Talk:British Isles

---

Archives This page is archived automatically; conversations inactive for 4 weeks or more will be moved to the latest archive.
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13

Ridiculous Name

Who in their right mind uses the term "British Isles" anymore? I'm 22 and I've never heard it used in Ireland; I think I'd feel decidedly uncomfortable if somebody were to use it while talking to me. It's a ridiculous hangover from the time the Brits had their boot on all the Irish people. This article doesn't emphasise that enough. 86.42.84.131 (talk) 02:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a global project, not an Irish one. Globally, British Isles is still the most common name applied to the islands. Suggesting that the majority of the world's English-speaking population are out of their minds is not going to help your argument any. Waggers (talk) 08:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The commenter never said this. Their substantive suggestion was that the "article doesn't emphasise that enough." That's a fair comment. We should take this remark on board and work their suggestion into the article in order to improve it. Dismissing anybody's criticism or reading things into remarks that aren't there does not benefit us. Is there a reference to support the claim that "the majority of the world's English-speaking population" use the term as opposed to the manifold alternative phrasings? --sony-youth^pléigh 10:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

second line in The term British Isles is controversial in relation to Ireland where its use is objected to by many people[3] and by the government of the Republic of Ireland. Gnevin (talk) 10:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I know it's there, that's not my point. A reader left a comment on this talk page suggesting that it be emphasised more. That's fair comment and should be dealt with in the same manner as you replied to me. Dismissing their comments as part of some imagined campaign ("... not going to help your argument ...") is not the way to go.

However, I also feel that the current phrasing suggests that it is only to Irish people that the term is objectionable or felt to be outdated. This is not true. See my comments on the "name debate" page. --sony-youth^pléigh 10:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

"Who in their right mind uses the term "British Isles" anymore?" The implication there is clear: anyone in their right mind would not use the term "British Isles". Yes, there was a suggestion about improving the article later in the post, but to come in and suggest that you'd have to be deranged to use the term "British Isles" is not acceptable behaviour, and that's what I was addressing. Waggers (talk) 10:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, I didn't take it that way, but fair enough. (Still, the question is left hanging :-) ...)--sony-youth^pléigh 10:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't get too upset with the anon editor, Waggers. He/she only started editing yesterday and will probably raise a similiar question at Irish Sea, - Peace brothers/sisters-. GoodDay (talk) 19:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

"Irish Sea"? Never heard of it. Maybe you mean the Inter-Britain-Ireland Common Sea Route Area? (I do of course prefer Manx Sea myself as was the Irish term for that body of water before that language became polluted by filthy calques from the English language, the title of this page being another example of one.) --sony-youth^pléigh 21:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

He he, I'm just glad both articles haven't been moved. Even if their names are 'out of step with the times', they're still historical names, they were used. GoodDay (talk) 21:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there was any proposal to move this article (at least, not recently). The term British Isles is still very much in common use, certainly on this side of the body of water mentioned a short while ago. (Help, I'm turning into a politician!!) Waggers (talk) 21:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

"these waters"? --sony-youth^pléigh 22:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I've been led by my Irish friends to believe the Irish were growing out of this kind of thing. I thought the days of the North Atlantic Archipelago were gone. I can kinda understand the origins of the sensitivities, but come on, Ireland is a respectable, dynamic and successful independent country these days. You don't need this paranoia ... no-one using the term "British Isles" seeks to subject Munster to England, it's just a the convenient and well-established term. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

British Isles is an ancient term, and is also a purely georgraphical one. It has no political overtones whatsoever, and is a perfectly acceptable, and common, term. Lianachan (talk) 17:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a reference for this assertion? It would be very welcome if you did. Until then, you should note that the OED dates it to 1621 and historians agree that it was political in nature. See here for some examples. --sony-youth^pléigh 19:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. Reading the references, what historians actually seem to be saying is that it is a geographical term that has acquired political overtones, which is something different. On a pedantic point, the OED records the earliest usage it can find, it doesn't date words per se. In fact someone as a result of this talk page found an earlier use (1580's I think, and an example of Wikipedia at its best IMO). It's a shame that these talk pages are so clogged up with personal opinion, but it's there somewhere. MAG1 (talk) 10:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see where they say that it "acquired" that overtone, but you're right, the "it was" in that sentence was too strong given the evidence, "it is" is more accurate.

The pre-1621 reference you are thinking of was found by User:TharkunColl. It's to a 1577 use by John Dee. It appears in the article.

Do you not find a contradiction between saying "... someone as a result of this talk page found an earlier use ... an example of Wikipedia at its best IMO" and saying that "It's a shame that these talk pages are so clogged up with personal opinion"? It was a bluster of argument and opinion, charge and counter-charge that provided the impetuous to find that reference. If it wasn't for all that opinion, that now looks like it serves no purpose but cloging the place up, it would never have been found. --sony-youth^pléigh 12:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The term is never used in good company, I'm afraid it's gone the way of the 'Empire', a relic from from the past. I see National Geographic is doing some modernising, look here http://www.tribune.ie/article.tvt?_scope=Tribune/News/Home%20News&id=82652 03:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.19.86.129 (talk)

Excellent - yet another MSM reference for the fact that Ireland is not in the British Isles. Sarah777 (talk) 03:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Wait a minute. The term "British Isles" may or may not be obsolete, but the term certainly includes Ireland. Saying that it's excluded is like saying that Calcutta is not in Hindustan. The issue is whether the term is appropriate, not what it means. john k (talk) 23:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment, Hold on a sec! Is India in the 'Empire'? Well, I should definitely say nay. But if you should have asked me that question 100 years ago, it would have a definite yeah. Assuming you were alive then, of course ;-) 00:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.19.72.224 (talk)

No. It's more like saying that Calcutta isn't in Alaska. Sarah777 (talk) 23:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

No, that's totally insane. john k (talk) 21:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

To re-iterate the point of grammar made by 78.19.72.224, if a term is obsolete then the past tense should be used e.g. "The Isle of Man was in the British Isles" and "Calcutta was in Hindustan". Better still would be to say that "Kolkata was in Hindustan". Although, like British Isles, many persist in using Calcutta long after its sell-by date has past. --sony-youth^pléigh 03:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

No, that doesn't make any sense. "Hindustan" isn't an old name which was changed, it is an obsolete name which is no longer used at all. It's not that there used to be a place called Hindustan, but it changed its name to something else. It's that there's a place which used to be called Hindustan, but that name is no longer used. john k (talk) 21:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment, yes John, obsolete, just like the term British Isles. Unfortunately people keep these atlases for years and years. It's little wonder why some folks sometimes get a little mixed-up in their geography. 01:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.19.169.28 (talk)

Okay, let me again clarify my basic point here. There seem to be a group of people here who are willing to say that Great Britain, and the Isle of Wight, and the Orkneys, are part of the "British Isles," but that Ireland is not. This is absurd and wrong, and the article should not say anything of the kind. Whether or not "British Isles" is an obsolete term is a completely different question. john k (talk) 03:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

There are some who use the term like that, mapmakers among them. It gives rise the to phrase British Isles and Ireland. Compare with the term British Islands, which has legal meaning in the UK. --sony-youth^pléigh 11:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

"Saying that it's excluded is like saying that Calcutta is not in Hindustan." Actually is more like saying that Karachi is not on the Indian sub-continent. Mucky Duck (talk) 09:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I was giving the full benefit of the doubt to the opposing position. I agree that it's a lot more like that. john k (talk) 21:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

So, is Kolkata, or is Kolkata not, in Hindustan? And has Calcutta ceased to exist? What is the name of the archipelago formed by Corsica and Sardinia? They must not form one. --sony-youth^pléigh 11:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

1. It is in the historic region of Hindustan, but not the modern state with that name.

2. No - it has not, but it is now officially called Kolkata.

3. "Corsica and Sardinia".

What's your point? Mucky Duck (talk) 12:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

That the words we use to describe geography are intimately related to politics; that as politics change so too do the words that use use to describe places; and that it is not necessary that an archipelago have a name, it can be known solely by it's members. --sony-youth^pléigh 13:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

It is not necessary for it to have a name, and the name could be something different. However, the actuality is that the name of the archipelago that consists of Great Britain, Ireland, Man, Lewis, Wight, Yell, etc, etc is the British Isles. You and others don't like that, that's understood. But this is an encyclopeadia, campaigning for change does not belong here. Mucky Duck (talk) 13:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Nobody campaigning for anything other than truth and reality. The article should reflect all political, all geographical, and all historical contexts of this little used relic of a term from an acrimonious past. I'm afraid Mucky Duck that you too could be charged with campaigning for change does not belong here. 13:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.19.105.106 (talk)

I have no axe to grind and am not trying to change anything. I don't care what the name of the archipelago is, but recognise that the name is British Isles. Mucky Duck (talk) 16:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

That situation is clearly in flux, as news from the National Geographic Society demonstrates. It has been in flux for many decades now, as is well documented. (The crux of the issue may indeed be that we are now standing at the precipice of one state.) Neither has it ever been the case that "British Isles" was the sole means of referring for the group. I have long used and heard "Britain and Ireland" without any confusion over what was being referred to - and without fear that through pedantry anyone would think that that turn of phrase must by necessity exclude Lewis, Wright, Mann, etc. - as I'm sure that you secretly have too.

No secret, of course I've heard other ways of referring to it. That doesn't alter its name. Mucky Duck (talk) 16:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

(The "secret" was that you would use them yourself.) So you have no problem with them being employed as appropriate? --sony-youth^pléigh 17:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I doubt that I would (if referring to the archipelago rather than the two countries) but no, I have no problem with people using whatever they wish outside of academic usage, provided it's clear. What I object to or not is hardly the point in question, though, is it. Mucky Duck (talk) 12:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The original post was that this flux was not given enough treatment in the article. While we have since wondered off topic, that was a fair comment, in my opinion. For example, save for when explicitly dealing with terminology, the article does not contain any other means of referencing the archipelago in the English language save for "British Isles". That appears to me to be quite unnatural. There was a time when it did, but these were 'fixed' by certain UK-based editors. That doesn't strike me as being particularly reflective of reality. Reality is that British Isles is quite an odd little term, rarely used. Much more common is that other terms are used in its place. --sony-youth^pléigh 14:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Not given enough treatment? Half the lead section, the entire first section (alternative names and descriptions) and chunks of "names of the islands through the ages" are devoted to it along with an entire separate article British Isles naming dispute and large parts of a third British Isles (terminology). Mucky Duck (talk) 16:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I see in your hurry you passed over the clause "... save for when explicitly dealing with terminology ..." Run back and read what I wrote again. Thanks. --sony-youth^pléigh 17:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, no, it may be that I didn't understand what you meant though. Where else do you want it to discuss the issue of terminology except when dealing with teminology? Mucky Duck (talk) 12:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I missed your "British Isles is quite an odd little term, rarely used". I'd be interested in your definition of "rare". Mucky Duck (talk) 16:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

On matter of language, I defer to the Oxford English dictionary. It defines "rare" as meaning "occurring very infrequently". The text of the article currently says the opposite - and has marked as "citation needed" since June 2007. If a citation is not forthcoming you will of course have no issue with me removing that unfounded statement? --sony-youth^pléigh 17:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Not provided you're not going to replace it with "an odd little term rarely used" ;-). What the article says is probably correct but it's rather difficult to prove so, sure, enjoy yourself. Mucky Duck (talk) 12:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Not exactly John Kenney. The article should reflect the reality of a present day analysis. Even calling BIG islands like Great Britain & Ireland by the term isle is metaphor of Swiftian proportions, and a gross insult to their true status, more like land masses I should venture. We rarely hear Iceland being called an island, people respect it, and call it by it's proper name, which is Iceland. Even in the Falklands, which are pretty tiny, they refer to them as islands. British Isles has about the same weight as Emerald Isle (as in Ireland), which doesn't have an entry on Wikipedia I gather. 12:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.19.105.106 (talk)

While "isle" might have some connotation of a small island, it is perfectly acceptable to use it as simply a synonym for "island." john k (talk) 16:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it does mean small island, and as for being perfectly acceptable, well that's your subjective opinion. If you want to call big by the name 'small, well?;) 16:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.19.105.106 (talk)

American Heritage Dictionary gives "An island, especially a small one. " as the definition of "isle." So it's not "my subjective opinion," it's what dictionaries say. john k (talk) 20:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

General Sanctions?

I'm a bit surprised and disappointed to see the general sanctions template at the top of this talk page. When was the last time there was an edit war on the page, April? All the big disputes of the past were handled pretty much w/o admin intervention. There has been quite a bit of heated discussion on a few issues, but a number of editors put some effort into reaching a compromise. These "general sanctions" seem unneeded, and a little insulting.—eric 19:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Fear not - the article isn't under general sanctions (if it was, it would be listed at WP:SANCTION). I've removed the template. Waggers (talk) 19:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually sanctions were applied to this article on January 25, under the Great Irish famine sanctions.[1] -- SEWilco (talk) 20:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

A sanction perhaps, general sanctions (in the Wikipedia sense) no. In this case, a single user was banned from editing this article (and its talk pages and subpages). Wikipedia:General sanctions apply to the article, not to any specific editors. Waggers (talk) 21:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, sorry i guess, i wasn't up to speed with everything that's been going on lately!—eric 09:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't apologise, the template shouldn't have been added to this page and you were right to question it - I for one wouldn't have noticed it until much later if it wasn't for your raising it. You did a good thing :) Waggers (talk) 22:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The good news Waggers is that I've just realised the block you engineered is long since expired. I think your wilder statements will no longer go unchallenged. Sarah777 (talk) 03:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I "engineered" nothing and I don't know what "wild" statements you're talking about - but I think we can categorically agree that there's no need for the {{Sanctions}} template on this page. Waggers (talk) 14:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

On that we can indeed agree. Sarah777 (talk) 20:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

For God's sake why?

Why do we have to go through this nonsense again? Can't we just leave things be? john k (talk) 20:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it's because the term British Isles has no status, especially in Ireland, and even many map-makers are not using the term any longer. I think Wikipedia should take cogniscence of that fact, and reflect it. And BTW, here is a real Wiki joke, Northern Ireland is an island, see here British Islands. "Oh what a wiki web we weave, when first we practice to deceive". 21:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.19.14.51 (talk)

It is still the most common term for the grouping of Great Britain and Ireland. There is no other good way to refer to it. That it is controversial is mentioned in the article. john k (talk) 22:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

John is right. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I am really sorry, I just have to disagree with both of you. Results from a Google search of "map of europe" [2] showed ZERO out of a possible 13 references that might mention British Isles. The proof is all around you. 22:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.19.14.51 (talk)

Try a Google search on "british isles" and you will find that more than seven million people disagree with you. TharkunColl (talk) 22:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

As I've said before 'anon editor', if anyone wants to protest about this article? Let them also visit the article Irish Sea. Historically & common usage wise British Isles covers the islands of Great Britain & Ireland. GoodDay (talk) 23:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Very interesting. What other names is the Irish Sea known by? OK, we'll call the British Isles the Irish Isles, and we'll call the Irish Sea the English Sea. Sounds a great Wikipedian solution. Can you make it stick? 00:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.19.14.51 (talk)

The sleeping dog had been lying until you made these comments, John. In light of the origin of the current flurry of exchanges, I'd advise you to be a little less sanctimonious. In the mean time, I will remove unsourced claims from the article that have been marked with 'citation needed' since last June.

