Talk:British Isles/Archive 11

message: Hi all.  Came across an early Roman reference to "Oceani Insulae" in a text of Pomponius Mela (http://ourworld.cs.com/latintexts/m306.htm), who was a Roman Geographer from around the time of the Claudian invasion of Britain.  In that text he calls the islands "Oceani Insulae" and lists Britain, Ireland, etc. in that section.  Oceani Insulae is his collective for the islands.  This might need a re-write of the section on ancient terms, since it puts that term in use earlier than currently shown.  Hughsheehy 10:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice find. Since I don't have the Latin, can we find a translation of "Super Britanniam Iverna est"? Also an interesting reference to "In Celticis aliquot sunt, quas, quia plumbo abundant, uno omnes nomine Cassiteridas appellant.", since some historians thought the Cassiterides might be the BI, but sources from the 1st century apparently put them as small islands off Spain, and other historians think it was a name for the tin producing areas of Spain and Cornwall.  .. dave souza, talk 12:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: My dodgy latin get me this: "In relation to Britain, Ireland is almost as large in area but equally wide as it is long ..." But the ND dictionary is down so I've stopped at the colon (what's ceolum?). Didn't try the second quote you asked. I have come across a lot of references to the BIs being off Spain - the strangest being the Jordanes text (currently in the article) which is perfectly accurate ... if only the BI's were north of Spain! Was there ever a different definition for Spain e.g. encompasing modern-day France? --sony-youthtalk 12:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It'd take me a long while to translate all that lot, so I'm looking for an english translation.  Seems there's a good one from Golding in 1585.  Besides, the kerfuffle over Athelstan makes me unsure of my Latin skills.  Oh, it seems that Pomponius is the oldest surviving Roman geography.   That's worth something!  On Sony-youth's question....as far as I know Spain (Hispania) - has always been south of the Pyrenees.  Catalunya extended north of the pyrenees into France but that dates to the time of the Spanish Marches in Carolingian times.  Hughsheehy 14:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One other thing.  I believe his collective noun is also sometimes "the Islands of the Northern Ocean" as opposed to just islands of the ocean.  Strange that the IONA term (which I personally don't think I like very much) may have classical antecedents!  Hughsheehy 14:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, great. So can we expect hot-heads from the Irish Nurses Organisation laying claim to be heirs to the British Isles via the INO (Islands of the Northern Ocean North Atlantic) connection? --sony-youthtalk 14:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be the Hibernian Order of Radical Nurses of Ireland...or something.  Oh dear.  Meantime, to read a more recent translation, go to http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0472084526 and search for "Ireland".  The relevant text is on page 116 and 117.  Page 115 is the chapter heading but is not included.    Hughsheehy 16:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Islands of the Ocean

message: :Very valid concerns – one of the red herrings worrying the author of the above atlas from 1654, at an interesting time, may have been the Etymologiae of Isidore of Seville which Snyder p12 cites as saying that Britto (an alternarive form of Britanni) derived from brutus, unwieldy or dull. Which may relate to the Brutus of Troy legend from Historia Britonum and Historia Regum Britanniae which gave an ancient genealogy for the claims of the Tudors and the Stuarts. I'll try to pull together my thoughts, but briefly: 
:around 50 BC both Prettanikē meaning the group (consistent with reports of Pytheas c 320 BC) and Britannia meaning what Caesar's attacked are attested. The Latin term becomes associated with the main island then with the province as it shrinks back to Hadrian's wall, while cognates of Priteni are used by the Brythons and in specific variants refer to tribes in both Ireland and Scotland. (Priteni remains in use in Roman Britain to describe their northern neighbours, according to Cunliffe and Snyder, north of the Antonine Wall according to Snyder which implies AD 144 onwards. Around AD 300 the term Picts is introduced for these people.) In medieval times Britons become known as Welsh and confined to western areas, but at the same time Britannia continues as a term for the island, with significant value in terms of ancestry. No collective term until Ptolemy's Geographia translated into Latin around 1400. The Welsh Tudors lay claim to a British identity in furtherance of claims to Scotland and possibly to legitimise their control over what had been the Lordship of Ireland, which Henry VIII makes a kingdom to retain claims to control post-Reformation. Their legal adviser introduces British Isles as part of his arguments for an English Empire to intrude on the claims of the Spanish and Portuguese Empires. James VI proclaims the claim to Great Brittaine when unifying English and Scottish crowns, but doesn't get a kingdom of GB. However the concepts remain, and British Isles becomes popular along with a British identity following the 1707 creation of the Kingdom of Great Britain. The period 1600-1700 has also seen increasing Irish nationalism and disaffection with English rule: recurring arguments and secession of most of Ireland in 1922 leads to irritation or resentment by many with Irish identity who (increasingly recently?) find the now commonplace term British Isles objectionable, and either avoid its use or promote alternatives which have yet to catch on. Don't miss the next exciting episode. .. dave souza, talk 11:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Replacement in Ireland of P-Celts by Q-Celts is relevant and not mentioned here, or in the article.  While hard to date, many references describe how P-Celts, i.e. the Pretani and others, were almost entirely replaced in Ireland by Q-Celts in a later migration into Ireland.  Even if the replacement was a cultural rather than population replacement, it's relevant in understanding the background to when the Pretanic Islands description was potentially a correct description for the whole archipelago and the time when it had become a seeming misnomer applied by Greek geographers based on 2nd or 3rd hand knowledge and ignoring changes in Ireland.  These Q-Celtic Gaels, who took their name from what the Welsh called them, had essentially entirely taken over Ireland by the beginning of the historic period.  83.38.59.125 11:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Further reading has turned up a number of references that suggest that the Q-celts may have been the original Celtic inhabitants and that the later Brythonic P-Celts never/hardly penetrated Ireland.  That is the opposite of what I have read in other books.  Does anyone have any sources with good discussion of this?  It seems important.  83.38.59.125 17:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mini-break for another summary

