Talk:British Isles/Archive 3

message: The following definition is taken from the Oxford English Dictionary:- British adj & n. *adj. 1 of or relating to Great Britain or to the United Kingdom, or to its people or language. 2 of the British Commonwealth or (formerly) the British Empire (British subject) *n. (prec. by the; treated as pl.) the British people.
Please do not change this definition (in the current introduction) which reflects popular English usage within the archipelago to fit one's own agenda. British is not commonly used to refer to the United Kingdom or Great Britain; it is what it is used to refer to. Iolar Iontach 13:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I support this use. Outside of the term 'British Isles' itself - which I see as an exception which proves the rule - British does not refer to anything other than 'of Great Britain' or 'of the United Kingdom'. Rather than the vague 'most commonly' how about - 
* 'Due to the implications of the use of the adjective British, which in modern times is otherwise used to refer to the United Kingdom'
This reflects the fact that the intended - if not always understood - use here is not of the United Kingdom, but it acts as an explanation for the confusion/offence. --Robdurbar 20:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree essentially, and have changed the article. It is not quite true to say that "British Isles" is the only common use of "British" to refer to the whole archipelago, but all the modern other cases I know where "British" is used to refer the whole archipelago are contractions of "British Isle-ish" as in "British Flora and Fauna: plants of the British Isles" etc. and so are related. Rnt20 18:33, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

text: It is not the purpose of wikipedia to worry about any offence caused. The criteria for inclusion in wikipedia are verifiability, neutrality and no original research. If the term causes offence then it is acceptable to state this, giving a reference to support it. It is also true that British people do in fact use the term British Isles, probably in total ignorance of the fact that it may offend some people. The fact that both POVs exist means that they should both be included in the article, and both fully referenced. It would be useful to know the extent of offence caused in the Republic of Ireland, if you are going to claim that it offends you, that is all well and good on a talk page, but it does not represent a citation, it is a personal opinion. I am sure there must be people in the Republic of Ireland that are equally as unconcerned about the phrase as you are offended by it. If you can find some sort of citation regarding its offensive nature or better the extent of offence caused this would be a good thing (a survey or opinion poll). Be that as it may, the fact that it causes offence does not mean that it cannot be included. This is an encyclopedia, its purpose is to include things people believe, often the things people believe are offensive. As a molecular biologist I get offended by Intelligent Design, but it does not mean that I have the right to claim that the article shouldn't exist. Alun 18:44, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Definition of British

message: The article says: but to end Jacobitism the Scottish clan system was crushed and they became fully British
So what definition of "British" is being used there? Rhion 17:00, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Definition of British(2)

message: The following sentence appears inaccurate and pov:British derives originally from Britto or Priteni, the Celtic or pre-Celtic people who populated the islands before the Roman invasion.
Can anyone provide a source which shows that the Priteni populated Ireland? My understanding is that they did not populate anywhere other than Great Britain (and surrounding islands) in the archipelago. Iolar Iontach 03:47, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We could start from ca 50 BC, Diodorus "those of the Pretani who inhabit the country called Iris". Caesar invaded Britain in 55 BC. We can probably assume that those "Pretani who inhabit" Ireland were already established on the island by that time. --Mal 13:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See the article Cruithne (people). This was the pronunciation of the name of these people in Q-Celtic languages such as both Irish and Scottish Gaelic - in their own language (which was either P-Celtic like Welsh or, just possibly, pre-Celtic) they were called Pretani or Pritani. TharkunColl 15:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So in essence we are basing it on assumptions, not empirical evidence? Iolar Iontach 16:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a historical fact that a people called by their neighbours Cruithne existed in Ireland, and that this was also the name applied to the Picts in Scotland. It is a linguistic fact that the name Cruithne in Q-Celtic is equivalent to Pritani in P-Celtic. The only thing that is unclear, on which theories have been built, is whether these people were themselves P-Celtic speakers, or whether they originally spoke a non-Celtic language altogether. This, of course, is irrelevent - the Pritani lived in both Great Britain and Ireland. TharkunColl 17:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have read papers that dispute that model; it is an assertion rather than fact. Iolar Iontach 13:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The details of their origins can be argued over, but those people existed and lived in the British Isles. The ancients knew this - hence the quite from Diodorus. TharkunColl 15:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources re Priteni in Ireland??

message: How can the British Isles consist of Great Britain, Ireland (usually) and a number of much smaller surrounding islands? Does Ireland float away somewhere else occasionally? The map clearly shows two main islands making up the British Isles — Ireland and Great Britain. I know this caption's wording is trying to avoid the political issues discussed ad nauseam in the article and discussion page, but it doesn't help to use woolly wording in a geographical article. I've changed the wording to make it (a) accurate and (b) as uncontentious as possible. Bazza 18:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image caption 

message: The lists of islands are divided into sets based around the larger islands in the group. The Ireland set alone is organised around political names (Ulster, Connaught, etc.). This goes against the grain of the rest of the article which does its best to remain apolitical, concentrating on the British Isles as a geographical entity. I propose to remove political names and replace them with compass points or some other non-political names. Bazza 15:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of islands 

message: Edit summary by PConlon reads:
This article should maintain an inoffensive, neutral stance while remaining factual. It is important that the contentious nature of the term is highlighted, so that users of the term may avoid innocently and unwittingly giving offence
There is no requirement on Wikipedia for articles to remain inoffensive, they should simply be neutral. Neutrality is achieved by including all points of view without prejudice (except for tiny minority points of view). I refer you to the neutral point of view policy. There's also no requirement for information to be factual, this is an encyclopedia, so it's OK to include what people believe, as long as it's referenced and presented neutrally. Please leave a message on the talk page if you make significant edits to an article, giving your reasons for doing so, this will help in discussions about how to improve the article. It's also a good idea to try to find some citations to support your edits. All the best. Alun 17:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Inoffensive?