Thark, of the 7 million pages indexed by Google that contain the phrase "British Isles", over 6 million are hosted on the wikipedia.org domain. (Compare, all results vs. all results minus WP). Telling, huh? --sony-youth^pléigh 01:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Bizarre - I get different results every time I click on those two links. For the "British Isles -Wikipedia", I get either 900,000, or 76 million. When google hits get up that high, I think they get to be pretty meaningless. There's certainly a good number of hits for the term. Anyway, we've discussed this before. And I obviously didn't start up the discussion again - the anon did. john k (talk) 02:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I get consistently the same results, are you sure that you're clicking the same link each time? As for your claim that you didn't start up the discussion again, now that is truly bizarre. 78.19.14.51, Sarah777, MuckyDuck and myself replied directly to your post (ref) that put the ball rolling again after it had gone dead. Blaming 78.19.14.51 for "starting it" by replying to your post is truly childish. And lecturing others for keeping up "nonsense" that you began is sanctimonious. --sony-youth^pléigh 10:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

"(Compare, all results vs. all results minus WP)" That's pretty weird. The first link now has a massive 27,800,000 for BI alone, but the second minus Wikipedia has a huge 21,300,000. This is actually more reasonable that the mere seven million I quoted earlier which even I thought was a bit low. TharkunColl (talk) 12:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

In that case it's flipping all over the place. I now get 26,100,000 for all the web, but still 957,000 for the web minus WP. Is someone in Google messing with our minds (European HQ is in Dublin). I guess this is why they don't recommend to use Google as a measure for these sort of things :) --sony-youth^pléigh 14:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

European HQ Dublin? Aha! Well, say no more. They're probably down the pub or something. TharkunColl (talk) 14:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

... is that where your lot concocted this God awful name for a bunch of islands? I can hear you now, "Right, I'm off to the bar to get my round in. While I'm gone, you bunch put your heads together and think of the next thing we can do to really piss off the Paddys." --sony-youth^pléigh 14:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh god, pissing off Paddies in pubs is truly the last thing I'd ever want to try! TharkunColl (talk) 16:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Now now Tharkun! easy on that sherry! 16:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

It's only 5 o'clock, I haven't even finished my first bottle yet. TharkunColl (talk) 17:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Sherry!?? I understand. Pissed off Paddies really would be the last thing you'd want. Your hands must be full as it is with the derision that follows a devotee of that particular beverage. (Unless it's work related, which is forgivable. TharkunColl, are you a wedding planner?) --sony-youth^pléigh 20:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

It reminds me of that quote from Eddy Monsoon - "My life is like a red lion: full of gaming machines and drunken Irishmen." Sherry, particularly QC, is noted for its very favourable alcohol to price ratio. As a failed novelist I need to know these things. TharkunColl (talk) 00:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Tharkun, how preposterous of you! I haven't been drunk in 20 years. But I might try some of that sherry, it appears to hit the right spots! Cheers! ;) 01:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.19.112.153 (talk)

"Red lion" - very funny, but it took some thinking. I haven't been in a pub named after an animal or a body part since my last visit to the neighbouring island. RE: sherry, true. all the qualities of Buckfast, but shielded by the sense of occasion that all right-thinking persons attach to it. That cannot be matched by any number of Devonshire monks. The sherry drunk can always answer that he is celebrating the birth of a child (while asking as an aside if, "They do still have babies, don't they?"). The Buckfast drunk is always just a drunk, having no occasion to blame but his own failure in the eyes of society. --sony-youth^pléigh 10:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

That Buckie stuff looks really nice - so why don't they sell it round here then? QC Cream sherry, which is likewise 15% abv, costs £4.49 a litre in my local offie, so how does it compare in price? TharkunColl (talk) 13:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Gentlemen? What does any of this 'drinking talk' have to do with the article? GoodDay (talk) 16:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I think we were reaching out across the vast chasm caused by countless centuries of violence, hatred and mistrust, by means of the one thing that the English and Irish undoubtedly have in common - their inordinate love of booze and a good piss-up down the pub. As the great philosopher Homer Simpson once said - "Alcohol: both the cause of, and the solution to, all life's problems." TharkunColl (talk) 18:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

If the British Isles has never included Ireland then why is there the argument and discussion on Irish boards about Ireland finally leaving the British Isles? For it to leave it must have been in there. Anyway of the hits 28K+ alone are in the Ireland domain area, and even some on the official government of Ireland pages. It's also been shown in the past that the term does get usage in Ireland by RTE and even in the Dial (mainly when it's convenient like the Shannon is often described as the longest river in the British Isles rather than Ireland.) Even Ireland.ie which (correct me if I'm wrong) is a site of the National Tourist and Development Authority uses it when convenient to boast about oldest pub in the BI, longest glacier, most subsurface granite field and the like [3]. Ben W Bell talk 03:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment. Ben, you're scratching hard! "Two swallows don't make a Summer!". Nice try! 14:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.19.76.217 (talk)

"If the British Isles has never included Ireland ..." As far as I know, nobody here has ever made that claim, but it shows how far from reality we - all of us - can wander on this subject. So far we don't know what each other are talking about anymore. --sony-youth^pléigh 10:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

It hasn't come up in this phase of the conversation, but it does always come up as one of the arguments against using it. Ben W Bell talk 12:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I can't recall. "phase of the conversation" - we have "phases" now?!? I though the point was to talk in circles!! --sony-youth^pléigh 14:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Dare I repeat myself again (I dare), whatever changes you guys make to this article, be sure to make similiar changes to the Irish Sea article. Here's a better thought, things were nice & calm until yesterday - let's pretend this whole discussion never occured. GoodDay (talk) 15:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems you just don't listen, hence the repeating yourself. Let the residents of the Irish Sea object to the term if they like. And let the residents of the English Channel do the same, and the Indian Sea, etc. They are all separate arguments to this one, so let's try to stay on track. I'm surprised that you associate the two arguments as being equivalent, and it's pretty disrespectful for you to introduce such triviality. There's a huge difference between using a term that associates the residents of Ireland as British (i.e. inhabitants of the British Isles, etc), especially when the term is internationally recognized as being objectionable, is demonstrated to have no legal standing in either country, when map makers are changing the term, etc. You appear to be interested in propagating a view of "the way it's always been" as justification for continuing this practice. This argument is often used to oppose wrongs and injustices, and it belittles the British people in the 21st century. Bardcom (talk) 17:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Put whatever yas want 'within' the article. But, the article title shouldn't be changed. GoodDay (talk) 17:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that:

"British" is a collective term that was used for shorthand adjective or noun on the Tudor (Anglo-Irish) and later, Stuart (adding Scots; English Lowlanders and Irish Highlanders) dominions, rather than the unwieldy, full length name. It even includes the Isle of Man (to round off matters), which had been under Stanley domination until the Hanoverian period. I believe that the overt political perception of some Irish is due to the titling of the Crown since the Irish War of Independence and the wish to have all of Ireland for themselves. My personal preference, would not depict either English, Irish, Scots (being both) or Manx in any title (although I would feature all four on the royal arms), but seeing as how the Irish are dead set against any collegiality with their blood neighbours across the waves, they will continue to kick this dead horse until both feet are broken. It's funny that they chose the Tudor livery colours of green and white, partnered with the Orangist as well, for a national flag and then the arms of Leinster as representative of Ireland on whole, which the Crown has always done. The very government of Ireland as it exists in the Republic, owes more to Oliver Cromwell than the Stuarts (who says Catholicism or Jacobitism and Gaelic or Scottish mean anything in Ireland?), so it is obvious when anybody takes a stance on either side, they are merely rabble rousing ruffians without a valid point of contention! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.255.11.149 (talk) 19:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

So what is it you want changed in the article? GoodDay (talk) 20:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

It was just a comment about the fratricide we see here. Perhaps the notation of the term being "controversial" should be lessened, since the point here is collective geography rather than politics. As it is now, it continues to be a tug of war, rather than neutral accumulation of knowledge on the biggest island chain in Europe. I'm sure geology is much more relevant than people picking a fight, just to control on matters in which we would split hairs. 24.255.11.149 (talk) 20:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Politically motivated edits (real or suspected) generally clash on Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 20:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

That's what I'm talking about, in that it should have little to no place here, except in perhaps stating which countries dwell here and where their borders are. 24.255.11.149 (talk) 20:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Cool. GoodDay (talk) 20:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Some comments:

• The green and white are not the Tudor colours. That's no great secret. It's a tricolour (hint: see France).
• The Crown has never taken the Leinster colours to represent Ireland. The Leinster colours are green. They were adopted by the Confederacy during the War of the Three Kingdoms - from where green may have become known as Ireland's national colour (and used to represent one tradition on the tricolour, with white representing peace between it and the orange tradition). Since then they have been associated with rebellion, and certainly not the Crown! Before then blue was more commonly associated with Ireland, that being the colour you are thinking of, however, that was only used by the Crown since Henry VII. Before then the Crown used the arms of Munster, although the blue harp was recorded as far back as the 13th century as representing Ireland, and harps important to Gaelic symbolism far far before then.
• You are correct about the era that "Britain" and "British" re-entered the vocabalory of the people of these islands, but off on what it meant to them (see the first quote here, and pay special attention to the part that says that "The term 'Britain' was widely understood and it excluded Ireland"). The "overt political perception of some Irish" when it comes to the term is nothing new - and certainly pre-date the War of Independence! (Indeed if you read the Morrill quote you'll the see word was always overtly political in it's modern sense.) I particularly enjoy the 1832 O'Connell on the West Brit article: "The people of Ireland ... are ready to become a kind of West Briton if made so in benefits and justice; but if not, we are Irishmen again."

Final thoughts, it's hard to believe that you know what the word "collegiality" means (relating to or involving shared responsibility). Demanding that a shared space be named after oneself alone is hardly in the spirit of collegialism - though collegialism can hardly be said to be the mainstay of southern Britain's preferred relationship with Ireland over the past millennium! As for Cromwell, this kind of trolling hardly deserves a response except to say that the Irish republic has never been marked by dictatorship, intolerance, or genocide, unlike the English one. --sony-youth^pléigh 22:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Ireland not intolerant? I refer you to the the Roman Catholic boycott of Trinity College, Dublin and a football match with "commie" Yugoslavia, Kerry Babies Tribunal of 1986, no decriminalisation of homosexuality till 1993, the X and C cases, and the Magdalene Laundries only finally closed in 1996; still, the Limerick Pogrom was before the Republic, so I guess 2 out of 3 ain't bad... Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 00:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow! Bastun reckons that cultural and physical genocide is some way equivalent to delaying the decriminalisation of homosexuality until a few years after the British did!!! Such a fine sense of balance and perspective! Sarah777 (talk) 01:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

All true, Bastun, and there's no point in me picking nits, though with respect, in relation to Cromwell, I was talking about intolerance leading to death tolls in the region of 70% due to war. That does nothing to undermine what you are saying though, and you are quite correct. --sony-youth^pléigh 01:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I thouhgt Roman Catholics were barred from Trinity College, Dublin, and the anti-homosexual laws were imposed by Westminister. Nit-picking, I think. Couldn't play a game or get a pint on a Sunday when I lived in the UK, and a Roman Catholic cannot be Primeminister, or marry the monarch, etc, etc. Enough! 02:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.19.123.139 (talk)

I am certain it is not the case that a Roman Catholic cannot be Prime Minister (wasn't Callaghan Catholic - and indeed Irish to boot?). As for getting a pint in the UK on Sunday, perhaps if you were in certain parts of Wales this may have been the case, but all pubs I know of did a roaring trade when their hours were restricted - the Sunday lunchtime swill we used to call it. These days there are no such restrictions, which has taken half the fun of seeing how many pints you could down between 12 and 2 pm, before having to wait another five hours before the pub opened again. TharkunColl (talk) 08:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

This is not a discussion board please keep comment, to ones about improving the article Gnevin (talk) 09:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

That's in my thoughts. The Irish republicans keep disrupting the neutrality of this article. The source of their antipathy rests with:

• When Henry II and Strongbow went to Ireland, the king allowed some of his nobility to leave the main part of England because of the recent rebellions and wanted to pacify them with land. This is the source of the Old English.
• Edward Bruce invaded Ireland when it was English, thus being the basis of a so-called Gaelic culture, even though the Scots and Irish have never gotten along, maybe why the Scots were kicked out of Ireland in the first place, but boohoo if King Jimmy sent them to Ulster much later.
• Later revolts were due to the Wars of the Roses having exiled many of its partisans there, especially Yorkist opponents of the Tudors, who subsequently decided to fix the problem. Much of the actual conflicts in Ireland stem from the inability of the English (old and new) and Scottish planters to get along. This is why they supported the English Pope's Laudabiliter, but not the declaration of a king in their island, although bullied by the Scots originally.

24.255.11.149 (talk) 16:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

You'll always have differences of opinion about presentation, even amongst university professors. If you see disagreement, never blame one side, or the other. It's in the nature of the world to have different view-points, and it's the nature of history to be reviewed all of the time. Some of your facts above are not quite accurate, but I won't get into that. 16:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.19.212.237 (talk)

"not quite accurate", 78.19.212.237? "[Henry II] allowed some of his nobility to leave the main part of England because of the recent rebellions"? "Edward Bruce invaded Ireland when it was English, thus being the basis of a so-called Gaelic culture ..."? "... the Scots were kicked out of Ireland in the first place ..."? It's like describing events in a parallel universe. This nut is particularly surreal, collapsing five centuries onto itself and playing it in reverse at high speed; "Much of the actual conflicts in Ireland stem from the inability of the English (old and new) and Scottish planters to get along. This is why they supported the English Pope's Laudabiliter ..."? If I might suggest that much of the "antipathy" of the other side rests with having little grasp of even the most foundational knowledge of the history of these islands. Although, you are right in that there is little to be gained by laying blame. --sony-youth^pléigh 19:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

My reference was to 24.255.11.149 making gross oversimplifications to history - 24.255.11.149 also has a discernibly obvious "point of view". It can be a huge problem when trying to grasp the realities. Would you read a book written by Andrew Jackson about the "Origins and History of the American Indian"? With extreme caution, hopefully! 78.19.12.94 (talk) 20:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Whoever recounts events, is it too much to ask that they respect the direction of time? If only to avoid the risk of Scottish planters supporting Laudabiliter in defiance of an English king? --sony-youth^pléigh 20:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Removed incoherent British rant as Arbcom prevents me from giving a very direct and honest reply. Sarah777 (talk) 01:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The rant in question is from a user formerly known as Lord Loxley, who is not British, and is well know for his tediously lengthy and completely irrelevant posts. He has tried to insert his rabidly anti-English POV into many articles. TharkunColl (talk) 09:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

That's a red herring to squealch the legitimate discussion about what motivates the vandals on this page. TharkunColl prefers the fighting and him winning, Anglo-Saxon aristocrat on top of Celtic peasant, because in his mind, the English are racially distinct from the Celts. The truth is, that is a Roman British attitude to non-Romans and he just doesn't know or want to admit the truth of English expansionism in the British Isles has nothing to do with a few Germanic mercenaries in the upper class, but with Roman policy. 24.255.11.149 (talk) 16:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you incapable of saying anything coherent or relevant, Lox? TharkunColl (talk) 16:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Hide your idiosyncrasy in plain view. It's blatent that you will be banned from Wikipedia for all the harsh goose stepping you do on various articles in which your pride has a stake. Pride goeth before the fall. 24.255.11.149 (talk) 16:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you just stop interfering with things you know nothing about? Have you ever even been to England? TharkunColl (talk) 16:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but it doesn't matter. I am always reading up on all sorts of POVs and some just don't hold water, no matter how widespread in error. Since the common people have had little access to education, they are readily willing to believe in aristocratic lies that the monarchy is a Norman, rather than Anglo-Saxon institution. 24.255.11.149 (talk) 16:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Disorganise the different sets of facts in such a way as to never understand, thus fuel for more adversity and conflict. Has it occurred to anybody about the English Adams and Scottish Paisley, both contending for influence on Irish soil? Jump Jim Crow > Jump Mc Paddy. You always follow the pied pipers and can't see outside your soap operas. The main point is, that these "troubles" have nothing to do with any "British" vs Irish struggle, but the English and Scottish factions of the island (and between older and newer planters, like Old English vs Anglicans and Ulster bridge to Argyle by the Scotii, with the Ulster-Scots returning), which have almost always dominated its affairs for practically a millenium by now, in one way or another. What is the problem with Irishmen recognizing that their island is an obvious junior partner, like say Belgium to France or Holland to Germany? Life is life and unless you can change the face of the earth, get a life and quit blathering, not to say that the "British" can get away with bullying. Besides, the national characters of these islands just aren't different enough to be able to split hairs and feel good at the same time. It's ridiculous that Irishmen complain about English Cromwell and yet revived commonwealth government, while the same is true for the British who retain the Celtic Stuart monarchy. There is no absolute difference between these islands! Balance and shared Anglo-Celtic culture is what defines the British Isles at heart, even if infighting never seems to go away. When people in different neighbourhoods, towns and shires don't see eye to eye, how is it feasible for nations to get along? But then again, the Scots have reconciled their Anglo-Celtic duality of Lowlands and Highlands, so what is so horrible about English and Irish doing the same? Is it any consolation that both the Tudor countries, England and Ireland chose republican governments against the Scottish Stuart line? Imagine if the new joint capital were to occupy the Isle of Man as some sort of "Capital Territory" like the District of Columbia in the US or Australia's, rather than separate English London or Celtic Dublin? There are too many fanatic separatists in the British Isles. What's Wales and Cornwall? Nothing but another part of England, same with Orkney and Shetland for the Scots and also true with Ulster and the rest of Ireland. They just have different governments calling the shots, like the Plantagenet and Capetian camps for control of France in the Hundred Years' War, occupying different parts of the country. 24.255.11.149 (talk) 01:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

