Talk:British Isles/Archive 34

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 30 ← Archive 32 Archive 33 Archive 34 Archive 35 Archive 36 → Archive 40

Straw Poll : B&I Lions in the Alternative Names section

This edit [1] should be reinstated. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Support on the grounds that (a) it is already mentioned in the Sports section; (b) this is an article primarily about the British Isles, not the naming of a rugby team; (c) there is another article for the dispute (d) it is synthesis to claim that the name switch is an example of "an alternative name" for the British Isles (what if they renamed themselves the "Red" Lions - is "red" an alternative name for "BI"?) (e) it is original research to imply (by presence in this section, and following a statement about publishers' decisions) that there was a conscious decision to choose an alternative name for the British Isles. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment a poll is premature, better to try and reach an agreement than simply take a hard position from day one. In respect of the above argument "Red" is clearly not an alternative name but "British and Irish" clearly is (and Rugby is not the only example. Th name change is a verifiable fact. Adjustments to the wording and sequencing could avoid the OR issue (which is tenuous anyway). Examples of changed use might be best in this section, simply as examples. --Snowded TALK 23:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Support I agree a poll is maybe unnecessary, but including this in the alternative names section is moronic - the name change was really from 'British Lions' (by far the most commonly used name, and the usual name in official contexts from at least 1986 onwards) to 'British & Irish Lions'. It had nothing to do with the name 'British Isles', which was practically never used by 2001. The issue was that the team was made up of British and Irish players, not just Brits, so British Lions was incorrect. To misrepresent this as a rejection of the name 'British Isles' in favour of 'British & Irish' is to over-simplify a more complicated (but fairly trivial) situation, for obvious POV reasons. --hippo43 (talk) 23:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Really (i) what is so special about 2001 in terms of historic use (ii) try not to use words like moronic (iii) I for one thing its a name change that simply reflects changing practice so try not to put words in people's mouths. (iv) trying to reach agreement seems to be constantly rejected in favour of confrontation --Snowded TALK 03:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Your point iii is pretty central to this - you think it reflects changing practice. If it reflects changing practice, someone needs to find a source which confirms that it reflects changing practice, rather than engaging in OR. If no such source exists, so it is not verifiable that it reflects changing practice, then I can't see any reason to have it in the article. --hippo43 (talk) 17:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
A simple list doesn't need to make any statements about "reflecting changing practice" - we can avoid phrases like that which might offend editors not comfortable with the actual facts, and let editors make up their own minds when presented with a list. --HighKing (talk) 13:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
If your intention is just to present the facts and let readers decide for themselves if there's any significance, then we should present a list which also includes all the bodies, publications etc which still use the term, to accurately reflect coverage in reliable sources. --hippo43 (talk) 19:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
With his proposals for sample selection, I presume that HighKing is not a statistician, or indeed a scientist. One simply cannot, without engaging in OR, pick and choose data points and then "let the reader make up their own mind" about them. The very act of collecting data points such as these in order to draw a conclusion constitutes original research. That is what you would do if you were actually doing research on the subject of the changing language, and doing it yourself on Wikipedia is original research. I find it staggering how people can so completely misunderstand what no original research means. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 21:20, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment Agree with Snowded. Why are we having a poll? A discussion is in progress for a couple of days. On what basis is the poll being held anyway? Majority rule? --HighKing (talk) 16:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Because the present situation is a flagrant breach of rules about synthesis and original research, on several levels. It shouldn't even need to be discussed, it should be removed now. If you want to propose making lists of this and that, that is a separate discussion. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 01:31, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but a verbal stamping of feet doesn't wash. It seems to me that the underlying thrust of this debate is to remove the information altogether, while being unnecessarily confrontational. If you're not interested in discussions or proposals, let's just leave the article as it is for now. --HighKing (talk) 13:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
No, the "underlying thrust" it's not to remove it altogether, because the information is already all there, in the sports section. The "underlying thrust" is simply to comply with Wikipedia's policies. I have stated several times here that this is all I care about. If you have a reference discussing the renaming of the Lions in the context of the naming issues over British Isles, I would gladly insert the text and reference myself. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 13:36, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
One more thing: I'll give you a few more days to come up with a reference. I'll even try to find some myself. If no reference is forthcoming, per policy, it has to go (from that section). The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 13:39, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
30 seconds of looking brings me to http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKLN73287020090524 213.155.151.233 (talk) 09:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Anon IP above has reproduced a reference that I already produced earlier. It's from Reuters. It states From 1950 to 2001 the team was officially known as the British Isles, usually referred to as the British Lions, though they are now known as the British and Irish Lions. --HighKing (talk) 10:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
A ref which confirms the rugby team changed their name. We need a reference that says the rugby team chose an alternative name for the British Isles. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 10:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for doubling up on references. On Red Hat's point, perhaps he's correct and the Rugby team actually deprecated the name "British Isles" rather than finding an "alternative". However in normal English it's a pretty clear case that an alternative to "British Isles" was chosen and is being used. 213.155.151.233 (talk) 10:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
RHoPF is looking for a "reference" for a statement that's different to what the article states, and the reference provided backs up the statement. Can we get back to a more constructive discussion where we can avoid pointless hair splitting? Creating a simple list will simplify the article and include information without expressing opinion as to motive, thereby providing simple data points and letting readers make up their own minds. --HighKing (talk) 12:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

() One other thing. On Hippo's point further up, there IS reference in the article that says that preference is changing. 213.155.151.233 (talk) 13:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC) Highking - you are not getting it. The sentence is not simply stating that the rugby team changed it's name (verifiable). It is implying that this is an example of an alternative name for British Isles (not verified). It is implying this because it appears in a section on "alternative names". A different name for a rugby team is not the same thing as an alternative name for a geographical entity. At least, not without a supporting reference stating so. As for your list idea, see my statistician/research comment above. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 13:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Implying? I disagree. The implications appear to be solely in the eye of the beholder. Your comment on statistician/research above states that including a list would be in breach of WP:OR. This is not true and is not a valid interpretation of that policy. Many articles include lists without prior publication. I'm getting the distinct impression that you want to remove any improper suggestions that organizations removed the term "British Isles" due to an issue with the term itself - which is fine btw - but you're equally uncomfortable with gathering together in one place a list of examples of changing use - which is difficult to understand/accept. Is that a fair summary?
BTW, the section you mention not only deals with alternative terms, but also deals with changing use. If the problem is the title of the section, then let's simply change the title of the section....or start a section with a list. --HighKing (talk) 14:14, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
You are missing the point. Who says it is an example of changing usage of the term "British Isles"? You? Snowded? That is your own OR, even if it's crystal clear in your own minds. If you have a reference backing this interpretation of the name change, great, it can stay. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 17:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I have to admit that I'm struggling to understand your point. The section already deals with changing usage. The provided reference clearly is an example of another Before/After event, and is an example of changing usage over time. And the atlases. I'm sure once the list is in place, other examples will be added if you like? It is not OR to simply point that out. --HighKing (talk) 21:19, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
If I want to verify that the change of the rugby team is a "before/after" event relating to the changing usage of "British Isles", how do I do that, aside from take your word for it? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 22:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Or perhaps we should have a DAB page, with two entries: "British Isles - Rugby team (obsolete)" and "British Isles - geographical archipelago (controversial)". Then everything would be clear. It might be seen as a bit over the top, and the current set up isn't over the top. 213.155.151.233 (talk) 16:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. The team changed its name but there is no evidence that it did so as a result of any sort of controversy. Noting the change here is pure synthesis; the new name does not mean that an alternative to British Isles was sought. And while we're on the subject we also have this synthetic statement The Economic History Society style guide suggests that use of the term British Isles should be avoided. So they do - but why? Having such a statement in the section stongly implies that they do so because of some objection to the term. However, I'd bet it's simply because non-political, geographic terms should not, as a rule, be used in economic analysis. MidnightBlue (Talk) 19:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
The change happened. A few days ago it was being argued that even that fact was unverifiable. As for why it was renamed, the article doesn't say. The renaming was - however - described as "political correctness run amok", iirc, but a NI Unionist politician. As for the Economic History society, they also say what is in the article. Someone's trying to delete content here....tsk tsk tsk. 213.155.151.233 (talk) 21:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
What's the quote from the NI Unionist politician. Have you a reference? --HighKing (talk) 21:19, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
http://breakingnews.iol.ie/sport/?jp=kfsnqlsnauey 213.155.151.233 (talk) 21:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
The source says nothing about the name being changed, or the name 'British Isles'. --hippo43 (talk) 21:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
It says nothing about the name being changed? Try reading it again. 213.155.151.233 (talk) 21:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
That is ridiculous hair-splitting pedantry. The complaint is about the inclusion of the word "Irish" in "British and Irish Lions". It goes on to say "He said the team had for decades been known as the British Lions, but the name appeared to have changed in recent years to include the word 'Irish'". --HighKing (talk) 22:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
2nd attempt. The source says nothing about when or why the name was changed, and doesn't mention the name 'British Isles'. --hippo43 (talk) 22:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Gee, isn't it funny that the second attempt is just like the first. We really are seeing hair splitting pedantry. So, let's go with an academic source from the Professor of Sports Studies at a British University and a Research fellow at the same University. https://dspace.stir.ac.uk/dspace/bitstream/1893/1125/1/The%20Rough%20and%20the%20Fairway.pdf Page 12. We could also go with the (evidently out of date and not corrected) Times Style Guide. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/tools_and_services/specials/style_guide/article1127925.ece
The name was changed from British Isles to British and Irish Lions. British Lions was a nickname, but not official and not - at least by The Times - recommended. The change was for reasons of political correctness. Now, let's have some more hair splitting. 213.155.151.233 (talk) 22:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I've no idea what point you're trying to make, or what relevance it has to an article about the British Isles.
In any case, the source you quoted (an article about Ryder Cup team selection, so not on the subject of the British Isles or the rugby team, by two authors who are not considered experts on rugby or count rugby among their research interests) does not say that the change was made "for reasons of political correctness". It just says that the new name is "more politically correct". Moreover, it does not state whether the name "British Isles" was still used after "British Lions" was adopted in 1950, or whether the nickname "British Lions" was official. ("Historically the team used the title British Isles, adopting the nickname British Lions in 1950, though in 2001 the more politically correct British and Irish Lions was agreed by the Unions involved.") The Times Style Guide does not say that the name "Lions" was unofficial. (Just "alternatively ...") You will probably call it hair-splitting pedantry, I call it reading the sources. --hippo43 (talk) 23:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

()Yes, I call it hair splitting pedantry. Fine to say that the name was changed to the more politically correct "British and Irish Lions" and not say that it was done for reasons of political correctness. The Times says that the team officially the British Isles and was NOT the British Lions, which is rather stronger than saying that British Lions was a nickname. As for the University sources, should readers trust a Professor of Sports Studies or some guy called Hippo43? 213.155.151.233 (talk) 23:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Hippo43. Obviously.
(And the numerous other, better-credentialled sources which give various different versions of the story. The Times' choice of house style is irrelevant as a source of fact. Lots more trivial detail at Talk:British and Irish Lions.)-hippo43 (talk) 23:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I've reverted your attempt to do a run-around on normal consensus finding discussions. Odd what some people call consensus these days... --HighKing (talk) 23:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Very odd indeed. Apparently some people feel that if it contravenes what they learned at school then there must be consensus to remove it. 213.155.151.233 (talk) 23:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Alternative names