message: This article's very title just reeks of British jingoism and irredentism towards Ireland and the views of Irish people. Ireland is a "British Isle" to the British and their heavingly subsidised "compatriots" in the north-east of Ireland as they strive to delude themselves further regarding the decline of Britain in the past century. This has everything to do with their wounded pride and, knowing that the term is resisted in Ireland, their anti-Irishness. The term is not used by the Irish, a point which is incessantly made here. I have also never heard a British government minister use the term and in the GFA of 1998 the term 'Council of the Isles' is used. Being an agreement based upon respect, "British Isles" appears nowhere. That is an international agreement signed by the two governments. My question therefore is: why is Wikipedia institutionalising British prejudices and denial of the political independence of most of Ireland from British rule?
Given our history at the hands of the British, and the first recorded use of the term "British Isles" in the seventeenth century when Britain was trying to expand its rule in Ireland, you don't have to be the most intellectually robust to know that "geographic" is the very very last thing that the expression "British Isles" really is. So spare us the insult. Thank you. 193.1.172.138 16:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But the term is used in Ireland, as my cited source proves. Why will you not accept this? As for the rest of what you said, if anyone was looking for proof that this argument has been caused by a vocal, polticised monority, I rest my case. TharkunColl 16:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

text: That is a very poor source for your argument that the occupied Six Counties is used in the UK. Occupied is not mentioned in that document and the term Six Counties is actually used as six counties (note capitalisation which changes the meaning completely) as "offer the hope of peace and reconciliation within the six counties of Northern Ireland." which is simply stating that Northern Ireland is comprised of six counties and not that it is The Occupied Six Counties. Anyway this has nothing to do with the discussion over the term British Isles. Ben W Bell talk 07:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am at something of a loss to understand your point about the "Occupied Six Counties" being used in Britain, because "Northern Ireland" is almost infinitely more common as a designation, followed in second place by "Ulster" - even though the historic boundaries of Ulster were rather wider than the current province. And if you actually want my personal opinion, rather than using me as a straw man, I tend to agree with Alun below - namely that given the choice, most Britons would jettison the millstone that is Northern Ireland in half a second, a sentiment with which I wholly concur. Did you know, for example, that in the early 70s, during his period of opposition, Harold Wilson made an offer to the Irish government that should he ever get back into power (which he did, of course), he would hand Northern Ireland over to the Republic, with the very reasonable stipultation that, as a sop to the loyalists in the North, the Republic should simply rejoin the Commonwealth (whilst still remaining a republic)? The Irish ministers were appalled at the suggestion, knowing that they simply didn't have the resources to police it, and the inevitable result would be a bloodbath. And as for my comments on the Falklands talk page - not that they are in any way relevant here - you might have noticed, had you not been so blinkered, that all of my arguments are primarily linguistic in nature. No one in the Falklands calls the place "Malvinas" therefore it has no place in the lead position in the article. Similarly, "British Isles" is a ubiquitous term in the English language and the article should not be distorted by political POV. TharkunColl 06:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Please keep your comments on topic. This is not a chatroom. I have tried very hard to find verifiability for several of the claims made on this talk page, as have several others. It is not good enough to state that British Isles is a disputed term in the Republic of Ireland on the talk page or in the article without providing proper sources. Personally I am totally unconcerned with the title of the article, I am prepared to accept any uncontentious compromise that gains consensus on this talk page. I do not think that your blatantly xenophobic attitude is at all constructive. As I see it the main problem for those who make the claim that British Isles is a POV that is not acceptable to people from the Republic of Ireland is that they have provided no evidence for this claim. Several people here have tried to find verifiability for this claim, none of those who are making the claim that British Isles in unacceptable have looked for verifiability or provided any sources (The term is not used by the Irish, a point which is incessantly made here. - please provide evidence in the form of a verifiable source for this claim, as I have tried in vain to find one, your statement and those you refer to are unsupported statements, and at present amount to little more than personal opinion). I am sure that the people posting here really are offended by the term, but we cannot include this in the article unless it can be verified. I would suggest that your stated position would be better served if you actually went to look for a verifiable source that shows categorically that a significant minority/majority of the citizens of the Republic of Ireland do find the term British Isles offensive. If you achieve this then no one will be able to dispute your claim, and it can be included in the article (as per the neutral point of view policy), it will also put a stop to this rather petty nationalism (on both sides). To claim that the term British Isles is some sort of attempt by British people to undermine the Republic of Ireland is quite absurd, whatever you or others may think I would suggest that the relations between the Republic and the UK are really very good, both on a political level and on the level of the respective populations. You should also be aware that a lot of people in the UK are not in support of Unionism in Northern Ireland. I suspect that if we had had a referendum in the rest of the UK on the status of NI and the Good Friday Agreement (and I note that we were the only people excluded from expressing an opinion) the Unionists may have been rather stunned by the lack of support they actually have from the rest of the UK. User TharkunColl has provided evidence that the term British Isles is in actual fact used in the Republic, and this was by a government minister no less. User:Ben W Bell has also done some searching for verifiability and gives the results from his google searches (above): "British Isles", 43 hits, including many Dail offical reports on such things as how the Shannon is the second largest river in the British Isles, freedom of travel between Europe and the British Isles and so on. "British and Irish Isles", 0 hits. Seems the government of the Republic of Ireland has no problems with the term. Oh and the Good Friday Agreement argument has no weight either, not a singe instance of "British and Irish Isles" or "British & Irish Isles" is found in the document. So I really think that it is up to you to provide some evidence to support your claim. Remember wikipedia is about verifiability, neutrality and published material (ie no original research), you should also bear in mind the reliability of your sources. Alun 05:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I assume you have proof of this assertion - or perhaps it's just your opinion based on your misunderstanding of the true situation? The fact is that the Irish didn't want it. For good general biographies of Harold Wilson I would suggest Harold Wilson by Ben Pimlott, or how about Harold Wilson: A Life by Austen Morgan. TharkunColl 21:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The crux of the issue is that the term "british isles" is offensive to the majority of Irish people.I am Irish myself and am aware of my Countrymen's views, obviously this is difficult to verify as to my kmowledge, no media sources have ever examined such a contentious and ultimately non-critical issue but it remains a fact in reality. Ben Bell refers to "google hits" as the basis for his charge on the accepted usage of the term "British Isles" in Ireland, what a laugh he gave me to use that as the cornerstone of his conviction. The day someone uses "google hits" as a basis for a case they are making is the day we should revert back to neanderthals. We should deal in realities, not the weird and wacky realm of anything goes "google hits". The simple solution to this problem in terms of referring to the islands in the article is the NPOV reference of no offence to anyone - "british & Irish Isles". It's a simple and fair solution. Get over yourselves and realise that a reference to these islands as "british isles" is not now politically or otherwise acceptable to the vast majority of Irish people. Oh, and spare us the petty requests for verification and further realise it is too intractable and complex a position to verify as I alluded to earlier. To echo user 193.1.172.163, your empire is over, deal with it. I think some of you need a serious reality check.213.202.153.3 00:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The crux of the issue is that the term "british isles" is offensive to the majority of Irish people. Actually the crux of the issue is that you need to verify this claim, and you need to show that it is held by at least a significant minority of people. Claiming that is is held by a majority of Irish people is all very well, but why do you think people reading the article should take your word for it? You do not constitut an authority. We need to apply the correct wikipedia policies, verification, neutrality and no original reaserch. At present your claim appears not to comply with any of these policies. it is too intractable and complex a position to verify as I alluded to earlier, no it's not, all you need to do is find a published source that supports your claim. This should be easy to do if you are correct. spare us the petty requests for verification - Wikipedia:Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's three content-guiding policies. The other two are Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in the main namespace. They should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should therefore try to familiarize themselves with all three. These three policies are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines, or by editors' consensus. Their policy pages may be edited only to better reflect practical explanation and application of these principles., from verifability policy. Don't you get it, if you can't verify it, it can't go in the article. If you don't like this then tough luck, this is policy. What I am asking is very easy, if you can't comply then I would suggest that it you contention that is wrong, and not the rest of the world. Please do not mock other contributors who are at least using their time constructively looking for verifiability. Several of your previous claims have been shown to be incorrect, maybe this is the real reason you do not like verifiability, because it means you have to prove your claims. Alun 10:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is, you see, is that it has been verified that the term is indeed used in the Republic. Your mere assertions carry no weight whatsoever. TharkunColl 05:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Alun, what previous claims have I made that have been shown to be incorrect? Have you completely and utterly lost the plot or is this symbolic of your initial descent into paranoid delusion. I am aware of my Countrymen's views with regard to the term "british isles" and the fact that "british & Irish Isles" would be a more desirable reference for them, not to mention NPOV. Where has anyone verified that "british Isles" is accepted as a reference by my countrymen? Nowhere. A mickey-mouse ex-Minister commiting a faux-pas in a speech is no such qualifier so don't delude yourselves that it is. TharkunColl is obviously a political POV pusher so there is little value in debating rationally with him, I suggest he is best left ignored. Alun, you know nothing about my Countrymen's views on the matter so don't presume my contention is wrong. Let me refer you to a previous suggestion mentioned here, go to the Irish Wikipedian's Society Page, you may leave a message there about the contentiousness of the use of the term "british isles" and I am wholly confident that the vast majority of the several hundred members would echo my view on this term. However this may still not convince the bubble-dwelling begrudgers so continue wallowing.213.202.177.107 13:29, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

