this. However, its purpose in the article is to demonstrate a large gap in the etymology of Heylyn's "British Isles." He justified the term through reference to the Roman naming of the whole group as Britannica. However, this was only during the period circa the time of the Roman conquest of Britain. Before this, Britannica only referred to Albion (in time Britain), and immediately after the conquest, Britannica referered only to the area under Roman control. Thus, with the exception of the briefest periods (during which the "naming party" intended to conquer the entire group), the group appears to be essentially nameless - i.e. oceani insulae, "islands of the ocean" - until the time of Heylyn's naming of them (during which the "naming party" had conquered the entire group), which was nominally justified by this briefest of periods during the Roman conquest.

BTW if this is Triglyph, I've left a message for you on my user page. --sony-youth^talk 23:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Again, there is NO original research in the "origins" section, not unless someone now on WP actually wrote the books being quoted, which I doubt. "Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia." (my emphasis, quoted text from NOR policy page) 83.38.59.125 09:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh. Okay. My bad. Then I agree - no original research is in the Origins section. --sony-youth^talk 15:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Questionable: WP:NOR#Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position makes it clear that we need a source for the synthesis of published facts, not just the facts of the primary sources analysed in a way that puts over a particular viewpoint. .. dave souza, talk 10:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Including references that support a viewpoint is a questionable behaviour if there are other published facts - being excluded from the edit - that show that another viewpoint has merit. So far, no-one has suggested that any published facts are being ignored or in any way being excluded from the edit. If the facts happen to support one viewpoint or another, then that's something entirely different. Should we exclude published sources because another viewpoint can't find any references to support its view? That seems to be the case now. To paraphrase the current argument; "There are too many refs in the edit to support an argument I don't agree with and I can't find any sources to support my viewpoint. That's not fair!". Please, this is an encyclopedia, not a POV soapbox or election. 83.38.59.125 08:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Besides, all this recent work has corrected what was apparently a major error that had been common currency in this article (and elsewhere on WP) for a long time - that "British Isles" was a "traditional term" that went back in continuous usage to classical times. If I recall correctly that was the essence of the "Origin of the term" section for a long time and was used as a "fact" in the discussion on whether or not current objections to the term should be taken seriously. Whatever the current debate about use of "british isles", it is apparent that the OED is not far wrong when they ref its first use in 1621, making a description of "traditional" somewhat ambitious in the context of names for a major European geographical entity. Hughsheehy 08:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Not sure where you get the info that before the Roman conquest, Britannica only referred to Albion: source? Certainly by 77 Pliny seems to be referring to Albion as Britannia, with the inference that "The Britannias" is past usage. However, in 83 Romans had defeated the whole of Britain, and Tacitus appears to be calling the people from the north of Scotland Britons. They were also pondering invasion of Ireland at that time, so it's plausible that at that point they were still claiming the whole archipelago even though some bits were yet to be conquered. Around 150 Ptolemy seems to refer to both islands as being Britannias. Hadrian had a degree of control as far as the Scottish Highlands. According to the Roman Britain page it's around 180 that there's a retreat, and in 210 the border's set at Hadrian's Wall. Then post-Roman British (Brythonic) kingdoms included Scotland south of the Highlands. Ptolemy's map apparently became widely known in Europe following Latin translation of it in 1406, so that seems a more probable source for Heylyn's naming. ... dave souza, talk 23:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

In part agree. But unfortunately its all conjecture (both of us). The Bede (a definite "Briton") source is from the 8th century and even at that time refers to "Britain ... formerly called Albion", hinting that the name was contested even up to then.

Does Strabo not refer to Britanica and Ierne seperately, Britanica being Britian only? Prior to this ref is it not called Albion? And afterwards, is Britannica not more usual for the Roman province? He (Strabo) also speaks of the Ierne saying, "Concerning this island I have nothing certain to tell, except that its inhabitants are more savage than the Britons." This would also suggest that he is seperating the islands as peoples also.

I suspect something to do with Ptolemy also - the words are too close and that map too well known - but cannot find a source to back it up. However, let's not forget Heylyn's own explaination, that "British" "always" described the larger island and could be extended to Ireland on account that ancient writers said its people were not unlike the "British" (as always in these things, it looks like everyone's forgotten Man as usual!). --sony-youth^talk 08:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

As a note, its not so surprising that the island "group" would be nameless for the most part of its history. Remember that before the modern era these islands were HUGE - the hugest known. Today the world is quite small. One evening two weeks ago, I got news of a death in my family. I live in the Netherlands - Germania of its time - but was able to be at home in the furthest known point west (before the discovery of America) by the following morning! But still we have trouble imagining the immensity of things. I live on the same "island" as Asia. I even live on the same "island" as Africa! But it’s only now that we are beginning to appreciate this as "Eurasia," and barely able to conceive it as "Africa-Eurasia." That the BI would not be known as single named "group" before the modern era is understandable for the same reason. Its members were just too big! Unless, you had ambitions to conquer it all, of course ;) --sony-youth^talk 09:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