We really need to draw this discussion to a close, it has nothing to do with improving the article itself. Feel free to continue the conversation on user talk pages or an off-wiki discussion forum of your choice - but please let's try an keep this page focussed on specifics about the article, not a general discussion about the British Isles or the philosophies of the various groups that inhabit them. Thanks. Waggers (talk) 09:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Much of the actual conflicts in Ireland stem from the inability of the English (old and new) and Scottish planters to get along. This is why they supported the English Pope's Laudabiliter

That's gotta be up there with the biggest pieces of historical nonsense I've ever seen on wikipedia. Those Scottish planters are 17th century ... along way after 1155. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Just a set of responses to a few points made in this section.Firstly, Edward Bruce. The latter came from Carrick, culturally indistinguishable from nearly by Ulster. He was probably fostered in Ireland during his adolesence and probably (it has recently been argued) was a descendant of Niall Ruadh O'Neill and great, great grandson of Rory O'Connor. If his older brother Niall had not been killed by the English a few years before, it would probably have been Niall who led the Scots invasion "to expel the foreigners from Ireland". The British-Irish dichotomy would never be used in Medieval history by anyone who new what they were talking about. Comparisons between medieval Scottish and Irish history, and English and Irish history, make a complete nonsense of the British-Irish dichotomy. Most of the landmass of Scotland and Ireland have a shared linguistic and cultural history, while Dublin, Cardiff, London, Bristol and Edinburgh ... and in fact all cities in the British Isles ... have shared the same English language and culture for the last eight centuries. The British-Irish dichotomy is a recent creation of Irish cultural movements which systematically devalued the place of the English in Irish heritage (in Ireland for 8 (!!!) centuries!) in favour of Gaelic romanticism, Hibernicised the position Irish Gaelic at the expense of older pan-Gaelic ideologies and insularised Ireland's history at the expense of facts. Anyways, these tendencies are thankfully in retreat, and modern Irish medievalists are among the biggest "champions" of the pan-insular approach. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

modern Irish medievalists are among the biggest "champions" of the pan-insular approach.

I shouldn't get too carried away. Evelyn Mullally and/or the people at Four Courts Press decided to render the French La Geste des Engleis en Yrlande "The Deeds of the Normans in Ireland". Naughty naughty (tut tut)! Only in Ireland could there ever be the motivation to "translate" des Engleis as "of the Normans". On the whole though, this kind of thing is becoming the exception. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you quite understand what being Irish is. Being Irish is being a part of everything that has gone before. Making broad generalisations is usually something foreigners do. Not quite sure, it would be wonderful to know where you get your generalisations/facts from. Ask any English-person living in Ireland, you'll find that there is no pressure from ideologies, but the Scots do go on a wee bit. They are much more uncomfortable with their relationship vis a vis England than the Irish are. English-bashing is usually a Scottish phenomena, you'll rarely hear it in Ireland. And the spoken tradition of Irish culture and language still lives today, un-broken for 1000s of years in some areas. And of course Ireland, as a nation, (rather than the city of Dublin), was predominately Irish/Gaeilge until c 1900. Why should Dublin be taken to represent Ireland. It's only part of the story of Ireland. 78.19.36.185 (talk) 21:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

These tendencies in early modern Irish culture are hardly secrets, and as I acknowledged "these tendencies are thankfully in retreat". The point about Dublin though, every other city in Ireland, and the hundreds of Englishries in existence for half a millennium before the Tudor age (after which the three Irelands began to converge), is that it shows there were more differences within Ireland than between Ireland and the meaningless and historically irrelevant concept of "Britain". Incidentally, Irish has been a minority language since at least the census of 1841, and English spoken by the majority of people on the island even longer. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

You're including the 6 counties of Ulster, and I was also referring to born speakers, my grand-father was bilingual for example. I think some of the differences were supplanted, Plantations, Penal Laws for instance, without expanding. And I have some Cromwellian adventurer connections too, so I try not to be biased either way. It's just the enfolding of history. Your argument is for a unified Britishness that includes Ireland. Well we can't really impose that, no more than can describe Britain as being Irish. It did take a lot of influence from Ireland, no doubt. Nice argument, but more of a debate than a fact. Back tomorrow. 78.19.36.185 (talk) 21:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Your argument is for a unified Britishness that includes Ireland

I don't think I'm arguing that ... just responding reactively to points other people make. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Gnevin is concerned that this whole section is off-topic, so if anyone wants to respond to me, I'd ask that you do it on my talk page. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Cromwell

Cromwell was the first to create a unified state that encompassed the whole British Isles, some 150 years before the next attempt. Since he is equally hated by the Irish for being a bit of a bastard, and the English for being a regicide, perhaps we should acknowledge his place in our shared history a bit more. TharkunColl (talk) 00:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd be more for an enlarged section on the Stewarts as the first monarchs to rule the whole B*ritish Isles in personal union some 50 years before Cromwell's bloody and sectarian campaign. Though a compare-and-contrast might be informative. --sony-youth^pléigh 01:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

You've forgotten Edward ... he ruled all of the British Isles (save the Northern Isles). Henry II too claimed the allegiance directly and indirectly of the whole archipelago (as well as half of "France"!). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedantry states that what occurred in 1603 was literally irrelevant, and true union did not occur until 1707 (or 1801 with regard to Ireland). In which case, Cromwell is certainly the first person to create a unified state across the whole British Isles. It was called the Commonwealth of England, Scotland and Ireland, and representatives from all parts were sent to Westminster. Notice also, incidentally, how the English - once they had thrown off the Stuarts - studiously avoided any terms such as "Great Britain", "Britain" or "British" - these were all Stuart (and what we today would call pseudo-Celtic) pretensions that the English hated. On the Cromwell issue itself, I think he was a great but deeply flawed man. He and his associates drew up the first written constitution for any nation in the world - indeed, the first two - and perhaps this is exactly why the English have distrusted such a thing ever since. TharkunColl (talk) 00:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedantry also states that it was the Commonwealth of England, not "of England, Scotland and Ireland" (rather like the breakfast!). "These were all ... pretensions that the English hated"? "Scotland and Ireland", you mean? Yes, much better to call it all "English", no?

A "great but deeply flawed man"? If you consider the death of up to 70% of the Irish population "great". I would have stuck with just "deeply flawed" but then my parliament doesn't have a statue erected to him outside of it.

"... exactly why the English have distrusted such a thing ever since"? Exactly why the Irish have been distrusted the English ever since! (If you don't believe me ask Churchill: "... upon all of these Cromwell's record was a lasting bane. By an uncompleted process of terror, by an iniquitous land settlement, by the virtual proscription of the Catholic religion, by the bloody deeds already described, he cut new gulfs between the nations and the creeds. 'Hell or Connaught' were the terms he thrust upon the native inhabitants, and they for their part, across three hundred years, have used as their keenest expression of hatred 'The Curse of Cromwell on you.' ... Upon all of us there still lies 'the curse of Cromwell'.") --sony-youth^pléigh 03:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

It was originally the Commonwealth of England and did not become the Commonwealth of England, Scotland and Ireland until after the relevant acts of union were passed (see The Protectorate). The Stuart pretensions I mentioned were all those that involved the word "Britain" or its derivatives, which Cromwell eschewed. The Irish mistrust or hatred of the English because of Cromwell, though understandable, is perhaps also a little unfair in that upon the Restoration in 1660 Cromwell's body was dug up and his head stuck on a pole as a regicide (i.e. the English - or more precisely, the English royal establishment - hate him too). A good modern analogy (and this doesn't break Godwin's Law because it is a near perfect analogy) is the modern English mistrust and hatred of the Germans because of Hitler - but made even more untenable in Cromwell's case by the passage of so many centuries. And yet, despite all this, in many ways Cromwell was great - he destroyed the power of kings forever in this country and ever since parliament has been supreme. And that's why he deserves a statue there. TharkunColl (talk) 12:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

"It was originally the Commonwealth of England ... The Stuart pretensions I mentioned ..." It was a deliberate twist to demonstrate how preference for terms endure.

"... upon the Restoration in 1660 Cromwell's body was dug up and his head stuck on a pole ..." Big whup-te-do! His "settlement" of Ireland was maintained and even furthered ([http://www.wesleyjohnston.com/users/ireland/maps/historical/mapcromw.gif see). Never did we see a return to the toleration that was so abhorrent to parliament that they would murder their king for it. Cromwell was never dug up from an Irish perspective, he lived on for another three centuries in the English (and subsequent British) parliament where is statue still stands in all its pride today - representing the enduring terror and intolerance of the English, and subsequent British, parliament.

"... ever since parliament has been supreme ..." Do you think you need to remind me? Have Irish people not suffered woe because of it? To the English your parliament may represent liberty. To the Irish it represents hatred, intolerance, violence and terror.

"A good modern analogy (and this doesn't break Godwin's Law because it is a near perfect analogy) is the modern English mistrust and hatred of the Germans because of Hitler ..." This is a ridiculous analogy. Just look at raw figures alone! Below are the population figures for England and Wales at roughly either end of the war with Hitler (source):

• Population of England & Wales 1941: 41,7488,000
• Population of England & Wales 1941: 43,815,000

Contrast to the enormity of death endured by the population of Ireland during the Cromwellian war (Perceval-Maxwell: 1994)

• Population of Ireland 1641: 2,100,000
• Population of Ireland 1652: 850,000

And can I ask what happened after the war with Hitler? Did England suffer a "settlement" on Hitler's victory to ensure that it would be politically nullified? Was that "settlement" maintained after the war by the Allies? Did the Nazi's, with all their intolerance and violence, remain in power in England for three centuries after the war? Ridiculous!

Again, it's a ridiculous analogy and a demonstration of the height of English arrogance that you would dream that the petty inconvenience that England endured 1939-45 could be compared in any way to the ultimate examples of violence, suffering and intolerance that your people have inflicted on others, Cromwell, the ensuing "settlement", and the persistence of that "settlement" and interrelation under military force by parliament for centuries after. --sony-youth^pléigh 13:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Is there a point to this British vs Irish spat? GoodDay (talk) 15:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

There might well be an English vs Irish spat, but there can't really be a British vs Irish spat because the Irish are British - and deep down they know it, which is why they always protest so much at it. TharkunColl (talk) 15:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm just hoping you guys will 'move' the dispute to your respective personal pages - unless you both got something to add to this article. GoodDay (talk) 16:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I think my original point is still valid. Cromwell was the first person (by whatever means) to create a single state encompassing the whole British Isles. TharkunColl (talk) 16:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Make sense; as I don't recall any rebellions being successful in England, Scotland or Ireland against his rule. GoodDay (talk) 16:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Its flag is on the right, which makes a point of including Ireland though not as aesthetically pleasingly as the later invention of the Cross of St. Patrick for that purpose. Cromwell and co. clearly had a rather ironic and typically English sense of humour as well - the motto of their republic was PAX QUÆRITUR BELLO ("Peace is sought through war"). TharkunColl (talk) 16:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Cool. GoodDay (talk) 16:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

"... there can't really be a British vs Irish spat because the Irish are British ..." Truly pathetic. I defer to the infinite wisdom of Samuel L. Jackson (in interview with Kate Thornton on ITV):

Thornton: What was it like working with Colin [Farrell]? 'Cos he is just so hot in the UK right now...

Jackson: He's pretty hot in the US, too!

Thornton: Yeah, but he is one of our own.

Jackson: Isn't he from Ireland?

Thornton: Yeah, but we can claim him, 'cos Ireland is beside us.

Jackson: You see, that's your problem right there. You British keep claiming people that don't belong to you. We had that problem here in America too. It was called slavery.

Back on topic, the subject of this article is the "Br*tish" Isles, not the life-and-times of an Englishman who was worse than Hitler. --sony-youth^pléigh 17:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Love these disputes (though I'd prefer them sticking to the topic -the article). GoodDay (talk) 17:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

No matter how bad he was, and opinions among historians are clearly divided on that issue - and indeed, his excesses in Ireland may (or may not) be hugely exagerated - it is still true that Oliver and his army created the first state to encompass the whole British Isles. Is this not a relevant item of information? TharkunColl (talk) 19:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, short-lived as it was (6 years?), and, according to Winston Churchill, it is above all else the reason why one does not exist today.

How would you suggest integrating this into the article? Should we first discuss the source of the genocide? The ethnic cleansing? English betrayal of Irish loyalty? The open and unmasked hatred and intolerance? The continued, centuries-long persecution and violence enacted by the English parliament? How a man who today would be listed among the most frightening war criminals of all time occupies a place of honour outside Westminster Palace?

Alternatively, as it my opinion, the subject of this article is the "Br*tish" Isles, and not, as I said before, the life-and-times of an Englishman who was worse than Hitler.

I do however agree that the whole history section is a bit too much of a skim-through. This in itself isn't so bad, there is not point in reproducing any article here or emphasising one incident as "key" to our history. (Otherwise we might end up with half and article on the Famine and another highly disputed half laied over the Cromwell.) More thought in how we could direct readers elsewhere would be more what I'd like to see, especially a thoughtful linking to main articles on subjects to guide readers through the section and "spinning them out" to articles where they can get more detail. --sony-youth^pléigh 20:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Statue of Cromwell outside the Palace of Westminster, London. It really is amazing how the British honour that man, butcher of the Irish. It's just another reason why Ireland could never be British, just as Judea can never be German.

78.19.29.127 (talk) 01:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's true to say that the British honour him - I seriously doubt if the Scots do, for example. Amongst the English his reputation is ambivalent at best. He is the great enigma, the man who changed the course of our history, yet despite having left copious letters and other written documents, no one ever seems to be able to gain a consistent insight into his character. He was a puritan who liked parties, a militarist who wanted to be a civilian, and a man who lived the life of an obscure country gentleman well into his forties. Unlike Hitler, with whom he has been unfavourably compared (a feat in itself), the changes he made in his country endured. Because of him the English created the concept of parliamentary sovereignty, which we later exported round the world - ironically, and eventually, even to Ireland. This was radical and new at the time, and Cromwell must be given credit for this. Also the idea of having a written constitution - under Cromwell England was the first country ever to have one. When a new state - let's say Ireland - draws up a constitution for itself, it is following in Cromwell's footsteps. To say that Cromwell was a great man does not imply that he was a good man - great does not mean good - but he was a great man. TharkunColl (talk) 09:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

"Because of him the English created the concept of parliamentary sovereignty, which we later exported round the world - ironically, and eventually, even to Ireland." - The Irish had been pressing for parliamentry sovereignty since before 1494, only for the English parliament to repress it at every turn. In 1782 in we got it de jure but de facto parliament was still unsovereign. 19 years later even that fraud was revoked. It was not until 1922, following a bloody guerellia war against the British (viz. English) parliament that a sovereign parliament was "allowed" to exist in Ireland. Meanwhile, look north and you'll see that parliamentary sovereignty was wrestled from the king by the Scottish immediately prior to Cromwellian regime - only be run rough-shod over by marauding English armies. It was those constitutional changes, put in train by the Scottish, that were aped by the English in their "Commonwealth".

Parliamentary sovereignty, "a concept created by the English"? Don't make me laugh! "Exported around the world"? The English exporting democracy and freedom rather than violence and oppression?? Now you've ventured into the world of the absurd!