message: Hi again.  Just an interesting aside on BBC usage.  One of the sites that used to use the "British Isles" in a way that excluded the Republic of Ireland but which then changed its text by replacing "British Isles" with "the United Kingdom" was the site http://www.bbc.co.uk/voices/recordings/ . I was checking these - and a few other pages - on the Wayback Machine when I realised that the updated description was wrong, since the page included the CI and IoM, which legally aren't in the UK at all.....so I wrote to the page owner to inform him....and to see what the reaction would be.  
Here is my note
::Hi,
::the above referenced page (http://www.bbc.co.uk/voices/recordings/)
::says it is about the UK.  Neither the Channel Islands nor the Isle of
::Man are in the UK, but they are shown as such in your map.
::Regards
::H
Here is the response.  
::Dear H,
::Thank you for your email and interest in the Voices website.
::The text on the recordings page has now been amended.
::Best wishes,
::The BBC Voices Team
The page now lists the program as allowing listeners to "Listen in to the diverse voices of the United Kingdom, Channel Islands and Isle of Man".  Interesting to see the struggles that the media has with the terminology.  Poor BBC!  I wonder if the page (and the other pages that suddenly changed their text once listed on WP) has received previous mails like this.  Given the number of pages that suddenly changed, it would be a surprise to me if it was.  However, at least this time it's visible.  Right, that's me off again.  I guess this would count as OR if I included it in the article!  ;-)  Hughsheehy 12:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't put your stationary away just yet, Hugh! I see they include two recordings from the Donegal - not UK, not IoM, not CI. Oh ... could we see a return to British Isles?? "The answer, my friend, is blowing in the wind ..." --sony-youthtalk 16:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel they're probably about right now.  Including a couple of people from "over the border" would seem reasonable, especially if they bumped into them in Derry/Londonderry, which seems possible.  There are no Dublin, Cork, Kerry (or whatever) accents or recordings, just as there are no Dutch or Danes (many of whom speak better English than many English people).  The issue is really illustrative of the difficulty of UK-related terminology.  Ireland has the Ireland/Republic of Ireland issue, but that's trivial in comparison with England/Britain/Great Britain/United Kingdom/British Islands/(British Isles) problem.  Must be a nightmare trying to keep it all straight.  Hughsheehy 10:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

text: You bring an error to their attention; they thank you for doing so and correct the error; and you mock them for "changing with the breeze". How insulting can you get. Naomhain 09:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I don't consider that I was/am being insulting to the BBC at all, but I can certainly be extremely insulting when I try.  Hughsheehy 23:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It must be nice to have a skill you can be so proud of and which is so useful in a collaborative venture such as this. Mucky Duck 10:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mucky, your message is so full of unsupported assumptions it's hard to know where to start.  However, "Talk pages are not for general chatter; please keep discussions on talk pages on the topic of how to improve the associated article." I'm done here. Hughsheehy 11:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Chill everyone. --sony-youthtalk 11:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: BBC Usage - changing with the breeze

