Talk:British Isles/Archive 24

British Isles
Geography
Location	Western Europe

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 20

←

→

Unprotection

The article has been protected for a long time. It is not good for an article to be protected for long. So, I'm unprotecting it. Any other admin can review my decision and reverse if they feel it necessary. I hope that, along with compliance with WP:TALK on this talk page, the article itself will not be subject to edit warring. DDStretch (talk) 21:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

"or even offensive"??

How about a compromise text in the intro? "The term British Isles is controversial in relation to Ireland,[4] where many people [5] find the term objectionable or even offensive; the Irish government also discourages its usage.[6] There is evidence that as a result of these problems, "Britain and Ireland" is becoming a preferred description. [7][8]" This moderates the "offensive", which is still very well supported by reference, but softens its impact. I hope this makes it less unpalatable to those who insist that there's no problem in the first place. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 10:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

"Objectionable" is redundant if "offensive" is used; but "objectionable" includes "offensive", although that word itself is much abused. Also, "Britain and Ireland" is becoming "more common than it was before", not "a preferred description", nor "more common than British Isles". Alternatively, determine where it is becoming preferred and state that. Bazza (talk) 12:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

But the references say offensive more than they say objectionable, so if we pick a single word it should be "offensive". As for "a preferred description", that's to match the phrasing of the sources and to avoid arguments about that. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 13:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Besides, offensive and objectionable don't mean the same thing. Someone could find it objectionable without finding it offensive. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 13:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not just Irish, but also some Scots who find it offensive.--MacRusgail (talk) 23:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Can you supply some references to offended Scots? 79.155.245.81 (talk) 23:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Still pending data on offended Scots (which will be new to me!) Meantime, no coherent objection to my proposal, or suggestions. 79.155.154.185 (talk) 18:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I guess there are small numbers of every nationality who, for perverse reasons, find it "offensive". As for the Irish, I know many Irish people and I've visited the country on numerous occasions and I've yet to find anyone who gives a FF about it. Of course there are many opinionated, loudmouthed, nationalistic author types, a number of whom seem to be attracted to Wikipedia, who really do find it offensive. However, as a percentage of the overall Irish population we're probably talking less than 1. Have I a reference for this? No; because the vast majority of Irishmen are not opinionated, loudmouthed, nationalistic author types who try to ram their views down everyone else's throats. MidnightBlue (Talk) 19:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Interesting point about Scottish independence: why is Sctotland still part of the Union? 'Cos the majority of Scots want to be. MidnightBlue (Talk) 19:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

"opinionated, loudmouthed, nationalistic author types who try to ram their views down everyone else's throats" Oh, the irony. Yours, Daicaregos (talk) 21:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Midnight Blue, kindly spare us good people your complete unadulterated shite regarding the views of the Irish people on this term. In fairness to yourself you do admit you are talking rubbish: "I've no references...". If you are so sure of Irish acceptance of the term "British Isles", maybe you could run for election in Ireland on your clearly preferred "Come now, Paddy, desist from this independence malarkey and rejoin the Empire, old bean" ticket? In the meantime, 1916 happened and the European Union happened: get over it for the love of sweet Jesus. Dunlavin Green (talk) 00:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Well if MidnightBlue had a reputable source to say that Irish were opinionated loudmouthed nationalistic author types we might have to take it seriously. He doesn't, any more than he has a reference for his percentages. Meantime the sources say that many Irish find the term offensive, and we have a cracking good diff to prove that MidnightBlueMan - as he might put it - doesn't give a FF about verifiability. Another one to join the list. 79.155.154.185 (talk) 07:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

So, ignoring MidnightBlueMan for a moment, any other comment? Is it an acceptable proposal? 79.155.154.185 (talk) 08:55, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

No it isn't. You clearly don't understand what "offensive" means. See my Talk page for a discussion on the matter. MidnightBlue (Talk) 14:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Once again, it matters not a jot whether you think it's offensive or not. Perhaps you are right and people ought not consider it offensive. However, it is verifiable fact that they do consider it offensive. So, once again, do you have sources to contradict the sources currently available? If not then we should disregard your views as unsupported and irrelevant. 79.155.154.185 (talk) 15:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The references (on the refrences sub-page of this Talk page) which point to "offensiveness" are either weasel references, in which case they shouldn't be used, or qualify the nature of the offensiveness as applying only to Irish Nationalists. So if the word "offensive" should be included - and I don't believe it should be - then at the very least it should be qualified with details of precisely that group of people who do find the term offensive, i.e. Irish Nationalists. Are we sure they find it "offensive", as one would find the word nigger offensive, or is it just the case that they don't like it - I wonder? MidnightBlue (Talk) 17:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

(reduce indent) Can MidnightBlueMan please be specific WHICH references he thinks are weasel references? Otherwise he's just mimicking other editors whose argument is IDONTLIKEIT. If we start with the whole "nationalists" thing then we must include that since the great majority of Irish people are nationalist (and there's ref for that) therefore the great majority of Irish people find the term offensive. If that's the proposal then we can work on text to say that the great majority of Irish people find the term offensive. 79.155.154.185 (talk) 06:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Unless there is a reliable source which makes the inference or syllogism you are trying to make use of ("Nationalists (tend to, almost all, mostly - which one is it?) find the term "British Isles" offensive"; And "The great majority of Irish people are nationalist"; Therefore "The great majority of Irish people find the term offensive") could well be said to be WP:OR. In fact, unless we are sure what is being argued, the conclusion may not be guaranteed anyway on logical grounds: the arrangement of the Nationalists who find the term offensive (one of the premises) together with the arrangement of the great majority of Irish people who are nationalist (the other premise) may mean their intersection (the conclusion) is not guaranteed to be "a great mjority of Irish people". That assumes that the individual premises in the syllogism (the logical form used) are true anyway, which I imagine is not as clear-cut as you make out. So, I think this argument fails as the reasoning is not safe, and the conclusion is not guaranteed to be valid, and is arguably Original Research anyway.

79.155.154.185 asked me if I could comment on the verifiable sources used here on my talk page, and this must necessarily include the validity with which such verifiable sources are used. If I have the time and inclination, I can do this, but such comments will "cut both ways", and I also think it would be to everyone's advantage is less practice in personal accusations, and more practice on hard critical thinking and reasoning would help editors here be more objective and less likely to inflame matters by making use of faulty and otherwise inappropriate reasoning. Come on, guys, the criticism of this argument is elementary stuff in reasoned argument. I'm also don't want to single out 79.155.154.185 in this, as I think all sides are not being as rigorous in this area, but I do want to thank him for raising the issue, which is a good point to make, about the quality of the evidence and (hence) the reasoning used to arrange them together. DDStretch (talk) 08:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

The sources do not use all the modifiers that DDStretch is using to try to imply that there might be synthesis (tend to, almost all, mostly). If we go with the "nationalist" line, instead of the simple "many" and "often" then we have to explain to readers who these "nationalists" are. They are "the great majority". Text would have to be like "The term 'British Isles' is offensive to Irish nationalists, which make up the great majority of the Irish population. " No synthesis, no syllogisms. There may be lots of people who DONTLIKEIT, but this would not be synthesis. Still a lot easier to stick with the simpler text and not to get political. 79.155.154.185 (talk) 08:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Good, I asked for an elaboration to explain the argument you gave, and you have responded by giving one.

In which case, if it is as you say it is, then the modifier I asked about above would be an implicit "all", especially so, given what you write above.

I also note that you have apparently changed your position as well, since you are now omitting the sentence you put in the phrase I replied to: "The great majority of Irish people find the term offensive". This is a significant change for the good, as the absence of the conclusion removes the synthesis that drawing the conclusion would otherwise seem to make. There's nothing wrong with changing your position for good reasons, by the way. Indeed, it is the sign of a rational person to do so.

That still leaves the possibility that the reliable sources may not exactly allow us to state "The term 'British Isles' is offensive to Irish nationalists" and "[they] make up the great majority of the Irish population.", though I imagine some may think at least one of these statements is so obvious as to need no verificantion. These premises may themselves, if formed by particular interpretation of the reliable sources, be found to be synthetic in an undesirable way.

Remember, if you really feel that attention to the reliable sources, etc is required, and, hence, attention to the reasoning is important, then I am merely responding in ways that will help editors discover the better reasoning themselves, and so some of my comments may appear to be stupid. I am trying to get you to think about the arguments in more critical and rational ways. I remain open-minded about what is actually the case. DDStretch (talk) 09:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

(reduce indent) Oh for heaven's sake DDStretch, my point was and is still clear. The sources clearly say that it is a term which offensive to many Irish. Apart from the sources which mention nationalists there are several others which say things like "often offensive to Irish sensibilities", and so on, and others which don't mention nationalists but do say "many". Others describe the term as almost unsayable in Ireland. If people want to bring nationalists into it then we must also clarify for the passing reader who this means. According to survey it means the great majority of Irish people. If we are to apply reasoning to all these references - all together - then the conclusion is clear. If we avoid making the whole thing political then it's easiest to leave "nationalist" out of it and simply adopt the rational conclusion from the references, that the term is offensive to many Irish. My proposal is still to leave the phrase as "objectionable or even offensive" as a softener to try to win agreement from those who deny the references. 79.155.154.185 (talk) 10:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

No need to appear impatient: remember, some things which are obvious to some will not appear to be obviosu to others, and there are many different reasons how this can arise. If the sources say that it is a term which is offensive to many Irish, then all right: the debate can then go into whether those sources are reliable and accurate or not. I haven't read them, and don't intend to, as that is your (the bulk of editors concerned with the actual content on here) main job, and I'm only commenting and intend to comment on the quality of argument here. I'm doing this to try to avoid being unduly partisan here. Remember it is up to you to justify the conclusions you want to draw against reasonable alternative explanations that are offered, and it is not the job for others to prove you wrong. It is an issue of burden of proof and the nature of alternative explanations in this kind of debate: The burden of proof is on those advancing a case to show that reasonable alternative explanations are not valid, whereas the obligation on those offering up alternative explanations is only to show that they could apply. Finaqlly, a minor point, but it is best dealt with, as being accurate is a key to avoiding drama here. You wrote: "If people want to bring nationalists into it then we must also clarify for the passing reader who this means. According to survey it means the great majority of Irish people." Does it? I am sure if your position is accurate, it will only be strenthened and rendered immune from undermining alternative explanations if you can provide some evidence for this (it should be fairly easy, I think.) DDStretch (talk) 11:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

As an extra comment, I just glanced at [The talk sub-page giving references] It is not as well-organised as it could be to take the discussion forward. Thus, I think some thought may be given to re-arranging the references in an easier to see form that would show which references say what about the term "British Isles", and which ones say who thinks what about the term "British Isles". It can be done by adding a table similar to the solution done on Countries of the United Kingdom about the terms that should be used to describe England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales. I would have thought that anyone interested in sticking more closely to what the references state might see that as a good move. DDStretch (talk) 11:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I already mentioned one reference about nationalists in Ireland. See the discussion in the archive. [[1]]. I have no doubt that there are many more. 79.155.154.185 (talk) 11:35, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent reply to 79.155.154.185) Good! Then you could make a start on constructing an informative table on [the talk sub-page giving references]. I really think doing so would be informative and a useful way of encouraging people to become more focussed on the reliable sources and the deployment of them. Try to design a table so that the information it shows supplies information about both "sides" in this dispute, and people will then be able to more accurately see just what the literature says. DDStretch (talk) 11:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Part of the problem in constructing an informative table is (i) I have no idea how to make tables in a Wiki and (ii) tables often imply that the text gets very summarized. As for "both sides", I have not found a second side. I've looked and I've repeatedly asked the editors arguing against inclusion of the material about the offensiveness of the term for evidence of another "side" and none has ever been produced. 79.155.154.185 (talk) 11:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, two problems, and they can be tackled in turn. For the first one, you can take a look at Help:Table. Additionally, looking at tables as used in other articles (I've given some pointers to similar tables, above), can yield clues about creating tables in wikipedia. For the second point, if you personally don't know of any other side, and don't know where to find any, then just concentrate on adding the information you do know about. I hope that all who dispute the content would then begin to make points and supply information that could be added to a "counter" section of the table in some way. In terms of what to include, then there are already pointers in what has already been said: (a) "Most Irish are nationalists" (could include evidence in favour of this, and a column for evidence against it. This evidence could be in the form of criticisms about the quality of any sources, for example) (b) Nationalists find the term "British Isles" offensive" (without the qualification of "most"), (c) the same as (b), but with the addition of "most".