text: The claim that British Isles is universally avoided in Ireland proved to be incorrect. The claim that the government of the Republic of Ireland does not use or recognise the term has proved incorrect and the claim that British and Irish Isles is used in the good friday agreement was shown to be incorrect.Alun 15:52, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Please do not descend into personal abuse, (see Wikipedia:No personal attacks Wikipedia:Etiquette and Wikipedia:Assume good faith). This is a direct breach of several important policies and could lead to you being blocked from editing. Neither does it in any way contribute in a constructive manner to your argument.Alun 15:52, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

text: You cannot possibly be aware of the views of every single one of your countrymen, this is an absurd claim. I wonder how many of your countrymen can even be bothered to think about this at all, let alone get so hot under the collar about such a trivial thing. I do not quite know in what context you are refering to NPOV. On wikipedia NPOV is simply a policy that states that all majority and all significant minority points of view should be given in an article, without giving favour to any specific one.Alun 15:52, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Your personal views about the politician in question are irrelevant. It directly shows that members of the government of the Republic of Ireland do in fact use the term British Isles it is a completelly acceptable source. You only don't like the source because it contradicts your POV. Alun 15:52, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

text: This statement equally applies to you. Alun 15:52, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I have never made any claim to know the views of Irish people on this issue, you are the only one here who is making this claim. Neither have I anywhere stated that you are wrong, I have been asking for you to back up your claims with verifiable sources, I have every right to do this.Alun 15:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Your views and those of the good people at Irish Wikipedian's Society Page do not represent reliable, citable sources, we cannot use them in a references section. We might as well start using a bloke told me down the pub as a reliable source in the references section if we are not going to stick to the verifiability policy. I have nowhere doubted that the term British Isles may be offensive to some (maybe even most) Irish people, all I have done is require that you follow the correct procedure with regard to the content policies. Always try to remember The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. I have never doubted that what you have said is true (though I tend to the view that most Irish people probably just don't care) for some Irish people. But that's not the point, verifiability is the point. Alun 15:52, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Subjective pov nonsense

message: Refer to this which the Irish Examiner decided to included on its editorial page.http://archives.tcm.ie/irishexaminer/1998/07/01/opinion.htm
213.202.177.107 13:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So here we have yet another nealogism proposed by some lone individual - shall we put it in the already overloaded alternative names section in the first paragraph? Here's some of my own that can also go in - "Islands of the North-Eastern Atlantic by Europe" (INEAE for short), "English, Scottish, Irish, Welsh, and Manx Isles" (ESIWMI for short), and "Islands of the United Kingdom and Crown Dependencies and the Republic of Ireland" (IUKCDRI for short). Surely you can see the problem hear? None of these terms actually exist as a genuine part of the language, and would engender blank stares from almost anyone in the world. In any case, none of this matters. That the Irish government uses the term 43 times on its website (or whatever the figure was) is proof that the term is indeed used in the Republic - even if some Irish citizens don't like it - and the fact that some don't like it is already mentioned in the first paragraph. Why is any further debate even necessary? TharkunColl 15:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's not a neologism, it is a non-political NPOV form of terminology for an obviously contentious reference. "british & Irish Isles" is plausible, simple and perfectly acceptable and now verified. What is your bloody-minded problem with it? Let go of your imperialist leanings. We are living in the twenty-first century. 194.125.57.56 15:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a neologism (the bloke claims to have made it up), and your source makes no mention of the British and Irish Isles, it talks of "The GBI Lands" (GBI: Greater British and Irish).Alun 17:44, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I got quite excited because I had thought that you had produced a good source. In some ways it is an useful source as it certainly verifies that there is some bad feeling about the term in the Republic of Ireland. The thing is that it is a letter, so it probably represents something like a comment article or an editorial. Obviously these can only be used to verify that some people in the Republic feel this way. Alun 16:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Citation

message: Various editors including myself have been trying to keep the terminology used there consistent with this British Isles article, however are encountering repeated vandalism from anonymous user at 62.77.181.11 .
Any editorial assistence would be appreciated.--feline1 13:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for help on the [[Lough Neagh]] article

message: User:Pconlon has changed most instances of British Isles to archipelago or other neutral terms. On the whole it has not affected the flow of the article, apart from the caption for the satellite photo which is now not fully descriptive. I think it should be and have restored the British Isles wording for that part of the article only. Bazza 18:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  British Isles vs ''archipelago'' in caption 

message: The term "archipelago" is never used to refer to the British Isles. At has a wholly different conotation. I have rephrased the first line accordingly. TharkunColl 22:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the description of Archipelago is correct, then it's an appropriate word to use. I appreciate, however, variations in wording through the article to make it a more satisfying read, and agree that island group (which surprised me by redirecting to archipelago anyway!) is better in the introduction. Bazza 08:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the term island group as well, though I agree there is nothing incorrect about archipellago, which just means island group anyway. Alun 09:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archipelago?

