Talk:British Isles/Archive 4

message: By the way, what's with "for the group of islands, or islands, or an archipelago," - all these terms mean the same thing, why on earth do we need to include the same information three times?  This is incredibly awkward. john k 00:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Awkward 

message: I'm afraid I have to take issue with this. Official RoI government documents and minutes do use the term.
*An official Dáil debate
*Shannon flooding interim report stating it is the longest river in the British Isles
*Official report which mentions how Ireland suffered when foot and mouth hit the British Isles
*Official report which discusses the redevelopment of the Central Mental Hospital in Dundrum, one of the oldest services of that nature in the British Isles
*Discusses a virgin train line in County Westmeath as probably the longest in the British Isles
*A minister is asking for easier access to birth certificates which "is the norm throughout the rest of the British Isles inlcuding Northern Ireland"
*Discusses Leopardstown racetrack and how it compares favourably with any other track in the British Isles
*Discusses freedom of movement from Eastern Europe to the British Isles
All these are official reports and minutes from both the Dáil and the Seanad. Ben W Bell talk 18:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Official Documents Never Use The Term 

message: Jtdirl, would you please provide some refs and explanations for your recent RV and additions, namely:
*"...largely coterminus with the former..." do you intend coterminous as in the regions had the same boundaries, or coterminous as in the terms were synonymous?
*"...part or all of Ireland" how can an archipelago contain part of an island?
*A number of editors have raised issues with the Lloyd George footnote, would you please address those concerns?
*could you provide a ref for "...widely disputed in Ireland and elsewhere"?
*could you provide a ref for the claim that British Islands was intended to replace British Isles when refering to the archipelago?
Thanks, EricR 00:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: dave souza, please don't misquote me, please read again.  I said the words "British Isles", not Britannica or Britain.  It shouldn't be classed as one as there are 3 nations on it namely, Wales, Scotland and England, and it's quite a large island too, it's more a land mass than an island.  When you start misquoting me over over my very clear and simple input, then I really do wonder about your other edits! And BTW, if the Channel Islands are part of the British Isles as you state, then it is quite clear that the term "British Isles" is a political term. Get your atlas and have a look! MelForbes 10:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Clarification, you detested the British Isles, then went on about things British. Fair enough. Note that it's not me stating that the Channel Islands are part of the group, but the Guardian and BBC definitions that others had already misrepresented (unless there's a secret policy I've not found). Trust you'll restrict your viewing to commercial channels to avoid upset. ..dave souza, talk 10:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Isn't the centre of Britain more likely to be Cumbria or thereabouts? London seems a bit far south to me. That being the case, I have no problem in terms of comfort level, with Cumbria being the centre of Britain - short of millions of megatons of explosive power, I think there's probably very little I could do about it if I were uncomfortable with it. --Mal 09:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

text: What do you mean by Britain? Be factually correct as you wish others to be — the island you refer to above (Scotland, England and Wales) is Great Britain, which is just one component of the British Isles. And what exactly is the difference between a land mass and an island? --Bazza 12:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Technically America is an island for it is sorrounded by sea, but all those thousands of islands off the coast of Canada are not called the American Isles! MelForbes 13:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Shows how easy it is to trip over these terms! MelForbes, I apologise for misunderstanding your post and am glad that you have no problems with the name Britain. All these labels are indeed political, and also to a greater or lesser extent geographical. Whether caveats in every sentence give undue weight to dispute about their suitability is the question in hand. ..dave souza, talk 12:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would recommend avoiding the term Britain on its own. British Isles (terminology) lists two meanings for it, which means it is ambiguous unless qualified each time it is used. --Bazza 12:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some needed refs 

message: Martin, in a nutshell there are two viewpoints. One, expressed strongly by Jtdirl/FearÉIREANN, is that, increasingly, everyone tries to avoid using the term, and that almost every sentence in the intro should deprecate the term or emphasise that it offends millions of people. The other, which is my view, is that such controversy clearly exists in the Republic of Ireland and possibly to a lesser extent elsewhere, that as JFE says it has become "politically incorrect" in some diplomatic and academic circles, but that the term is still much more widely used with no intent to "oppress" anyone and the introduction should start with a one sentence paragraph giving this common definition without caveat before going on to describe the controversy. Both are agreed that the term has no synonym in widespread use. No doubt others hold variations on these themes.
JFE has given an interesting account of proper professional sourcing. I was intrigued by the statement that "The BBC and the Guardian both ask that "British Isles" not be used, or in the latter case, that "British Isles and Ireland" be used if at all possible", since this went against the Guardian article from 2001 cited previously. It states that when "the Guardian style guide has no entry, which is the case here" they turn to a definition in Collins dictionary: "A group of islands in W Europe [in Europe, please note, not quite near to Europe], consisting of Great Britain, Ireland, the Isle of Man, Orkney, the Shetland Islands, the Channel Islands belonging to Great Britain, and the islands adjacent to these." I wondered if the style guide might now have an entry, but that seems not to be the case. Indeed, several        more recent examples using the term quite freely turned up in a quick search. Perhaps JFE was going on hearsay, but seems to be in error here. The BBC News style guide which is available as a pdf makes the interesting statement that "The British Isles is not a political entity. It is a geographical unit, the archipelago off the west coast of continental Europe covering Scotland, Wales, England, Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands." The recent TV series by Alan Titchmarsh: British Isles: A Natural History, is currently widely available in book form under the same title. Which just goes to show the importance of reliable sources and not the fascinating anecdotes which I am sure JFE has come across as being entirely convincing in his usual company. 
By the way, MelForbes, sorry to hear of your detestation of the term "British", shame that you won't enjoy the tales of Para Handy, "Chust wan of Brutain's hardy sons". ...dave souza, talk 07:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: dave souza, please don't misquote me, please read again.  I said the words "British Isles", not Britannica or Britain.  It shouldn't be classed as one as there are 3 nations on it namely, Wales, Scotland and England, and it's quite a large island too, it's more a land mass than an island.  When you start misquoting me over over my very clear and simple input, then I really do wonder about your other edits! And BTW, if the Channel Islands are part of the British Isles as you state, then it is quite clear that the term "British Isles" is a political term. Get your atlas and have a look! MelForbes 10:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Clarification, you detested the British Isles, then went on about things British. Fair enough. Note that it's not me stating that the Channel Islands are part of the group, but the Guardian and BBC definitions that others had already misrepresented (unless there's a secret policy I've not found). Trust you'll restrict your viewing to commercial channels to avoid upset. ..dave souza, talk 10:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Isn't the centre of Britain more likely to be Cumbria or thereabouts? London seems a bit far south to me. That being the case, I have no problem in terms of comfort level, with Cumbria being the centre of Britain - short of millions of megatons of explosive power, I think there's probably very little I could do about it if I were uncomfortable with it. --Mal 09:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

