Talk:British Isles

---

Channel Isles

See John Cary's A New Map of the British Isles, from the Latest Authorities 1807. This is the earliest map that I can find that categorically excludes the Channel Islands. Is anyone aware of an earlier reference that includes the Channel Isles? Is anyone aware of an earlier map that refers to the British Isles? Lucian Sunday (talk) 08:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

A good place to look is Google Books. For example, this children's atlas from 1834 explicitly includes them. How do you mean that John Cary categorically excludes them? --89.101.103.144 (talk) 22:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

To use the book you mention to include Channel Isles as Part of BI would need some creativity - it is not the explicit reference I am looking for -and it lumps in Jersey & Guernsey as part of Hampshire! You can see John Cary's map on his wikipage; Shetland is off the map but is displayed via an inset; Alderny & part of Guernsy are not detailed like the BI and there is no inset of the Channel Islands. Lucian Sunday (talk) 07:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

"some creativity"?? See the table of contents for England and Wales, they are listed as Jersey and Guernsey (i.e. the Channel Islands). Maps are on page 312. That (like the OED definition) is an explicit reference. You are right that the Channel Islands do not appear in detail in the map shown on Cary's Wiki page, but that is an inference - and a long way off "categorically" excluding them.

I wouldn't be so surprised about the Channel Islands being included as part of Hampshire. They are still treated along with Hampshire for many sporting associations, for example athletics, golf and rugby. --89.101.103.144 (talk) 20:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I propose we merge this conversation with Talk:Terminology of the British Isles#Are the Channel Islands part of the British Isles? Lucian Sunday (talk) 15:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Attempt to vary agreed consensus on use of term

TharkunColl is attempting to modify the previously agreed consensus on the words in respect of the Irish Government's attitude the term British Isles. I have opened this section so he can bring the discussion to the talk page rather than initiating an edit war. --Snowded TALK 23:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The consensus reached, should be respected. GoodDay (talk) 23:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

What's there to discuss? That particular Irish government is no more. We have no idea what the current one thinks. ðarkuncoll 23:28, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Then you will have to go through every Government article on every country page modifying any statement for any prior administration. Government's have continuity of policy. At any rate TharkunColl that is not really the point. You know how long it took to get an agreement on the text, you know the change would be controversial, why not just raise it here first given the history and suggest the change? Why reject the request to take it to the talk page? That is normal practice on any issue which had this level of discussion. --Snowded TALK 23:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

So is it still British government policy to try and recover Normandy and other lost possessions of the crown in France? When was this centuries-long policy rescinded? ðarkuncoll 23:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Nice debating point, but I think the claim and any reversal precedes Hansard so its a bit difficult to check. Going back to the middle ages is an interesting tactic. Given that the statement is in the recent past I think my point stands. It is completely normal for a statement of this type to stand unless it is rebutted by the government. This seems like an attempt to reopen an issue which was put to bed in the fairly recent past rather than an attempt to improve the article. --Snowded TALK 23:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

It's just an attempt at truth, that's all. Not that that ever cuts much ice around here. ðarkuncoll 23:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

You do throw the words "truth" and "fact" around a lot you know. Either way I think my view above stands, lets see if anyone else wants to disrupt the previous consensus. --Snowded TALK 23:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) TharkunColl does have a point, but it should have been brought here first rather than edit-warred about given the previous history. It seems to me that the two versions of the phrase under dispute are these: (a) "the Irish government also discourages its usage." (b) "a previous Irish administration has also discouraged its usage.", with (a) being the one achieved by means of consensus. I suggest that a possible compromise might be to consider the wording (c) "an Irish administration also discouraged its usage." which would make it much more stable in terms of not having to be attended to if the administration changes, or its opinion changes (at which point, a suitable addition to the phrase could be appended, such as ", though the current one has a different opinion..." Of course, they need to be suitably sourced. It maintains the continuity idea, though suitably weakened in the light of the uncertainty brought by the change in administration.  DDStretch  (talk) 00:14, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I would not object to your "an" compromise per se, but the manner of the attempted change was at best insensitive to the history. However I think we should see what other people think. If there is no evidence of the current Irish Government using the term I don't see the need for a change. I also note that other editors on other pages have argued that the term is less likely to used now than in the past. They might want to provide some evidence along those lines. I suggest we leave it for other comments for a day or so and see. If no one feels strongly and Tharky wants to press the issue then your compromise would be a reasonable way forward. I do think that the continuity of government issue is key however. On Tharky's argument we would have to go through thousands of articles every time a government changed --Snowded TALK 00:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I quite agree that a consensus is needed for any change given the history of the matter. My compromise was just one way of trying to reach some common ground to see if that might help a consensus emerge. It does need discussion, however.  DDStretch  (talk) 00:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I have to say the prior supposed "consensus" (ie 'eventual vote' - when did they become the same thing?) over this Irish gov line was a bloody circus, IMO. A total clumsy farce, in fact. I object to the maximum in it being alluded to as any kind of sensible consensus! A couple of new faces go involved, that's all, and one is currently not allowed to edit here. If if people give up in utter disgust it doesn't make outcomes of poll etc credible. In a true consensus, people like me would be happy - I couldn't be less happy with this line. It is simply a wind-up to call it "consensus" when it is so contentious. It's just gloating from a currently victorious side. Winning little 'votes' and consensus - why do people confuse them so much? They are not the same!

I've revised the new guideline at WP:BRITISHISLES if anyone wants to look - and corrected the mistakes in it that were in there when I first put it up. --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Eleven editors were involved in the Souza proposal, with only one dissent to the final phrasing. That is kinda of how it works around here. Making everyone happy is not possible. Using phrases like "bloody circus" and "clumsy farce" is hardly assuming good faith in respect of those eleven editors. If something is to change, then it will change by discussion here. --Snowded TALK 01:06, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Come on, they just wanted it over - and there was only one option on table in the end. Souza himself supported my own proposal, as did Waggers and others, til I retired after the "Souza" nonsense took over. Having just jumped into the article, did you even realise the supposed "proposal" was only an insignificant single-word change to the article as it stood?? I ended up retiring as a direct consequence of this, albeit for just a month. What you Christened the "Souza proposal" (though you kept confusing what the actual words were at first!) was just little more than a question by him!!! He didn't even vote (having not "proposed " anything) - or even comment again after posing it!! I simply cringe when I hear the words 'Souza proposal'. People bow to the extremism in this article as it gets fought with by brandished claws - it's the fulcrum - the melting pot - the main article. And the Inro counts.

I had been working on this line in the Intro for a couple of months - and the way my initial proposal went from my choice of sensible options (which were being discussed and developed by people) to an insignificant one-word-change championed by you and the article-blocked Jack Forbes, was just typical of how people get quickly pissed off with things here. It was ultimately an acceptance of non-change - a finalisation to a pointless poll. Nobody was proposing anything for most of it! Sometimes lines in articles have to stabilise for a while for sake of sanity - it does NOT equal consensus. It just simply suits you personally, Snowded. Others - no. It is no consensus. --Matt Lewis (talk) 02:07, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Matt, when an agreement has been reached on things, then the general process is to discuss changes here before changing them again. That is all that anyone is saying here. If you want to attribute motives to people (including me) then feel free but you are addressing the person rather than the content. Whatever your frustration it might make sense for you to check out WP:NPA --Snowded TALK 02:21, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring

I have completely protected the article and urge those engaged in gaming the system by going up to the 3rr limit on edit warring without discussion that this is not good behaviour: it will lead to consequences if it is shown again. I completely protected the article as a preventative measure to try to minimize disruption and to ensure discussion takes place here without any editor getting a block for edit-warring.  DDStretch  (talk) 23:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

In agreement. GoodDay (talk) 23:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

He's the one, by the way, who gave me a two-week block for merely making a comment on a talk page. It seems that uncongenial opinions really aren't welcome around here. ðarkuncoll 23:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

No, it is edit warring up to the 3rr limit that aren't welcome, and you know it.  DDStretch  (talk) 23:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

And how about blocking for refusing to be told not to comment? ðarkuncoll 23:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Thark; you are going over old ground here. I supported you (as did others) and you were unblocked. I'm not a fan of invoking edit-war blocks before 3RR; way too much Admin discretion. As we Roman Catholics were taught; such power may become an Occasion of Sin. Sarah777 (talk) 22:51, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

May or Do?

This article says many people "may" find it offensive. Surely, even the citations support the replacement of "may" with "do". I am thinking in particular of the reference to that effect from the democratically-elected government of Ireland. But its removal from school atlases and many other references easily support that many "do" in fact find the term British Isles offensive rather than simply "may". 78.16.186.184 (talk) 19:58, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

As you well know, the well runs dry far far too quickly in term of real-life examples of any "offense" taken. Even the Folens atlas people said they had no parental complaints, and it was precautionary measure. There are not anything like the kind of contemporary examples you would expect - there are virtually none in fact, outside of academic works that have their own internal weight. The fact we are allowing people to appropriate the word 'many' into this article, and re-weight it to refer to mainly themselves(!) is a total blight on Wikipedia.

As a double compromise (over "many" and the spokesman quote), the line should be something like this: '''Although commonly used worldwide (especially in a 'technical' manner in sciences like geography, geology, archaeology, and natural history), the term British Isles has been controversial in relation to Ireland, where many people have found it objectionable.[r][r}[r] The term is not part of the legal terminology of the Irish government, and a spokesperson for the Irish Embassy has said "we would discourage its usage".[r]'''

All the extremely finite examples of the offense taken are built up over time: there is nothing to suggest it is commonly and notably in dispute as we speak, outside of people like yourself on (and often using) Wikipedia. The argument that the words "have found.." suggests the term is now fully accepted is just blatant stonewalling - it does nothing of the kind. It is only acceptable compromise IMO - really the word "many" should be removed, and a totally non-specific statement should be made. "many may" was a compromise but is just a doubly 'weasel-worded' expression.

Nobody in the Irish gov since 1947 has suggested that the term is discouraged, other than this 'spokesman' - so he should be quoted, if he is to be used at all. It was a quote - so why not quote it? Or we hiding an ambiguity here? He does not say in what capacity the term is discouraged - certainly is not legal terminology in the ROI. Maybe it is just in that capacity? We suggest they universally discourage it, with no evidence at all.

Compromises aside, the line should really just say that people have taken issue with the inherent ambiguity in the term, due to the Republic of Ireland not being part of Britain, and that though a number alternatives have been suggested, only 'Great Britain and Ireland' has really been used in its place. --Matt Lewis (talk) 20:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

"Although commonly used worldwide, especially as a 'technical' term in sciences like geography, geology, archaeology, and natural history, the term 'British Isles' has been criticised for having the political term "British" within it. This is controversial in relation to Ireland [r][r}[r], as the Republic of Ireland in the island of Ireland is not British, and the citizens of Northern Ireland can have Irish-only, British-only, or joint identities, and hold British, Irish or dual citizenships. The term is not part of the legal terminology of the Irish government, and a spokesperson for the Irish Embassy has said "we would discourage its usage".[r] A number of alternatives have been proposed throughout the history of the term, although many have been criticised themselves[r], and only variations of 'Great Britain and Ireland' have been widely used. There is evidence that a form of "Britain and Ireland" has being increasingly used in mapmaking over recent years.[citation needed]"

• Line added: "and the citizens of Northern Ireland have a choice of British or Irish citizenship, or both." --Matt Lewis (talk) 14:21, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• Revision added: "and the citizens of Northern Ireland can have Irish-only, British-only, or joint identities, and hold British, Irish or dual citizenships." Nothing is as good as explaining the situation. If progress here remains deliberately stonewalled, and this information continues to be censored I'll take it to Arbcom and fight it on the widest scale I can. Enough is enough. --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• Added words: "a form of "Great Britain and Ireland". Some maps, like a National Geographic one, are using "Britain and Ireland".

• Added clarity: "and only variations of 'Great Britain and Ireland' have been widely used. There is evidence that a form of "Britain and Ireland" has being increasingly used in mapmaking over recent years.[citation needed]"

I'm not fully sure about the last line, as "Great Britain and Ireland" has always been used in tandem with "British Isles" for maps. Is it really being used more now? We really need a quote that says this. You have always been able to get geographical and political ranges of maps and globes - they are each labelled differently. --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you find any British Isles atlases published in the last 2 or 3 years? AA was publishing them for a long time annually, but they seem to have stopped around 2002. While there are plenty of Britain and Ireland/Great Britain and Ireland atlases published in 2008, 2007, I haven't been able to locate any 'British Isles' titled ones, even though these clearly were being published previously. Are there any? What publishers?

On your latest wording: I know for your BI guideline you want to specify the ROI for specific consideration, but it simply isn't true here to confine the controversy about the term to the ROI. The sources don't back this up either. There is, as I assume you are aware, an international agreed treaty that makes British *identity* optional in Northern Ireland. *This* is a big part of what makes the term problematic on the island of Ireland. I'm not advocating anything in regards to the BI guideline, but we cannot insert language here that isn't accurate in describing the nature of the controversy. It is NOT just because of the ROI and to say so just isn't accurate. Where is the "throughout the term's history" claim coming from? I'm perfectly supportive of quoting the Irish embassy spokeman directly and attributing the quote to 'a spokesman for the Irish embassy to the UK". Nuclare (talk) 04:44, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll re-write it to include Northern Ireland! --Matt Lewis (talk) 14:07, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I've simply added "and the citizens of Northern Ireland have a choice of British or Irish citizenship." Good idea - makes it much better. --Matt Lewis (talk) 14:21, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Some would dispute that wording. I don't think citizenship is the right word to use. The less debateable way of wording it would be in terms of identity. And I'm not sure adding more sentences on this issue to the intro. is the best solution. Nuclare (talk) 16:03, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

What is the "best solution" then? The sentences are notable, verifiable and relevant - they only haven't happened because certain editors have wanted the Intro kept short, sweet, and dispute-heavy. In Wikipedias terms that is 100% unacceptable. I'll put in 'identity' of you wish, though I can see what is coming: it will eventially be called "too long". But I know all the games. Progress will NOT be stopped forever. --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:17, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem with maps is that I can always remember "Great Britain and Ireland" road maps being in existence. Without a decent quote, it's verging on Original Research - but I'm happy to help construct a highly plausible case, certainly. I noticed National Geographic has moved BI down to the small text - but still used BI in their website. I honestly think been happening naturally over the years - I'm not sure there has necessarily been a great 'move' recently. But I'm willing to wave my doubts if a case can be made.

The issue wouldn't be the presence of GB&I, it would be the absence of BI. I know that this could verge into OR, but I'm not so much interested in inserting language into the Wiki page concerning this, as simply knowing what sources are or are not out there using the term or not. As I said, I'm still searching for evidence of whether some of the companies that clearly were regularly publishing BI atlases (AA, Reader's Digest) still are. I can't find any, thus far. Can you be more specific about where the NG "moving...to the small text" is? Nuclare (talk) 16:03, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

This is the one. It says "British Isles" in the small text on the map (you can zoom in and see). It use to be the "British Isles" map. I'll look through the archives for my original link - I think the original webpage had the words "British Isles" in it too. Interesting that it is now "Britain and Ireland" - not "Great Britain and Ireland". It shows how NI is commonly seen as being in Britain, as well as being 'British'! --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:52, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Matt - I typed in the words "british isles offensive" into google and first up was "In Ireland, the term 'British Isles' has been considered as at least mildly offensive since the time of the struggles for Irish independence" [1] - in what, oddly, seems like a rival version of Wiki! Point is, there are innumerable references to the fact that the term is unpalatable, in varying degrees, to most Irish people. Constant denial of this fact is becoming irritating and is impeding any chance of progress here. Sarah777 (talk) 12:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The "at least mildly offensive" example you have given (Citizendium is not a reliable source!), and your own concluding' words: "there are innumerable references to the fact that the term is unpalatable" simply do not combine. Who are you trying to kid? I'm going to construct a table that will force you to find 36 'reliable sources' past and 36 'reliable sources' present. I'll find them for usage of the word, and I'll start you off too. You will severely struggle for 'past', and as for 'present'? It will make you look foolish. I'll do the work involved as I'm tired of this shameless madness myself. All you have to do is withdraw just a little from a wildly untenable position - but you just simply won't budge. So I'll keep it up til you have no choice but to play fair, and the shrill screams of "no!" will finally be sent to bed. You have someone in me who is prepared to allow for your POV as much as possible. But your feet are just hooked to the floor.--Matt Lewis (talk) 14:07, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Pretty full of yourself I see Matt - nonetheless I had to chuckle at the idea that you could make me look foolish! Remember two things Matt re your 36 thingies: (1) I don't do tricks for the children (2) I don't play by your rules. Sarah777 (talk) 23:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Non-censored proposal for Introduction

I'm making this a proposal, as it appears the article is currently locked due to this matter! --Matt Lewis (talk) 17:23, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Current line:

The term British Isles is controversial in relation to Ireland,[ref group] where many people may find the term offensive or objectionable; the Irish government also discourages its usage.[ref group]

Proposed lines:

"Although the term is used worldwide in sciences like geography, geology, archaeology, and natural history, it is periodically criticised for the way the political term "British" suggests that Britain owns all the isles.[r][r}[r] This is controversial in relation to the dual-nationality island of Ireland, as the Republic of Ireland and its islands are not part of Britain, and the citizens of Northern Ireland can have Irish, British, or joint identities and citizenship. The term is not generally used by the Irish government, and a spokesperson for the Irish embassy in London has said "we would discourage its usage".[r] A number of alternatives have been proposed throughout the history of the term, although many have been criticised themselves[r][r][r], and only variations of 'Great Britain and Ireland' have been widely used. There is evidence that forms of "Britain and Ireland" have been increasingly used by cartographers over recent years.[citation needed]"

• Revision made: "specifically" for "especially" in first line.

• Revision made: "The term is not generally used by the Irish government" for "The term is not part of the legal terminology of the Irish government"

• Revision made: "Although the term is used worldwide in sciences like geography, geology, archaeology, and natural history, it is periodically criticised for having the political term "British" within it.[r][r}[r]" for "Although commonly used worldwide, especially as a 'technical' term in sciences like geography, geology, archaeology, and natural history, the term 'British Isles' has been criticised for having the political term "British" within it."