message: Even when the UK included all of Ireland. The Isle of Man was never part of the UK. TharkunColl 23:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I can find, coterminous can mean having a shared boundary: thus NI and RoI are coterminous in that sense. The old Scottish building standards required notice to "conterminous proprietors", a legal way of saying neighbours. ..dave souza, talk 20:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: British Isles ''not'' coterminous with the UK

message: The intro of the article now reads like some narco-syndicalist diatribe about how offensive the term is, and is completely out-of-proportion to the rest of the article, much of which just deals straightforwardly with geography. The is a section in the article dedicated to the terms "controversial" nature, but the bloody intro now has more material about that than the subsection! It would be nice is some responsible editors who were more interested in a good article that would make sense to a worldwide audience, rather than indulging in asinine POV bickering which most people outside the British Isle will think is ridiculous, could re-edit the material into a better shape.--feline1 09:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole article has been turned into a nationalist rant. I also notice how the editors have "fogotten" to include quotes from Irish government ministers using the term British Isles in speeches. TharkunColl 09:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is nothing natural about geography; all geographical labels are political constructs. The label "British Isles" is a political creation which has served, and continues to serve, clear political agendas. There is nothing "straightforward" about geographical labels and I suggest that User:feline1 and User:TharkunColl read up on Political geography and Imagined geographies. --Damac 09:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite right, Damac, and to prove your point, I suggest you take a long long walk from Dublin to Cardiff, just to demonstrate the arbitrary political nature of islands, and show us all that the Irish Sea is nothing more that a political conspiracy to defraud the Welsh.--feline1 09:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it is a political conspiracy, maybe you should ask who started it. The Irish did not come up with the term "Irish Sea". The original name for the sea in the Irish and Scottish languages was "An Mhuir Mheann" (the middle sea"), which is still in use.--Damac 10:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, and I'm sure you'll agree that the massive decline in fluency in the Irish language since 1922 has been a evil orchestrated conspiracy by crypto-unionist schoolchildren, all failing their exams and not doing their homeworks in a concerted attempt to suppress Irish identiy. Meanwhile I'm off to vandalize (whoops, sorry! "remove political bias from") the Irish Sea article, which should immediately be renamed the Welsh Sea. I mean, frankly, WHAT ABOUT MY HUMAN RIGHTS?? etc etc --feline1 10:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Off with you. I'll be very interested to see what you can contribute to that article. --Damac 10:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing whatsoever beyond satirical trollery. However, there's a specific wikipedia guideline against satirical editing to make a point, so in my quest to retain the moral highground, I must confine my writing's to that articles talk page :-p  If only the sectarian nitwits on *this* article would do the same.--feline1 10:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Sectarian" - LOL. Not only are wikipedia guidelines against satirical editing, but they also prohibit the use of insults. I'll not respond in kind.--Damac 10:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Yeah but themmuns started it, so they did" etc etc. --feline1 10:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

text: What about that quote from the Irish minister using the term British Isles? Why don't you include it? TharkunColl 10:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which one? I certainly didn't delete and it wasn't on the page when I became involved (yesterday). I'd be very interested to see it and when it was made. Your habit of blanking pages back to your previous edit and ignoring countless contributions in the process has made it extremely difficult to follow who deleted what.--Damac 10:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

text: By all means include it, but make sure you mention that in 2005 the Minister for Foreign Affairs said it is not Irish government policy to use it. British ministers and royalty in the past have come out with all sorts of offensive statements, offending many people, but I certainly would never take those as being representative of general opinion or official policy. --Damac 10:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Didn't stop you quoting Lloyd George though, in what was obviously a personal remark and not official policy. It may not be Irish government policy to use it, but that doesn't stop the phrase existing as part of the English language. That it exists is proved by Nancy Reagan and Gorby, even if they misunderstood its significance. And where is your evidence that the RNLI and Irish Lights remained single institutions because of administrative oversight? Surely they remained single bodies because it was more sensible to keep tham that way. TharkunColl 10:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You must be mistaking me for somebody else as none of the above has anything to do with any of my edits.--Damac 10:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite possibly - so much junk has been added to the article in the past day that I lose track of it. The whole thing has turned into a warped political rant and needs serious attention. TharkunColl 10:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: political POV editing has wrecked the balance of the article

message: I've been contributing to the physical geography aspects of this article in the past, but can do nothing to improve it at the moment because of the bickering and unilateral editing being done on the introduction. I expect I'm not the only one in this boat. Before replacing entire swathes of text with their own point of view, users might care to examine this talk page and previous versions of the article first — they would then see that there have been discussions and agreements on how best to accommodate the various views. My own suggestion for bringing back some normality is that (a) this article should remain British Isles as that is a widely recognised term for those not familiar with the political niceties involved; (b) the introduction should be just that — a short description of what follows; (c) that this article be confined to facts on geography and history; (d) the article links to a new article on British Isles terminology conflict or whatever name people choose so that the discussion on the contention can go on in detail elsewhere (other articles suffering the same sort of conflict could also link to it); and (e) that new articles of alternative names are created which redirect to this one. That way Wikipedia can have the best of both worlds — a fine article on the set of islands some of us live on and a well-researched article on why its most common name is a contentious issue. I hope to get some considered feedback on this, rather than the down-your-throat reactions there have been to some other postings on this page. Bazza 11:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I agree– see also :Category:Geographical naming disputes.--Pharos 11:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, remove all the political statements to a separate article. TharkunColl 11:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree too. The editors who have been causing this edit war have only been interested in pushing their political POV and I imagine have not even read beyond the article's intro, where there's plenty of nice neutral info on geography etc. Keep the intro short, just a few lines, including a link to a "British Isles terminology conflict" article (is there not one of those already?)--feline1 11:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

text: The article is not ABOUT the name, it is about the ISLES themselves. The already is an article called British_Isles_terminology. Can we not for the love of god just direct the ranters there and let this article just get on with talking about the highest mountains and what species of wading birds there are etc etc--feline1 11:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

text: You STILL don't get it. There isn't even agreement about what the Isles are and what it contains. You can try to push your agenda all you want, but it will not stop users from reverting your POV-pushing everytime, as long as it takes, indefinitely. The issue isn't the name. It is what places are in the Isles. Even a British prime minister believed that Ireland was not part of it. Ireland believes it isn't part of it. Others agree. And the fact that there is not agreement is not to be buried by your agenda-driven POV pushing. Users will be correcting errors every time they are added in by you, without exception, indefinitely. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 12:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No need to shout. Who are you responding to? Bazza 12:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think he's responding to me. He is of course completely wrong in what he says. The article British Isles is about the geography, history, etc etc, of {the islands Great Britian, Ireland, Isle of Man, Hebridies, Orkneys, Shetlands, and dozens of other smaller bits of rock}. There is a separate aricle called British_Isles_terminology which contains lots of info on the various geographical and political names used within these islands, including why some with an anti-UK POV dislike the term "British Isles". The British_Isles_terminology article is the place for exhaustive exploration of that particular controversy; instead this British Isles article is currently being derailed by an excess of material about it. Personally I by now find it impossible to assume good faith in Jtldirl's edits. His naked political bias and POV is wholly objectionable and totally at odds with wikipedia's ethos.--feline1 12:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