message: A question again on Diodorus.  I just removed some text from the article that ref'd Diodorus.  The text seems to me to have been an almost verbatim quote from Cunliffe.  However, reading the original text (in translation) of Diodorus doesn't support the quote as it was in the article (or in Cunliffe).  I can't see that Diodorus ever mentioned Ireland in the relevant section...which would seem to be neccessary to qualify his text as a comprehensive description of the British Isles rather than just of Britain (unless we assert that Cunliffe or Diodorus was using an alternate definition of the British Isles ;-))  Anyway, there was also a question from long ago on a Diodorus reference to Iris being Ireland - in a different section of the book.  The translation I have says that Iris is "somewhere in Britain".  
Interestingly, Cunliffe also has a book on Pytheas' voyage where it's pretty unambiguous that Cunliffe identifies Pytheas' Thule as Iceland.   Hughsheehy 11:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, sorry to be a bit slow coming back on this. As you indicate, it's closely based on Cunliffe's book on Pytheas' voyage as cited, and while it's obviously a secondary source, precisely what is meant isn't absolutely clear. Your interpretation of the translation you have is arguably original research from a primary source in terms of WP:A, so rather than include a long discussion of the point, I'm content to have this part deleted as you have done. The discussions of Strabo allegedly not using a collective term and what Britannia meant suffer from the same problems, so taking the same approach I've trimmed them. Will shortly provide sourced statements about developments of terms during Roman rule and its aftermath. Since Oceani insulae is also an overlapping ancient term I've modified the first heading, and focussed the Oceani insulae section on that term using the reference you provided earlier: it would be preferable to find a secondary source for that point. ... dave souza, talk 18:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Saying that something isn't in a book that's existed for hundreds of years and that anyone can read is NOT OR, and besides, Diodorus is a secondary source.  Ditto if Strabo didn't use a collective term.  If he did, then it's easy to reference from a book that's two thousand years old.  Reading and referencing existing texts is NOT Original Research.  As for Oceani Insulae, Pomponius is also a secondary source. Hughsheehy 10:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, Pomponius called them Islands of the Northern Ocean, so the edit as it now stands is wrong.  Hughsheehy 12:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Diodorus/Cunliffe

message: congrats to everyone who has worked on this article, it is now classed as a good article. i enjoyed reading it alot and found it passed all the criteria. if you wish to nominate other articles, please see WP:GAN
Themcman1 13:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  good article 

message: A United Kingdom? Maybe
:Thanks for the link. Interesting read - although 'jury still out' is par for the genetic studies course, and it doesn't have links to the original studies.--Shtove 00:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Highly interesting article!  Suggests that the Anglo-Saxon myth in England needs to be significantly revisited.  Hughsheehy 10:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Likewise with the Celtic myth of Ireland. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.72.94.45 (talk) 23:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Genes. Pah! It all bogus. As the article itself says: "Dr. Oppenheimer said genes 'have no bearing on cultural history.'" All of these are myth. They're just "imagined communities." But that's what gives them reality, and will again when imagined differently once more. --sony-youthtalk 23:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I take it that the majority of an island population will have descended from the aborigines. Stands to reason. So, the gene stuff is useful for putting the celt/anglo-saxon thing aside.--Shtove 23:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I might be wrong, but I suspect it'll be easier for the "Celtic fringe" countries (or whatever one should call them these days) to accept being Iberians than it will be for the English.  There has been too much history of the master race idea in England for that to be easy.  Goodbye Anglo-Saxon finance, hello Iberian business culture.  Funny really!  In any case, unless we can get decent historical references, which the article doesn't have (and I suspect the books don't either) it isn't really usable material here.  Also, the articles are highly limited in their context and don't discuss who else is descended from the same source population - even if that idea has any validity, which is doubtful.  Could be that half of the Atlantic coast is heavily influenced by the same population and anyway, you don't have to go too far back until we're all descended from the same people.  Hughsheehy 08:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Fringe" - it always makes me laugh. Look at a map, the "fringe" is the greater surface area. But seriously, Hugh, look at the ex-pat culture in Southern Spain - its a return to their roots! Although once again words are funny - always ex-pats, never emigrants. --sony-youthtalk 12:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Milesians (Irish) is pretty good. The "nuh-uh" POV on the Celts in Ireland has been going strong since the mid-'80s.--Shtove 19:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: English and Irish eyes are smiling :) .. dave souza, talk 15:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Except Wales smothered England's rugby team in Cardiff today, and France pipped Ireland to the Six Nations championship. Sigh. But at least Ireland beat Pakistan in the Cricket world cup - wha' the f..? Smiley smile.--Shtove 02:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: an article that may be of interest 