• Revision made: "criticised for the way the political term "British" suggests that Britain owns all the isles." for "criticised for having the political term "British" within it." --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• Revision made: "and its islands" added after Republic of Ireland in the second line. --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

For me the proposal is simply a standard unbiased Wikipedia style approach. It uses notability, verifiability and weight. --Matt Lewis (talk) 17:23, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I've no problem with this proposal. GoodDay (talk) 17:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

A much simpler approach for the lede, linking back to extensive and recent discussions would be : The term British Isles is controversial in relation to Ireland,[ref group] where many people may find the term offensive or objectionable; the Irish government has also discourages its usage.[ref group]. I have inserted "has" in deference as a compromise with Tharky's original proposal. Of course if additional citable material is available then then might change. The material on changing use of language in respect of atlases is I think a useful addition for the main body but not the lede (although I think National Geographic are using "Britain and Ireland" as a geographical not a political term by the way). The issue on citizenship and identity is inappropriate for a geography article (which has already got enough political issues). A variation of that, incorporating some of the above text would be: The term British Isles is controversial in relation to Ireland,[ref group] where many people may find the term offensive or objectionable; The term is not part of the legal terminology of the Irish government, and a spokesperson for the Irish Embassy has said "we would discourage its usage". I prefer the shorter version but the second version is also fine. There may also be an argument for a note containing some of the additional text in Matt's proposal. --Snowded TALK 17:41, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I've no prob with this proposal, too. GoodDay (talk) 17:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Come on - the "extensive and recent discussions"? You know how long I've been at this, Snowded, as I've told you. Your word "recent" simply starts where you want it to! The real 'extensive discussions' (including thousands of words from myself) have gone back for much longer: You are rather casually ignoring all the work I and others have put in more much of the year! The words "many"/"many may" have never been a happy solution since long before you joined the discussion, I have to say. And what have we got now? Another locked article. "Many may" has to go - and we have to move forward. We can only do it by being open and honest about the situation: and the above is all relevant.

To answer your question on the map, "British and Ireland" is the new National Geographic "political" map. You should not go around Wikipedia telling people that things are inappropriate when they cross geographical/political lines, especially when it happens to suite your own politics (no less)! It's stonewalling progress to the max.--Matt Lewis (talk) 18:06, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Matt it went to mediation at one point, then was settled by 11 editors (you withdrew I think). I'm allowed to reference that and even to suggest it is left in place for a period. I have a different interpretation of the National Geographical site to the one you do. I also think we need a short sentence not an elaborate paragraph with material which is better handled elsewhere. None of that is stonewalling and you really need to stop making accusations, every intervention you make is becoming personal, please engage with the content not the person and remain calm. --Snowded TALK 18:14, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

You are the biggest wind-up merchant on Wikipedia. Nothing was settled by 11 editors but the 'status quo' after the initial proposals were left behind. It was a total shambles, and your part in it was simply embarrassing ("Souza proposal" indeed!). And you know damn well why I withdrew. You are totally full of it! I stuggle with AGF because I cannot stand dishonesty. You are a total bully against progress - you simply don't want to see any. --Matt Lewis (talk) 18:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

This diff speaks for itself Matt and to quote the mediator at the end of the process Case Closed. Great job coming to consensus without even needing the requested mediation. I'm trying to stay polite in face of the increasing vehemence of your attacks, if you want to interpret that as a wind up then so be it. --Snowded TALK 18:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Your constant provocations are the worst I've seen. You threw my last Proposal off track, I got distracted, and despite early support for my change, people in the end simply voted for no change - ie your inconsequential one-word difference!! It was a simple status quo job, and my proposal was usurped - it never even got to a vote! It was your farcical "Souza proposal" or nothing. How fair was that? That is ALL that happened before. Your edit-buddy Jack tried his hardest and succeeded to get me blocked (which he later admitted to) and I retired - you were as quiet as a lamb to me when that all happened. Not a peep. Neither event will happen again - I'm following this through to the end and no block nonsense is going to happen to stop me. --Matt Lewis (talk) 19:00, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's wait to see what others think; we've got time. GoodDay (talk) 18:12, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree --Snowded TALK 18:14, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Just popping in from my self imposed exile. I fear that Matt Lewis's and Snowded's attempts at squaring the circle are near impossible. But here am I with my input. I find it a wee bit incongruous to say many people may find the term offensive. If its a may, then you could say a small number of people may find the term offensive with equal validity. Better to say (verifiably) a number of people find the term offensive—the numbers of people are unquantifiable. AFAIK, the Irish government haven't legislated on the term BI so I don't think the term legal terminology of the Irish government could be valid here. So may I suggest a simplified section of the lede:

"Although commonly used worldwide in sciences like geography, geology, archaeology, and natural history, the term 'British Isles' has been criticised in Ireland for the use of the word British and has been discouraged from use by Irish goverment officials. Alternative terms have been proposed although none have found universal favour."

That's it, good luck, I'm off.-Bill Reid | Talk 19:29, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll look again at the "legal terminology" bit - I didn't mean it in the leading 'legal' sense - maybe it's too wordy. It's a shame you feel negative, and feel the need to stay in exile. Your simplified version (although a bit too curtailed re techincal use/common usage at the begining for me) is certinly a lot better than the one we currently have. --Matt Lewis (talk) 20:17, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

"The term is not part of the legal terminology of the Irish government" - Actually it is. [2] But not used again since 1928. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 20:01, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm looking at this part again. --Matt Lewis (talk) 20:17, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

"Is" - present tense Bastun. Sarah777 (talk) 23:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Why on earth is it relevant whether it's part of the "legal terminology" of the Irish government? Governments don't define language. The term is valid because it is used in English to refer to the islands that it names. ðarkuncoll 20:21, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

As I've said (twice) - I'm looking at this part again . Would you rather the article just suggested that the Irish gov discouraged the term's usage wholesale? As it currently does, in fact? It's a compromise - or rather an elucidation. The Irish gov is relevant in a line about the Irish gov. I could easily be stuck in a two-way shitstorm here, so you could be a little more helpful.--Matt Lewis (talk) 21:13, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

It's hard to do better than "not generally used by the Irish government". It's true - they don't generally use it, but at times they have. We can't do any better than tell the truth. --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:09, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

If we keep to the word "generally" the line "and a spokesperson for the Irish embassy in London has said "we would discourage its usage".[r]" could probably be removed?--Matt Lewis (talk) 22:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Reading it through again, what I like about the new approach is that it manages to impart a feeling that the term is genuinely used partly for want of a better option. This, to a large degree, is very much true. I think what personally upsets me so much is the constant (though sometime subtle) drive or assumption placed in the text that the term is being actively used in the face of dissent, to make a political claim. It is simply being used by 99.9999999% percent of the people who use it, to describe the islands of Great Britain and Ireland, without any malice intended at all. The vast majority of those who use it simply do not stop to consider any eternally-arguable element of 'dissent'. This version gives more of a flavour of that reality. Currently the article is very much 'oppression-heavy', and I've always found that genuinely upsetting. I know some people will say "well I find the very term upsetting!" - but it's not comparable at all. The term simply exists, and Wikipedia exists only to describe things properly. We must do all the aspects of the term justice, and not fight like rats to push any one particular point of view. --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem here Matt is that the term is being actively used in the face of dissent, to make a political claim. The fact that some folk may use it apolitically is neither here nor there. Sarah777 (talk) 23:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes - your dissent. You'll have to play ball sooner or later, because when things get back to the edit tables, blocks will eventually be dished out. Sooner or later less-friendly admins will step in, and simply not accept having locked articles all the time. --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I take that as a threat Matt; and another example of the way British POV is nakedly imposed on Wiki through the blocking and banning of numerous Irish Editors. Please note that I am FAR from the only voice of dissent here - also note that you have several times now stepped over the bounds of WP:CIVIL in your remarks to me. A short while ago you were complaining that you were representing the British Nationalist pov here because they were not here to represent themselves. Not it appears I'm a lone voice. Make up your mind Matt. Sarah777 (talk) 23:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

checkpoint

Actually Matt I don't have any great objection to the paragraph as it is developing (assuming some tweaks) but it is just too long for the lede. Given this is a geography article a single sentence is needed there at most, with either a note or a subsidiary section. You could for example take the first sentence of your paragraph (I would remove worldwide as too wordy but otherwise fine) and substitute that for the current sentence, then have the rest in a note for those who want to read it. --Snowded TALK 03:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean here by "current sentence" - if the one here is fine (apart from "worldwide), why then substitute it? --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you ike parts of it, but I'm still not happy with your insistence that this article must be 'pigeon holed' as a "Geographical Article", and therefore 'political terms' are not suitable for the Intro. We must surely move out the reference to 'dissent', if that is true: is that what you are suggesting - I'm not sure? Although we are trying to build Wikipedia-specific usage guidelines at WP:BITASK, in the wider world the term is used in both a technical and a cultural/political sense, as you surely know. Why can't we accept that and build an introduction that accepts it too? There are far too many "notes" here as it stands. It's a 'cop out' (at best) in my eyes, and I am certain that things have to be done properly if this article is going to settle. According to WEIGHT, if the dispute can only be fairly represented via notes, then the dispute simply shouldn't be mentioned in the Lead - as we cannot misinform people. But I think we can cover it faily and concisely in the lead. Either that or we keep the 'dissent' issue to its own paragraph, which I know some people think should happen anyway (though I think it is Intro material myself).

Note on Introduction size: Leads (or ledes) can be up to four paragraphs long, according to Wikpedia's Manula of Style. We have a very short Intro here, and in my honest experience of Wikipedia introductions (and I've contributed to a number of them), the shorter they are, the more edit warring and general fighting occurs over the inclusion of relevant information that suits more than just the one point of view. Sometimes covering the all the wished-for relevant issues concisely is simply the best route:

Guide to intro building

1) The four-paragraphs max recommendation must be considered.

3) The info must be covered elsewhere in the article.

4) WP:VERIFY: VERIFIABLE information must be used.

5) WP:NOTABILITY must exist for both the article and the introduction too.

6) WP:WEIGHT in representation must be correct according to VERIFIABILITY and NOTABILITY.

7) WP:WEIGHT between any opposing points must be correct according to VERIFIABILITY and NOTABILITY.

In difficult Introductions like this one, this is the best way to go for everyone. There is certainly a 'technique' to making a good lead - but it can be done. Keeping it as short as possible is never going to make everyone happy – on the contrary, it makes life very unhappy, as this article has proved. --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Matt, you've hit the nail on the head with your comment that in the wider world the term is used in both a technical and a cultural/political sense. This is the point that I believe distills the argument.

Some will assert your statement is true. But others disagree. (As an aside, personally I wonder if a trend towards the cultural/political use of the term could be correlated with historical usage, or with cultures that are heavily influenced by the UK. We'll probably never know....)

But I believe that there is also widespread recognition that the statement is insensitive. In one respect, it's an evolution of language and the assertion of an Irish identity, and a respect for the sensitivities of people from the North and South of Ireland, etc.

But so what. The question we need to ask is, where is the term today? Since Wikipedia is there to inform, and not necessarily be politically-correct or sensitive, does the term still carry enough common usage to still qualify as a "cultural/political" term? This is the crux of the current argument that has split this editing community.

In my opinion, this question was already asked and answered in the recent past, and back then the response was that it was no longer a cultural/political term - although it is accepted that it was in the past, therefore in a historical context it can still be used in this way, but it is not acceptable any longer. It was accepted though as a valid Geographical term. More recently though, even that appears to be objectionable on Irish-heavy articles....

In summary, consensus can change. I believe the community can express some extreme views, but that it is also ready to acknowledge what the majority can agree on. Perhaps we should avoid any conceptions made in previous agreements and test consensus from this basic starting point? --HighKing (talk) 17:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that we should start afresh from now, especially with the WP:BITASK taskforce under way. Currently the proposed Guideline at BITASK is explaining the term fully - ie addressing all the aspects of the term, and I think that is wisest. It is also focusing more towards 'physical geography' for it's use on Wikipedia. You are right - it doesn't matter so much what the sensitivities (etc) are, ar are not, outside of Wikipedia. This is a consensus-driven place, so the guidelines must suit us, and suit us all - and per the general guidelines on Wikipedia that already exit, of course.

I'm happy for Wikipedia to define a 'preferred use': it should be Geography-preferable with British Isles, and we should also go for it to ideally not include the Channel Islands too, imo. These are what guidelines are for - Wikipedia is entitled to choose an approach in these particular situations where ambiguity exists. To enforce anything though is to go against one of Wikipedia's strongest rules - no censorship. We can still make some very strong guidelines however.--Matt Lewis (talk) 21:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

response

There was considerable debate when this first came up and a group of editors (of which I was not one) wanted no mention at all of the controversy arguing that the article was geographical. It was finally agreed on the grounds of citation that the controversy should be mentioned. There was debate about that sentence which has been previously referenced.

My view is simple on this, I like your first sentence and I think that is better than the sentence which was previously agreed (that is what I mean by current sentence). I think the rest should be a note not in the lede. If those who argued that should be no political reference are happy to something more lengthy then I would have no objection, but I think you will have problems. At the moment there is here (and on the task group) too little involvement. --Snowded TALK 18:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Which first debate are you alluding too? It sounds like it was quite a while ago. When I encountered you in here myself you pushed for no change: and at the moment the Intro is very political indeed! (in fact, it couldn't be more in my eyes - it's basically a form of propaganda as it stands, IMO.) We need to sort this now - the WP:BITASK taskforce is now, and it is all about now - especially as the article is locked over the issue.

RE editor involvement: when is this page due to be unlocked? I can't believe it's got locked over this again - It was so 'out of the blue' that I actually missed it happening. Looking at the edit history, it seems to be just you and Tharkuncoll 'edit warring' - I'm not sure at all that DDStretch should have moved in to lock it when he did, esp as he was very involved in the Taskforce at the time. No 3RR seemed to happen - you surely would have both just stopped, but it got locked instead. Why? You calling the line a "hard won consensus" in an edit note wasn't fair in my opinion as I have said - your "consensus" was a farcical single-option poll at the end of broken and hijacked debate! Whatever else it was, it was no true consensus however you go on about the eventual 'landslide' vote for the only option on the table: no change and it get's back to normal.

This article shouldn't be locked, and locking it hasn't helped proceedings at all. Actions like this just demoralise and entrench people. We need people to be positive.

I'm still not clear on what you want to keep in the Intro. Perhaps you could write your own version? Maybe then we can later have a fair poll that actually offers some choice, and offers something more than a single word-change too. --Matt Lewis (talk) 19:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Matt I really wish you would stop this confrontational style. Tharky modified the previous stable version and I asked him to take that change to the talk page. A position that was finally forced by locking the page. Your disagreement and comments on prior consensus are noted, it is however how things ended up; it is not wrong simply because you say it is wrong. My suggestion is to take your first sentence, use it to replace the existing sentence and then take your additional material and make it a note for those who want to know more. Whatever it needs more editors involved. --Snowded TALK 20:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Matt, I must agree that your rather petulant approach here is not helping. it's basically a form of propaganda as it stands, IMO - what is? Apart from the actual article title itself, where is the "propaganda"? Sarah777 (talk) 22:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

How am I not helping? I am spelling everything out clearly, when some around me are simply fudging. The irony is that you think I'm not helping your own concerns, but I actually am. You can "agree" with Snowded, but he formulates all his reactions to me in a tired "oh dear, yet again..." format, while very rarely saying anything. But it will all come out in the wash - because what exists exists, and Wikipedia (for all its faults) is strong about core realities: Censorship, verifiability and 'common names' - all these 'core policies' have cemented this whole place surrounding us. Wikipedia is build on a foundation of rules. No minority can forever break it down, for all the fiercely emotional, guilt-loaded, foot-plodded, cabal-achieved shenanigans of the past. Things will find their place - and it will happen fairly!.

What is the "propaganda"? The "propaganda" I refer to is in the immediate reverting of every honest and fair edit, it is in the scrolling dissent notes that run dry as the bold ink runs out. Where is the evidence today of people (real people) not wanting the term? Where is the ref? Even when compiled (over a number of months) from self-verifying accounts of the past, there is nothing to warrant the censorship that is demanded here! No evidence at all exists to warrant exerting the one-sided weight to the 'dissent' you demand. The "propaganda" is in the quickly-archived blast-out of every sensible talk page and poll. It is in this supposedly huge weight of 'dissent', that can only actually be 'proven' in terms of the small-but-vocal presence on WIkipedia itself. It is in the battle of attrition that makes so many neutral editors recoil in either despair, or the realisation that life is more important elsewhere. It is the 'whoopsadaisy' article-locks for no valid reason by people who should (and probably do) know better. It is in the inflammatory 'fork' pages that make people elsewhere think twice before 'offending'. It is in the single-minded hours of the extremist at night, personal contributions that show little or no other interest at all. It is in the oft-spoken desire to see the end Britain, and the tragically blind belief that what could exist directly equals what does. It is the crazy insistence that what is and what 'can be' can be effectively bargained against each other! It is in the lowering of the bar, the sleazy approach, the gut prodding force. Who really cares about the words within the term "British Isles", apart from the simple acceptance that it actually is used and exists?

