Talk:British Isles/Archive 9

message: Note to all users - This is a talk page for the British Isles article. When using this page please remember Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. In paticular, a number of users have broken the following two guidelines on this page in the past; please make sure that you understand them:
*Talk pages are not for general chatter; please keep discussions on talk pages on the topic of how to improve the associated article.
*Talk pages are not strictly a forum to argue different points of view about controversial issues. They are a forum to discuss how different points of view should be included in the article so that the end result is neutral.
--Robdurbar 12:23, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Note to all users

message: Rubbish do not tell me what I can, and can't, edit in Wikipedia. I'm going to remove the above instruction when others have seen what I'm on about. Arcturus 21:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No one's telling you anything; Its just repeating a guideline because a number of users have repeatedly broken it on this page. It has been there since May and not one user has complained untill now--Robdurbar 09:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Instruction removed and replaced with a suggestion. Arcturus 13:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You know, I'd removed this page from my watchlist then forgot about it completely. The rweoding is much better thanks --Robdurbar 09:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Simultaneous (to the above) discussion about note at top of talk

message: I found an embossed map of the British Isles in an 1877 book by William Moon, inventor of Moon type. I put the image at Embossing. -- Evertype·✆ 11:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A nice map 

message: This article has had various bits of text stuck up at the top of the article, before the lead, where you'd only ever normally to find a dab-header. Leaving aside the discussion about any controversy, and the scale of, this should be in the lead - not stuck right at the top of the article. Thanks/wangi 22:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed; banners are suitable for reference to another article and not for highlighting a particular POV about the name of the article, or for providing links to a section on the same article. The banner started with a link to British Isles (terminology) and that's suitable use of a banner, but was converted to give another shot at highlighting a particular POV. ... dave souza, talk 22:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Remark, but the article now is POV.  You have taken balance of pov from the article.  The term is a British term, and it's just pushing the British POV. 86.42.132.84 02:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Also agreed. josh (talk) 00:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's going to lead to revert wars.  Maybe that's what you lot want. 86.42.132.84 01:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What's new about revert wars on this page. The banner does nothing to stop that. Please stop unilaterally enforcing this unwarrented header. josh (talk) 01:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My reading of this talk page is that the banner is there to quell revert-wars.  The term is controversial to say the least.  It's objected to by Welsh, Scottish and Irish too, and the English are mostly ambivalent. The controversy is there, so why deny it? 86.42.132.84 01:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is not the point of disambiguation headers. To have someones (no matter how many ones there are) opinion shoved in the readers face like that is POV pushing of the worse kind. Revert wars are quelled using comments and talk page headers, not by mangling the article. You seem to be the only one reinstating it, which you have done well over 3 times today. If you do it again I'll have to report you for the 3 revert rule. josh (talk) 01:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh well, I made my stand. Not too worried about 3 revert rule, thanks for the warning in any case. A very British coup!! Did you consult with any Irish editors about the wording? Or was it only British editors consulted? Seems the Irish editors don't matter. 86.42.132.84 01:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No-one was consulted. Anyone is free to come here with their opinion. I don't see how this is a British-Irish argument. The objections were about article style. josh (talk) 01:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "dab" header 

message: ::::::You've got to laugh! I've just picked up this week's copy of TV Quick (for those of you who don't know, it a UK TV listings publication) and at 8:00pm tonight on BBC2 we have the latest installment of an excellent programme called Coast. Here's the blurb from TV Quick "Dublin to Derry - the team carry on their journey around the UK's shoreline, visiting a unique horse race by the sea and an Irish salt mine". Comments? Arcturus 18:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since it hasn't been shown yet, I think it might be unfair to judge it. Perhaps in order to cover the entire coast of Northern Ireland, they had to get a ferry to Dublin or something. TharkunColl 18:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think I know the horse race they're talking about, see Laytown. Demiurge 18:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They've made another series of Coast? And its been on with no-one telling me? I hate you all --Robdurbar 18:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll be watching for the first time, and will be writing my review a little later! 86.42.147.234 19:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Remark, Well, Anglo is German, and Norman is French, so what has that got to do with the Priteni. Your argument has now fallen flat on its stomach. And don't the Scottish Gaels owe everything to the Irish Gaels, for the Scoti were the Irish and they invaded Caledonia. Everything you argued is now gone tits up. LOL. 86.42.147.234 21:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh?? Just a neutral report about the words used in a programme, details here and you'll probably be able to watch it online shortly. .. dave souza, talk 21:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I recall that the promotional trailers for the programme on BBCtv were highlighting that the new series includes the entire British Isles. There is no claim that the RoI is British (although some of Ireland is, although the programmes seem to be omitting any overt references to nations/countries anyway) — but it is the label to use to ensure that most people in the UK (at least) will know that the whole set of islands is being talked about; any other label would be either unclear or unwieldy. Should RTE have produced the new series and needed to promote the inclusion of all islands in the group, how would that have been worded? Bazza 09:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Britain and Ireland of course, preserving the alphabetical order. 86.42.147.234 14:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

text: The border is mentioned in the context of the (Scottish) presenter Neil Oliver saying something like "across the lough is Northern Ireland, and I'm standing in the South", and showing cars queuing for cheap petrol with the proprietor betting Oliver that he won't be able to find the border: the first real evidence he's in NI is a road sign in miles.. Later Oliver refers to Londonderry: I note that the web page says Derry. Ah, these insensitive Scots... dave souza, talk 11:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: British Isles is really mainly a British thing. We in Ireland don't use the term.  And there are many atlases and internet maps that don't use the term either.  It's not universally used, and probably the article does reflect that fact to a degree.  It's not really a dispute, it's just more about reality.  86.42.147.234 14:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A concise reply which I understand, thank you. I've been following the voluminous circular discussions on this page on and off for a while, but the question I asked above and which I've asked before has never been answered: what label (other than British Isles which you say is not used) do you if you want to talk about all the islands together? It might be that nobody in Ireland ever wants to do this, but I'd be surprised if it never came up. (I'm not after any official names which our respective politicians feel oblige to tiptoe around, just normal folks like you :-) .) Bazza 15:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

text: We in Ireland don't use the term.  We don't?  What about the examples used in this very article?  From the Dáil, to school atlases (bar one, from the next print run sometime next year) to the thousands of examples you can find by googling "British Isles" on google.ie and restricting the results to Irish sites.  Sure, many don't use it... but stating that it isn't used is flying in the face of reason.  Bastun 16:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Britain and Ireland is the term usually used in Ireland. Irish people do not feel the need to use British Isles because the term is pretty meaningless to them. Why not use Wales when we allude to Wales, or Scotland when we allude to Scotland, and the same for England and Ireland. Britain in the above context pertains to all things in the realm of Britain, including it's islands. And the same for Ireland. British Isles is just a term invented about 400 years ago. What did we call them before then? It's not really a problem as such.  It's more about the real world as I mentioned earlier. 86.42.147.234 16:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the real world, Irish people do indeed use the term - including government ministers and members of parliament. And the term is at least 2000 years older than your suggestion. TharkunColl 16:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Irish people do not feel the need to use British Isles because the term is pretty meaningless to them.  Exsqueeze me?!  Irish people do indeed use the term.  You do not speak for everyone.  Please do not post such obvious PoV nonsense in my name. Bastun 16:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I said that Irish people usually use the term Britain and Ireland.  I never denied that that the term British Isles is used in Ireland.  It is used by a small minority of people. Irish people use terms like Wales, Scotland, England, Ireland. 86.42.147.234 16:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Strangely, English, Scottish, and Welsh people use terms like England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales as well - but not when they are referring to all four of them together as a geographical unit. And the same is no doubt true of the Irish as well. TharkunColl 16:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a geographical unit, England is closer to France than it is to Ireland. That's fine that the term British Isles is used in Britain, and that's the real world. But the term is seldom used in Ireland, and that's the real world too. 86.42.147.234 17:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

text:  "I said that Irish people usually use the term Britain and Ireland." No, 86.42.147.234 (er, why don't you register a proper username?) - what you said was "Irish people do not feel the need to use British Isles because the term is pretty meaningless to them." and "We in Ireland don't use the term."  The fact is that some (probably a minority) Irish people do - and some don't.  Bastun 17:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Glad we agree. 86.42.147.234 17:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Coast

message: I propose that we remove the "Perspectives in Ireland" section until such time as someone can be bothered to write a "Perspectives in Britain" section, which should be approximately 15 times longer to give fair weight to population. TharkunColl 00:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not having one thing in the article is not a reason to remove an informative and interesting section. WP:SOFIXIT applies here, I think. --Robdurbar 00:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately this whole article has been undermined by extremists. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia. TharkunColl 00:28, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry Tharkun but I really don't think immediate unialteral removal of a section that has been in place for months on end and is generally well sourced is appropriate. --Robdurbar 00:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Along the same logic, I'm going to keep blanking United Kingdom until the People's Republic of China article is expanded to be approximately 20 times longer than it. Demiurge 00:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's keep this civil and avoid sarcasm. Perhaps you could detail exaclt what is wrong with the Ire perspectives bit, or how a useful British perspectives bit might go Robdurbar 00:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Clearly an opportunity for you to write an additional section.  Hughsheehy 00:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've begun such a section. Its much shorter, but can't really think what else there is to be said. Robdurbar 00:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That looks good. I can't think what more there is to say. Do we need a section on the international perspective - if there is such a perspective? Arcturus 11:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did wonder about this, but I think the only thing we could talk about is confusion over what the term means... Robdurbar 13:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

text: If it does, then we must change the title of the other section to "Perspectives in the Republic of Ireland", to make it clear that those who claim to speak on behalf of Ireland are not even speaking on behalf of all of Ireland, just part of it. TharkunColl 12:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well the other section discusses Northern Ireland, which is why I stated 'Great Britain'. I think its the most logical way to split such a discussion. --Robdurbar 13:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rob's right, the term is controversial in NI not least because there are two Irish perspectives about the use of the term – as described in the CAIN report. .. dave souza, talk 22:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Perspectives in Britain

message: This is obviously an out-of-date, and outdated, term. In the first place and most importantly, it is now technical incorrect.
In general, it is no-longer generally, commercially, or academically used, and is a politically sensitive term for many in Ireland and Northern Ireland, and to others in Scotland and Wales.
It is considered a highly offensive term by many in both the North and South of Ireland. Those who support the term are often doing so because they are politically extremely polarised, or just polarised in historic argument to a small percentage of the people who dislike the term, while the general population has no affiliation with the name, and arguably never has.
The fact that greater focus is not giving to the fact the term is out-of-date (‘old and not useful or correct’ - cambridge.org) amounts to another very negative blur on Wikipedia. Wikipedia should be a dynamic factual international source, not one that has a place for relics of past British imperialism. The context of any ‘British Isles’ article should be historical. 86.42.173.232 21:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please stop creating multiple accounts with names based on IP addresses.  See WP:U Bastun 22:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

text: You sound a bit polarised, dear 86. What you're asking for is exactly what Wikipedia doesn't do: try to read and understand WP:NOT and WP:NPOV. .. dave souza, talk 22:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL, just rippling the stilly waters! 86.42.173.232 22:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest everyone stops feeding this sockpuppet troll and ignores him until he goes away.  WP:NOFEEDING Gsd2000 13:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Negative reflection of Wikipedia

message: Mel, some points: The mentions of James give historical perspective as to why there is a controversy at all.  The term BI is not "highly" controversial in Ireland - for most people, it's not something they're bothered about.  But lets not get into the debate about whether its "highly", "very", "somewhat" or "considered by some/many to be..." controversial and just leave it unqualified.  'Sovereignty' is an exception to the 'i before e' rule- and I challenge you to find me any Irish citizen who actually believes "that the United Kingdom retains soveriegnty over the Republic." Bastun 01:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with you Bastun, people in Ireland don't give 2 thoughts about the term.  Still the relevant section is just the pits, and is totally unreadable! MelForbes 02:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest with you, looking at the two versions that have been reverted, both look good. I think the best bet would be to include the evidence from them both and make a longer section. --Robdurbar 19:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I've read through and there's not much I can change. But I would like to reinstate the bit about the use at that conference. --Robdurbar 19:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rob, it seems you dislike the HTML comments within the article, but there is good reason to keep some of them. Comments of the form: Ibid. XX are there to make sure the reference does not get lost. It may be a pain to edit w/ the comments in there, but it is an even bigger pain to try and figure out what Ibid means when the parent cite is moved or removed. Can you think of a better way to make sure such cites don't get mucked up?EricR 20:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes. Use the history tab to retrieve sources. And check when your editing if you remove a source Robdurbar 09:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Perspectives in Ireland 

message: The new article British Isles (controversy) has been nominated for Template talk:Did you know (and not by me, either). I suggest that any further discussion should take place on the new article's own talkpage. TharkunColl 16:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've objected to its inclusion. Although I believe it's right to have this as a separate article, it still remains a POV vehicle for those who obect to the term "British Isles". Arcturus 21:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Nomination!

message: Hmm.  Rhode Islander 11:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately the article is the object of much POV and political spin, and nationalism.  I have 2 texts, one from 1908 and the other from 1902 that do include the Channel Islands in the British Isles.  When did they leave??? MelForbes 12:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Channel Islands? 

message: Hi- I just want to comment that the name British attached to anything is an old throw back to the days when the rape of other countries made the British strong enough to impose a will on vast swathes of the world. There is nothing British about where i am from... though i have heard that about 200k britons live on Ireland and a welcome to them! simply this then - Ireland is not British (never was - if you consider the name as based on celtic peoples, the ancient Irish coming from differnet stock as the British). I dont know anyone who uses the term on this side of the Irish Sea - and truth be told i wouldnt use it without thinking of centuries of struggle oppression and warfare. so for the people who commented that minority opinion on this should be sidelined i would remind them the minority is the only other independent country of a pair. but having said all that... synonyms are common in all languages - you can call it the british isles if you fancy being childish and can't give up the "old empire", and we'll simply not refer to any geographical association between us and ye. Ireland and Britain covers it just aswell for me.    
To the editors - do not edit too heavily as its a fair comment - unfortunately when people are involved differences regularly appear. the term British Isles is offensive.
[Not my comment.  I just moved it here from the top of the page. Bastun 14:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  anon comment 

message: I find this section a little confusing ... The island-group is made up of more than 6,000 islands, the two biggest being Great Britain and Ireland. Great Britain, to the east, covers 83,698 square miles (216,777 km²), over half of the total landmass of the group; Ireland, to the west, covers 32,589 square miles (84,406 km²). The other larger islands are situated to the north and west of the group, in the Hebrides and Shetland Islands. ... It's the last sentence: first the Hebrides and Shetland are not "to the north and west of the group" The may be north but certainly not west. Second, if we are listing "other larger islands", what about Mainland Orkney, the Isle of Wight and Anglesey? Oh and the Isle of Man? To add to my confusion the next paragraph lists the islands starting with Great Britain and then an indented list implying that the smaller islands are part of Great Britain, which they may well be but the para I quote above states "The two biggest being Great Britain ..."  Abtract 18:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ancient writers call this Iland a Brttiʃh Iland", and a quote from Tacitus that the habits and disposition of the people in Ireland were not much unlike the "Brittaines"  The quote is contradictory in that if Ireland was indeed part of the "Brittaines" then why would Tacitus be comparing Ireland with the Brittaines.  MelForbes 21:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The observation about the lists is well made. I have reorganised them, hopefully to the better, to remove the arrangement around political entities, and relisted them in clockwise order. Corrections and/or dissent welcome! Bazza 14:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Geography

message: Just checking the references on Bede and Athelstan.  First, as far as I can see, it is not at all clear that the reference to Bede is referring to the British Isles.  The section quoted, where the text now indicates that the reference to "islands" means the British Isles reads "In his time the Arian heresy broke out, and although it was detected and condemned in the Council of Nice, yet it nevertheless infected not only all the churches of the continent, but even those of the islands, with its pestilent and fatal doctrines. "  
Second, the reference to Athelstan is not adequate to support the text inserted.  The reference is to a translation page, which doesn´t cover the history.  The assertion is that the various Kings submitted and gave fealty to Athelstan.  The reference doesn´t support this.  Hughsheehy 09:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ping.  Any thoughts?  I have found a reference in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles that supports fealty being given to Athelstan  by various Kings in Britain, but nothing to support fealty by any Irish (or Norse-Irish) Kings....and it wasn't in 937 as the edit currently states, but in 926.  If no-one has better information I'll have to put in my own version and tag it with "verification needed".  Similarly, the Bede reference isn't 100% unsatisfactory.  Hughsheehy 16:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Origin of the term

message: *"The term British Isles is often misunderstood, and is sometimes considered objectionable"
This implies that one must misunderstand the term to find it objectionable - which is not true. I understand the arguments about the age of the term and that it predates the Act of Union, but I still find the term objectionable, from an Irish perspective.
My objection is not to the etymology of the term, it is that the word "British" is immediately associated with the United Kingdom in most people's minds.
I would like to rephrase the above quoted statement to something like:
*"The term "British Isles" is often mistakenly associated strictly with the United Kingdom or with Great Britain. For this reason, many people in Ireland object to the use of this term to refer to the archipelago as a whole."
Any comments before I start a revert war?  Windyjarhead 18:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: May I humbly suggest that "often" is an unsupported value judgement, and it would be better phrased as "The term "British Isles" can be mistakenly associated strictly with the United Kingdom or with Great Britain", or "can be misinterpreted as relating only to the United Kingdom or Great Britain". .. dave souza, talk 18:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about a version of a phrase in the terminology page (usage section).   We could try something like "The term British Isles can also be considered irritating or offensive by some on the grounds that the association of the term British with the United Kingdom makes its application to Ireland inappropriate."  Hughsheehy 10:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with dave's point there. Hugh's is also reasonable, though I think we want to note that it can be both offensive and confusing and that these are seperate issues; Hugh only deals with one directly. Hugh's sentence may work quite well in the terminology summary paragraph. --Robdurbar 21:11, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

text: A delightful start to the new year.  There has again been revert action on the first couple of sentences.  I have tried to put in something reasonable, but I´m not sure it hits all the right targets.  It´s now supported with the references from the naming dispute page that (i think) used to be here.  Again, I am entirely unconvinced that having the extra page is going to improve matters.  Hughsheehy 01:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Second statement in the article

message: User:MelForbes has twice changed the first sentence to read: "The British Isles is a term sometimes used to refer to the group of islands off the northwest coast of continental Europe consisting of Great Britain, Ireland, and a number of smaller surrounding islands and islets."  This, in my opinion, is ridiculous.  The first time I reverted back to "The BI is the term used to refer to..." I put in the edit summary "By the same logic, paper is a term sometimes used to describe treated woodpulp" (something Mel also apparently disagrees with). Mel, we know you strongly dislike the term, but wishing something does not make it so.  The term 'British Isles' is the term used by the majority of people on these islands - and the rest of the world - to describe them.  If you want to bring in WP:V, I refer you to the various googlewars already reported on these talk pages.  "... a term sometimes used..." simply does not cut it.  Please stop. Bastun 00:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like your raison d’être is to revert me on the BI page.  It's not your first offence.  If you can make the article better, then by all means, go ahead.  I reverted another editor, then you started reverting my revert.  It's not about opinions, it's about reality.  The term British Isles has 2 meanings.  One is quasi-political and the other is quasi-geographical.  Anyone who claims that the term is used by all and sundry is an absolute pov-pusher.  Even the American map from 1926 used on the page doesn't mention the term British Isles. I agree that the term is used and is widely known. The term is rarely used in sovereign Ireland, and if you say anything else, you must not be getting out that much.  It's not a universal term.  Therefore I am reverting you until the sentence is agreeable.  MelForbes 01:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  *sigh* Then I'll be reverting back, per your own arguments. Agreed it's not about opinions, it's about reality, and agreed it's rarely used in Ireland.  But it is used.  As such, and as its also widely used in the UK and elsewhere, saying it's "sometimes" used is, simply, wrong and PoV. Bastun 01:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Bastun wrt reverting to a version about reality, but it should be a NPOV version. Now the term British Isles is used quite a bit and used more often than sometimes.  By saying 'sometimes' the term is used, (I suspect) some political bias maybe employed in this decision, although the same could also be said with using 'often'. So I think the best option is not to use either and just say that it is a (not the) term used to describe the islands. The term is used as mostly a geographical name and less so political, it seems only the Irish want to make it into a politcal term. I have never used it or seen it used as a political term and I believe the majority would use it as a geographical term ONLY, the majority being those outside the Republic of Ireland (which is probably a ratio of 125 to 1 by English speakers at least).  Marco 14:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes Marco, I concur broadly with your analysis.  Although I reckon that if Bastun was touring through Iraq, British Isles would be the last words from his lips!  And BTW quote The term is used as mostly a geographical name and less so political, it seems only the Irish want to make it into a politcal term. unquote, your sentence is contradicting itself. Maybe you are a bit confused too. MelForbes 16:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently its something that everyone who disagrees with Mel must suffer from. Marco, your compromise edit seems fine to me. Bastun 20:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Hi again, PConlon, and Happy New Year to you too.  Being Irish born and bred, I'm well aware of mainstream Irish opinion on the term.  I'd say the majority opinion is probably widespread indifference, to be honest - but I fully acknowledge that it is objectionable to some - those "some" being far more than a radical minority.  However, as no survey has ever been done on this issue in Ireland (to my knowledge), we've nothing to back up anyone's claims, for, against, or really against :-P  I agree the link to the controversy is a good idea.  Cheers, Bastun 18:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bastun, I agree with you.  I am just wondering if there are any surveys done on the British Island to back up anyones claims, for, against, etc.  Especially internet published sources as thy are readily verifiable.  Comme c'est de la récidive, votre amende sera triplée'  Thanks!  MelForbes 01:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  First sentence 

message: It seems to me that it is critical in any good article to define terms at the outset, not as a quasi-footnote long after even diligent readers have given up wading through detail (a crime to which I plead guilty, as can be seen from the edit history). So I've moved the Terminology paragraph up to just after History of the term. --Red King 17:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, totally agree. It's very important when writing an encyclopedia to get details into a NPOV bliss, so no-one gets upset. There are millions of people who can do this, but it only takes one récidive to upset those millions! MelForbes 02:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  position of terminology paragraph  ''or'' "where angels fear to tread"