message: In the same archepelogio Jordannes also put the Isle of Man, the Orkney and Thule, which this author puts as the Shetland Islands, thus fitting with other descriptions of the British Isles. The Isle of Man is put in between the two greater islands - spot on. Shetland (called Thule, so maybe Iceland) is put to the north of them - spot on. Also north of them, in an artic region, is Scandia - Scandanavia - spot on (although this is decribed as an island too, so maybe Iceland?). These facts all add up to them being the Britain and Ireland.
This part does not add up though: "And there are two not far from the neighborhood of the Strait of Gades, one the Blessed Isle and another called the Fortunate."
"... not far from the neighborhood of the Strait of Gades ..." - strange. --sony-youthtalk 14:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at the original latin and at this translation (http://www.northvegr.org/lore/jgoth/001.php), it's hard to be sure that the blessed and the fortunate isles are Britain and Ireland. Other opinions have also been expressed, and those places ARE near the straits.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isles_of_the_Blest .  I don't know what Jordanes meant, just it's not obvious he meant what was in the article..  Hughsheehy 14:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Further, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madeira_Islands#History, which has Madeira being described as two islands, called Blessed.  Hughsheehy 14:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And indications here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canary_Islands#Pre-colonial_times that the Canaries may also have been the places in question.  I also cannot see any reference in the relevant section in Jordanes to any "archipelago" .  Hughsheehy 14:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

text: You're right. My bad. I read the "however, it has other islands deeper within its own tides" as referring to an island group of Blessed and Fortunate. On proper reading, however, its clear that "Oceani insulas" is just a blanket term. Essentially any scrap of land in the Atlantic. --sony-youthtalk 15:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The text isn't very clear in that area.  I suspect that "within its own tides" means something about the fact of them being in internal seas, rather than in the open ocean.  Not sure, but that's my take.  Hughsheehy 16:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jordannes 

message: The statements "Mercator.... who leant heavily on his friend Dee as a source for his maps,[citation needed] was the most notable. Similarly Ortelius, in his atlas derived from Mercator´s original maps" seem to be contradicted by http://www.bl.uk/onlinegallery/themes/mapsandviews/mercator.html which says Mercator's atlas was put together 1570-75 using "numerous maps from an atlas published in 1570 by his friend and rival Abraham Ortelius" and "The maps of the British Isles, from his wall map of 1564, are probably based on surveys by John Elder, a disreputable Scottish Catholic priest, that – much against Mercator’s will – were intended to assist an invasion of England and the overthrow of Elizabeth." before mentioning that "One of Mercator's principal sources was almost certainly George Lily's map, printed in Rome in 1546". If we accept the earlier statement that "According to Frances Yates, John Dee used the term Brytish Iles in 1577 in his Memorials", all these map sources predate Dee's translation of the term, so this paragraph about maps logically follows on from the paragraph about rediscovery of Ptolemy's maps rather than being shunted to the end of the section. The importance of Britannia in English political terms dates back to the 12th century, and I'm currently working on a brief opening paragraph that can precede the Ptolemy paragraph. .. dave souza, talk 17:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Later comment. The Mercator map on the referenced page isn't (if i remember correctly from seeing in in other places) actually called a map of the British isles on the map itself.  Again, it's called that now, but it wasn't called that then.  Hughsheehy 17:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

text: No problem with them being also sources.  Dee and Mercator went to college together and were friends.  Multiple sources describe how Dee and Mercator shared information.  I'll see if I can dig them up again.  Hughsheehy 19:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've tried out adding an opening paragraph (trimmed from a larger draft!) covering political usage of "Britannia", and moving the 1550s - 1570s maps to follow on from the Ptolemy resurfacing bit: the first example (from Münster) depends on translation of the Latin. None of the Mercator maps from the list of links or at http://www.bl.uk/onlinegallery/themes/mapsandviews/mercatorlge.html appear to show a collective name for the islands – is there a source justifying his usage being "similarly" to Ortelius? I've left out the reference to him getting info from Dee, which was now out of sequence. The reason for it being there is unclear, though it did hint that Mercator had taken the "British Isles" idea from Dee's usage of 1577, a possibility which seems rather out of sequence. .. dave souza, talk 01:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