Only Wikipedia's rules will ultimately have their way, however strong some of its contributors feel they can be. Those like yourself can meet reality in the middle, or you can make it is hard as you possibly can for others to represent you more-than-fairly (as they will). Either way you will win! Not the all-out Europa you want, but your POV will certainly win thorough, you can be absolutely assured of that. Wikipedia is consensus-driven, and you and Snowded are nothing but determined (and thus strong) forces in this place. It is simply because you are both committed and do not stop. It's the same with myself. Anyone who thinks Wikipedia represents the masses democratically is completely misguided: outside of hobbyists Wikipedia is effectively a finite amount of very committed people - and that is it. It is true, isn't it? Look around you. We are completely consensus-driven - but we do have those rules. And that 'policy' will come into play - and when the British Isles guidelines go through the proposal process, a far wider audience will get a very good look at this too. --Matt Lewis (talk) 01:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Matt you are seeing conspiracies where none exist, you are reacting by preaching. It has become impossible to collaborate with you on this page (which is now a largely solo effort). You persist in saying that anyone who disagrees with you wants to see the end of Britain (your talk page diatribe about nationalists made so many assumptions about other people based on so little evidence I gave up counting). Calling people's approach sleazy, making the sort of accusations you make above and elsewhere is against every principles of the WIkipedia. If someone dates challenge you you "take it mediation" trying to get others to back you up. They don't, then a mediator arrives and you run away closing the request (I suppose an honest reaction as your behaviour would not stand up to independent scrutiny) I see from your talk page that you have take offence elsewhere and threatened to take someone else to mediation demanding apologies over what seems a storm in the proverbial tea cup. Can't you see a pattern here? All we have above is a diatribe of personal abuse which does you little or no credit and is becoming increasingly tiresome. Just complete your set of guidelines, base on your assumptions and put them out for public comment. Then it may be worth reengaging. For the moment this is Matt's personal page, Matt's personal project and Matt has some real ownership issues. --Snowded TALK 01:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The guy at MEDCAB asked me if I still needed the mediation, and I said "no" simply because nobody had commented on the page for a while (a clear dead end), and the whole issue is clearly about Policy to me now. He said I can re-open the mediation at any point - and I'm sorely tempted to do it now after your comment, but to argue with you Snowded, is a complete and utter waste of time. I stand by every comment I made in MEDMOS, but I'm going to push on with the taskforce and this article (which your like-minded email buddy DDStretech shamelessly locked to save you from 3RR I might add - I have no problem with saying that - it is as clear as a bloody bell, and if I could I'd support-edit the revision right now. Bloody scandalous - only you two were around and it gets locked after 30 mins just at that 'key moment'. I can't tell you how bad it looks - bloody appalling). --Matt Lewis (talk) 02:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Seeing more conspiracies Matt? I've never been blocked or exceeded 3RR and don't plan to be. We had an editor (with a history of edit warring) who refused to discuss a controversial change on the edit page - that got it blocked. Your accusations against DDStretch are becoming seriously out of line by the way and I strongly recommend you cross that one out and apologise. Re-open MEDCAB, you could do with someone taking an objective look at your contributions to this. --Snowded TALK 02:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I would agree that it is serious, yes. I can't prove anything, but it fits in with a wider pattern I've seen, and what would it look like to you? Seriously - take a step back and ask yourself that. Why did you take it to 3RR? And why can't any of us edit it the page now? because it is locked. I'm entitled to be unhappy. You talk to me about "ownership issues" - you did it to defend your cynical "Souza proposal". To 3RR? No way should the page be locked because of this. And it's negatively effected the British Isles Taskforce as it has just pissed needed people off - as both you and DDStretch were fully aware of, I'm absolutely certain. --Matt Lewis (talk) 02:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) this is getting sad Matt. I made three attempts to get Tharky to discuss his change rather than edit warring on what he knew would be a controversial and provocative. I'm unhappy that its locked and I dislike any editor who refused to discuss changes and just reverses, but that is the behaviour. Any admin would have done what DDStretch did, its basic Wiki process. Your Souza proposal red herring is a nonsense you know. When the mediator asked us to try and resolve it I went back over weeks of exchanges and the solution which had the most support was the Souza one (not mine, not my ideal solution but it had support), so I re-proposed it and 10 out of 11 editors agreed. If you check above you will see that I have been more than happy to change the sentence, even suggested one of yours, I just don't think a paragraph is necessary. Please calm down, look at the content not your conspiracy theories about other editors, apologise to DDStretch who does not deserve you accusation and get someone to look at the MEDCAB and related material and give an objective response. Refusing mediation, but continuing to throw out accusations is not good behaviour. --Snowded TALK 03:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll re-open the MEDCAB case - I'm not having you saying I'm "refusing mediation", it's a bare-faced lie as you know damn well I have refused nothing. Don't think it will be big 'high five' for you or any other usual suspect who will pop in to support you - you know how badly I think of how you have behaved on the whole matter, and I'll pull no punches with anyone if it's a proper mediation case. I may be pissed off right now but I had enough of your provocative approach and little digs. Souza's initial suggestion was based on my own proposal - it immediately got all confused (mostly down to yourself completely mistaking the "page as it stands" for a proposal by myself - you weren't following things properly) during which Dave Souza simply left the debate altogether! There was no 'proposal' by him all - it was something you took up and ran with when I was not around. I've seen you do nothing but game, game and game on nationality issue ever since, and wherever you have gone.

How you can you say any editor would have "done the same" as DDStretch and locked this article is beyond me. Half of Wikipedia would be shut down if all admin "did the same" as DDStretch and simply supported their favoured edit and editor on 2RR by locking an article. Neither of you would have 3RR'd - you know that damn well. And if it wasn't locked we wouldn’t be having this conversation - it is pure frustration, and all brought about by an admin and an editor sharing a single-minded pursuit. As for apologising to him - he knows where I am and can speak for himself. His lock was at once another stupid play against Tharkuncoll (all of which I would say has got none of us anywhere), another move to support yourself (and as an admin he has absolutely no right at all to take sides) and a clear move to prejudice the guideline towards his own clear 'use-limit and dispute-heavy' POV. To prejudice the building of a Wikipedia guideline is a serious matter. It doesn't get much more serious than that in here, surely. And I can do without your constantly personal edit notes too. So you are tired of me? I am tired of you. I don't care what tracks you leave - you don't have a leg to stand on. I'll see you back at MEDCAB - at least it will keep this crap out of here. --Matt Lewis (talk) 07:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Pleased to see the intent of opening the MEDCAB Matt, look forward to the reality. I'll ignore the chain of insults that follow. --Snowded TALK 11:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The MEDCAB that I originally opened all about you has now been requested to be re-opened. You must think people are as daft as brushes. --Matt Lewis (talk) 13:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Unprotection

I am unprotecting the article now. I hope that discussions will lead to an absence of edit warring, which was the motivation for imposing the protection. I have not had this article on my watchlist since about a day after the protection, as I no longer wish to engage in any over-heated discussion on any of this. All I will say is that if the protection was viewed as being inappropriate, one could easily have gone privately to any other individual administrator and asked for them to review it. I have not had a chance to read through any of the long discussions, above, but I believe that it would be unhelpful to do so, since matters are getting out of hand. I suggest that people step back, and particularly stop making unwarranted assumptions about motivations here, which are expressly to be avoided in all discussions. If the MEDCAB matter is re-opened, I will not contribute other than to announce my withdrawal from the issues and to describe the extent of my non-involvement from a few days ago. The decisions and protections that I made to various articles can easily be reviewed by approaching other individual administrators if required, and this is all part of normal wikipedia functioning. As for myself, I am washing my hands of this whole controversy, because I am not convinced that accusations made against me can ever make any of my views on the matter have any perceived positive contribution any longer. I have much more pressing real-life matters to concentrate on for the next weeks.  DDStretch  (talk) 09:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Moving on

Why don't we take the suggestion from Bill Reid for the lede as follows: Although commonly used worldwide in sciences like geography, geology, archaeology, and natural history, the term 'British Isles' has been criticised in Ireland for the use of the word British and has been discouraged from use by Irish goverment officials. Alternative terms have been proposed although none have found universal favour. Additional data in Matt's paragraph than then be put in a note as supporting material? --Snowded TALK 11:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Because it does nothing that WP:LEAD requires. It focuses on the name controversy and nothing else; it doesn't describe what the British Isles are or summarise the article. The naming controversy is not a major attribute of the British Isles, it's a minor aside. It hardly needs to appear in the lead section at all. Waggers (talk) 11:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Having a single sentence was a means of avoiding a renaming dispute as I recall, one sentence to acknowledge the controversy in several paragraphs seems reasonable. The current version does this and was stable until recently. --Snowded TALK 11:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm very happy with the current version; I don't see any need to change it or expand it. In particular, I dislike the "Although commonly used" thing as it suggests it shouldn't be commonly used, and that's not neutral. Waggers (talk) 11:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I was trying to accommodate Matt but the current version is fine by me if we can avoid edit wars. --Snowded TALK 11:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Well I trust that we do not wish to "Move on" from my proposal in the sense of it being a thing of the past! I've only recently proposed it, and the article has only this morning become unlocked. Waggers - if you are happy with the Intro as it is, why did you propose a variant of my proposal a couple of months back? Surely you will accept change here? An issue I have with a good few people here is they clearly - to me at least - want to have the smallest Intro as possible, so it doesn't 'rock the boat' - and each person seems to offer their own caveat on this. I find this both anti-Wikipipedia, and completely adverse to its intended effect. That admin seem to wish it too is not a good sight for me - the negativity all around is not good in general.

Surely the only way through this is simply by having an honest and open introduction? It is difficult to cover both "sides" fairly and keep it as tight as we possibly can (not that we've exactly tried to be fair). When the squeeze happens, one 'side' usually bulges through - and it is completely obvious when reading this Intro which side it is here! And the bias has been allowed to prevail too, and has been protected like nothing else I've seen on Wikipedia. I cringe over the Intro as it stands - it simply deceives the readers rather than informing them. It makes it look like the 'dissent' is running strong in the world outside of Wikipedia (without any real-world evidence at all) and it makes it look like the Irish gov actively discourages its people from using it (also without any evidence at all). The extended notes with all the bold text is a shocker too (who else has this on Wikiepdia??).

And why would people take "offense" at British Isles, anyway? People might object to the inaccuracy, yes - by why offense? Queue all the anti-British rhetoric. This article is just another stab at Britain isn't it? I am British and I certainly object to that. I understand the dispute - but the "offensive" thing has no evidence and is stirring up a kind of nationalism that I object to in the extreme. We have to cover this term reasonably and fairly - it is simply all I want to do. - --Matt Lewis (talk) 14:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Matt, I'd suspect you are trolling here were it not for my assumption of WP:AGF. It would appear from that remark that you are monumentally ignorant of the history of these islands and that you have not read the numerous times your question has been answered in the archives of this very talkpage. Perhaps it might be an idea to actually read the full discussion before displaying extreme British nationalism? Sarah777 (talk) 09:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

"Extreme British nationalism"? Me? I missed this before - you really ought to be more careful Sarah. If I was ripped off by an Irish gypsy (to pick what can be a negative example of the Irish that exists today) would I have the right to take it out on you? No. To resent the very word "Irish" for it? Most people are bigger than this. The word British exists. Britain exists. I am British, and am proud to be British - I've told you many times before not to make the term British into an automatically negative thing, because of whatever has happened in the past. I consider it to be nothing less than a form of racism, and I'm just getting tired of it, as I can see it in so many places now. I don't believe for a moment that you see youself as being bigotted in this way - but maybe you should give it a little thought? You seem so intent on re-igniting British/Irish history that you appear to are blind to what you are doing (and who you are offending) to achieve it.

You may take offense over the word "British", but clearly the majority of people either find the term a potentially misleading anachronism, or are not bothered by it at all. We simply don't have the stats, as so few references exist on the matter. The "many take offense" idea is truly gross. I've never met anyone so intent on digging up the past as you: in a climate of such long-awaited peace I cannot understand it at all. Honestly - what will you gain? You won't remove the term, only time will do that. All you and Wotapalava are doing is 'hate mongering' by using the word "offense" in this way, and in applying the word "many" in a present tense you are bending a very finite clutch of references way past breaking point. --Matt Lewis (talk) 17:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I've no objection to the introduction being longer - but if the controversy bit is made longer and the other bits aren't, then it would become disproportionate. The rule of thumb in an introduction is that the first sentence should define the subject, and then there should be a paragraph for each section in the article. What I don't want to see is undue weight being applied to the naming issue. Perhaps if the "offensive" is the problem we could remove it (as we already have the word "objectionable" there and "offensive" is a subset of "objectionable")? Waggers (talk) 15:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I've change the intro per this suggestion: "offense" in this present tense is an unreferenced progression of the word "objectionable". --Matt Lewis (talk) 17:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The intro is fine as it is (in relation to the "dispute"). It concisely, clearly and honestly mentions the dispute then moves on. In particular, I dislike the proposed rewrite that, "Although commonly used worldwide in sciences like geography, geology, archaeology, and natural history" as it begs a question and attribute greater weight and rationality to one point of view by associating it with science and learning. (In fact, it could equally be said that the term is not commonly used worldwide in sciences like geography, geology, archaeology, natural history, etc. Exactly what proportion of scientific publications use the term? I suspect that it is not commonly used term at all. What proportion use the term in favour of an alternative phraseology for the same meaning? Unknown, I imagine.)

"And why would people take "offense" at British Isles, anyway? People might object to the inaccuracy, yes - by why offense?" These are indeed good questions, and answers to them would make fantastic substance for this article the article on the dispute itself. Unfortunately, I suspect you mean them rhetorically and are unlikely to research the answers to them as they appear in the literature on the subject. --89.101.103.185 (talk) 20:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Get yourself a name and I'll answer you. --Matt Lewis (talk) 17:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey guys, have you ever thought of getting a neutral point of view? It appears this argument is being discussed by people who have their own politics to push. Do you all think people in the real world spend their time arguing over the term British Isles? If you want a neutral point of view, just ask, I may even tell you. Skipper 360 (talk) 22:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to tell you anyway. The term British Isles will die out eventually, which is not a bad thing, but while it is commonly used it cannot be ignored. It has to be used, many people will not be happy with this, but they must take consolation in the fact it will one day be a redundant term. There you go, a neutral point of view. PS: If a neutral point of view is not welcome here, I apologise for interfering in your discussion/argument. Skipper 360 (talk) 23:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

You've done nothing wrong Skipper 360. There's just to much politics & possible censurships issues around these topics. GoodDay (talk) 23:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Why is there censorship, I understand politics, but who is censoring this article? Skipper 360 (talk) 23:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

My apolgoies, censurship is too strong a description. I'm just plain frustrated. GoodDay (talk) 23:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey, no need for an apology, I'm just trying to understand. Skipper 360 (talk) 23:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

That's interesting Skipper, but you do realize you are not telling us anything that isn't already in this article? The term *is* being used here and isn't being ignored, as clearly this is a BI page and there are thousands of BI references on Wiki. The article, then, states that many people are not happy with this. That is about all the substance produced by what you call your NPOV. So, what's the problem? What has all of what you call your neutral point of view produced on this page that isn't already here? Nuclare (talk) 18:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

"many people are not happy with this" is certainly a lot better that "many may find it offensive"! But there is no evidence that "many people ARE not happy with this". There are simply no present-tense refs for this statistic. We only have the instance of a handful of Wikipedia editors that it is true, and a very finite clutch of refs that are being bent into present tense to hide the lack of direct examples. I don't know what GoodDay originally felt when he used the word "censorship", but when I've attempted compromised changes to the Intro in the past (simply to the make a way-OTT lead a little more balanced), and have been brushed back so harshly (immediate 3RR's etc), that I've certainly felt myself that reality is being censored here for highly political motives. And I feel it even more when the article is locked. --Matt Lewis (talk) 17:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I forget what I meant on August 22. I was very peeved then. GoodDay (talk) 20:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Matt, I feel you are trying your best here but I am utterly puzzled by your difficulty with the manifestly obvious fact that many Irish people find the term "British Isles" objectionable when applied to Ireland. Sarah777 (talk) 22:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

"Objectionable" is certainly better than "offensive", but

1. We simply don't have anything like the kind of references for "many" that is needed to support the appropriation of it into the introduction. It's a policy thing. And the government line is non-policy too: we should ('at best') give the ambiguous line and let people make their mind up what was meant by it. And as for that scolling bold-blazened ref list.. policy and guidelines are out of the window!
2. I'm of the opinion that most Irish people are not in the mood for this, to say the very east. The climate is clearly for peace, however awkward the term may be.
3. They Irish have arguably the strongest national identity in the whole word, even taking those in Northern Ireland into account. I've honestly never met an Irish person insecure of their Irish identity! Outside of Wikipedia I could perhaps say - although, politeness aside, I do suffer from perpetual NGF in here. AGF to me is like an enforced pagan religion: I can act it when spears are at my throat, but I could never believe in it. People here know nothing of each other, so policy must come first.

I simply do not think that a handful of people on Wikipedia represents Ireland at all. Hence the lack of real world examples on this "many find it offensive/objecionable" matter. I'm happy to show the dispute, even in the lead, as WP:consensus is about Wikipedia (not at all the real world). But I have a voice too, and I insist things are done fairly. --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean by "enforced pagan religion"? ðarkuncoll 00:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know - the Aztecs or something. People with spears. I'm not an expert. --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I just don't understand the big deal over British Isles. If I were an Irishman desperate for independence and got it I wouldn't give a fig what they called the "British Isles". I would just be cockahoop we were independent. I've been to Ireland on a number of occasions and never heard this topic being raised. Where are all the demonstrators with their anti British Isles banners? I honestly think this has been blown out of proportion. Skipper 360 (talk) 00:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

PS: Heres what I think. Your average person in Ireland just get on with their lives not thinking about politics or history, in fact, if they are same as most people around the world they know very little about either. If you say British Isles to them 99% would not blink an eyelid. Now, take for example, a university educated Irish person, particulary one educated in Irish history, a history that will not give a good light to the British Empire, rightly or wrongly, a proportion of them will object to the term British Isles. Does this indicate a large amount of Irish people object to it? I don't think so. For those who object to it, sticks and stones people, sticks and stones. Skipper 360 (talk) 00:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

If you say British Isles to them 99% would not blink an eyelid. That is the sort of rubbish that makes people get irate about this issue. 99% don't go "demonstrating with their anti British Isles banners" - that isn't the issue; they find it offensive (not 99% but most people). To claim otherwise is to be phenomenally ignorant of Ireland. The bizarre notion that finding something offensive must be validated by "demonstrations with anti-British banners" or is negated by the fact that "your average person in Ireland just get on with their lives not thinking about politics or history" is daft it hardly merits a reply. "Your average person in England just gets on with their lives not thinking about politics or history" - does that mean they'd be perfectly happy if Wiki described them as Nazis? Bull. Please use some intellectual rigor here. Sarah777 (talk) 01:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

If wiki and the rest of the world described us as Nazis you can bet your life we would march with banners. I'm sorry if I'm not intellectual enough for you. I do try. Skipper 360 (talk) 01:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

(a) I doubt you would; (b) the "rest of the world" don't call us British. Sarah777 (talk) 01:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Crikey, next time I post here I'll wear a helmet. Skipper 360 (talk) 01:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Well if you start by throwing rocks into the air you should not really be surprised by the need --Snowded TALK 05:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware there were no rocks being thrown. If anyone can prove to me that more than 50% of the Irish population find the term offensive then please do so, until then there is no point stating it in talk pages as though it were true. As for Sarahs comment "the rest of the world don't call us British" I don't recall saying they do. Snowded, should I keep quiet in case someone is offended by my opinion, is this what you mean by throwing rocks? If only someone had told me opinions were not welcome I wouldn't have bothered with wiki in the first place, and I won't.Skipper 360 (talk) 09:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm tempted to bring up Irish Sea; but I won't. GoodDay (talk) 19:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) No need to keep silent, but then no reason to complain about needing a helmet if someone reacts to your remarks! --Snowded TALK 22:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

From the Guardian

"What strange and soupy national identities we have on these British (ahem) Isles." [3]. Could we go with British (ahem) Isles ? Sarah777 (talk) 09:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Now that we have a reliable source for the term? Sarah777 (talk) 09:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how many citations/sources are presented. There'll always be editors who steadfastly refuse to accept British Isles on Wikipedia & editors who'll steadfastly refuse the term being censured in any form. GoodDay (talk) 13:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

And editors who insist on putting it in, even when its unecessary --Snowded TALK 17:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. GoodDay (talk) 17:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

You do get rather negative, GoodDay. A Guardian article (written today) has finally appeared. It says "British (ahem) Isles" - by an Irish woman in 'Comment is Free'. I is not an editorial, but a personal option - but very a decent source all the same. The amount are sources we find are absolutely crucial. Reliable sources are the life-blood of Wikipedia; when a lot are to be expected we must never exaggerate the amount of them (which we so unacceptably do now).