text: What do you mean by Britain? Be factually correct as you wish others to be — the island you refer to above (Scotland, England and Wales) is Great Britain, which is just one component of the British Isles. And what exactly is the difference between a land mass and an island? --Bazza 12:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Technically America is an island for it is sorrounded by sea, but all those thousands of islands off the coast of Canada are not called the American Isles! MelForbes 13:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Shows how easy it is to trip over these terms! MelForbes, I apologise for misunderstanding your post and am glad that you have no problems with the name Britain. All these labels are indeed political, and also to a greater or lesser extent geographical. Whether caveats in every sentence give undue weight to dispute about their suitability is the question in hand. ..dave souza, talk 12:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would recommend avoiding the term Britain on its own. British Isles (terminology) lists two meanings for it, which means it is ambiguous unless qualified each time it is used. --Bazza 12:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Two viewpoints

message: Just to see if a better balance can be struck, I've tried incorporating the naming question at the outset in a less contentious manner. Here's a proposed first paragraph of the intro:
:The large archipelago off the northwest coast of continental Europe most commonly known as the British Isles, and also termed the Islands of the North Atlantic (IONA) or the Anglo-Celtic Isles, includes the islands of Great Britain, Ireland and several thousand surrounding isles. In political terms the islands include two sovereign states, the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom, and the alternative names are used as the term 'British Isles' to describe the entire archipalego is controversial in the Republic of Ireland and some other contexts due to the word "British" often being used to imply belonging to the United Kingdom. The archipelago includes the British Crown dependency of the Isle of Man, is commonly defined to include the British Crown dependencies of the Channel Islands which lie close to the coast of France, and sometimes is held to include the Faroe Islands which are an an autonomous region of the Kingdom of Denmark.
This would then be followed by brief paragraphs outlining the content of the main sections, including the name controversy but not letting it get out of proportion. ..dave souza, talk 21:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, I'm not sure whether the mention of the Faroes is worthwhile (it sounds - and I'm sure that not the intention - rahter expanionist), though it is interesting to include the alternative names in the intro (though on the other hand where does that stop? Also, are these names really that important to go in the intro?) I prefer my above version; but then, I would wouldn't I ;) --Robdurbar 21:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Faroes really just came up because I was looking in the main article for political status: no great need for them to be there, but on the other hand the only reason to include the Isle of Man is political as it looks from a glance at a map to be rather smaller than some of the Hebrides etc. The main idea was to establish the principle at the outset that alternative names are proposed, and why, without overwhelming the context of the article and focussing the lead on disputes and controversies. ..dave souza, talk 22:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do we have any sources that include the Faroes as part of the British Isles?  If not, we shouldn't mention them.  We should mention them if this is actually common usage. john k 23:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