More islands of the ocean. Isidore of Seville's Etymology calls Britain, Thule, the Gorgades (probably Cabo Verde) etc. individually "oceani insula". (http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/isidore/14.shtml). There doesn't seem to be any mention of any collective term for any of them beyond that they're all islands in the Ocean. This book was the Enclyclopedia of the dark ages "Throughout the greater part of the Middle Ages it was the textbook most in use in educational institutions. So highly was it regarded as a depository of classical learning that in a great measure, it superseded the use of the individual works of the classics themselves. Not even the Renaissance seemed to diminish the high esteem in which it was held, and according to Arevalo, it was printed ten times between 1470 and 1529" (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08186a.htm). Only partial English translation is found online....so far at least. (http://bestiary.ca/etexts/brehaut1912/brehaut1912.htm) Again, looks like there was no collective term for the "British Isles" in the texts of several major geographers/encyclopedias of the classical period and the dark/middle ages. 83.38.59.125 10:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Here's a question. Is it correct that the Roman sources don't make any collective term but at least some of the Greek ones do? Is that right? 83.38.59.125 11:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

No, [Pliny the Elder] was a stright-up Roman. [Ptolemy] was Greek but a Roman citizen, and Geographia (where a collective name is used) was explicitly a map of the Roman world. --sony-youth^talk 12:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Not sure that Isidore was Roman either, really. I think he's been called the last Roman and the first Spaniard. 83.38.59.125 12:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Origins of the term

I have done a draft rewrite of the Origins of the Term section (bar the Modern Usage section) and enclose it below for comments. Refs aren't shown. It is less than half the length of the current version. I feel it contains all the important info and that readers are more likely to reach the end of it than the current version. What do you think?

Origins of the term

Ancient terms

The earliest known name for the island group comes from ancient Greek writings. Several sources from around 150 BC to AD 70 include fragments of the travel writings of the ancient Greek Pytheas around 320 BC, which used the terms "Albion and Ierne" and have been described as referring to Great Britain and Ireland as the Pretanic Islands. Greek writers used the term αι Βρεττανιαι (which has been translated into English as the Brittanic Isles by modern authors) and the peoples of these islands of Prettanike were called the Ρρεττανοι, Priteni or Pretani. These names derived from a "Celtic language" term which is likely to have reached Pytheas from the Gauls who may have used it as their term for the inhabitants of the islands. Many ancient writers, including Strabo, do not refer to the islands by a group name, instead using separate names for the two islands. Pliny the Elder, writing around AD 70, describes the islands he considers to be Britanniae (plural of Britannia), including Great Britain, Ireland, The Orkneys, smaller islands such as the Hebrides, Isle of Man, Anglesey, possibly one of the Friesan Islands, and islands that have been identified as Ushant and Sian. He also includes the island of Thule, which has not been definitively identified but is most often defined as Iceland. Ptolemy included essentially the same main islands in the Britannias. He first described Ireland, which he called Hibernia. Second was the island of Great Britain, which he called Albion. Book II, Chapters 1 and 2 of his Geography are respectively titled as Hibernia, Island of Britannia and Albion, Island of Britannia. Quite quickly after the imposition of Roman rule in most of Great Britain, Britannia ceased to have any collective meaning for the archipelago. Instead, Brittania became the preferred Roman term for the island of Great Britain, and in particular the province of Britain in the south-east.

Dark Ages to the Middle Ages

During the Dark Ages, there are no known references to collective terms for the archipelago. Oceani insulae was used as a general term for Atlantic islands by several writers. Meantime, Britannia had remained the Latin name for Great Britain after the fall of the Roman Empire and through the entire Middle Ages.