"British national identity is, and always will be, a dog's dinner: complicated, contradictory, and faintly absurd. I like it that way. Frankly, as far as I'm concerned, the more complex the better, it reminds us that we are a mongrel country with a messed up past and an uncategorisable present." (from the article) How many times have I said just that? We need to describe this, not hide it in political soundbites like "many people find it offensive or objectionable".

I am reverting Sarah's removal of "may" - it is a weasel word, but without it the whole paragraph is grossly unfair. The Guardian article in no way offers a reason to say conclusively that "many" are offended by the term.--Matt Lewis (talk) 15:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Since when are weasel words now preferred to their absence? Many people do find it offensive; I know that from personal experience and we have references to support that. Not including the Guardian article. We are not saying that "many" means 5% or 80% of the population - we are saying simply "many". Personally I'd prefer "most" as I think it is more accurate, but I'll settle for "many" unqualified by weasels. Please undo your revert. Thanks. Sarah777 (talk) 18:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

As a citizen of Northumbria, I find the term "England" offensive. I want as little to do with the tyrants in London as Ireland do. Do I get to redefine England just because I and a few tens of thousands of fellow North-Easterners don't like to be associated with London? Our lands were raped and pillaged as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.235.55 (talk) 21:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

If you engage is a series of political and other struggles over many years, win independence and then secure EU and UN recognition for Northumberland (presumably with a Percy as King) then yes you could. --Snowded TALK 22:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Negative? try frustrated, that's a better description. GoodDay (talk) 16:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

descriptive image

I'm not completely averse to this type of map image, but I have a few issues with this one as it stands. The colours used in the image at Countries of the United Kingdom came via a consensus Poll and could be used in place of the more controversial colours here (the voters chose yellow for Northern Ireland and red for Wales). The map should also be called "British Isles" (the name of the article) and not "UK and Ireland". Isle of Man is in the British Isles too, but is left from the island list here. Whilst I agree that Wales etc are countries, sovereignty should really be at the top (rather than the list of countries): it could be confusing to people as it stands. This could be a quite hard diagram to do fairly, in fact.

On the whole I prefer the idea of a Euler diagram, which 'dots' the Channel Islands - although we could always have both types. --Matt Lewis (talk) 13:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

As a small comment, the satellite image on the same page is named as being an image of the UK. I propose that we rename the image. --HighKing (talk) 23:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Oileáin Iarthair Eorpa (Islands of Western Europe)

Under the year 1584 in the Annals of the Four Masters: 'M1584.2. Sir Niclas Maulbi gobernóir chóiccidh Connacht d'écc i n-Áth Luain fá initt, fer foglamtha i m-bérlaibh & i t-tengtoibh oilén Iarthair Eorpa esidhe' (http://www.ucc.ie/celt/published/G100005E/index.html) which translates as 'Sir Nicholas Malby, Governor of the province of Connaught, died at Athlone, about Shrovetide. He was a man learned in the languages and tongues of the islands of the West of Europe' (http://www.ucc.ie/celt/published/T100005E/index.html). So much for the idea that the Irish had always used the term British Isles, and that it was simply a recent nationalist trend for them not to use it and instead to "invent" alternatives like the 'Islands of Western Europe'. 86.42.119.12 (talk) 03:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

We're talking about English here, not Gaelic. This is, after all, the English Wikipedia. ðarkuncoll 07:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Please explain the relevance of that statement. The text has been translated into English, for those of us who are ignorant of the Irish language. Are you saying that all translations are, somehow, suspect? Or, only this one? Daicaregos (talk) 09:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the point is that "British Isles" translates into different languages in different ways, and some languages use different terms altogether. But WP policy is to use the most commonly used English-language name - so it's a general thing: as far as naming is concerned, other languages don't count. Waggers (talk) 09:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

So all latin references should be ignored? Crispness (talk) 10:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

As far as deciding on the name for the article and usage of the term in the English language are concerned, yes. Waggers (talk) 11:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The Greek and Latin names are important because the English name is a direct and deliberate translation of them. There is no such continuity from Gaelic, which has influenced English not at all on this issue (nor indeed many others). ðarkuncoll

NO MORE RACISM

I am working hard to help improve Wikipedia (offline at the moment), and will not tolerate any more anti-British racism. Every time I see the unproven "objectionable" return, or the word "may" recmoved I will revert it. I don't give a shit about "3RR" when racism is concerned - racism is racism and I'm not putting up with it. I don't give a toss if I'm banned for it either. WERE ARE THE REFS?????? I've had ENOUGH - a handful of babies are not just running the creche here, they are running the entire bloody floor.

Do you small group of crazies really thing Wikipedia can prevent the use of this term? Jesus! We are an encyclopedia not a flaming soap box.--Matt Lewis (talk) 23:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have restored the text to that which was agreed by several editors as part of a mediated consensus. That does include "may" which I have left in place. I have no idea where you get this idea that the current words are racist, but I strongly recommend you calm down and abide by normal wikipedia process.--Snowded TALK 23:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The single-word change was suggested on this talk by Waggers (per other suggestions for change without using the word), met with no disapproval at all, and was tellingly accepted on the main page with no disapproval either. People are happy with this extra nonsense-word being removed. Is that not consensus? I believe it is.

Your supposed "consensus" (from almost exactly 3 months ago) is just a mere speck in time that is well-hidden in these labyrinthine archives. What you wrongly keep pretending is "consensus" was a meaningless moment that signified nothing but an end to a 'debate' that totally confused , then completely turned away from the original proposal, just to settled on a one-word change simply to close it. I didn't vote in it, nor did a number of people on this page. Those attending was actually a 'roll call' of one side of the nationalist argument. It was not about the word "offensive" - it was about no-change being settled on (ie a typical story with changed, confused and broken proposals). The main proposer wasn't around to follow his original proposal through, as you very well know (having seen him retire). The mediator wasn't even needed, and said as much. It was no 'consensus' - as you very know: the words "mediated consensus" simply mean "it is what I want to see".--Matt Lewis (talk) 03:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Has Matt been drinking?ThatsGrand (talk) 23:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

That's a bit personal, isn't it Wikipeire? --Matt Lewis (talk) 03:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I fear the coming storm. GoodDay (talk) 23:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes it's that flipping poll you didn't agree with, but voted in anyway to get it all over with again. If there was ever a lesson to be learnt! --Matt Lewis (talk) 03:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The references are there for "offensive" and "many" (footnote 4, for instance), should you calm down and take the trouble to read them. You are making this girl, Anna23, seem rational. Seeing as you have brought it up, I'm quite sure you are "working hard" and that your involvement with wikipedia is entirely impartial and is not shaped by your nationality; it's just that this edit history indicates a strong emotional attachment to British-related issues, especially concerning British pride. It is great, though, to see racism-free rationality dovetail so perfectly with one's national prejudices. Funny how that always happens to nationalists! 86.42.119.12 (talk) 04:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I've added a reference specificially for "many" and "objectionable" and removed the speculative "may" (we are guided by facts not maybes aboud here). The citaion I've added is Hugh Kearney, 2006, The British Isles, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge:

“ The title of this books is 'The British Isles', not 'Britain', in order to emphasise the multi-ethnic character of our intertwinded histories. Almost inevitably many within the Irish Republic find it objectionable, much as the Basques or Catalans resent the use of the term 'Spain'. ”

Now, let's bring this pettiness to an end. --62.24.204.7 (talk) 16:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

We all know the Kearney book - it's the only ref for the present tense you have. It is written in Kearney's context - not Wikipedia's. We need more refs to appropriate the word "many" - we can't just take Kearney's. I own the book and Kearney actually uses the term "British Isles" for contemporary life, and Ireland today. So how do we know what kind of 'many' he means? Not enough to refrain from using the term himself, clearly. So where are the other "umpteen" refs for how the Irish feel now? They don't exist, Gold Heart (or whoever you are).--Matt Lewis (talk) 18:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Heading towards protection again

Just a word of warning, after being stable for a while this article is heading towards being protected again as the same edit warring seems to be breaking out again. Canterbury Tail talk 11:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It may be the only way to get discussion on controversial issues here before changes are made, especially when an agreed consensus is called racist. --Snowded TALK 12:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone's called the consensus racist. Remember it takes two to edit war, and right now you're one of the two. Waggers (talk) 13:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

So if you ask someone to take to talk page to discuss, they revert and threaten to keep reverting you should just let them do it Waggers? Please ....--Snowded TALK 16:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

All this disruption now has been caused by you alone. That "consensus" poll of 3 months ago was no consensus at all: Where was Blessed Saint "Souza"? where was I? Where was the original proposal (or suggestions around it)? Were was Tharcuncoll et al? You have no right to treat it as a statute because it clearly suits your POV. As the original change proposer (of this time) who wasn't around for this particular poll, I personally consider it an insult, and it should clearly be put behind us - instead I fight it every time you comment in here, like it's the 11th Commandment. The single poll-within-many was an object lesson on why NOT to have a pointless poll just to end a discussion. No wonder Wikipedia strongly frowns on such polls (and so many do not join in) - this one has been abused to the maximum by you. --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

eleven editors were engaged, I did not fully agree with it but it was the best compromise we could agree at the time. It can be changed by discussion. You are one editor making a series of statements about that agreement. Just engage Matt, no one is trying to enforce a POV here, just make sure that people discuss and agree before editing --Snowded TALK 16:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Engage? It's all I do. You have a bloody cheek you really do. You just go around reverting to your POV. You have the article locked again now too - yet again you get what you want.--Matt Lewis (talk) 19:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Issues

OK these are the two questions - would people please quickly express the views here. --Snowded TALK 16:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Should "may" be included

• Weasel word and unnecessary --Snowded TALK 16:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
• Absolute weasel words. Are there any citations supporting the opposite view that might cast doubt on to what is provided by the citations - that the term is objectionable? --62.24.204.7 (talk) 16:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
• THIS IS POV SHOCKER COMBINED WITH THE OTHER POLL. I REFUSE TO VOTE IN SUCH AN OUTCOME-CONTROLLED POLL. --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

A "POV SHOCKER" - ?? How can you be shocked when there are umteen references from top UK-based publishers supporting the it?? --62.24.204.7 (talk) 16:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The poll on "may" here is clearly designed to try and keep the word "many" in on its own. "Umpteen" - was it that? The new word for "one"? --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

"Umteen"? It means 'many'. As in the umteem references in footnotes 4, 6, 8 and elsewhere to support the statement that the term is objectionable to many in Ireland. Are there any references to support an opposing view that you insist on casting doubt on verifiable sources through the insertion of weasel words? --62.24.204.7 (talk) 16:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

But for offensive? Only one ref says "many may find the term offensive": It is Kearney's own context, and he frequently uses the term for modern Ireland himself. He does not verify the statement (weakening it as a reference), and we cannot verify Kearney ourselves with any other references at all for the present tense. Yet we appropriate it as if it is true. It's not on.

As for "objectionable" - there is a finite amount of refs for that too. They fall off into academic tracts. Nothing like the amount we need to put it in the intro like this - although I accept that Sarah et al have most of the power regarding that (we are 'consensus'-lead Wikipedia after all). But "offensive" is way outside of policy. --Matt Lewis (talk) 20:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Matt Lewis' POV trumps umteen sources published by leading UK-based presses? Yawn. When will you get it that this is not big deal and your panic over it is driven by nothing more than your nationalist POV? Sources, Matt, umteen published sources vs. your personal campaign to have it your way. It is tiresome. Yawn. --78.152.194.24 (talk) 13:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you the world's ultimate difficult teenager? Yawn? Or are you perhaps a basic troll and a committed misinformer? It's not the "press"!! It's the content!! The verifiable sources far too quickly tail-off and simply disappear, and academic presses never stop rolling either. One would rightly expect a veritable wealth of choice given the "many object" way we currently deal with this - but we simply have only a motley clutch of close-but-not-close-enough often-ambiguous mostly single-opinion esoteric references! Why do you think that all the meagre sources that have been painstakenly collected over the years have been gladded-up in blue-rinse 'maskara', like a defiant streak of hair drawn over a bald man's head by his absinthe bewildered wife? For some reason (I don't quite now why myself) there are simply bugger all references to show any kind of unacademic non-esoteric popular dissent, loud or quiet, big or small. All the alternative name stuff is there - but the dissent?? The anger?? The offense?? Good god - you don't think it's because - shiiiiiit - you don't think it's because - shi shi shi shi - you don't think it's beacuse? Oh my go oh my go!!! QUICK - ALL HANDS TO BOARD ALL HANDS TO BOARD!!: THERE ARE UMPTEEN SOURCES THERE ARE UMPTEEN SOURCES THERE ARE UMPTEEN SOURCES!! PEOPLE ARE RAVASHED BY THIS!! THE INJUSTICE, THE INJUSTICE!! --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Matt, there are umteem sources. Please provide a source to the counter if you believe it not to be the case. Otherwise, around here, your opinion is just that - your opinion. And it counts for nothing. --78.152.216.124 (talk) 22:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

"May" should NOT be included. 89.129.142.89 (talk) 01:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Should "offensive" be included

• I think the sources support this --Snowded TALK 16:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
• "Offenseive" is ridiculious. Objectionable is supported - but offensive!? No doubt Sarah777 will bound in to equate 'British' with 'nigger' - but the rest of us are hardly "offended" by the word, merely "object" to it. --62.24.204.7 (talk) 16:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
• NO. Quote two sources that say that "many" people find the term offensive in the present tense (the tense we give)? There are no "sources" (in plural) at all! --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

For "offensive" no, but sourced were provided for "many" and "objectionable":

1. Hugh Kearney, 2006, The British Isles, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge:

2. Bennett, Martyn (2003). "What's in a Name? the Death of the English Civil War: Martyn Bennett Examines How the Terminology We Use about the Great Conflict of the Mid-Seventeenth Century Reflects and Reinforces the Interpretations We Make". History Review.

Both of these were used as citation in the revision that you reverted.

To them, you may add The Dynamics of Conflict in Northern Ireland: Power, Conflict and emancipation. Joseph Ruane and Jennifer Todd. Cambridge University Press:

Geographical terms also cause problems and we know that some will find certain of our terms offensive. Many Irish object to the term the 'British Isles';...

--62.24.204.7 (talk) 16:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Only Kearney uses it in the present tense, and then goes on to use the term for contemporary life! Who are we to appropriate his context? --Matt Lewis (talk) 18:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Cool. So we should have a mix of present, continual present, future and past and continual past? Basically, you say, the sources support the assertion that many Irish find the term objectionable now, for the time being, in the future, in the past and have have found the term objectionable for some time? OK. I'm fine with that. Put that in. --78.152.194.24 (talk) 13:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• Saying offensive is OTT. Objectionable is fine. I don't know why this is such a big deal.ThatsGrand (talk) 16:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Until somebody goes door-to-door, getting signitures of those who find the term offensive? There's not much reliability in any sources provided as evidence. GoodDay (talk) 20:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Is that a vote against us using "offensive" along with objectionable then? --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Yep. GoodDay (talk) 21:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, offensive is supported by the existing sources. And here's another one: Timothy Baycroft & Mark Hewitson What is a Nation? (Oxford, 2006), p. 273: 'The "British Isles", however, does include the island of Ireland, although the adjective "British" used in this context is often found offensive by Irish nationalists', and another one, http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/british-isles/. 213.202.160.91 (talk) 02:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

That web linke is an "under construction" amateur site - it is not a WP:reliable source! What is a Nation qualifies with the word "Irish nationsists"!! You have given two examples - and neither work for the current introduction. --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Sources, smources. Was there a national poll held in the republic, to determine the percentage of those offended by the term British Isles? GoodDay (talk) 02:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

It is offensive in a major portion of the land area to which the term applies! It must stay - anything else in naked censorship and imposition of British nationalist POV. Sarah777 (talk) 02:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

All of that is your personal opinion - not a word of it can be proven. The censorship here is in the disallowal of any information that crowds the word "offensive". It is surely the single worst case of censorship of this type on Wikipedia.--Matt Lewis (talk) 15:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm just curious. Has anybody ever gone door-to-door throughout the republic; to get a percentage. GoodDay (talk) 02:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Is that relevant? And I assume you know the answer to your own question. We don't verify things on Wiki by going door to door; we use third party sources. At least that's how I understand the system. Sarah777 (talk) 02:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

We don't have "third party sources" (in plural) for the current introduction. --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

"Sources, smources." Yes, GoodDay, sources. "Was there a national poll held in the republic, to determine the percentage of those offended by the term 'British Isles'?" Not according to the sources. They state it simply as a well-known fact. It is tiresome how you campaign against facts. Or is it knowledge that you have contempt for? --78.152.194.24 (talk) 13:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Offensive or objectionable mean much the same thing in this kind of context. Needs to be included. 89.129.142.89 (talk) 01:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Reversion by Snowded

Snowded,

You are reverting the removal of "may" (which you agree is weasel words). On your last reversion, you wrote: "am simply restoring the the last agreed version." Exactly how the inclusion of weasel words an "agreed version". Not just it is counter to policy, but looking through the history, all is see is days of people removing it only to have it put back in for days. --62.24.204.7 (talk) 16:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't like "may" but it was a part of the compromise reached. I hope most people here want to remove it. But it is and was an issue so it should be discussed first. Hence this talk page to end an edit war. --Snowded TALK 16:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

This is not a democracy. It doesn't matter what "most people" want. Facts are facts. Weasel words are weasel words. --62.24.204.7 (talk) 16:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Fully agree, I said "discussed" not voted. and we need citations etc. Hopefully we can improve this. --Snowded TALK 17:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

"May" is indeed weasel. 89.129.142.89 (talk) 01:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Offensive to the Irish

As a great liker of the Irish people, I find it personally offensive that a small group of them come on here and demean their country by making it seem like they're a nation of petty-minded bigots stuck in the 17th century, with nothing better to do all day than object to phrases in the English language and try and tell the rest of the world how to speak. ðarkuncoll 17:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I object to any English person liking any Irish person. It's against nature, I say! Go like someone on your own island! (And take your lovey-dovey words with you, as well!) --62.24.204.7 (talk) 17:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Nah, most English are wankers. And being English I'm allowed to say that (and may even be one myself). ðarkuncoll 18:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The only thing offensive about this article is that certain eurosceptic wikipedia editors are still claiming Ireland to be in what they term the "British Isles". That, and the "concern" of the same editors for the feelings of the Irish. Things don't get more surreal. 213.202.160.91 (talk) 01:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I wonder, are UKers offended by the term Irish Sea? Just curious, folks. GoodDay (talk) 01:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure you wonder, but not near as much as I do about the speciousness of your comment. If it offended your friends, they would have changed it in the same manner that they changed everything else that bothered them about the Irish people, such as Irish placenames, Irish people living under Irish law, speaking Irish, owning Irish land and ruling Ireland (to name but a few). Yes, the tolerance of your friends is legendary. 213.202.160.91 (talk) 02:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Please refer to my comment above about how posters here are making it seem like the Irish are stuck in the 17th century. ðarkuncoll 08:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Very interesting. GoodDay (talk) 02:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

