Talk:British Isles/Archive 12

message: This is a talk page for the British Isles article. When using this page please remember Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. In particular, 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. 
This was originally included by Robdurbar 12:23, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Note to all users

message: I have moved the naming discussion to talk:British Isles/name debate so that this page can be used for other dicussions rather than being swamped by just one. This in no way is meant to diminish the name debate or to assume that all parties are satisfied or indeed to suggest that the debate is or should be at an end. Abtract 00:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: move name debate

message: I have just noticed that this is absolutely identical to the British Isles in extent. So much for the lack of any sort of political ties between the islands! And there's also the British-Irish Council. TharkunColl 08:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See the section in this article. --sony-youthpléigh 09:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Apologies 8642149120 - I thought you were calling me a troll so I ignored you; but you were referring to Squeak obviously. Last night, in the hours before dawn (over Ireland and Britain) Squawk crossed the line from troll and   Agent provocateur to outright vandal. I think stern measures are called gor. (Sarah777 10:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Lol, Squeaktroll? Please see Wikipedia:Avoid the word "vandal" and also assumeing good faith. To call me a vandal isnt exactly an argument and my removal of POV cannot be classified as vandalism. Please, SqueakBox 01:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Common Travel Area]]

message: Sony and W. Frank; bold indeed! Am somewhat surprised ye haven't been zapped already! (Sarah777 23:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Shhhhhhh...W. Frank ✉ 12:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: W.Frank, I consider that comment and your edit summary a breach of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Please refrain from this in future.--Vintagekits 12:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Calm. If we can't laugh at ourselves, somebody else will. --sony-youthpléigh 13:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  What comment is in breach of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA???! I am obviously missing something. How can "Shhhhhhh...." be so described? (Sarah777 23:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Boldness

message: This section is clearly to do with the name of the article, and so can now be found on The name debate talk page. Waggers 10:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A Better Name, A Better Article

message: :No, it is clearly about improving the article - as I stated. Please refrain from confusing your POV with FACT. (Sarah777 12:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sarah, are you now arguing with youself? :)) --sony-youthpléigh 13:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Improving the Article

message: I would like to know what other contributors to this page think of the failed attempt to push POV on this article through the creation of another article, which was then attempted to be merged here. Should sanctions be brought against the editor responsible? 
I personally am appalled with the disruption caused. I had prepared a RfC on the responsible editor before, due to her behavior on the Ireland and Republic of Ireland pages, but had dropped it there. Her arrival here was something I saw with dread. --sony-youthpléigh 20:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I hate to say it as Sarah777 is a good editor on many topics, just nothing political. In these articles Sarah777 has on many occasions said practically flat out that she'd ignore policies and consensus and this seems to be happening again (though she hasn't said that of late to my knowledge). The disruption she has caused to this article, the absolute refusal to go with consensus, the refusal to provide any of the requested references for her claims and disruption such as this latest scheme go against the project as a whole. As I said she does provide much value editing on roads and towns in Ireland, but once anything political comes up her colours are worn (proudly) on her sleeve. I think that on these matters her POV and Irish Nationalism does more harm than good. Yes it's good to see views from all parts of the political spectrum, but we need reasonable editors who are open to persuasion and civil discussion. Editors who when they make a claim can back it up, remember verifiability is necessary for everything. I think maybe an RfC should be opened or we may unfortunately have more disruption in the future, much as it pains me to say it. Ben W Bell talk 20:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see Sarah's an excellent editor when it comes to Irish geography pages. On this page she's causing disruption for her own political reasons (not just this time - there've been frequent personal attacks and outbursts of anger). I'm sorry, I do think it's a case for RfC.--Lo2u (T • C) 20:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Comment: Disruption caused by (juvenile) attempt to push POV through creaton of alternate page hoping it would have to be merged? 