The Early Modern period

During the years of Tudor rule and then with the death of Queen Elizabeth I in 1603 the idea of Britannia and the term "British" became increasingly politically important. At the same time as the Union of the Crowns in Great Britain and the effective Tudor conquest of Ireland, colonial and commercial competition began vis-à-vis other European powers. According to Frances Yates, John Dee used the term Brytish Iles in 1577 in his Memorials, a combination of a practical guide to navigation and a political polemic. Dee is also attributed as coining the terms British Empire and British Ocean (a nautical region extending north-west from Britain, encompassing Iceland, Greenland and possibly as far as North America) and for building a case that Tudor (and subsequently Stuart) authority rested on a solid historical basis. Current scholarly opinion is that "his imperial vision was simply propaganda and antiquarianism, " The Oxford English Dictionary states that the first published use in English of "British Isles" was by Peter Heylin (or Heylyn) in his Microcosmus: a little description of the great world in 1621, a collection of his lectures on historical geography. He explains his use of the term with regard to Albion (modern-day Great Britain) on the basis that "ancient writers call this island a British Island". He extended this reasoning to include Ireland as a British Island also, citing the observation of the 1st century Roman writer Tacitus, who observed that the habits and disposition of the people in Ireland were not much unlike the "Brittaines", although Tacitus himself had not used a collective term for the island group. Recent scholarly work has emphasised that political considerations rather than purely geographic ones coloured Helwyn's writings, which were part of the emerging terminology of the new British state. Description like "British Isles", or similar terms in Latin, also started to be used by mapmakers from the late 16th century onwards. Gerardus Mercator, who leant heavily on his friend Dee as a source for his maps, was the most notable. Similarly Ortelius, in his atlas derived from Mercator´s original maps, used a Latin title that translates as "A Representation of England, Scotland and Ireland, or Britannica's islands". Although other mapmakers (for example the Schagen Map) continued to use descriptions like "Angliae, Scotiae et Hiberniae", the precedent set by Mercator and Ortelius (who were probably the most influential mapmakers of the period), and the ongoing changes in the political situation in Great Britain and Ireland during the 17th century, meant that the term British Isles was very commonly used in maps by the late 17th century and quickly became near universal.--Triglyph2 18:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, it's certainly worth either condensing the arguments or making a lot of the text footnotes. There are some points in the first part that I think need attention, and I'm working on pulling revisions together from secondary sources. A couple of points: "the province of Britain in the south-east." included all of Britain except the Scottish Highlands, later drawing back to Hadrian's Wall: those Geordies would be surprised to find that they're in the south-east. The Dark Ages / Early middle ages saw Britain / Prydain being confined to Welsh usage, with that name replacing the original, as well as the Latin terms continuing in use. Will think about some other issues. .. dave souza, talk 18:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Nice work, but I would reduce everything before "The early-modern period." It needlessly clouds the later section since for the majority of before Dee/Heylin no collective term was used. I'd also add a (short) paragraph on current opinion in Ireland as it is a part of the history of the term. I would also avoid reference to the "Dark Ages" as it is a pejorative term - remember that Ireland, one of the islands in the group was going through it golden age at that time. My offering for a draft would be something like the following:

Earliest texts record the name of the major islands as Albion for Britain and Ierne for Ireland, without reference to a group name. Their earliest inhabitants are described as Priteni, a name was derived from a Gaullish description based on their practice of painting their bodies blue. By the time of the intended Roman conquest of the group, Roman and Roman-Greek sources record a group name for the islands based on this name. This first occurs in Greek as αι Βρεττανιαι and later in Latin as Britanniae or Insula Britannica. However, on the failing of successive Roman invasions to conquer any more than southern part of Albion, this name quickly became associated with the area south of the Roman frontier, the Roman province of Britannia. This practice continued so that early medieval authors, both indigenous and those from across the European peninsula, no longer referred to the islands by a group name, but merely describe each island by the general term oceani insulae (an island of the ocean). By the 9th century CE, Albion had in turn reduced to mean only modern-day Scotland, approximately equal to the area north of the Roman frontier and Britannia came to be even more strongly associated with inhabitants south of this line, modern-day England and Wales.

During the years of Tudor rule in England and Wales, the idea of Britannia and the term "British" became increasingly politically important. This coincided with the assuming by King of England (and Wales) of the title of the King of Ireland in 1542 and the personal union of the crowns of England and Scotland under James (Stuart) VI and I in 1603. According to Frances Yates, John Dee used the term Brytish Iles in 1577 in his Memorials, a combination of a practical guide to navigation and a political polemic. Dee, a counsel the the English Crown, is also attributed as coining the terms British Empire and British Ocean (a nautical region extending north-west from Britain, encompassing Iceland, Greenland and possibly as far as North America), and for building a case that Tudor (and subsequently Stuart) authority rested on a solid historical basis. Current scholarly opinion is that "his imperial vision was simply propaganda and antiquarianism."

The Oxford English Dictionary states that the first published use in English of "British Isles" was by Peter Heylin (or Heylyn) in his Microcosmus: a little description of the great world in 1621, a collection of his lectures on historical geography. He explains his use of the term with regard to Albion/Britain (at the time more commonly known as the kingdoms of England and Scotland) on the basis that "ancient writers call this island a British Island". He extended this reasoning to include Ireland as a British Island also, citing the observation of the 1st century Roman writer Tacitus, who observed that the habits and disposition of the people in Ireland were not much unlike the "Brittaines", although Tacitus himself had not used a collective term for the island group. Recent scholarly work has emphasised that political considerations rather than purely geographic ones coloured Helwyn's writings, which were part of the emerging terminology of the new British state.

Description like British Isles, or similar terms in Latin, started to be used by mapmakers from the late 16th century onwards. Gerardus Mercator, who leant heavily on his friend Dee as a source for his maps, was the most notable. Similarly Ortelius, in his atlas derived from Mercator's original maps, used a Latin title that translates as "A Representation of England, Scotland and Ireland, or Britannia's islands". Although other mapmakers, for example the Schagen Map, continued to use descriptions like "Angliae, Scotiae et Hiberniae" (England, Scotland and Ireland), the precedent set by Mercator and Ortelius, who were probably the most influential mapmakers of the period, and the ongoing changes in the political situation in Britain and Ireland during the 17th century, meant that the term British Isles was very commonly used in maps by the late 17th century and quickly became near universal.

Today, the term is generally disliked in Ireland and is discouraged by the Government of Ireland. Common practice is to avoid use of the term in political discourse in favour of neologisms or euphemisms such as "these islands." Recently, an educational publisher in Ireland announced that it would remove the term from its school atlases and the pan-island Rubgy team was renamed from the "British Isles" (more commonly called the British Lions) to the "British and Irish Lions."