I tagged the sentence "Commonly used alternative names are ..." - I can't see any reference that supports the assertion that these are commonly used. There are examples of use, but not any sources which discuss how common they are. Can anyone help clear this up? --hippo43 (talk) 22:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The two that leap out at you as being far from common are "British-Irish Isles" and "British Isles and Ireland". Yes, there are uses to be found, but very, very few. MidnightBlue (Talk) 22:14, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Totally agree with the tag, i think we had this problem in the intro aswell. It use to say alterntaive name, which caused problems until it was changed to alternative terms which seems more accurate, because people are not saying some of those things as a name for the British Isles.
I have serious doubts about some of those things listed, "British-Irish isles" and "British Isles and Ireland" seems very odd and certainly not commonly used, where as "UK and Ireland" "Britain and Ireland", "Great Britain and Ireland" do have common usage, but as mentioned before not as "alternative names" to the British Isles, just used instead of it or for a completly different reason which is a very different matter.
Really the section should be called alternative terms rather than alternative names. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:19, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Snap lol BritishWatcher (talk) 22:19, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure on this at all - in my experience none of these are very common, but I could well be wrong. I don't know about use in other parts of the world. We really need sources which specify whether these are in common use or not; pointing out examples of use and asserting that they are common seems like OR to me. --hippo43 (talk) 22:24, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
It might be best just to remove the word "common" and reword the sentence slightly. "British-Irish Isles" comes up with only about 900 Google hits (not scientific - I know) so that one could be removed. There's over 30,000 hits for "British Isles and Ireland", which I find surprising given that the term is factually wrong. The other terms are far more common, but it's a fair point that there are as yet no references backing up the assertions of commonness. MidnightBlue (Talk) 22:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Agree with the tag, and with the proposal to remove "common". The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 22:32, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Agreed sources are needed for them all to prove common use. I seriously think we need to consider renaming the section to replace alternative names with alternative terms. Its interesting to note "Alternative terms" is the section heading on the British Isles naming dispute, there is no "Alternative name" section on that page. Changing the inline text to "commonly used alternative terms" rather than names, would be a good improvement just as happened in the intro some time ago. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Agreed the British-Irish Isles should be removed and remove "common", i will look up the "British Isles and Ireland" one, im shocked at so many hits too. Although 30,000 doesnt really match the almost 60 million "British Isles" gets lol BritishWatcher (talk) 22:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
On the face of it, I don't think either 'Alternative terms' or 'Alternative names' are good titles for this section, and therefore have to question if this section should be included at all. If there aren't sources which state that these terms are actually alternatives for British Isles (or similar wording), then they shouldn't be included. I'm very wary of counting Google hits for terms like 'British Isles and Ireland' - there is no way to verify that 'BI and Ireland' is actually meant as an alternative for BI. Searching Google for "Europe and Ireland" returns over 400,000 hits, but we wouldn't present "Europe and Ireland" as an alternative name for Europe. --hippo43 (talk) 00:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I think this section is in principle and that it would be going too far to remove it completely. However, any claim that is made (explicitly or implicitly) that does not explicitly have a reference should be removed. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 01:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree that there is value to some of this material, specifically the referenced stuff about atlases and style guides etc. However, if none of the supposed 'alternative names' in the first paragraph can actually be referenced as commonly used alternatives for the specific term 'British Isles', they should be removed. In that case, the remaining material would not really cover alternative names, and IMO would be better placed in another section. Maybe merged with the Etymology section? If there are no sources which confirm that commonly used alternative names exist, why have a section on alternative names? --hippo43 (talk) 01:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)I see no problem with renaming as "terms" instead of "names". I also agree that some of these terms are very odd and if references can't be found that show them in use, they shouldn't be here. --HighKing (talk) 11:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I also see no problem with calling these alternative terms, if sources can be found which confirm that they are alternative terms. At the moment, there aren't such sources in the article. --hippo43 (talk) 15:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Of course, given the fact that "British Isles" is frequently used to mean areas that are not the same as the dictionary definitions (e.g. http://www.flying15.org/gbr/), we should look for sources which confirm that "British Isles" is being still being used in the correct way too, or that it's the most common term for the area under question. I'm not aware that anyone has found such a source, and we really should have one. 213.155.151.233 (talk) 21:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Have you tried to find any such sources? MidnightBlue (Talk) 22:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Have you? My attempts, or lack thereof, to find such a reference are entirely irrelevant. What is relevant is that there is no such reference here. There is no evidence to support what is evidently a common assumption. Given that many other things that editors here say that they "learned at school" have turned out to be clearly wrong, we must not assume that these common assumptions are correct either. So, is there a reference stating that "British Isles" is the most commonly used term today? Remember that there is reference saying that other names are nowadays preferred. 213.155.151.233 (talk) 23:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
No, I haven't. You have noted the need for such a reference, so I invite you to go and find one. MidnightBlue (Talk) 23:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, in the absence of such a reference we need to reexamine the whole structure of the article since there's no evidence that the islands are still most commonly known as the British Isles. 213.155.151.233 (talk) 23:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

'Britain' and Isle of Man

In reference to discussions that have gone on about the issue of whether the Isle of Man can fit into the 'Britain' of phrases such as 'Britain and Ireland', the Isle of Man govt website yields some news sources that would seem to suggest that there *is* a use of 'Britain' out there that the Manx feel includes them:

[2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]

...just for the record... Nuclare (talk) 03:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Example 1 is quoting the Ramblers Association;
  • Example 2 makes no mention of Britain; it refers to VisitBritain, which is the overseas tourism organisation set up by the United Kingdom government, and which represents the Isle of Man's interests abroad;
  • Example 3 is a genuine example;
  • Example 4 is quoting the title of a television series;
  • Example 5 refers to the Isle of Man taking part in the Britain in Bloom competition (in a similar way to Israel taking part in the European Football Championships);
  • Example 6 refers to the Britain's Strongest Man competition being held in the Isle of Man; if the British Air Line Pilots Association decided to hold their annual conference in Ibiza, that would not make Ibiza part of Britain.
It would have been more relevant if you had quoted the Isle of Man Government's own section of the website, where, under Introduction to the Island, [8] it states :-
The Isle of Man is situated in the heart of the British Isles. The country is an internally self-governing dependent territory of the British Crown. It is not part of the United Kingdom.
...just for the record... Skinsmoke (talk) 04:06, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
TBH I suspect the Manx are probably the one group for whom the term 'British Isles' remains useful as it applies unproblematically to them (in that they are a British possession) and clearly identifies to outsiders where this relatively obscure is. The Isle of Man is British, but whether or not it can be described as part of 'Britain'... you have the inherent ambiguous nature of Britain! Pretty Green (talk) 09:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
For the record, Skinsmoke, #2 does indeed mention Britain. It says: "Tourism authorities from each region in Britain were invited to submit an itinerary prior to the conference and the Isle of Man, having submitted a ‘film themed’ itinerary, proved the most popular choice...". How is that not mentioning 'Britain'? As for #1 and #4, they are indeed quoting, respectively, the Ramblers Association and a tv show. It is the enthusiasm with which the govt ministers of Man accept being included in the concept 'Britain' that is the issue: "The Isle of Man has been named one of Britain’s best walking destinations...Following a recent reader survey the Island has been voted the third most favourite, jointly with Wales. Tourism and Leisure Minister Adrian Earnshaw said: 'This great announcement has come as no surprise to me...'" And, then, the manner in which the Isle of Man official accepts without question its inclusion in something named "Islands of Britain,": "'Islands of Britain', featuring the Isle of Man, and assisted by the Department of Tourism and Leisure, will be broadcast on Sunday 10th May at 9.00pm....Hon Martyn Quayle MHK, Minister for Tourism and Leisure said: ‘It is an honour that Islands of Britain chose to feature the Isle of Man in one of their episodes'" #6 is not a conference, it is a competition. While you are right in that a competition *could* be held in a remote location, generally (unlike conferences, which are often *about* getting away), they are not. But, whatever, toss #6 if you like. I win on #3 alone! LOL! ;-)
That Man is not part of the United Kingdom is clear. But the point wasn't about "United Kingdom," (or even "British Isles"), it is about "Britain", so I'm not clear on what your quote from the website is meant to suggest. Nuclare (talk) 11:47, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I thought the question was whether Man could be included in "Great Britain," not simply "Britain." At any rate, I'm not at all surprised that Man is sometimes described as being in Britain. The issue is more that said usage is confusing, and not at all consistent. john k (talk) 12:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
No, that was in relation to the Scottish islands. The content on the article's intro. has always been "Britain and Ireland". That was the content around which the question of what is or isn't included in such a phrase was raised. But, as I said way above, people do keep randomly switching the discussion from 'Britain' to 'Great Britain'. Said usage may well be confusing, but lots of these terms can be confusing, chief among them: British Isles. Nuclare (talk) 13:29, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
From the Britain dab page..
In politics
United Kingdom, a sovereign state (in full, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland)
In geography
Great Britain, an island to the northwest of Continental Europe
So under these two definitions i am unsure how the Isle of Man is in Britain, it is British but that is very different. Gibraltar wouldnt be considered part of Britain would it? BritishWatcher (talk) 13:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Is your point that if something isn't currently on a Wiki dab page it won't and can't exist? Nuclare (talk) 13:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
IoM is in Britain, [9]. Britain is often for anything to do with GB, UK, or any of its islands. Tfz 14:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Well i suggest you both go and correct the articles on Isle of Man, Great Britain and the dab page at Britain. I have never know the Isle of Man to be part of Britain, Great Britain, or the United Kingdom. Its part of the British Isles or atleast thats what i learned in school. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
That's what I learned as well. And as BW points out, why are we having this debate here at all? The IoM is a part of the British Isles. No more needs to be said at this article. Mister Flash (talk) 17:20, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
We are having this debate here because people, such as BritishWatcher--who is now apparently acting like this has NOTHING to do with this page???--have argued for how the intro. to THIS article can or can't be worded based on "Britain and Ireland" (which in case you don't notice is a phrase used in the intro. to THIS article) supposedly not being capable of including the IoM. THAT'S why we are having this discussion here. Because of things BW and others who agree with him have argued right here on THIS very page in regards to IoM. Why are people now acting like this has nothing to do with this page? Please don't make it sound as if I'm the one who introduced this issue here. And, frankly, what difference does it make what you or BritishWatcher or any one else learned or didn't learn in school??? Nuclare (talk) 03:40, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, if there was verifiable documentary evidence on what BW and Flash learned in school we could use it in a WP article on "What BW and Flash learned in school", although that article might fail the test of notability. Otherwise what they learned in school is vastly irrelevant. (sorry for the sarcasm, but really!) 213.155.151.233 (talk) 11:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The Isle of Man now? I wonder what they'll come up with next. If there is a case for suggesting the IoM is part of Britain/Great Britain/UK then (as with all the other convoluted arguments above) we need a preponderance of reliable sources saying so. User:Nuclare's examples are not sufficient. I don't see any others. Wiki-Ed (talk) 11:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Again, why are you wording this 'the Isle of Man now?' as if I'm the one raising this issue for the first time? And, yet again, this is not about "Britain/Great Britain/UK", so why even word it that way? It is about "Britain". And what are you calling convoluted? Nuclare (talk) 11:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