text: It's still too long.  More comments will take a while!  Hughsheehy 11:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've had a go a trimming it, your turn. :) .. dave souza, talk 13:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mercator, Dee and Ortelius

message: To reiterate Bliscos proposal, I propse that the two pages be merged in to one, but not redirect here. Instead, they be turned into a type of disambiguation page. I propose the following text for the disambiguation page:
:Great Britain and Ireland are the two largest islands in the British Isles. A former state, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, was comprised of the political union of the two. Often the entire archipelago, including the Isle of Man, which was never a part of the Union, is referred to as Great Britain and Ireland. This is often to avoid use of the term British Isles, which is seen by many in Ireland as outdated since Irish independence. Britain and Ireland, which refers to the two sovereign states in the archipelago, suffices for a similar meaning.
:* The British Isles, see also British Isles naming dispute
:* The former United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland
:For an explanation of the toponyms of the region, which many people find confusing, see British Isles (terminology).
:See also
:* The island of Great Britain
:* The island of Ireland
:* Ireland, also known as the Republic of Ireland
:* The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, also known as Britain
I think this is an even-handed solution. At present both pages cover essentially the same thing. Why not just direct people to what the pages really want to talk about? --sony-youthtalk 11:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is pretty much what the Great Britain and Ireland page says now..albeit phrased slightly differently..so what is essentially being proposed is a deletion of the "Britain and Ireland" page.  If that's the proposal, then the current proposal needs to be withdrawn and that needs to be made.  I'm opposed to merging the (various) pages into either BI or BI (terminology). Hughsheehy 14:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm proposing a different solution. I don't think a merge with this article (or the terminology article) is appropriate. --sony-youthtalk 16:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Redirect B&I to GB&I rather than delete, maybe add an Ireland and Britain redirect also as we have at least one reference for it's use. I don't know that we need be so formal about making and withdrawing merge proposals—it's easy to redirect a page, and even easier to revert if there are any objections.—eric 16:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I support Sony-youth's proposal.  On reflection it is better than my own.  If protocol demands it, I now formally withdraw my merge proposal and endorse Sony-youth's proposal, which is characteristically sensible.--Triglyph2 16:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is the proposer of the previous (withdrawn) proposal going to remove it and enter the new proposal?  Hughsheehy 16:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I second the proposal to propose that he proposes to propose so. --sony-youthtalk 17:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: done. I say we should just go ahead w/ the new merge, Sony-youth go ahead and insert his new text into GB&I and redirect B&I, if Hugh does not object.—eric 18:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. (Assumed Hugh does not object.) --sony-youthtalk 19:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for doing that. --Triglyph2 23:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi.  That page had also been tagged for not having references.  I had put in references and they have now all been deleted.  Please put in some references, or put back the old ones, before the page gets tagged again.  Also, I don´t quite agree with the phrasing of some sections, but it´s not a big deal and since there is no merge proposal it can be handled in the normal way on that page´s talk page.  Hughsheehy 08:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Alternative merge proposal

message: Is it just me or does this sentence read funny: "The British Isles are largely low lying and fertile, though with significant mountainous areas in Ireland, Scotland, Wales, and the north of England." Does this not mean that there are significant mountainous areas basically everywhere? --sony-youthtalk 22:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even the south of England has Dartmoor.  For a useful description of the demarcation between the flat and hilly areas, see the Tees-Exe line.--Triglyph2 00:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The sentence reads badly and is terribly vague.  It´s as bad as an RTE weather forecast "sunny spells and scattered showers".  It basically says "mostly flat, although there are lots of mountainous bits".  Mind you, I´m not sure it´s as bad as the next line "The regional geology is complex, formed by the drifting together of separate regions and subsequent orogenic, glacial and weathering activities.".  Now that´s really bad!  Unfortunately I can only critique these sentences and cannot ad real value.  My geology knowledge is not extensive. Hughsheehy 01:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Arguably, the Pennines aren't mountainous anyway.  There are no mountains in England, but there is moorland - so the sentence not only reads badly but lacks accuracy too. Waggers 10:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strange sentence 