--sony-youth^talk 22:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Good work - I think this is an improvement on what is there at the moment. Much more readable, and with a more appropriate level of detail. And it has a dispassionate feel, where the present section feels more like a ceasefire line. BTW - I always thought the Dark Ages was so named because we have so few sources of knowledge to shine light on it, in comparison with the periods before and after, rather than because it was thought to be dark in character. But it probably isn't an appropriate label for Ireland in the period, so you're right not to use it. --Triglyph2 22:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

<reduce indent> The information I've been finding in secondary sources did not support much of what was certain arguments in the "Ancient terms" section, so I've redrafted parts of it with references. The assertion that there was no collective term before the intended Roman conquest is on shaky ground, and in my opinion the early term Priteni with Celtic language roots either reflected a native usage, or influenced development of local terms for Britain as well as the Latin terms. Ptolemy's map appears to have had a significant effect later on. Having said that, much of the detail in the ancient section could usefully be moved to another main article, if a brief summary can be agreed. .. dave souza, talk 23:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC) revised 00:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

If all of these people were Priteni then that would make sense - but were they (straight question not retorical)? I wasn't sure what date to set for the beginning of a group name, hence only "By the time of the ..." It would need rewriting (as would the final paragraph, to soften it up a bit.) For me, the most interesting part is what follows the Roman invasion as that seems to define later meaning of what a Priteni (by that time, approximately Briton) was. Regarding Ptolomy, yes, but if so why did Helyn not just say, "Ancient people called these islands British Islands (Britannic Insulae)", instead of first starting with Britain and then expanding to British Ireland? God knows, from Ptolemy he would appear to have clear evidience.

Whether the Romans influenced the use of "Brit-"-like words is up for debate. I cited this above, but its shown in the Blaeu Atlas of Scotland in 1654:

“ Now I could prove the antiquity of this word Britannia by many, and indeed most reliable witnesses, if the matter were controversial; and that it was not corrupted by Caesar, but handed down from older times, and pure ... ”

--sony-youth^talk 08:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

By the time the Romans got to Britain the Priteni had seen three or four subsequent invasions/migrations, at least in Ireland. The term was potentially already a misnomer by the time Caesar landed. See the O'Rahilly model. 83.38.59.125 11:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

From the 1940s, much contested nowadays. dave souza, talk 11:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Much contested or not universally accepted? There's a big difference. 83.38.59.125 12:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Mini-break for another summary

Very valid concerns – one of the red herrings worrying the author of the above atlas from 1654, at an interesting time, may have been the Etymologiae of Isidore of Seville which Snyder p12 cites as saying that Britto (an alternarive form of Britanni) derived from brutus, unwieldy or dull. Which may relate to the Brutus of Troy legend from Historia Britonum and Historia Regum Britanniae which gave an ancient genealogy for the claims of the Tudors and the Stuarts. I'll try to pull together my thoughts, but briefly:

around 50 BC both Prettanikē meaning the group (consistent with reports of Pytheas c 320 BC) and Britannia meaning what Caesar's attacked are attested. The Latin term becomes associated with the main island then with the province as it shrinks back to Hadrian's wall, while cognates of Priteni are used by the Brythons and in specific variants refer to tribes in both Ireland and Scotland. (Priteni remains in use in Roman Britain to describe their northern neighbours, according to Cunliffe and Snyder, north of the Antonine Wall according to Snyder which implies AD 144 onwards. Around AD 300 the term Picts is introduced for these people.) In medieval times Britons become known as Welsh and confined to western areas, but at the same time Britannia continues as a term for the island, with significant value in terms of ancestry. No collective term until Ptolemy's Geographia translated into Latin around 1400. The Welsh Tudors lay claim to a British identity in furtherance of claims to Scotland and possibly to legitimise their control over what had been the Lordship of Ireland, which Henry VIII makes a kingdom to retain claims to control post-Reformation. Their legal adviser introduces British Isles as part of his arguments for an English Empire to intrude on the claims of the Spanish and Portuguese Empires. James VI proclaims the claim to Great Brittaine when unifying English and Scottish crowns, but doesn't get a kingdom of GB. However the concepts remain, and British Isles becomes popular along with a British identity following the 1707 creation of the Kingdom of Great Britain. The period 1600-1700 has also seen increasing Irish nationalism and disaffection with English rule: recurring arguments and secession of most of Ireland in 1922 leads to irritation or resentment by many with Irish identity who (increasingly recently?) find the now commonplace term British Isles objectionable, and either avoid its use or promote alternatives which have yet to catch on. Don't miss the next exciting episode. .. dave souza, talk 11:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Replacement in Ireland of P-Celts by Q-Celts is relevant and not mentioned here, or in the article. While hard to date, many references describe how P-Celts, i.e. the Pretani and others, were almost entirely replaced in Ireland by Q-Celts in a later migration into Ireland. Even if the replacement was a cultural rather than population replacement, it's relevant in understanding the background to when the Pretanic Islands description was potentially a correct description for the whole archipelago and the time when it had become a seeming misnomer applied by Greek geographers based on 2nd or 3rd hand knowledge and ignoring changes in Ireland. These Q-Celtic Gaels, who took their name from what the Welsh called them, had essentially entirely taken over Ireland by the beginning of the historic period. 83.38.59.125 11:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Further reading has turned up a number of references that suggest that the Q-celts may have been the original Celtic inhabitants and that the later Brythonic P-Celts never/hardly penetrated Ireland. That is the opposite of what I have read in other books. Does anyone have any sources with good discussion of this? It seems important. 83.38.59.125 17:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