A claim has been made by some here that the Isle of Man is part of "Britain". Now Britain can mean one of several things as shown on the Britain dab page. There for its quite right for people to say "Britain/Great Britain or the UK" because it could mean any of those things. The point is if you think the Isle of Man is part of any of those things, take it to the talk page of those articles or try and add it to the articles. This is not a matter for the British Isles article. Reliable sources say the Isle of Man is not part of those things, its for those questioning the current view which is backed up by sources who must provide new sources to justify such a claim. This is a complete nonsense otherwise. The Isle of man is British but its not part of "Britain" BritishWatcher (talk) 12:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

"Political status

The Isle of Man has the unusual status of being one of the British Isles that is neither part of Great Britain nor the United Kingdom. People born here are known as 'Manx', classified as British (as opposed to English). Despite the steady integration of new residents from other countries, some locals still refer to newcomers as 'comeovers' and England as 'across'." - [10] From the isle of man tourism factfile. Do you know something they dont? Interesting to see on the Isle of Man government website they mention being part of the British isles, not Britain on the pages i have seen. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Reading through, I see references that the IoM govt apparently talks about the IoM as being part of Britain on several occasions, and that a version of OED has apparently said that Britain "As a geographical and political term: (the main island and smaller offshore islands making up) England, Scotland, and Wales, sometimes with the Isle of Man." It's pretty clear that there's flexibility in the naming and the calling of names, and that IoM can correctly be included in Britain - whatever was "learned in school". 213.155.151.233 (talk) 13:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Then go to Britain or Great Britain and seek change on those articles because they must be incorrect. This is a matter for those articles, not this article. What ever the situation with IOM being in Britain or not, the IOM is part of the British isles and it says as such on the IOM government website. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Other articles' content is not relevant to this article. The relevance on this article is quite clear. 213.155.151.233 (talk) 15:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
What part of this article needs changing if you are correct about the status of Isle of Man? If you feel the articles at Great Britain or Britain are incorrect then please go help correct those articles. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps a couple of areas. Basically there's been reasonably constant assertion that "Britain and Ireland" is incorrect as an alternative for "British Isles". If IoM can be in "Britain" then "Britain and Ireland" is not incorrect, at least unless the Channel Islands are specifically included - which they should not be in any physical or geographical context. As for the other articles, as before, whether or not they change is irrelevant here. They could say that Britain was made of Swiss Cheese. 213.155.151.233 (talk) 16:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry but what part of the article are you trying to have changed by pushing the idea the Isle of Man is part of Britain. I fail to see anywhere in the article where it states the isle of man is not in Britain. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

()I'm not pushing anything except what others can read for themselves. I'm ensuring that all information is here, and discussed. You were, iirc, pushing what you learned in school. 213.155.151.233 (talk) 17:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm with BW on this - what does this have to do with the British Isles article? Are you actually suggesting any changes to this article? --hippo43 (talk) 17:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
This is all part of the continuing long-term strategy to try and get rid of British Isles from Wikipedia; suggest that a common term covers the same geographical area as BI and you're on the road to the article being renamed - so the thoery goes, but we all know that anyway. MidnightBlue (Talk) 18:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Is it? Wow! That's news. I wonder if MidnightBlue learned that at school too.  :-) 213.155.151.233 (talk) 19:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
As you accept there is no change needed in the article on this matter i think we should all stop going round in circles on it. IP / Nuclare if you have concerns about use of the term "Britain" not including the Isle of Man you know where to raise it, certainly not here. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I never said that either, and here may a place where the issue is relevant. If there are other pages too, that's for discussion on those other pages. 213.155.151.233 (talk) 21:41, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
If something needs changing in this article please state what and where. This is not a place for you to try and educate us all about what the term Britain means. Thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 22:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
BW, YOU were the one advocating making changes to the article based on this very issue probably only about a week ago. You were the one about a week or so ago trying to educate me on what you say 'Britain' means and what you say (without a scrap of evidence!) people always mean when they say "Britain and Ireland". You raised these issues. You tried to educate. Why are you denying this now?? Somehow you thought this was relevant then. I went away for about a week and now I'm back. I don't have to be trying to 'change' the article right here and now in any specific way for this to be relevant. Defending content and the concepts that underpin that content on an article where there is constant cyclical challenges to so much of its content relating to these issues is no less relevant than your attempts to change it. Nuclare (talk) 23:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
For de love of jesus, can we drop this silly matter? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Which part of it are you calling silly? I agree that BW's double standard on this issue is silly. I don't think the issue of IoM (particularly given how much others have used and abused it on this board) is at all silly. Nuclare (talk) 11:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
The wording in the intro has been changed so i no longer have a problem with it. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Can you please clarify which wording has been changed, since it may need to be changed back. 213.155.151.233 (talk) 21:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Where it says "alternative terms" in the intro it use to say "alternative names". Using alternative term is far more accurate, alternative name is meant to be an alternative name for the British Isles which Britain and Ireland clearly isnt. Thats what i would like to see changed in the section of the article, changing Alternative name to Alternative terms so its more accurate. How would u feel about that? BritishWatcher (talk) 21:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

()Britain and Ireland clearly is an alternative name. It's clearly also an alternative term. 213.155.151.233 (talk) 22:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

It is clearly an alernative term, because of the issues with things like the isle of man, the idea its an alternative name for the British Isles has not been proven. Thats why that change from name to term removed by concerns about it and means this is no longer an issue unlike a month ago. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
What issue with the Isle of Man? As for "proven", the article doesn't state anything about proven. It says that alternative names are being used and then shows exactly that, with reference. 213.155.151.233 (talk) 23:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
the fact that most people do not consider Britain to include the Isle of Man, which is why saying "Britain and Ireland" is an alternative name for the British Isles is simply inaccurate, its an alternative term not an alternative name.. there is a big difference. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure it's relevant what most people think before they read this encyclopedia, or any other. What matters is that the content is as correct and verifiable as it can be. In this case it seems possible that what "most people" think (well, you at least) is not necessarily correct and that "Britain and Ireland" is quite formally correct for most uses. 213.155.151.233 (talk) 00:01, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Just as a 'by the way', as I'm sure you'd consider it WP:OR - I have a bakelite clock dating to the 1940s (I guess) made by Vitascope that says on its back 'MADE IN I.O.M. GREAT BRITAIN'. Happy to provide a photo if it helps. Daicaregos (talk) 09:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Found a picture of one online here. Daicaregos (talk) 09:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Interesting image, as there is that one and several others have been mentioned here before perhaps someone should mention this on the Isle of Man or Geography of the Isle of Man or Great Britain, where it may be possible to add something about it. Ofcourse back then there was no wikipedia to educate people, so mistakes could easily be made :) BritishWatcher (talk) 10:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Massive, politically inspired POV

The lead should describe the article. Instead, fully half of it - the second paragraph - describes all the politically motivated objections to the term. All these need to be removed, and relegated to where they belong - a lot further down. ðarkuncoll 23:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree for the most part. I'd reduce the 2nd para to the 1st sentence and move the rest further down the article. --HighKing (talk) 23:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Official government objection to the name and a referenced tendency to use other names instead are critical to the article and they need to stay where they are. 213.155.151.233 (talk) 23:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
It may be notable and deserving of a mention in the lead, but it doesn't deserve a full paragraph. --HighKing (talk) 23:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Even retaining the first sentence overstates - in fact, misrepresents - the issue, since Irish government ministers use it. ðarkuncoll 23:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you're right and not even the full first paragraph. A note that some find the term objectionable/whatever would suffice. --HighKing (talk) 23:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
This entire article understates the objections to this term, whether they be officially from the state of Ireland or from its widespread avoidance across the Irish media and society generally, or its avoidance by the vast majority of academics and many others. This article disregards the many very well-referenced objections to the term that I placed at the top of this page last year: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:British_Isles/References. In the past year a British nationalist clique have been watering down/removing these objections in order to hide this. It started with their removal of the word "many" object, despite this being very well referenced. Then they started to deny that the term has been dropped by organisations such as TV5 in France, National Geographic in America and removed from maps produced by Michelin and others. Now, they are trying to remove all objections from the opening paragraph. These objections deserve at least the first paragraph given that the entire article is merely a vehicle for advancing a British nationalist pipedream that has been termed the "British Isles" since a British imperialist named John Dee called it such. And what do you know: the well-referenced description of John Dee as an "imperialist" has now also been removed from this article at the behest of British editors who want to hide the historical facts behind this name's origin. How did they get away with that? This article has well and truly been hyjacked by the John Bulls and their obscurantist nationalist agenda. Dunlavin Green (talk) 01:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Except it has been proved that it HASN'T been dropped by National Geographic despite the single new article saying otherwise (which doesn't actually state they'd completely stop using the term.) It's been proven it IS used by the Irish media. No evidence proves that all these organisations have stopped using the term, and plenty of evidence to show otherwise. Canterbury Tail talk 14:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't mis-represent anything. It sticks to referenced facts. 213.155.151.233 (talk) 23:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. And why is this article plagued by so many anonymous IPs? ðarkuncoll 23:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

More pertinently, why is this article plagued by so many flag-waving irredentist British nationalists? Dunlavin Green (talk) 01:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it does. Any why is this article plagued by so many people with funny names? 213.155.151.233 (talk) 23:23, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
The article is about the islands, so the lead should include broad points about the various elements of the article - geography, transport, history, economics etc. The current emphasis on the name is bizarre - it should be moved to the etymology/names sections below, and a link provided to the article about the naming dispute. If readers come here looking for info about the name, rather than the British Isles, there is a whole nother article that deals with the issue. --hippo43 (talk) 23:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
It's a crucially important point about the islands - and there is no point that could possibly be broader - that the name is controversial, disliked by one of the government, and that at least one other name is nowadays preferred. 213.155.151.233 (talk) 23:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
And in answer to HighKing's point, a quick look at Britannica's entry for British Isles suggests that the other world-leading encyclopedia thinks the controversy is pretty important, giving it nearly half the entry and calling the name "increasingly controversial". It makes no sense to hide or downplay this crucially important and verifiable issue. 213.155.151.233 (talk) 00:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Constant micro-arguments

This may be a forlorn hope (the the Napolionic warfare sense of that word) but how about we start again on some of this stuff. At the moment we have autonomic reactions based on assumptions of other parties intent and/or motivation which may or may not be true. Everytime a small issue comes up its fought over. Arguments over what is or is not OR are not even used consistently between the same editors over different pages and there are other examples. Having been more or less absent for a week, and probably for another couple of weeks, coming to these pages (its not just this one) is depressing.