G'Day - you have made that pointless remark now a dozen times and it has been pointed out that (a) nobody cares what you call that sea because (b) nobody lives in it. Sarah777 (talk) 02:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah hah! Not in it, but around it. The Irish Sea has a British coast. GoodDay (talk) 02:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

No, Britain has a British coast. The Irish Sea is next to the British coast (and an Irish coast). What's your point? Nuclare (talk) 02:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

My point is - it's proper name could've been British-Irish Sea.GoodDay (talk) 13:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, then, call it the 'British-Irish Sea' if that will make you happy. Again, what is your point? It's not a question of 'proper' names; it's a question of names that people from certain areas accept or reject. Many Irish people reject 'British Isles.' I don't know of any British people who rejects 'Irish Sea.' If you do, fine, post your evidence at Irish Sea and take it up there. Nuclare (talk) 14:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Cool. GoodDay (talk) 15:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Manxmen and Manxwomen live in the Irish Sea. ðarkuncoll 08:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Have they evolved webbed feet yet? :) Daicaregos (talk) 08:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

No, they don't. Nuclare (talk) 12:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Protected

Since the edit warring continued past the last warning, and before anyone has to be blocked for 3RR, I'm re-protecting this article for a period of two weeks. You all know why. Remember, protection doesn't indicate a preference or support of the current version, it's just the version the protection was implemented on. Canterbury Tail talk 18:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Good move. GoodDay (talk) 19:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if you actually enjoy articles being locked sometimes GoodDay. Have you ever once seen it work in here? --Matt Lewis (talk) 19:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I don't. GoodDay (talk) 19:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I know that - but the second question is the interesting one. --Matt Lewis (talk) 19:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Sadly, no. Frustratingly, shortly after things have settled & this article in unprotected? Somebody, somwhere, will light another match. GoodDay (talk) 19:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Two weeks of this ongoing racism? I'm sure if I can accept that. For me - either it is unprotected after we decide in the enforced poll above that the word "offensive" is not warranted, verifiable or needed - or Wikipedia will be an anti-British quantitly for two whole 2 weeks. I despair when people like Snowded can so easily get a page locked like this. We must realise that a locked article is what Snowded and people like him want: and admin (for whatever reason) have always kept it on the disrupter's prefered version - unfortunately that can't be denied with this article, and page protection has simply helped prevent the introducion from progressing for a long time now, as it gives all the power to one side of an argument. It is honestly a major part of the reason why we simply cannot get anywhere: someone reverts, an IP pops up, the page is locked and people get demoralised. There are people who have openly said they are not interested in this disruption, and keep away from this talk page. We have people who have admitted they will vote on the 'status quo' if it gets the article unlocked. The current status quo is not Policy at all, but this perpertual "toy-fling article-lock" cycle has simply kept it in place. This amount of power given to one side of an issue makes a mockery out of Wikipedia's supposed fairness, and is a huge insult to the people who actually work hard developing this place.

Can this page be unlocked after the poll on the word "offensive"? I need to know this, because one or two people here are able to stonewall any more complicated changes (ie two or more words) forever. If we can sort out that one word things can settle down a bit (as they had before Snowded kicked the apple cart). Yet again the article suffers from the actions of one editor.--Matt Lewis (talk) 19:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Well the last time I locked the article I got criticised for locking it on a pro-British stance. Now I'm being criticised for it being on an anti-British stance. Not possible to win around here (and I'm not looking to win.) Protected is better than disrupted. It can be unlocked if there is a genuine consensus among editors for everything currently being fought over. Canterbury Tail talk 19:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

You are mistaken here. The last time the article was locked it was criticised for being an anti-British stance. The problem is that it is always that way - because the cycle has simply kept the article that way. That's my point. --Matt Lewis (talk) 19:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

No tis you that are mistaken. Last time I protected it (19 May 2008) I was criticised for it being pro-British as seen here. Canterbury Tail talk 20:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Now now Ben! What I asked was: Does British pov merit a higher lever of protection from the Wiki-Admin "Community"? I wasn't accusing you of being pro-anything except pro-NPOV! (And my next post in that sequence was effusive praise in that regard for your good self. Ben, you have cut me to the proverbial quick, so you have :( Sarah777 (talk) 03:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I thought you said the last time it was locked. Either way, that is a protest by Sarah on your talk page: and how was that page lock possibly a British POV? It's like calling the sun green. She didn't even give you a reason! Forget the automatic accusations by Sarah (who doesn't want Wikepedia to use the term with Ireland involved at all) and look at the reality: the clear cycle is massively anti-British, and it's about time someone addressed this. --Matt Lewis (talk) 20:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Matt, I am getting to the end of my tolerance of your constant and nonsensical attribution of motives to me (and others). Please try to behave like a civilised editor. You have some severe ownership issues that you need to address. --Snowded TALK 21:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I am past the end of my tether with you, and have been past it for a while. This article being locked right now is entirely down to you edit warring and not letting the accepted edit settle (with an IP and ThatsGrand - who you know damn well is a sockpuppet of Wikipeire - backing you up). Either this article and the editors working on it start following Policy, or it will carry on being locked in this totally disgraceful cycle forever. I can't actually express how badly I feel about how this cycle has gone on and on here. It is treating decent editors appallingly - letting them talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk with no benefit at all. --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Please stop with the false accusations and personal attacks.ThatsGrand (talk) 21:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Matt, I'd recommend letting the checkuser run its course. Remember, innocent until proven guilty. GoodDay (talk) 21:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm putting forward a case. --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

:It was not an accepted edit Matt; try reading your own threats to revert and revert again if you can face up to some self-reflection. Get a grip, stop throwing insults and try treating your fellow editors with some respect. --Snowded TALK 21:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

You, an IP and a sockpuppet didn't like it. But it's all it takes in here. Are you really happy in that company? One thing you are not is a socker - so why don't you step back and reflect yourself?--Matt Lewis (talk) 22:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Any word on how ThatsGrand fared in the checkuser? Is he good for a vote? Sarah777 (talk) 03:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean "vote"? --Matt Lewis (talk) 03:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I make decisions on content and process Matt not on who is involved. If we have another sock puppet then it can be checked, but we should assume good faith until proven one way or the other. As I said (but you did not read) I am not necessarily against the content of what you do, but I do object to the process by which you assume you are somehow or other free from the requirement to discuss things first (or in this case to ensure you have agreement). I do find it ironic that you complain on the one hand that two editors is "all it takes", but on the other hand think that as one editor that you can ignore agreements reached by ten. Even if you won't reflect, I do suggest you stop the rapid fire insults, its not helpful. --Snowded TALK 05:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with my process at all. It is your poll-insistent process (on anything you don't like) that is the problem here. Your 3 month-old '10 editor' wall of usual suspects was a disaster - but it's no wonder you have been obsessed with polls ever since. The mediator (although he didn't have to do a thing) should be totally scolded for letting it pass. You managed to completely obliterate a proposal and its subsequent discussion and get every anti-British person to sign a list for no change, and you haven't stopped gloating about it since. You know it had no significance, weight or integrity, but you have used it like it is the law of Moses. I retired during it and I feel like retiring every time I think of it it annoys me so much. Wikipedia is completely vulnerable to the machinations of people obsessed on polls. Wikipedia simply doesn't recommend them. It is very rare that they don't alienate a group of people, and simply just do a count for the other side. I've worked my arse off saving a number of polls (incuding the one at Wales you're recently used as the reason to revert my change) - next time you are involved in one I'll just let it fall around you. We must go by policy not polls. We must feel our way through changes (as so nearly did just lately), not force everything into a militaristic roll call. --Matt Lewis (talk) 11:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Clarify - ..get every anti-British person to sign a list for no change?. GoodDay (talk) 14:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

OK - as you said, you voted just to get the article unlocked. And Waggers too of course (who felt the same I'm sure). And maybe Batsun.. I'd like to know what was on his mind. But the rest was an eager line up for sure! --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Cool. GoodDay (talk) 15:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Matt, you have become disconnected from reality, attributing motives to people which cannot be sustained. Accusing people of being anti-British just because they disagree with you. You have ownership problems every time you edit that you are incapable of acknowledging. You make intemperate accusations of racism and prejudice where at the slightest excuse. It is impossible to deal with you on the basis of evidence, citation or fact. You use mediation as a threat to try and force agreement, then back off if anyone takes you seriously. The distressing thing is that I think you genuinely believe that what you say above is true. Sorry its just not worth attempting to engage with you any more. When and if I edit on these or related pages I will do my best to treat each of your edits afresh as if you were a new editor with no history. I think its probably the only way I can assume good faith on your part. --Snowded TALK 07:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The term is often offensive in Ireland, to many people. There's no "may" about it. This is also supported by the references that I can read. Whether or not this should be the case is entirely beside the point. 81.32.182.214 (talk) 00:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Disappearing "British Isles"

Somebody earlier asked about the removal of the term "British Isles" from modern maps, such as by the AA and even major non-British corporations such as National Geographic. Why are these very important changes not mentioned in this article? I decided to google to find out a list of other companies who have dropped the use of "British Isles" from their maps and replaced it with 'Britain and Ireland' or 'Great Britain and Ireland' in recent years. A quick Google reveals that even Philips has removed the term "British Isles" and replaced it with "Britain and Ireland" for all their maps, road and desk. Philips maps are the most memorable from my childhood, and were often free with British newspapers and consequently in our budget-crushed classrooms. In the map section of my university their old Philips map has "British Isles" in large writing. Now, however, there is the Philip's Britain and Ireland Desk Map and Philip's Road Atlas Britain and Ireland . A search of "British Isles" on their website has maps for "Britain and Ireland" (http://www.philips-maps.co.uk/index.php?nID=product&id=&ISBN=9780540089178). I wonder do they put it back in when the maps are given to The Daily Telegraph? The actual evidence from Philips' website is, however, that "British Isles" is removed from their modern maps. "British Isles" has also been removed from the modern Michelin Map, and replaced with 'Great Britain and Ireland' (http://store.randmcnally.com/product/international+maps/europe/united+kingdom+and+ireland/michelin+map-+great+britain+&+ireland+(713).do, and indeed Rand McNally has now no result at all for a search on its website of "British isles" (http://store.randmcnally.com/p2p/basicSearch.do?keyword=british+isles). Collins maps have also removed the term "British Isles" from their maps and replaced it with Great Britain and Ireland Road Map (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Great-Britain-Ireland-Road-Map/dp/0004489802). Interestingly, South-West England and Wales now appear in a series entitled Great Britain and Ireland Road Map: South West England and Wales Sheet 2, and should there be any doubt that Ireland is not in the "British Isles" according to Collins, the series is given the subheading in parenthesis, '(Collins British Isles and Ireland Maps)' (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Great-Britain-Ireland-Road-Map/dp/0004489802). So, from this very brief search of these map companies, the term "British Isles" has been removed from maps published by:

• AA
• National Geographic
• Rand McNally
• Michelin
• Philips
• Collins

In addition a quick search of Google Maps, the most influential map publisher in the world, has no record of "British Isles" either and instead has simply the name UK over the UK and Ireland over Ireland (See here: http://maps.google.com/). Google's solution is of course the most intelligent, and further evidence of the antiquated meaning of "British Isles" (why isn't this "British Isles" article a historical article?). So, Google Maps can be added to a list of major map-making companies which do not use the term "British Isles".

• Google Maps

Please add to this list accordingly, because this article is (inexplicably?) underplaying all these extraordinarily significant changes in the use of the term "British Isles" and this article is consequently representing a very traditional British nationalist take on events, but at the same time purporting to be an article on a modern name, without giving due weight to fundamental modern developments regarding that name. It cannot be both ways. 86.42.119.12 (talk) 18:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

You have some points but here, but there is exaggeration also. Philips always made "Britain and Ireland" maps. There was never that many British Isles maps! Political and road maps are usually different from geographical ones (the labelling etc is different too: politic/road/geographical). NG uses "British Isles" in the text on the map, but has changed to "Britain and Ireland" for the heading. As for the "inexplicable" absence of this evidence from the article - you have completely lost me with that! I offered changes involving mentioning cartographers above - but nobody would accept it because it meant losing the word "offensive". The sad truth is people here would actually prefer keeping the word offensive near the word British than include all the kind of detail I would personally like to see. GoodDay liked it, but Sarah and Snowded rejected for not showing enough dissent. It needed work sure, but what can you do? When the admins act as badly as they do here, even one singular dessenter would have all the power in this article. A couple of flown toys and it's locked. How about getting an ID by the way? I've had it up to here with IP's lately. --Matt Lewis (talk) 18:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Disappearing British Isles II

When was the last time anybody heard the term "British Isles" used on the BBC, ITN/UTV, Channel 4 or even Sky News weather forecasts? I might have heard it on Sky News about 5 years ago, but that is a big 'might'. I would expect to hear it on Sky given its ownership/politics but in fairness I do not hear it at all. Today's BBC weather over a map of Ireland and Britain is, for instance, focused only on the UK and headed accordingly (http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/ukweather/). Channel 4 is precisely the same (http://www.channel4.com/news/weather/), while Sky's weather covers all of Ireland as well as Britain and the term "British Isles" is not used (http://news.sky.com/skynews/Weather). I couldn't find ITN's online weather news page. On a daily basis the term "British Isles" is invariably avoided by all the main British news/weather stations. Needless to say, I have never heard it used on Irish weather forecasts. Again, should this avoidance of the term by both British and Irish news/weather channels not be given due weight if this article persists in claiming to be an article on a modern name? 86.42.119.12 (talk) 18:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

That's just rubbish I'm afraid - I hear it on TV regularly enough, especially on geographical programmes (which I watch a lot of). What point are you trying to make anyway? Nobody says it's used everyday, or on the news etc, why would it be? None of this proves dissent - or proves anything really.

Like the maps - it was never used every day on TV - so why the dramatic "disappearing"? And so what if it is being used less anyway? That gives us no reason to say that "many people object" to it. --Matt Lewis (talk) 18:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that's the point he/she is trying to make. As I read it the editor is suggesting that is being used very rarely by international companies. I agree the term is used in Britain, I hear occasionally it on the BBC. The point has nothing to do with people objecting to it in a direct sense, just how using ther term BI might not be the international standard anymore.ThatsGrand (talk) 18:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Why would something that is only discussing the UK use, or deliberately avoid using, the term British Isles? It's not relevant to that. Canterbury Tail talk 21:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

And why would someone discussing something in Ireland use the term "British" Isle? Sarah777 (talk) 21:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't be, unless it's relevant. Shannon being longest in British Isles is relevant, as is Lough Neagh being largest in British Isles. However the examples being given above of the weather forecasts where they only discuss the UK, it isn't relevant to mention the British Isles. Canterbury Tail talk 11:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Shorter non-censored proposal for introduction

Shorter 4 paragraph revision:

The British Isles (Irish: variously Na hOileáin Bhriotanacha, Oileáin Iarthair Eorpa, Éire agus an Bhreatain Mhór;[r] Manx: Ellanyn Goaldagh; Scottish Gaelic: Eileanan Breatannach; Welsh: Ynysoedd Prydain) are a group of islands off the northwest coast of continental Europe which comprise Great Britain, the island of Ireland and a number of smaller islands.[r]

There are two sovereign states located on the islands: the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and Ireland.[r] The group also includes the Crown dependencies of the Isle of Man and can, by tradition, include the Channel Islands, although the latter are not physically a part of the archipelago.[r] There are other common uncertainties surrounding the extent, names and geographical elements of the islands, and the general popualarity of the term.[r]

Although the term is a geographical one, and is used in sciences like geography, geology, archaeology, and natural history, it is periodically criticised for using the political term "British", which suggests a British ownership of the archipelagos.[r][r}[r] This possibility of a mistaken interpretation causes the term to be controversial in relation to the island of Ireland, which is largely Irish and only British in Northern Ireland, which is about one sixth of the island. The term is not generally used by the Irish government, and a spokesperson for the Irish embassy in London has said "we would discourage its usage".[r]

A number of alternatives have been proposed throughout the history of the term, although many have been criticised themselves[r][r][r], and only variations of 'Great Britain and Ireland' have been widely used. There is evidence that forms of "Britain and Ireland" have been increasingly used by cartographers over recent years.[citation needed]

I hope this doesn't sound to evil. Half the Introduction is given to the controversial nature of the term. I think that is fair enough, as long as it keeps to the details and doesn't mislead, or insidiously tell people what to think.--Matt Lewis (talk) 19:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• I've added "British Isles naming dispute|general popualarity" to the first paragraph. This can lead to the dispute page, and offer the dispute refs. --Matt Lewis (talk) 19:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

As much as I hate doing it, I feel forced into using a vote:

• support. I'm actually off out now (strange for a proposal, I know) - can I urge people to take this seriously? --Matt Lewis (talk) 19:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with it. Good work.ThatsGrand (talk) 19:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose; the current intro is much better; it is important to point out that he term is offensive to many Irish people. This possibility of a mistaken interpretation causes the term to be controversial in relation to the island of Ireland is pure speculation and WP:OR and is thus inadmissible. Sarah777 (talk) 21:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• Extremely Strongly Oppose "Although the term is a geographical one, and is used in sciences like geography, geology, archaeology, and natural history, it is periodically criticised for using the political term "British", which suggests a British ownership of the archipelagos." The author has clearly never cast an eye over WP:NPOV. The deliberate association of one POV with science and learning is intended to undermine the opposing POV (strangely so, while the same author attacks references in support of the opposing POV on this discussion page for being drawn from the academic press). "This possibility of a mistaken interpretation ..." So Wikipedia now has an opinion on this matter? One POV is "mistaken"? The other, I presume, is correct? Please, Matt, if you have time in between panic attacks over perceived attacks on your nationalist sensibilities, take a wander over to WP:NPOV - and when you are done there, why not take a look at WP:VERIFY as well. You may be interested to know that around here facts trump your narrow-minded nationalist POV. --78.152.196.12 (talk) 22:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Very excellent point on the association thingy Mr 7815219612. Are you someone's sockpuppet? We should be told 'cos apparently ThatsGrand (above) is, according to some, part of a whole regiment of puppets. It seems calling folk puppets isn't a breach of WP:CIVIL - at least not if they are suspected Irish puppets. So, self-styled 7815219612, j'accuse. Sarah777 (talk) 22:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm no sock puppet, but and while you are being civil I would consider calling someone a sock without good reason a breach of WP:AGF. We have encountered before on the ROI talk page. Please (everyone) see the outcome of this request to ANI arising from discussion on that page. On that occasion the editor that raised the possibility that I might be a sock turned out to be a puppet master himself (discovered my Matt). All contributors should be conscious that IP-based contributors are no more likely to be socks that anyone else - indeed, those contributing from non-static IP addresses (not I) can be certain not to be a sock.