text: The Isles ceased to be British precisely fifty years ago [he was writing in 1999] when the Republic of Ireland left the Commonwealth, though few people in the British residue have yet cared to notice. (Norman Davies, The Isles Macmillan, 1999. p.xxii.) 
The opening paragraph cannot state as fact something disputed internationally, just because British writers are blind to the dispute. Others internationally aren't. It may be inconvenient having to give a detailed explanation at the start, but it has to be there. The only other alternative is to have no definition of what the British Isles is in the opening paragraph. If there is a definition, it has to reflect the different viewpoints, not state one as implicit fact. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 22:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I appreciate your enthusiasm for redefining the English language, though that seems to be what Wikipedia is not. Obviously this is a first draft, and given verifiable fact about the extent to which the term is controversial the wording can be modified in that light. ...dave souza, talk 22:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well the problem with that is that it gives the views of a small minority equal weight with those of the overwhelming majority (and that doesn't constitute an endorsement of either position). I mean to say, quote a lot of people in Ireland, Great Britain, and North America dispute Northern Ireland's status as part of the UK, but that doesn't mean that the NI article should say that Northern Ireland is "considered by some" to be in the UK. Conversely, it would be ridiculous not to mention the dispute at all and to fail to give it the depth of analysis it deserves. *If* the term is not defined in the introduction as including Ireland, then it cannot be used in that way in the rest of article, thus making this whole article a complete waste of time. And also, if we're going to mention that some consider it does not include Ireland, then we're going to have to stop saying that it's a term used to describe the archipelago; if it doesn't include Ireland, then it clearly is not a term used to describe the archipelago. Martin 23:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A completely false and misleading claim. Firstly it is a demonstrable fact that Northern Ireland is part of the UK. Some people may not like the fact, others do. But fact it is. It is not a demonstrable fact that the name of the archipelago is British Isles. It is a matter of dispute, with states, millions of people, academics, writers and others all disagreeing. Your claim about a "small minority" is so ignorant of facts as to be laughable. "British Isles" is rarely used in Ireland, certainly in any way that implies that Ireland is in it. It is declining in use in Scotland. The EU avoids the term. The US avoids the term where possible. Maybe you regard the rights of English people as superior to everyone else, and their definition as gospel. If this was Englishopedia that might have some relevance, but as it isn't it doesn't. Just because one state has more citizens than another is more irrelevant on Wikipedia. If numbers decided things that way on Wikipedia, then as most Wikipedians are based in the US, Wikipedia would have to be written in American English, using American dates. The default page for the Times would be the New York Times. Queen Elizabeth would be described as Queen of England, American attempts to call the Prince of Wales Mr Charles Windsor would have had to be conceded and we would regard Saddam Hussein's surname as Hussein. None of those are true. If the article claims, as it claims, that there are two sovereign states on the British Isles, and one of those disputes its inclusion, then that is one out of two. It doesn't matter whether it has 1 million or one hundred million citizens. If one of the two sovereign states disputes their alleged position in a term's use, then that has to get major coverage. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 00:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Once again, you are claiming that the meaning of the term is disputed, when the evidence so far provided only shows that the usage of the term is controversial.  Davies, one would add, is a historian of Poland, and his history seems to be largely designed in order to make people think by using weird, unorthodox terminology and calling the plantagenet kings "Edouard II," and so forth.  The book is essentially a long polemic against anglocentric ways of thinking about the history of the, er, British Isles.  Even so, Davies is not saying that the meaning of "British Isles" is disputed.  He is saying that there are no British Isles any more.  I see nothing in Davies to suggest that he is saying that "British Isles" now means the same thing as the UK government term of art British Islands. He is just saying the term is now technically inaccurate, and shouldn't be used.  Basically, it comes down to the fact that we ought to have an article on "the group of islands of which Great Britain and Ireland are the main components."  They form a geographical and, I might add, a cultural unity.  The only possible location for that article is British Isles.  We should of course indicate that Irish people don't like this term, and that many of them avoid it, but the preferred Irish form, which seems to be "these Isles," is an impossible article title.  And, still, you have provided virtually no evidence for any substantial alternate usage of "British Isles" to not mean "Great Britain, Ireland, et al"  The term "British Isles" does mean "Great Britain, Ireland, et al," which is precisely why Irish people don't use it.  There is absolutely no evidence that the meaning of the term is widely disputed.  It seems to me that a brief reference to the term British Islands, and that very occasionally "British Isles" is used as synonymous with this government created term of art, should be sufficient.  john k 23:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How can the Davies quote above possibly be used as a reference. Neither a strictly literal reading nor recognizing the play on words can support the contention that "Some academics also dispute the use of the term." The quality of citations in this article is going from bad to worse, any old thing stuck between <ref> tags is not a proper supporting reference.EricR 00:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

text: He calls Edouard II that, and Henri II that, because that is what they called themselves at the time, as you well know, John. Edward II and Henry II were later anglicised names constructed to create the impression that they were English kings first and foremost, when in fact some of the early kings rarely set foot in England. I am surprised that you still keep mispresenting Irish viewpoints and claiming that it is only the usage that is disputed when Irish users have been repeating here over and over and over that it is the 'meaning that is disputed. How many Irish users have to say that before you actually hear what they are saying and stop thinking they are saying the exact opposite to what you claim? The dispute is over meaning. It always has been over meaning. It always will be over meaning. It is the meaning that suggests that the term means the entire archipelago. That has been disputed by every Irish government, by the opposition and by numerous others. They say that the British Isles does not cover Ireland, does not include Ireland, that Ireland is not in it. Davies makes that quite clear too. The British Isles no longer describes the archipelago, in his own words. There is no term to describe the archipelago. There has not been since the 1940s. (BTW the same time the Commonwealth also dropped its British tag.) Irish users could not have been more clear. I am puzzled as to how you still haven't got the message. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 00:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course they didn't call themselves that.  In writing, they were always named in Latin.  Standardized English and French spellings both developed only considerably later.  And I have never heard that the first language of "Edouard III" was anything other than English.  In terms of Davies, again, he is not saying what you are saying he's saying.  Yes, he's saying that the term "British Isles" is now incorrect because the Republic is no longer British.  However, he is most certainly not saying that the term "British Isles" means something different from "UK+Republic+Man".   And I know that you've been repeating that the meaning is disputed, but you've yet to provide any substantial evidence of this - you just keep repeating it, which is why we keep disagreeing.  As to Irish users, several Irish users (Zoney, for instance) have been considerably more reasonable on the subject than you have, and you are, so far as I can tell, the only person who is actually suggesting that there is some other meaning for the term "British Isles" than the one used here. john k 10:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

text: The real Acid Test.  If the Channel Islands were to politically join with France, then would they be any longer part of the so called "British Isles". Ireland politically broke away from Britain round about 1922, so it follows that Ireland is not part of the BI's. Look!, we don't need Einstein to sort this. MelForbes 01:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Firstly, Ireland did not "break away from Britain" around 1922. In a way, the islands separated around the time of the retreat of the ice sheets at the end of the last ice age. Considering the term 'British Isles' was first introduced centuries ago to describe a collection of islands which included Ireland, it follows that Ireland is part of the British Isles. --Mal 09:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, including the Channel Islands makes "British Isles" a cultural concept, rather than a purely geographic one.  But they aren't universally included. john k 10:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A fresh approach

message: Someone seems to have placed footnote references before full stops and commas. That is incorrect. Note citations are placed outside (i.e., after) a full stop and comma. 
It is incorrect to write "this is a footnotetext.
The correct format is to write "this is a footnote.text 
It may have been a genuine mistake by someone. Anyone who has written books or theses will be aware of it. Copywriters automatically ensure that all such notes are placed after the comma or fullstop. (One of the reasons they are done that way is because writers otherwise very often forget to add in full stops or commas having added in a large footnote. It may also have been linked to technical issues when people wrote using manual typewriters rather than PCs.) Some small number of US manuals prefer placing footnotes before full stops but in general that is seen as incorrect by most of the world's style guides. UK style guides in particular (and as a British topic this article is written in British English) regard doing that as fundamentally wrong.  FearÉIREANN\(caint) 13:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's probably because the debate on this matter has got people who have never used footnotes before to start using them.Rhion 15:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I had no idea how to put a footnote in Wikipedia until now. As for full stops, I just copied the style that was already there (and I can't remember what it was). TharkunColl 16:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Might be my fault; I'm used to writing in the Harvard referencing system, which puts refs (tho not footnotes, which I very rarely use) before the full stop; it seems counter intuitive, to me, but that's the way it is. --Robdurbar 18:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

text: No problem, guys. It is an easy mistake to make. Over the years I must have written thousands of footnotes in academic work, and among the thousands of articles I have worked on here, so I used to the issue. If you see the problem cropping up in any other articles, correct it. Various referencing systems use different rules (Harvard's rule on referencing is the opposite of how many Europeans write references) but most if not all put footnotes outside  full stops and commas. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 20:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was under the impression that the Harvard referencing was perfectly acceptable on Wikipedia? Martin 23:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

text: What is the preferred format for further citations of the same work? I was using title and page, but it seems you are using author, title, and page. Ibid. is dangerous unless you add a more complete citation in an html comment, just try searching the history for a deleted parent citation some time.EricR 00:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Ibid and op.cit are standard citations used in hundreds of thousands of articles on Wikipedia, just as they are used in billions of books published worldwide. For those who may not know what they mean on WP, users usually link the first mention of each to the page explaining the term, then use the rest unlinked. That is standard notation, used here as elsewhere. It also enables younger readers through using the links to understand what footnotes in that standard form mean and how to read them. So it also adds to their education. Apparently some American users do not like using them on WP. However most Americans and just about all non-Americans have been using them for ages. I suppose to avoid deletion problems we could put the text in a hidden box, or use author also. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 01:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  footnotes 

message: Considerate and inclusive guy that I am, it struck me that Robdurbar's approach could be developed into a way of setting out the controversy at the outset in a manner that met the requirements of WP:LEAD so that the reader should not be surprised: at present the lead is a mini-article about the dispute, and the readers are probably astonished to find sections about geography, geology etc. So here's a draft, not fully wikified, which I hope may prove more acceptable to both viewpoints.
:For clarification of the various names and the naming controversy see British Isles (terminology).
The islands of Ireland, Great Britain, and several thousand surrounding isles together form the largest archipelago in Europe which is most commonly known as the British Isles, but this name has no official status and is considered unacceptable by a significant minority of the people of the islands. 
The islands, situated off the northwest coast of the continent, include two sovereign states, the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom. From the 11th century the monarchs of the dominant country, England, also came to rule Ireland and Wales. Despite repeated disputes Scotland remained independent until in 1603 the whole archipelago came under the personal rule of the same monarch with the Union of the Crowns. After a turbulent century with a brief spell as a republic, the Acts of Union 1707 created the United Kingdom of Great Britain, and subsequently the Act of Union 1800 created the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. A long struggle by Irish nationalists culminated in a separation in 1922 which led to the independence of what became the Republic of Ireland from the United Kingdom which still includes Northern Ireland. 
At the point of separation the term British Isles became anachronistic, but it had entered common usage as a geographical term and continues in widespread use although it is politically incorrect. People in the Republic of Ireland, whose official state name is Ireland, object strongly to  the word British which can be seen as wrongly implying continued United Kingdom sovereignty over the entire archipelago. Thus in the Republic of Ireland the use of the term is seen as controversial and sometimes offensive. Official documents and the media rarely use the term. Some academics also dispute the use of the term, which is sometimes understood to refer only to those parts of the archipelago that are under British sovereignty. Despite this dispute, no alternative names for the isles as a whole have gained wide acceptance. 
The archipelago encompasses an area south to north from Pednathise Head to Out Stack, Shetland in the United Kingdom, and west to east from the Tearaght Island in the Republic of Ireland to Lowestoft Ness in the United Kingdom, containing more than 6,000 islands and totalling 315,134 km² (121,674 sq. miles) of land. 
In geographical terms, the islands are largely low lying and fertile, with more mountainous areas in Wales, Ireland, the North of England and Scotland. The geology is complex, formed by the drifting together of separate regions and shaped by glaciation.
:I would hope that this approach is not too offensive to those strongly defending the majority usage, and that all will contribute to making this a better lead to the article. ...dave souza, talk 06:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems well worded, if a bit over extenesive on history, but that's a minor issue. To my mind, we now have at least two versions of the intro that seem to balance the issue well. --Robdurbar 07:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Apologies for mixing you up with Ben. The history is needed in outline, in my opinion, for those many readers who may still think that the whole place is called 'England! ..dave souza, talk 07:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Basically fine with me, although I'd prefer that we not state straight out that "British Isles" is anachronistic.  But then again, most of the proposed solutions have been fine with me. john k 10:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One point - I think the phrase "politically incorrect" is best avoided. The one thing we haven't had here yet (much) is rants about "political correctness", and using the phrase would probably inspire some even if it is not meant in that way. Let's not go there. "No longer accurate as a political description" or something perhaps.Rhion 11:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Both good points, picked up the latter when JFE told us that the BBC ask that it shouldn't be used. Probably better to trim the sentence to something like "At the point of separation the term British Isles became technically inaccurate, but it had entered common usage as a geographical term and continues in widespread use." ...dave souza, talk 11:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Another idea: trim / clarify the 1922 bit to "A long struggle by Irish nationalists for independence culminated in a separation in 1922 leading to the creation of the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland." ...dave souza, talk 12:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The lead reconsidered

message: Okay. JTDirl you keep on claiming that the term "British Isles" isn't used in the Republic of Ireland. It isn't used in the US, it isn't used in Europe. Any simple search on the net shows that this isn't the case. You continue to claim this, and I'm well open to being persuaded that this is the case, but as yet we have not seen any real evidence that this is in fact the case. We have seen plenty of evidence that the term "British Isles" is used in the RoI government, it is used by Irish newspapers, it is used in the Republic of Ireland. The Encyclopaedia Britannica, an American publication defines it as "group of islands off the northwestern coast of Europe. The group consists of two main islands, Great Britain and Ireland, and numerous smaller islands." We have seen US dictionary definitions supporting that it is used to include Ireland and numerous other pieces of evidence that the term is in fact used relatively widely in all these areas you proport it to not be used in. Now I realise you cannot easily use something as base as Google search hits to prove a negative but we need some kind of verifiablility to all these claims and as yet the only piece of "proof" is a single letter to an editor in an Irish newspaper. We need something more concrete to back up these claims, something verifiable. We can all use anecdotal evidence on this one, and infact I recently spoke with a friend in Dublin who says that he and no one he knows takes issue with the term as it's purely geographical, but this isn't evidence. Quick searchs through even the RTE sites show that they use the term (and I actually caught a newsreader using it on an RTE broadcast the other night) in both our described meanings (with and without Ireland). It does seem that the media and government in the Republic of Ireland is more than happy to use the term when they wish to make something seem part of something larger (such as most advanced pit facility in the British Isles, longest river or railway line etc) which seems to completely contradict your claims. The usage seems to be in both the cases of the media and the government usages that it is okay for geographical terminology but a definite no no for political uses, which one would expect to be the case for a geographical term. Ben W Bell talk 07:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I contacted a couple of my Irish friends overnight on this issue. Apparently the vast majority of Irish people avoid using the term in question. Mainly it is seen as a political label going back to an era when England imposed an often bloody and imperial rule in the area. I do believe that it is noteworthy, that if the majority of the people of the second biggest island of the archipelago do not consider themselves part of this de facto political label, then by all means they are not. MelForbes 12:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And these couple of friends have conducted surveys of the entire Irish population, and had them published in reputable sources? Good, because in that case your evidence is not a worthless anecdote. TharkunColl 16:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, you could always move to England, just like millions of your fellow countrymen and hey presto! Your sprogs will be English! Magic eh? TharkunColl 16:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey TharkunColl, maybe you should personally muster a force and invade Ireland again, steal the land, expel all the Irish to Connaught, surely that should solve your dilemma. MelForbes 17:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks EricR - I was also going to tackle the second paragraph to shift emphasis and remove ambiguity ("Britain") but I thought I'd propose here first: Because it contains the word British, the term British Isles can be mistakenly interpreted to mean the islands that are part of the United Kingdom.[1] This is because the islands largely fall within the same boundaries as the former United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, from which the Irish Free State (now the Republic of Ireland) seceded in 1922.[2] --Bazza 14:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just noticed something! Correct me if I'm wrong. Is user john k and user TharkunColl one and the same person.  If so, it is against Wikipedia ethics to use 2 personalities on the same page. MelForbes 17:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Um be very careful what you are accusing people of. john k is a long standing user with many many thousands of edits under his belt and is also an Administrator. Him and Tharkuncoll are not the same person. A simple check of their contributions and user pages should have told you that despite the fact that John K is the only person to have ever edited Tharkuncoll's user page.. People can have similar view and not be the same person.  Ben W Bell talk 17:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Noticed something??  What convinced you of this?  If you'd actually read this page, you'll see that earlier I criticized Tharkun rather harshly for suggesting that Derry/Londonderry was a majority Protestant/Unionist city.  I've also had other instances of disagreeing with him.  As noted, I've been around for several years, while Tharkun, as far as I know, has only been here for a few months.  He also seems to be British, while I am American.  I am using my real name here.  What gave you the impression we were the same person? john k 21:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

text: As "verifiability, not truth" is the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia, it should certainly warrant serious consideration. Martin 20:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I claim no expertise whatever about Ireland, but since the title of the book states it is about NI, then it would be natural to place the dispute there between nationalists and unionists. The nationalists could be expected to express a heightened sense of the feeling in the Republic. and are there any Unionists in the RoI? Such extrapolation to the RoI could not be counted a reliable source, but the book does constitute good evidence of the viewpoint in NI. ...dave souza, talk 20:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed.  This reference seems to strongly suggest what most of us have been saying: 1) those of Irish Nationalist bent tend to not like the term "British Isles," and b) this is because the term includes Ireland, and suggests that Ireland is part of the UK.  As somebody noted somewhere on this page, JTD's argument seems kind of incoherent - on the one hand, the term "British Isles" is horrible and rejected by Irish people, but on the other hand the meaning of the term is uncertain.  These don't really go together. john k 21:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

text: dave souza, point taken, also the chapter is very focused on the Good Friday Agreement and in that sense is somewhat dated isn't it? Still it's a pretty direct treatment of some of the contentious points in the article. A further quote: "The claim that the British Isles should constitute a single political entity by reason of its map image as a 'natural' unit...has not been very strongly articulated by any of the parties to the conflict. While use by unionists of the concept has grown, they remain divided on its exploitation..." Not evidence of disputed meaning, but controversial usage. EricR 00:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Backup Unused Claims 

message: User:PConlon said:
"The majority population of Britain (i.e. most English people, who are by far the largest population group on the island) are of Anglo-Saxon/Norman rather than Celtic origin...very different cultural groups."
The term "Celtic" is linguistic - just like, for example, "Germanic", "Slavic", or "Romance". There is no Celtic "race". And since the term is linguistic, it follows that only a tiny proportion of the inhabitants of Scotland, Ireland, or Wales are "Celtic". The rest speak English and are therefore "Germanic". TharkunColl 00:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Eureka TharkunColl, let's call'em the Germanic Isles. Second thoughts, bad idea, you might be highly offended. MelForbes 02:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

text: This might be quibbled with, though, due to the fact that the fairly recent ancestors of many to most present day English-speakers in Ireland, the Scottish highlands, and Wales spoke Celtic languages, and often today maintain a Celtic identity, even if they no longer speak Celtic languages as their first language (or at all). (This whole post, where I appear to disagree with my sock puppet Tharkun, is obviously simply a lame attempt to distract attention from the fact that we are the same person). john k 00:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Apologies john k, it does look unusual to edit another user's page with a redirect, and I did say possible. Sprogs use by TharkunColl I thought most offensive. MelForbes 00:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What's wrong with sprogs? I could just as easily have said kids or children. TharkunColl 07:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Evidence of peoples divided by a common language! What in the Saff is commonplace slang evidently has distasteful connotations for MelForbes. Perhaps if you'd said bairns or weans it would have been taken more lightly. ...dave souza, talk 08:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What's wrong with "sprogs"? Well it is the language of the gutter. It has no place in enlightened argument! Also, it's use and support is telling.  MelForbes 11:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a perfectly good word, and your comments reveal a rather distasteful snobbery I'm afraid. However, your suggestion that I should force all the Irish into Connaught is not only offensive but also ridiculous. I mean, I know it's a big hotel and all, but come on! Then again, perhaps you meant Connacht, the Irish province. And as for your comment "it's use and support is telling", I have no idea what you're going on about. TharkunColl 11:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

text: There, you are off again. I guessed that you wouldn't have an idea. BTW, thanks for correcting my spelling. Is that Irish spelling or the British spelling? MelForbes 11:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Thar does like to be offensive, as his tone and content of his stuff above shows. But as I mentioned before, John is a unambiguously a trustworthy wikipedian and most definitely not someone who uses sockpuppets, much less ones he then fights with and whose views he (and many others) regularly find at best annoying on occasion, on other occasions deeply offensive. I can vouch for John's intergrity. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 02:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can verify that in this part of the British Isles, "sprogs" is not considered offensive or insulting at all. --Bazza 09:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually it is erroneous to claim that "The majority population of Britain (i.e. most English people, who are by far the largest population group on the island) are of Anglo-Saxon/Norman rather than Celtic origin." All people from Great Britain are descended from the original inhabitants of the Island from the paleolithic. There is certainly some Teutonic genetic influence in England and Scotland, this is most pronounced in York (about 60% Germanic to 40% indigenous in the male line of descent, so still a substantial indigenous contribution) and Norfolk and along the east coast of England, interestingly the areas are those which are known to have been part of the Danelaw rather than those supposed to have been settled by Anglo-Saxons. The claim of very different cultural groups is interesting, maybe this can be claimed of the situation a thousand years ago, but I see no real evidence of any great difference between the cultures of the different nations of Great Britain in the present time, especialy with regard to popular culture. Alun 09:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tosh. All people from Great Britain are not descended from the original inhabitants. My friend sitting next to me now is a Sikh of Ugandan Asian descent. This discussion is getting way off topic and is liable to start insulting a lot more people than a minority of contributors have managed to do so far. --Bazza 09:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah well, poor use of words, my appologies to your friend and all other people to whom I may have caused offence. It's not off topic to claim that something in the article is incorrect though. Those of us who do have ancestors that lived in Great Britain in antiquity are certainly not exclusively descended form Celts or Anglo-Saxons, as if there was some sort of ancient ethnic cleansing and subsequent apartheid. This is just a modern political fabrication. The thing that scares me is that it is so similar to the repugnant contentions of racial purity that have so blighted Europe over the last century or so. Alun 09:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Racism

message: I presume this is an innocent mistake (I believe some editors, paritcularlry vandal fighters, have to turn minor edits off or all are marked thus?) but I note that Jtdril completed about 10 edits, leading to the following diff , marking all of them as minor and with no edit summaries. Please be more careful in future; even if each edit was minor, the effect of doing lots of minor ones in a short time is quite major; and edit summaries would be helpful. --Robdurbar 09:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Minor edits

message: As TharknuColl has noted before, I have removed a number of sources/examples from the article. This is where points appear to be referenced by half a dozen citations/examples. As I have stated previously, this:
* Unecessairily increases page length
* Is not required. If a user were to question a point further, extra sources can be shown on the talk page to the enquirer
* Is close to being a violation of WP:POINT 
--Robdurbar 10:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources/Examples

message: Taking the version by MPF  11:31 UTC July 12 2006 as a standard version of the page, what do users think of the current situation of the page? Please try to list yourself into one of the approximate following categories, and maybe give a bit of description as to where you think the page ought to go.
I propose we allow this little poll to run for 60 hours from now i.e. till 01:00 UTC on July 15th. It's purpose is not to give an indication of consensus, just for people to clarify where they think the article is and where it needs to go. I fear that the current discussion is a bit confused and often goes off topic; hopefully, this poll can clarify it.
Wikipedia is NOT a democracy and votes are evil; so this is definately not binding, but more a place for us to broadly 'show our hand' and say what we think of the current situation. --Robdurbar 12:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Explanation

message: Users in this category feel that only minor changes (e.g. change in format or grammar) need to be made to the contentious sections of the intro and terminology. They feel that the given entry represents a neutral and verified view of the situation
# I could see an argument for removing a little of the terminology debate from the intro, but generally feel that we've reached what should be an acceptable version of the article. --Robdurbar 12:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The article is about right

message: Users in this category feel that the page gives too much prominance to the 'Irish view' that the British Isles is an offensive term that may not always include the Republic of Ireland
#The lead is overwhelmingly slanted to emphasise the importance of the controversy. Of eleven sentences, only two fail to mention it, and this preoccupation excludes topics that the article was originally about. The controversy is mentioned in the disambiguation line at the top referring to the terminology article for detail, which I favour, but this is superfluous if, as some demand, the controversy is fully explored in detail in this article. The layout of sections has been altered to bring the controversy to the top, for no other reason than to emphasise it, in a terminology section which sets out a one sided case. ...dave souza, talk 16:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The article is slanted to the 'Irish' point of view

message: Users in this category feel that the terminology debate is given too much prominance in the article. They should express how they feel the problem could be tackled differently, and how neutrality could be maintained or introduced by reducing the info on the debate
#I think that there is far too much attention paid to the British Isles controversy. State what the controversy is certainly, state that it is not used in Ireland, fine. It can be done in one or two sentences, it only needs to be mentioned once in the introduction for anyone to get the point. Put the rest of the info in the terminology article. Otherwise ditch the terminology article and have everything here. I can't help but feel that the point is laboured somewhat, with several things being repeated. Alun 14:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The article gives too much prominance to the terminology debate