Remember that a good policy to have in the back of your mind comes from a major proponent of Critical Rationalism, the philosopher Karl Popper. He wrote (I can find the exact quote if anyone is interested enough) "I may be wrong, and you may be right, and by an effort we can get closer to the truth", though we need to modify the idea of "truth" to fit in more with wikipedia's criteria. DDStretch (talk) 12:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

(reduce indent again) And on Wikipedia truth is verifiability, i.e. reputable sources. 79.155.154.185 (talk) 12:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you are right: the accurate description of verified, reliable sources, that can be cited can be used in place of "truth" in the above quote, and that will make the quote fit much more with Wikipedia's criteria. DDStretch (talk) 13:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Can I just remind everyone who is contributing here to review and consider their comments in the light of WP:TALK? Some comments that have been made in the past in this section would have been clearly in contravention of WP:TALK and a number of policies, and warnings and blocks might have then ensued. The most recent comments here are just about all right, but we could do with them being made even less directed at people and more directed at the arguments the people have advanced. DDStretch (talk) 16:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

And I'd like to remind everyone of [[2]], [[3]], and [[4]], respectively Reliable Sources, Verifiability and No Original Research. It would be nice if people paid a little attention to them. 79.155.154.185 (talk) 08:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct; especially of note is the the synthesis bit on the No Original Research page. Coupled with all of these, I think the issue of using good quality critical thinking and reasoning to assemble the evidence is also important. If people paid more attention to these aspects, then I imagine their work would be such that there would be less time available to spend on inappropriate personalised arguments and comments. DDStretch (talk) 08:35, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no synthesis involved in the way the sources are currently used. Nor are they "weasel" references. 79.155.154.185 (talk) 08:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

(reduce) So, does anyone have any referenced objection to the phrase "objectionable or even offensive" or can we go with it? 79.155.154.185 (talk) 12:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The New British History Page 86, point 7. It states "There is and never has been a geopolitical term covering Britain and Ireland; and although from the Roman period and throughout the Renaissance period, European scholars and mapmakers had a clear notion of the Insulae Britannicae and Britons subsequently had no difficulty with the geographical term 'The British Isles', that term has been and is resisted and resented by the majority population of the island of Ireland...." --HighKing (talk) 14:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Appropriate. Is that John Morrill? I can't see the preview page.—eric 18:23, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's Morrill. --HighKing (talk) 13:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's him. I take it he must have done a survey to arrive at his conclusion about the "majority population". Then again, maybe he didn't. MidnightBlue (Talk) 20:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Probably part of the same survey where a "tiny and vocal minority" classed as objectors were surveyed. Oh wait - there isn't any reputable source for that... --HighKing (talk) 13:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe he did and maybe he didn't. It doesn't matter much. It's a verifiable reputable source. 79.155.154.185 (talk) 10:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe revisit the comment from Bazza above, tho i think you're in good shape as far as WP:V is concerned.—eric 18:23, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

So we should just go with "offensive"? 79.155.154.185 (talk) 08:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

No, that creates a false dichotomy, implying that either people are ok with the term or find it offensive, with no middle ground. I'm sure there are many who have a mild (or perhaps stronger) dislike of the term but are far from offended by it. Waggers (talk) 13:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe the offensive quote only refers to Irish Nationalists. Many Irish would not call themselves nationalists, so if offensive is to be used, it should be properly qualified as that subset of Irish people that call themselves nationalists. --HighKing (talk) 13:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

..offensive to Irish nationalist...; works for me. GoodDay (talk) 15:13, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

@ HighKing & GoodDay. The "offensive" quotes don't only relate to Irish nationalists. Please read the references on /References. @All. Also, for the sake of clarity we'd have to point out that the great majority of the Irish population consider themselves nationalists. Should we return to my original "objectionable or even offensive"? 79.155.154.185 (talk) 16:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the references:

The British Isles does include the island of Ireland although the adjective British used in this context is often found offensive by Irish Nationalists
Geographical terms also cause problems and we know that some will find certain of our terms offensive. Many Irish object to the term the 'British Isles.
In an attempt to coin a term that avoided the 'British Isles' - a term often offensive to Irish sensibilities - Pocock suggested a neutral geographical term...
the British Isles (a term which is itself offensive to Irish Nationalists)

So that's 3 out of 4 quotes that link "offensive" with Irish Nationalists, while one quote states that many Irish object to the term. Another quote I provided above states that

The British Isles, that term has been and is resisted and resented by the majority population of the island of Ireland

I don't see any quote that says that the vast majority of Irish people are Nationalists. Is there a reference for that? Perhaps we should drop "offensive" and use "is resisted and resented" instead as it is supported and generally fits (or is there a particular desire for using the work "offensive"?). --HighKing (talk) 17:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I previously referred to a newspaper article which had results of a survey in Ireland. It's mentioned again above. "the great majority" of people in Ireland were nationalists. 79.155.154.185 (talk) 22:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - I found it. The newspaper article is referring to a survey that states that almost 80 per cent of Irish people would like to see a united Ireland. Almost a quarter of voters - 22 per cent - believe that "delivering a united Ireland should be the government’s first priority". More than half of voters, 55 per cent, say they would like to see a united Ireland, but "other things should have priority". Ten per cent of voters say no efforts should be made to bring about a united Ireland, whereas 13 per cent say they have no interest one way or the other. The survey was carried out among more than 1,000 voters and broadly reflects the views of the Irish electorate. While the survey sample is small, it is nevertheless legitimate. --HighKing (talk) 00:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

That would come under WP:OR. If one source states that the majority of nationalists believe such and such a thing, and another source states that the majority of people in Ireland are nationalists, it is illegitimate to combine the two. ðarkun coll 23:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The sentence might be better stated as "The term 'British Isles' is offensive to Irish nationalists, and a survey in 2006 showed that almost 80% of the Irish electorate favoured a united Ireland". A better wordsmith can probably do a better job... --HighKing (talk) 00:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

That would still be making an unwarranted connection between the two statements. ðarkun coll 00:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

(soapboxing, inflammatory comment removed, with respect to WP:NOTSOAPBOX and WP:TALK) DDStretch (talk) 06:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

"The great majority of Irish people are nationalists to a greater or lesser degree". If we bring nationalists into the discussion we have to ensure that it's clear who they are. No evasion because people don't like the facts. 79.155.154.185 (talk) 06:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)Stepping back from the word "offensive" for a minute, I believe that many editors are trying to insert the idea into the article that the term "British Isles" is disliked/objected to/resented/resisted/deemed offensive/etc by some/all/most/proportion of/etc Irish people. There are sufficient references for a statement like this to be included. What other suggestions are currently being proposed? Perhaps a better wordsmith can improve on existing proposals, or even create a new one? --HighKing (talk) 14:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The point only needs mentioning once, and not in the lead paragraph. It should not be laboured, as it is at the moment. As I said previously, several times, there's a whole article about the "controversy"; an unencyclopedic article, I would contend, but at least there is one. MidnightBlue (Talk) 13:45, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The point needs highlighting actually. That the inhbitants of one of the two States in the islands find the Wiki-name offensive or objectionable is highly significant. We should merge the "controversy" article into the main article. Sarah777 (talk) 17:19, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

No it doesn't. It just needs mentioning, once. As for merging, I'm happy with it as a separate, albeit unencyclopedic article. It keeps the nastiness out of the way by doing that. MidnightBlue (Talk) 17:42, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Although I'm new to comment on these subjects, I'm very surprised at the speed by which my previous comments were reverted (by a British (involved?) admin). It wouldn't happen on any other topic. My comments were not a personal attack, but a reaction to the comment above that deems the references to the offensive nature of the term "British Isles" as nastiness. To normal sane people, these references are not nastiness, but factual references that were gathered as a result of the stonewalling by British editors on this article over the fact that the term "British Isles" is offensive to everyone outside the UK. In fact, it was these same British editors that requested evidence as to the objectionable nature of the term. Now that the references have been gathered together, they are referred to as nastiness? In a fair and reasonable application of policy, MBM's comments should have been reverted as an attempt to discredit the references and an attempt to incite angry comments. But of course, now that my eyes are being opened, it's easier to see why a British editor can make comments such as these with impunity. 207.181.210.6 (talk) 03:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

It was me, and I just happened to read your previous comments shortly after you posted them. People must abide by WP:TALK. I suggest that you re-assess what you wrote. A key quote from the deleted message was "Disruptive editors like you should be blocked from articles where the evidence shows that you are not interested in creating a quality article, but treat WP as propaganda" was a direct attack upon MidnightBlueMan. Please abide by WP:TALK. You can make your comments withoyt resorting to this, and it is the force of arguments about the content aimed at improving the article, rather than attacks on editirs that will win the day here if wikipedia is working well. If you feel you have reached deadlock, then the matter can be resolved using a variety of means which do not involve attacking other editors which is clearly what you did on this talk page. DDStretch (talk) 08:05, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Who uses this term?

Has anybody ever heard a real person use this term? The claim and prejudice implicit to it might have a home at a fringe meeting of the British Conservative Party (in an effort to stop the EUisation of modern Britain and assert British difference, of course), but telling real Irish people that they live in an entity called the British Isles (and are therefore British) is something from the dark ages of British colonial policy in Ireland. I suspect that even the vast majority of educated, rational-thinking people in Britain would avoid using it for this reason. I certainly don't hear the term on British weather forecasts. There seems to be a very strong correlation between the people who use this term and affinity with nationalistic, anti-EU, political views. That should, at the very least, be highlighted. 213.202.150.192 (talk) 11:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC) The term British Isles has been used for donkey's years by geographers etc to refer to 'the group of islands off the NW coast of Europe', e.g. '20000 years ago the British Isles were covered by a thick sheet of ice...' In this context I have often heard it used. It is sensible to use 'British Isles' in a geographic/earth sciences context. You are verging on the offensive to suggest that users have particular political views. Gliderman (talk) 21:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

There is a workgroup set up to explore aspects of usage of this term at WP:BITASK. It is more appropriate to continue the discussion there. --HighKing (talk) 11:50, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I confess, I have heard a real person use this term. As for a fictional person using the term? no I haven't. GoodDay (talk) 16:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Father GoodDay, I must confess to you that it was me you heard use this term. Yes, ME! Now, what's my penance to be?--jeanne (talk) 17:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

You must (for the next month) laugh at all my humour posts. Thus, ye shall be purged of any sins. GoodDay (talk) 17:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

How is that a penance when I do laugh at your humour already? No, the proper penance would be that I must listen to the orations of a certain editor (which we both know) for hours on end and then I must agree with him.--jeanne (talk) 17:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

You did what Jeanne?? Words fail me. Sarah777 (talk) 17:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

That's a mortlar for sure. Sarah777 (talk) 17:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if Dunlavin would accept my deal: I listen to his speeches and he gets to read the article I created on Anglo-Norman medieval heiresses. Think he'll accept? Eh?--jeanne (talk) 19:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

213.202.150.192, you say that you don't hear the term on British weather forecasts. I can only assume from that remark that you listen to the forecasts on the radio. What you should do is watch the BBC forecasts. You'll then come across Philip Avery, one of the main forcasters, who includes a liberal helping of the term in every one of his forecasts, to such an extent that even I wonder if he's going out of his way to do it. As for use of the term implying ownership of all the islands by Britain; it implies no such thing. MidnightBlue (Talk) 19:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Request for a change to the info box

In the info box on the right it lists "countries" of the British Isles. As the term country is used to describe England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland on other wiki pages and (from what ive seen) never used to describe the isle of man etc this needs to change.

As it mentions Sovereign states / dependencies in the introduction, it would seem reason for the list title to be Sovereign states and Crown Dependencies. Would anyone object to such a change? BritishWatcher (talk) 15:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I certainly don't object - my only reservation is that it's quite a long phrase compared to the one-word "Countries", but I can't think of a more succinct alternative that's still accurate, so I say go for it. waggers (talk) 21:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Not to rain on the parade here but since when did "Northern Ireland" become a "country"? 86.42.120.25 (talk) 00:51, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Since there appears to be no better way to describe the different parts of the UK, and the government / other sources often use the term country to describe them. countries of the United Kingdom BritishWatcher (talk) 10:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Where does it say in the infobox that Northern Ireland is a country? It doesn't. Yet another IP troll. waggers (talk) 10:56, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not on the box, but for people's information, anyway - it says it here, UKCOUNTRYREFS.--Matt Lewis (talk) 17:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I changed the info box as no one made an objection. Didnt seem to be possible to rename "country" Sovereign States, so i just listed the Crown dependencies under the UK rather than listing them as countries which ive never heard them be described. Feel free to change it back or alter if its unacceptable. I think its better than the previous version, but let me know what you think. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:59, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I see it got changed already, this is what id prefer to see and i think its more accurate than describing the Crown dependencies as countries which the current info box does but is up to everyone. User:BritishWatcher/Sandbox BritishWatcher (talk) 20:08, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, Infoboxes, how they doth suck. Neither is accurate (calling them 'countries' is doing disservice to the complexity of their sovereignty arrangements, though calling them part of the UK is also not accurate due to the same complexities). Honestly? It is probably less inaccurate to have them listed as countries than it is to ignore them totally. --Narson ~ Talk • 20:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

They are more part of the United Kingdom than they are countries or sovereign states. The British parliament still has the ability to legislate on their behalf according to the other wiki pages. They shouldnt be ignored, just seemed like an easier solution which would be better than the present totally incorrect one and it was not saying they were part of the UK, the label of crown dependencies was clear BritishWatcher (talk) 20:18, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The better option is for someone to code in a switch on the infobox template that lets you select something other than country if you want. Or to rename the 'country' section to 'Autonomous entities' or something. --Narson ~ Talk • 20:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes that was my original thought, i wanted to rename country Sovereign State and put UK / Ireland under that heading then have another with Crown Dependencies. The main template doesnt allow it to be edited on that level though, the full template has the ability to change headers but that seems far more confusing. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:36, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure there must be a board somewhere on wiki to request the services of one of the coder champs to change the template to allow such a thing. Try the notceboard for the wikiprojects covering geography. --Narson ~ Talk • 21:06, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The talk page for the template itself would be the best place, but don't worry - I've been bold and made the change myself. waggers (talk) 22:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't the sovereign states and crown dependencies be seperated? As it stands its not clear which is which. Titch Tucker (talk) 22:15, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

It is made clear in the text. The infobox does not stand alone. (I won't go into my views on the infoboxes in general, as I don't fancy filling up the swear jar) --Narson ~ Talk • 22:18, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

This is the island Infobox. The article should start with its own infobox, like Europe (there isn't a premade one for continents or archipelagos). Then you have one for each of the main islands (this box). That's why it has a 'archipelago=' option (although it has been left out here). So if the island box is called Jersey, the country would be UK (dependency), The Ireland (island) box would be country= Republic of Ireland and United Kingdom (by the current book), Great Britain would be United Kingdom. I don;t have the time, but someone could start to do it properly.