BBC Usage - changing with the breeze

Hi again. Just an interesting aside on BBC usage. One of the sites that used to use the "British Isles" in a way that excluded the Republic of Ireland but which then changed its text by replacing "British Isles" with "the United Kingdom" was the site http://www.bbc.co.uk/voices/recordings/ . I was checking these - and a few other pages - on the Wayback Machine when I realised that the updated description was wrong, since the page included the CI and IoM, which legally aren't in the UK at all.....so I wrote to the page owner to inform him....and to see what the reaction would be. Here is my note

Hi,

the above referenced page (http://www.bbc.co.uk/voices/recordings/)

says it is about the UK. Neither the Channel Islands nor the Isle of

Man are in the UK, but they are shown as such in your map.

Regards

H

Here is the response.

Dear H,

Thank you for your email and interest in the Voices website.

The text on the recordings page has now been amended.

Best wishes,

The BBC Voices Team

The page now lists the program as allowing listeners to "Listen in to the diverse voices of the United Kingdom, Channel Islands and Isle of Man". Interesting to see the struggles that the media has with the terminology. Poor BBC! I wonder if the page (and the other pages that suddenly changed their text once listed on WP) has received previous mails like this. Given the number of pages that suddenly changed, it would be a surprise to me if it was. However, at least this time it's visible. Right, that's me off again. I guess this would count as OR if I included it in the article!  ;-) Hughsheehy 12:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't put your stationary away just yet, Hugh! I see they include two recordings from the Donegal - not UK, not IoM, not CI. Oh ... could we see a return to British Isles?? "The answer, my friend, is blowing in the wind ..." --sony-youth^talk 16:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I feel they're probably about right now. Including a couple of people from "over the border" would seem reasonable, especially if they bumped into them in Derry/Londonderry, which seems possible. There are no Dublin, Cork, Kerry (or whatever) accents or recordings, just as there are no Dutch or Danes (many of whom speak better English than many English people). The issue is really illustrative of the difficulty of UK-related terminology. Ireland has the Ireland/Republic of Ireland issue, but that's trivial in comparison with England/Britain/Great Britain/United Kingdom/British Islands/(British Isles) problem. Must be a nightmare trying to keep it all straight. Hughsheehy 10:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

You bring an error to their attention; they thank you for doing so and correct the error; and you mock them for "changing with the breeze". How insulting can you get. Naomhain 09:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I don't consider that I was/am being insulting to the BBC at all, but I can certainly be extremely insulting when I try. Hughsheehy 23:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

It must be nice to have a skill you can be so proud of and which is so useful in a collaborative venture such as this. Mucky Duck 10:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Mucky, your message is so full of unsupported assumptions it's hard to know where to start. However, "Talk pages are not for general chatter; please keep discussions on talk pages on the topic of how to improve the associated article." I'm done here. Hughsheehy 11:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Chill everyone. --sony-youth^talk 11:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Diodorus/Cunliffe

A question again on Diodorus. I just removed some text from the article that ref'd Diodorus. The text seems to me to have been an almost verbatim quote from Cunliffe. However, reading the original text (in translation) of Diodorus doesn't support the quote as it was in the article (or in Cunliffe). I can't see that Diodorus ever mentioned Ireland in the relevant section...which would seem to be neccessary to qualify his text as a comprehensive description of the British Isles rather than just of Britain (unless we assert that Cunliffe or Diodorus was using an alternate definition of the British Isles ;-)) Anyway, there was also a question from long ago on a Diodorus reference to Iris being Ireland - in a different section of the book. The translation I have says that Iris is "somewhere in Britain". Interestingly, Cunliffe also has a book on Pytheas' voyage where it's pretty unambiguous that Cunliffe identifies Pytheas' Thule as Iceland. Hughsheehy 11:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, sorry to be a bit slow coming back on this. As you indicate, it's closely based on Cunliffe's book on Pytheas' voyage as cited, and while it's obviously a secondary source, precisely what is meant isn't absolutely clear. Your interpretation of the translation you have is arguably original research from a primary source in terms of WP:A, so rather than include a long discussion of the point, I'm content to have this part deleted as you have done. The discussions of Strabo allegedly not using a collective term and what Britannia meant suffer from the same problems, so taking the same approach I've trimmed them. Will shortly provide sourced statements about developments of terms during Roman rule and its aftermath. Since Oceani insulae is also an overlapping ancient term I've modified the first heading, and focussed the Oceani insulae section on that term using the reference you provided earlier: it would be preferable to find a secondary source for that point. ... dave souza, talk 18:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Saying that something isn't in a book that's existed for hundreds of years and that anyone can read is NOT OR, and besides, Diodorus is a secondary source. Ditto if Strabo didn't use a collective term. If he did, then it's easy to reference from a book that's two thousand years old. Reading and referencing existing texts is NOT Original Research. As for Oceani Insulae, Pomponius is also a secondary source. Hughsheehy 10:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, Pomponius called them Islands of the Northern Ocean, so the edit as it now stands is wrong. Hughsheehy 12:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