First written constitution? Cromwell? The English? No. That honour would fall to the Irish in 1641. (But so what if Cromwell had a constitution? The USSR had volumous constitutions but was hardly a pinnacle of democracy or freedom?)

Now back on topic, what do you propose to do about the History section? --sony-youth^pléigh 13:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know really, but I notice that currently the article doesn't mention Cromwell by name at all, and the activities of his army in Ireland seems to have been given something of a negative spin. Oh, by the way, did you know that Cromwell's real, family surname was Williams, and that they were Welsh? TharkunColl (talk) 13:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that. It's not necessary to mention him in order to tell the history, but it is more usual. Sure, put him in. I was thinking about "mini" templates for each of the current sections, linking to relevant main articles.

("... Cromwell's real family surname was Williams, and that they were Welsh" - This is typical of the English view of history and hegemony of our islands. The Irish don't hate Cromwell because he was English, we hate him because he supervised the murder of over a million Irish men, women and children. If Irish hate figures tend to be English more than any other people, this is just co-incidental - or you might ask yourself why it happens that English people wrong Irish people so much and so often?) --sony-youth^pléigh 14:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I never said that the Irish hate Cromwell because he was English. Quite the other way round in fact - they hate the English because of Cromwell. Why do English people tend to abuse the Irish more often than others? Well, geography probably has a lot to do with it. Who else is going to invade Ireland? Scots or Welsh maybe? Even before the Scots and Welsh came under English control, their numbers were tiny compared to the English. So in answer to your rhetorical question, the reason why the English tend to abuse the Irish more than any other nation is (a) they live next door to them, (b) there's a lot of them, and (c) they are the dominant power on their island. In all these discussions it would be easy to get the impression that the English are a great deal worse than other nations when it comes to invading, but I would suggest that this is simply a matter of opportunity. Long before the English ever went anywhere near Ireland, the Irish had invaded and set up colonies in Britain. Most of the Welsh kingdoms had Irish foundations, as did the Scottish kingdom. Furthermore, the Irish regularly raided Britain and kidnapped British people as slaves - St. Patrick was one of these. So the Irish are not just innocent victims here, despite what they have managed to convince the rest of the world through shear blarney. TharkunColl (talk) 16:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment on TharkunColl, the Irish don't hate the English, ask any of 200,000 English who live in Ireland. They'll all tell you they love it here, no animosity. It's just that when people start bending history to suit their own beliefs, that it gets a little frustrating. After all, we are supposed to be building a POV-FREE encyclopedia here, so let's do it. On a lighter vein, Oscar Wilde, "God created the Irish, to stop the English from boring themselves to death". Yeah, I agree with Oscar on this occasion. He... he...!!!78.19.174.181 (talk) 17:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Despite how it might appear, I actually rather like the Irish (what I don't like is the politics and the hatreds that politics engenders). I don't know how many millions of Irish people live in England, or whether proportionally it's more or less than the figure you just gave for English in Ireland, but I have never encountered any anymosity either towards, or from, them in any way at all. TharkunColl (talk) 17:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Believe it or not, I actually like the English and have no probs. Even some of my best friends are English. And they have a brilliant sense of humour. All that bashing they get from all quarters, and they keep that auld chin up, and the stiffer upper lip of course in tact. Sure where would we be without them? ;))) 78.19.174.181 (talk) 01:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

What has this got to do with improving the article? There are chat forums for this sort of stuff. If you want to improve the article I suggest you put your energy into changing the repulsive title. Sarah777 (talk) 22:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Awww ... can I join in on this loving feeing? ("Who else is going to invade Ireland?" Well ... truth be told it was the French in the first instance. No-one ever imagined it would end up in English hands!) --sony-youth^pléigh 22:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, end the blogging. PS- include Irish Sea among your energies for title changes. Seriously though, both titles are fine. GoodDay (talk) 22:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

How to show, the Republic of Ireland

Is there any other reason (other then politics)? as to why Republic of Ireland, keeps being reverted to Ireland? GoodDay (talk) 18:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

PS: I'm not trying to be a disturber here; I'm just curious. GoodDay (talk) 18:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you read the voluminous debate on the issue. Sarah777 (talk) 23:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Where it be, so I can see? GoodDay (talk) 23:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

a) Because the infobox states "Major islands". (Republic of) Ireland is a country, not an island. Ireland is an island. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 23:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

In otherwords, this edit Ireland, is misleading. GoodDay (talk) 23:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

We may be talking about two different sets of edits :-) What one(s) do you mean? Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 23:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

My apologies, I'm speaking of an earlier dispute (days ago). We're talking about the inclusion of Ireland in this article. IMHO, Ireland belongs in this article, as much as the UK & RoI deserve mentioning in the Irish Sea article. GoodDay (talk) 23:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. And good call on the revert - removing part of a quote really isn't on. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 23:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

We seem to have repeated reversions by some editors who don't understand international law. There is an island called Ireland and a state called Ireland, which consists of five sixths of that island. The addtional description of that state, when disambiguation is required, is Republic of Ireland. We should have [[Ireland (island)]] and [[Ireland (state)]] but this has not achieved consensus, even though it is correct. The name of the state (Ireland) is the name (in the English language) that is given in its constitution, the name that is used in the EU and the name that is used in the UN. Everywhere in fact, except Wikipedia. So the only correct way to refer to the state is Ireland (except when writing in Irish in GA:Wiki, where you can use Éire). --Red King (talk) 00:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Completely correct, Red King - nonetheless, you can't remove part of what is quoted text. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 00:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, my revert lasted long. GoodDay (talk) 00:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that the Irish state has no right to the name "Ireland", since it was gerrymandered in the first place. You cannot legislate for language, and just because it calls itself "Ireland" that is no reason for the rest of us to take it seriously. TharkunColl (talk) 00:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The rest of the world takes it seriously. What makes you so special? --Red King (talk) 00:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

:-) Don't feed the trolls? Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 00:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Ireland is Ireland (the whole island). Any state that only has two thirds of the population (or whatever) is a sectarian state. If it had included the whole island to begin with it would have turned out very differently. TharkunColl (talk) 00:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Personal opinion has no place on this talk page. It isn't a forum. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 00:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Precisely. So the only acceptable definition of "Ireland", without qualification, is what it has always meant in English - that is, the whole island. TharkunColl (talk) 00:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Why do some editors have a problem with Republic of Ireland being in this article? Is not the IoR a part of the 'Island of Ireland'? GoodDay (talk) 00:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

For the same reason as you probably find it irritating when the United Kingdom is referred to as England. --Red King (talk) 00:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Bastun; remember the feeding advice! We may have a duplicity of trolls here; I'm in two minds on that! And I recanted my evisceration of a quote on my talkpage; 'twas an error. Sarah777 (talk) 00:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Me too, even though the source is politically illiterate, I ought to have left the quote stand. --Red King (talk) 00:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as British Isles is a geographic term. Somebody will have to convince me that the RoI isn't on the Island of Ireland, in order for me to agree with removing RoI from the article. GoodDay (talk) 00:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Noted, Sarah :-) Meanwhile, someone seems to have solved the whole British Isles/Britain and Ireland/"These islands" question for us. Looking at the categories at the bottom of the page - they've now become the Scottish Islands... Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 00:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

They could be onto something....!Sarah777 (talk) 01:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• Nonsense. You're confusing term with name. All names are political. Terms are things like "mountain", "island", "sea", etc. Bardcom (talk) 12:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not convinced of that Bardcom. Again, I need proof that 'the Irish Republic' isn't on 'Ireland (island)'? before I consent to 'exclusion'. GoodDay (talk) 14:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec) The fundamental problem we have is that in this article, we talk both about geographical entities (such as the island of Ireland) and political ones (such as the republic of Ireland). Because we use both in the same article, we shouldn't use the same word to describe both without any form of disambiguation. Whether that disambiguation is in the form of "Ireland"/"Republic of Ireland" or "Ireland (island)"/"Ireland (state)" is debatable; personally I prefer the former as it's consistent with what's in user elsewhere on the project, and to my eyes bracketed disambiguation doesn't work well as part of a sentence (it's fine for article names). Waggers (talk) 14:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with those who say that calling the 26 county state "Ireland" is incorrect. "Ireland" can only properly mean the island of Ireland as a whole. The state should be referred to here as "Republic of Ireland" and the island as "Ireland". I believe the wording of the 26 county constitution carries much of the blame. Before Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution were revoked back in 1999, the State and the island as a whole were, on paper at least, one and the same thing. The State had been known for many years simply as "Éire" or "Ireland", which was correct according to the Constitution. Since the revocation of Articles 2 and 3, the State recognises that its jurisdiction shall not cover the island as a whole until a majority in the six county "Northern Ireland" concede to same through democratic means. However, to be fair, I believe the name "Republic of Ireland" or something similar should have been officially adopted as the name of the State rather than being merely a legal "description". However, I believe the drafters of the new articles were trying to two different things simultaneously; recognising that a United Ireland can only be achieved through the consent of Six Counties partitionists while also ensuring that the Nationalist community of the Six Counties were acknowledged, as well, of course, recognising that the Irish nation is coterminous with the island. All of which strikes me as a tad messy but necessary in the circumstances. Anyway, I say again, "Republic of Ireland" for the state and "Ireland" for the island as a whole. Or even some form of disambiguation as others have suggested. An Muimhneach Machnamhach (talk) 15:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Nicely explained. Bardcom (talk) 20:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Where disambiguation is necessary, Republic of Ireland is preferable. Where it is not, Ireland is preferable. e.g. Ireland is a member of the European Union, whereas the United Kingdom shares a border with the Republic of Ireland. We do not need to set in stone which term we will use and abide by use of that term only to the exclusion of any other. We only need to write clearly, after that we can use each term where most appropriate. --sony-youth^pléigh 23:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

An Muimhneach, the Constitution kinda trumps your personal opinion. The state's name is Ireland. Sony's statement above is both common sense and logical. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 12:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Bastun, the 1999 referendum revoked the automatic claim to the 6 northern counties, and no longer defines the national territory as the whole island of Ireland. The constitution declares that the name of the state is '"Éire, or, in the English language, Ireland"' (Article 4). Under the Republic of Ireland Act, the term Republic of Ireland is the official description of the state but not its name. Can I suggest that the term Eire is used in future when referring to the state. And the name of the island is Ireland. No need for the ROI description in this case... Bardcom (talk) 13:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

No, because this is the English-language WP. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 10:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

:I'm still at a loss, as to why some editors want to rename this article. Historically, British Isles was in usage & that can't be disputed. Again, I'd argue the same, for Irish Sea article. GoodDay (talk) 14:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Gooday, the matter is explained in British Isles naming dispute. A range of quotations explaining academic understanding of the dispute is at Talk:British_Isles/References.

Bardcom, my understanding is that the supreme court ruled that the correct way of interpreting that section is that Éire is the name of the state in Irish, and Ireland is the name of the state in English. I believe the case was part of the challenge against extradition orders for paramilitaries addressed to "Éire" or "Republic of Ireland" during the late-80s. I was pointed to Ellis v O’Dea (1989) when I heard of this. I would otherwise have read it as you do, although in any even "Éire" is a very obscure word in English nowadays and for that reason I don't think your proposal is workable. --sony-youth^pléigh 20:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I've scratched out my previous posting. This discussion isn't about renaming the article (my mistake, sorry Sony). Umm, seeing as the Irish Constitution calls for the usage of Ireland instead of Republic of Ireland (a fact, that was pointed out to me at Ireland). I now see no reason to oppose usage of [Republic of Ireland|Ireland]. GoodDay (talk) 20:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Declaring sides?

Courtesy of the recent edit by the Jumbuck bot, I see the Welsh have declared sides in our little spat. --sony-youth^pléigh 22:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Would you clarify, please. GoodDay (talk) 22:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

On the Welsh-language Wikipedia the corresponding article was moved from Ynysoedd Prydain (British Isles) to Ynysoedd Prydain ac Iwerddon (British and Irish Isles). --sony-youth^pléigh 22:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. But, I'd still argue for this articles 'current' title (for historical usage reasons, of course). GoodDay (talk) 22:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Not a-flaming-gain?

How the hell is this article back to spinning the British version of what the "British Isles" is? For the record, Most British people may regard the "British Isles" as including Ireland. The vast majority of people on the island of Ireland do not and have not for nearly 90 years. It is a term everyone from the Irish government and state to the BBC to even the British parliament in the last decade have avoided. The Welsh are now avoiding it. The Scottish are fazing it out. Unfortunately some posters seem intent on pushing a British POV and claiming it is NPOV. But then that has been done in this article for years. (Cue outrage now from British posters (primarily English posters actually) who will insist that their POV is NPOV and everyone else, especially, the Irish, are POV!) FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

British Isles is a historically term. GoodDay (talk) 23:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes it is a historically (sic) term. But it does not cover Ireland and has not covered Ireland for nearly ninety years. I am not talking about the term. I am talking about the definition of the term. This article states a disputed definition as fact. That is not on. Either state that some people say it means x and some people y, or don't define it. But stating as fact that it means x when millions of people on one of the supposed British Isles disagree is pushing a POV. British posters sought to highjack this article before to push their definition as the correct one. If they insist on publishing their definition as fact when it is their opinion, they can expect a return to the rows of the past with many Irish people, Welsh people and Scottish people on this site who did not in the past and will not in the future accept the definition of one group of people as being the correct definition and the views of millions who disagree as wrong. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi again Jtdirl, calm down and please avoid such trolling. A careful study of WP:NPOV should help. .. dave souza, talk 23:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Since when is refusing to accept a British spin on things 'trolling'? Oh and by the way, re 'NPOV' I know all about it. I was here when the policy was shaped and was one of those heavily involved in writing it. (And before anyone accuses me of being some sort of extremist Irish republican, much of my work on this site was in editing up articles on the British monarchy and the British peerage, something which led me to be accused of being a West Brit by Irish Republicans.) FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 00:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Jt. I thought you were calling for the article title to be changed. GoodDay (talk) 16:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

No. I have no problem with the term. The problem is what it is taken to refer to. It originally referred to a group of islands who shared nothing but geography. By the start of the nineteenth century all the islands shared a governmental system that though theoretically based on equality was in reality English dominance of the other former kingdoms. From the mid seventeenth century the term was used in both a geographic and a political sense. From the 1920s most of one of the islands broke away from British control, while in the twenty-first century the political unit that covers the main island and part of the smaller one is unravelling, with the very term "British" carrying extremely negative connotations in Ireland and increasingly being abandoned in the face of Scottish, Welsh and English nationalism. So "British Isles" to many on the islands carries political connotations which, rightly or wrongly, are provocative at best, offensive at worst, to the Irish and growing numbers of the Scottish and Welsh. (Irish people constantly run into the problem of people who think "British Isles" means that all the occupants of the archipelago are British. It reached ludicrous levels when Mikhail Gorbachev when General Secretary of the Soviet Communist Party thought Ireland was part of Britain and part of the Queen's territory, telling a diplomat "But how can you not be British if you are from the British Isles?" As a result the Irish government, the Scottish government, the Welsh executive and broadcasters like the BBC and others all either ban the term or strongly advise against its use.

Just because it was once the term to refer to archipelago is no justification. People used to refer to "Negros". Linguistically "Negro" meaning Black is correct. But the term carries understood meanings that are deeply offensive to Blacks and so it is not used. All the article has to point out to follow NPOV is that the term is controversial, is sometimes understood even not correctly to carry geopolitical meanings rather than just geographic ones, and that as a result some people use the term to refer to the United Kingdom and its islands (part of the archipelago) while others use it to refer to the whole archipelago, and indicate generally who uses it to mean what. That could all be covered in three sentences. At a very least the article must point out that the term is controversial.