Yes previous task forces have failed, but I think one of the reasons for that is that they have attempted to create all encompassing rules for something which is a complex issue or problem. I wonder if a better approach is to have a (mediated, I have a member of arbcom in mind) process to agree (i) a set of principles and then (ii) a dispute resolution process that gets activated plus a voluntary 1RR rule on edits related to the two dreaded words. --Snowded TALK 12:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't mean to be pedantic, but what do you see as the difference between "rules" and "principles"? (Insofar as producing them is likely to reach a similar deadlock.)
As for the comment about OR: I think there is good synthesis which is what Wikipedia is about - drawing together information to produce an article that reflects what the sources say. There is also bad synthesis, drawing together information to advance a position that the sources do not state. To some extent there is an element of subjectivity in this, which might account for your belief that editors are being inconsistent and for that reason I would support independent mediation - as per my comments (somewhere above) about simulating the flagged revisions process. Wiki-Ed (talk) 12:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Nothing wrong with being pedantic, if it helps things move forward. The distinction might be better made between rules and heuristics (in anthropology between a rule based and an ideation based culture). Getting rules that cover all situations on a complex issue is very difficult, creating some generic principles or rules of thumb is easier. That then creates a framework within which mediation can take place and a growing body of case law that then helps reduce future conflict. I think we are agreed on independent mediation to overcome the necessary subjectivity associated with synthesis arguments. --Snowded TALK 12:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
What about a team effort to get the article to FA status? The steps of peer review, GA and then FA review will bring in outside opinion and may foster an atmos of collaboration. The findings of the reviews and the actions taken to implement would also lend "stability" to the end result.The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 13:02, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I think that is a good idea, but it needs a pre-process first as its not just this article on which the issue arises. I've suspended my objection to its use on the Empire article for example, in the hope that a general settlement is possible. --Snowded TALK 13:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
sorting out squabbling over what is or is not OR should be kept separate from the issue of when the term BI can and cannot be used. Its usage in the empire article is not OR or SYN. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 13:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
You defended its use without any references for a long period, arguing it was a reasonable synthesis, when you found a weak reference your argument changed. Look RedHat, this is the exact issue in question, Wiki-ed has it right when he says there is always a degree of subjectivity. Irrespective of OR arguments, there is a need to sort out the use or not use of BI, Be part of the solution or the problem .... --Snowded TALK 17:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand what you are going on about there. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 17:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I think you're both right. Some basic principles would be helpful but that does not mean OR should be permitted. However, I think we're going off at a bit of a tangent. Wiki-Ed (talk) 19:10, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

(Unindent) I don't think it's going to be possible to find universally accepted principles because some editors are very heavily entrenched in their positions and will go to great lengths to undermine their opposite numbers. However, if we can agree a set of guidelines among the more moderate editors I'm sure Snowded's proposal would help us move forward. I'm going to throw down some "principles", starting with some easily accepted (?!) statements and moving on to some which might cause debate. Perhaps others editors could propose alternatives or indicate agreement and we can establish common groung?

  1. The term "British Isles" refers to the archipelago off the north-west coast of Europe;
  2. The term is controversial in some parts of this geographic area because it is perceived as political;
  3. Alternative names have been suggested, although no alternative term has achieved universal popularity;
  4. The term should not be used in any context where alternatives are available;
  5. The term can be used in geographic contexts where no alternatives are valid;
  6. Independent mediation should be requested when there is a debate over the applicability of the term in a particular context.

I might amend/add more later as I reflect on them. Snowded, is this the sort of thing you meant? Wiki-Ed (talk) 19:10, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

You've lost me with 4 & 5 - are you saying editors should not use the term 'British Isles' in these circumstances, or that the article should say that people should not use the term in these circumstances? In either case, I don't think you will get consensus for prescribing circumstances in which it can/can't be used. --hippo43 (talk) 19:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm suggesting it should not be used when it is likely to create controversy - for example it should not be used in a context where political entities are being discussed. However, it can (but not necessarily should) be used in geographic descriptions relating to the whole of the archipelago where no other term embraces the same concept. I don't think the intent is to be prescriptive, rather to guide where it should be used and where it should not be used. Wiki-Ed (talk) 23:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I totally reject number 4 and will not agree to something along those lines. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
The problem is with this notion, which Snowded frequently peddles, that there is an OK and a not-OK usage of British Isles. Either you are OK with the geographical term, or you are not OK with the geographical term (for historical and political reasons). Even the most republican of Irish republicans watching the BBC (as if) weather report and hearing that a "cold front is moving across the British Isles" does not think that the BBC means that Ireland is still under the Brutish yoke. Yet, they would still object to its usage in that context. Simply put, it is a black and white matter and a matter of being OK with it or not. This is borne out by what we see in reliable sources. We do not see style guides saying how it's OK to use in one context but not another. I simply do not see under those circumstances how Wikipedia can adopt such a rule. This is why, incidentally, I proposed before to make it a matter of English - Irish English (do not use) vs British English (use). There are already established Wikipedia policies in place for this kind of distinction, and we do not need to invent our own ad hoc rules about the term. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 01:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
You are greatly exaggerating (at best) the use of "British Isles" on the BBC. I have never heard them use the term on their broadcasts into Ireland. They use many of the alternatives. Nobody has ever shown that they, or ITN/SKY, commonly use the term over names like the UK or simply referring to the individual countries. It would be odd anyway for them to use it if, as you claim, the British Isles includes Ireland as well as the UK when their broadcasting remit is for the UK alone. Dunlavin Green (talk) 01:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Why don't you search for it on the BBC website then. ps your comments perfectly illustrate what I'm saying above - so thankyou. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 01:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
If anyone is exaggerating, it's you. Seeing as I mentioned BBC Weather, one can even find BBC weather forecasts specifically for the British Isles. [11] It's a choice in the dropdown menu. Methinks the lady doth protest too much. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 01:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

⬅Wiki-Ed has the essence of my idea and I more or less agree with the ones listed. I think if we move forward on that basis we might make progress. RedHat and Dunlavin Green, is it possible not to have the arguments we are all familiar with, just for a period, while we see if we can make progress? --Snowded TALK 13:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, your Lordship, that you are tired with these same arguments, but given that they demonstrate the very problem with what you want to see happen, you are going to have to deal with them. It's a smite arrogant to tell others "I don't want to hear anything else except discussion of what I want done". What you want done is not going to work, for precisely the same reasons that the disagreements exist. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 13:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Bit of an over reaction there RedHat. I am suggesting, as I did when I started this thread, that constant arguments over known issues are not getting us anywhere. Hence the suggestion. I can't see what is wrong with making such a suggestion and such a request. How about trying to work with a different approach to see if it will work, we know the old one won't. --Snowded TALK 13:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Getting agreement on principles here is not going to work, i partly support returning to the 1RR if we dont still have that enforce to avoid edit warring. We certainly cant say that "BI should not be used if theres an alternative term which could". BritishWatcher (talk) 14:12, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Getting extremist editors on both sides to agree is probably not possible BW, but we should be able to get something between reasonable ones. --Snowded TALK 14:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Then its a pointless agreement if it leaves out the "extremists" from both sides. That wont leave many people to collaborate and agree on anything. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
There are only a few extremists (and I am hoping you are not one of them). If there is a broad concensus on principles and a process we can defuse the tension. I'm going to sleep on Wiki-ed's draft and come back with some suggestions --Snowded TALK 15:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Well i dont see how its possible to agree on 4 and 5. That would basically result in an almost complete removal of the British Isles from wikipedia. I cant see how that will lead to consensus. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Agree with BW. Also I resent the term "extremist", especially when what is being proposed is far more "extreme" than the vast majority of media outlets and publishers who have not set out policies on when the term is ok or not. If you cannot find such rules "out there" it means you are attempting to define the rules yourselves. This is the complete opposite of Wikipedia's philosophy and policy. We should reflect the world, not try to redefine it. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 16:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

⬅not giving things a chance are you. I think WIki-ed's proposals are generous (given his normal position) and offered in a spirit of trying to resolve the issue. I'm planning to suggest a few mods that will try and address BW's concerns (in the same spirit). No one has called you a extremist yet as far as I can see. Consensus based approaches to resolving conflict are wikipedia policy. I can't believe that you can possibly enjoy all this conflict, so why not try to find a way forward? --Snowded TALK 16:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I am all for ways forward but not if that means assigning "ok" and "not ok" meanings to a word which no other entity does. That is why I proposed making it a regional issue which can be tackled like Am v Br Eng is tackled. There is no right or wrong, good or bad there. Oh, and it is exactly the approach followed by Folens. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 17:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia's American English solution basically means (1) all the America-related topics get American spellings (e.g. Pearl Harbor), (2) articles concerning specific non America-related topics get normal spellings (e.g. Grand Harbour, Cork Harbour, Sydney Harbour), (3) any other article is stuck with the variant first used, possibly with a disambiguation. How would such a division work when all nations within the geographic area use the same spelling? It would certainly result in some very artificial divisions, and they wouldn't necessarily reflect what the majority of the population would say. Wiki-Ed (talk) 17:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

(outedent)There was a good deal of work done last year at WP:BISLES which covers this ground. Good to see other editors saying the same thing too. Would it be helpful to also continue discussions over there rather than here? --HighKing (talk) 18:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Why is a discussion about 'where British Isles can & can't be used on Wikipedia' being held on this talkpage? There's the British Isles Taskforce. This talkpage concerns this article 'only'. GoodDay (talk) 18:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I must admit I hadn't noticed you lot had been talking there as well. I thought that task force had died. However, ultimately, a task force on the "British Isles" relies on the definition given in this article and the principles we adopt, if we adopt any, have to be far simpler and less formulaic that those presented. I've probably gone overboard myself (above). Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
?"you lot"? Well, I agree with your earlier sentiment that definition and usage is strongly linked. Could probably be dealt with separately at a pinch, but preferably that participants have a fuller picture. --HighKing (talk) 20:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Editing Restriction

All, as people have been reminded, and reminding, there is an editing restriction on this article, that is clearly visible to all who edit. No reverting of a revert. This is a reminder, as many may have forgotten it (I know I did at one point.) In order to prevent the current edit war from continuing to escalate I'm informing all that this is still in force. I'm not going to do anything about those to date, as to be fair on all it hasn't been being enforced, but it's still there and will be enforced from now on again. Canterbury Tail talk 15:02, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

(What a load of badly broken English. I need more sleep.) Canterbury Tail talk 15:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I disagree with this rule. People simply game it by reverting anything they don't like, safe in the knowledge it can't be put back. All it takes is one person to not like an edit and that's that. The regular 3rr is enough (unless it gets ridiculous when it should just be locked til things calm down). The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 15:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
ps we should vote on it, all the regulars. Admins are janitors not bosses. If the group decides to keep it on force, so be it. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 15:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

It was imposed by SheffieldSteel and supported on the Admin's notice board (I believe that's where it was.) Personally I don't agree with it either for exactly the reasons you state above. Canterbury Tail talk 15:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