good article

congrats to everyone who has worked on this article, it is now classed as a good article. i enjoyed reading it alot and found it passed all the criteria. if you wish to nominate other articles, please see WP:GAN Themcman1 13:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

an article that may be of interest

A United Kingdom? Maybe

Thanks for the link. Interesting read - although 'jury still out' is par for the genetic studies course, and it doesn't have links to the original studies.--Shtove 00:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Highly interesting article! Suggests that the Anglo-Saxon myth in England needs to be significantly revisited. Hughsheehy 10:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Likewise with the Celtic myth of Ireland. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.72.94.45 (talk) 23:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

Genes. Pah! It all bogus. As the article itself says: "Dr. Oppenheimer said genes 'have no bearing on cultural history.'" All of these are myth. They're just "imagined communities." But that's what gives them reality, and will again when imagined differently once more. --sony-youth^talk 23:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I take it that the majority of an island population will have descended from the aborigines. Stands to reason. So, the gene stuff is useful for putting the celt/anglo-saxon thing aside.--Shtove 23:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I might be wrong, but I suspect it'll be easier for the "Celtic fringe" countries (or whatever one should call them these days) to accept being Iberians than it will be for the English. There has been too much history of the master race idea in England for that to be easy. Goodbye Anglo-Saxon finance, hello Iberian business culture. Funny really! In any case, unless we can get decent historical references, which the article doesn't have (and I suspect the books don't either) it isn't really usable material here. Also, the articles are highly limited in their context and don't discuss who else is descended from the same source population - even if that idea has any validity, which is doubtful. Could be that half of the Atlantic coast is heavily influenced by the same population and anyway, you don't have to go too far back until we're all descended from the same people. Hughsheehy 08:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

"Fringe" - it always makes me laugh. Look at a map, the "fringe" is the greater surface area. But seriously, Hugh, look at the ex-pat culture in Southern Spain - its a return to their roots! Although once again words are funny - always ex-pats, never emigrants. --sony-youth^talk 12:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

<reduce indent> More to the point, I seem to recall that it was always a part of "legend" that the population of Ireland (or a large part of it) came from Spain anyway, and the scepticism about all these dark haired Irish people being descended from tall blond celts was also extensively discussed, so why are all these articles making the news...as front page news (AFAIK) on the IHT and NYT. Seems (a) hardly news and (b) hardly important. Hughsheehy 17:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Milesians (Irish) is pretty good. The "nuh-uh" POV on the Celts in Ireland has been going strong since the mid-'80s.--Shtove 19:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Jordannes

In the same archepelogio Jordannes also put the Isle of Man, the Orkney and Thule, which this author puts as the Shetland Islands, thus fitting with other descriptions of the British Isles. The Isle of Man is put in between the two greater islands - spot on. Shetland (called Thule, so maybe Iceland) is put to the north of them - spot on. Also north of them, in an artic region, is Scandia - Scandanavia - spot on (although this is decribed as an island too, so maybe Iceland?). These facts all add up to them being the Britain and Ireland.

This part does not add up though: "And there are two not far from the neighborhood of the Strait of Gades, one the Blessed Isle and another called the Fortunate."

"... not far from the neighborhood of the Strait of Gades ..." - strange. --sony-youth^talk 14:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the original latin and at this translation (http://www.northvegr.org/lore/jgoth/001.php), it's hard to be sure that the blessed and the fortunate isles are Britain and Ireland. Other opinions have also been expressed, and those places ARE near the straits. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isles_of_the_Blest . I don't know what Jordanes meant, just it's not obvious he meant what was in the article.. Hughsheehy 14:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Further, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madeira_Islands#History, which has Madeira being described as two islands, called Blessed. Hughsheehy 14:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

And indications here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canary_Islands#Pre-colonial_times that the Canaries may also have been the places in question. I also cannot see any reference in the relevant section in Jordanes to any "archipelago" . Hughsheehy 14:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

You're right. My bad. I read the "however, it has other islands deeper within its own tides" as referring to an island group of Blessed and Fortunate. On proper reading, however, its clear that "Oceani insulas" is just a blanket term. Essentially any scrap of land in the Atlantic. --sony-youth^talk 15:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The text isn't very clear in that area. I suspect that "within its own tides" means something about the fact of them being in internal seas, rather than in the open ocean. Not sure, but that's my take. Hughsheehy 16:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Repetition in the Classical section of the "names through the ages section"