Using it in the context of Ireland without explanation is effectively like saying Barack Obama is a negro, without explaining that the term is controversial and the person or persons against whom it is directed find its continued usage offensive. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 20:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Negro is not that controversial and offensive. It is outdated of course. But there was and is something called the United Negro College Fund. And it still exists, with its original name. As does the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, for an earlier term which was also abandoned for being old fashioned. And at one point, people attempted, with mixed success, to replace black with first Afro-American and then African American. However, the article negro here notes its historical and current usage, calmly and reasonably. And that is what should happen with British here. In fact, I am not quite sure what Jtdirl wants to have happen. Should we delete this article, just on his say so? Should we delete every article that uses the word British? What about every article that uses the word English? Should we try to get rid of ALL English Wikipedia, since it is the hated language of the hated English? Why not make a proposal to delete the entire thing Jtdirl? --Filll (talk) 20:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

As a complete outsider (from North America) this seems sort of silly, frankly. The Britons (with variant spelling) were a tribe, closely related to the Celts and other tribes, that existed for thousands of years in these islands, long before the Romans or the Norsmen or the Angles or the Saxons set foot on the shores. And the name "British Islands" was a standard and common name for several centuries. I gather that the words Britain, and "British" and similar words have suffered on the dysphemism treadmill and have gone through pejoration. Well that should be appropriately noted, but to a large chunk of the world, and historically, and to a large chunk of the inhabitants of these islands, the word "British" has not fallen out of favor at all. So by NPOV, one must include all viewpoints, right? And one viewpoint is that the words "Britain" and "British" are fine words. And another is that they are not. So they both should be represented in the article. That is what NPOV is, right?--Filll (talk) 14:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

From the OED: c. British Isles: a geographical term for the islands comprising Great Britain and Ireland with all their offshore islands including the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands (see ISLE n. 1). •Jim62sch•^dissera! 17:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

So what? Either it is disputed or it isn't. It is. Therefore the article has to point that out. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 20:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It does. TharkunColl (talk) 20:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't know the BBC had banned it. Obviously somebody forgot to tell their website! --John (talk) 20:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

There manual of style warns journalists to avoid the term wherever possible, and to use it very rarely if at all. Weather forecasts also use the same rule. As part of their training journalists are told to be very very slow to use the term. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 20:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, it seems to be used more and more in weather forecasts, as far as I can make out. It's also used a lot in BBC documentaries and other programmes. Yet we keep seeing these tired old arguments on this page that "there [sic] manual of style warns journalists to avoid the term wherever possible", and nobody has ever produced any reliable sources to back up that claim. I wonder why that is.... Waggers (talk) 20:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I hope Irish-Canadians living in British Columbia, don't protest their provinces name (Hmmm - Irish Columbia or British-Irish Columbia?). GoodDay (talk) 20:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

As that is the name of a political unit, that is hardly a problem. But if a geographic term for what is Canada had been English Canada you can imagine the outcry there would now be if it was used, from French Canadians. At one stage the term "British America" was used to refer to North America. Any bets on how many people in North America would be comfortable with that term today? FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 20:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It is geographic as well I am afraid. What about British Guyana? And speaking as someone Canadian, the English part of Canada is often referred to as English Canada and the French part of Canada is often referred to as French Canada. So what? Good heavens. This just strikes me as a tempest in a teapot and a fight about nothing at all. --Filll (talk) 20:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Well if it's not such a big deal to you, why don't you respect the fact that for many people, it's not an acceptable term, and agree to change it? Bardcom (talk) 21:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Google	Link	Hits
"British Isles"	6,030,000	[4]
"Falkland Islands"	27,800,000	[5]

Yup, not popular 'no more'. Hey, even the tiny, unpopulated, remote Falkland Islands are winning "hands down" 78.19.198.247 (talk) 21:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Without meaning to sound like I'm taking the piss but where is this BBC style book? It may well say so in such a book, but it's very easy to say such a thing without producing it. It's similarly easy to say that all or at least a large number (implied by the phrase as part of their training) journalists are told to avoid the term. And without trying to denegrate your views even if the stylebook does say that the term should be avoided, the BBC isn't exactly famed on its record for political correctnessBigHairRef | Talk 21:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry forgot to add in as well the term is also traditionally used as the name of the archipelago that broke off from Eurasia (or at least did over time). BigHairRef | Talk 21:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The BBC editorial guidelines don't contain anything about the use of the term, and the BBC News Styleguide states "The British Isles is not a politicial entity. It is a geographical unit..." One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The Guardian one is similarly silent on the subject. I am sorry if this sounds harsh but in the absence of any actual evidence of this "controversy" I am going to assume it is just the political correctness of a few Irish editors. Set up your own project if you like; meantime this is the international project and we will continue to use the international terms for things. --John (talk) 22:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Whois "we"? 78.19.198.247 (talk) 22:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The English Wikipedia community. And frankly, the Irish are so few and such a minor group that it is ridiculous to think they will make the rest of the world dance their tune. We will note their objections; that is NPOV. But to do more is nuts. So angry and it is not even clear about what. Can anyone who is some sort of Anti-British Irish nationalist actually describe what it is you expect from causing this turmoil?--Filll (talk) 22:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Whois "angry"? ;) 78.19.198.247 (talk) 22:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

"I am sorry if this sounds harsh but in the absence of any actual evidence of this 'controversy' I am going to assume it is just the political correctness of a few Irish editors." Some references dealing with the issue are here. The issue is highlighted by British and international writers.

"And frankly, the Irish are so few and such a minor group that it is ridiculous to think they will make the rest of the world dance their tune." Aye, a good job was made of that in 1846. "English Wikipedia community"? I'm sure you mean the "English-language Wikipedia community", but while you negotiate the difference between the two you might want to pay a visit to Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. --sony-youth^pléigh 23:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I see nothing there that suggests we should not use the term or that it is controversial among more than a tiny minority of people. I am a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. Political correctness is not supposed to be that project's goal. --John (talk) 23:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The systematic bias that I was referring to was in regard to Filll's comments that "the Irish are so few and such a minor group" not your comments regarding verifiability. Concerning your remarks that you see nothing to suggest that it is controversial except among a tiny minority of people, from a quick browse of the references that I directed you to:

• "[The "British Isles" (as a term) is] a locution that had been studiously avoided by Irish historians of previous generations, including those who were Ulster Unionists"
• "Since the early twentieth century, [the term "British Isles"] has been regarded by some as increasingly less usable. ... Nowadays, however, 'Britain and Ireland' is the more favoured expression."
• "Indeed, many feel that the "British Isles" is no longer a viable term, given the imperialist associations with "British.""
• "... the term is increasingly unacceptable to Irish historians in particular ..."
• "Irish historians find ... the use of terms like 'British Isles' problematic."
• "Finding an acceptable shorthand geographical description for the countries which formed the UK before the creation of Eire has proved difficult."
• "...what used to be called the "British Isles," although that is now a politically incorrect term."
• "... [Nationalist reject] the very description 'British Isles'. ... However, outside the British Isles, or these islands, if preferred, the term British Isles remains quite commonly used."
• "The expressions ["British Isles"] is not uncontroversial, especially to many in Ireland ... Yet there is no other formulation that can encapsulate the shared experience of ‘these islands’, to use another term much employed in Ireland and increasingly heard in Britain, but rather unhelpful to other inhabitants of the planet."

I stopped at the section entitled Alternate names and only took those snippets that I though were explicit. All of the quotations above are from British authors in books published by blue-chip UK-based publishing houses. --sony-youth^pléigh 00:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

You'd think an author publishing with a blue-chip publishing house would know that British Isles =/= Britain and Ireland.... One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Both of those terms are so loose that their meaning is easily pliable to cover the extent covered by the defined term. Exactly what is the extent of "Britain"? Definitions will tell you that it can be the United Kingdom or Great Britain or the immediate sphere of British influence around the UK. What is the extent of "Ireland"? Dictionaries will tell you that it can either be the state called Ireland or the island called Ireland? The "United Kingdom" under some legal interpretations (both international and domestic to the UK) is defined to include the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands. These terms are so loose that the phrase when someone refers to the combined extent of "Britain" and "Ireland" it is perfectly legitimate to interpret the meaning as being the entire archipelago - and in fact deliberate obtuseness to refuse to see it as so. --sony-youth^pléigh 10:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Controversial Term

The opening paragraph should not state, as fact, that the British Isles is a group of islands, etc. It is a controversial term, and as per NPOV, it is valid to state it as such in the lead-in. This is not the same as arguing for a name change. If the opening paragraph is changed again, I can only assume that someone has an agenda, and wants to start a new discussion while suppressing this fact. Bardcom (talk) 21:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It already says its contoversial just a few words further on. Anything more in undue weight. TharkunColl (talk) 22:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Not good enough since it comes after the term is introduced. So the opening comment asserts, as fact, that the British Isles refers to the group of islands, etc. It does not. This is not a fact, and so the opening paragraph should reflect this. Bardcom (talk) 22:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually the term British Isles does refer to both islands. If it didn't, there'd be no controversy. GoodDay (talk) 22:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually it refers to quite a lot of islands, which is why I once had to revert someone changing it to "Britain and Ireland".... One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

:-) Maybe in your head it does, but since the term British refers to the people inhabiting Great Britain, the term British Isles implies, incorrectly, that the islands are inhabited by British people, or are owned by Great Britain. The term is controversial, and I've highlighted this a little more obviously, but more appropriately. Bardcom (talk) 22:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

British also refers to the people of Northern Ireland (if you use British as meaning UK). GoodDay (talk) 22:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Not according to the dictionary....although I don't have access to OED which is probably the dictionary most preferred. But in general the definition appears to define British only in terms of Great Britain. At least it serves to highlight the problem in using the term "British" for things that don't pertain to "Great Britain" Bardcom (talk) 22:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

You completely miss the point. It is not not a case that it definitely does "refer to both islands". It is presumed by British people TO mean both islands. It is presumed by Irish People NOT to. That is why now both governments, broadcasters, media outlets and others avoid using it if at all possible. It provokes the same reaction among Irish people and among growing number of Scottish Nationalists as negro provokes among Black people, in other words as an attempt to push a cultural and political agenda.

As to Thar's nonsense, he has been pushing the same line on this page now for years. Stating something as fact and then saying that the use of the term is controversial is POV rubbish. It isn't controversial because it is controversial. It is controversial because different definitions are attached to the landmass the term refers to, and stating categorically that the term has one meaning when that is disputed is a non-starter. It was years ago when he and others like him tried to push an agenda with the article, and will be as long as this article states as fact something that is disputed by millions. By "undue weight" he means the fact that millions disagree with his POV. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 22:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

You are incorrect if you believe Irish people don't use it.

Very very few. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 22:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It has been used in parliament and by government ministers.

Still quoting the same b*llshit I see. It was used once by Sile de Valera in a script written by a civil servant. She got a rollicking from GIS for using it, and said that she was simply, as all ministers do, reading a script effectively on automatic pilot. But trust you, as in the past, to read very very rare usage by a handful of people as meaning that Irish people use it, or the fact that one minister read a script written by someone else who had used it as meaning that ministers use it. Gordon Brown some weeks back in a slip up called President Bush "President Clinton". Does that now mean, in your version of English, that British people and British ministers believe Clinton is still president? :roll: FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 22:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

And how about all those reoprts of the Irish parliament that use it? Have you forgotten about those? TharkunColl (talk) 22:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the term "Britain and Ireland" is used more in the English parliament than that relic of a brief empire, namely - "British Isles". 78.19.198.247 (talk) 23:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

And to Bardcom, the term "British" is derived from "British Isles", not the other way round. But I don't imagine that mere facts are likely to sway the politically motivated. TharkunColl (talk) 22:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

More trolling..... British - O.E. Bryttisc "of or relating to ancient Britons," from Bryttas "natives of ancient Britain". First record of British Isles is from 1621. Bardcom (talk) 00:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The traditional Tharkuncoll Alice in Wonderland version of 'facts'. As usual everyone but himself is 'politically motivated' and only he deals with 'facts'. (That would be a first.) FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 22:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm also certain some UKers are offended by Irish Sea. GoodDay (talk) 22:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Really? Any verifiable links? Or just trying to stir it up and divert....see my answer above to your continued trolling Bardcom (talk) 22:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for AGf, Bardcom. Good luck everyone. GoodDay (talk) 22:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to get into the actual controversy surrounding the use of the term, but the words "avoided by many people" that were included in a dab put at the head of this article are those of the weasely kind. --G2bambino (talk) 22:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Did you just think that one up now? Cos it's not the reason you gave on your revert.... And rather than list all of the people that avoid the term (because they're listed in the article), the term "many people" is not WP:WEASEL in this case. Bardcom (talk) 22:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

You're the troll, Bardcom. Disrupting an article that has been stable for ages, spreading your political POV. TharkunColl (talk) 22:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh no! You are!.  :-) That's funny. But. A political POV? An article that has been stable. Are we looking at the same thing? Also earlier, your assertion that the term "British" is derived from the term "British Isles" is incorrect. British - O.E. Bryttisc "of or relating to ancient Britons," from Bryttas "natives of ancient Britain". First record of British Isles is from 1621. Bardcom (talk) 23:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Getting back to the original argument. This article is about the islands and not the term. British Isles is choosen as the most common term and discussing it in the opening paragraph takes away from the main subject of the article. Although i've never understood why alternative terms are given in the first sentance as is common practice among other articles. josh (talk) 23:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

If the article is not about the "British Isles" why is it called that? If it is about the islands, why is a controversial term used and a British definition of it accepted as fact? You cannot have it both ways. If you want to talk about islands, then don't call them by a disputed term. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Every term we use would be be disputed by someone. We're just using the most commonly used one. josh (talk) 23:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

With regard to your recent edit, may I ask how "Ireland" can object to a term? It's a great big lump of rock and soil etc. TharkunColl (talk) 23:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

josh, you wrote: "Although i've never understood why alternative terms are given in the first sentance as is common practice among other articles." Did you mean to write, "Although i've never understood why alternative terms are not given in the first sentance as is common practice among other articles."? I and other tried before, even dictionary cited terms, but they were removed as POV by the "pro-British Isles" lot (sorry to make sides here, but let's face facts). --sony-youth^pléigh 23:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Why isn't anybody complaining about the 'map' at the top of the article? GoodDay (talk) 23:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I've got a feeling i've tried to put alt terms in at some point. The biggest problem with the argument is that everyone is afraid of giving a single inch. Pro-BI editors will only have British Isles mentioned at the top of the article and opposing editors will only be happy with the total obliteration of the term. The middle ground is never considered by either side. josh (talk) 23:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

You miss the point. To state as fact something which is disputed is by definition POV. If the article was about the archipelago and said in passing 'some call this the BI. So don't' that would be OK. But to state in effect 'the archipelago IS the British Isles. PS - some people won't accept that', which is what the article is constantly being edited to claim, is blatantly biased and POV. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 00:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Myself folks? I'm a very apolitical guy. If ya'll make changes at this article? make similiar changes at Irish Sea. There's one thing I'm certain of? The terms British Isles and Irish Sea will never be banned from Wikipedia (and they shouldn't be). GoodDay (talk) 00:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Mercy! You're trolling again. Stop trying to link in topics that are not relevant. Or even make a half decent effort to explain why they're linked. But please, for mercy sake, stop trolling on this. Bardcom (talk) 00:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Frankly GD your posts are increasingly ridiculous. No-one disputes the "Irish Sea", or the "English Channel". But there is a major dispute over whether "British Isles" applies to the entire archipelago anymore, or just the major part of it that the Queen reigns over. The reason why there has been a dispute for 90 years over BI has been explained to you over and over. Try listening to the arguments instead of throwing up complete nonsense posts. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 00:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

GoodDay, I've gone a little bit of the way and created a Manx Sea redirect for you, but without any verifiable source that's really all that can be done. Your politics or otherwise are of no interest here. We work on the three pillars, no more, no less. You are perfectly entitled to you're view on the Irish Sea, but I would ask that you keep an NPOV, please. --sony-youth^pléigh 00:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not missing any points (it's pretty hard when they're repeated over and over and over and ovZZZZZZZ). We already have two articles (British Isles naming dispute and British Isles (terminology) that are more appropriate to the dispute about the name. There are plenty of articles that have contraversial names without obsessing about them (Derry, Japan Sea, Persian Gulf and FYR Macedonia to name a few). Its just a name, the article is about the bunch of rocks that it refers to. josh (talk)

User:Jtdirl, you wrote: "To state as fact something which is disputed is by definition POV." Is it disputed that Ireland (or any part thereof) is in the "British" Isles? I have never seen this disputed (although I have seen uses where Ireland or parts thereof has been left out e.g. in phrases use as "British Isles and Ireland"). I thought that what was under "dispute" was the term itself, not what it means.

josh, on your earlier comment ("The biggest problem with the argument is that everyone is afraid of giving a single inch. ... The middle ground is never considered by either side.") I couldn't agree more, but how to get out of this situation is the problem. I've fallen foul of that trap myself on many occasions. --sony-youth^pléigh 09:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

It's true the people living on the island of Ireland, have found & still find the term British Isles offensive (I've never denied that). If some editors here, don't appreciate my apolitical views on this continuing discussion, over a word? tough. I must say, I'm disappointed in the crappy way, some here are treating me. GoodDay (talk) 15:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Goodday, you are a very good editor and very fair in what you write, and it's always refreshing to read your posts. I really do agree, and believe that the troll word should be completely avoided. It's unhelpful, and all editors are entitled to engage in discussion without these irritating words being bandied about. Cheers! 78.19.63.88 (talk) 15:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks 78.19.63.88. In order to encourage an ending to the disputing & discourage the continuing edit warring? I've put in a request for this article's full protection. GoodDay (talk) 15:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

No matter how much some huff and puff, the fact remains that to some people (either now or in the past), the British Isles refers to the island archipelago of about 5000 islands on which is located the Republic of Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, England and Wales. Does anyone deny this?