message: I ran across the following ballad of a southern Irish unionist in 1914. Check out the first line. Is the term less of neologism than a disused romantic term brought back to life? ... and originating with unionism??
SOUTHERN UNIONIST BALLAD
(Ennis Unionist, 1914)
The United Anglo-Celtic Isles
Will e'er be blessed by Freedoms smiles
No tyrant can our homes subdue
While Britons to the Celts are true.
The false may clamour to betray
The brave will still uphold our sway
The triple-sacred flag as yet
Supreme, its sun shall never set.
--sony-youthtalk 20:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The site you got the song from is very interesting, although I suspect it's a tad POV.  I knew that there was a severe decline in the Unionist (which the site equates with Protestant) community in the Cork area during the War of Independence and afterwards, but his presentation of it indicates it was  larger than I thought.  For instance "After 1919 attendance (at protestant churches) fell by 22%, with more than two-thirds of the decline taking place in a single year - 1922"...which suggests that the end of the British military and administrative presence was THE major event, but he also says ""Departing soldiers, sailors, policemen and their families account for about one quarter of the emigrants, a significant contributing factor although ultimately a minor one."...which does neglect civil servants, ships engineers, land support for the Navy, administrative support for the army and navy, etc.  but still indicates that a lot of non-military people left.  Areas of Cork and West Cork still have strong protestant communities but they probably went through hard times then.  Of course he also says that this was "the only example of the mass displacement of a native ethnic group within the British Isles since the 17th century" ...which kinda neglects the exodus around the Famine, the emigrations in the 50's, etc...any of which was probably significantly larger.   In any case, a good ref to the Anglo-Celtic Isles.  You should update the article accordingly and check if there's an Anglo-Celtic Isles page too... I'm sure they'd like this ref.  Hughsheehy 14:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  For exactly those reasons (and many more) the utterances of Robin Bury and The Reform Movement have been  discredited for a long time. 89.100.195.42 10:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

text: There used to be an Anglo-Celtic Isles article.  It was the subject of an AFD, with a result of Delete (I think on the grounds of being a neologism) and Redirect to British Isles.  That particular ballad was the one 'early' reference that could be found for the term, IIRC, and oddly was only found on one website. Bastun 15:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anglo-Celtic Isles 

message: Having taken a back seat on this page for quite some time now, what I think we need here is a bit of perspective. I shall illustrate this with a thought experiment that captures the issue very nicely. There is a geographical entity called "Europe" and a political entity called the "European Union". The geographical term is much older than the political term, and indeed the poltical term was named after the geographical one. Many people in the UK dislike the fact that they're in the EU, and if the British government ever gains the courage to leave that particular institution, there will no doubt be many who will rejoice at having left "Europe". But the UK would not, of course, have left "Europe" - such a thing is physically impossible. However much the British may dislike the thought of being part of "Europe", they are, and they always will be. Yes, no doubt British culture is distinct from "European" culture in many different ways - being on an island will do that sort of thing - but the larger landmass to our east will always be bigger, and we will always be part of the geographical region that bears its name. We will no longer have any political ties to it, however, and will not be part of the "European Union". TharkunColl 18:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I suppose something like that might happen, but how is it relevant, unless you're getting back into a discussion of how people "ought" to feel about the term "British Isles"? (which subject is perhaps worth discussing, but not on WP) Hughsheehy 19:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the term Europe has been around in one form or another for thousands of years. Even there, we have a "Part of the mainland? I think not!" reaction. The term British is also old. But the term British Isles? That's the issue underlying all this talk page debate - was it cooked up in the late Tudor period for political purposes, or does it have a legitimate origin in geographical description? Let's join hands and sing Ode to Joy.--Shtove 09:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And again, the term negro (still just means "black" in Spanish) was around for a long time, and it just means "black"...but it didn't stop people becoming offended by its variations.  It's not the function of this page to debate how people ought to feel about anything...any more than someone should enter a section on the WP page on Broccoli that George Bush senior shouldn't dislike it. (http://www.usatrivia.com/biobush.html).  There might be an entry on the broccoli WP page about "notable people who don't like broccoli", but hard to justify a section about how they should like it because it tastes great or to indulge in thought experiments about how since most people do or don't like spinach they should, or shouldn't, like broccoli.  Hughsheehy 09:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And that's precisely the point. Many British people may hate the thought of being European, or being part of Europe, but they cannot change geographical fact. And let's face it, their hatred of Europe is probably completely justified. Every single historical invasion, or attempted invasion, of the British Isles has come from Europe. Hardly surprising of course, given geography, but still true nevertheless. And you see, I even used the term "Europe" there as if it excluded the British Isles, which is a very common usage in English, but still wrong. We could even propose a new name for Europe - how about the "European and British continent", or some such linguistic abomination, but even if we started using it ourselves, the vast majority of people in the said continent would go on calling it Europe no matter how much we might stomp our feet and say we don't like it. And if a majority of inhabitants of a place call it by any particular name, then that, by any reasonable definition of "definition", is surely its proper name. TharkunColl 13:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well then, off you go and rename Europe.  Meantime, I'll stay here and try to put worthwhile facts in WP articles. I don't see a page on "TharkunColl hates Europe" anytime soon, nor on whether I like broccoli or not.   Hughsheehy 14:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This analogy doesn't really fly.  Try telling North and South Koreans that the body of water next to them is named the Sea of Japan purely for geographical reasons.  In both cases it's the notion of continued possession by an ex-colonial overlord that rankles, whether in adjectival form (British) or possessive (of Japan).  This is totally irrelevant to the article, but the Irish and Koreans should take a leaf out of the French's book - you don't hear them moaning about the English claiming the Channel for themselves, they just call it something else and get on with life!  Gsd2000 14:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also you don't see the UK complaining about the body of water beside them call the Irish Sea. I don't think anyone actually believes that it means that it belongs to Ireland, but rather it's just named for geographic reasons. Ben W Bell talk 14:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We are not here to judge who's right or wrong, just to document reality. GSD: The Irish do appear to "take a leaf out of the French book" and call it something else (or nothing in particular, as the case may be). It is notable that they do. It should be mentioned, and not rankled over. --sony-youthtalk 15:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Hi Tark, nice to see you back again. If you know of material published reliable sources asserting that a part of the British Isles is not in the European continent then I think you should add it. At the moment the article describes the archipelago as being in Europe. If this is not true, the article should be corrected. --sony-youthtalk 15:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we've all missed you Tharkie-baby, but where were you the last few weeks? I think quite a few editors felt a gap in their lives caused by lack of fueding with you over points of monumental absurdity. MarkThomas 15:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Be careful MarkThomas, that could be considered a Personal Attack by some quarters. Ben W Bell talk 15:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No need to lose our sense of humo(u)r here... Gsd2000 16:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