At Template:Infobox_Islands there is this option ({{{country 5 admin divisions}}}) which under the UK, could list Wales etc as "constituent country" - which is the sensible form Wikipedia consistently uses for infoboxes. Northern Ireland is another constituent country tag like Wales according to the 36 unique reliable sources we compiled for each country (despite being culturally belittled in this status) - per the many refs in UKCOUNTRYREFS, and if the sovereign state says that it, then WIkipedia simply goes by that. Sovereignty must be adhered to - I sincerely hope this happens, guys.--Matt Lewis (talk) 22:24, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Adding England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland to this list would complicate matters further, when the article itself is just talking about the Sovereign States / Crown dependencies. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

It's a mix of islands and states now - it should be GB, Ireland, IMO, Jersey etc. We al You don't have to go as far as the constituent countries. --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:18, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Current version is far more accurate now, it addressed the problem. Thanks waggers. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:42, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

As a compromise it's better for sure. It's been a mix of islands and states of course, and hasn't said which are which. It should really be GB, Ireland, IMO, Jersey etc - we don't have to go as far as the constituent countries, although people tend to bring them in. Somewhere down the line the island boxes will eventually come in, I'm sure.--Matt Lewis (talk) 23:18, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to bring this up again. Even though the infobox doesn't stand on its own, I still think we have should somehow differentiate between the Sovereign states and the Crown Dependencies. Although it does explain in the text, it should also be clear in the infobox. Titch Tucker (talk) 23:25, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Simple solution would be to put them in order with Irelan and UK first then do the 3 crown dependencies and perhaps label them (CD) / (SS). Shouldnt waste too much time tryin to alter the info box which only will be used on this page. The main thing is its no longer incorrect BritishWatcher (talk) 23:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC).

I think that's a good plan. waggers (talk) 22:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Semi-Protection

Ok. Following the start of an edit-war again involving unregistered editors and the dispute between "Ireland" or "Republic of Ireland" being used, I have imposed semi-protection. Editors should discuss this contentious change here rather than engage in edit-warring. DDStretch (talk) 13:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Please look again at this. You've excluded IP editing on the strength of just one editor making only two edits/reverts. In so doing, just one of the parties has been excluded from editing. SP cannot be used for the sole purpose of excluding IPs. MidnightBlue (Talk) 23:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I saw the edits as coming from two different IP addresses involving three edits which I viewed as being disruptive and related to the separate drama concerning the Ireland naming dispute. I have unprotected the article, but would request that people are alert to any future disruption that happens and deal with it accordingly. In particular, it would be good if you, MidnightBlue, could also help out here, though I note that you haven't been active on wikipedia for a while up to the point at which you posted the above message, so you may be busy elsewhere. DDStretch (talk) 00:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

ROI vs Ireland

Ireland is not clear enough for an article that is mainly geographic. Do you have a solution, because reverting isn't very productive? Best, --Cameron * 16:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the current version is the fairest and most clear way of presenting the facts. Considering the full title of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is mentioned i dont see why some have a problem with the full Republic of Ireland title being used next to it to avoid any possible confusion, especially as thats the title of the article anyway. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

full Republic of Ireland title. That is the exact reason why it shouldn't be used. There are many people out there ignorant about the issue here and using it will mislead people into thinking its the name as the above editor here as indicated. Could one of the other editors explain how exactly when it says 'There are two sovereign states' and then goes on to mention Ireland as one of them, could that be in any way confusing? Its using ROI thats confusing and misleading not the other way round.194.125.99.41 (talk) 19:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)And why do you feel that "Republic of Ireland" is the full title? Cos it's not. It may be the correct and legal name in the UK, but there is the rest of the planet to consider, and they all use the correct, full, title which is simply "Ireland". --HighKing (talk) 19:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

In line with standard admin practice, I semi-protected the article without regard to what version was there at the time. As it happens, I think the use of "Republic of Ireland", even if it is disputed in other contexts, would be appropriate here to make clear that it is not the island being referred to in this case. Mooretwin pointed out to me that the IP editors who were mostly driving the edit-war have been reported for investigation as possible sockpuppets of Wikipeire (how ever one spells the name). I suspect that some will dispute that "Republic of Ireland" is really the name (pointing out that it is an official description and that a description is not the same as the actual name, a distinction which I can grasp), but I don't think we need to get into this here: its use here is as a useful disambiguator. DDStretch (talk) 19:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

My point exactly. We are not stating that this is the name of the state, we are merely using it to differenciate. I don't think we should let content disputes on other pages influence us in this decision, especially as it can be a very useful term. --Cameron * 19:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah! But some editors don't understand the difference, and don't accept that it's just a teensy bit sensitive to use the British name when a disambiguation isn't required. There's some editors that deliberately edit articles to introduce a disambiguation requirement just so that they can then change to use "Republic of Ireland". Ahem. --HighKing (talk) 19:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

You have a British name as your official description? That's news to me. At the end of the day they're all English! ;) --Cameron * 20:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Correct, and that is why the British editors and admins continue to insist on using the term "Republic of Ireland" as a name, and see nothing wrong with it, and get all wishy-washy about there is or isn't or shouldn't be a difference between a correct name for something, and using the correct name, as opposed to saying "Oh, but it's also a description, so we'll ignore that there's any difference between the two and just keep using whatever name we like". --HighKing (talk) 21:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Sometimes a disambiguator is required, and using the term "Republic of Ireland" as a disambiguating term is more acceptable that using it as a name. I'd also note that in the past I asked a number of editors if they would consider using a different disambiguator, and they all insisted that RoI be used. Funny that (or not). --HighKing (talk) 19:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

It wouldn't really be a problem if it weren't for the ambiguity of the name Ireland. ;) It's not easy...that's why it's controversial. --Cameron * 21:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Is there a form of words for what is being stated in that bit of the paragraph that would describe all that is needed but without allowing an edit-war over the matter at all? I'm asking this as a genuine request, because if there is, then I think we should give it some serious attention to try to immunize this article from the naming dispute business that isgoing on elsewhere. I think it would be in everyone's interest to try to contain that as far as possible. DDStretch (talk) 19:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Use "state of Ireland" instead of "Republic of Ireland". --HighKing (talk) 19:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

"state of Ireland" isn't the "official name", so cannot possibly be used. Mooretwin (talk) 10:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Well great! Since RoI isn't the "official name", that can't possible be used either! --HighKing (talk) 17:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The undisputed name of the state is Ireland, ROI is a description at best and is no longer used by the British Government. That point aside where the state is being named its not unusual to have [Republic of Ireland|Ireland) and as its next to GB and NI there can be no ambiguity. --Snowded TALK 21:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

What he said!! Call the country by its proper name - Ireland.--Vintagekits (talk) 11:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The full title of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is used in the paragraph, i dont see why Republic of Ireland is so unacceptable. Keep it the way it is now to avoid confusing people about Ireland(island) and Ireland(country). BritishWatcher (talk) 12:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Republic of Ireland is neither the name, the long form or the full title of the country. It does not appear in the constitution. Only the name Ireland does. Do you not understand that?78.16.179.86 (talk) 13:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Read the Good Friday Agreement BritishWatcher, then you might see the issue --Snowded TALK 13:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

<unindent>Guys? Is there any relevency to all these discussions on legal names and legal status? I mean, not that I want to curtail discussion but it seems like this is an area where unnecessary debate is probably a bad idea? --Narson ~ Talk • 13:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

A while ago ([[5]]) I altered the article to clarify the use of "Ireland". I used the term "republic of Ireland", with a small "r" and linking only the word Ireland. It was changed, unexplained, to an "R" by Levenboy [[6]] then linked by User:Mooretwin. Don't know why. Bazza (talk) 16:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

History of the British Isles changed back to History of Great Britain

I just changed the former name back to its original title in wikipedia, before somebody decided for reasons best known to himself to unilaterally change it. Dunlavin Green (talk) 06:19, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes you tried, but I reverted you twice. DO NOT do copy-paste moves. Ask for the move at Wikipedia:Requested moves, but only after talking to others. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 06:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

No, in fact I actually did. And considering there was no requested move to change it to "British Isles" in the first place, and you are evidently happy with that, I can see where your politics lie. Dunlavin Green (talk) 07:05, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The island which is named Ireland

The following footnote has been added to the first sentence: "The island which is named Ireland is what is meant here." I appreciate the need for disambiguation etc., but the sentence is rather awkward. Additionally, the same could be said for Great Britain (dab the island from the UK). Would it not be more straightforward just to change the sentence in the article to "...which comprise the island of Great Britain, the island of Ireland and a number of smaller islands"? Scolaire (talk) 11:32, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree it would be, but there seemed to be an emerging edit-war over this, and my addition of the footnote quietened it down somewhat. Though you are correct, perhaps now is the time to reconsider the wording as you suggested. DDStretch (talk) 12:02, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Done. Scolaire (talk) 12:09, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Map in infobox

It's just occurred to me (sorry if this has been discussed before, but I'm not trailing through 20+ pages of archives to check) that the map in the infobox is potentially misleading, because of the fact that state (country) boundaries are shown on the mainland of Europe. This might lead to the unwary reader making the false inference that the areas shown in green are also a single country or state - the boundary shown in Ireland is quite short, not prominent, and not explained in the caption. Given that this article is about a physical geographical archipelago, not a country or two countries, would it not be better if the islands were highlighted on a topographical base map, without any political boundaries being shown at all? Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair point. I've done a version which may suit if you wish to go ahead and change:

Endrick Shellycoat 17:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. I think this is better - what do others think? Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Good change. Bazza (talk) 16:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I concur. waggers (talk) 08:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I've now made the same change, for the same reasons, at Terminology of the British Isles. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Too long?

I know a lot of work has been done to shorten the article, and browsing through it now I don't get the feeling that it's too long. Any objections to removing the banner from the top of the page? waggers (talk) 13:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead and remove it, Waggers. The article doesn't seem too long to me. --jeanne (talk) 13:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed BritishWatcher (talk) 13:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Done waggers (talk) 14:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Ireland.com article no longer exists

This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

Áine Kerr (2 October, 2006). "Folens to wipe 'British Isles' off the map in new atlas". The Irish Times. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

The link no longer works & I couldn't find a backup copy at archive.org. I have found it located in a forum but I am unaware if that is a viable source or not. What should we do with the template & link? -- Phoenix (talk) 23:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The link should point to [7]. The Irish Times changes its domain recently. Wotapalaver (talk) 14:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

To answer the question I think the template & (updated) link should be at the top of the page with the other boxes, not down here. Sarah777 (talk) 00:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Done! Another service rendered to Wikipedia. Sarah777 (talk) 00:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The view which states that the words British Isles are offensive etc.