text: The only thing "wholly objectionable" is the determination of a handful of users to create a false definition to push their agenda, namely that the term is exclusively geographic (if it was, then why does the article contain a section about the "history" of the "British Isles"?) and their attempts to ensure that the fact that their edits are not supported by verificable facts is kept quiet. Many users have been unhappy for a long time with the agenda-pushing they have been engaging in. At this stage that agenda pushing is going to be challenged, every time. They have shown no interest whatsoever in objectivity or balance. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 13:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jtdirl, the article contains a section on the "history" of the people who have lived in {the islands of Great Britain, Ireland, Isle of Man, etc etc etc} BECAUSE the history of the islands involves a continual migration and exchange of human interaction across the "Irish" sea over the past few millenia. It therefore makes sense to consider it all in once place. By the way thanks for deleting my comment from your talk page. Seems you'd be embarrassed to let too many people know about what others think of your editing.--feline1 13:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I am still keen to see an article about the entire group of islands off the northwest of Europe return to some normality, so it would be nice if all involved, whatever their stance, could at least pause for thought or talk rather immediately reverting or substantially changing what's in the article. British Isles (terminology) seems to do a good job of explaining the various components and explores the contention over naming and the isles' components and might be a good place to link to for a main article on the issues people seem to take exception to. (Quite a while ago I studied Physical Geography as opposed to Human Geography — we always maintained that life would be much simpler if Human lot weren't around to muddy the waters. :-) ) Bazza 13:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I've also just read Alternative names for Northern Ireland, which is a fine example of an objective description of the various opinions on that subject. Can we to the same for a Alternative names for the British Isles? Bazza 13:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: JtdIRL, you are engaging in semantic absurdity. This article *IS* (or at least was) about the islands {Great Britain, Ireland, Isle of Man, etc etc}. It DOES consider elements of their collective geography and human history, because that is a convenient pedagogic delineation. No-one prior to yourself has suggested that it should not discuss these things. You have now moved beyond quibbling over the collective name used to describe all these islands, to somehow being averse to seeing anythin g on the island of Ireland discussed on the same page as things to do with the island of Great Britain et al. This is just completely ahine on your part.--feline1 13:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Surely it would just be confusing to have an Alternative names for the British Isles article. For a start, it's not the sort of thing a user is likely to type into the search box. Moreover, all the material there already is in or belongs to the existing British Isles (terminology) article.--feline1 13:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: British Isles (terminology) is already a substantial article. Looking at the amount people have to say about what to call the group of islands which British Isles talks about, I suspect there will be enough to warrant a separate Alternative names for the British Isles. That doesn't preclude an overall discussion in (terminology) with the customary "Main article" link to a more in-depth text. Typing into a search box is probably not the most common way people get onto a page —- linking from other articles to get an explanation of something is, I suspect.Bazza 13:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, Bazza, I agree with you. Also this way hopefully jtdIRL can then go off an edit Alternative names for the British Isles to his heart's content, and leave the rest of us in peace to tend to the British Isles article.--feline1 13:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would hope that you will both contribute to both articles: the subjects are obviously of interest — as long as you keep to Wikipedia's principles of NPOV and verification where needed, then there's unlikely to be any problem? Bazza 13:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I am waiting for jtdIRL to start objecting to the name "Great Britain", since this name has the literal meaning "largest of the British islands". No doubt he'll be screaming that this implication is unacceptable, and the name must be changed to just "Britain". --feline1 13:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I and the others certainly will be editing this article all the time. Thank you for your constructive comments, Bazza. They are appreciated. (Re Feline's stupid comment above: I'll treat it with the contempt it deserves.) FearÉIREANN\(caint) 13:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

text: You don't think the name "Great Britain" has the literal meaning "largest of the British islands", then? --feline1 13:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there mischief here which might be better on your individual talk page(s) — it's making it hard to follow the discussion about this talk page's article. Bazza 13:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Possibly, but then jtdIRL deleted my comments from his talk page as he was embarrassed by the reaction to his editing. Anyways I am merely trying to get him to accept a point of semantic logic on what a name means, which is precisely cruical to the issue. The names "British Isles" and "Great Britain" are logically linked. One makes no sense without the other. It is not logically possible to refuse to accept "British Isles" as a geographical term and yet maintain "Great Britain" is fine.--feline1 13:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

text: It didn't really help. Bazza 13:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I removed your comments from my talk page because I thought they were similarly childish. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 14:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I will reverse the question about what the British Isles is. If I want to write an article about the geography of the group of islands northwest of France, then what should that article be titled? Wikipedia guidelines recommend using the term most likely to be understood by most readers. I would suggest that the term to fit this criteria is British Isles, but I am open to alternatives. If that continues to be the term used, though, I would expect there to be a brief mention of controversies and links to more in-depth articles on those. Bazza 13:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

text: The most widely understood term is British Isles. I have no problem with that. However two problems arise:
* What was originally a geographic term developed political, social, cultural and other meanings also over the centuries. As a result to suggest it is purely a geographic term is misleading. 
* Many elements on that set of islands now either no longer accept a link to those political, social, cultural and other meanings. Ireland has not considered itself part of the BI since the 1920s. (A then British prime minister himself accepted then that Ireland was not part of the British Isles.) Scottish Nationalists now find the implied cultural, political and other links that follow from the term unacceptable, as do Welsh Nationalists, so they too are disassociating themselves from the term.
While purists like to claim the term is purely geographic few accept that viewpoint (the fact that this article contains a "history" section itself shows that the geographic definition is bunkum — a review of mentions of "British Isles" even in google searches shows that only in a tiny minority of cases is it used exclusively geographically). 
Any article here as a result has to make the point that the term has many resonances beyond geography which many others, for historic reasons, are uncomfortable with, and which some, notably the Irish, disassociate themselves from the any link with the term "British Isles" over. The problem with what to call the islands was shown when a history of the islands found that it itself could not use the name "British Isles" because of the offence such a term would cause in Ireland and parts of Scotland. (The book was simply called The Isles as a result.) As far as the Irish are concerned, they are not part of the British Isles and have not been for nearly a century. As far as Scottish nationalists are concerned, they are part of the isles but want nothing to do with the term British Isles. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 14:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