Hi. I believe there is significant repition in the section mentioned above. I'm going to try to remove the redundancy and will ask for a quick review to check once I'm done on the section. I hope to shorten it quite a bit. Hughsheehy 11:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, I have had a go at shortening that section. I believe that it contained quite a bit of overlap between paragraphs and also - in the section on the Roman Province of Britannia - some excessive detail that was not directly relevant (although it was interesting). I hope that the editors who have contributed to this section can have a look and examine my changes. I believe that dave souza and sony youth were the most active in that area. Hughsheehy 10:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

At first glance looks good subject to a couple of minor points I've tried to clarify. The transition to post-roman kingdoms with a "Brittonic" identity expressed by Gildas and Patrick (the British saint!) is fascinating, more to do with "British" than BI so I'll try to add a concise mention. .. dave souza, talk 11:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Two more things;

1) Can someone please check the Greek text in the above mentioned section? I'm not sure that the Greek words say what they say they say, so it'd be nice for someone to check.

2) I'll try to shorten the "British Isles" section of the "HIstory of the Names" section next. I hope for more forbearance. Hughsheehy 10:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Stylistic note: WP:CITE#Footnotes come after punctuation. ... dave souza, talk 11:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh DEAR. How does one do embarrassed faces on WP. SORRY! Hughsheehy 12:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Maps & Lily

I have found a version of the cartouches of the Lily map online at http://www.geog.port.ac.uk/webmap/hantscat/html/lily1.htm but the cartouche on Hibernia is not reproduced. Anyone got a version of that map? Also interesting to note that Thule is AGAIN included in British Isles (now in the mid 16th century) as being the "last of all" and is given a latitude of 63 degrees, which is close to the actual latitude and is in any case north of the Faroes. Hughsheehy 13:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Title of the Lily map (on the map as opposed to what people call it) translates (IMHO) as "A new description of the island of Britain which now contains the Kingdoms of England and Scotland with Ireland adjacent". Britanniae Insulae seems to me to be singular, genitive, for both words. Plural would, I think, be the wrong case for continet and for insula. A description of plural islands would take genitive...insularum. Also, why would Ireland be "adjacent" if it's included?

Is this clearly including Ireland in the British Isles? I'm not sure it is. I'm not sure it's even using a term like "British Isles", but may just be "island of Britain". It seems (like the fuss over Athelstan) to be a possible error in Latin translation. Latin scholars please?!? Hughsheehy 14:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Following on. At this site http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~genmaps/genfiles/COU_files/ENG/aaEng/lily_britannia_1548.html, the map is titled "Britannia Insula", which is "The Island of Britain", not "the British Isles". Hughsheehy 14:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Where understatement becomes dishonesty

'Sometimes'? So how is it that none of the weather forecasts over in Britain use the term "British Isles" anymore? It is not just in Ireland that the term is objected to. And in Ireland it most certainly is not merely objected to "sometimes". The very absence of the term in the vast majority of references to Britain and Ireland as a group in the Irish media is, in fact, proof that the term "British Isles" is objected to on a quotidian basis: often. Consistent non-use of a phrase common in another society is a statement of rejection in itself. Whether that is the "Six Counties" for "the province"; "Derry" for "Londonderry"; "Ireland and Britain" for "British Isles" a statement is being made. Denial does not negate the widespread and regular objection to "British Isles" in Ireland. Neither do your political views. The degree to which this article is permeated by a British jingoistic agenda undermines the entire wikipedia project. There is no honesty in this article about the true degree of avoidance of the term in Ireland. 89.100.195.42 12:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you'll find that even RTE uses the term "British Isles" rather a lot _{(edited after reviewing the RTE links)}. You might not like it, but they use it. As for the weather forecasts in Britain, if you can find a reference that shows they don't use the term any more then that might be relevant for the article. Meantime, look at http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=%22british+isles%22+site%3Awww.rte.ie&btnG=Search . Note, many of the refs to "British Isles" on the RTE site are quotes, but several aren't. As for denying anything, I don't believe the article denies the objection to the term at all. There is certainly objection and there are references to it. Hughsheehy 13:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

'rather a lot'- I think not. Please get your facts straight first. Moreover, don't attempt to misquote me: I specifically stated that the term is conspicuously absent from 'the vast majority of references to Britain and Ireland as a group in the Irish media'. Read those words again: vast majority. That is what I have said. That is all that is needed to dispute the claim in this article that the phrase is only "sometimes" objected to. Now, let us take your standard, RTÉ, and examine this:

1. Your chosen search of '"british isles" site:www.rte.ie' gives a mere 45 results, many of which you concede are quotes.

2. Just to put the "often used" part in context, a search for www.rte.ie gives 2,230,000 results [5]

3. More comparably, and in contrast to your search, a similar Google search to yours except with 'Ireland and Britain'[6] gives 275 results, while the same one of 'Britain and Ireland'[7] gives 407 results.

4. So, how does this support your evident contention that the term is objected to only "sometimes" in Ireland when those two alternatives alone give a result of 682:45, or a ratio or more than 15:1, against the use of "British Isles" and in favour of two of its alternatives? This result is, as I said, proof of 'The very absence of the term in the vast majority of references to Britain and Ireland as a group in the Irish media'. And RTÉ is your chosen standard, not mine.

One other comment to Mr/Ms/Mrs 89.100.195.42. If you can provide references that support your feelings on the true degree of avoidance of the term in Ireland, please do so. I'm sure it could be included in the article. It would also make it un-neccessary to accuse us of following a "British jingoistic agenda". Hughsheehy 13:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

See above, and also the following Google phrase searches of Irish pages which confirm beyond doubt that the term "British Isles" is a minority usage on all Irish medium on the internet and that the use of alternatives therefore reflect the widespread and often objection to the term "British Isles" in Ireland- a fact which this wikipedia article denies:

"British Isles" = 44,800 results [8]

"Britain and Ireland"= 62,900 results [9]

"Ireland and Britain" = 36,600 results [10]

""UK and Ireland" = 87,700 results [11]

Therefore, on Irish webpages three of the alternatives alone to "British Isles" show that British Isles is far and away a minority term in Ireland: 187,200 results versus 44,800 results. By understating this reality and saying the term was objected to only "sometimes" in Ireland, this wikipedia article is being dishonest. If anything, then, the term "British Isles" is often objected to in Ireland and it is sometimes used. This article is deliberately misconstruing the reality. Why? Given this, what is the source for "sometimes" objected to? And doing Google searches is your chosen standard, it must be added. 89.100.195.42 16:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no "You" on Wikipedia. There may not even be truth, there is only verifiability. See below for futher comment. Hughsheehy 16:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The degree to which this article is permeated by a British jingoistic agenda undermines the entire wikipedia project. There is no honesty in this article... Er, that's a whole lot of British and Irish editors you've managed to attack. You might want to read up on WP:AGF and WP:VER. You might also want to change your username to a permitted one as per this policy: [12]. Bastun 14:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Then again, I might not.... When those of you wilfully denying the strength of objection to the term in Ireland can give evidence that the term is only "sometimes" (as opposed to 'often') objected to in Ireland you will stand on solid ground. Until those of you who are denying give this proof- and as the above statistics indicate, you will not be able to- you could only remain in denial of the reality regarding Irish opinions because it clashes with some cherished ethno-cultural-political beliefs of your own or, dare I say it, some historically privileged social cleavage from which you come. 89.100.195.42 16:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Then again, maybe you should...and also read the archives of these discussion pages. We've been through this before. In any case, you're only indicating that the term is not often used in Ireland (which the article clearly states in the first paragraph) and not that it is objected to. As for "wilfully" denying it, I can't speak for everyone that has ever edited this page, but I won't wilfully ignore any decent reference you find. Find a reference that shows that the term is "often" objected to and it can be used. Otherwise it is just your opinion. It might be true, but it's not verifiable. Hughsheehy 16:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Stop. 89.100.195.42, you are talking to three Irish editors. We know what the situation is, but until a reputable third party writes that it is so, we cannot put it here. If you want to help, please help us find the necessary published evidence. Our hands are tied. --sony-youth^talk 17:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, those "statistics" mean absolutely zilch. For the reasons why - read the talk page archives here. Bastun 17:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, part of 89.100's argument seems to be that we should say "often rejected in the ROI" rather than imply only sometimes as the current wording does. I seem to recall a previous version that stated as much and which no one really took issue with. There are plenty of supporting references, if not one from the article introduction (do we really need all five citations for this one sentence?), then one from here should do nicely.—eric 19:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

That's true. I had passed over it with all that came after. "Sometimes" implies rarity. --sony-youth^talk 21:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Reading the current intro, it says " is sometimes considered objectionable, mainly in the Republic of Ireland and among nationalists in Northern Ireland". Presumably the proposal would be " is often considered objectionable in the Republic of Ireland and among nationalists in Northern Ireland", since such objections outwith Ireland appear to be rare, generally coming from Irish people. .. dave souza, talk 21:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd be okay with it. --sony-youth^talk 22:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

That set of refs from EricR is new! Great refs! As for whether we need all 5 of the refs to demonstrate that the term is considered objectionable, I´d have to say "Yes", at least for the moment. There is a huge history on this page of denying that fact, and refs have been the only way that worked to counter denial. The other ref that´s great is the Nicholas Canny ref stating that "British Isles" was not a normal usage up to 1650. Hughsheehy 07:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Note that Canny is saying that it wasn't normal usage during the period of his book, which happens to extend to 1650, rather than it coming in about then. Snyder cites Linda Colley as demonstrating that it was the wars vs. France that "encouraged Britain's inhabitants in the eighteenth century – be they from Cornwall, Wales, England or Scotland – to accept the terms of the1707 Act of Union and begin defining themselves collectively as 'Britons'.", and notes Irish nationalism as paving "the way for other 'Celtic' separatist groups in the nineteenth century" . ... dave souza, talk 11:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

That's possible, but at the moment all that's there is a statement that it wasn't in common use until at least after that period. If there's a source for later, let's have it! (subsequently signed, forgot the first time)Hughsheehy 13:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)