text: OK. I am sincere - I have missed your presence TharkunColl! MarkThomas 15:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Europe and the EU

message: This article appears to state, at the bottom of the first paragraph, that whilst fish and chips remains a popular dish in Ireland, it is often served without fish... Just had to be different, didn't they?  TharkunColl 15:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How can you have "fish and chips" without fish - isn't that just "chips"!? I removed it as plain nonsense. And anyway, it's more commonly known as "Irish fish and chips" :) --sony-youthtalk 15:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We have much better fish in England - two-headed mutated cod from the North Sea. TharkunColl 15:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, two heads are better than one. --sony-youthtalk 15:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I wonder if that's been there since April Fool's last year? Sounds a bit like those edits where people leave an "r" where there should be a "v" to make "visible" "risible" and so forth. Nobody ever notices those. MarkThomas 15:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Fish and chips]]

message: "The term British Isles, whilst is most often used in the United Kingdom, it's interpretation is generally misunderstood elsewhere in the world, is disputed, particularly in the Republic of Ireland."==
Whoever edited the text to produce this travesty of a sentence is illiterate. Those who place political agendas above ability to write English are editing the wrong encyclopedia. TharkunColl 23:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thark, please see WP:Civility.  I didn´t write that edit, but you can correct grammer without being insulting.  Hughsheehy 08:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is this article called "The British Isles"? They are not known as such in Ireland. (Sarah777 15:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sarah777 please read the rest of the talk page and the archives before dredging this up. It has been proven that it is used in Ireland, by news broadcasts and politicians as well as others. It may not be the favoured term or even the most common term but it is far from unused in Ireland and is used worldwide. Ben W Bell talk 16:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ben, I didn't 'drag it up'. I found this section and the heading (see above) by chance. However if it makes you any happier I will not mention it again! Regrds (Sarah777 17:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The term British Isles...

message: Since contributors to this page were the only ones to vote on the proposal to merge Full English breakfast, Irish breakfast and Ulster fry into one article, I'm posing here again for comments. This time, I'm proposing to merge them at simply Full breakfast on the basis that this is a common term in restaurants (whether it eventually be a "Full English" or "Full Irish").
Comments are welcome, on the talk page. --sony-youthtalk 21:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Breakfast on Mars