It might not be politically correct, in all places. It might not be a current usage. It might be obsolete. It might be only something foreigners use. Some groups might want to discourage its use. Ok fair enough; we note all that. However, it does not allow us to rewrite history, or demand that 1-2 billion people must change their language usage to make some fraction of about 3.5 million people feel comfortable. I looked at about 10+ dictionaries at http://www.onelook.com and they all had the definition of British Isles we are presenting here. If you are on a campaign to remove the phrase "British Isles" completely from English, you will have to do a lot better than just intimidating a few people on Wikipedia and throwing a few childish tantrums, because the libraries worldwide and many many books use the phrase in a way you probably disagree with. I note that there are about 45 Wikipedia articles in a variety of languages that use pretty much the same meaning of the phrase "British Isles". Will you demand that all the Wikipedia articles on the British Isles in other languages change as well?--Filll (talk) 15:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Hear hear. --John (talk) 15:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

In agreement aswell. The it's offensive complaints concerning British Isles or any other terms? are tiresome & boring. I'm certain there's editors out their who find the the existance of the article Israel? offensive. Look at the 'images' fight at Muhammad. Honestly folks, a politically-correct Wikipedia, will turn away alot of editors? GoodDay (talk) 16:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

It's just not true. For a start, don't think it's an archipelago. Archipelago is more for a cluster of "small islands". Great Britain or Ireland are far from small islands, actually pretty big ones, dare I say! " Will you demand that all the Wikipedia articles on the British Isles in other languages change as well?--Filll"If you translate all those other languages into English, you get British Islands. 78.19.63.88 (talk) 16:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely agree. However, there are two sides in every dispute. In this one the obverse is a party of contributors to this encyclopedia that demand that the only legitimate way to refer to the clumps of rock that many of us are resting our weight upon as we type is to call them the British Isles. This is patent nonsense. Their cries, that anyone who would do so or ask that this encyclopedia have a greater degree of linguistic diversity or sensitivity must be a Fenian blunderbuss, belie a deep-seeded bias of their own. Will you demand that all Wikipedia articles only call these islands the British Isles? --sony-youth^pléigh 16:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I sure don't want British Isles forced on any articles, just like I don't want it deleted from any articles. I've the same opinons on Irish Sea, Sea of Japan, English Channel, Lake Ontario etc. GoodDay (talk) 16:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

You completely miss the point, yet again. No-one is calling for "British Isles" to deleted from Wikipedia. All they are saying (and will continue to say - BTW this dispute has gone on for a number of years on Wikipedia and will continue to go on ad infinitum if necessary from a lot of editors here) is that the term has now two meanings: a traditional meaning, which meant the entire archipelago, and a series of modern meanings, with some people insisting it means the entire archipelago, some saying it means the archipelago minus the Republic of Ireland, a lot of people in between avoiding the term altogether because of the controversy the term generates in Ireland, in Scotland, in Wales and internationally. As long as this article insists on stating, as fact, that either side's version is the definitive one, and does not state in the opening paragraph that the term is applying by some to mean x but by others to mean something different, then there will be edit wars. There have been for 3 years. There will be for another 3 years or longer, until certain posters, mainly in Britain, stop trying to state their POV as fact and attacking the millions to who disagree with their POV. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 19:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

There are plenty of reliable sources that indicate the first definition (the whole archipelago) - I've yet to see any that indicate the second (archipelago minus the Republic of Ireland) is in popular use. Please could you provide some. Waggers (talk) 20:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec) "If you translate all those other languages into English, you get British Islands." - that's because the words "isles" and "islands" have very similar (if not identical) meanings; "British Isles" would be just as valid a translation into English from most of those languages. As for whether the islands are small or large, it depends on perspective and point of view. Honshū for example is much much bigger than any of the British Isles and is still referred to as part of the Japanese Archipelago. What's more, the WP article on the subject says "An archipelago is a chain or cluster of islands." - no mention of "small" anywhere there. Waggers (talk) 16:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

A very sensible article indeed is Japanese Archipelago, I see no unnecessary padding in the article. And it's called the Japanese Archipelago because the islands belongs to the state of Japan. 78.19.217.229 (talk) 18:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Is the island of Sakhalin in the Japanese Archipelago? Could some editor fix that page please. 78.19.217.229 (talk) 18:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

No, it's called Japanese Archipelago because that's the most commonly used English language name for the group of islands, just like British Isles is the most commonly used English language name for the British Isles. Waggers (talk) 20:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey Waggers, I notice you didn't address the problem regarding Sakhalin. What's your take on it? Is it in the Japanese Archipelago, or is it not? 78.19.217.229 (talk) 20:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, it's not my area of expertise and the article doesn't say either way. A quick Google search doesn't bring up anything conclusive either. Presumably you're trying to draw parallels with Ireland, but there's a clear difference: every definition of "British Isles" in a reliable source includes it. Waggers (talk) 20:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

"There are plenty of reliable sources that indicate the first definition ..." There are plenty of reliable sources that indicate (to quote two) that it is a "a politically incorrect term" and that "many feel that the "British Isles" is no longer a viable term". These are the words of respected British authors, published by blue-chip British publishing houses. Yet there is still a persistence that it is a marginal opinion and that a desire to have it reflected in the writings of Wikipedia is the stuff of Irish terrorists and extremists. While that derogation continues, there is no chance that peace will exist on this page. The failure for both parties is one of not assuming good faith - though, possibly as a result of my POV on the matter, I feel that the failure of imagination lies greatest on one side than the other. --sony-youth^pléigh 10:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't deny that there were sources that say that "many feel that the "British Isles" is no longer a viable term"; the second assertion was that a common definition of "British Isles" is the group of islands excluding Ireland. It's that assertion that I was requesting references for; the fact that the term is controversial and not accepted by some is already stated, and referenced, in the article. Waggers (talk) 11:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Cool. If other's could learn from your lead, extending such a maturity of respect to other editors, I think we'd all get along better. --sony-youth^pléigh 11:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

(Deintent)The article on Great Britain informs us:

The name Britannia derived from the travel writings of the ancient Greek Pytheas around 320 BC, which described various islands in the North Atlantic as far North as Thule (probably Iceland). Although Pytheas' own writings do not survive, later Greek writers described the islands as the αι Βρεττανιαι or the Brittanic Isles. The peoples of these islands of Prettanike were called the Πρεττανοι, Priteni or Pretani. These names derived from a Celtic name which is likely to have reached Pytheas from the Gauls, who may have used it as their term for the inhabitants of the islands. Priteni is the source of the Welsh language term Prydain, Britain, which has the same source as the Goidelic term Cruithne used to refer to the early Brythonic speaking inhabitants of Ireland and the north of Scotland. The latter were later called Picts or Caledonians by the Romans. (Sorry - I am not trying to cite wikipedia, Just easier to quote that page than to just list references to the items cited in that article

so Brittanic islands goes back a thousand years before the first use of the term Great Britain in 1604, not a decade later, as user:Bardcom would have us believe. In fact: The political entity Great Britain derives its name from the geographic entity British Isles of which it forms a major part, just as the political entity Ireland derives its name from the geographic entity Ireland, of which it forms a major part. Can user:Bardcom (or anyone else) explain why one of those sentances is deemed to be POV IdreamofJeanie (talk) 20:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Not quite. During the period that you refer to the larger island was known as Albion. Following the Roman conquest, the area under Roman control became known as Britannia, and use of the term to describe the entire archipelago (which as you point out was then taken to include Iceland) dropped our of use. Over time Britannia came to refer to the whole of the larger island and Albion reduced to the mean the area not under Roman control (see Alba). So it remained for a millennium-and-a-half or so until we see a sudden discovery of "British" identity among those in the southern portion of the larger island - the area that had been conquered by the Romans, the occupants of which at that time had chased the genuine Priteni out of that land a thousand years earlier - wherein, suddenly, we find people pronouncing that the name of these islands were the "British" Islands after all despite a marked change in the nomenclautre of the islands (and even what islands are included under that term) since the last time they had been called so, over a millennium-and-a-half earlier. I, personally, have no problem with this, so long it is agreed that all terminology return to it pre-Roman state i.e. the larger island is once again referred to as Albion (and it's people presumably as Albanians) and that Britannia is once again taken to include Iceland, which we well need to refer to as Thule from here-out, and of course someone will have to inform the Icelander that are British. That, however, is the stuff of ridicule - as is the term "British" Isles itself - but without doing so we continue the politicised 17th century aberration of a term that had dropped out of use over 15,000 years before then. --sony-youth^pléigh 21:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Sony. Also, see here Hibernia. Bardcom (talk) 22:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

It is unreasonable to assert that Iceland was regarded as part of the British Isles when the identity of Thule has never been proven. It could just as likely refer to any of the groups of islands to the north of Scotland, as has been proposed many times. TharkunColl (talk) 00:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back Thark. The article on Thule recognizes the uncertainty, but at the same time points out that it is as likely to have referred to Iceland as anywhere else. The point that Sony makes is that one shouldn't/can't make a historical argument for the term "British Isles". This is accentuated by the current dictionary definition of the term "British" which appears to preclude any association with Ireland. Bardcom (talk) 22:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

"Ireland, it's parliament and government"

A recent edit inserted this text into the article:

“ Ireland, its parliament and government, does not regard itself as being covered by the term. ”

I'm not going to revert it because I don't want an edit war to kick off, but this claim is not supported by references.

1. One of the references is that the Government of Ireland does not use the term. It does not support the claim that the Government "does not regard itself as being covered by the term". There are other references that indeed the Government does regard Ireland as being covered by the term, but that they object to the term has having a "dated ring".
2. The Oireachtas has never made any comment on the term. For it to do so a joint-resolution would have to be passed by the Dáil and Seanad and that would have be assented to by the President. That had not happened and so say that it has is a lie.
3. The legal entity called Ireland has never spoken on the term. To do so, for this to happen I don't know what would have to happen ... in any event, it hasn't.

Can editors please be cautious with their enthusiasm to demonstrate disdain for the term. There is ample verifiable evidence without having to resort to exaggeration. --sony-youth^pléigh 23:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah. I changed the sentence to "The Irish government does not..." while you were writing the above. Please suggest alternatives :-) In any case, there are already three articles discussing the issue of "these islands" in some depth:

• This article - which is supposed to be about the geography and history.
• British Isles naming dispute - about the term itself.
• British Isles (terminology) - about "the extent, names and geographical elements of the island group".

So, in the interests of neutrality, can we leave the lead of this article more or less as it is now (or recently was), for coverage of the islands (including early reference to the controversy, without giving it undue weight) - and cover the dispute and terminology in their respective articles? Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 00:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC) (Just betting I get an edit conflict...)

Ok, no edit conflict - but JtdIrl has reverted my change mentioned above. Given what Sony has said above, Jtd, do you want to self-revert? Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 00:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted. I think your changes make no sense. To say that the 'government' doesn't regard itself as being covered by the term makes no sense. "British Isles" refers to a group of islands, not governments.

In any case, if all parties (as they have) reject the term (name one government for any party that has used or supported the term), if the Irish media reject the term as applying to Ireland (even the 'newspaper of record', the Irish times), if all polls show the Irish people reject the term as applying to Ireland, then by definition that means Ireland, its parliament and its government.

As to 'joint resolutions', you may know what a joint resolution is. Joint resolutions are not used to define terminology. Acceptance of a term is either an issue of law (which this would not be) or executive policy. It is not an issue for a joint resolution.

As to Ireland not having spoken on the term, that's what countries have governments for, to speak for them.

Your edit makes no sense. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 00:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

PS. I have been trying to save this here but kept getting caught in edit conflicts. (If I thought the edit was salvageable I would have left it and tweaked it. But it seemed to be too inaccurate in understanding the process of decision-making in a state.

"...if the Irish media reject the term as applying to Ireland (even the 'newspaper of record', the Irish times)". Let's be real - one hack, Kevin Myers, employed to give his opinion, which he took as permission to be as controversial as possible. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 00:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

If you think it is just "one hack" (who actually doesn't even write for that paper anymore) you have a very superficial knowledge of the topic. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 00:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm well aware the hack has departed - I can read the paper now without raising my blood pressure. But if you think the Irish Times (the newspaper of record) don't use the term British Isles anymore, you have a very superficial knowledge of the topic... Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 01:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Firstly I do know Irish Times policy on the term. I write for the paper. Secondly it has a policy of avoiding the term and if used using it uses it in relation to places on the archipelago other than the Republic of Ireland. Thirdly, the only times it normally crops up is when it, like other papers, uses articles from British newspapers. Normally the sub editors spot it and remove it. If they miss it, the following day or two they put in a correction in its correction link stating that the term was used by the Guardian service, or the Telegraph service, and was not corrected by the sub editor. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 21:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Bastoon, get facts right before you put them into print. You may not agree with other editors, and that's perfectly OK. But please remember WP:NPA. 78.19.21.70 (talk) 14:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Anon IP, I'll take you seriously when you apply the same reminder to everyone equally - and get yourself an account. I think I've demonstrated the facts correctly. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 19:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if you misinterpreted me. You were clearly wrong with your facts, then when you were corrected you got a bit sniffy, and then made a PA. You should have admitted your mistake, and moved on. I have also supported GoodDay, as you may see above. I don't bother with accounts as I only edit for a couple days each month, and have lost my password too. I don't think is required either. Thanks! 78.19.217.229 (talk) 19:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

How was I wrong with my facts? JTD said the Irish Times didn't use the term - I found it in several articles dated after the Myers' "these islands" reference. (I now note JTD's additional comment above, but all of the examples I gave have IT bylines, I think. No attribution to other sources and I deliberately left out quotes when I supplied the examples.) And what PA? I merely repeated back what JTD said back to him. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 00:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

They don't use the term. Like many newspapers they buy in stuff from various news services. Those services follow conventions from their countries. They often buy in features articles and obituaries from the Guardian and Telegraph services. (No-one buys much from the London Times since Murdoch ruined that paper.) Their subs are supposed to edit the text to remove conventions from the country the paper they bought the stuff from. So from the US they will replace The Fed by The Federal Reserve. British papers write The Queen. That is replaced by The British queen. If an obituary or a feature includes British Isles it is removed. But as often happens in papers (as I know from experience having spent years writing for the Irish Times, The Guardian and elsewhere) sometimes a sub forgets to proof an article, especially if it arrives for the op-ed page very late, and it goes in as received. The editor usually bawls out the section editor if that happens and a correction is carried in the correction box the following day, or a day after. The last time I saw "British Isles" used was about three months ago in a first edition, when Telegraph copy arrived in in the nick of time and the sub didn't proof it. (It arrived so late they thought it would not come in at all and I was asked to do a quick piece for the space if the Telegraph stuff didn't arrive. It arrived within 10 minutes of the last minute it could be used, having been due in eight hours earlier. I was pissed off as I had done a rush replacement article that then was not used.) There was war over the fact that the Telegraph copy referred to "The Queen" and "The British isles". The second edition had those terms removed (or rather "The Queen" referred to as "the British queen" while "British Isles" was replaced immediately by "Britain and Ireland", and a correction carried the following day saying that British terms had not been taken out of the copy due to a sub error.

The facts are simple. The Times don't use "British Isles". It is on their "do not use" list we all received. Not that we needed that list because we wouldn't use it anyway. If it ever appears it appears in foreign copy that some half-asleep or overworked sub didn't spot. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 00:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

In that case, I stand corrected. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 01:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

"The second edition had those terms removed (or rather "The Queen" referred to as "the British queen" while "British Isles" was replaced immediately by "Britain and Ireland", and a correction carried the following day saying that British terms had not been taken out of the copy due to a sub error." Jtdirl, very interesting story. Do you have a link/ref to the story and the correction (it would be especially good if you could show the changes so that we can see what exactly were the "British Terms"). Since all of this is verifiable, in the absence of a verifiable manual of style for subs at the Irish Times, it would serve a rather excellent proof that this is not just Taidhg wackos making this up. Indeed for a newspaper to publish a correction over a matter of manual of style demonstrates the weight of opinion. --sony-youth^pléigh 10:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Page Protection -- What's the Problem?

I see User:GoodDay has asked for protection of article British Isles. Seeing that this "protection" will not be lifted until March 27-2008, I think User:GoodDay should come on this page and explain this very hasty mind boggling intervention. User:GoodDay, I would like you to explain your actions at this forum, so we can countermand this non-sensible protection. Thank you. 78.19.217.229 (talk) 22:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I've requested 'page protection' in order to stop the 'edit warring' over the article's content. PS- Anybody is allowed to request 'unprotection', if they feel the edit warring won't continue (upon unprotection) or if they feel 'protection' was unwarranted. GoodDay (talk) 22:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

In addition, GoodDay's request is already available for all to see at Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#British_Isles - there's no need to repeat every listing there on the said article's talk page. Furthermore, protection isn't automatic once a page is listed there, each case is reviewed individually by an administrator. Clearly the admin in question felt that GoodDay's request was a valid one. I for one don't see the point of whinging when due process has been fully observed. Waggers (talk) 23:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Nobody's whinging, but what's the point. There is no point in going through useless exercises of page protection, is there? 78.19.217.229 (talk) 23:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

One of the purposes of page protection is to prevent edit warring. GoodDay noticed that edit warring was taking place and requested protection. The page is protected and as a result there's now no edit warring. That's not "useless", it's what page protection is there for. Waggers (talk) 08:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

It's probably my perception, I didn't see an edit war, and I have witnessed war. 78.19.98.51 (talk) 10:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I didn't see anything that merits protection either, but two respected and upstanding users did. As GoodDay says, anyone can request unprotection at any time, (and edits can still be made by request) so there really isn't much of a big deal. Waggers (talk) 11:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

No war, but that was a whole lot of "Undid revision ..." etc. It probably is wisest to put a stop on it for a week or two or until tempers die down. Although, Waggers, describing others through the use of words like "whinging" does not hurry that process along. --sony-youth^pléigh 11:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

whinge: To complain or protest, especially in an annoying or persistent manner. - do you deny that that's what's happening here? Waggers (talk) 11:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Now now Waggers, I wasn't whinging, I was "engaging". Let's be honest, it was a bit sniffy of you, especially when it wasn't true. ;~))), how's that! 78.19.98.51 (talk) 11:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm willing to take that one on the chin. :) Waggers (talk) 11:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

So was 78.19.217.229 being especially "annoying" or "persistent"? :) --sony-youth^pléigh 11:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Bad kiddies, warring and suchlike. I thought Bradcom made an excellent edit before the Big Freeze. Where do I apply to re-insert it? Sarah777 (talk) 12:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Sarah, I thought the edit was perfectly reasonable. If an edit such as the one I made is reverted on the grounds that it changed the "tone" of the article - it appears to me that a de-facto page protection of sorts was already in force. Bardcom (talk) 20:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Yup, that's a perfectly good NPOV edit. The page is being protected very fiercely by some of our colleagues. It's almost like going near to the dog-house, to edit the British Isles. It appears that Britain owns the British Isles on Wikipedia too. So that counts Ireland out. QED. 78.19.98.51 (talk) 20:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as there's some disagreement over the article being protected? Perhaps it's best to continue the protection. GoodDay (talk) 18:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

That makes sense in some alternate universe I guess. Sarah777 (talk) 20:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

To answer your earlier question Sarah, there are two ways of applying for a change to be made to a protected page. The first is to request unprotection, the second is to propose a change here on the talk page and add the {{editprotected}} template if and when consensus for the change is established. PS it's refreshing to be told off by you rather than the other way round! :) Waggers (talk) 14:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. And notice how polite I am Waggers? Sarah777 (talk) 18:29, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep, well done. Keep it up :) Waggers (talk) 12:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately most English people will never understand.

Please, please, please do not delete this post. It deserves to stay here, people really need to understand why there is such an issue surrounding this name and I really believe that most British people just do not understand it. Maybe in the future when British schools start teaching the truth about the British empire will we start to see perceptions change, but that day is still far away. (I am an Irishman who grew up and went to school in England - and it is indeed true that most of the English people I know just presume that Ireland is part of Great Britain because of the whole "British Isles" thing).

As we draw closer to another Easter it is fitting that we are reminded of the first attempt at a declaration of Irish independence, or as it is properly known The Proclamation of the Irish Republic that was signed in 1916 after a brave but doomed to failure stand against the British during the Easter Rising. Ireland at this time was still under a tyrannical and unwanted British rule. Ireland was British against her peoples wishes, Ireland was british at gunpoint. The British stole land and treated the Irish no differently than they treated the Native Americans and the Aborigines while on their empire building missions.

"We declare the right of the people of Ireland to the ownership of Ireland, and to the unfettered control of Irish destinies, to be sovereign and indefeasible. The long usurpation of that right by a foreign people and government has not extinguished the right, nor can it ever be extinguished except by the destruction of the Irish people."

This was signed by seven brave men who were willing to give up their lives in order to see an Ireland free from British rule. In the days that followed all seven were executed by the British being accused of treason of all things. But of course it was their deaths that played a big part in what was to follow, a war with the British and then a civil war that would eventually lead to a free state that would be followed by the declaration of the Irish Republic. Many, many Irish people lost their lives in fighting for Ireland to be free of British rule, my family, many Irish peoples family. The country was torn apart (literally) and took a very long time to get to the great state that the Republic of Irelands finds itself in now.

The term "British Isles" is an insult to every Irishman who lost their lives during centuries of a British rule that was determined to not let the Irish people rise above the status of an animal. The many many people who starved to death during the great famine and the millions more who had no choice but to leave Ireland for good to seek a better life elsewhere. I don't care what the correct name for the Islands used to be, Or what some people think it should be. It is completely clear that Ireland is no longer ruled by Britain and therefore is not part of the British Isles.

Ayres Rock was renamed Uluru despite the fact that most (if not all) maps, guide books and texts at the time clearly had only one name for the formation. So we do have a precedent here. I am of the opinion that the term 'British isles" has disappeared from common usage and it is only backward sources such as this wikipedia article that will still doggedly continue with its use and therefore will help keep it use alive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.167.213.128 (talk) 13:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

You forgot to mention that in 1916, the UK was in the middle of the bloodiest war in history, and that the Irish "freedom fighters" were funded by the opposing side, namely Germany. In such times, justice can be harsh, especially to those who rebel against the state and seek to dismember it. As an Irishman who "grew up and went to school in England", you appear to have a very poor opinion of the country that nurtured you. TharkunColl (talk) 16:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey Tarkum, this is not Speakers Corner!!

Indeed. Which also applies to 58.167.213.128, of course. WP:NOT#FORUM applies to everyone. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 18:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I knew you'd say that! LOL 78.19.5.160 (talk) 19:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• I propose to delete this section - it fails to make a factual case, and instead tries to pull on heartstrings. Bardcom (talk) 20:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep, Britain fought for 4 years, with the help of 60,000 Irish soldiers dead, from 1914-1918, and they're still cribbing, and no word of thanks. Ireland fought for nearly 400 years against a mighty aggressor, and never ceded defeat. 78.19.5.160 (talk) 20:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Tharkun, I have enough respect for Britain now, and have many English friends. But that does not mean to say the past deeds of Britain were not vile. Germany were not bankrolling the Irish fight for independence at all, total lies. Most of the money came from America and help also came from Spain. Many Irish were fighting alongside British soldiers in WW1. You need to understand that Britain were occupying Ireland in what today would be classed as an Illegal occupation. War or no war ireland wanted independence from Britain and won it. If the boot was on the other foot and it was Britain who had won freedom from an oppressive nation you know damn well that there is no way Britain would still be called "The German Isles" or something similar. I promise I am not anti-British, this has nothing do do with this. I grew up in Britain, my wife is British. But It is true that they do not teach the truth in British schools. the truth of what Britain has done to countries such as Ireland does not get discussed and therefore I fully understand why many English people are unable to comprehend why the term 'British Isles' is so insulting. It has nothing to do with hating the British, or not wanting to be associated with Britain. It is just that the lives that were lost and the pain that was suffered to rid Ireland of a barbaric occupation by Britain deserve something better than to still be called 'The British Isles' by people too ignorant to know better.

I thought this whole discussion was deleted, as being a soapbox? GoodDay (talk) 20:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

It is important it remains as many people have no comprehension at to why this discussion is such an emotional subject. This is not PPOV this is all facts so how can it be a soapbox? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.167.213.128 (talk) 20:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Because it is irrelevant. Please read the archives - we've been over this countless times before. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 20:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

How can it be irrelevant? We are talking about the name 'The British Isles'. It is surely important to understand why that name is seen as offensive to many people, there is nothing irrelevant about it at all. To call it Irrelevant just highlights that you do not give a stuff about the truth of this debate you only care about your own POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.167.213.128 (talk) 21:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. Irrelevant, because if you actually read the article, you'd see that the question of the name, its use, and people's attitude to it is dealt with comprehensively in the lede and the linked articles on the British Isles (terminology) and British Isles naming dispute articles. (And while checking the latter I see you've posted a similar opinion piece there...). WP is not a forum. WP abides by policies including WP:NPOV and WP:VER. This article abides by them. NPOV, because all sides of the argument are presented. WP:VER, because the term "British Isles" - like it or loathe it - is commonly applied to include the island of Ireland. Your opinion piece above - while heartfelt, and valid - is just opinion. Lastly - if you are going to participate here, you should create an account, and in future address the argument, not attack the person. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 22:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Attack the person? What about the patronising use of the "sigh" at the start of your comment? Is there any superwiki guidelines about patronising other users or is it just about attacking them? Anyway love it or loath it the use of the term 'British Isles' is only still used because there are some sources such as wikipedia that have not caught up with the modern world and realised it is insulting. I do however understand your point about WP not being a forum, but there has to be debate about the use of this term as so many people feel it should not be used anymore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.167.213.128 (talk) 22:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Is there something you wish to 'add' or 'subtract' from this article, anon? GoodDay (talk) 23:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

"The British Isles are a group of islands off the northwest coast of continental Europe comprising Great Britain, Northern Ireland and a number of smaller islands. The term "British Isles" used to include the entire Island of Ireland during the time Ireland was under British rule but since the formation of the Irish republic the phrase "British Isles" now just refers to the Islands of Great Britain, Northern Ireland, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands. The preferred term to describe all the islands that comprise the United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland is "islands of Great Britain and Ireland" ." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.167.213.128 (talk) 23:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

(EC) The fact that a Google search shows over 20 million hits for "British Isles" [6] would seem to belie your claim that it is not used. Over 40,000 hits limiting the search to Irish websites. [7].

As to your last point - this is an encyclopedia. It reports on verifiable facts - regardless of what "people feel" or your opinion of what the term should or should not cover. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 23:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

PS - Can you please get an account - or at least sign your posts using four tildes?

Using google hits to determine this is plainly ridiculous. Nobody is saying that the term "British Isles" is not used, it is in which context it is used that matters, British Isles does refer to the Islands that make up Great Britain, so as a term it will always exist and have many hits on google. It does not prove however that The British isles should include Ireland.Murphy71 (talk) 23:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you're confusing the British Isles with the British Islands - they're two different entities, and the British Isles includes Ireland according to every reliable source that we've found to date. Waggers (talk) 12:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Islands of Great Britain, Northern Ireland... (58.167.213.128)? And Islands that make up Great Britain (Murphy71)? I wasn't aware that Northern Ireland is an island; nor that Great Britain is a group of islands. What name should be used for the whole island group? — that is, Great Britain, Ireland, the Isle of Man, Anglesey, the Hebrides, the Aran Islands, etc. etc. I've searched in vain for one which people might recognise. Bazza (talk) 13:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, apparently the most common name is "British Isles". Shall we use that? Waggers (talk) 13:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

It isn't just that it's the most common, but that it is the only one. These Islands has been mentioned in the past but is no good out of context; British Isles and Ireland omits, for example, the Aran Islands; British and Irish Isles excludes the Isle of Man. Bazza (talk) 14:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm still not certain as to what we're discussing. No one's yet explained what they want added or removed from this article. GoodDay (talk) 15:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Uluru vs Ayers Rock

Okay, I have an account now.

Apologies if this argument has been used before but I see people using google hits as a way of determining how popular the phrase "British Isles" is. A google search on Uluru yields 1,270,00 results while a search on Ayers Rock yields 1,822,00 results. By your logic then we should still be calling this rock formation Ayers Rock and yet Wikipedia does indeed call it Uluru. But we do not because Ayers Rock is an name that was deemed to be offensive to the Aboriginal community and the decision was made to start referring to it as its Aboriginal name. Many people whether they are ignorant or just bloody minded still call it Ayers Rock however and the number of hits on google seem to bear this out. Murphy71 (talk) 23:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Anon, you're rambling on. What exactly do you want 'removed' from this article or rewritten? Please answer in less then a paragraph. GoodDay (talk) 23:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about GoodDay? Rambling on? Sorry, so anybody who disagreed with you is just rambling on? That's how it works is it?. If you bother to lift your head a little bit higher you will see that I actually already answered your request with a paragraph. And anyway, who are you to be telling people what they should be doing and restricting them to a paragraph or smaller? Not your call I am afraid matey. Please see my previous answer. Murphy71 (talk) 23:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

My point is, we already know that people living on Ireland, dislike the term British Isles. GoodDay (talk) 23:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The Uluru argument is tendentious. The population of the British Isles is about 64 million. Over 60 million of those don't have a problem with the name British Isles - at least, no evidence whatsoever has been presented that they do - and we don't even know what proportion of the inhabitants of the Republic have a problem with it. Either way, if the vast majority of people in a place call it by a certain name, then that's it's name (for example, see Derry). TharkunColl (talk) 00:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The Uluru argument is not there to support my own argument, it is only there to highlight the folly of using google search results as evidence and I think it does that very well, I would like to see no more google search results being used in this way.

I am not disputing the name "British isles" and if most of the population of Britain have no problem with it then there is no issue calling the Islands of Great Britain the British Isles. They are indeed the British Isles. But the Republic of Ireland is clearly no longer part of the British Isles because the word 'British' implies ownership and this is certainly not the case with Ireland. The opinion of British people have no bearing whatsoever on whether ireland can be called part of the British Isles, only the Irish people should have this right. So the population of Great Britain is irrelevant in this instance. The way you are constructing your argument you have effectively sealed Irelands fate as to ever belonging to Britain despite the war of independence being fought and won which proves otherwise.

When Scotland achieves independence from Great Britain it will be because the population of Scotland want it, not because the population of Great Britain want it. The referendum will be in Scotland only as it is rightly deemed the people of England have no choice in this matter. Ignorance and bad teaching is not a sold foundation to build the identity of a republic nation on, if the majority of Britain really believe that Ireland is still part of the British Isles then that is their ignorance showing through and changes nothing. Ireland is not part of the British Isles, this is a fact and a fact that people are going to have to get used to. The empire is long dead and there are much bigger fights to be won in Great Britain and that is where you should all be devoting your time to, not keeping alive this ancient and tired dream of Rule Britannia. Murphy71 (talk) 01:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Some of those who still use the term BI, go around blowing bugles at dawn after hoisting the union jack. They must be frequenting the Victorian Municipal Library for their refs. Most Irish people never use the term, it's an anachronism, a relic of a dead empire. "ahh" 78.19.5.160 (talk) 02:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The fact is that we simply don't know how many Irish people dislike the term or don't use it, because no survey has ever been taken. Only those people who object to it would be minded to post messages here or write to newspapers, etc., and they might be a tiny minority. Or they might not be - again, we have no idea. What we do know, however, is that Irish people do use it - including Irish newspapers, the Irish parliament, and Irish government ministers. So it is clearly not the case that it is no longer used in Ireland. And just for the record, the term predates the British Empire by about 2000 years, and was used by the Ancient Greeks and Romans. The argument that they didn't use the English version of the name, and therefore it doesn't count, is, of course, ridiculous. TharkunColl (talk) 09:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Quote, "the term predates the British Empire by about 2000 years, and was used by the Ancient Greeks and Romans." Un-quote. On that basis Iceland must be included in the BI. You can't start massaging history to suit a modern day spin. I don't want to get into Godwin's Law here, but there are many fine examples. 78.19.65.254 (talk) 11:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Greater Germany, greater Britain. --sony-youth^pléigh 11:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

"The population of the British Isles is about 64 million. ..." As we move away from a century-and-a-half period of depopulation, where 4 out of 5 Irish men, women and children perished or were exiled owing to British colonial rule in Ireland, it's a little rich for any person who posts comments such as this to call another argument "tendentious".

"The fact is that we simply don't know how many Irish people dislike the term or don't use it, because no survey has ever been taken." Published accounts describe it as "many" on both Ireland and Britain. We know that it is a political faux pas. We should stick with published reports, not our own anecdotal perception.

"... the term predates the British Empire by about 2000 year ..." Now, now, my Albanion friend, you know that this is disingenuous.

With regard to Uluru/Ayers Rock, it's my understanding that both names are official, and indeed that Ayers Rock would be the most common. Although, that both names can co-exist without suspicion of each other does demonstrate a parity of esteem that is lacking among the contributors to this article. --sony-youth^pléigh 10:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

"However, Minister for Foreign Affairs Dermot Ahern has ruled that the term is not used by the Government and is without any official status." [8] A spokesman for the Irish Embassy in London said: “The British Isles has a dated ring to it, as if we are still part of the Empire. We are independent, we are not part of Britain, not even in geographical terms. We would discourage its useage.”[9]

Whether you like it or not it is now plainly obvious that it is time for Ireland to be finally removed from the British Isles. Users like TharkunColl seem to be pushing an agenda that just has no place in the modern world. The British Empire is dead and buried and it is indeed time that all notions of British ownership of Ireland are put to bed. Murphy71 (talk) 11:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest that TharkunColl and GoodDay get their heads together for a chat..

"My point is, we already know that people living on Ireland, dislike the term British Isles." GoodDay (talk) 23:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

"The fact is that we simply don't know how many Irish people dislike the term or don't use it..." TharkunColl (talk) 09:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC) Murphy71 (talk) 12:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The term "British Isles" no more implies British rulership of Ireland than "Indian Subcontinent" implies Indian rulership of Pakistan. The problem is, that in order to reject the term, you must first redefine it to mean something that it doesn't. Many people in the UK hate being in the European Union, but should the UK ever leave then no one would suggest that the UK was no longer part of the European continent. Your quotations from government representatives are all very well, but politicians cannot alter language, no matter how much they might try - and it would be a very sad world if they could. Even that spokesman for the Irish embassy has got it wrong, because no one ever suggested that Ireland is geographically part of Britain. The terms "Britain" and "British Isles" are not synonymous. There is nothing at all unusual in a group of islands having a similar name to their largest island (e.g. Gran Canaria). TharkunColl (talk) 12:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I do love the way in which you insist that Ireland is part of some semi-mythical "Britain", but at the same time reject the notion that the Irish can have a defining role in it. Ireland is a part of "Britain", but it is the people of the southern portion of the larger island that know better as to what that means. Nothing very new there, but lovable in its quaintness none-the-less.

Back in reality, we are here to report the facts, not pronounce our judgements upon them. The Government of Ireland reject the term, as do many in the UK. You may not like that, TharkunColl of Albion, but your opinion is neither-here-nor-there. --sony-youth^pléigh 12:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I actually said that Ireland was not part of Britain. Britain is the largest island in the British isles, and Ireland is the second largest. In the most ancient sources Britain is given the name of Albion, whereas British Isles already exists. It therefore seems that Britain was named after the British Isles, and not the other way round. And I neither like nor dislike the fact that the Irish government reject the term, because their opinion is irrelevant - it cannot alter the way people use the language. TharkunColl (talk) 12:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Thark. Can you explain how you figure that the term Britain came after the British Isles? (i.e. the noun came after the adjective?) Are you just making this up or have you a reference? I think you'll find you're completely wrong...the term Britons and Britannia easily outdate "British Isles". Bardcom (talk) 15:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm still uncertain as to what this discussion's purpose is. What's being proposed? GoodDay (talk) 15:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Owing to the limitations of your native tongue, you cannot determine the existence of the genitive case, or what it means, in the ancient Greek/Roman terminology. This is not your fault, but let me explain. Britain, in their sense, was Albion, Hibernia, Mona and Thule. These were not "British" isles, but (in the closest sense given the limitations of the English language) "isles of Britain". Britain was a place, in the same sense as Europe is today, and Albion, for example, was an island of Britain, in the same sense that France is a country of Europe today. This can, of course, be rendered differently, describing France, for example, as a "European country", or Albion as a "British isle". In many cases, it's is quite legitimate to do so - but remember always the genitive case is of a noun, not an adjective. Let's be explicit, the "British" in Britannica insula is a noun, not an adjective - it is Britain that is being described. (This is also evidence that the Gaelic version is a modern concoction i.e. using modern Irish as an example, it is na hOileáin Bhriontanacha rather than Oileáin na Briotáine" ... which, literally in modern Gaelic, would mean the "Islands of Britanny", remaining true to the original etymology.)

"It therefore seems that Britain was named after the British Isles" - The names flipped, rather that one being "named after" the other. What was Albion became Britain. What was Britain, it appears that no word came to denote until we see the politically-motivated calque of the Roman term 15,000 years later that exploited the absense of a genative case in English to cyncially called these islands by the adjective form, "British" Isles, rather than simply "Britain", as they would have been to the Greeks and Romans.

Goodday, good point. I'd suggest that we posts to this page should have explicit purposes for the betterment of the article. I'm as guilty as anyone else in this respect. --sony-youth^pléigh 15:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

In response to GoodDay - perhaps these discussions can be allowed to continue if it means that after views are exchanged, information and data examined, and opinions ..er... opined, then we can make suggestions to the article without as much disagreement as in the past. For me at least, I'm learning why some people believed the term "British Isles" to be historically accurate (and thanks to Sony, why this might not be the case after all). If this discussion results in understanding being built, I think that's a good thing. Hopefully it *will* result in agreement being reached over this article. Bardcom (talk) 18:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The form of the article has already been agreed and has been stable for a long time. There is no reason to change it. TharkunColl (talk) 18:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

What a dismissive attitude - but Tharky, perhaps I'm missing your sense of humour, and if I am, apologies. But in case you've missed it while your account was blocked recently, this article is edit-locked. That is not the same as being stable. Also, if this article has already been agreed, why is there so much disagreement? Bardcom (talk) 18:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The article, and especially the form of words in the intro, has been stable for many months. I don't see any consensus to change it. TharkunColl (talk) 18:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Define stable. Are you relying on another ancient translation perhaps? Bardcom (talk) 18:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[Reply to Sony] Interesting - yes, I understand the distinction, even though my native (and indeed only) language has wired my brain so as to ignore it. But it means that those who "cynically" exploited the term "15,000" [sic - recte 1,500] years later had no choice, since the language they were using was English which, as you say, lacks a genitive case. In such a language, "British Isles" is surely the only reasonable translation - especially given that "Britain" was already in use. TharkunColl (talk) 17:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Tharky, I think you might be missing the point that Sony is trying to make. The current term "British Isles" uses "British" as an adjective. This is different than ancient usage. Sony, you say that Albion became Britain - is it not truer to say that Albion became "Great Britain"? The dictionary definition of British: "Of or relating to Great Britain or its people, language, or culture". Therefore, logically, if you accept this definition, and you accept that Ireland is not a part of Great Britain, you can understand why a lot of people believe the term to be incorrect, a throwback, etc, etc, etc. Relying on ancient (technically incorrect) translations as justification is incorrect - that's the point I believe Sony is making. Bardcom (talk) 18:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

That is the primary definition of "British", but not its only one - which is no more than one would expect from an ancient word that predates the formation of the British state by many centuries. "British", on its own, is indeed an adjective as Sony says. But a set phrase such "British Isles" isn't - it actually functions as a noun - in other words, the translation from the Greek and Latin is precisely accurate. Another example is "British Columbia", which is also a noun. "British" also has other uses - it can refer to the Romano-Britons against whom the English fought. In the middle ages people used the term "British" to refer to the Celts, as opposed to the English. And in phrases such as "the British", it is also a noun, rather than an adjective. TharkunColl (talk) 19:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Thark, the "British" in British Columbia, did indeed originally denote ownership. As you say, the phrase has since a noun-phrase, but through the example of "British Columbia" you can, I hope, see the cynicism of the 1621-era calque of Britannica insula as "British Isles" implying ownership of the smaller island by the larger. --sony-youth^pléigh 19:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

But I ask again. What's being proposed for this article? 1) Change the title? 2) remove Ireland from the article? 3) Erase British Isles from Wikipedia entirely? GoodDay (talk) 18:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I think some people would like that. TharkunColl (talk) 19:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thark, quite right. Something like Telecom Éireann or Iarnród Éireann can be rendered quite legitimately as Irish Telecom or Irish Rail, but British Isles is problematic. The issue is that an adjective needs a noun. The "Ireland" implied in the name of the telecom or rail company is quite fine, it refers to the state, but 1,500 years after the Romans, when Britain had changed from denoting the archipelago to denoting the larger island what what did it mean to call Ireland, for example, a "British" isle? Was it a neutral term, simply denoting the archipelago? Or did it subtly alter the position of Ireland from being an island of the archipelago to being an island of the larger island? (Thus, the insidious implication of the larger island being a "mainland", an idea that had never existed before then.)

Today, when the noun Britain refers to the United Kingdom, it is not equally cynical to pretend that the adjectival form can be used neutrally when describing Ireland as a "British" isle?

Bardcom, depends what you mean by Great Britain. First, the island formerly known as Albion became known as Britain. It later became necessary to differentiate the two "Britains" of the middle ages, the island and Brittany, which was then spelt the same way. This practice persisted beyond what was necessary, though the OED suggests that Great Britain is better to describe the political union of England (and Wales) and Scotland, whereas Britain is better for the island. (For our English colleagues, this confused situation is reflected in Gaelic too where there are no less than three "Britains": An Bhreatain, simply Britain, meaning the United Kingdom, An Bratain Mór, big/great Britain, meaning the island, and An Bhreatain Bheag, little Britain, meaning Wales. Add to this An Bhriotáin, meaning Britanny, and Corn na Breataine, the jaw of Britain, meaning Cornwall.) --sony-youth^pléigh 19:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Sony. I was referring to Albion the island and I always took the term Great Britain to refer to the same island in the same context. After your explanation I can see that historically, Albion became Britain first, until further disambiguation was required. Again, thanks for the explanation. Bardcom (talk) 19:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Ultimately, the contentious issue is that the term "British Isles" is described as including Ireland. The solution is not so obvious (and this is the reason why this discussion is taking place on this talk page) Looking at your options, I don't believe you're making any serious suggestions, but in good faith let's assume nothing and look at them. Option 1: Let's say we change the title altogether - what's the alternative? Option 2: Let's say we change the article to exclude Ireland and highlight the fact that the modern meaning is different than the older meaning - that's probably unsupportable by verified sources and probably equally contentious. Option 3: More contentious than Option 2. So I'm moving towards Option 4 - highlighting the fact in the article that the term is contentious and list the reasons why this is the case. I'd like to see the article's opening paragraph changed along the lines I was trying before the edit lock you requested was put in place. Bardcom (talk) 19:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I've no problem with option 4. GoodDay (talk) 19:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Good discussion here, I for one would like to see Option 1 and if not that then Option 2. Murphy71 (talk) 20:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I know this is not a forum and I have been told about this, but sometimes someone makes a statement that just needs a response. And Tharkun saying this "And I neither like nor dislike the fact that the Irish government reject the term, because their opinion is irrelevant - it cannot alter the way people use the language" is just plainly absurd. It has nothing to do with the Government changing the language, It is everything to do with the Government changing the identity of its country, which of course has happened a lot over the course of history, usually after independence has been granted. Tharkun I have read many of your posts over the last few days and you do say the most strangest things sometimes. This is far more than just an issue over language and your attempts to legitimise the name are just silly, Like many other words and phrases that the Governments of the West have deemed unacceptable to be used, the British Isles whether you like it or not is an insulting term. If you do not understand why, or you do understand and do not care, does not really matter in this case it just is. Murphy71 (talk) 20:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

As for the alternative for Option 1, Plenty of other people seem happy with "The Islands of Great Britain and Ireland" and I for one have no issue that that. Murphy71 (talk) 20:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I do. That only includes two islands, and is therefore not the same thing at all as the British Isles. And besides, it's a clear breach of WP:COMMONNAME. Waggers (talk) 21:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Remember folks, if British Isles gets a makeover? so does Irish Sea. -- GoodDay (talk) 20:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't be silly GoodDay, the British call it the Irish Sea because it was the passage to Island and to be quite frank can call it whatever they want, it has absolutely nothing to do with this current topic and serves only to highlight the true feelings behind those you are against any proposed changed. You and Tharkun keep on like you are then I for one would not need to say another word because any credibility to have on the subject is eroded with every strange comment you make. Murphy71 (talk) 21:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

This article title can't be changed. GoodDay (talk) 21:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Waggers, Common name cannot apply in cases such as this, the fact that many people still call Ireland part of the British Isles is due to ignorance and/or disregard for Irelands status as a republic. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia not a barometer of public opinion. As I have pointed out with the subject heading, the proper name for Uluru is Uluru/Ayers Rock, But more people still use Ayers Rock, despite this however the Wikipedia article is called Uluru! No common name conventions used here, because the Australian Government has said the Uluru is its proper name. People come here to learn the facts and the fact is that Ireland is no longer part of the British isles. I can understand your reluctance to use 'Islands of Great Britain and Ireland" I lived in Jersey for a number of years and understand the feeling there, so maybe you are correct. But this does seem to be the most used alternative and is gaining ground fast. Maybe it is just better to go with option 1 and leave everyone else in the "British Isles".Murphy71 (talk) 21:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, Ireland must not be removed from this article. Explain the controversay if you wish; but the island must not be removed. GoodDay (talk) 21:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

HeHe, you are about 90 years too late for that GoodDay, someone should have done something more about it back then! Murphy71 (talk) 21:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Trying to have Ireland described in a past-tense form, isn't that simple Murphy. GoodDay (talk) 21:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

So what about changing the title of this article to the "British and Irish Isles" A name that you yourself GoodDay have admitted you are happy with?, of course on the Ireland talk page we are given this little nugget of why Tharkun does not like the name - "The trouble is that it elevates Irish to an equivalent status to British. A name giving properly equal weight would be something like English, Scottish, Irish, and Welsh Isles." TharkunColl 15:00, 4 October 2007. Which just highlights what Tharkun's real motives are. If we take Irish to mean both the Republic and Northern Irland and British to mean Scotland, Wales and the British Isles then we have no problem whatsoever. So yes the best way forward is without doubt adding "and Irish" to the "British Isles" .Murphy71 (talk) 22:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)