Be aware, however, that there are other IP-based contributors contributing to this discussion. Not all are me. --89.19.81.44 (talk) 23:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I be aware.....very aware! ;)Sarah777 (talk) 23:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Good God! Wikipéire was a sockmeister!! Paranoia uber alles! But I still gotta ask 864211912 (below) - Sir, are you, or have you ever been, a SOCKPUPPET? Sarah777 (talk) 23:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorcha, a ghrá mo chroí, how could you mistake me? It's not every poster who puts your fine self up with Maud Gonne and her hurling the little streets upon the great, and the eternally feisty Caoimhe and sure I'd marry you myself for that passion and fieryness in the morning but for you're a city girl and city girls don't feed us country lads properly. Alas! It is beyond funny watching all these British nationalist upstarts tell you what your identity is, and that your country is British. To paraphrase Anthony Daly this afternoon about the Kilkenny team, you're like Pacman, you just eat all the little fuckers up as they come at you. God bless you. 86.42.119.12 (talk) 17:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose. It's obviously not a serious proposal. It is patently designed to minimise the controversy ('controversy' is a euphemism) surrounding the name and sideline Irish resistance to this name by mentioning irrelevancies such as the extent of this supposed "British Isles". And these details are, from an Irish persective, irrelevancies. It's like a man coming into your home, attacking you and then turning around and chatting about the diversity of the garden. He may talk about the garden but all you are thinking of is the attack he has just made on you. Similarly, the words "British Isles" at the top of this article covering Ireland, and ultimately imposing an antithetical identity on the Irish people, evoke a similar desire to fight the name, the claim, the assertion- and, yes, the offence (we are quite happy to be Irish, thank you very much)- implied in the term "British Isles" first and foremost. It doesn't require much empathy to understand this. 86.42.119.12 (talk) 23:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose it is wordy, excessive and unnecessary. The current version is fine (maybe minor modifications) but nothing like this. --Snowded TALK 07:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you explain in discussion what is excessive, and what is unnecessary? It is a standard-size four short-parag introduction. The current fairly-short two-parag revolves around the word "offensive and objectionable"!! It is THE most badly-weighted introduction of the whole of Wikipedia, for any article of this level.--Matt Lewis (talk) 15:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Its too long. all we need on a geography article is a note to the effect that the term is objectionable and offensive (I could live with one if it came to it). The proposed edit is in effect a statement of opinion and places too much emphasis on a particular POV. --Snowded TALK 20:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Stronly oppose - this notion is evidently a misleading pro-British imposition. The whole article deserves being tagged with Template:POV for its sheer existance under the current title(added subsequently). What about renaming to The isles of Ireland and Britain or North Sea isles (but then one should cogitate about Helgoland)? At any rate, preserving such a prejudicial title should involve the aforementioned template. Bogorm (talk) 15:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

You don't want the article to exist? --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

False, I do not want its current title. It is offensive to the people of the Republic of Éire, it is clearly stated in the introduction! It sounds as biased as if there were an article Ostpreußen stating "O. is a geographical region encompassing Königsberg oblast, Western Lithuania and part of Poland. However, its usage by the Polish, Latvian and Russian governments is discouraged" - inane, is not it? I agree completely with the Éireann people. Bogorm (talk) 16:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

When you amend your text (as you have just done) it is polite to say that you have done it - not attack someone for misinterpreting the previous unclear version! When the term is used, Wikipedia has no right to change the title. Wikipedia fairly presents facts, it doesn't consor, or promote change! --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It would be more veracious to underscore that at first I deplored the misrepresentation and eventually I added "under ..." in order to prevent other lectors from attaining the same seeming conclusion. Now, when that is explicitly tagged, I hope you are content. Bogorm (talk) 18:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment to admin: - you lock this article to encourage more discussion (by which you can only mean proposals - take a look at the archives), someone works on a level-headed proposal, and look what happens? Two regular "No"'s, two IP's, and someone who things the article shouldn't exist!! All "strong opposes"! Can any admin convince me that this article won't be locked in the same position for years to come? Is no-one embarrassed about it? It is what some people clearly want - so why not out on a 2 year lock right now? How can you win against someone who doesn't want the article to exist? --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Please cease misrepresenting mine opinion - it is clear-cut and does not infer the existence, but the current colonial title/name/dub, as you prefer...! Bogorm (talk) 16:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

You since amended your text! --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

See one Absatz above. Bogorm (talk) 18:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

I'm no longer concerned with the content of this article (too much hassle). However, I'll repeat it again - the article's title must not be moved. Why? you ask? 'Cause British Isles is (at least) a historic title. Historic titles stay put (examples: Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia, Irish Sea, English Channel, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland etc). GoodDay (talk) 15:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I remarked amongst the three Irish names for the isles one which is deprived of the British connotation and is probably neutral as a name: "Oileáin Iarthair Eorpa". Could someone render it in English, it is interesting? Bogorm (talk) 16:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Bogorm, 'Oileáin Iarthair Eorpa' means Islands of Western Europe, which is of course far more accurate than calling Ireland after the name of one of the islands. 86.42.119.12 (talk) 17:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi! Of course it is neutral and non-POV. This expression used here as title is a vestigial rudiment from the 19th-century imperial times, which needs renovation. Bogorm (talk) 18:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The title must remain. If ya'll don't like it? create a new article called Great Britain and Ireland (I believe Sarah777 attempted that, months ago). GoodDay (talk) 18:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

"Must"?- you're opinion? This title must (see, we can all do that) not remain over Ireland in any wikipedia article other than a historical (an historical as lesser educated people say) article. It is more of the age-old British imperialist claim to Ireland. That historical article should make clear that its use in English arose in tandem with the emergence of British identity, and particularly with the assertion of British claims to Ireland from the 17th century. I suspect that that sort of historical accuracy would not be welcome to you. I note, also, that you are refusing to integrate the extensive evidence about its removal from maps, weather forecasts, academic books and much more into your views concerning the justification for the current title on an article purporting to be on a modern entity. This refusal simply accentuates the entire British pov agenda behind this article, from title to content. 86.42.119.12 (talk) 18:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

You can do as you like with the content. Ya can even put in that British Isles isn't used anymore. Better yet, create a Irish mirror article called Britain and Ireland. GoodDay (talk) 18:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I concur unanimously with 86.42.119.12. My nation suffered similar tribulations and I have full understanding for the willingness to detach the must-be neutral Wikipedia from obsolete pov empire-conscious notions. Bogorm (talk) 18:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I wish you'd both reconsider. But, it's your choice. GoodDay (talk) 18:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Shorter non-censored proposal for introduction (revised)

This is an even shorter version:

The British Isles (Irish: variously Na hOileáin Bhriotanacha, Oileáin Iarthair Eorpa, Éire agus an Bhreatain Mhór;[r] Manx: Ellanyn Goaldagh; Scottish Gaelic: Eileanan Breatannach; Welsh: Ynysoedd Prydain) are a group of islands off the northwest coast of continental Europe which comprise Great Britain, the island of Ireland and a number of smaller islands.[r]

There are two sovereign states located on the islands: the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and Ireland.[r] The group also includes the Crown dependencies of the Isle of Man and can, by tradition, include the Channel Islands, although the latter are not physically a part of the archipelago.[r] There are other common uncertainties surrounding the extent, names and geographical elements of the islands, and the term has been objected to throughout its usage.[r]

Although the term is a geographical one, it is periodically criticised for using the political term "British", which suggests a British ownership of the archipelagos.[r][r}[r] This possibility of a mistaken interpretation causes the term to be controversial in relation to the island of Ireland, which is largely Irish and only British in Northern Ireland, which is about one sixth of the island. The term is not generally used by the Irish government, and a spokesperson for the Irish embassy in London has said "we would discourage its usage".[r]

A number of alternatives have been proposed throughout the history of the term, although many have been criticised themselves[r][r][r], and only variations of 'Great Britain and Ireland' have been widely used. There is evidence to suggest that alternative terms like "Britain and Ireland" have been increasingly used by cartographers over recent years.[r]

It loses the details on geographical usage, and makes the unpopularity link to the 'BI term dispute' article even clearer. The above is NOT a too-large introduction. Over half of it is now about the disputed element - but this is OK - as long as it does not infer that the word "British" is "offensive" in itself (and with only one non-verified non-nationalist citation to even support us using the word!). --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support: --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support as a starting point - we still need summaries of the other paragraphs in the introduction, but this wording is an improvement. Waggers (talk) 19:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

This could be hard when the article is locked - but we can still keep to four parags, a decent size and get some other stuff in too.I'll give it a go - maybe if more meat is in it, less people will turn away. --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Extremely Strong Oppose (still) The "revision" does nothing to address the neglect of NPOV in stating that one POV is correct ("the term is a geographical one") and calling the the other a "mistaken interpretation". It also deliberately marginalized the opposing POV by reducing the matter to something that is only "periodical" (never mind "mistaken"). The evidience from the sources (not to mention this discussion page, and anecdotal evidience from those of us who live in Ireland) is that objection to the term in Ireland is not "periodical" but on-going and common-place. There is no need for a longwinded rigamarole when the current version is matter-of-fact, thoroughly sourced, to-the-point and doesn't labour unnecessarily upon an otherwise trivial matter. All that needs to be said: "The term British Isles is controversial in relation to Ireland, where many people find the term offensive or objectionable; the Irish government also discourages its usage." --78.152.202.100 (talk) 20:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The actual sources (in plural) do not back-up "objectionable" for 'general people' in a present tense - only one does, and it is unverified and is not enough for the line we use! The sources do not back up "the Irish government also discourages its usage." either. Who do they discourage? The people of Ireland? We don't know, and we have nothing to verify it with to support the particular line we use. So we can give the quote. Why do you object to showing the evidence? Is it becasue you want to suggest more? This is all about suggesting more, isn't it?

And why are you still hiding behind a dynamic IP? What will happen if you register? I can only assume you are afraid of someonw connected your edits, and a checkuser revealing who you are.--Matt Lewis (talk) 21:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

"The actual sources (in plural) do not back-up "objectionable" for 'general people' in a present tense ... " Of the top of my head, here's three:

"On the top of your head" - what rubbish! These are all you have. It's actually the word "offensive" I've always principally argued against - the fact that you demand them both, when objectionable on its own has no verified refs.--Matt Lewis (talk) 00:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• "Many Irish object to the term the 'British Isles';..." - Joseph Ruane and Jennifer Todd, The Dynamics of Conflict in Northern Ireland: Power, Conflict and emancipation

But do actually they verify it? Cambridge or no, these academic presses never stop (I know very well, having run a secondhand bookshop near a university for a period of my life) - I'd have to read it to see their context, too. You must read all of the WP:verify page - including the WP:REDFLAG section, and WP:undue weight too.--Matt Lewis (talk) 00:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• "Be aware that the Irish may object to the name British Isles, even in a strictly geographic sense." - National Geographic Styleguide Manual

They say "may", and still use it in the embossed text on the front of their "Britain and Ireland" map. It's only good enough for "may". Again - they don't verify this - it's just "may". --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• "Almost inevitably many within the Irish Republic find it [the term British Isles] objectionable ..." - Hugh Kearney. The British Isles, A History of Four Nations

Kearney doesn't source it (ie it's non-verified), and goes on to use the term for modern Ireland thoughout his book called British Isles. We don't know his context (nationalist?). --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

"... and it is unverified ..." These are all verifable sources.

No they are not!! You simply don't understand verify at all. The WP:REDFLAG is the part of the WP:Verifiability page you need to read! And look at WP:Undue weight too! You fail on both. These kind of comments need to have a significant amount of verified sources to be appropriated into an encyclopedia. We don't have them, yet we put the word "objectionable" next to the word "offensive"! And the word "offensive" is my particular beef anyway - it's simply too much.

There are only two refs for "offensive", and neither are verifiable. We simply must have many to use the word "many"! But we only have two for "many" - both non-verified sources. And they are the same refs too (so you can't add up all the '2's!) Where are they all? Where are all the abundant refs I am entitled to expect? We should have many for them all if we are to use these serious words, in this serious context, in this serious article.. -Matt Lewis (talk) 00:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

"The sources do not back up 'the Irish government also discourages its usage.' either. ... So we can give the quote." The current edit contains two refernces with quotations:

• "... its use should be thoroughly discouraged" Mary E. Daly, Journal of British Studies 46

1947 is too long ago for a government letter to be used in the present tense. It wasn't a statute, and was a completely different government. It is simply deceptive to use it for the the present tense "Irish government disourages its usage" that we use. --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• "... We would discourage its usage." The Times of London, October 3, 2006

That is the Embassy spokesman that we use. Does he mean they discourage the gov or all of Ireland? He wasn't clear at all. The intro currently says "the Irish government also discourages its usage." - but who do they discourage? Themselves? Ireland? Again, it is misleading people. They do actually use it from time to time and where are the other refs/proof you would expect? I haven't seen any real world examples. Even Folens stressed that no actual parents complained of their atlas = it was a precautionary change. Why can't we document this without pretending we can justify saying "offensive or objectionable" in the introduction? --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

"And why are you still hiding behind a dynamic IP? ... I can only assume you are afraid of someonw connected your edits, and a checkuser revealing who you are." Please aquaint yourself with fundamental Wikipedia policy, particulary assume good faith. --62.24.204.7 (talk) 09:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

When you hide civility Warnings from your talk page? AGF after that is a bit difficult.--Matt Lewis (talk) 00:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• If inferring that the word "British" is "offensive" in itself is your fear, than why not just leave it basically in it's shorter, current form but add that it is Ireland's *inclusion* in the term that can offend the Irish, rather than simply saying that the term itself is offensive to them. The type of wording used in this source (Timothy Baycroft & Mark Hewitson What is a Nation? (Oxford, 2006), p. 273) would work, no?: 'The "British Isles", however, does include the island of Ireland, although the adjective "British" used in this context is often found offensive by Irish nationalists.' That certainly doesn’t imply ‘British’ is inherantly offensive. Of course, we can’t plagarize this source, but this sort of way of wording, perhaps? On the ref's page, I count 5 sources (including the one I just quoted) that use offend/offensive, which one's are you dismissing as nationalist? Or are you referring to sources elsewhere? Nuclare (talk) 05:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

You are doubling on the same sources for different words if you count as many as 5! --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not doubling; there are five separate uses there. But, taking a closer look, it didn't register in my earlier search, the 5th is the recorded opinion of a politicican--Scottish rep Denis Canavan. Here's the page. 1)"The British Isles (a term which is itself offensive to Irish Nationalists." John E. Joseph. 2) The "What is a Nation?" one I just mentioned: "...the adjective "British" used in this context is often found offensive by Irish nationalists.' 3) "...we know that some will find certain of our terms offensive. Many Irish object to the term British Isles..." Joseph Ruane. Jennifer Todd. 4) ...the "British Isles"--a term often offensive to Irish sensibilities.' Peter Lambert. 5) --this is the politician one, but, -- "...referred to as a 'Council of the British Isles' by David Trimble. This would cause offense to Irish colleagues." British Irish Inter-Parlimentary Body. Denis Canavan. Nuclare (talk) 02:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed there are many many sources to simply put this issue to bed and get on with our lives. The trouble, appears, that a certain Welsh contributor simply doesn't like it. --62.24.204.7 (talk) 09:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

"many many"?! It just isn't true. You would "many many" given the way the Introducion goes about things - but you just don't have many many. - you have an awkward, non-veified few. --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. Dear heavens! 81.32.182.214 (talk) 00:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Four paragraphs of explanatory fairness really sticks in people's gullet doesn't it? To not be allowed just a small sharp intro with the words "offensive or objectionable"?? Dear heavens! What is the world coming to? We have to use an encyclopedia to explain things?! Dear heavens! Mary - get my gun.. I being told to be fair! I'm being told to explain! Dear heavens - we are doomed!--Matt Lewis (talk) 00:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Matthew, you are clearly losing this argument once again. Please revise your posts and temper your tone. Thank you. 86.42.119.12 (talk) 01:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Could one ask how many times Matt Lewis has lost this argument before? The references are pretty clear, and the introduction should surely be short and sharp and accurate - not a long windy rant. 89.129.142.89 (talk) 01:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

The fourth paragraph on alternative usage and how cartographers seem to be changing is where we actually have all the compelling evidence of the term being unwanted. I support using this (and other facts) rather than keep the intro as short as possible and let it rotate around the word "offensive". I still can't find any non-nationalist use of the word in the present-tense outside of Kearney, who goes on to use the term himself for modern Ireland, and doesn't verify it either. If this article is to remain unlocked, we MUST stop appropriating his word and context (whatever it was) and use the English language to do this fairly. We are an encyclopedia - this is not our own personal book. --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The fourth paragraph is the clue to resolving the name inferring the tribulations caused to plenty of Irish people during colonial reign - please move this page to "Britain and Ireland", so that the neutrality prevails, especially since cartographers have an incontestable propensity thereto. (with two users supporting the move I consider a request therefor imminent.) Bogorm (talk) 19:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks pretty good to me. On the cartography thing, it's worth mentioning that hardly any "Britain and Ireland" maps include the Channel Islands, which means they're not referring the the exact same entity as the British Isles. The use of "Britain and Ireland" could therefore be down to that reason as opposed to any problem with the term "British Isles" itself; if we're saying that mapmakers are actually changing their usage of the term (ie. used to use "British Isles" but now use "Britain and Ireland" instead), we need cast iron references to support that - not just a list of "Britain and Ireland" road maps. Waggers (talk) 19:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Here's one, very explicit reference for starters. It's the National Geographic style guide: 'Great Britain, or Britain, since 1707 has comprised England, Scotland, and Wales. The United Kingdom, formed in 1801, comprises Great Britain plus Northern Ireland; the present Republic of Ireland was included until 1922. The British Isles comprise Great Britain, Ireland, and the adjacent islands, including the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. Be aware that the Irish may object to the name British Isles, even in a strictly geographic sense. The plate in the National Geographic Atlas of the World once titled "British Isles" now reads "Britain and Ireland." (http://stylemanual.ngs.org/intranet/styleman.nsf/Alpha+Summaries%5C-+G+-/$first/?OpenDocument)86.42.119.12 (talk) 22:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

What is complicated is that there are not just differently produced political and geographical maps (with the geographical preferring BI), but road maps, which are different as well. Did the ever use British Isles? It's a bit OR, but we could do with a table on maps - showing changes, not just usage. I'm into including the parag, even though I suspect a very slow move away from BI has been going on slowly (and naturally) for years - possibly as the industry has developed. National Geographic changing its BI title to "Britain and Ireland" - but keeping BI in the 'symbolic' map text, is a good example though - It looks like they've made a conscious decision to look at the name, and to compromise. They still print a very old BI map too, which may include the Channel Islands. On top of that, Folens did their precautionary move, based on that one complaint. It's enough for me to have the line on it. --Matt Lewis (talk) 01:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. It's a verbose monstrosity. (This "oppose" is to both the proposed introductions. This comment just got misplaced a little.)81.32.182.214 (talk) 00:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

So speaks the IP who removed "may" from the article on the 5th Sept during an edit exchange, knowing damn well that if he did it at that time, the article was guaranteed to be locked. Looks like IP's rule the roost in here to me. --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, so speaks this IP, who has as much right to express a view as "Matt Lewis", but who had no idea an editing war was underway. Oh, while we're at it "may" is nonsense. It is. 89.129.142.89 (talk) 01:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

While we're at it 2, the idea that the reference to "nationalists" in Ireland somehow means that offensiveness of the term is limited to a small number of people is nonsense. For instance the party that is currently the government in ROI, and has been government for a long time describes itself not only as nationalist but Republican. In an Irish context Republican is generally taken as being a more extreme nationalist than any other.89.129.142.89 (talk) 01:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was speedy close - not moved per WP:SNOW 199.125.109.124 (talk) 01:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Explication for the request:
1) As is stated in the introduction of the article, this term by encompassing the Republic of Ireland is offensive to the majority of its citizens. It sounds as biased as if there were an article Ostpreußen stating "O. is a geographical region encompassing Königsberg Bezirk, Western Lithuania and part of Poland. However, its usage by the Polish, Lithuanian and Russian governments is discouraged" - inane.
2) Its historical significance is explained by 86.42.119.12: "It is more of the age-old British imperialist claim to Ireland. That historical article should make clear that its use in English arose in tandem with the emergence of British identity, and particularly with the assertion of British claims to Ireland from the 17th century." and its usage is thence convenient only for historical articles, not at all for modern ones (cfr. Ostpreußen, a historical region as is this one)
3} In the Irish language one of its names "Oileáin Iarthair Eorpa" means "Islands of Western Europe" and it is high time the English language accepted the British became detached from the terminology of the colonial times (before 1947) and accepted a similar neutral attitude. Since noone has a propensity for original research, the most appropriate proposal is the already existing and widely used in scientific materials "Britain and Ireland".