A question for you pundits; Is the view that the term British Isles is offensive a minority view? I ask the question after having read WP:UNDUE. My view, for what it's worth, is yes, it is a minority view. MidnightBlue (Talk) 18:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I never found the term, offensive. It's no more/no less offensive then Irish Sea, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 19:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Some people think it is. Do you think their view is a minority view? MidnightBlue (Talk) 20:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Internationally speaking? I'm guessing so (note: that's just an opinon). GoodDay (talk) 20:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Internationally speaking? Nobody outside Britain ever speaks about the British Isles ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.48.164.146 (talk) 13:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

It is certainly a minority view. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the point of asking people outside of Ireland this question, after all, the offence that people refer to is the inclusion of Ireland. Why would the international community be offended, why would they care? Titch Tucker (talk) 20:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

If the term is offensive, objectionable or whatever to only a minority then this article contravenes the NPOV principle of Wikipedia. Unfortunately the WP:UNDUE guidelines say nothing of scope. MidnightBlue (Talk) 20:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Reading the sentence I think you refer to in the article it says "The term British Isles is controversial in relation to Ireland, where many people find the term objectionable". It's not saying many people throughout the world find it objectionabe, it's saying many people in Ireland do. Titch Tucker (talk) 20:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

It's more than just the one sentence. The issue of objection to the term is mentioned repeatedly in the article with many highlighted references. I think this probably counts as giving it undue weight. MidnightBlue (Talk) 20:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you, like, nuts? Telling the Irish that they are British and live in what British rightwing nutjobs term the "British Isles" is about as obtuse as the British can get. That British viewpoint is clearly the minority viewpoint, a term which reflects the inability of a certain British underclass to get over the rapid decline of British power and prestige in the past 80 years. And if you are so sure that it is a "minority viewpoint" in Ireland, then perhaps you'll find this term plastered all over the place by Irish politicians and media, not to mention official government statements supporting its use and the incorporation of this term in international treaties between the government of Ireland and your own government? Oh, guess what! It's nowhere to be seen. Wow, I wonder why. 86.42.71.111 (talk) 02:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The irony in all of this is that the original British were the Britons, a Celtic people. The name England comes from the Anglo-Saxons. British Isles really shouldn't be that offensive (though I know many Irish find it so). Now if the archipelago was called The Anglo Isles, that would be highly offensive and a calculated insult to the Scots, Welsh, Cornish, Manx, as well as the Irish.--jeanne (talk) 07:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Jeanne, it's a point that has been made before, but I would think that the term "British" today has been overtaken by a more modern meaning, almost exclusively relating to the UK, the empire, etc. It's not as if the term "British" is seen as being inclusive of the "Irish", by the Irish. The Irish are fiercely protective of the idea that Irishness is different and separate than Britishness (whether or not there is too much depth of truth to that or not is a different debate). --HighKing (talk) 14:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Jeanne, do you think the contoversy and the objection to the term, mainly by some people in Ireland, is given undue weight in this article? That's the issue I'm trying to address. There is no doubt that some people do object to the term, but so far as I can see there's never been any scientific study to determine the degree of objection. Regarding the undue weight, apart from the several mentions the controversy gets in the body of the article, if you scroll down to the references you'll see that numerous statements objecting to the term have been highlighted and that really puts it "in your face" to an uncalled for extent. MidnightBlue (Talk) 12:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

@MidnightBlueMan, there are numerous cited sources that state it is objectionable. There are pages and pages of debates and discussions explaining why it is objectionable. While you and other editors may not like this fact, your opinion, and my opinion, are given relatively little weight compared to referencable sources. While it's fine to ask the question, it will just end up with a revisit to the sources once more - it's just not possible to ignore the large amount of references and sources that has been gathered on this topic. Given that, I do agree that perhaps the article could be cleaned up a lot. There *is* a taskforce that will hopefully help to formulate a policy on usage, and I would suggest that this discussion would more appropriately he held after the task force finishes it's work. The task force WP:BRIT is on hold until the Ireland taskforce has finished, but there's nothing to stop some background work to continue over there if you wish. --HighKing (talk) 14:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Listen lads, the last time I gave my opinion here, I received a verbal mauling, from IPs and registered users alike, so I think I'll just graciously decline to make a comment.Thanks all the same--jeanne (talk) 20:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I will say this to High King, namely that yes, I do know about the Irish not wanting to assume a British identity as I had an Irish father, husband, boyfriends, workmates, flatmates, friends, neighbours, and I also have two Irish sons. Of course, in the North of Ireland we all know it's another story entirely! I am a legal Irish resident although I live in Italy and hold a US passport.--jeanne (talk) 20:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok folks, I don't seem to be eliciting many hard views on this matter, so how about this proposal: I believe this article is skewed towards the view that there is a problem with the term British Isles. That there is a problem is not in doubt, but it is the scale of the problem that is the issue, and I believe this article exaggerates it. Therefore to help level the playing field I propose to un-bold all the references that cite the problem. As I said above, having parts of them in bold really is "in your face" and to all intents and purposes shouts it at you; it is not necessary. Please add your comments before I do (or don't do) this. Thanks. MidnightBlue (Talk) 21:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you referring to the bold text in the footnotes? My preference is to avoid any editing on this article along these lines until the task force finishes. It will avoid disruption, and this article has seen enough of that in the past. --HighKing (talk) 21:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's the bold in the footnotes that I'm concerned about. As to the involvement of the task force, I don't think there should be a moratorium on editing this, or any other, article while we await their pronouncements. In any case it's unlikely they will address low level issues such as this. MidnightBlue (Talk) 21:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The bold in the footnotes is rediculous. Such formatting does not exist anywhere else on Wikipedia and counters wiki-Manual of Stlye - "Use italics, not boldface, for emphasis in article text" (Wikipedia:Manual of Style (text formatting)). --Pretty Green (talk) 22:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

As for the tone of the article as a whole - the problem is that the questions you are asking are unaswerable. Even a survey of every person in Ireland would not really provide an answer; surveys are flawed tools at best. Terms such as 'many' or 'some' are and should be used in the article to reflect this, rather than 'most' etc. At the moment I'd say the article is in as good a state as it ever has been, with one exception - the intro is a bit skewed. Previously this contained some general information on geography and climate. I would support the reintroduction of such a paragraph, recognising that this term is now used mainly as a geographical/climatological term; it would reflect the needs of people wanting a quick overview of the topic if the are not familiar with the word. --Pretty Green (talk) 22:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

On the whole then, can I propose that any editing that results in an objection is reverted with the article being left stable (as it is now). If that is agreed in principal, I see no reason to fire ahead and edit away. Personally I have no problems with MidnightBlue's proposal - I believe the bolding is unnecessary. Similarly with Petty Green's proposal. --HighKing (talk) 22:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

(reduce indent)It's apparent that the bolding is entirely necessary to reinforce the point that there are many references that the term is offensive/objectionable. If there are references that suggest otherwise, let's see them - otherwise this is just another lap of denial stadium. Wotapalaver (talk) 22:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Aside from the citations on objectionable (which are a minority in world terms but then they would be.) the term in effect is becoming out of date. A lot of people would assume it excludes Ireland anyway. Given the prior grief over this article I suggest that we leave it as is. --Snowded TALK 12:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

This discusiion is about whether a minority or majority find the term offensive, not about the usage of the term in general - let's not confuse those two. ~~But I agree, we've been through all this before and the article has been stable for a while after the last bout, so I think the best plan is to leave it be.~~ waggers (talk) 12:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but the emboldening counters Wikipedia's Manual of Style (see link above). If the emphasis must be retained, then it should be changed to italics. --Pretty Green (talk) 14:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's at all relevant that this article is "stable". All articles are subject to change at any time; no article is frozen (unless temporarily protected). To assert stability as a reason for not developing or modifying an article is bizarre. As to the point about bolding selected parts of footnotes, consider WP:NPOV. How does bolding a statement within a reference (or in this case bolding numerous of them) stand up to this? The footnotes in question proclaim a point-of-view - nothing wrong with that, although I think the view is given undue weight. However, bolding specific parts of a statement is, in reality, saying here's a point-of-view and we are going to push that point-of-view by emphasising key parts of it. In other words, bolding parts of those footnotes (or even having them in italics) is POV pushing. Just try quickly scrolling through the entire article and what do you see? You see highlighted phrases proclaiming how bad it is to use the term British Isles. Explicit POV pushing, implicit POV pushing, subliminal POV pushing, whatever; it flies in the face of the fundamental Wikipedia principle of NPOV. MidnightBlue (Talk) 21:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

No, it flies in the face of what you believe - or what you would prefer. That's an entirely different thing. Wotapalaver (talk) 10:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

If there has been a discussion and concensus on the sentence "The British Isles is controversial in relation to Ireland, where many people find the term objectionable, and we do seem to have references to back it up, would it be a good idea to do something similar to the Wales talk page, where the template includes the fact that a long debate with good refs confirm they are a country. If we included the fact that the objectionable term is well referenced on the template and link to those refs from there, we could perhaps cut down on the amount of footnotes in the article, thus the article would not appear to be POV pushing to those who believe it is overstated. It would also prevent the same debate recurring time and again. Titch Tucker (talk) 23:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Issues related to the Wales article should be conducted on the Wales page. Wotapalaver (talk) 10:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have read a bit more carefully - my "stable" comment was really about the wording in the text itself. There's absolutely no reason for the bold text in the footnotes, it should be removed. waggers (talk) 11:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I assume the issue is about using the bold font in a quotation in a footnote. If so, then what I say now is relevant; if not, then my apologies: The issue is simple. Is the text in a bold font in the original source from which this is a quote? If the answer is "no", then it should be removed, or else we no longer have a quote, but a POV mangling of the quote by altering its emphasis. I and others think it is a matter of accuracy and integrity for the encyclopaedia that quotes should not be mangled in such a way. To give an illustration of this principle actually at work, in a related matter on another article (I can dig it out if required), some editors were linking some text which was the name of a person and which was part of a quote. This was asked about on a MoS discussion page, and the answer came back that no alteration of a quote was really acceptable: not even something as simple as linking text within the quote. So, a link to the person had to be made by adding some text after the quote which also included the person's name. The basic issues are the same here. So, if the original text uses a bold font, keep it in; if it doesn't, remove it; or, if it emphasizes the text in a different way (such as by using italics), then also use italics. The essence is to duplicate as closely as possible the text without any substantive alteration of it, otherwise it no longer is a quote. DDStretch (talk) 13:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that's a balanced and fair point of view. If it ain't bold in the original source, then it shouldn't be bold here. --HighKing (talk) 13:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I've been bold (no pun intended. Well, ok, it was intended.) waggers (talk) 13:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I hadn't considered the points above noted by DDStretch, but they are absolutely correct, and well made. Thanks. MidnightBlue (Talk) 19:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

In that case, why does somebody keep correcting the spelling "useage" as given in the Times quotation of Irish government policy? ðarkun coll 00:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean by "minority"? I would suggest that a majority in the non-British part of the Isles find it offensive, which is why the term is little used. If you are trying to tell us that the British population on the islands is much greater than the non-British population I think one can assume we already know that. Sarah777 (talk) 00:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

(response to Tharkuncoll, since Sarah777's message has now made it difficult to see that my message was a response to his) If this is happening within a clearly explicit quote, revert them; inform them of their error on their talk page; and if they continue to make the correction, which they should not be doing, report them to an appropriate uninvolved administrator. DDStretch (talk) 00:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

So sorry! It just popped up there - an edit conflict thingy I suspect. Sarah777 (talk) 00:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

(reduce indent) Were the references checked to make sure that there was no alternate font use? Wotapalaver (talk) 09:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Original research

"There is evidence that as a result of these problems, "Britain and Ireland" is becoming a preferred description."

Can we get rid of this piece of OR, please? ðarkun coll 16:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone have access to the statements or text that back up the above assertion? It seems that neither of the references (11 and 12) are available online. I'd be interested to see what they actually say. Failing that, I would support removal of the phrase, pending some hard evidence to support it. MidnightBlue (Talk) 21:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Could you have a look at this, most references on internet omit Ireland.[8] PurpleA (talk) 17:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

You say that "most" references on the Internet omit Ireland, then only provide one reference. ðarkun coll 17:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

[9]6,700,000. That's 70% that don't mention Ireland. I'm dealing with facts, and not make-believe, and the hard facts are there for all to see. "British Isles" is a political term from the time the joint kingdom. PurpleA (talk) 18:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Please explain how you came by that figure. And you're wrong about the origin of the term - it dates back to Ancient Greek times. ðarkun coll 18:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes many of those hits don't mention Ireland, but link to pages mentioning Ireland or in some way do contain Ireland (maps of Dublin, discussion of Loch Neagh and various others.) Doing a search for British Isles and just a -Ireland doesn't prove anything. Just because the search result doesn't explicitly mention Ireland doesn't mean they don't mean the term to include Ireland. People don't use a phrase, and then continue to explain what it means otherwise what's the point of the phrase? So it's quite valid to get lots of returns for British Isles and not have mention of Ireland on the page. For instance a page with the simple line "The River Shannon is the largest river in the British Isles" doesn't contain Ireland, but is including Ireland in its definition. Canterbury Tail talk 19:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

[10]Here it is again, 'British Isles' gets about 10,000,000. What have the Greeks to do with it? The Britons and Gaels were here long before them, they're east European. Anyway, I don't want to get into ever-circling debates as they are inconclusive. The only remedy is in the wording of the article. PurpleA (talk) 19:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

What have the Greeks to do with it? They invented the term - or haven't you read the article? And the Celts invaded around 500 BC (or infiltrated - whatever the current archaeological opinion), by which time the Greeks had been settled in their homeland about 700 years. ðarkun coll 01:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

[11] Most references don't include britain either. Eckerslike (talk) 19:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit, the link is giving different results, 22m & 6.7m. And only 10m for British Isles. Something wrong!PurpleA (talk) 19:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

And using "British Isles" -England also returns millions of results. Does this mean England isn't in the British Isles? Of course not. Same with "British Isles" -Britain. Canterbury Tail talk 19:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Google searches obviously can't be used as references but their results are usually indicative. A quick glance at the first page of image results for "The British Isles" comes up only with images of Great Britain and Ireland. 1. That's just my two pence worth. ;) Best, --Cameron * 17:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The two references are available online. Wotapalaver (talk) 15:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't find them. Although the sources are available in Google Books, the pages mentioned are not accessible. IS there some other online source? MidnightBlue (Talk) 18:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

You not being able to find them is a different problem. Also, the pages are accessible. Wotapalaver (talk) 18:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

No. In Google Books for the first reference we get "pages 9 and 10 are not part of this book preview". The reference is apparently on page 9. MidnightBlue (Talk) 18:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

(reduce indent) Yes, they are available in Google Books. The fact that you don't know how to get to them is a different issue. In any case, you can go to a library and find them. Wotapalaver (talk) 19:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Could you quote the relevant passages here, please? Or at least explain how we can access them online. ðarkun coll 19:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I could. But you've said the sentence is OR, so that should be impossible, right? Wotapalaver (talk) 19:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

It was a perfectly reasonable request, there's no need to start acting like a child. ðarkun coll 19:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

It was a perfectly reasonable answer. I could quote the relevant passages here. I could explain how you can access them online. You did say that the sentence was OR, to be gotten rid of. These are somehow mutually incompatible. So, what basis did you have for saying it was OR? Can you explain that? Wotapalaver (talk) 19:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, if I could see the quotations, I might be proved wrong. For some reason, however, you appear unwilling to help me access them. ðarkun coll 19:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict 3!)It seems to me that the statement cannot be backed up with adequate references. I suggest we remove it until verifiable references are available. MidnightBlue (Talk) 19:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. ðarkun coll 19:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The references are verifiable and reputable. The books can be obtained in any library. The texts are also available online. Wotapalaver (talk) 19:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

(conflict)Wotapalaver, could you please put the requested material on this page so that we all might assess it. Failing that, I'lll remove the sentence from the article. The texts are not available online. MidnightBlue (Talk) 19:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I will put how to access the material online. The texts are most certainly available online. Your inability to get to them is not Wikipedia's problem. The references fully support the text. The bias and POV of you and TharkunColl is also completely obvious. Wotapalaver (talk) 19:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

(reduce indent) OK. Hereby Wotapalaver offers TharkunColl and MidnightBlueMan a basic POV warrior's guide to finding references that they wished didn't exist. This Guide involves simple use of google book search. (i) Enter name of book in google book search (ii) find desired book preview in list of results (iii) select desired book (iv) enter desired search term within book, e.g. "British Isles" (v) go to list of results that miraculously include pages that are not supposed to be available (v_b) think "sh**, why didn't I think of that?" and feel a bit stupid (vi) match list of results with reference from Wikipedia article (vii) go to appropriate page (viii) read text (ix) understand that the text of the Wikipedia article was not OR, that the text of the referenced book is available online, and that apologies are now due to the helpful editor who showed the road to enlightenment. Steps (i) through (viii) are easy. Step (ix) may require some effort. Wotapalaver (talk) 19:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be easier if you just posted them here. ðarkun coll 19:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The text of references should not be reproduced on Wikipedia, in many cases such references are copyrighted, plus Wikipedia is not a repository of such reference material. The references can be made, and as long as their accurate that should be enough. Not all references have to be material that can be found using a Google search. Canterbury Tail talk 19:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

It is perfectly okay to quote short passages from copyrighted material for the purposes of discussion or review. ðarkun coll 19:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. And if there is concern about copyright they can be deleted when we've read them. 82.14.86.102 (talk) 19:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

So every reference should include the quoted section of what it is referring to? That's not how references work. A reference provided the source of something, it doesn't reproduce that information. Canterbury Tail talk 19:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

No, but that's not the issue here. We're trying to reach an editorial decision. ðarkun coll 19:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it would. Wotapalaver (talk) 19:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

(conflict)::Quite. I've just tried it. This is what you get (first reference) - "Page 9, You have reached your viewing limit for this book". Other pages are available, but not page 9. I haven't bothered with the second reference. Wotapalaver, if you have access to the statements please save us all a lot of time and put them here, paraphrased if you can't recall the exact words. I've no problem with leaving the sentence in the article if the text of the references is good. 82.14.86.102 (talk) 19:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, it's not my problem if you can't read the book online. Any decent library will be able to get a copy if you order it. Since you say you have no problem with leaving the sentence in the article if the reference is good then I suggest you leave it there, because the reference is good. Wotapalaver (talk) 19:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Prove it. Quote it. Is that too much to ask? ðarkun coll 19:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

(conflict)If the text from the references stands up to the claim then fine. Let's include the text in the reference itself. It is not very helpful having a reference to a statement in a book when that book is relatively inaccessible. Wotapalaver, if you have access to the text, please either include it in the references, or put it here for review. MidnightBlue (Talk) 20:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

You have detailed instructions on how to access the material yourself. Make an effort. Either use Google Book search or go to a library. The references are there, the text is accurate, the sources are good. Why do you say it's OR? Anyway, I'm off. Nightynight. Wotapalaver (talk) 19:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

It appears to be impossible to access it. Oh well, nightynight then - the sentence will have to go. ðarkun coll 19:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'm removing the sentence pending an expansion of the references with the requested texts, or an acknowledgement that they don't stand up to scrutiny. MidnightBlue (Talk) 20:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Is this the page everyone is refering to? Titch Tucker (talk) 20:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

No, it's page 9 of the same publication we're after. For some reason the publication defaults to page 36 when you access it in Google Books. MidnightBlue (Talk) 20:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I may be confused (its always possible), my link points to page 9 and it has the text saying that Britain and Ireland is becoming a preferred usage. Titch Tucker (talk) 20:44, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

That's fine. Please post the precise text here, including enough of it to gauge the context. When I access the book it defaults to page 36, and page 9 is inaccessible. Does anyone have an explanation as to why this might be - some quirk of Google Books, or something? Thanks. MidnightBlue (Talk) 20:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Titch Tucker is correct, I get page 9, try this one [12], slightly different. PurpleA (talk) 20:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Me too, that link goes to page 9. Maybe different geographic areas are getting it linked differently, Google has a habit of doing that. Canterbury Tail talk 20:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) FWIW, I got page 9. It's the first page of CHAPTER 1, of the book. GoodDay (talk) 20:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I can read it on PurpleA's link (page 9), but on Titch's link I go to page 36 and page 9 is inaccessible. Anyway, having carefully read the section it is apparent the author is not claiming that "Britain and Ireland" is becoming preferred to "British Isles". He mentions British Isles, UK, England etc. He seems to be saying that "Britain and Ireland" is becoming a preferred term to any description, but to use his words to make the claim specifically about the British Isles is synthesis. MidnightBlue (Talk) 21:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The page-in-question mentions that Britain and Ireland and Archepalego are becoming prefferd alternatives usages to British Isles. GoodDay (talk) 21:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

No it doesn't. See above MidnightBlue (Talk) 21:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

In relation to the naming of the "British Isles" the text is as follows. "It is difficult to find neutral desciptions even of territory. Many of the Irish dislike the 'British' in 'British Isles'. In response to these difficulties, 'Britain and Ireland' is becoming a preferred usage although there is also a growing trend amongst some critics to refer to Britain and Ireland as the archipelago. Titch Tucker (talk) 21:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

That is an edited version of the text. You have missed out a chunk between "..in British Isles." and "..In response to these difficulties". MidnightBlue (Talk) 21:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I was copying what I thought was the relevent passages. Even taking the whole page in context you can't deny the sentence beginning "In response to.." is affirmation from this author that Britain and Ireland is becoming the preferred usage.It's there in black and white, and it's a solid reference in my opinion Titch Tucker (talk) 22:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

As someone who is not too bothered what its called, I have to say the text does back up the assertion that Britain and Ireland is becoming preferred over British Isles. Titch Tucker (talk) 21:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll let ya'll figure it out. GoodDay (talk) 21:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Here's the other book, and a page. [13] PurpleA (talk) 21:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

This appears to be a better reference, albeit one riddled with weasel words. It does not constitute evidence, but rather the view of the author. Nevertheless, it could be good enough to reinstate the sentence, but I would suggest an appropriate re-wording to remove the word "evidence". I await other views. MidnightBlue (Talk) 22:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted back to consensus. How are some editors allowed to remove citated data from the article, and not others. Admins please? PurpleA (talk) 00:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I've no opinion on what the article should say, but it seems that certain editors are going out of their way to be unhelpful about what the reference to page 9 of British Culture of the Postwar: An Introduction to Literature and Society, 1945-1999 actually says. It is transcribed below:

In my reading of the Irish, Scottish and Welsh writing of the postwar period, I place emphasis on the tension, awkwardness and embarrassment that Irish, Scottish and Welsh people experience with the English language: as they use it, as they are described by it and as they transform it. Amongst other features of this tension there is a history of controversy over naming people, territories, languages and literatures that may or may not be obvious to readers from elsewhere.

The United Kingdom is a name that attempts to encompass two kingdoms, Scotland and England; a principality, Wales; and a province, Northern Ireland, (which incorporates most of the old Irish province of Ulster), partitioned since 1920 from the rest of Ireland. Many people in Ireland, Scotland and Wales regard the terms 'kingdom', 'principality' and 'province' with unease and there is a continuing dispute over whom to include in the adjectives 'Irish', 'Scottish' and 'Welsh'. It is difficult to find neutral descriptions even of territory. Many Irish dislike the 'British' in 'British Isles', while the Welsh and Scottish are not keen on 'Great Britain'. As the Scottish poet Douglas Dunn (b. 1942) puts it:

At certain points the cultures of Wales, Ireland, Scotland and England overlap. But there's too much resistance from each of them — and, quite rightly so, from England too, for these tentatively shared concerns to make a 'Britain'. (Crawford 1992: 290)

In response to these difficulties, 'Britain and Ireland' is becoming a preferred usage although there is a growing trend amongst some critics to refer to Britain and Ireland as 'the archipelago'.

Interpret that as you will. Quoting this is on the talk page is unlikely to involve any copyright issues as it is almost certainly both 'fair use' per US law and 'fair dealing' per English & Welsh law: specifically it is not quoting an 'unreasonable proportion' of the work, and its quotation is for the purpose of review. —ras52 (talk) 01:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I've got to ask. How do you iterpret it? It would be good to hear an opinion from someone who, like myself, has no strong opinion either way, but will just stick to references. Titch Tucker (talk) 02:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem with the term Britain and Ireland is that it makes no reference to the fact that they are both islands. The term Archipelago of Britain and Ireland is a bit cumbersome as is Islands of Britain and Ireland, although the latter is preferable to the former. Celtic Isles would be my personal choice as tests have shown that the English have quite a bit of Celtic mtDNA, and of course, the people of Cornwall are Celtic not Saxon.--jeanne (talk) 09:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I've reworded the sentence in question to emphasize that its not a generally held opinion that "Britain and Ireland" is preferred. The first reference is unclear on the matter and I propose we delete it. The second reference merely gives the opinion of the author on the matter. MidnightBlue (Talk) 09:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The article needs to make clear, with citations, the fact that the term "British Isles" has historically been used, and is now still used by most people in Great Britain (and, perhaps, most other parts of the world) to describe the archipelago. It also needs to make clear, with citations, the fact that the term "has caused offence" (not "is offensive", or "may cause offence", which are POV and weaselly) to some, especially in Ireland; and that, to some, especially in Ireland, terms such as "Britain and Ireland" are increasingly suggested and used as alternatives. We need to set out referenced facts not our personal opinions (which are utterly, completely, totally irrelevant to making a decent article here), and certainly should not be promoting terms that are not widely used or are invented on this page. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The references don't say Britain and Ireland is the preferred usage. I interpret it as saying the term is becoming more popular, particulary in Ireland. How popular is impossible to say (I don't live in Ireland), we can't speculate on that. I agree with Ghymyrtle in that we should not promote terms that are not widely used, but then if we stick to what the references say we won't be doing that. We certainly shouldn't dismiss references because we either don't agree with them or don't like them. Titch Tucker (talk) 10:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Ｉhadn't intended to comment further on this, and I've certainly no desire to get dragged into this argument. However, since Titch Tucker asks, I'll attempt to interpret that source. First, can I note that I have not read more of the work than the passage I quote above and later sections of the book may qualify this further. The key issue appears to be how to interpret 'Britain and Ireland' is becoming a preferred usage. Microanalysing that clause and the surrounding text, I draw five conclusions:

'Britain and Ireland' is not yet the preferred usage (because the author of that chapter, Siobhán Kilfeather, uses becoming rather than has become);
'Britain and Ireland' is not becoming the sole preferred usage, rather one of several (evidence: the author's use of a rather than the);
there already exists one or more current preferred usage(s) (from context, 'British Isles' would appear to be one, despite the problems she acknowledges with that term);
'Britain and Ireland' is probably of sufficiently widespread use and/or appeal for the author to mention it; and
the author considers 'British and Ireland' to be synonymous with (though lacking certain of the connotations associated with) the term 'British Isles' (i.e. irrespective of whether she thinks that use of the term 'British Isles' is appropriate, she considers it widely enough understood as including Ireland that she does not feel it necessary to explain that).

Obviously, this is just one source amongst many. I am not well enough acquainted with the other sources to know how mainstream Kilfeather's opinions are. —ras52 (talk) 10:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the ridiculous "preffered by some commentators", as it is NOT in the sources. Wotapalaver (talk) 10:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I have AGAIN removed the weasel words "preferred by some commentators". Wotapalaver (talk) 13:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

You obviously don't know what a weasel word is. The "some" are the authors of the referenced texts, given as examples. "Some" is not a weasel word here because we can resolve who "some" is. MidnightBlue (Talk) 14:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

(reduce indent) Again, your bias clouds your reading. The authors don't say they prefer it. They says it is becoming preferred usage. There is no evidence as to whether the authors themselves prefer it or not. Therefore there is no grounds or support for any text like "preferred by some commentators". Wotapalaver (talk) 14:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone suggests that it is becoming the preferred usage, do they? We have one source that states it is becoming a preferred usage. That is significantly different IMHO. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

There are two solid reputable references. Read them.Wotapalaver (talk) 17:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I had no intention of returning here, but I feel I have to point out that the sentence "Great Britain and Ireland is preferred by some commentators" has no relation whatsoever to the reference. The author makes no claim that he prefers it. When he says it is becoming preferred usage, where does it say he prefers it? We must stick with what it says in the ref, not draw our own conclusions from something he never wrote. Titch Tucker (talk) 14:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Just a suggestion. If this continues to be reverted then reverted again perhaps a neutral admin could be asked to come in and give an opinion on it. Titch Tucker (talk) 14:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Just to make a suggestion here - the argument appears to arise from Wikipedia making a statement that may or may not be factual based on limited references. May I suggest, as a compromise, the current sentence As a result of these problems, "Britain and Ireland" is becoming a preferred description. is changed to Some commentators say that because of these issues, "Britain and Ireland" is becoming a preferred description.? This sentence is undoubtedly true: it doesn't say that the term is preferred by the commentators, nor does it claim the preference to be true, just that someone says it is true. 2p, don't shoot me :) Stephenb (Talk) 23:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

This was the obvious solution that sprang to my mind too - I wondered if anyone else would think likewise. Would endorse such a wording as both precise and accurate. Knepflerle (talk) 03:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

BBC Style Guide

The use of the BBC Style Guide (actually the BBC News Style Guide) to justify the so-called confusing nature of the term British Isles is inappropriate. The guide in question can be seen here [14]. Please refer to page 39 and you will see that the term "confusion" does not relate to the British Isles at all; it relates to devolution. I've removed the sentence that uses the style guide text as a reference. MidnightBlue (Talk) 12:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Further to the above, we also have this statement in the article; "The Economic History Society style guide suggests that the term should be avoided.". Yes, they do suggest the term should be avoided in their style guide, but they would, wouldn't they? The question is why do they? Almost certainly the answer is not because they dislike the term, or because they consider it controversial, it is because economic matters should not be considered from the point-of-view of the BI, they should be considered from the point-of-view of individual nations. The text from the style guide, if read beyond the selected statement, implies this. Yet again we have a quote being taken out of context and used to push POV. MidnightBlue (Talk) 12:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Well spotted! --Cameron * 13:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The BBC style guide statement does relate to the British Isles as can easily be seen by reading it. Only AFTER the rhetorical question "Confused Already?" relating to the description of the British Isles does it start to talk about devolution by saying "Devolution has made a complicated system even more complicated." As for the Economic History Society, the society DOES suggest that the term be avoided. This whole idea of "they would, wouldn't they?" put forward by MidnightBlueMan is where the POV is coming from. The article here accurately said that the Society's style guide suggests avoiding use of the term British Isles. MidnightBlue's speculation as to why is merely speculation. Wotapalaver (talk) 13:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Well rebutted! --HighKing (talk) 13:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

You are wrong. The whole page is about devolution. Look at the banner at top left of the page. The question "confused already?" clearly refers to devolution and not to British Isles usage. Anyone can see it. Not rebutted at all! MidnightBlue (Talk) 14:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

(reduce indent) Right. Sure. OK. And yesterday two other verifiable reputable references, where you are now putting in "preferred by some commentators" as weasel words to try to avoid what they say, were references that didn't exist at all. Problem for you is that they do exist and they're uncomfortably unambigous for you so now you're off trying to attack other refs that you don't like either. Excuse me if I don't take your opinion very seriously. Your bias is all too clear. Wotapalaver (talk) 14:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Well get this: I'm going to check out every single reference in this article, and those that don't stand up, or where there's doubt, are going to get removed. So far, the four I've looked at are either ambiguous or used out of context. MidnightBlue (Talk) 14:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh good. Now if you have an open mind then perhaps reading the references will have an educational effect. Wotapalaver (talk) 14:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Would ya'll do this article a favour & put away your revert buttons? Iron out a deal first, before implamentation. GoodDay (talk) 15:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with GoodDay. If there can be no agreement over this then as I said above perhaps a neutral admin could have a look at it. Titch Tucker (talk) 15:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I still believe Celtic Isles is the best compromise. It doesn't leave anyone out of the picture.--jeanne (talk) 15:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Does anybody use that term? I think not. Sorry, but the fact that you think it would be good if they did is irrelevant. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

This is the English language wikipedia. The term is British Isles and rightfully titled as such. I dont care who is offended, there are 1000s of articles with offensive titles, racist names for a start. On the issue of the statement questioned above, everything without sources and not in the correct context should be removed.. that seems fair. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you're in the wrong thread. Nobody here is arguing about the title... --HighKing (talk) 17:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)The text comes at the start of a chapter on Devolution, and follows two paragraphs that discuss the various terms in use regarding various areas. It describes/defines/explains the United Kingdom, Great Britain, Crown Dependencies, and the British Isles. It then uses the text "Confused already? Keep going" to make a lighthearted point that there are a lot of terms to describe different areas and this can be confusing. I agree that the reference does not specifically state that the term "British Isles" is confusing, but rather is meant to refer to confusing nature of the multiplicity of names for similar-yet-different regions/areas. On the other hand, it does make the point that due to the multiplicity of terms, it is one of the terms that may lead to confusion. Perhaps the wording in the article should be changed to reflect this broader point? --HighKing (talk) 17:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

If - according to the BBC - the term United Kingdom is also confusing then that should also be mentioned in the article on the UK. The BBC document clearly indicates that the term British Isles is confusing. Devolution is relevant to the discussion here in that - according to the BBC document - devolution has made the issue even more complicated. Wotapalaver (talk) 17:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe that the point being made isn't that any individual term is confusing, but rather that it is easy to become confused as to which term is the correct term due to the multiplicity of terms for similar regions. So the term United Kingdom might be used incorrectly to refer to Great Britain, etc. It doesn't state that "British Isles", specifically, is confusing - rather it's a slightly bigger point in that it can be confusing referring to any of the areas/regions with accuracy. --HighKing (talk) 17:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Because the referenced material does not apply specifically to the term British Isles then it should not be used as a reference. It is clearly being used out of context here. MidnightBlue (Talk) 20:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't go that far. The referenced material does make a good point - that being that the area known as the British Isles has several other terms for different bits, and it is confusing for most people as to which is the correct term for the correct area, etc. A rewording/rephrasing is probably the best action to take in order to clarify. --HighKing (talk) 19:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

As for "The Economic History Society Style Guide" there is absolutely no explanation given as to why the term should be avoided, altough as I said above, it's highly likely to be in connection with its inappropriateness in economic matters. As such, this ambiguous citation should not be used. MidnightBlue (Talk) 20:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

(reduce indent) No explanation of the Economic History Society's style guide is required. The text in the article matches a verifiable and reputable reference. A speculative interpretation of why they recommend "British Isles" be avoided is neither here nor there. Similarly the convoluted reasoning which tries to work around the clear meaning of the BBC document and the accuracy with which the article referenced the BBC document is obviously driven by the same POV as insisted that the other two reputable references didn't exist. Of course, they did and do exist. It's just that IDONTLIKEIT has again raised its ugly head. Wotapalaver (talk) 23:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Protection

I can see this page headed towards protection again. Please make decisions on the talk page, and don't keep reverting the article or it will be protected again due to edit warring. Canterbury Tail talk 15:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

And please read the references everyone. Actually read them, what they actually say and not what you wished they said. Wotapalaver (talk) 15:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I've just issued a load of 3RR warnings on this article, please stop reverting and engaging in edit wars or the article will be protected. Please discuss the issues, and stop reverting even while engaged in discussions. Canterbury Tail talk 16:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Can we have a trace on some likely culprits and compare them to the anonymous user 212.2.183.202 who popped up out of nowhere to revert my last edit, please? It seems highly suspicious to me. ðarkun coll 16:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not suspicious of the IP (nor do I favour either edit), but I recommend the IPs edit be reverted. An IPs very first edit, in the middle of this dispute, isn't helping things. GoodDay (talk) 16:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

As much as I am also suspicious, reverting an edit for no reason other than it's an IP might set a very dangerous precedent... Goes against policy too. --HighKing (talk) 17:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The IP is a general IP used by BT Ireland. I find it amusing that someone in Ireland who may (may) have an anti-British slant uses BT for their internet :) Canterbury Tail talk 18:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

That's a very old-fashioned view with some bigotry peeping over your shoulder. I suppose you don't fly with Ryanair and shop in Primark if you're living in the UK and have an anti-Irish view. Don't be ridiculous... --18:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

What makes you think the IP is anti-British? Editing this article should have nothing to do with being anti-Irish, or anti-British, or anti-anything. All that's called for is a neutral article that "says it as it is", no more no less. PurpleA (talk) 18:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I apologise for the joke. And there was no bigotry involved. Apparently a qualification and a smiley face wasn't enough to put forward that it was a joke. They always say humour doesn't travel across the pond. Canterbury Tail talk 19:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we do. :-) --HighKing (talk) 19:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)I recommend edit protection if there's any futher edit warring, until this issue has been discussed properly. --HighKing (talk) 17:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

People need to read the references, which clearly say what was in the previous consensus version and do not support the weaselly garbage "preferred by some commentators" that the POV warriors are putting in. Wotapalaver (talk) 17:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

C'mon guy's. I knew this was going to happen. We need some outside views here. Has anyone asked for an outside view? Or a request for comment? Titch Tucker (talk) 23:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

This has been going on for years. There are people (and you see some of them now) who'll wait for months until things seem quiet, then jump in and start deleting sections they don't like, insisting that a reference doesn't exist, that the reference says something which it doesn't say, etc., etc., etc. You see here a classic case of it, with the junky "some commentators" as a classic example of what to try with references they really don't like. Wotapalaver (talk) 23:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Then there has to be a way to solve this. Is a request for comment one of those? I'm willing to ask for it. Or is there a better way to solve this problem? Titch Tucker (talk) 23:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I have to say the wording "some commentators" is ~~a disgrace~~ wrong considering the references make no mention of that. Titch Tucker (talk) 00:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

"Some commentators" are the authors of the references - just to be clear. You would not deny that the authors of the references are commentators on this matter, in the normally understood meaning of the word commentator. Further, they are clearly expressing a preference for the use of the term, they say so, and they use the term. It is completely irrelevant that the word commentator is not used in the references. As to the references themselves, I would personally eliminate the first one, it being too ambiguous. The second one is not a "quality" reference, being as it is, shot through with weasel words, but as a reference it probably stands up - just. I don't really see what you problem is. MidnightBlue (Talk) 10:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

(reduce) Except that they don't say that they themselves prefer it. They say that it is preferred. The "some commentators prefer" text is simply inaccurate, unsupported, and garbage. Wotapalaver (talk) 09:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Other references

Would some other editors care to comment of the BBC Style Guide reference, and its use here, and also similarly on the Economic History Society reference. Also, I'm trying to evaluate reference 9 but can't find what this reference is supposed to say in support of "many people find the term objectionable". Does anyone have the actual text, and if so, it should be included in the footnote text. Failing that, I can't see how the statement about "many people" can presently be justified. MidnightBlue (Talk) 13:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

People did comment on the BBC style guide, to the effect that "confusing" followed a description of the British Isles, but I don't think you liked the answer. I sometimes thing that some editors have a bring forward diary note which means they return to the same subject time and time again in the hope that other editors will just get tired and give up. I can see no new evidence or challenge being made above, its tedious to keep coming back to these shibboleths --Snowded TALK 13:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I wish I knew what a shibboleths was. Anyway, I can't be bothered to look it up. The vast majority of comments did not address the point in question. I would like some impartial assessments if possible (that would probably rule you out). MidnightBlue (Talk) 13:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, I can't be bothered to look it up is the exact issue I have with the failure to take accout of previous material and discussions. I did look at the sources in the last debate and concluded that British Isles should be maintained as a term but it needed some qualification. That consensus took some time and required good faith to be assumed. I commend it to you (and yes that is an ambiguous statement). --Snowded TALK 14:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Pantomine, Dead & Joke Languages: not spoken in British Isles as native

Why are so many arcane languages which are not even significant alive/used today as native featured in the intro? It looks a total mess. The purpose of non-English language translations are supposed to be languages which are actually spoken to a significant extent today by the natives, to help the reader. Not to try push obscure mythical ethno-nationalist causes. For example on the aticle Vienna, it simply has the translation Wien, because they all speak the German language. Languages actually in significant use in the British Isles;

English
Scots
Irish
Welsh (at a push).

While sepratists such as the Salmond Nationalist Party would like Scotland to speak Gaelic, after he saw how much tourism the movie Braveheart brought, this is not represenative of reality on the ground. The language actually spoken by people as native in Scotland is the Gemanic based language Scots. Cornish? dead language, barely a pub table could be filled with people who learn it for fun as a third language (after their native English and school taught French or Spanish). Manx? dead since 1974.

Shall we include other arcane dead languages, just for fun? A huge amount of the educated classes used to speak Latin (as did the Church) and Ancient Greek, lets throw some of that in there. The entire noblity used to speak only French in part of the Middle Ages. The Danes were around for a couple of weeks, what did they call it? Does anybody know the Pictish language name for the British Isles? Cumbric language? How about Beaker culture language? In the British Isles there are more native Urdu and Polish speakers than there are Manx, Cornish, Scottish Gaelic third language, "for fun", speakers combined, should we make the intro more of a mess and include those instead? Island Feverr (talk) 22:46, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

You're forgetting Guernsey French and Jersey French, both of which are still spoken by natives (albeit not very many of them), not "for fun" but because that's the mother tongue of the people who speak them. Although I do agree, many of the other languages are certainly not the first language of the people who speak them. The problem with this, along with many of the other issues around this article, is that it's very hard to verify actual usage. For example, when the last person who's first language is Guernsey French dies, I doubt there'll be significant news coverage etc. alerting us to the fact. waggers (talk) 13:47, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Island Feverr, your supposed "arcane languages which are not even significant alive/used today as native featured in the intro" are there because they are recognised under the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, ratified by the UK Parliament in 2001, and in the case of the Irish language, under the Constitution of Ireland the Irish language is the first language of the Republic of Ireland. I trust that answers your question. Endrick Shellycoat 16:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The phrase " Welsh (at a push" indicates a failure to any basic research before sounding off. All the languages listed have native speakers. --Snowded TALK 17:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Excellent addition of the "Scots language" version, Breetish Isles, in the lead! It makes a brilliant mockery of this pov-pushers' paradise of an article (the pov pushers being those who object to the term, in case you had any doubt). I vote we leave it in. MidnightBlue (Talk) 19:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Scots is a language recognised by the EU, the UK government and the Irish government dating back hundreds of years and the former language of the royal court of Scotland. In fact as many people on this page attribute the term British Isles to James VI & I, who spoke Scots, Breetish Isles is probably one of the most important ones to have, being presumably the pronunciation originally used. As such it deserves to be included along with the other native languages of the British Isles. Having immigrant language names listed would not be particularly useful and not what people would expect to see in the lead. Scroggie (talk) 20:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Two things. (1) Could we please get some sources for all these translations? While I don't dispute its accuracy, "Breetish Isles" could look a tad makey-uppy to readers who don't know that Scots even exists.. (2) Could we please use the same font for the various phrases? It looks really messy now. Wotapalaver (talk) 17:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

(1)

Done (2) Lang Templates themselves dictate the font. Endrick Shellycoat 01:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree - it's useful information for the article. However, the introduction is now really rather clumsy - it's the third line before we say what the article's actually about. Can we split it off to a separate section à la Bratislava or Vienna; this will also allow including more information - on the different shades between the three Irish translations, for example. Knepflerle (talk) 01:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Your examples differ in that the alternatives are those used not by 'natives' of the places themselves, but by 'foreigners', for want of a better description. If the opening paragraph tends towards being "messsy"/"clumsy", I remain of the opinion that overall it doesn't detract too much from the article itself. The list of tongues native to these isles is finite and the list is complete as it stands. There will be no further additions and for the sake of the whole picture and avoiding disputes over who stays and who doesn't I for one can live with it as is. Endrick Shellycoat 01:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Not so - in the case of Bratislava, just shy of 4% of the population of Bratislava are ethnic Hungarians; a higher proportion of speakers than any of these language communities within the British Isles. That the list is finite and the situation won't worsen doesn't mean it is a good situation now. Knepflerle (talk) 01:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Apologies - apparently 1 exception to my previous assertion. IMHO what we have now isn't a bad situation either; the facts are there for all to see and if the reader is surprised by the number of native languages other than English which variously describe the term "British Isles" then what can possibly be wrong with that? Endrick Shellycoat 02:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC) PS If you recon it'll make things better, why not place these in the info-box, given the islands infobox can include "native" names.

Causing surprise is neither a problem nor our aim - it's just that we take three lines before we even begin to say what we're talking about. The priorities are wrong here. The lead is to set out what the article is about, at a glance; information about what it is called in other languages is interesting and relevant but not of such primary importance that it should dominate the lead to the extent it currently does. As before, I don't think this material should be removed from the article - I just believe to a separate section (with a link from the lead) will keep the lead focused and give more room for expansion for explanation on the origins, meanings and uses of the terms. Anyway, I think I've made it quite clear what my opinion on the matter is - let's see if anyone else has any thoughts. I'm not planning on changing anything without consensus. Knepflerle (talk) 03:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

PS: Including the names in the infobox is a fine idea; this need not exclude the possibility of having a dedicated section in the text as well, to further explore the topic. Knepflerle (talk) 03:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

How about removing the terms from the first para and including them in the info-box instead, as per that shown below (the Celtic languages are grouped by division):
Endrick Shellycoat 04:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Ehm, the fonts are still different and the source supposedly for "Breetish Isles" doesn't seem to be any such thing. As far as I can see it's a source for "Breetain" and "Breetish" and describes them as "obsolete", doesn't it? Wotapalaver (talk) 10:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, the phrase "Native name" is very odd. Can't we do better? Wotapalaver (talk) 11:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The fonts are "different" because that is how the templates are set up. The same applies to the term "Native name" as used in the info box. If you're not happy with either, I can only suggest you take this up on the talk pages of the templates themselves. I have inserted that which seems to have been required to alter the font. I trust that is now satisfactory. (Have also included new map - see discussion next section).

As for "obsolete", the source indeed describes the term "Breetain", not "Breetish", as "now obsol." Indeed, if you go to The Online Scots Dictionary and enter "British" in the "Translate" box you'll find the same translation there, however there is no similar translation for "Britain", which would tend to support the DSL/SNDS assertion that "Breetain" is now obsolete, unlike "Breetish".

As for the word "Isles", (used here in "Breetish_Isles"), according to Merriam-Webster, the word "Isles" is "Middle English, from Anglo-French ile, isle, from Latin insula", which given that the Scots language is also derived from early northern Middle English, guess what? "Isles" is the same in Scots as in English, hence the same useage in this instance. OK? Endrick Shellycoat 17:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Ehm, not really, no. Is there a source for "Breetish Isles"? That's what's needed.83.147.185.241 (talk) 09:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

It is indeed worrying that we can't find a single Google Books or Google Scholar hit for the term, and not even any Google hits outside Wikipedia and its mirrors. We might well be into the realms of original research or synthesis with this term. Remember the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth as such. Knepflerle (talk) 12:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Copied from entry in following section entitled "Undue weight to this list": ""Breetish isles" does have a reference: Scots Language Centre - select the "Show content as Scots" tab and scroll down to the section on "Romany" or "Standard English", (or just use the 'Find (on this page)' function)... Endrick Shellycoat 10:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC) "

One isolated use on one site and no documented scholarly, referenced, peer-reviewed or even mainstream journalistic use doesn't make a "reference". It's still a long way short of fulfilling our verifiability and no original research policies. Knepflerle (talk) 15:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

LOL! Please feel free to write to the board of the Dictionary of the Scots Language, Scottish Arts Council, Perth and Kinross Council and the board of the Scots Language Resource Centre Association Ltd., and ask them if the use on the website of the Scots Language Centre of the term "Breetish Isles" is "scholarly, referenced, peer-reviewed or even mainstream journalistic", and if not why not. You've now been provided with references for the both the term "Breetish" and its use in "Breetish Isles". Please keep your own POV in check. Endrick Shellycoat 16:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

How has knowing that the site is funded from public bodies helped you answer any of the following: Who wrote the article? What is their academic training? What sources did they use? Was the article checked and critically reviewed? How come this article using a form that is unused anywhere else? Note also that "British Isles" is used in the Scots translations on the same site here and here for example, so we don't even have self-consistency in our single source. Extrapolating a single, unnamed, inconsistent writer on one website to make a definitive declaration that this is the way of writing British Isles is not justified.

This paucity of good-quality evidence should also be compared to the ease with which we can reliably verify other Scots names in reliable sources: Glesca on Google Scholar, Embra on Google Books, Aiberdeen on Google Books - it makes you wonder why this doesn't get anywhere close.

Seeing the source has been questioned by myself, User:Wotapalaver and User:83.147.185.241 as your only answer to reasonable questioning the source is baseless accusation of "POV", I think it should be made clear to our readers that there is not a full consensus for this material's verifiability. If nothing else, I'd like to see evidence of any other editors prepared to put as much faith in this single source. Knepflerle (talk) 03:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Forgive my "LOL" and "POV" comments which have resulted in your appearing to blow a gasket - my intention was not to elicit such a response. Your points are fair and your points listed as "Who wrote the article? What is their academic training? What sources did they use? Was the article checked and critically reviewed? How come this article using a form that is unused anywhere else? Note also that "British Isles" is used in the Scots translations on the same site here and here for example, so we don't even have self-consistency in our single source." are unfortunately not ones which I can answer personally. However, I intend to communicate with those bodies named in my previous response to establish the facts and will get back to you ASAP.Endrick Shellycoat 09:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

On further inspection, we have an even more acute problem with the Cornish Ynysow Predennek Google, one posting in guitar forum, Google Books, 1 hit but can't check text, Google Scholar draws a blank. The Manx Ellanyn Goaldagh also draws a blank on Google Scholar and only a single on Google Books, though there is some evidence of use on other websites on Google. The Manx translation probably scrapes through WP:V; the Cornish is nowhere near, and should be removed or tagged if no better sourcing is forthcoming. Prominently displayed information in an important article needs solid foundations. Knepflerle (talk) 15:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, do you (Knepflerle) accept, (once having read this link), that the DSL meets all your requirements with regard to ""Who wrote the article? What is their academic training? What sources did they use? Was the article checked and critically reviewed?". The DSL includes a reference for "adj. Breetish (Gall. 1893 A. Agnew Hered. Sheriffs Gall. II. 340; Fif., Lth. 1926 Wilson Cent. Scot. 100; ‡Abd. 1975)." I await a response from the Scots Language Centre as to the use of "Breetish" or indeed "British" when coupled with "Isles". Endrick Shellycoat 20:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Undue weight to this list

As I see it, there is an issue of WP:UNDUE in the way these "native names" are shown in the infobox. For one thing, the main "native name" of the "British Isles" is .... British Isles. That's not a trivial point - there will be international readers of this page who will see the list and think that the "native names" listed are those most widely spoken across these islands, which they are not. I don't like the term "native names" at all - it can be seen as pejorative ("indigenous" might be better) - but, even if it is used, it should include "English" English. And the prominence given to the list is too great - at the very least, it should be below the map. I'm not in any way suggesting that the list shouldn't be there - simply that it is poorly labelled, and over-prominent in the context of the article as a whole. If the template is wrong, then in my view either it should be changed, or it shouldn't be used in this article at all. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Ditto. The description "native name" is awful. Similarly, putting all this stuff above the map itself is silly. Also, as far as I can see, there's still no reference for "Breetish Isles". Please someone produce a reference or out it goes. Wotapalaver (talk) 22:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Not so fast there, Google is not the "be-all and end-all", however "Breetish isles" does have a reference: Scots Language Centre - select the "Show content as Scots" tab and scroll down to the section on "Romany" or "Standard English", (or just use the 'Find (on this page)' function). The template format dictates that "Native name" is the term that is used and that these appear above the map. Not much can be done unless the template itself is changed. Personally, I don't have a problem with "Native name" or how the information appears, just so long as it is there for all to see. Endrick Shellycoat 09:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

One single source (a website of unproven quality) for "Breetish Isles" is hardly robust on verifiability. The dictionary of the Scots language online shows neither "Breetish" nor "Breetish Isles". Wotapalaver (talk) 19:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary. For "Breetish" see DSL Endrick Shellycoat 21:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

And "Breetish Isles"? Show a reference for that please. Wotapalaver (talk) 16:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

However it may be all that exists. When you ask for written references for a language which, in its modern phase, mostly exists in spoken form among ordinary people and does not attract a great deal of scholarly attention, you are asking for a lot. Note as well that Scots is pretty fluid in its spelling. "British" and "Breetish" are both acceptable variants. If you read the Para Handy books, you'll find that "Bruttish" is too. Scots spelling conventions are far more fluid than English ones and depending on which convention you choose there may be several spelling choices for a word that only has one spelling in English. The spelling chosen depends on how phonetic the author wishes to be in depicting different Scots dialects. -- Derek Ross | Talk 06:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

"When you ask for written references ... you are asking for a lot." - but unfortunately that's the rules of the game here. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability not truth - this is a bedrock of how Wikipedia works. As I point out above, verifiability isn't always a problem for Scots (Glesca, Embra and Aiberdeen are well-attested), but that doesn't mean we can ignore a dearth of sources here.

Putting that aside for a moment (which we shouldn't, as it is a key point), does it really have any true meaning to say the spelling of British Isles in Scots is "X", where the spelling "X" is seen in only one source and isn't standard anyway? The reader at the very least might be misled into thinking this has some attested written use - but won't see this spelling anywhere, and won't be able to use it for searching for material. Are we really going to promote quasi-hypothetical namings - saying that although we can't find any sources, we're sure that if they existed then this is the spelling they'd use?

The best we can say is that "X" is a spelling used in one source - to say it's "the Scots spelling" requires more evidence. If you read above, we have a similar problem with the Cornish too. Knepflerle (talk) 13:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Similarly, if you read above, you'll see my entry regarding the DSL as a verifiable source. Your comments (Knepflerle) are invited. (I still await response from SLC). Endrick Shellycoat 19:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

It is not a valid source for "Breetish Isles", since it doesn't seem to include it. Wotapalaver (talk) 16:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)Breetish in Google Books:

Charles Kingsley, Thomas Hughes, Alton Locke, Tailer and poet, p. 192
Andrew Agnew, The Hereditary Sheriffs of Galloway, p. 340
Edward Verrall Lucas, The Ladies Pageant, p. 345
Charles Kingsley, Novels, Poems and Letters, p. 73
William Donaldson, The Language of the People, p. 198
Constantine Scaramanga-Ralli, The Strange Story of Falconer Thring, p.200
Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine, Vol. XX, p. 710
Pat Rogers, Johnson and Boswell, p. 195
John Cheap, the Chapman's Library, The Scottish Chap Literature of Last Century Classified : with Life of Dougal Graham, p. 12
J. H. Bloomfield, A Cuban Expedition, p.246
Mathews, *The Life and Correspondence of Charles Mathews, the Elder, Comedian, p. 8

Breetish in Google Scholar: J. B. Salmond My Man Sandy, p. 88
Bill Reid | ^Talk 11:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

For those interested, Dr David Horsburgh was kind enough to reply to me. In his words, (which I'm sure he will not object to my repeating here), "The mak 'Breetish' is a valid, weel-attestit pairt o the leid shawin a wey o pronooncin Latinate words that's parteeclar tae Scots fowk". He also explains that it is the increasing influence of English over the past century which accounts for the appearance of "British" alongside "Breetish", reflecting the reality of variations in the language today on the part of the individual speaker/writer. He was also able to point a few references my way, including those works by Sir James Wilson 'The Dialects of Central Scotland' (Oxford, 1926. ASIN: B0006AK91E), (Google), and William Donaldson 'The Language of the People: Scots prose From the Victorian Revival' (Mercat Press, 2002. ISBN: 978-0080377308), (Google), plus the Lallans journal. I trust that these, together with the links provided earlier and the additional references provided by Bill Reid will suffice. Endrick Shellycoat 12:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Apart from the fact that person-to-person emails are not verifiable sources, the references are all for "Breetish", not for "Breetish Isles". As such, they're insufficient for this article. Wotapalaver (talk) 16:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Similarly, there are Citation Needed tags on some other languages where the reference isn't enough or where there's just no reference. For instance the Welsh reference, like the Scots one discussed here, points to an online one-word-at-a-time translator. It's not enough for the phrase "British Isles". Given the passionate nature of the contributors to this article, I'll give it a couple of days, then pull the content down off the article and onto this discussion page until solid refs are produced. Wotapalaver (talk) 17:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

"I'll give it a couple of days, then pull the content down off the article"... I don't think so. The references are listed above. The SLC references refer to "Breetish Isles". Your claim that the reference "isn't enough" is your POV. You'll pull no content for the time being until you convince others that the refs don't stand. The SLC is a perfectly legitimate source for which you have established no grounds whatsoever for its being discounted. Wikipedia is chock full of other refs from similar sources which stand and have stood unchallenged for months, if not years, and are regarded, and rightly so, as being perfectly legitimate. The terms are in use. You've asked for an on-line example. You were provided with one. You may not like it, but it does exist. Endrick Shellycoat 18:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, I'll add the SLC to the DSL reference, so not only will there be a source for the term "Breetish", (of which there are several - see above), but also an example of its use in the term "Breetish Isles", as per the SLC source. (There being no need to reference "Isles" seperately, given the word has the same root, use and spelling in Scots as in English). For those with issues as to the SLC being appropriate, I can only venture to suggest that for an organisation:

whose representatives are held in sufficiently high regard to not only be invited to participate fully in, but also to act as "Secretary" to, a Scottish Parliamentary Cross Party Group
which can meet the strict criteria necessary for obtaining funding from public bodies
whose academic staff include those who are held in sufficiently high regard in their field of expertise to act as Honorary Research Fellow at one of Scotland's leading Universities
whose Director is sought out by the national press in order to comment upon matters pertinent
which is variously described on a multitude of other reputable sites as having being principally "founded to promote the Scots language, giving people who speak Scots the chance to learn more about their own language", (source)

not to be regarded as being appropriate for source material for Wikipedia, frankly demonstrates a failure to apply WP:UCS. Endrick Shellycoat 13:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

(reduce indent) Yes, if there are no sources I'll pull unreferenced content. In the meantime the DSL reference is not for "Breetish Isles" and the other reference now stands as the ONLY example of use of the term in Scots - apparently - in the whole world ever. In addition it's on a website. I'm not particularly impressed with the involvement of the SLC in government activities. The BBC has often had incorrect things on its website. So, some better references please. Wotapalaver (talk) 19:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

So glad to see that we agree "unreferenced content" should be, as you put it, pulled. However, not wishing to reduce this to the level of the armchair academic/keyboard warrior, and following useful and constructive discussions on this subject elsewhere, I have altered the info box to what I would consider to be a compromise position, where the referenced facts are that although the Scots word "Breetish" and Scots term "Breetish Isles" may indeed be used elsewhere, (a fact supported by references), they may not be the spelling of the word "British" and the term "British Isles" which are universally adopted in all Scots language texts. However, readers may come across these Scots words and terms and, with the help of this article, will know that they are not typographical errors or similar, but actual alternative spellings of the word "British" and the term "British Isles" as may be employed by authors, publishers and others, using the Scots language. Endrick Shellycoat 00:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

All that beautiful verbiage doesn't hide the fact that there is so far evidence of the term "Breetish Isles" being used once, ever. Authors may decide to use the term "Breetish Isles", but they may decide to use the term "Wheeee Splash" to describe the British Isles too. The question at issue is whether there is verifiable evidence of what they actually do. So far there is fantastically little evidence that "Breetish Isles" is used. Wotapalaver (talk) 00:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

"Little evidence" isn't quite the same thing as no evidence, though, is it? And as for "used once, ever", that particular claim falls into the category marked 'Unsubstantiated nonsense'. Where is your evidence for that being the case? The SLC reference appears nowhere on Google, (which is what I assume you are using to support such a ridiculous assertion), yet funnily enough it exists in black and white for all to see, if you know where to look!

You've made your feelings clear on this matter, and if you want to reduce the discussion to the level to which I sense you're heading, go ahead; I'm not in the mood to feed trolls. IMHO the use has been demonstrated, the online references are sound, the info box has been modified. If the groundswell of opinion of the editors of this article is against, then so be it. However, forgive me if I don't leave the deciding vote to you, and you alone. Endrick Shellycoat 01:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

My feelings are simple. Content should be supported by reference. I have nothing for or against Scots. As for the suggestion that I am trolling, please withdraw the suggestion. I am asking for references. This article has long been plagued by people with strong opinions and no references. Again, there is ONE case of this term EVER having been used. It is insufficient. Please provide some published evidence that "Breetish Isles" is the accepted version of "British Isles" in Scots. Wotapalaver (talk) 09:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I for one think the compromise is excellent and both the infobox and introduction are looking, and reading, the best they have for years. Informative, concise, balanced, referenced. Good going everyone! waggers (talk) 09:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'd prefer it if (a) the reference that seems to be there on Ref 1 was actually there instead of being broken and (b) there was sufficient evidence of "Breetish Isles" actually being the correct translation in Scots, which ONE website isn't. Wotapalaver (talk) 09:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Anyone? Wotapalaver (talk) 19:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Can't believe I'm back here, again. I'll try and keep it simple:

"British" can also appear as "Breetish" in Scots.
There are several online sources which confirm this, see here (once you've typed in the word "British"), here, here, and here.
"Isles" is derived from "Middle English" (see here)
Prior to its becoming "recognisably distinct", Scots was the "northernmost dialect of Middle English" (see here).
It follows therefore, does it not, that Isles, Isle, Island and Islands are the same in Scots as in English, (see here, here and see 54. here).
Online Scots/English dictionaries do not offer a translation of the word Isles, for it's spelling and meaning are the same. (try here).
There are multiple examples where "British" appears in Scots as "Breetish", (see pg 340), and also as as "British". (see 40.)
One online example of "Breetish Isles", which Google won't show, (the site being bi-lingual), can be found here. (be sure to "show content as Scots"). However, the same site also shows (in Scots) the appearance of "British Isles". (see here). (again, be sure to "show content as Scots").
All of the above confirms that "British" may appear in Scots as "Breetish", which, together with references, is exactly what Footnote 1 of the Info box states with regard to "Breetish Isles".

Whilst remembering that Wikipedia is not a democracy, if you are content with the infobox as it appears now, then you will find yourself in the company of yours truly, waggers, and Knepflerle. If not, then all I can suggest is that you make a case for an alternative and hope that your reasoned argument persuades others. As I have stated previously, if there is a groundswell for any such alternative, I'll be only too happy to oblige and remove the footnote in the Infobox, myself. I do not propose to spend any more of my time on this subject. Endrick Shellycoat 22:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, I have no problem with "Breetish" being a translation (or version) of "British" in Scots. That's entirely irrelevant, as are all the assumptions and synthesis above. The requirement is to show reputable verifiable references that "Breetish Isles" is the correct translation in Scots of "British Isles" in English. One website with an option to "Show content in Scots" does not qualify. There may be other translations that are more correct and more common. Irish appears to have several different translations, not all of which use any translation of "British" at all. So, can we please have a proper reputable verifiable source that "Breetish Isles" is the correct translation in Scots of "British Isles"? What we have now is one example of use. One. A dictionary translation is required. I have nothing against Scots and learned to understand several versions of it in my time. This article still needs a proper reference. Wotapalaver (talk) 18:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I overlooked a reference. Endrick Shellycoat 16:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

If you overlooked a definition for "Breetish Isles" then let's have it. Otherwise you've still got only ONE example of use, ever, anywhere. It's not enough. Wotapalaver (talk) 19:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

^ Dictionary of the Scots Language (DSL) & Scottish National Dictionary Supplement (1976) (SNDS)
^ Na hOileáin Bhriotanacha from CollinsHapper Pocket Irish Dictionary (ISBN 0-00-470765-6). Oileáin Iarthair Eorpa meaning Islands of Western Europe from Patrick S. Dineen, Foclóir Gaeilge Béarla, Irish-English Dictionary, Dublin, 1927. Éire agus an Bhreatain Mhór, meaning Ireland and Great Britain (from focail.ie, "The British Isles", Foras na Gaeilge, 2006)

[1] Dictionary of the Scots Language (DSL) & Scottish National Dictionary Supplement (1976) (SNDS)

[2] Na hOileáin Bhriotanacha from CollinsHapper Pocket Irish Dictionary (ISBN 0-00-470765-6). Oileáin Iarthair Eorpa meaning Islands of Western Europe from Patrick S. Dineen, Foclóir Gaeilge Béarla, Irish-English Dictionary, Dublin, 1927. Éire agus an Bhreatain Mhór, meaning Ireland and Great Britain (from focail.ie, "The British Isles", Foras na Gaeilge, 2006)