text: So my statements that the term to use is British Isles and that there ought to be a brief mention of controversies and links to more in-depth articles on those is reasonable? Bazza 14:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is difficult. Yes it is the most common name. The problem is that there is no agreement as to what it is the most common name for. Is Ireland in or out? Is the term geographic, geopolitical, historic, or what does it mean? The problem is that there is no agreement on the fundamentals. With Northern Ireland, at least (most) agree on the basics of where it is and what it is. They just cannot agree on a name. With British Isles, the name is the easy bit (or rather less difficult). The problem is that people cannot agree on what the name refers to. Unfortunately on this page a group of users over the last few months have turned the article around to imply that there is clear agreement on the term and its meaning. That is POV rubbish. And if used in the wrong way it is likely to offend Irish people, Scottish people, Welsh people. (Even England's National Front are opposed to the term being used now!) And Cornish people are also unhappy with it. It is a nightmare, which is why its usage is declining, with media outlets placing it in their style books in the "don't use" category, politicians shying away from it (even Tories like the late Sir John Biggs-Davison, who suggested an alternative). FearÉIREANN\(caint) 14:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: jtdIRL, I have already spoken out against this ludicrous sophistry, but since you've just ignored that and said the same stuff all over again, let me attempt to repeat it more clearly: The article British Isles is ABOUT the geography and human history of {the islands Great Britain, Ireland, Isle of Man, Hebridies, Shetlands, Orkneys, etc etc}. There is NO DISPUTE BY ANYONE EXCEPT YOURSELF about this: this *is* the subject matter of the article. You can verify this by moving your eyes across the words on the screen and reading them. Furthermove, the most common name used to collectively describe {that group of aforementioned islands} is "British Isles". So this, by simple wikipedia practice, needs to be the title of the article (as it indeed is, and always has been!) That the name "British Isles" is also used confusingly/conflicting in other contexts or causes offence to the bloody minded is a separate issue and need have no material impact on the contents of the article. We all seem basically agreed that it belongs in the already existing separate British Isles (terminology) article.--feline1 14:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I might venture to concur that this appears to be the consensus view. Failing that, perhaps it would be best if we were all shipped off to the scottish highlands, stripped naked, issued with large wooden clubs, and allowed to beat each other to death in an orgy of senseless yet inevitable xenophobic rage? The winners would then be free to expel all their enemies from the archepelago, perhaps to a concentration camp somewhere, and, free to dominate the land themselves, could call it whatever they wished? Sounds reasonable to me.--feline1 14:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Try valium. It might help. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 14:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

text: In my opinion this is the required consensus under WP:NPOV#Undue weight, and close attention should be paid to A simple formulation in that policy: too often the impression is given that all Ireland has a view, when the Irish Government website search makes it clear that this view is not shared in Northern Ireland. ...dave souza, talk 14:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That command and (some of!) the other others above are all good material for Alternative names for the British Isles (or whatever). As long as they can be verified, there's no reason why there shouldn't be a strong, substantial article. I'm glad there's some consensus coming out of this. I appreciate that the subject is difficult to address, which is why I asked my question about what to call the group of islands, rather than what British Isles means. Bazza 14:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: PConlon, I was attempting to explain that the ARTICLE is about geography and human history of the group of islands, not that the name "British Isles" was without different conotations. Sorry if you find it confusing.--feline1 19:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

text: PConlon, you are talking nonsense. Splitting articles into sub-articles is perfectly common practice in wikipedia. By your logic, the articles British Isles and British Isles (terminology) will have to be merged into one huge article. Can I ask, does anyone actually have any problem with the geographical and historical material in the British Isles article?? Or are you just intent on still quibbling about the name even though there's a whole other article about it?? --feline1 21:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think PC's case is that the article ought to touch on every relevant point, not that every relevant point be covered comprehensively. This is what happens in articles with such comprehensive titles. And yes, geography is politics, life even - Brian Friel's Translations is full of it. Woof woof to you, feline.--Shtove 21:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

text: PConlon, deleting the article then adding a mediation tag without following the Wikipedia:Mediation instructions is not the way to go about it. Please read Wikipedia policies carefully with particular attention to WP:V and WP:NPOV rather than rampaging on. dave souza, talk 21:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested way forward 

message: How do we do this mediation thing then? I followed the link to the mediation page but there was nothing there relating to the British Isles article - do we have to fill it in ourselves? I am confused! --feline1 22:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read the information in the Wikipedia:Mediation, before asking for formal mediation. You must follow the preliminary steps laid out in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, if you have not already done so..dave souza, talk 22:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mediation

message: There are a number of joint British-Irish scientific organisations which use the British Isles in their traditional sense to include the whole archipelago as an ecological / biogeographical unit (e.g. the Botanical Society of the British Isles) - this ought to be mentioned - MPF 22:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Insert a link in the See Also section - that should cover it. Otherwise, it doesn't relate to the substance (what substance?) of the article.--Shtove 22:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It does relate to the article, as such organisations are important users of the term 'British Isles' in its classical sense, publishing important scientific texts which use the term (e.g. Stace, Mitchell) - MPF 01:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Scientific organisations

message: I suggest the following as the opening paragraph in the article itself:
:British Isles is a traditional name for the group of islands (or 'archipelago'), situated off the northwest coast of continental Europe, including Great Britain (the largest island in the group), Ireland, the Isle of Man, several thousand smaller adjacent islands. Its usage is controversial, as the term "British" is nowadays equated with the United Kingdom, and implies dominion over all the islands in the region.
This article should have a self-contained section concerning the name itself, probably as the first section (the article title is after all "British Isles"), just one or two paragraphs, with a "main article" link to British Isles (terminology).
As there is no commonly used alternative name for the entire group of islands, I think it is fair enough that the article remain under this title, as long as the level of introduction suggested above is included.
zoney  ♣ talk 23:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, you're not the only Irishman editing this damn thing ;-)--feline1 23:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

text: No - I have used the adjective "traditional" for a reason. Perhaps historical might be an alternative, although it's important to allow for the fact that most who use the term today still use it to mean the same thing, i.e. including Ireland. zoney  ♣ talk 23:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I third this. Zoney's proposal was constructive in intent, but Jtdirl's version is superior in that it, unlike Zoney's proposal, specifically refers to the relevant sources on the topic. 172 | Talk 23:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Okay I've stayed away from commenting and editing this for a few days. The intro as it currently stands is better now since the war started. I feel (personally, though I will bow to consensus) that the inclusion of Ireland as controversial is a relatively modern development. How about something like "Great Britain, Isle of Man, many thousands of smaller islands and traditionally Ireland (though its inclusion in the definition has become the subject of much controversy in modern times)"? This will show that historically Ireland was included but gives a lead into the controversy over it's more modern inclusion. Also should we mention the word geographical in the first paragraph or sentence to get it through to everyone that that is the context we are using the definition in right from the start? (from also an Irishman [Northern Irish at least]). Ben W Bell talk 07:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested introduction from an Irishman 