message: As an outsider looking in... Everyone here needs to take a few days break from this article/issue. In reality it's a non-issue and not worth the hassle it's stirring up. Take a break and look at it again with a fresh mind. /wangi 20:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Take a break

message: There is a merger process. Please do NOT breach it. I have reverted the redirect as vandalism; further vandalism will be reverted as the 3RR does not apply, obviously. Until we get a range of opinion representative of the history of this issue the new article stays. It is a compromise solution to a serious problem. The policy is clear:
"After proposing the merger, place your reasons on the talk page. You may be able to invoke a response by contacting some of the major or most-recent contributors via their respective talk-pages. If there is clear agreement with the proposal by consensus (at least 5 days) or silence (at least 10 days), proceed with the merger." (Sarah777 20:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In answer to the "allegations" against me above. I set up the merger process, I then changed it to an AfD process as is mroe correct for a deliberate POV Fork. The AfD was carried out, all I did was set it up. It was decided to end it under WP:SNOW, I had nothing to do with that decision. It was redirected as a result of the AfD, again I had nothing to do with that. So accusing me of deleting an article deliberately is accusing me of something I did not do, procedure was followed and if you cannot accept that then I can't help that. All that being said I do agree that the AfD was probably closed somewhat prematurely and have no problem with it going to WP:DRV. As for the last paragraph of Sarah777's comments above, the article was done under AfD, you cannot decide to ignore that and recreate it elsewhere, that is pure contempt for the project. The recreated page will be redirected as yet another POV Fork and set back to how the article was as per the results of the AfD. Don't like the AfD go through channels, don't set off to re-do the damage yet again. Incidentally the recreation of the article under the name Britain and Ireland isn't the same as British Isles yet the article made it out to be, Britain and Ireland are simply two islands. Also ever instance of "Britain an Ireland" on net searches don't mean the same thing as "British Isles", often they simply mean Great Britain and Ireland or the two governments of the UK an Ireland so even number searches on that term aren't an indicator of its use as it isn't a name or phrase the same was as British Isles. Ben W Bell talk 06:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

text: It just doesn't make sense. Even if by British Isles you are claiming to mean British Islands (note that it already has its own term, as a legal construct), then you are still not comparing like with like. "British Isles [sic - read British Islands] and Ireland" excludes a whole load of islands that are not in the UK but are also not part of the island of Ireland. TharkunColl 23:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not familiar with WP rules in this regard, but there is a framework for questioned deletions. Page Wikipedia:Deletion review might help out here. <FONT FACE="Monotype Corsiva" SIZE="4"><FONT COLOR=" #0066FF">Gold♣heart</FONT></FONT> 23:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

text: WP:DRV, deletion review, SqueakBox 23:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

text: WP:DRV is for articles deleted after due process, with a variety of opinions (even if one is in a minority) - it is not meant for deletions that are illegitimate and thus constitute vandalism. (Sarah777 23:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are wrong, DRV is exactly for what are considered to be out of process deletions. Vandals cant delete pages only admins can, SqueakBox 23:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, but this page was blanked and redirected. Any vandal can do that. (Sarah777 23:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What happened to that break you were going to take, Sarah? Waggers 08:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Breach of Due Process by Several Editors

message: I will leave it there now that a link has been provided but it does not translate to the "British Isles". Kind of makes the article look a bit strange to us (basic) Irish speakers is all.--Play Brian Moore 13:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oileáin Iarthair Eorpa 

message: I have removed this warning as being unecessary (imho) in light of the notice that already does the job more politely. Abtract 10:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The current notice doesn't mention at all that the talk page is only for discussing improvements to the article and not for general discussion.  In fact, it rather implies the opposite.  What's impolite about the  notice?  If you can think of better wording, I advise suggesting it at Template talk:off topic warning. Waggers 10:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Apologies, I didn't look closely I thought you were simply putting back the previous not a forum tag which I thought was a tad harsh in its wording. However I still think this offtopic tag is unecessary ... too many similar notices and warnings at the start reduce their impact. I humbly suggest that you leave it for another editor (many watch this page as you know) to add the warning back in if they think it useful and I will go along with that. Abtract 10:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about a compromise, and we add some of the wording from  into the existing header?  I think something along those lines is definitely needed on this page, and as you'll see from the earlier discussions above, there are already other editors who concur. Waggers 10:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And Waggers, you wished for smilies. Be careful of what you wish for!  ;)  Gold♥ 11:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I saw that you got warned as a result of fulfilling my wish - sorry about that! Waggers 11:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for adding the smiley, Sarah! Waggers 07:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem Wag. I'd do the same for anyone! (Sarah777 17:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

text: This new topic is very off-putting for any editor who wants to chip in their view as to how the page should go forward, and I concur with Abtract's approach. Waggers, if you don't mind me pointing out something to you. Out of the last 2000 edits on the British Isles page, only 5 were yours. Out of the last 1000 edits on the Talk:British Isles page, 60 were yours. There are some very knowledgeable editors on this page, and we must take countenance of that fact.  Gold♥ 19:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure of the relevance of those stats.  Edit count does not equate to knowledge in any way, shape or form; the reason I don't keep changing the BI article is because it's pretty good as it stands. Waggers 10:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's not. The reason I don't keep changing it is because British editors who are happy with its pov-ridden British slant would just keep changing it back. (Sarah777 20:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: off topic

message: A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of Sarah777. The discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sarah777, where you may want to participate. --sony-youthpléigh 09:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFC/USER discussion concerning Sarah777 

message: Just reading some of the main pages on some of the topics on this page.  The page on "Geology of the British Isles" doesn´t seem to be any such thing.  It seems to be the Geology of Great Britain but with a different name on the page.  Any thoughts?  81.32.183.150 23:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ... and specifically the geology of England, featuring the geology of Scotland and Wales. Of the 10 references to Ireland, seven were in the phrase "Britain and Ireland", two were in passing and slightly bewildering ("Coal can be found in many areas of Britain and Ireland ... and in Ireland ...", "[There are] deposits of peat in Ireland ..."), only one aspires to any treatment of the subject ("... a complex mixture of rocks forming ... Connemara, Donegal and Mayo mountains of Ireland ..."). Doesn't surprise me. I'm not sure if its because Irish editors naturally stay away from anything to do with that phrase (whether deliberately or simply because they see it as irrelevant), or whether British editors naturally away from anything to do with Ireland (whether deliberately or simply because they see it as irrelevant). History of the British Isles (a woeful page) features much of the same thing. --sony-youthpléigh 00:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geology 

message: I think now that Sony has conceded that "British Isles" is a vague label he might just take the short step to conceding that it doesn't include Ireland in the legal or colloquial sense. Progress at last? 
"I don't think that neglect on the part of some authors is enough to say that they are "sometime in, sometimes out")" - Disagree. Definitely a case of "sometimes out " I think! (Sarah777 09:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly when did I "concede" any such thing? Please re-read my posts above. --sony-youthpléigh 09:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Sarah, please talk about the article and contributions, not contributors.  We're not here to discuss Sony's point of view, nor to persuade him to change it. Waggers 09:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's right. We are here to discuss Sarah :) --sony-youthpléigh 10:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks to your tireless efforts I am getting used to being discussed ♥!(Sarah777 11:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Only happy to help. Anyway, what was it Oscar said? --sony-youthpléigh 11:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Madison or Wilde? (Sarah777 11:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Apologies Sony, it was 86.142.252.219. So, no progress then. Waggers, I was really talking to Sony rather than about him. I will be more careful with my syntax in future. Regards (Sarah777 09:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a relief Waggers. I also was beginning to feel like Wikipedia exists to rebut Sarah777. I'm glad to discover there is more to it. Also, Sarah, do you ever take a rest from your keyboard? I'm asking on a friendly basis. :-) MarkThomas 18:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Vague Label

message: With great regret (because it's a pain in the a** to prepare) I've created an RFC on user MarkThomas.  Since part of the history has been here, it seems reasonable to notify it here.   Hughsheehy 14:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFC on User MarkThomas 

message: Last night a new user posted a message here registering their objection to the term "British Isles." We all know that the term is considered obnoxious in Ireland and so it should have come as no surprise to anyone. The appropriate response from British editors would have been to feign an apology, say that they are aware of the offense that the term causes, but explain that we are bound by the rules of Wikipedia to call it such. The incorrect response would have been "Nah, nah, nah-nah-nah!" Unfortunately, the latter appears to have been how the message was handled.
I'd ask that British editors please hold back from responding to posts in this way. We all know where they lead. --sony-youthpléigh 09:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A small request 

message: I see that since I looked last, the article has acquired a sensible disambiguation intro, drawing attention to the political definition "British Islands", leaving this article to concentrate on the geography and geology of the archepelago.  All very sensible.  But I see that the Channel Islands are still included in the infobox, although they are clearly not part of the archepelago. Geographically and geologically, they are part of the landmass that is now France.  Emphatically, they are British Islands, but they are not part of the British Isles in its apolitical meaning.  I hate to have stir this up again, but we have to be consistent.  [The article should have a short para explaining their status, but they should not be in the info box]. Is there a broad consensus for this view? --Red King 22:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree Red. Clearly not part of the British Isles in any geographical sense; and Ireland is included on the basis that the offensive (to many Irish people) term "British Isles" is purely geographical and has no other meaning. So, on the grounds of consistency, the Channel Islands lying just off the French coast cannot be considered part of any geographical "British Isles". To argue for the inclusion of both Ireland AND the Channel Isles is obviously pure POV, which has no place in Wiki. (Sarah777 00:45, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or perhaps the map showing the location of the "British Isles" could be updated to include the Channel Isles and it would be obvious that the "standard" definition of "British Isles" is political and not geographic.  Does anyone have an SVG editor that could do the job?  Hughsheehy 11:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's possible to class the British Isles purely as a political or geographical entity.  The inclusion of Ireland is probably based on geography, not politics; the inclusion of the Channel Islands is probably based on politics, not geography.  Nevertheless, the fact remains that many (and, probably, the majority of) sources include both in their definition.  Since Wikipedia is built upon "verifiability not truth", that means our definition includes both too.  It's not a geographical definition, it's not a political definition, it's a verifiable definition - and as far as Wikipedia is concerned, that's all that matters. Waggers 15:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes - between some sections wanting Ireland (or at least the greater part thereof) out, and other's wanting the poor Channel Islands out, we are in danger of inventing a Wikism consisting solely of the United Kingdom, Isle of Man and Sealand. Sorry, Hugh, I said that I would do that for you - what can I say ... Summer? --sony-youthpléigh 21:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I dunno. I'd have thought the fact that the Irish Government has caused the deletion of any reference to Ireland being a "British Isle" in school books is "verification" that the term doesn't apply to Ireland. (Sarah777 22:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

text: High, I updated the image. It was a PNG though, so I did a "highlight" job rather than a "circle" job. Does it look okay? --sony-youthpléigh 09:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's vague.  Doesn't line up with your oft expressed view that there's nothing vague about the definitions of what's in and what's not in the definition.  A version with a line would be far preferable.  Hughsheehy 14:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Damn you, Hugh! Circles are a pain in the ass to draw in GIMP/Photoshop - but for you ... How do you suggest - a "blow out" zoomin in (otherwise IoM and CI area always going to be hard to see.) A circle is tough too because it is going to cut into northern Frace to take in the CI. --sony-youthpléigh 15:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was looking for an svg version, but didn't.  Find me a svg version of the image and i'll have a go with inkscape. Part of the reason a line is needed/important is that it is NOT a neat circle or oval.  Hughsheehy 15:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Channel Islands again again! 

message: So, can we take it now that the term "British Isles" is not controversial anymore? The politically motivated British- and make no mistake that they are all on the right wing- have, since my last visit, removed the 'controversial' warning from the first paragraph of this article, as well as all notices concerning disputed edits. They have also, amazingly, removed all dissent from this Talk page to another page away from this article. Is this a British wikipedian's version of other British "keeping the peace" policies which removed us "troublesome" Irish from our land and away up to the barren mountains? The British reaction to Irish rejection is the same; the arena is merely different. Táimid ann agus beimid ann go deo.  86.42.100.202 18:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear user, the "controversial" nature is still mentioned in the opening paragraph and has been for as long as I can see. There is also the tag at the top of this page. Please refrain from making personal, or even racist attacks on other users, and remember to keep a cool head. Inflammatory discussion will not help to improve this article, and this is not the arena for political debate. -Toon05 19:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Not controversial anymore?

message: It seems Irish editors at Wikipedia, have issue with the term British Isles. I wunder if British Isles here should be descibed in past-tense? Just curious. GoodDay 20:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As in, "The British Isles were a group of islands off north-west Europe, but no longer exist..." TharkunColl 08:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, as in they didn't exist until 1600 either, right?  "The British Isles became a group of islands off north-west Europe in approximately 1600, but no longer exist." Hughsheehy 08:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And don't forget they existed in Greek and Latin terms from the beginning of history to at least he second century, and of course still exist everywhere except most of Ireland. Where people ken fine what the term means, but regard it as a thought crime. For an encore, imagine there's no country....  dave souza, talk 09:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, we should rename them the "Reappearing-Disappearing Islands".  Meantime, Thark is on the Lough Neagh page  saying that the term "British" and possibly also "British Isles" should not be applied to anything English because "British" is a Celtic term and he wants nothing to do with such things.  Oh yes, it's silly season.  Hughsheehy 09:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On that thought, Dave, when an edit is made to the geography section concerning the many geysers in the British Isles (though mainly located on Thule), I'll be happy that Lough Neagh is in the largest island in the British Isles - being on Hibernia, an island west of Albion. --sony-youthpléigh 11:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait a sec, Tharky is saying no to the term British concerning England? Slam on the brakes, that not gonna wash with me. GoodDay 12:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: British Isles is... or ''was''...

message: Let us scrap the contentious terms British, Britain, and all their derivatives - which were, after all, imposed on us by the Romans - and return to the original native name for the island - Albion. I would also like to invite the Irish to support this move as Albion never, ever, under any circumstances ever included Ireland, or any part of it, in its meaning. TharkunColl 13:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, AGF just went out the window on me. Whoosh.  I don't know if there's a policy on Wasting People's Time (WP:WPT?) but it applies to all the recent junk here, on Ireland, and on Lough Neagh.  Thark is trolling.  Rather lame trolling, but trolling nonetheless.  Hughsheehy 13:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually know people who would be completely earnest about such a proposal - the Neopagans. TharkunColl 13:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thumbs down on this proposal. It's too extreme for me. GoodDay 15:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You know that Pete Doherty of Babyshambles, occasional boyfriend of Kate Moss has a rather interesting song called Albion? (Sarah777 20:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I hadn't heard of that song, but it's true that the term is often used in Britain for a romanticised image of a pre-industrialised golden age. Also, for some reason, by quite a lot of football teams as part of their name, both in England and Scotland. And the Church of Scotland recently tried to replace the word "England" with "Albion" in the hymn Jerusalem. TharkunColl 07:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I had always understood that "Albion" meant "Union", and that's why it crops up in the names of football (and other sports) clubs (as an equivalent/alternative to "United"). Waggers 09:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There has long been a phrase in Ireland "perfidious Albion" which is taken to refer to "England" (for some reason that I can't understand) - my main source on this, the song Albion lists numerous English places in the lyric. (Sarah777 09:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Perfidious Albion" comes from French originally, I believe. The actual meaning of Albion is related to the word albus, meaning "white", and is believed to refer to the White Cliffs of Dover, the only part of Britain visible from the Continent, and therefore symbolising the whole island. (The article Albion gives a number of other theories as well.) It's proper meaning is the whole island, but it has often been used to refer to just England, and also just Scotland (in the forms Albany and, in Gaelic, Alba). TharkunColl 10:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

text: "Let us scrap..." - stop right there.  Since when did "we" have any such authority?  This is an encyclopaedia - "a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge."  It's not for us to decide what to "scrap" and what not to "scrap", our role is merely to record.  If suddenly everyone in the world were to agree that any word starting in "Brit" should no longer be used and that was documented in a reliable source then we would record that.  But we do not decide that - Wikipedia does not have an opinion.  Please get that into your head and stop trolling. Waggers 07:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool it Waggers! I think he is trolling-to-make-a-point. (Albeit a silly point ). (Sarah777 08:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're absolutely right of course, I shouldn't feed the trolls.  It's just so tempting!! Waggers 09:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Albion]]