• Move. Bogorm (talk) 18:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
  
• Oppose. Feel free to create an article called Britain and Ireland. GoodDay (talk) 18:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

With respect G'Day, I did exactly that and it was instantly deleted by POV warriors as a "fork". Sarah777 (talk) 20:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Move. Feel free to move this article title to the confines of a historical article on wikipedia. 86.42.119.12 (talk) 18:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. For all the reasons that has resulted in this not being moved the last God-knows-how-many-times this was proposed. Rockpocket 19:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
• Please don't move. The present name is what the rest of the English-speaking world, and the majority of the inhabitants, call the archipelago. The way to change the English language is to persuade the anglophones; if you succeed, we will then change Wikipedia - not the other way around. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
• OpposeBI is the most commonly used name in the English language. Valenciano (talk) 19:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
• Spot on, Pmanderson. Oppose. Common regrettable usage is still common usage and we're expressly not here to proscribe terms in the English language. Some terms are inaccurate, some are controversial, some are both. But English speakers use them all the time, know what they mean and get by just fine. We mirror their usage. Knepflerle (talk) 19:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The objection about the language has been reckoned with. Bogorm (talk) 20:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Huh? This isn't an article just written by British editors, and the title is used by English speakers outside Britain. Knepflerle (talk) 20:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. "Britain and Ireland" rarely, if ever, includes the Channel Islands, whereas some definitions of the British Isles do include them; hence the two entities are not the same thing. Also, "Britain" and "Ireland" (presumably you mean the state) are political entities whereas "British Isles" is geographical - this is about the islands, not the states that occupy them. Waggers (talk) 19:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

  Comment: Merriman-Webster, Dictionary.com, Free Dictionary, to take three quick examples, do not include the Channel Islands in their definition of "British Isles", so that point, which you have repeated earlier, is a non sequitur. Therefore "Britain and Ireland" would fit the definition of British Isles. Collins and Cambridge dictionaries have no record of the "British Isles". Furthermore, you have not supported your claim that "Britain and Ireland" maps do not cover the Channel Islands as this, for instance, is clearly covering it. In other words, there is at least at much consistency as to what "Britain and Ireland" covers as there is in the standard definitions of what the "British Isles" covers. Have you evidence to the contrary?86.42.119.12 (talk) 23:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

  As a clearer case, is the Isle of Man Britain or Ireland? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose It is a valid geographical name, but opposition to its use needs to be a short reference at the start and it would be very helpful if people stopped placing the BI name wherever they can find any excuse to do so. Sensible use would make it less controversial. --Snowded TALK 20:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
• Move/Support For the numerous reasons already given this is a much better, more acceptable and more appropriate name than the current misnomer. Sarah777 (talk) 20:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose The user has no other contributions besides this vote. Bogorm (talk) 20:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC) The user may have other edits on other IPs if they're using DHCP, and have right to comment Knepflerle (talk) 20:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC) Per policy: "... the current title of a page does not imply either a preference for that name, or that any alternative name is discouraged in the text of articles. Generally, an article's title should not be used as a precedent for the naming of any other articles. Editors are strongly discouraged from editing for the sole purpose of changing one controversial name to another. If an article name has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should remain. ... [D]ebating controversial names is often unproductive, and there are many other ways to help improve Wikipedia." Can an administrator please close this discussion down per WP:SNOW as it is counter productive to the purposes of the encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.152.202.100 (talk) 20:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - British Isles remains the common name (And lets not forget that it includes more than Britain and Ireland, but many little islands). Narson (talk) 20:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The little islands east and south of the Island Britain are all British, appertain to no other nation, provided that no OR emerges, which claims Helgoland or Færøerne with the sole purpose to disrupt the sensible proposal. Bogorm (talk) 20:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment: So, let's get this straight, Narson: You object to "Britain and Ireland" because there are other places in the archipelago that do not fit under Britain and Ireland. Funny, then, that with this logic it never occured to you that a major reason why "British Isles" is inappropriate is because it is including at least one major island, Ireland, which is most certainly not British. Or, wait, are you telling us Irish that we are British? Want to visit Ireland, and tell us that? 86.42.119.12 (talk) 21:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Hold on there IP 86? That last line of your post, could be viewed as a threat to Bogorm Narson. GoodDay (talk) 21:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

>>>Yes, of course it could be... if you're a complete and utter gobshite and miss the opening line addressed to, well, a different person, for starters. I know, however, that you did not miss that opening line, GoodDay. :-) 86.42.119.12 (talk) 21:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that was directed at me GoodDay. Sadly people seem to think that because I favour British Isles as a name that I favour British hegemony over Ireland. Narson (talk) 21:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

You are favouring it because, you imply, it is inclusive, whereas "Britain and Ireland" does not include all the archipelago. You completely avoided the fact that "British Isles" is about as exclusive and "hegemonic locuation" (to quote the most prominent historian of Early Modern Ireland, Nicholas Canny) as you can get due to the minor matter that Ireland is not a British isle. 86.42.119.12 (talk) 21:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The gobbie comment made me chuckle IP.86. You're quite entertaining - jolly good show. GoodDay (talk) 21:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I had thought only about Færøerne og ¨Helgoland, I simply wanted to say that Britain and Ireland is a legitimate substitute, since no other nations' islands are included in the hstorical notion (which is inappropriate at present time) British isles. And I thought mainly of the isles south and east of island Britain, because User:Narson tried to involve other countries in this question beside Britain and Éire. If I have perpetrated any misunderstandng, I apologise and I hope it is already unambiguous. Bogorm (talk) 21:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Achill Island and Gorumna are little islands of the British Isles, but not British. Whether the self-governing crown dependencies which are members of the British Islands are simply British I would not like to say. Knepflerle (talk) 21:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Great, so by this logic I can be born and bred in Europe, and live here all my life but I am not European??? Hello? That is precisely the logical conclusion to your argument. Cut it whatever way you wish, but if you claim Ireland is in this "British Isles" name used by British nationalists, you are claiming us, the Irish people, to be British. And do you know what you can do with that little notion? Do you know anything about Irish history? Anything? Anything at all? 86.42.119.12 (talk) 21:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

No, it isn't the logical conclusion. The British Isles consist more than just British isles. And it's a term used by more than just British nationalists. Not everyone who lives on the British Isles is British. Not even everyone on Britain. My knowledge of Irish history is quite sufficient for needs, thank you for enquiring. Knepflerle (talk) 21:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

No, that is precisely the logical conclusion. If you are born, bred and live in London, Paris, Berlin etc etc all your life, you are a Londoner, Parisian, Berliner precisely because of that status. By claiming Ireland to be a British isle, the same logical conclusion applies. And I can tell you this for nothing, if you do not feel offense, anger and immense hostility at being given the name of the people, culture and ideology that has brutalised Ireland for centuries, you do not have a sufficient knowledge of the Irish experience of British colonialism. Yours, respectfully. 86.42.119.12 (talk) 21:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

British Isle, not British isle, if you will accept the difference.. The term 'Britain' predates 'Britain' as a nation. The nation takes its name from the geography, not the other way around. Britain as a nation gets its name from the name of the largest island in he British Isles, Great Britain, which is also the former political entity that was absorbed into the United Kingdom Of Great Britain And Ireland, as it was then. Narson (talk) 21:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

With respect, saying Britain predates Britain, the modern nation, is akin to saying the Swastika is a Hindu symbol of peace. Both are true. But both words also have had fundamental changes in their meanings since they were first recorded. Languages change, meanings change and the British Isles is offensive wholly because of what has been done in the name of the modern state in Ireland, against us. Of the many other names in use in ancient times, the one which corresponded with British imperial ambitions, British Isles, was taken and promoted by that modern state. In fact, the Oxford English Dictionary says "British Isles" was only first used in English in 1624, which corresponds with British political designs to conquer Ireland from the late 16th century. Names don't come much more politically charged than this so please don't attempt to distort reality by placing some innocuous ancient meaning on this term. 86.42.119.12 (talk) 22:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

An excellent point. However, not one I agree with. British Isles is not a loaded term, certainly not any more, within most of the world. It remains an issue for some Irish men and women, I will agree. I believe some find it offensive, yes. Then again, people find a lot of things offensive that we include in wikpedia and a vocal minority should not be able to force their will upon the rest. I do believe on this, we will have to disagree. Narson (talk) 22:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC) EDIT to add: The OED etymology is not always the best. Islands of Britanniae was there, for example, before the late 16th century. It is also worth adding that the late 16th century is where Modern English starts to appear, which might explain them only having it go back so far. Anyway, drifting off into OR there. Narson (talk) 22:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Ireland is in the British Isles, using the common definition thereof. Ireland is not a British isle. The large difference is carried the capitalisation. Whether this difference is always observed or used correctly is a separate matter. Whether I or anybody else either endorse the common usage or imply anything further with its use are separate matters. But it is the common usage. Knepflerle (talk) 21:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose per Waggers. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 22:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, there's a surprise!! Sarah777 (talk) 00:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

hehe. 86.42.119.12 (talk) 00:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Hardly. Just like your own vote. What's your point? Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 11:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose: I think this article is making the British Isles look like a war zone. The article is more anachronistic than the term. It's not clever, it really isn't. Some people in life actually have pressing reasons to fight these things.--Matt Lewis (talk) 01:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Some people in life actually have pressing reasons to fight these things. I don't follow you Matt. That statement is too, dare I say, deep and meaningless? Sarah777 (talk) 01:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Me 'spelling out' this comparative suffering point has never really worked for you though, has it? It seems to me that Bogorm opened this Move because he is associating Ireland with the breakaway nations in Georgia etc (my take on conversation with him, anyway). He has been mislead here into thinking this is a political situation, in my opinion. Now how could that be? --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose: Most of my reasons have already been covered above, but I'll run through them briefly. British Isles is the most common name for the archipelago and so to call it anything else would not be NPOV. Britain and Island is exclusionist in that it does not cover the other islands. Finally, the term relates to physical geography, not political entities. If people can't understand that then our role is to educate them, not to pander to their ignorance. You would not propose renaming the whole of America simply because it might suggest to some ears that the whole is under the control of the United States. CrispMuncher (talk) 21:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Should we close?

Maybe I'm being pre-mature, but? We seem to have a snowball effect in favour of keeping the article named British Isles. GoodDay (talk) 22:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

G'Day, what is a "snowball effect"? Is that the same concept as "mob rule"? We have Wiki policies to protect here and as is obvious, the term "British Isles" is inconsistent with WP:NPOV. Frankly I'm somewhat disappointed you don't seem to support WP:NPOV. Sarah777 (talk) 01:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

See WP:SNOW. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

'Our foes are strong and wise and wary; but, strong and wise and wary as they are, they cannot undo the miracles of God Who ripens in the hearts of young men the seeds sown by the young men of a former generation.... Rulers and Defenders of the Realm had need to be wary if they would guard against such processes. Life springs from death; and from the graves of patriot men and women spring living nations. The Defenders of this Realm have worked well in secret and in the open. They think that they have pacified Ireland. They think that they have purchased half of us and intimidated the other half. They think that they have foreseen everything, think that they have provided against everything; but, the fools, the fools, the fools! — They have left us our Fenian dead, and while Ireland holds these graves, Ireland unfree shall never be at peace.' 86.42.119.12 (talk) 23:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

You've got to be a speech writer; you're quite good. GoodDay (talk) 23:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

hehe. Amn't I just? (gently clobbers GoodDay's head against the quotation marks and link to Pádraig Pearse (1879-1916) :) 86.42.119.12 (talk) 00:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

You should also read WP:SOAPBOX before continuing to discuss this subject along these lines, 86.xx. Please leave the political rhetoric off this page. Rockpocket 00:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, Rock, please leave the British pov off these pages and I'll support you in that call. You sound a bit like the Brit Gov trying to claim Kosovo is utterly different from Ossetia. Not very credible; not very consistent. Sarah777 (talk) 00:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I will ask the same of individuals who quote lengthy political orations of any flavour in response to a comment about process. I don't see any quotes from Churchill, Thatcher or Cromwell on this page (yet), but when they appear, I will be sure ask the same of the quoter. Rockpocket 00:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Pah, Rock. I call thee a dogged contrarian. Sarah777 (talk) 01:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Why thank you. Is there a barn star for that ;) IP86.xx does his position no favors in couching his opinion in those terms. Using the language of a political activist tend to have the unfortunate effect of making one appear to have the motives of a political activist, rather than an encyclopaedian. If he wants his points to be considered as a serious attempt to improve the encyclopaedia (and some of them are good points), then less of the "foes" and "fools", towards those who do not share his opinion, would be advisable. Rockpocket 01:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I've just read it and by my reading of it, the title "British Isles" falls under propaganda piece, and articulates the opinions of one particular community and, most certainly of all, this title does not represent a neutral point of view. 86.42.119.12 (talk) 00:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed Mr IP, we know that. But when you have the weight of numbers you don't need to obey the Law, be consistent, fair or least of all WP:NPOV. Sarah777 (talk) 00:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

For you Sarah (emphasis mine):

Therefore, encyclopedic article titles are expected to exhibit the highest degree of neutrality. The article might cover the same material but with less emotive words, or might cover broader material which helps ensure a neutral view (for example, renaming "Criticisms of drugs" to "Societal views on drugs"). Neutral titles encourage multiple viewpoints and responsible article writing.

And from that I can understand where you are coming from, however the next paragraph reads:

Where proper nouns such as names are concerned, disputes may arise over whether a particular name should be used. Wikipedia takes a descriptive rather than prescriptive approach in such cases, by using the common English language name as found in verifiable reliable sources. Where inanimate entities such as geographical features are concerned, the most common name used in English-language publications is generally used. See Wikipedia:Naming conflict for further guidance.

There has been no attempt to assert that Britain and Ireland is the common name for the entire British Isles. To briefly address the complaint of NPOV, isn't excluding the channel islands, Isle of Mann etc just as POV? Perhaps the next suggestions is to just list every single island in the British Isles....though we will all need wider screens to accomodate the title on our explorer bar. I an understand that a small group seek to be offended by such names, but once again, we should not be pandering to that, but following policy. If a good policy argument can be made, then it might be a different case. Narson (talk) 08:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I guess I was premature, calling for closure (see top of section). GoodDay (talk) 18:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• When does this Move get closed? It needs to be archived as it is blocking discussion on a proposal. --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Proposal

I propose that Talk:British_Isles/References should be a standard link at the top of every talk page (added: attached to this "British Isles" article). I've been reading the archives and came across it. It is easily the most informative list of (primarily academic) references concerning this name that have been collated on a single database. I did not know, for instance, that a letter in 1993 from a man in Athlone to the French channel TV5 resulted in TV5 removing the term Îles Britanniques (British Isles) from all its coverage and replacing it with the French for 'Great Britain and Ireland'. By placing this reference list at the top of every page, readers will have easy access to a wide range of published views on the name. Most people on this talk page are probably currently unaware of this list. 86.42.119.12 (talk) 01:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• Agree with myself (it's a good feeling, yes).