message: While most users on both sides of the argument here have shown themselves willing to discuss issues and try to work to achieve a consensus that reflects all viewpoints, TharkunColl and Dave souza seem intent on doctoring the article to force their personal POV as if it was fact. In this edit TharkunColl, as before, sought to hide the fact that he was deleting any neutral working and footnotes, to push his own widely disputed claim that the Republic of Ireland is part of the British Isles (the wording that had been there was deliberately worded to avoid saying that it was, or wasn't, merely that it is a controversial issue of debate), and to push his claim that British Isles is exclusively a geographic term, a demonstrably false claim. Other users, not noticing his careful gutting of the opening, made genuine efforts to clean up what they thought was the NPOV paragraph. When TharkunColl's dodgy edit was corrected, souza, true to form, reinserted it, claiming that the neutrally agreed version was added in sneakily. 
Since TharkunColl and souza seem to have missed it, it was agreed to use that opening because it was seen as the more NPOV. But instead of constructive debate, TharkunColl seems to want simply to delete anything that does not reflect his opinion, and remove any footnotes that don't push his agenda, to insert a set of claims that are widely disputed. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 22:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I only removed one footnote, the Lloyd George one, which is ambiguous anyway and a dictionary definition is much better. TharkunColl 22:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the removal of that footnote–the given link does not support any of the footnote's conclusions. There is no evidence how many "manuals" describe the archipelago, that "experts and advisors" were consulted on the letter's phrasing, or that this was in fact the author's belief.EricR 22:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

text: It would be nice if you stopped pushing a blatantly biased and nationalistc agenda. My revisions were an attempt at neutrality. TharkunColl 22:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you think your edits are neutral, I suggest to buy a dictionary and look up the meaning of the word. Or if you own one, read it.  FearÉIREANN\(caint) 22:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here, here, though I wouldn't yet label dave souza in the same way. --Robdurbar 09:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  TharkunColl and souza's antics 

message: For a statement that the term is avoided by institutions in Ireland, the footnote gives two bodies that do use it (RNLI and Irish Lights).
The claim is made that the term only aqcuired cultural meanings because of the UK before 1922 - no evidence is given for this at all.
The Lloyd George statement is, at best, ambiguous - "propinquity", a rare word, has connotations of kinship that go beyond mere proximity. His statement could easily be read to imply that Ireland is indeed in the British Isles. It has no worth as evidence. TharkunColl 23:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A technical error? Prove it! Provide us with evidence, not assertions. In fact, the RNLI is an independent charity that is not under government control anyway - and to split it would have made no sense given what its function is. As for Irish Lights, again, splitting it would have made no sense. TharkunColl 08:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Provide evidence of your assertion. That's all I'm asking. TharkunColl 08:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And I will continue to delete your grotesque bias whenever I possibly can. This is a dictionary, not a soapbox for nationalism. Just because you don't like a term, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. TharkunColl 08:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I think Lloyd George's statement does denotate that "Ireland" and "the British Isles" are mutually exclusive.  That does not mean that "Lloyd George thought Ireland was not part of the British Isles."  It means that he used a particular phrase in one particular letter (or whatever it was).  Just because Lloyd George made that statement does not mean that if one had asked Lloyd George to define "the British Isles" he wouldn't have said they included Ireland.  We shouldn't attribute more significance to what is, after all, a single passing remark, than is appropriate. john k 09:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

text: As you are so sensitive about terminology, and most of us have been trying to accomodate all views amongst the bickering of a minority, kindly return the respect and refer to United Kingdom, not Britain. --Bazza 08:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Moreover, if the article gives undue weight to the minority POV that "British Isles" is some sort of offensive imperialist term, then it risks offending the larger majority of people in the Isles who will regard such POV-ing as excessively zealous political correctness.--feline1 08:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Examples of bias

message: Just returned and seen that discussion continues! 'British Isles' is a term in common usage and so, without question, needs a Wikipedia article to cover it. I've already given my opinion, at some length, that the article should in cover everything associated with the term. The idea of making the 'British isles' article solely about geography and sweeping every other issue (some of which some people may not like but exist none-the-less) under the carpet on a side article is ridiculous. Incidentally, my Hitler example (given above) was certainly an extreme one - as many good illustrative examples often are - but hopefully made the general point. I wasn't aware of this Godwin's Rule thing, but it seems a good one to me and will be respected henceforth. For another example then, imagine a 'King George III' article that refers in passing to 'medical issues' before going on to talk about his wonderful accomplishments...the user would have to go to 'George III (Medical Issues)' to read that the man went absolutely barking mad for a long period when he ruled the Empire! No, I'm with: One term, one article, one thorough explanation. User: PConlon 13:50, 7 July 2006
:PConlon, you may find the article on Meta helpful in understanding others' points of view here. I believe the correct analogy would be not over the treatment of aspects of George III's actual life, but whether their happened to be a dispute or confusion as to what "George III"'s correct name was. So long as the commonest name was used in the article, readers would know what it was talking about, and there would be no need for lengthy caveats every single time his name was mentioned - the naming issues would be a meta-discussion which could be covered separated. (Actually I believe such issues do exist for, say, various pharoahs, where they used multiple names for themselves, and there may be disagreements how to translate these hieroglyps, and yet others appear in Greek, Biblical, etc sources. However you will see for example that the Thutmose III article does not include a multi-paragraph digression or oodles of caveats/weasel words every single time that pharoah's name is mentioned! It just uses the most common name and gets on with the facts)--feline1 13:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: PConlon, I do not "willfully" miss your point, I simply do not agree with your reasoning. Please be mindful of the wikipedia assume good faith policy.--feline1 14:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Imperialistic? My political suggestion was that we all stripped naked and clubbed each other conconscious in a xenophobic rage. I ask you: is that a way to run a f*cking empire? It seems to me to have more in common with an  anarco-syndicalist commune, where all decisions must be ratified at a bi-weekly meeting, requiring a 2/3rds majority in the case of purely internal affairs, and an...--feline1 14:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

text: El Gringo, the article is not just about geography - it contains numerous sections on the murderous antics of the inhabitants over the past few millenia as well.--feline1 14:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Well said. --Bazza 19:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One term, one article, and many, many links. Para 1: The British Isles is a term used to refer to the islands of Britain, Ireland etc. Para 2: The term is considered controversial (link to terminology article). Para 3: list of links to History of Ireland, Geology of England - oops, red-link - Geology of Britain etc - including Ireland#Climate. The partial material covered here comes in much fuller form elsewhere. See History of Britain for precedent of this form. And once the list of links gets going we can argue about that and be happy.--Shtove 21:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: One term, One article, One thorough explanation