So why disturb the de facto state of affairs? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 15:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Because edit warring has started up again, and the restriction has been placed on the article and not lifted. Canterbury Tail talk 16:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Would you mind clarifying what would happen in the event that an IP adds content (not vandalism) that is reverted, then the IP reverts. The IP is (apparently) immune from sanction, but the controversial content must stay on the article as no one can revert a revert. Doesn't seem right. Daicaregos (talk) 19:22, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes thats a problem with the 1RR, which from the above conversation i understand is no longer enforce. We shouldnt have to put up with an awful version added like that. If we are going back to the 1RR the page should be semi protected to avoid IPs doing that. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:28, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, looks as if we are about to find out, as an 'edit war' has broken out. Watch this space. Daicaregos (talk) 19:30, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

IPs are not immune. IP has been blocked in accordance, and the article set back to immediately prior to reversion sanction breech. Canterbury Tail talk 19:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Daicaregos (talk) 19:37, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

On the subject of IPs editing on the main article, I don't think we've had a terrible issue with it. Yes it can be open to abuse, but I haven't seen it happen. If it becomes a problem, and if people agree, we can always put a semi-protect on the article. However in my experience the abuse of IPs has been on the talk page, not the article page. Canterbury Tail talk 19:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

The WP:BOLD edit seemed quite legitimate to me. I would be happy to see that content in the lead. There's no getting away from the fact that the term is controversial. The only 'problem' was a potential for leaving content on the article as no one would be able to revert. As long as an admin is monitoring this article 24/7 things will be fine. Thanks for your prompt attention. Cheers, Daicaregos (talk) 19:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I need clarification on the 1RR thing. Is an editor allowed 1-revert within 24hrs at this article? GoodDay (talk) 20:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

The first line of this thread is quite explicit "... there is an editing restriction on this article, that is clearly visible to all who edit. No reverting of a revert." And the now banned IP reverted only once. We have precident. Daicaregos (talk) 20:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Obvious vandalism is excepted, pure vandalism reversion is always an exception to revert rules. Of course sometimes it's not always obvious vandalism. If in doubt, ask someone. Canterbury Tail talk 22:40, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Anonymous IPs

Can we do something about these? How about reverting them? They invariably have nothing to add, and often spew grotesque anti-British vitriol in the mistaken belief that "British Isles" has something to do with the UK. Surely one of the reasons for this article is to educate such ignoramuses about the true origin of the term? ðarkuncoll 23:33, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

So, Tharky, "British Isles" has nothing to do with the UK? How very idiosyncratic. Is there anyway we can do something about editors who refuse to face historical and political facts about the origin and use of this term? Dunlavin Green (talk) 01:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I wonder whether TharkunColl is actually calling me an ignoramus in particular, or just getting annoyed about people who can read references that he apparently doesn't like? Other than that, I wonder where there's been any "grotesque anti-British vitriol" recently. 213.155.151.233 (talk) 23:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Is there any reason you don't create an account? Although you are perfectly entitled to choose not to do so, editors with accounts are taken far more seriously than those without. It takes less than 30 seconds to set one up. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 01:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia is beginning to enforce measures to slow them [12], but sadly I think we're a long way from seeing them being blocked from article talk pages. In the meantime they get to use this space like a forum. Wiki-Ed (talk) 09:27, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Is there any reason both of you don't create your own online encyclopedia with, say, the name Britipedia? Wikipedia allow ips to contribute. That is the way wikipedia operates. You have both been told this several times. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is no longer a wikipedia rule. Dunlavin Green (talk) 01:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
WHen they say Editors will have to approve versions, do they mean any user with an account or admins? BritishWatcher (talk) 10:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

()This is an interesting section. However, I'll stick to what Wikipedia says about itself, rather than what a bunch of people with Anonymous silly names seem to think. "You do not have to log in to read Wikipedia, nor is a registered account required to edit Wikipedia articles" 213.155.151.233 (talk) 11:01, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


valid point. it is amusing to watch anonymous pseudonyms complaining about anonymous IPs - ClemMcGann (talk) 11:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
It's a sad reflection on you that you find it amusing. Registered user names are a way of establishing a track record and relationships with others in this online community, even if we don't go by our real names. It doesn't matter what people call themselves as long as we know we are dealing with the same person behind the name and can see what that individual has contributed to the project. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 14:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Again, I'm not interested in the person, but in the sources. I don't really care if Mr.Red Hat exists or not. The sources do, or not. 213.155.151.233 (talk) 16:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Now that is amusing - perhaps you could provide some reliable sources to support your theories? Wiki-Ed (talk) 18:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
It's not a reliable source in support of my theory, it's the rules of Wikipedia. [13]. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true.". My existence as a human, a number, an hyper-intelligent dog or simply an agent on a Turing machine are all beside the point, as is whether or not I have a funny nickname. The sources matter, I do not. Mr.Red Hat's (or any nickname's) relationships with other editors also do not matter. 213.155.151.233 (talk) 13:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Most editors already know my views on IPs who refuse to create an account. Therefore, I won't repeat it. GoodDay (talk) 20:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Tell us them again, GoodDay - just for the craic ;-) Dunlavin Green (talk) 01:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Etymology again

User:Ghymyrtle left the following message on my talk page which really belongs here: Please self-revert. The Foster ref. p.1, says "Pytheas... refers to the British Isles as the 'Pretanic islands'". The Allen ref, p.174, makes no ref to the naming of the islands at all, and says that "Diodorus employed the name Pretannia.. to describe the country..." (without explaining what is meant by "the country"). Neither of the refs support the assertion in the current text that "The British Isles first appeared in the writings of travellers from the ancient Greek colony of Massalia." The Allen ref seems totally irrelevant. I don't deny that Massalian travellers referred to islands, and those references may (according to Foster) be to what is sometimes now called the "BI" - but that is precisely what my amendment would show. It is wrong to state "the BI" first appeared in those writings - obviously, it was not the islands themselves that appeared, it was a reference to them, and the term "BI", in the English language, came much, much later. The current text, frankly, is nonsensical and not supported by the refs.

The only nonsensical text would be weasel words like "References to the islands later known as the British Isles..." This isn't an article about a has-been popstar; it's an article about the British Isles and the section in question is describing the evolution of the term. Stop trying to split hairs. The Allen reference - the first line of the previous paragraph shows he is talking about the "British Isles" and the relevant sentence actually says, in full: "Diodorus employed the name Pretannia, Latinized from Pytheas' Pretannike, to describe the country, and Pretani for its inhabitants." Pytheas came from Massalia. Foster and all the other sources make it quite clear he was writing about the British Isles, not writing references to them. Wiki-Ed (talk) 13:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The current version states: "The British Isles first appeared in the writings of travellers from the ancient Greek colony of Massalia." It is untrue. The term "British Isles" did not appear in those documents (obviously - different language). The Allen ref is irrelevant - it refers to a "country", not specifying whether that term means one island, part of an island, or something else. His preceding paras refer variously to "Britain" and "the British Isles". The ref certainly does not state that the term used by Diodorus refers to the specific group of islands which later became known as the "British Isles". There is a problem with the Foster ref - self-evidently it exists, but, so far as I know, Foster provides no evidence for his assertion that the 'Pretanic islands' are the same as what became the "BI". We don't know. What we do know, for certain, is that the term "British Isles" did not exist at the time of Pytheas, because there was no English language. It is therefore wrong to state that "the British Isles first appeared" then, and more correct to say that "References to the islands later known as the British Isles..." first appeared then. It's not splitting hairs, it's being accurate. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
I do not have strong feelings on this matter and dont know the history of the term / its usage, so if clarification in that section is needed thats fine with me although agreement will be needed on this talk page first so the revert was correct. "References to the islands later known as" is not something i like the sound of at all, would we describe Europe in such a way? "References to the continent later known as Europe".. i highly doubt it, but nobody look for an example to try and catch me out! lol BritishWatcher (talk) 14:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Grammatically it was awkward saying that "The British Isles first appeared in the writings", so I've amended it to "The first references to the islands as a group appeared in the writings ..." and have clarified it subsequently as "providing several variations referring to the geographical area of the British Isles, including Britain and Ireland, which have survived." Trust that's clearer. . dave souza, talk 14:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Looks good to me. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
As a compromise I think that's clear and accurate. It saves us a debate on Ghyrtle's bizarre language-related argument, questioning the validity of the sources and revising history etc. Wiki-Ed (talk) 15:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
The revisionism is surely the unreferenced and bizarre claim that the term "British Isles" was in existence in the 4th century BC. But let's move on... Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Good change that wording is far more clearer. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

semi-protect

Would someone semi-protect this? We've got newly created IPs who are very "knowledgeable" reinserting material against prior consensus. Given the Irr restriction this makes it very difficult --Snowded TALK 20:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Where is the "prior consensus" to remove the referenced information about John Dee's politics? Removing it is designed to deny that the term "British Isles" in its very origins is a politically contrived term. Removing well-referenced sources for Dee's imperialist politics in order to propagate a political agenda which claims this term is not political is ethically wrong and against wikipedia policy. Such a removal is, plain and simply, part of a British nationalist political agenda. Please have the decency to be honest about what is really going on here. 213.202.190.199 (talk) 20:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

(i) look at the talk history, first use yes, speculation as to motive is OR, (ii) please avoid conspiracy theories and (iii) do us all a favour and list the previous IDs under which you have edited. --Snowded TALK 20:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
There is no speculation about his motives: all of his biographers are at one that he was motivated by imperialism. As the DNB entry puts it (and the DNB is not one of those articles referenced in the article pointing out his imperialist ideas and views): "From about 1570, however, he emerges, both in manuscript and print, as the advocate of a policy for strengthening England politically and economically, and for imperial expansion into the New World. The first survivor of these manuscript tracts, Brytannicae reipublicae synopsis (1570), perhaps a schematic digest of a larger work requested by Dee's friend and patron Edward Dyer, concerns itself with trade, ethics, and national strength. Six years later he began a much more ambitious project, The Brytish Monarchy, of which only the first part, General and Rare Memorials Pertaining to the Perfect Art of Navigation (1577), achieved print, albeit in a limited edition. Another volume of great bulk was to consist of Queen Elizabeth's Tables Gubernautik, but has not survived; a third volume was destroyed, perhaps by its author, while a fourth, Of Famous and Rich Discoveries, remains only in Dee's now very imperfect manuscript. Concurrently with these writings Dee was producing another work, the Brytanici imperii limites of 1576–8 (extant only in a manuscript by another hand)." The guy wrote several books about creating a "British empire". There is no "original research" there either. It is serious head-in-the-sand stuff to write this off as "original research". And "head-in-the-sand" is a generous way of putting what's really going on with the wikipedia editors in question. 213.202.190.199 (talk) 20:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Do we need an admin to come and block this IP for breaking the 1RR?? (if he has) , the history page is confusing im lost which are allowed to be reverted theres been several IP changes today. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:54, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
(ec)The link between BI as a name and Dee's motives has to be established. Its not enough to say X was motivated by A, X said B thereofre B was motivated by A. That aside, how about answering point (iii) above. --Snowded TALK 20:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
It is well established. The guy was an imperialist, he advocated English, indeed British, imperialist expansion, and he is the first person, according to the OED, to coin the terms "British Empire" and "British Isles" in the course of that advocacy. To contend that there is no verifiable connection is disengenuous at best. To remove these references is letting political views of editors triumph over Wikipedia's requirement for referenced sources. Also, there are many other sources in absolute agreement about John Dee's imperialist politics. There is no authority on Dee in denial about his imperialist politics. But there are rightwing British nationalist editors here in denial. Ergo, these sources are censored.213.202.190.199 (talk) 21:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
it does not matter if the material should be added or not, it needs agreement here first. You added it, i have reverted it but then you broke the rules by restoring the information. Please undo that restoration IP because i have contacted admins asking someone to take a look. We can debate this matter here, but u need to undo that revert of yours. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:14, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

If an admin comes they need to read the different edits carefully. Most of the edit warring has been over use of Republic of Ireland / Ireland. The only thing i have undone is the edit by the IP who added stuff about John Dee, this has not been agreed on the talk page so reverted it for the first time, nobody else reverted it so ive not broken the 1RR just so everyones clear on this.

On the issue of ROI which there is an edit war going on, im fine for that to just say Ireland. Perhaps it will be addressed later on after the voting is finished, not before. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Now the page is semiprotected from what i can see theres been two changes that need undoing to the previous stable version.

Both these things should be done so its back to the recent stable version, an admin will need to make these changes because otherwise we are breaking the 1RR. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

  • "POV" - are you for real? What planet are you on? John Dee is referenced material from British - yes, British - sources. This is more, much more, than what is offered by those who want to silence the politics of the earliest known user of the term "British Isles", that is John Dee in 1577. Rather, it is this insidious political agenda which seeks to cover up the imperialist politics underlying the term "British Isles" and instead propagate a notion that it is a harmless apolitical term which is, quite patently, the problem here. 213.202.190.199 (talk) 22:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

PS: Just for clarification: "stable" means the version you agree with. This article, as a quick glance at its 34 archives of edit history (so far) demonstrates, has never been stable. It is exceedingly unlikely that it ever will be genuinely stable as long as it has the name "British Isles" on it. 213.202.190.199 (talk) 22:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

No it does not mean the version i was happy with, id rather see Republic of Ireland remain but its been Ireland for some time so that is the stable version. The original research about John Dee was removed some time ago as well when it was moved out of the intro. There for the stable version is the one without those two changes that took place yesterday. Sorry but the article WAS reasonably stable for sometime, although alot of crap has hit the fan recently i must admit. If further information is needed about John Dee, it needs to be agreed to here. Now i dont want you punished, but i want the material you should not have readded which was in violation of the 1RR removed from the page. The edit page clearly states do not revert another editors revert. You reverted by revert in violation of the rules. That material must be removed thanks. It would save us all alot of time if you undid the revert yourself, rather than us needing to get an admin to restore it, who may have to punish you. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:17, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
It's high time this article was semi-protected, the editor (with his IP accounts) is merely causing disruption with his/her continued refusal to stop his/her 'edit first, discuss latter' style. GoodDay (talk) 16:48, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Does the 1RR only apply for 24 hours like the standard 3RR??? BritishWatcher (talk) 07:08, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Please enlighten me on the current state of this article: It has been reverted to what is being referred to as a "stable" version, in part because of the edit warring over the use of the phrase "Republic of Ireland" to describe the political entity, in order to differentiate it from the geographic entity "Ireland" referred to earlier in the same paragraph. Is this correct? This revert, of course, has the effect of preventing my edit from being published which, it so happens, was the very purpose of the edit warrior who violated the 3RR. Is this a correct assessment so far? I would additionally like to ask, besides this reversion, what is the procedure to be followed that could allow for my edit to take effect, should it be deemed justified, and who are the parties entitled to judge that justification? Shoreranger (talk) 14:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Im concerned about a different section of text that was added, not the matter on the ROI / Ireland. I agree it makes sense to put Republic of Ireland where it is, however as there is 1RR in force it should now be Ireland still. Also this matter is sensitive because the issue of when to say Republic of Ireland instead of Ireland, is soon to be talked about at another location. The poll on if the country article should remain at Republic of Ireland has recently ended here and soon the debate on other matters relating to that (including when to use ROI) will be made at Wikipedia:IECOLL and its probably best for no changes to be made until agreement is reached there. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Agree, let the discussions peter out over there first, and then bring it back later if you wish. Has been stable for a while Tfz 17:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the reply. I wish I had known about the poll earlier. However, the results fo the poll itself would not seem to solve the problem in this particular paragraph. That is: Even if "Ireland" is polled as the "preferred" term for the political entity, "Republic of Ireland" is still a viable alternative and, if so, would be the best solution to differentiating it from the term "Ireland" used earlier in the same paragraph to refer to the geographic entity. Basically, the problem of using the same word twice in the same paragraph to mean two very different things will not be addressed by any of this, it seems to me. Shoreranger (talk) 20:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
The vote is over, however that was just phase one. In the coming days debate will start on this page about exactly when Republic of Ireland should and should not be used in different articles. Feel free to get involved there, the point about two uses of Ireland in the same sentence / paragraph is something id not considered before and does add to confusion so that will have to be covered too. Like i say the debate there should start soon, the result of the poll has not been officially confirmed yet and a few people will be raising hell in an attempt to get the vote declared void because they dont like the outcome. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
So what's the result? I can't make head n' tale of it. Overly complex if you ask me, but then it would be, wouldn't it? Mister Flash (talk) 16:56, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
The status quo won when it comes to article titles, the outcome of the remaining matters still being debated are far from clear, looking at where we are currently and what still needs to be covered id expect it to last a few months yet. I still have other matters to raise, but previous things still are to be addressed. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Rugby Team in the Alternative Names Section

I'm happy that a reference has been found to show that the rugby team was renamed, and indeed that it was for "politically corrrect" reasons. I'm still not bowled over by the reliability of it (where was it published, aside from someone at a university putting it in their public html directory? who peer reviewed it?). Regardless of that though, it's ridiculous to have a long statement about the fine details of a rugby team in a section on alternative names in an article on a geographical entity. The alternative names section should state that alternative names are Britain and Ireland (ref: Folens, NatGeo) or in adjectival form British and Irish (ref: paper mentioning rugby team). In other words, these should just be inline references supporting the alternative names. The full details on the rugby team should be in the sports section. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 08:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

ps HighKing - as someone who has repeatedly reverted here on the grounds that there is "no consensus", how about following your own rules? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 08:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposal: (1) change the intro wording as follows: "The term British Isles is controversial in relation to Ireland, which after several centuries of British intervention and rule was partitioned in 1922 into two, six counties in the north opting to remain within the United Kingdom, with the remainder of the island leaving the UK." (gives some background as to British/Irish history) (2) create a "Naming Issue" section and move the text that was in the intro there (3) do as I suggest above by making the road atlas and rugby team supporting reference for simply stating what the alternative names are. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 09:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

*Oppose im not sure i like the sound of that, its politicizing the intro even more than it already is. I think the current introduction is reasonable, first paragraph covering what the British Isles is and the second covering the problems, objections and alternative. Seems ok to me. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
The article doesn't explain, anywhere, the shared history which is why this is such a hot potato. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 10:27, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
A section on the background including the political side would be useful but i dont think it need go into detail about that in the introduction. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Your proposal won't make the lead any shorter, and complicates it. Also, why are you proposing a new section and moving the "naming issues" to it when you shot down a similar proposal by me involving a simple list earlier? --HighKing (talk) 10:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
why is the intro length an issue? Re your proposal I disagreed with a "list of examples". Here I suggest listing the alternative terms and putting the "examples" as inline refs. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 10:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Any why has the content of the reference, from an academic source, been edited out again and the dubious tag been replaced (other than that the source contradicts what some people learned at school)? 213.155.151.233 (talk) 10:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
If you want to replace the tags with the ref, fine. But expanding text which is already the subject of a dispute as to why it is in that section is not ok (not without the consensus that is demanded by Snowded and Highking every time anyone else attempts to make a change.). It cuts both ways. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 11:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Again, I don't rate this source particularly highly. There are numerous other sources which give varying explanations, and which are more rugby-specific. (This source, for example, has "On the tour to New Zealand in 1950, the team officially adopted the Lions name".) That it is an "academic" source does not, IMO, make it expecially credible on this point - it appears only as a footnote in a paper about team selection in golf, the writers are not experts in rugby, according to their research interests, and as far as I can tell have not published anything on the subject. It is highly unlikely that the note would be fact-checked or peer-reviewed, and they do not supply a source for their assertion. --hippo43 (talk) 13:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Support RHoPF's proposal. --hippo43 (talk) 13:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The journalistic source is from a cricket and rowing buff. So we can have a cricket and rowing buff or a Professor of Sports Studies from Stirling University. Also, the Times (as shown previously) also says that the Lions name was a nickname only. 213.155.151.233 (talk) 17:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
"A cricket and rowing buff"?? No, a professional who regularly writes on rugby, writing an article specifically about the Lions name, published by a respected source. You're making my point for me - even the Times contradicts itself, so trying to be so specific and claiming that this one source is authoritative just because it is 'academic' is spurious. --hippo43 (talk) 17:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Patrick Kidd is the source, and your opinion that he's "a professional who writes regularly on rugby" is worth SFA. Besides, Kidd has written (apparently) about four times as much about property as about rugby, and nowhere near as much as he does about cricket. The academic source is a professor of sport in a respected British University. No contest. 213.155.151.233 (talk) 19:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Having been away for a bit I'm frankly amazed. We have an article by two academics from a respectable university who write an article about the whole issue of naming and clearly state that the name was changed in 2001. For anyone who knows anything about Rugby the name change in 2001 is well known (witness the programmes etc.), the issue has been to find something that will satisfy those who feel that using such evidence is OR. Yes they are also more commonly just called the Lions, but the official name changed in 2001. I can't understand why people are getting so worked up about this. The name change happened, its worthy of note it really should not be an issue. --Snowded TALK 19:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
What is getting lost is that this is an article about the British Isles, not a rugby team. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 22:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
While I believe what's getting lost is an objective and neutral POV. --HighKing (talk) 23:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
So best also mention that they continue to use the term then. [14] "The Tri-Nations champions scored four tries in the first half - two of which were intercepted efforts from jet-heeled winger Bryan Habana - to end their tour of the British Isles on a positive note." Yet again, we see it's not as simple as the cherry-pickers would have us believe. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Especially when the quote isn't referring to the team name, which is what this discussion is about. Cherry-pickers indeed.... --HighKing (talk) 00:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Please remind me, why is the team name even relevant again to an article on the British Isles? Oh yes, because it's supposed to mean something about changing patterns of usage, isn't it. Oh wait, but we've just found - yet again - the body which has supposedly banished it because of its political incorrectness still using it. Oh how inconvenient. I know, let's try the same tactic that we did for the road atlases. (Yawn.) The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 00:59, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Well - since you asked. Fact: The team name was changed. If you want to maintain that it was because of political incorrectness, please provide a reference. I haven't said it was so, and it seems you are attempting to attribute a motive to editors that disagree with you. Try to keep the discussion on the content please. (Fart in your general direction) --HighKing (talk) 01:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Fact: the surface of the sun is very hot. Not relevant to an article on the British Isles though, is it? Same goes for a rugby team changing its name. So why even bother mentioning this in the article, which is about a geographical entity? You tell me. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 01:27, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

()The rugby team was called the British Isles. The sun is hot, but it's not called the British Isles. The rugby team changed its name and there is academic source to say that it was for reasons of political correctness, to change away from British Isles. It's 100% relevant. 213.155.151.233 (talk) 13:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

This is all getting very silly. The term British Isles will continue to be used for some time, no one is disputing that fact (some people think it shouldn't be used but that is another matter). The fact that institutions have been renamed formally to British and Irish is significant in the context of this paragraph. it is different that than the casual use of British Isles in a newspaper article, and its not cherry picking to say so. All it says is that there is a change in terminology, that is what we should report. --Snowded TALK 14:16, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

So, it seems that the dubious tag should be removed and the reference replaced. Objections? 213.155.151.233 (talk) 13:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Snowded, on what basis are you "ruling" that casual use of "British Isles" in a newspaper article is not important but the name of a rugby team is? If this sentence stays in then we need a balancing statement reflecting the millions of hits on the internet and in Google books. The way it reads it seems that organisations are falling over themselves to stop using the term. That just isn't true. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 13:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
The way it reads it seems that organisations are falling over themselves to stop using the term C'mon, are you taking the piss? Seriously, I'm surprised you'd resort to tactics of hyper-exagerration - extreme positions like this just make your argument weaker. All that comes across is that you've a problem with any mention of a fact that indicates that "British Isles" is not being used as much by different organizations and publications. The best argument you can find is to read stuff (mostly a hyper-exaggerated emotive POV) into the article that isn't even there, and you refuse any suggestions (a simple list). We're just going round in circles on this one.... --HighKing (talk) 16:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Resorting to ad hominem attacks, now? I'm emotive and taking the piss? Anyway. If you want to state that alternative names for the collection of island exist, and put - as inline citations - supporting references for that, fine. But what you want goes much, much further than that. You want to list only the organisations that don't use the term under cherry-picked circumstances (road atlas cover OK, ignore road atlas description; rugby team name OK, ignore mentions on rugby team website). And why do you want to list them? Because you want to demonstrate changing usage. So what about all the stuff you aren't mentioning? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 18:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
If you look very very closely, there is no ad hominen comments made. I asked a question - are you taking the piss by trying to make out that the article even comes close to making it sound like organizations are falling over themselves to stop using the term. I note you didn't answer the question. I also did not call you emotive - are you taking the piss again with that comment too? And would you care to elaborate on all the stuff that's not being mentioned? --HighKing (talk) 01:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, a most surprising rant from a noted ad hominem attack spotter. By the way HK, testing the waters again are we - Benjamin Franklin? MidnightBlue (Talk) 22:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
No surprise to see a barbed comment from MDM. Typical that you wouldn't bother to actually read what I'd actually said. --HighKing (talk) 01:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Red Hat, I honestly think you need to sit back and take a more objective look at this, you're getting sucked into a extreme position which appears ideological committed to maintain the BI label and denigrate any change even when referenced. The official change of name of a team is significant. The fact that a newspaper uses a geographic term to describe a tour is a so what issue. BI is a valid term, that use is legitimate (they comple, it has NOTHING TO DO with the issue, which is a shift in the names used. No one is saying that people are falling over themselves to change the name, if the wording says that we should change it (I don;t see that it does but I am open to argument). What is being reported is a simple set of facts.--Snowded TALK 22:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Why was there a change in terminology? Do we know? Perhaps we could find a reference. In itself the change within the context in which it appears in the article is not at all relevant. It is the reason for the change that may be relevant, so I suggest that unless we can find a reference to explain the change we should not be mentioning it. MidnightBlue (Talk) 22:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
A reference from an academic source has been produced so we do know why the terminology was changed. There's also been a news report about a NI politician complaining about the same reason as mentioned in the academic source. The name was changed to a name that was more politically correct. I think "politically correct" is a direct quote. 89.204.241.211 (talk) 22:40, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Can you point me to it please (I note the one from the Times)? MidnightBlue (Talk) 22:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I think HighKings recent change improves the sentence and makes it less problematic. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:42, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

The current phrasing, with since - now is creaky and horrid, if HighKing will excuse me for saying so. Looking back there was a very simply phrased version, with reference, that was clearer and easier and had the university reference. 83.147.165.129 (talk) 22:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Substitute "are now" with "has been" - perhaps? MidnightBlue (Talk) 23:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
I'd go along with that. --HighKing (talk) 01:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't. It's in deep dark passive voice, which is generally awful unless you at least say who did what. We know that the national unions renamed the team, and why. So here's a better version. In 2001 the British Isles Rugby Union team, often known informally as the British Lions, was renamed the more politically correct "British and Irish Lions"(ref). It's accurate, it's short, it's got the reference to support it. 89.204.234.0 (talk) 10:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
And it's rubbish. Who says it's more politically correct, whatever that means? All we have so far is an opinion. Until someone can find a reference from the team itself stating why they renamed themselves then we've still got a problem. MidnightBlue (Talk) 10:32, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
The sentence started out OK, but I dislike the ending, especially "renamed the more politically correct". --HighKing (talk) 15:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

It's in the reference. It's verifiable. 83.147.165.129 (talk) 23:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

So, apart from disliking the referenced facts - which is unimportant - does anyone have any actual objection to using In 2001 the British Isles Rugby Union team, often known informally as the British Lions, was renamed the more politically correct "British and Irish Lions"(ref), or perhaps something like "was renamed - for reasons of political correctness - to 'The British and Irish Lions'". 213.155.151.233 (talk) 17:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Objection. All we need to say is that the team was renamed. It's not completely clear why they were renamed. In fact ... leave out the sentence completely. So they were renamed, big deal! We don't know why. Mister Flash (talk) 18:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Objection. It has nothing to do with the group of islands which are the subject of the article. It is part of an unrepresentative sample being used to show a purported pattern of changing usage. The academic source, writing about another subject entirely, does not state that the name was changed for reasons of political correctness, just that the new name is more politically correct. --hippo43 (talk) 21:07, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
The team was called "British Isles", represented the geographic area covered by this article, and was renamed for reasons that we do know - that the previous name was seen as politically incorrect. 213.155.151.233 (talk) 18:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Britannica or POV?

I was "bold" and edited in a single word, mirroring the phrasing in Encyclopedia Britannica. It was immediately reverted. My edit was 100% supported by reference and should stand. The reversion was - as far as I can see - based on nothing more than denial, as is apparently usual around here. 213.155.151.233 (talk) 13:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I reverted for two reasons. First of all as it was a change to the introduction you should of atleast mentioned it here first to see if there was support for the change considering the long attempts to get consensus for the current wording. Second you mention you want it to be inline with the Britannica source, well your change did not do that.
The source says " it has become increasingly controversial, especially for some in Ireland who object to its connotation of political and cultural connections between Ireland and the United Kingdom."
Your change said..
"The term British Isles is increasingly controversial in relation to Ireland, where there are objections to its usage"
That doesnt sound exactly the same to me, the source says "some in Ireland object" which is rather different. Although Britannica articles are always awfully worded anyway and we should not be copying things word for word, i think thats against the rules. Adding the word "Increasingly" changes the balance of the sentence, so you should have mentioned it here first. In future please do NOT be bold on the introduction of this article, because i will revert anything i have the slightest problem with. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:45, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
BW would you tone it down a bit. There is now a reliable source which uses "increasingly" and either by quotation (which is allowed) or my paraphrase its legitimate to included it. You have to have a valid reason for reversion and "I have a slight problem" is not one. --Snowded TALK 13:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
BW's reasons (doesn't make same claim as source) are as valid as any of your reasons for reverting in the past, Snowded. However in this case I have to agree with my bearded Welsh friend. I don't think the edit was a problem. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 14:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Ofcourse there must be a valid reason for the revert, although it depends on peoples point of view if its justified or not. I think in this case both reasons i gave were valid. Id have been ok with the change had it been reworded to..
""The term British Isles is increasingly controversial in relation to Ireland, where there are some objections to its usage"
Although for the introduction i do think we should always try to seek opinions here on making a change first to the current agreed wording. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Britannica mentions that the term is increasingly controversial and then says that's the case "especially for some in Ireland". The Britannica article indicates that it's increasingly controversial in general and that the problem is especially acute for some in Ireland, not that there are only "some objections to its usage". We have references saying that other terms are increasingly preferred or favoured, which is totally in line with Britannica's description of the main term becoming increasingly controversial. My change was the smallest possible change that I could make and respect the references that I can see, or that I'm aware of. The term is increasingly controversial...Britannica, check. The term is controversial primarily in relation to Ireland...other references, check. From reading through the (painful) archives of this article it's obvious that the some, many or most, argument has been done to death and that there's been consensus not to include any modifiers on the amount of objection because different sources indicate different things and that the references should speak for themselves rather than editors to-and-froing all the time. No-one seems to be happy with that approach but everyone seems to be equally unhappy, which is one way of reaching stable consensus. Therefore I suggest that my edit was good.
On the point of when to be bold and when to revert, I absolutely reject the suggestion that "I have a slight problem with it" is any kind of grounds for reverting. If there's a reference that contradicts Britannica or which indicates that Britannica is exaggerating then let's see it. Otherwise it's purely personal opinion driving the revert. 213.155.151.233 (talk) 13:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
I have the right to revert any change i disagree with once if there is no consensus here on the talk page. As i said before, please avoid being bold with the introduction when it took a long time to get agreement on the current wording. I still consider the change you made to alter the balance of the sentence, which needs to be adjusted elsewhere in the sentence to keep it neutral. Im not a fan of Britannica as a source anyway, they have some horrible articles. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Point of order - 1R is not a "right", in the same way that 3R is not a "right". The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 19:44, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
If anyone has a problem with an alteration done to the article, they have a right to revert it. Being BOLD and making a change with no discussion, depends on peoples right to revert. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
I'll second the point of order. There is no "right" to revert or to make any other edit unless the change the editor makes is sustained by verifiable reference. There is no indication that there is any such sustenance in this case. 89.204.241.211 (talk) 22:35, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
I would love to see where it states i do not have the right to revert something that has not been discussed that i disagree with, especially when we are talking about the introduction which took a long time to get agreement on. There have been endless number of reverts on this page, its why we currently have the 1RR in force to prevent edit warring.
He was BOLD, i reverted. Its then meant to be talked about here and if people support the change it can be readded. I reject the suggestion that anything i have done has not been fully within the rules and perfectly acceptable considering the environment of this article. If i make a change to the intro now which is backed up by references and can not be disputed, do people not have the right to revert it? ofcourse they do. Had he made the change to any other part of the article, i would not of been bothered.. but i watch all changes to the introduction and as i said before i will revert any change i disagree with that isnt discussed on this talk page first. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

⬅BW I think you just reverted a correction of a quote. Aren't you getting a bit 1RR trigger happy? --Snowded TALK 10:40, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

He made a change to the intro too adding the word "many". Ive recorrected the if/is thing. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
It does seem that there's no objection to the insertion of increasingly except BritishWatcher's dislike of it. Since it's from Britannica, that does trump dislike. 83.147.165.129 (talk) 22:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
As no one else seems to have a problem with "increasingly" being added then ill re-add it. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Now we have increasingly used twice in the (short) paragraph. It doesn't read well. Can we get rid of one of them, at least? MidnightBlue (Talk) 10:58, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Undone the change for the moment. Is there an alternative word that could be used instead of increasingly in one of the cases? BritishWatcher (talk) 11:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Howabout 'more frequently'? GoodDay (talk) 17:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
That sounds good to me.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

No opinion on the issue at hand, but are there really, as Britannica suggests, people who object to the idea that there are cultural connections between Ireland and the United Kingdom? Who are these people, and why should we care what anyone who is so obviously divorced from reality has to say about anything? john k (talk) 06:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Regretably there are such people, and nearly all of them seem to be editors on Wikipedia. MidnightBlue (Talk) 17:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
I've seen people on Wikipedia who object to the idea that there are political connections between Ireland and the United Kingdom, I've not yet seen anyone who has openly and explicitly objected to the idea that there are cultural connections. It's just a very strange claim. john k (talk) 18:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
All things are relative. We have cultural connections to all of humanity nowadays. We share 98.9% of our genetic code with chimpanzees and are discovering cultural similarities as research progresses. We are more heavily influenced, culturally, by America for the past half century than by Britain. I'd guess what people are objecting to is the neo-Unionist assertion that we are the same culture. Sarah777 (talk) 18:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
English, Irish, Scots, Welsh; they are all fundamentally the same race and share a common culture. That common culture is influenced by American culture due to their world domination of the media. As for the sub-races of the British Isles, they influence each other all the time. The Irish are no more separate from the mix than the English. The only differnece is that a majority of the Irish live in a country that's politically independent from the others. MidnightBlue (Talk) 19:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
See? I guess that is the sort of thing causes Britannica to state that many folk are hostile to the theory of a "common culture". Sarah777 (talk) 21:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Where do they state that? MidnightBlue (Talk) 21:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
No point in arguing with Unionist myth-making Sarah --Snowded TALK 21:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Monday's papers from the two countries are indicative of the level of cultural sameness. The Irish papers were covered - front and back - by Sunday's sporting spectacular. The best game in years, possibly the best team of all time, a run equaling a record that stood since the 1940s by a team which contained names that are still renowned 60+ years later, and all played to a capacity crowd in one of the biggest stadia in Europe was all over the press and radio. The UK papers contained no mention whatsoever of the same events, even in the sports section. A common culture, really? No, not really. 213.155.151.233 (talk) 15:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, some peculiar activities do take place only in Ireland, and others, equally peculiar, only in England, Scotland or Wales. I didn't say the common culture we share is the sum of the culture of the islands, I said we share a common culture - each country also has its own unique elements. MidnightBlue (Talk) 21:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Increasingly is in the references and we shouldn't worry about searching for synonyms.83.147.165.129 (talk) 23:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

  • MidnightBlueMan, you are missing something. English, Irish, Scots, Welsh, Africans, Latin Americans, South Asians, Chinese, Japanese, and so on are all fundamentally the same — we are all human beings, and we have similar needs and wants. Race is a social construct; an individual should be judged on the basis of merit, not on the basis of race, ethnicity, or nationality. AdjustShift (talk) 13:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
The points you make are totally irrelevant to the issue being discussed, but they do support what I say. MidnightBlue (Talk) 21:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
No, they don't support what you say. The "common culture" is no more common than any random selection of places in Northern Europe. Kerry and Lincolnshire have far less culture in common than Gt.Yarmouth and Ijmuiden or Devon and Brittany. Several of the largest sporting and cultural events of the year in Ireland are total non-events in the UK, and vice versa. This isn't a case of "peculiar activities", it's a case of different cultures. 213.155.151.233 (talk) 13:14, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
MidnightBlueMan, the points I made are relevant to the issue being discussed. You said "English, Irish, Scots, Welsh; they are all fundamentally the same race and share a common culture." There is no such thing called "English race" or "Irish race" or "African race"; there is only one race — the "human race". And Britain and Ireland don't share a "common culture". As Sarah777 has pointed out above, Ireland is more influenced, culturally, by the US for the past half century than by Britain. I'm not from the US, and a non-native speaker of English. I grew up watching WWE and movies like American Pie, eating hamburger, and I developed a deep interest in the American Old West. I share more common things with the American than with the people of my neighboring country. The same applies with many Irish people. Many Irish share more common things with the Americans than with the British. AdjustShift (talk) 14:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
What makes you think the people of your neighbouring country don't like hamburgers, American Pie, WWE and the Old West? DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
You are not getting what I'm saying. I share more common things with the Americans than with my neighbors. The people of my neighboring country may also share common things with the Americans than with the people of my country. AdjustShift (talk) 14:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
So if you have things in common with Americans, and the British have those same things in common with Americans ... then Hey Presto, you have those things in common with the British! And possibly some other things too. What I mean is, Britain and Ireland share a lot of culture, even if some of that culture is American. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying your point. AdjustShift (talk) 15:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Another thing worth mentioning just in case it's been forgotten, is that the USA was colonised by the English and not the other way around. I might also add that British English is taught and spoken in Ireland, not American English.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

<>The Spanish, Dutch, Italians, Germans, Irish, Poles, and others also had a hand in the USA. As for the English in Ireland, it's a hybrid and is neither American or British English. 89.204.251.182 (talk) 23:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The original 13 colonies which formed what is now the United States of America were British, which is why English is spoken in the USA and not Polish or Italian. Oh, you left out the French. They were early explorers and colonisers of North America.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:14, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

And the west coast was Spanish or Russian, with most of the middle being French. So? The point remains that the USA is not culturally specifically English. 89.204.242.122 (talk) 06:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

But the founding colonies of the United States were English/British. Many things about America traces its roots back to Britain, be it common law, the bill of rights, the language, etc.. perhaps even greatness ;) But im not sure what this has to do with anything related to this article which needs changing. BritishWatcher (talk) 07:01, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Germans had a huge influence on the early USA, with German language seriously being considered for the national language of the new state. Imagine a German speaking USA, special relationship. The Yankees made America the country it is today, the good and the bad. The Germans have always been culturally a very advanced group, and much of British culture as we know it today was imported from France Germany, Holland, Spain, and of course Italy, with Ireland influencing the northern part of Great Britain. It's a mix, and has a totally different 'feel' than Britain. Tfz 13:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Whatever about the USA, the relevant point for here is still well illustrated by a recent point about last weeks UK and Irish papers. 89.204.243.228 (talk) 15:28, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
The most common surnamess in the USA are of British origin, which is further proof of the nation's British roots. Behavioural patterns are also similar between the Irish, British, and Americans as opposed to continental Europeans,; a fact which I personally observed first-hand yesterday. I witnessed the typical continental habit of pushing, shoving, and general disregard for queues. My first thought was that this type of behaviour would never happen in Ireland, Britain or the USA. This is not an attack on continental Europeans, but merely an illustration on how many personality and cultural traits the English-speaking people in the world have in common. A British person would experience less culture shock if he or she married an Irish person or American than a southern European.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
A significant proportion of Americans with British-sounding names do not have British ancestry. This is for two main reasons. (1) African-Americans typically bear the name of their ancestors slave owners. (b) During the peak C19 immigration to the USA, the INS officers were mainly of British or Irish descent. If presented with a name (typically an eastern european or turkish) that they couldn't understand, they arbitrarily gave the person an "American" name - meaning in practice a British name - that the immigrant should use henceforth. --Red King (talk) 17:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Excluding the African-Americans, who as you correctly state mostly bear British surnames, as well as Native Americans, many of whom also have British surnames, most of the white people who have British surnames live in regions of the US that did not receive many eastern or southern Europeans, namely the South, Midwest and Northwest. The eastern and southern Europeans settled mainly in the larger cities on the east coast. Most white American southerners have ancestors who all arrived in America prior to 1800. Their ancestry is overwhelmingly English, Scots-Irish and French. The 1790 US census showed that 90% of Americans were of British origin.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Yups, one of my parents is English, and the other Irish, and it never ceases to amaze me how both Irish and English get along together on personal basis, as though they compliment each other. I think it was Oscar Wilde who wrote in one of his plays, "God invented the Irish to stop the English from boring themselves to death". It's all humour of course.) Tfz 17:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Trust Wilde to say that, although personally I do not find the English boring; on the contrary, I have always found the English to be very good company. Same with the Irish.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
How can it get boring with the Irish living next door, there is always something to talk about. Tfz 17:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
That is very, very true. My dad was Irish and he never, ever ran out of things to talk about.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
I sometimes wonder if the rest of the world must imagine the Irish and English to be constantly at each others' throats, given all the reporting and propoganda they must hear. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. When interacting in non-political settings - i.e. almost all of the time for almost all of them - the two nations I think secretly rather like each other. ðarkuncoll 18:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I certainly can't recall a war between the UK & Ireland. GoodDay (talk) 18:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately there have been many wars between Britain and Ireland. These began in Roman times when the Irish started raiding Britain, taking slaves and such (e.g. St Patrick). They also conquered and settled large parts of what are now Scotland and Wales. In order to fight back the British were forced to employ Saxon mercenaries. Later, after England had been conquered by the Normans, the Normans set their sights on Ireland, and aided by a papal decree (confirmed by Adrian IV's successor, who was not English), the Norman rulers of England were tasked with the job of pacifying Ireland. It is probably fair to say that they didn't make a very good job of it, and the troubles remain to the present day. ðarkuncoll 23:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
I think the Irish came with St ColmCille and brought Christianity to Britain via Caledonia. They arrived with bibles and manuscripts rather than weapons. Also St Patrick many not have existed at all, who knows. I think the Irish Church was a thorn to Rome, and for some reason it's called the Celtic Church here on Wikipedia, but that's another tale. Tfz 01:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
It was a thorn in the side of Rome which is why the Pope issued the Papal Bull in 1154 which gave the Normans the holy entree into Ireland; along came Strongbow in 1170 with his Norman knights and Welsh mercenaries, aided by Dermot MacMurrough, and the rest is history. The Church has a lot to answer for as regards Ireland.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 04:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Getting more up to date than the Romans and Columcille, the UK and Irish papers again (as two weeks ago) illustrate that there's a greater cultural divide than some people care to admit. Once again, one of Europe's largest stadia filled to capacity (which is impressive in a small country like Ireland), once again the Irish papers are all full of the story, and once again it doesn't even merit a mention even in the sports section of the UK's largest papers. I checked the Sun, Mirror, Times, Telegraph and Independent. I wonder what percentage of UK editors would - without going to check - know what NAMA is? Irish editors might not be sure exactly what it is either :-(, but still, the point remains. 213.155.151.233 (talk) 17:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
And getting back to the original point - since Britannica, a reputable and verifiable source, says that the term "British Isles" has become increasingly controversial - is there any valid reason not to put this into the text? 213.155.151.233 (talk) 18:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:British_Isles/Archive_34&oldid=1136301490"