• Agree - I was unaware that the French abandoned the POV term "British" Isles nearly 20 years ago. Sarah777 (talk) 01:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

But unfortunately they still use it in their Wiki: Îles Britanniques as do the Germans too. I have a propensity towards proposing to rename it in the French and German Wikipedia - if you acceded thereto, you could inform the Francophone Irish community and we could request to rename it on French and German Wiki by underscoring the facts quoted, if it backfires here, ok? Bogorm (talk) 14:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what the french wikipedia rules on canvassing are, but I'm not sure we should be gathering support for a move change on annother wiki here. Narson (talk) 15:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

There is merit in starting some changes on French/German Wikis. After all, such Wikis often start their articles based on initially translating En Wiki ones, so errors here like "British Isles" get replicated. Also, those Wikis might be more amenable to rational argument and less prone to Anglo-pov in terms of the balance of numbers. Worth considering if it is "legal" by the local rules. Sarah777 (talk) 23:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Every talk page? You've got to be kidding, right? Rockpocket 01:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Rock, that is picking nits and cheap point-scoring. You know what he means. Are you not ashamed that someone of your weightiness would come down to our level? Sarah777 (talk) 01:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

No Sarah. I don't know what he means. Does he means every archive of this talk page (which I would not oppose), does he means every page that mentions British Isles in the title (which I also would not oppose), does he mean any article that mentions British Isles in the text (which I would) or does he mean every talk page (which is what he said, but surely cannot mean)? There is nothing in what he says that distinguishes between these options. Rockpocket 01:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, every talk page attached to this article on the British Isles is the subject. Your alternative meaning was creative, I'll give you that. 86.42.119.12 (talk) 02:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

You never can tell, there are all sorts of crazies out there, 86.xx, so its worth being sure exactly what one is agreeing to. My advice to you is to be bold. Adding a link to relevant sources on a relevant talk page can only help inform the discussion. If there is serious opposition to it, someone will likely revert, and then a discussion can be had. Rockpocket 02:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

So when did this Talk page turn into a party? I suppose if IP's can get an article locked, we may as well let them run wild. --Matt Lewis (talk) 02:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll be forced to delete this if it gets out of hand, by the way. Nothing like fun, is there? --Matt Lewis (talk) 02:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry Matt, we'll restore it if you do. Crispness (talk) 06:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

BBC Article on the Matter

Not sure if this is of interest to those discussing this topic. Though it certainly comes down on the 'pro-British Isles' side (or at least, it asserts the definition in fairly clear terms) it does also give a pretty reasoned and balanced discussion I think of the issues at hand. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7604057.stm (lights touchpaper and walks away...) Pretty Green (talk) 17:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

It is very inaccurate. Great Britain + Republic of Ireland + Channel Isles + IoM = British Isles

Thats not true. Great Britain is not a country, ROI is not the name of a country either. NI seems to not exist and the Channel Islands are not necessarily in the British Isles. What that article has to do with this issue I'm not sure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThatsGrand (talk • contribs) 17:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, voluminous neglect of Northern Ireland, there. So, "England, Scotland, Wales = Great Britain"? OK. And "Northern Ireland + Great Britain = United Kingdom"? OK, too. But "Great Britain + Republic of Ireland + Channel Isles + IoM = British Isles"? (sniggers) --78.152.231.112 (talk) 18:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Pretty balanced I think - it illustrates that because England is overwhelming in terms of size in Britain, abroad the idea that Britain = England (and thus Scotland is part of England) is inevitable. Thus describing these islands as "British Isles" inevitably misleads people into believing that Ireland is British. Which is why Wiki should not use the name to include Ireland. Sarah777 (talk) 23:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Err, the BBC article says "UK + Republic of Ireland + Channel Isles + IoM = British Isles". Note, that's UK, not GB as you two have read it as. So by using the UK they have included Northern Ireland. (sniggers) Deamon138 (talk) 16:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Err, quite obviously they corrected that error, but then didn't fix the rest. It said GB intially. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.16.215.157 (talk) 16:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Acctually thats a correction to their article, Deamon138. Then again, why we are using the magazine section of the BBC for anything is beyond me. Narson (talk) 16:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC) (EC)

There are quite a few inaccuracies in that BBC article, including "GB also includes Isle of Wight, Scillies, Hebrides, Orkney and Shetland, but not Isle of Man and Channel Isles" - actually, Great Britain is an island, so does not include other islands. England includes the Isle of Wight, but strictly speaking Great Britain doesn't. But then again, this is the BBC, which is allegedly a reliable source, and Wikipedia is about reliability not truth, so maybe we're all wrong. How depressing. Waggers (talk) 20:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

But isn't that the point? These terms are all fleixible??? The sooner the pedants on this article learn that the better. Pretty Green (talk) 09:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Ireland is not in the British Isles (obviously)

^^^On the other hand^^^...Why is Ireland even under this title? Where is the unanimous agreement that Ireland is part of this "British Isles" entity? A quick Google search reveals that there are countless, and I mean countless, sources which exclude Ireland from this "British Isles" thing. Nobody has yet defended why one particular culturally-determined viewpoint- i.e. that of British nationalism- is determining that Ireland is part of the British Isles, when a case can equally be made for its exclusion. Where is the evidence that the current definition is the most common definition? Here are ten websites that specifically exclude Ireland from this "British Isles" entity (I have neither the time nor inclination to spend years posting the rest: the burden of proof lies with those who contend "British Isles" includes Ireland):

• http://www.the-british-isles.com/ (first result on Google after Wikipedia)
• http://www.chelmsfordexpress.co.uk/
• http://www.britishorthodox.org/directory.php
• http://ldsworldtrips.com/britishIsles_072007.html
• http://www.gotthegift.co.uk/index.php/cd/dvd-games/around-britian-dvd-quiz/p_233.html?review=write
• http://bima0.tripod.com/bima/
• http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/uk/05/born_abroad/html/overview.stm
• http://www.walshbrothers.co.uk/Update/zippo_great_britain.htm
• http://www.redbirdacres.net/links.html
• http://www.jmr.nmm.ac.uk/upload/img_400/British-Isles-7-yrs-war_l.jpg

Oh, and here's the Google result for "British Isles and Ireland": http://www.google.ie/search?hl=ga&q=%22british+isles+and+ireland%22&meta (and let's say nothing about all the "British Isles" definitions that admit the politics of the term by being precisely coterminous with the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) 86.42.119.12 (talk) 00:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

"I have neither the time nor inclination to spend years posting the rest:" The old "time and inclination" chestnut. You obviously prefer your trolling antics! I notice that you gave us the first entry your Googled "British Isles" -"Ireland" list. But what was the second? This was. And the third? And the fourth? And what do they include when you can be bothered to look into them? Ireland! You are a chump. Oh by the way.. I didn't have the time or inclination to look down any further. But I could guess what was coming (actually I couldn't resist... it's 9 out of the first 10 for a search that excludes the word "Ireland"!! I stopped there.)

I tell you what. On my next proposal I'll bring in this, combined with some of the history that Waggers asked for. I've starting to wonder if most trolling isn't simply an inability to actually create anything. You can't make a case for exclusion of 'British Isles' in this article's form! These terms that share the same meaning must be targeted to the most commonly-used article, and that article must deal with those other terms (assuming - like this one - they are used).

You are basing your non-Ireland British-Isles "most popular" assumption against "British Isles" -"and Ireland" (and that only shows up articles that exclude the words "and Ireland"). But it still shows up more than your "British Isles and Ireland".--Matt Lewis (talk) 01:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

May

The term may in "The term British Isles is controversial in relation to Ireland,[4] where many people may[5] find the term offensive or objectionable" should be removed. Its predictive; we should be descriptive. We are not a wikitravel, our job is not to describe what a reader may find there. If that is not what is meant, then the term is redundant, because either "many people" find it or offensive or they don't. Either way, it shouldn't be there. If there are no objections I will remove it. Rockpocket 01:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The word "may" is weasel wording. Ditch it quick.89.129.142.89 (talk) 01:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Lose "people" too. Unless the dogs and cats are the ones who find it offensive it is safe to say that "many" would mean "people". 199.125.109.124 (talk) 03:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

And in the interests of balance and accuracy, we should also say that many don't find it offensive - backing this up with quotations from government ministers using it (Sile de Valera), and its use in Irish parliamentary reports, for example. ðarkuncoll 08:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Except the fact of occasional usage is not the same as evidence that many don't find it offensive. Also, from reading the dispute page it's also clear that when Irish parliamentary reports use the term they often use it in a way that excludes Ireland, or at least ROI. 81.32.182.214 (talk) 13:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm tempted to put forward an totally unwieldy proposal that is actually balanced in this kind of way, simply to force people into taking my considered proposals seriously! We could present a fully detailed ref list (using lots of bold of course) for each one of theirs, and insist on presenting the positive first, per MOS:"many Irish use the term[r], and many find it uniting[r] [4], but many may find it offensive or objectionable[r]. The Irish government has discouraged its usage, though the spokesman did not specify who they are discouraging[r]; there are examples of them using it themselves,[r] and in 1999 a British Irish Council was formed in London which gave constitutional recognition to the British Isles.[r]" We only need a couple of examples to match theirs, and we can fill the talk page with cries of "many many many"! Turn your nose up at every course and what do you end up with? Fish heads.--Matt Lewis (talk) 10:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of the obfuscation of simple proposals with unwieldy comments, its not clear whether you actually object to this or not. Rockpocket 18:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Could this new unwieldy proposal be more unwieldy than the proposals above? In any case, the interesting fact for most readers is that the term is controversial in the first place. That's often new information for readers. Interestingness is a good criteria for inclusion in the introduction. 81.32.182.214 (talk) 13:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

" a British Irish Council was formed in London which gave constitutional recognition to the British Isles. It isn't called the 'British Isles' by the Council, so I'm confused by what you mean here. If anything the fact that there is a institution exactly contiguous with the 'BI' but which chose rather consciously *not* to use "BI" seems to reinforce the idea that "BI" is an unacceptable name, if anything. Or what are you trying to say here? It is also a distinct possiblity that the reason the spokesman didn't specify who they discourage is because it was a general discouragement to *everyone*. Who would he specify?? And has anyone got a Irish govt official using the term "BI" in the last couple years (since the Dail comments on the issue)? That's a sincere request for sources, if they are out there. Nuclare (talk) 11:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

"May" was inserted as a compromise. If its coming out, then it should be changed to "some" find it offensive - or better still, a form of words should be used that avoids putting a number on how many find the term offensive, unless it is sourced. At present, it isn't.

Anon IP - only last week I posted examples of FF TDs and Senators using the term in the Dáil specifically including Ireland within BI. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 14:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

"May" is a pretty poor compromise, since it informs nothing about the number of people at all. If we need a term to deal with the number issue, then lets do that. "May" doesn't. For example, if the point is that a number or proportion (of unknown size) of Irish people find it offensive and a number or proportion (of unknown size) don't, then simply say: ""The term British Isles is controversial in relation to Ireland,[4] where a proportion/number of people [5] find the term offensive or objectionable". This seems to be most neutral way of presenting the facts, without attempting to be quantitative. Rockpocket 18:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

If you go by the number of refs they have you may as well un-bracket "5"!

I've tried things like "have found" and have been told that it makes it look like its only in the past!. The proportion isn't unknown to us - we would expect many sources to be around if "many" people were offended and objecting to it. Instead we have many sources of people using the term, and a clutch of negative refs compiled over months.

It's not just the lack of evidence, the evidence itself (esp the 'no complaints, but precautionary removal' Folens example) shows us that it's not as significant as the rather loaded term, "a number of people" would wrongly suggest to readers that it is. That is surely as ambiguous a compromise as "may" - but a lot more weighty, imo.

Evidence permitted, the logical thing to say is "where people can find it offensive or objectionable." but it would be outrageous abuse of completely unverified and far too-finite refs for us to do that. So we are trading weasel words. We need to use other language altogether to deal with this - not appropriate words from the unverified context of a couple of selected authors. --Matt Lewis (talk) 20:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

British Isles used in Italian schools

Archived per WP:FORUM. Please people, lets keep this page focused on improving the article. If you wish to discuss Britain and Ireland in general with other Wikipedians, use IRC #wikipedia
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
My children attend school here in Italy and the term British Isles is used to describe the islands comprising Great Britain, Ireland, and the Shetlands, Scilly Isles, etc.The geography books also use the term. Honestly, I'm about three-quarters Irish by blood, and I've never understood the fuss over a name that happens to be the correct usage internationally. Why do so many people neact like Pavlov's dogs anytime the word British appears? The original inhabitants of Ireland and Britain were the some exact race, by the way.--jeanne (talk) 09:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC) If you were actually Irish rather than American, you'd understand. Italian geography books must be quite dated as international usage is changing. Not sure what the race point has to do with anything, err everyone was the same at one point. 194.125.117.53 (talk) 09:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC) What does my American birth have to do with Italian geography books? And no, they are not dated.I merely stated that the populations that inhabited the two islands prior to Celtic invasion were the same genetically. Actually I am an Irish resident and two of my kids reside in Ireland so don't try to stick the plastic paddy label on me thankyouverymuch.--jeanne (talk) 09:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC) And the page for the archipeligo is located here at BI and will remain here for the forseeable future. But, if you admit that there is a 'fuss' and that "many people" react in such a way when 'British' is applied to Ireland, than do you object to the insertion of language concerning such issues(since it is sourced) here, which is mostly what these discussions are about? Nuclare (talk) 11:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC) No, people are free to object to anything they personally find offensive. I, personally do not find the term offensive, although my father did. In fact, he and I would often disagree over Irish issues. Most Irish people born outside of Ireland are in point of fact more anti-British than the average person you'd meet in Dublin. Also, may I be allowed to mention that the Italian media is very sympathetic to Ireland and less so to Britain. And yet the geography books use British Isles. I resent the tone of the unsigned user above who implied my American birth makes me ignorant of Irish attitudes. LOL, I was married into a republican Dublin family who was strongly Fianna Fail. In fact, my ex-husband's great-uncle was a former Attorney-General of Ireland. My opinion is that Ireland and England have a lot more in common historically, culturally and genetically than is politically-correct to acknowledge.--jeanne (talk) 12:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC) I go along with all of this. My first beef with this article was that there is simpy just a clutch of awkward refs to support the particlar wording and emphasis we place on the offense that the term supposedly causes (none of them verified by the authors, and they took ages to compile) - I initially expected many refs for the intro we currently have - but they are simply not out there, and I did look really hard for them. I'm still here (on and off) after the best part of a year, as I've never been allowed to make a edit on the meat of the introduction, and it's the only article I know where this is the case. This BI issue simply isn't the kind of 'political situation' that a few people on Wikipedia are making it out to be. Ireland is for peace at the moment - not all this OTT nonsense. I want to show the historical dislike of the word, but fairly. The word "offensive" here is guarded like the holy grail, though.--Matt Lewis (talk) 14:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC) All possibly true, on both sides. 81.32.182.214 (talk) 13:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC) When I lived in Dublin, I had only one person-a guy from Donegal- react negatively when I used the term British Isles. Just the one person. And the author Dervla Murphy in her book A Place Apart, explains why she accepts the term "British Isles", for want of a better name. There just isn't a suitable alternative. Nobody in England objects to the Irish Sea. Then we can always bring up the issue of "American" being used to describe the citizens of the United States, thereby excluding Canadians, Mexicans, Central and South Americans. Sorry, I just think the name British Isles should remain.--jeanne (talk) 14:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC) The rest were probably just being polite, many people don't want to start an argument with an American who just didn't know better to not use the term.194.125.117.53 (talk) 14:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC) Just as likely - the rest didn't care. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 14:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC) I have to agree with Bastun. Most Dubliners just couldn't be bothered to argue over something so trivial. Back in the 1980's the people of Dublin were quite apathetic to the Northern Irish issue. Remember there was chronic unemployment back then and most people I knew were only concerned about getting their dole money to last over the weekend. As for being polite, well...I'd say they wouldn't have shied away from an argument had my words truly pissed them off. Now had I said Londonderry instead of Derry, that would have provoked a sharp rebuke I daresay, especially from my boyfriend who came from Ballymurphy. Aye, I even used the term British Isles to him and he didn't object. But as I have expressed on my User page, I am rather street-wise not the wide-eyed naive Californian tourist to the "Ould Sod" that the unsigned user above is trying in vain to depict me as.--jeanne (talk) 15:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC) Your American birth clearly has everything to do with it. You are not Irish; you do not feel our collective experience. You are a foreigner brought up in a WASP society with a very long history of discrimination against us Irish, and yes I do mean the United States of America. And as for your specious 'blood' nonsense; what medieval time capsule have you come from? My maternal grandfather was English born; so that makes me support the same imperialist herrenvolk warmongering culture that has marked British culture since 1603? No, it does not. I am my own man, and like everybody else on this planet I'm only accountable for my own actions. When I support the actions and cultural values of that imperialist culture then I can be legitimately part of that tradition. I do not support that tradition out of which comes terms like "British Isles", and I shall not be held captive by people such as you to retarded concepts such as blood-based identity. Ridiculous. I am Irish because this is the society that I feel part of, proud of, ashamed of, happy with, sad with- the whole shebang. I am also European for the same reasons, although those feelings are less intently held at present. My identity is complex, overlapping and fairly fluid. I have never, however, been British (or French), and I feel little but revulsion at the ultra nationalist culture of that society's tabloids, invasions of sovereign states, royalty and similar cultural values. No amount of proclaiming my country to be in this "British Isles" will impose that insufferably arrogant and parochial identity upon me. If you have a problem with Irish people like me rejecting that British tradition and, moreover, asserting their Irishness and their Europeanism, then that really is your problem. 86.42.119.12 (talk) 17:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC) I missed this gem explaining your real political motivation for embracing the term "British Isles": 'My opinion is that Ireland and England have a lot more in common historically, culturally and genetically than is politically-correct to acknowledge.' And there you have it in one succinct sentence. Ragingly political motivation, there. Screaming at us. Thank you so much for your honesty. Some British here have been denying that this term is political for a long time. What next? "The famine was a shared experience between the British and Irish peoples"? Please, please, stop such "common" links between us and the British. P.S. Your blood-centred basis for identity persists, I see. Odd how these genetic similarites end precisely where British nationalists want them to end: in this "British Isles" entity. What about the even stronger Irish genetic similarities with the Basques, for instance? And English similarities with Germans? And so on. Of course it is also nonsense, but if you must persist in basing modern identity on alleged genes, your argument should be shown up for what it is. 86.42.119.12 (talk) 17:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC) Just as a point of fact, the term British Isles derives from the Ancient Greeks and Romans, so cannot possibly have been an invention of the post 1603 British state (which took its name from the islands, and not the other way round). And in English the term dates to 1577 and was introduced by a Welshman, John Dee, specifically to avoid the connotations of "English" (no Englishman would have called himself "British" in the 16th century, because in those days the term meant what we would understand by the modern word "Celtic"). As for British Imperialism - good or bad - it has done a lot of positive things for the world. I think the British can be rightly proud of most of what their ancestors did. ðarkuncoll 17:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC) In fact, its use in English is entirely a product of the expansion of the English state across Britain and into Ireland. According to the OED, it first appears in 1624, even if one English person is (according to the archives here) recorded using it in the late 16th century; he is the same person who instructively is credited with coining the term "British Empire" as well and was according to all his biographers an enthusiastic supporter of creating a British empire covering Ireland. In other words, its use in English has a solid imperialist origin, and its greater use from the early 17th century corresponds with the colonial expansion of the British state over Ireland. At least be honest about this. 86.42.119.12 (talk) 17:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC) The new edition cites it from Dee in 1577. But that's not the point - Dee was a great classical scholar and geographer, and introduced the term into English because its Latin version had been appearing on European maps since about 1500. These were produced by people with no political axe to grind whatsoever. At least be honest about this. ðarkuncoll 18:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC) Funny! I wonder where that quote is again about how all maps at the time were political. 81.32.182.214 (talk) 18:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC) Most of them were European - indeed all of them I think - and not English at all. Political maybe, but certainly not pro-English. ðarkuncoll 18:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC) NOT A FORUM - "The new edition cites it from Dee in 1577." Out of the frying pan and into the fire, then eh? Does this discussion have anything to add to the article? Or is it simply an opportunity for some anti-Americanism on behalf of 86.42.119.12, some obsessive hand-wringing on behalf of Matt Lewis and an ill-informed history lesson on behalf of TharkunColl? Thank you, jeanne, for your contribution, but Wikipedia is not a forum. Can a administrator please start observing this discussion page and remove contributions to it that are discussion like. We need to get a lid on this. It has been allowed to run out of control for far too long. --78.152.255.89 (talk) 20:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC) I have archived it as you requested. Rockpocket 20:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)