message: How should the history of the islands be presented here? It is a shame that the current article does not lead the reader directly to Prehistoric Britain and Early history of Ireland as well as the other relevant articles. In my opinion outline form would be best, attempts to summarize the numerous articles would quickly bloat the article.EricR 16:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is actually a case in point. During the Neolithic period and Bronze Age the British Isles shared the same stone-circle building culture. Something like this surely belongs here. TharkunColl 16:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggested above (lost in the controversy) that this article consist of a short intro (2 paras: naming the islands + controversy over use of term), and then simply a list of links to articles that cover the content. Please look at History of Britain by way of example. This controversy is not going to end, and the material is better covered elsewhere.--Shtove 16:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Archaeology]], [[Prehistory]], and [[History]] 

message: Now, this claim is one which I would dearly love to have evidence for, and I'm not the first here to ask this. Irish is a Q Celtic language as is, obviously, Scottish Gaelic. Welsh, in contrast, is a P Celtic language. I know of nobody who claims that Irish is a British/Brythonic language. So, how did our politically motivated wikipedians manage to delve into some past and throw Goidelic Ireland into the Brythonic/British world? El Gringo 17:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ask the ancient Greeks, my politically motivated chum...dave souza, talk 18:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Did something just fly by the window? What does that mean, chum?--Shtove 19:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

text: FTFA, the AG's called the whole lot Pretanike, Classical geographers followed suit and the term entered English around 1621. Unfortunately some politically motivated person has edited out the point that Celt was coined around 1707, at which point the "Celtic world" extended from central Europe where the Greeks and Romans thought it was. Get it? ..dave souza, talk 20:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No. At some stage it was asserted that the peoples of ancient Britain and Ireland were identical in origin, and I think this is what El Gringo was addressing. Your point, I think, concerns the etymology of Britain. I take your point about classical geographers, but I'd like to see reference to a source that Pretanike was a Greek name for "the whole lot". The evidence from linguistic studies - minding our P's and Q's - muddies the water. Surely Celt is derived from an ancient Greek word? But that's all beside the point. Just as the English term Celt was a late invention, so too was British Isles. All that matters is the English term - not its etymology - invented c.1621 (along with the Union Jack), when the Stuarts were trying to establish a framework for their collection of kingdoms (in imitation of the Habsburgs in Iberia). Therefore, of purely political significance. I accept it's a well worn coin (time to take it out of circulation), and therefore worthy of definition on WP. But it doesn't need to head up a lengthy article, when the content of that article is comprehensively covered in other articles. Let it be reduced to a list of links. BTW, what does FTFA mean, IYWBSK?--Shtove 20:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Basically agree. Re the last question, you've got me there. Regarding the history, the claim that it was originally a geographic term seemed to me to beg the question of its political introduction by Jim VI, and I tried to edit it out: glad to see it seems to have gone. From what I can understand, the languages now called P and Q Celtic were related but different, and their geographical areas are hazy given the unknown of Pictish and questions about the west of Scotland, for example. IIRC there's also a question as to what extent the Beaker people were incomers or a cultural shift. From what I've read, trying to pin modern national identities on the Iron Age is pretty dodgy, and the term Brythonic is another recent academic adaption of a Welsh word. Hope that helps. ..dave souza, talk 21:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On the term Celt in Irish history: there are Irish WP'ers who are irritated by its use - can't refer you from memory, but User:Jdorney may have leads and there are articles that reflect this. On the face of it, the term British Isles defies reason: there is one island called Ireland and one called Britain. The term does make sense in conventional use, and that's good enough for a sourced WP article. But where does it come from? My view is that it's a piece of Stuart propaganda, purely political, which got blown up (?bloomed) in the Victorian era. But the OED, a reputable source, apparently defines it as an exclusively geographical term while recognising its Stuart vintage. Others trace its origins back to classical antiquity - in my view, this ignores the tendentious use of etymology. On the evidence of this talk page, the corpse will keep twisting. Also, I have had disagreements with El Gringo - WP is about fact and opinion, but both sourced. BTW, what does IIRC mean, BYP?--Shtove 22:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why does naming an island group after the largest island in the group "defy reason"? john k 04:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Just as you say, though I'd think Georgian rather than Victorian, with Rule, Britannia! dating from the 1740s. Of course the whole Celtic revival had nationalist political underpinnings, as well as antiquarian and artistic interest: both it and the British thing being part of the construction of national identities: Geopolitical seems appropriate. The Union of the Crowns might entertain. ..dave souza, talk 00:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Brythonic Celts in Ireland?

message: Regrettably, some editors seem to have difficulty in following the policy that conflicting views should be presented fairly, but not asserted, and that significant viewpoints should be represented in proportion to the prominence of each. While the shorter lead has come much closer to WP:LEAD, an intro is being pushed for that reads like the start of a "we hate this term" pamphlet. It's important to let readers know about the dispute, but it should also reflect the wide usage and acceptance of the term by people who know of the existence of the two sovereign states and don't consider that the term implies anything else. The Terminology section is currently inaccurate and needs work to improve neutrality. One alternative that seems common but isn't mentioned is simply referring to "Britain and Ireland", which is inoffensive but rather ambiguous: this should be discussed. However, the first priority must be to improve the lead. .. dave souza, talk 21:53, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree; the controversial aspects of the term are given way too much prominence. All it needs in the intro is a sentence noting that some people dislike the term. It can then be discussed in more detail in the article proper. Martin 22:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Like Common usage, including this article, includes the Republic of Ireland under the term: this is disputed because  British Isles can be interpreted as implying United Kingdom sovereignty over the entire archipelago, even though this is not the case. For detailed discussion of this issue see the Terminology section below. The introduction should be just that — succinct points referring to more in depth discussion later on or elesewhere. --Bazza 09:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutral point of view in the lead

message: How about this for the name of the islands? After all, the vast majority of their inhabitants speak English as a first language, and of the tiny minority that don't, the vast majority still speak it. I must emphasise, of course, that the phrase "English" in this context must not be confused with the very similar sounding word "English" which means something of, or pertaining to, England. These two words, "English" and "English", despite a superficial resemblance, have actually no etymological connection whatsoever. TharkunColl 12:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please reconsider your post. Do you think it will actually help to improve the article? If not, why did you post it? - FrancisTyers · 12:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Let's just ignore this section, eh? --Robdurbar 12:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Probably best. Ben W Bell talk 12:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Erm, it was a joke - I was parodying what some might see as my own attitude. TharkunColl 13:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are one of the small number of editors who have made others' attempts at improving this article and following discussions about those improvements well-nigh impossible. If it was a joke, then help us non-participants out a bit and make it a bit obvious. --Bazza 15:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Not productive at all, get rid of it.EricR 17:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Delete. Ben W Bell talk 17:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: English Isles

message: Substituted at 20:17, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment