Talk:British Isles/Archive 6

message: the "British Isles Council" is deliberately not used in favour of the British-Irish Council
Can the above statement be backed up by a citation. I realise that British-Irish Council is used but was the name British Isles Council even considered. As it is a political organisation it would make sense to name it after the two parties involved as opposed to naming it after a group of islands of which only one island (ireland) contains the participents. josh (talk) 14:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We could support "Council of the British Isles":Ahead of the Good Friday Agreement, the idea of a Council of the British Isles was widely canvassed, and such a council is indeed an important element in the Agreement. However, in deference to nationalist opinion it is called the British-Irish CouncilEricR 15:35, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  British-Irish Council 

message: :'No, British is an ancient word with a complex history, and some of its uses long predate the formation of the UK.'-TharkunColl.
Indeed. And the Swastika is a sacred symbol in Hinduism and Jainism. Harmless, therefore- isn't it? El Gringo 21:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: the man makes a good point --Robdurbar 21:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Harm is in the eye of certain beholders. The swastika article provides a good example of how to deal in a neutral way with such issues. ..dave souza, talk 22:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Meaning of British

message: I have removed the reference to the term "British Isles and Ireland" being used in sport.  The reference given was to a site describing somebody's participation in a yacht race round the archipelago.  The race was however misnamed in this site - it is known as the Round Britain and Ireland Yacht Race, not as the Round British Isles and Ireland Yacht Race.--Stonemad GB 22:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed reference

message: It should just be a history of events that affected the whole archipelago, like the Wars of the Three Kingdoms.  Instead it is full of details that are specific to one or other of the constituent elements.  It needs a good spring clean if we have a historian in the house. --Red King 20:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History section way too long 

message: How can anyone possibly say that most Irish people and people of Irish descent don't use the term? Where's the evidence for this? And why does someone keep removing the bit that says that Irish government departments still use the term (whatever their so-called official policy may be)? These are just POVs from people who can't accept that the term is still used in Ireland. TharkunColl 12:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your lack of knowledge about Ireland never ceases to astound. lol FearÉIREANN\(caint) 15:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No Irish person I've ever spoken to in real life (i.e. not on the Internet) has ever raised the slightest objection to the term. If people want this article to say that most people of Irish descent object to the term, they must provide sources. Has any survey been conducted of all Irish descended people all over the world? If so, all well and good. But I seriously doubt it. TharkunColl 16:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Giving your many claims as to what Irish people's views supposedly are I doubt if you have ever spoken to an Irish person. Your edits show no evidence of even a passing grasp of Irish views.  At this stage your edits are nothing more than vandalism and will be treated as such. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 17:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm only asking for sources, as per Wikipedia policy. And I don't particularly like being called a liar, even by implication. I have spoken to probably hundreds of Irish people over the years. TharkunColl 18:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  'No Irish person I've ever spoken to in real life (i.e. not on the Internet) has ever raised the slightest objection to the 
term.' I'm really certain that you have taken aside the likes of Seán Óg Maidhc Ó Conghaile from Indreabhán and asked him such a question. Yes, bringing up politics in person would be just the sort of thing that a certain type of person would do. 'If people want this article to say that most people of Irish descent object to the term, they must provide sources.' How about if you claim that it is used commonly you provide sources for its common use to include Ireland. By the way, sources from the British crown's government are about as acceptable as an IDF statement on the latest bombing in Lebannon. Try The Irish Times and RTÉ, or just come over here and do  random interviews. El Gringo 20:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have never suggested that the term is used "commonly" in Ireland, and have therefore made no claim that requires verification. I have merely stated that the term is used in Ireland, and to prove this there are numerous references to it on the Irish government's own website. I even placed these in the article, but strangely they were all edited out. On no occasion whatever have I quoted anything from the British government's website. As for people of Irish descent, just try and think for a moment what this actually means. Ireland has had people living in it for thousands of years, and due to well known processes such as migration and genetic dispersal, it is a foregone conclusion that every single one of us has at least some ancestors who lived in Ireland (and anywhere else you care to mention). TharkunColl 23:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  If we're going by anecdotes, I asked some friends about this when I was in Ireland recently, and they said that the term "British Isles" was not frequently used there, "for obvious reasons".  FWIW. Vashti 20:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The anecdotes and proposals for original research are entertaining and may be true, but the threshold for Wikipedia is verifiability and not truth. It's a bold claim that a majority of Irish people and people of Irish descent reject the term, especially considering how many can claim such descent across the world. Rather than add  I'll substitute "many" for "most" until clear verification is provided. ..dave souza, talk 21:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: sensible --Robdurbar 21:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Beat me to it with an equally sensible approach. ..dave souza, talk 21:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, though I have since attempted a couple of tinkers. I have tried to retain the well-sourced content of Jtdirl, but removed some of the generalisations drawn from it that worried Eric R. Hopefully, the content can now tell us about itself, and the reader can draw his own views about its use in Ireland as a whole. I hope my edit summary, then making a couple of edits, arn't viewed as hypocritical... the three should be taken together as a whole, with the first edit summary describign them together Robdurbar 21:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I object...belatedly. Not for the rollback, that's no big deal—but for the sparse feedback; which edits did people have problems with, which did they support? Consensus and preventing edit wars are all well and good, but eventually we'll have to look at where the article conflicts with those pesky policy pages. Is removing article text until it can be supported by sound references the wrong way to proceed?EricR 00:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, unfortunately some good edits to Terminology may have been lost and will have to be reviewed: I've cut the sport bit as per #Removed reference above. The whole section needs to be gone over to make it informative rather than presenting one opinion, but I'm not rushing at it without getting better sources than the rather dodgy ones that have been found so far. A while ago I requested citations from the books that are listed at footnote 26: given questionable inferences being drawn from other sources it will be helpful if someone with access to the books can check what they actually say on the subject. ..dave souza, talk 21:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: One story is rather relevant. As for the article about us here, see Talk:British Isles/Archive 4#This discussion is getting media coverage. ..dave souza, talk 23:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting, if you search for something, then you will surly find it. The world is actually flat, that is if you cite The Flat Earth Society.  I thought that The Guardian used to be called the Manchester Guardian.  Now, is Manchester in England, or is it in Britain. Surely it's in the British Isles somewhere.  But it does not follow that Irish people use the term British Isles.  The Irish Times search seems to lead to a predominance of unionist parties, which don't exist in sovereign Ireland. MelForbes 00:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Such as searching for "British Isles and Ireland"?  ;) Oh, and try reading the story I linked...dave souza, talk 00:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey Dave, can't get your point try reading.  Ye, it says British Isles. So? MelForbes 20:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The relevance is of a term which you tell us is controversial and rarely used in Ireland being used in the obituary of one of Ireland's most successful athletes and the head of one of the largest families in the British Isles, a devout Catholic born in Dungarvan, written by the last of his 13 surviving children who one might surmise is of Irish descent. Which would seem to suggest that Irish people use the term British Isles. When it suits them. ..dave souza, talk 22:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Dave, why did I ask?  Your answer says more about attitudes than the newspaper article says about the British Isles. I have lived in Ireland for the last 11 years and never heard of the person in question.  But please with all due respects to the individual, maybe I should have had. Obituaries are most often over-done, thought that you would have known that. MelForbes 23:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unsourced claim

message: Once again I apologise if this is going over old ground, but would this work?
* Create British Isles naming dispute, along the lines of Sea of Japan naming dispute and Persian Gulf naming dispute. (The latter especially is no shining example of NPOV, but at least the precedent for an article is there.) Move most of the "terminology" section of this article there, leaving a decent summary.
* Start directing readers there in preference to British Isles (terminology) when the issue of the name dispute comes up. The latter page is not ideal for this purpose as it tries to do too many other things, first and foremost of which is to explain to foreigners the difference between England, Scotland, Great Britain, the UK etc. The terminology section of British Isles in fact devotes a lot more space to the dispute than British Isles (terminology).
* Pare Britain and Ireland down to something akin to a disambiguation page, with links to: a) Great Britain and Ireland; b) United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland; c) British Isles with reference to British Isles naming dispute. (Not necessarily in that order.) Give the barest minimum of context as to why the dispute exists, but confine discussion of the term's usage to British Isles naming dispute.
That would, I hope, address the problem of duplicated content while highlighting the dispute and giving adequate space for all POVs to be presented. --Blisco 20:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well? Blisco 17:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed. The explanation here should be concise and to the point, and a "dispute" article would allow expansion of the evidence. It would not lessen the need for close examination and improvement of the evidence regarding the dispute. This point is also being discussed at Talk:British Isles (terminology)#Discussion. Some there seem to be suggesting that that article could be renamed British Isles naming dispute, but as discussed above that article has a valuable role in explaining the various meanings associated with names for the islands, and would be improved by having only a brief summary about the dispute. ..dave souza, talk 19:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Idea

message: "'British Isles' has also been used either not to include the island of Ireland at all in the definition, or else to include just Northern Ireland.". How could the latter possibly be the case, since Northern Ireland is clearly on the same Isle as Southern Ireland? Do we have examples? DJ Clayworth 17:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Partial inclusion of Ireland?

message: You may have noticed that user BjF has nominated this page as an FAC.  His or her contribution  history is here  and seems to consist of nominations for FACs only.  While assuming good faith, administrators among you might like to have a look at this before effort is expended on discussing it.  MAG1 20:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: FAC nomination

message: Well, i didn't think i needed to do this (when have we ever had a lack of comments), but i've made a major change to the Islands of the North Atlantic article. Please comment on the talk page.EricR 17:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What on earth have you done to the IONA article? IONA is a geographical concept that refers to the archipelago in which Ireland, Great Britain, the Isle of Man etc are constituents. It is not a synonym for the British-Irish Council just as British Isles isn't a synonym for the British-Irish Council. You have made a mess of the article. Iolar Iontach 08:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Citations evidently needed. ..dave souza, talk 10:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: A loose linkage of the UK, ROI, IOM and Channel Islands similar to the British-Irish Council is what the available sources have to say about the acronym. Please comment on those sources or in the alternative, find some others.EricR 14:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[IONA]] (mini-)RFC 

message: The introduction has been amended slightly to add "internationally": The term is objected to by many, especially in Ireland, because of the common confusion internationally between the islands themselves and the British state. I don't understand why the word has been added. Is the confusion international only? And is it between the islands and the UK or what? And common doesn't help either - are more people confused than not? Perhaps a rewording is in order: The term is objected to by many, especially in Ireland, because some people assume it means all the islands are part of the British state. Bazza 13:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you look at the history, it's already been that at least once ... that sentence has gone through a lot of revisions.  The problem with "some people think" is that we immediately hit weasel wording and need to source the claim that some people think that or mention some people who think it.  Woez. Vashti 14:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Same applies to the current wording. Try, then, because it can be wrongly taken to mean that all the islands are part of the British state. Bazza 15:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: So presumably, if the putative international confusion (such as it is) could be cleared up, then you would have no objection to the term British Isles? That certainly seems to be what you're saying, anyway. It's a good job we've got Wikipedia then, so as to be able to educate people. It's a pity, therefore, that the article has been overburdened with objections from a vocal and politicised minority. This is surely only adding to the confusion. TharkunColl 19:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro para 1 "internationally" 

message: I followed some of the links of websites that claim 'British Isles' is used synonymously with the UK. The Utah British Isles Association, which our articles says does this, clearly says it is for people with a heritage from 'United Kingdom and Ireland'. (Admittedly it does refer to those people as having 'British Heritage', which I guess is a simple mistake - I can see them saying 'if you come from the British Isles you must have British heritage'. I wonder if they have any Irish people in their organisation?).
britannia.com does seem to get it wrong, but frankly only once in their header. 
I think really the case isn't that 'some people use the term this way', it's that there is a lot of confusion and many people get it wrong. DJ Clayworth 21:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While it wouldn't be considered PC, if you're Irish then you do actually have British heritage. It doesn't necessarily follow though, that all Irish people are British citizens of course. --Mal 15:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

text: "While it wouldn't be considered PC, if you're Irish then you do actually have British heritage" according to Mal. Is Mal suggesting that having your land stolen and you discriminated against in the Penal Laws, denied the right to vote, denied the right to own property based on one's religion, being brutalised by Cromwell and his invading army, prevented from sitting in parliament, required to pay tithes to Britain's established church, and being left to die because of ignorant British government policies during the Famine, is "British heritage". If it is then Irish people have it. But it is not a heritage worth having, and one Britain should be ashamed of. Not every aspect of British involvement in Ireland is negative. And I have no problem celebrating the positive aspects. Unfortunately Mal's community is still struggling to acknowledge the many negative ones. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 16:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 
Yes, we did have much of that happen to us. So did many other ethnic groups and nations.. and not just by the English.
That's nothing to do with what I had suggested though.
Also Jtdirl - my name is Mal - not Mel. And please leave your perceptions of my "community" out of this thank you: you don't haave the first clue as to how I think. Frankly I'm getting tired of your preconceptions.
I draw your attention, yet again, to WP:NPA --Mal 18:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Mal, please, say something that makes a bit of sense, otherwise you might get Mel a bad name. Also for one who can offend, you sure get offended easily! MelForbes 20:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If he got offended as eaily as some of the Irish nationalists here, I think he would be editing the Republic of Ireland and Ireland articles putting a big box at the top claiming "The term "Ireland" to refer to The Republic of Ireland can be confusing and is objectionable to some people, particularly in Northern Ireland. See the Terminology section below for details of the controversy." He could also add to the opening paragraph The term is objected to by many, especially in Northern Ireland, because of the common but erroneous assumption that as the Northern Ireland is part of the island known as the Ireland, it is also part of the Irish state.[1] :P What do you think Mal- not a bad idea?! Jonto 20:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WOW Jonto, that's exactly the way it should be.  Why should the sovereign state of Ireland not be called by it's proper legal name.  Now is that a bit of British povishness entering the article?MelForbes 20:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You fail to detect someone being tongue in cheek, even indicated by the ":P". The fact that "Ireland" IS the legal name says a lot. I think all the British people here should start to petition the government to rename the UKoGBaNI "The British Isles", since nine words are obviously too much for a country! Jonto 21:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

text: It also doesn't matter whether "British Isles" is incorrectly being used as a synonym for the UK or not. The term "British" is as ambiguous as "Irish" and can mean "of the British Isles" as well as "of the United Kingdom" and "of Great Britain", and therefore "British Heritage" certainly is correct in the first context. Believe it or not, there IS today (you hear that jtdirl - TODAY - I could go on and list many of the past atrocities carried out in name of the "Irish", but will not go there) a common shared heritage covering the entire British Isles. There are also may differences within the BIs, but that does not deny the fact that there are definite commonalities. Jonto 17:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 
Mel will you please pay attention to WP:NPA, and stop making stupid, insulting and sarcastic comments about me. Thank you. --Mal 04:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

text: 
OK then Mal - I'll take it as merely a joke then! :P --Mal 02:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Use outside UK and Ireland

message: TharkunColl has been adding in questionable edits again. Among the errors are
* "evidence" of "Irish government usage" that actually isn't from the government at all (it is from an Opposition politician from a University, Trinity College, that stands almost alone in its usage of the term);
* "Government usage" in the Dáil that actually is usage in the Senate by a junior senator, who was surrounded by people, such as the Minister of State for the Office of Public Works, Martin Cullen, not using "British Isles" but instead "Great Britain and Ireland";
* links that went to PDS documents that users had to download and open. Such documents are not used in footnoting because they are not easily accessible and so not verifiable and because they can cause some users when they hit to link to have their computers crashed. Though going by the errors in the other footnotes Thar added in, they probably were all wrong anyway. 
I've deleted the whole bunch. They are evidence of nothing but a bad edit and misleading footnotes. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 15:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed as OR and per Jtdirl's first bullet point above. Síle de Valera's speech to the art's festival should go also. Hmm, the link to her speech on the Department of Arts, Sport & Tourism website seems to be dead.EricR 17:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not OR - these are sources. If PDS documents are no good, then what about citations from obscure academic papers? They are even less accessible. TharkunColl 17:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do y'all mean the PDF documents? The only part of Jtdirl's comment i agreed with was his first bullet point. Please see: WP:RS#Some definitions for the guideline on which sources are appropritate for Wikipedia,EricR 17:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Hear, hear. There appears to be a current of opinion on this page that if some dodgy website were to use "Uruguay" as a name for the British Isles, this would make it valid to include it as an alternative name, citing the dodgy website in support.  This is completely wrong.  Content must be verifiable, and dodgy websites are not reputable sources.--Stonemad GB 18:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removing dodgy edits

message: The intro now includes the allegation that "The term is objected by many people in Ireland, because of the term's association with British imperialism." Is there a reliable source for this assertion? ..dave souza, talk 12:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How many times has this sentence been altered? I realize we all dislike footnotes in the lead, but hopefully a citation will provide a bit of inertia. Please change to better wording, but let's try for awhile backing that initial objection with a reference.EricR 14:48, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The empire strikes back?

message: If all the Irish PoVers here really despise the label "British" so much (which geographically you ARE), then I suggest that you abandon every single piece of influence that exists in the Republic of Ireland from the rest of the British Isles. 
For a start, one thing that definitely is a common influence across the archipeligo is that virtually everyone speaks British English.
If you don't like the STANDARD ENGLISH geographical terminology for the archipeligo, then I suggest that you all stop speaking the ENGLISH language at once. I suggest you should post your alternative terminology in the Irish Gaelic Wikipedia instead. :P Jonto 17:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bejasus, that's threw. I only write English, as speaking the language would befoul my mouth. On a wider point, I'm pretty sure WP will be standardised in to American spelling.--Shtove 20:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Maybe this is a good time to remind everybody that this is supposed to be a page to discuss the writing of an encyclopedia article, not the Anglo-Irish War Part II ;) Rhion 19:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed. This discussion stops here, lest we descend into racism and I brin out my warning templates. HawkerTyphoon 22:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree.  The last two sections on this talk page have convinced me to avoid this page in future.  It has demonstrated all the worst features of Wikipedia: petty nationalism (on both sides), personal rivalries, off-topic rants, arguments that are never resolved but repeated every month, inability to compromise or see the other person's point of view etc.  A lot of intelligent people are wasting a lot of time that would be better spent on LIVING... Ciao.--Stonemad GB 22:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Stone is correct. However as the issue of English usage on the archipelago was raised, it needs correction. "Virtually everyone in the archipelago speakings British English " is wrong. English people, particularly in the south of the country, speak what is known as English English which is different in idiomatic structure to British English. Irish people use Hiberno-English. Welsh people speak a version of Welsh English that is closer to Hiberno-English than British English. In the north-east of England people speak another variant on English that is also closer to Hiberno-English than classic British English. (HE uses some of the linguistic structure inherited from Old English and Elizabethan English. The same is also true of Yorkshire English.) Scottish English (sometimes called Scots English) is also different to what is known as British English. And English speakers internationally do not use British English they use International English. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 01:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is the English Wikipedia 

message: Er, is it just me or does this section seem a little odd?  I'd expect a section like this to start off with (higher) mammals and the like rather than marine algae.  Is someone adding to this section?  Does it need to be cleaned up, or be removed, or be split off to a 'Biology of the British Isles' article? Bastun 10:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biology section