message: 1. The natural subject matter of the article is an archipelago, the most common name of which is "British Isles". However, there a few points which should be made as clear as possible to the reader—i believe policy and precedent in other naming disputes supports a clear and concise overview of these points in the article lead:
*There are other names proposed/in usage for the geographical entity. "Islands of the North Atlantic" is ceartainly verifiable, was its usage deemed so minor that it does not warrant inclusion in the intro? And what of the descriptive phrases "the isles"/"these isles". We have a reference stating "these isles" is used (though not as a proper name) to replace "British Isles" when refering to the archipelago. I seem to recall the phrase once once explained in the terminology article, but has since been removed.
*The name chosen for the article has other definition/usage/connotations. At one point the Burk cite was used to clearly support alternate usage. The text preceding the footnote has changed to such an extent that i'm now unsure of the intention of this reference. Regardless, we should be able to find a reliable source for alternate usage, and there is much evidence of connotations and confusion.
*The name is controversial/offensive. Hopefully a reliable source can be found which documents the extent and basis of the controversy.
In my opinion these points need to be concisely presented in the article lead, and expanded on within the body if necessary. Doing so does not lend undue weight to a particular POV, but falls within the requirement that we provide a clear overview of the subject matter and article scope.
We should be careful not to mix and match the above points. Evidence of conflicing and confusing usage is not evidence one of the islands has somehow moved from the archipelago. A body of text follows the introduction and clarification of terminology, text which some readers may find more useful than the discussion of the disputes. Editors should take care not to imply that, when such things as geology and climate are discussed as in similar wiki articles, the text is referring to anything but the archipelago and unambiguosly includes Ireland. EricR 17:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the outline of history links, and was considering adding more, but if it is the way of building a more logical page layout then by all means delete it.EricR 20:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, the work is appreciated. In a way most of the section is sub-pages of History of Britain and History of Ireland, each of which has an infobox providing these sub-links in a very concise way: I'd suggest that these infoboxes feature here, and in addition links to History of the Isle of Man, History of the Orkney Islands, Shetland Islands and the Channel Islands: think thats it? What I'd suggest is these infoboxes as well as links, say, to prehistoric Ireland and Roman Britain etc in a section noting the origins of the term Pretani, and so on. A brief run through the history with each section headed by points about development of the name and its implications could then be followed by the terminology section: this leaves a question if there's a need for more space for archipelago wide prehistory and history, and whether a better alternative might be to combine the brief history of the name (Origin of the term British Isles plus main points in unions / independence of nations) under the terminology heading (or Name heading?) as a precursor to that section. It would be worth discussing these possibilities before launching into a reorganisation. ..dave souza, talk 21:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The article is unclear, and fails the reader

message: [removed inflammatory post. - dave souza, talk 17:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Really the post should not have been removed, for to remove it indulges in selected censorship, and where did we come across that before.  That being said, can anyone tell when the term "British Isles" ceased to be a political statement.  If anyone has the answer to that question, then it would go a long way to resolve the wording at issue. MelForbes 18:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed. As a compromise, I'm gonna retrieve it and add it to archive 3. --Robdurbar 20:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment/Poll Discussion

message: ::::Wikipedia lists British Islands as being a UK legal term. It includes the Channel Islands which are not part of the archipelago. So British Isles ≠ British Islands. You've decided that "British Isles and Ireland" are universally acceptable — on what grounds?  Also, make up your mind if you're quoting British law or English law. And stop bolding your comments so much - it's too much like shouting in my face. --Bazza 21:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry for shouting  in your face. Quote, "The Channel Islands are not part of the archipelago."  When did that happen, like who is making the rules here, who is deciding who is in or out of the club.  I can get loads of citations, going back years and years, stating that the Channel Islands are part of the British Isles. Also "Britain and Ireland" is very acceptable too, but really, the issue is not about Britain and Ireland, the issue is concerning the name "British Isles" MelForbes 22:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Footnotes 4, 5, and 6 continued

message: Link 4 as of now refers to The Welcome Trust, in the University of Oxford, equates the British Isles (its study is called People of the British Isles) with the United Kingdom and excludes the people of the Republic of Ireland. The page linked gives no such indication. Sub-pages such as Press and News refer to Oxford professors investigating how genetic structure varies geographically in the UK, an area which by either definition is in the British Isles. There appears to be no mention of the people of the RoI being excluded: the spin in the footnote thus seems to be a violation of WP:NOR. That this particular study area is in parts of the Isles which don't include the RoI is not proof that further studies might not include that area, or that there was any intention to equate the BI with the UK. ...dave souza, talk 20:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Link 4 revisited

message: Good evening (good morning actually!) all from User:PConlon, I hope some positive progress is the result of the last few hours... I’ve made the suggested changes that were unopposed in the discussion above. I'm well aware of the great need to keep the introduction concise. While, some changes are minor grammatical ones which don’t need to be listed (e.g. insertions of ‘that’s and ‘there’s), those of any significance are listed below…
Accepted changes made:
Paragraph 1
Listing of ‘Great Britain’, ‘Ireland’ and the ‘Isle of Man’ in alphabetical order. 
[For this it’s just as well that those of us who wanted our country renamed ‘Brilliant Ireland’ didn’t get our way!!;0)]
Change of ‘isles’ to ‘islands’.
Paragraph 2
[See below]
Paragraph 3
Insertion of ‘government’ between ‘Official’ and ‘documents’.
Insertion of ‘there’ between ‘the media’ and ‘rarely’.
Removal of ‘Some academics also dispute the use of the term’.
Paragraph 4
Change of ‘and totalling…of land’ to ‘amounting to a total land area of…’.
Continuing discussion points:
Paragraph 1
Given Dave's point that ‘the Isle of Man is not geographically more significant than the Hebrides, the Orkney Islands and the Shetland Islands’, should we list them all or should we remove the Isle of Man? I’m personally torn between being inclusive and being as concise as possible…opinions?
On 'albeit controversialy', I am certainly right with FearEIREANN on the crucial importance of its inclusion – it is necessary to clearly highlight the lack of consensus on the definition. This is a fact recognised by all here and I don’t believe that the wording used is too aggressive or denigrates the term unnecessarily.
Paragraph 2
I see that this has already been modified - I assume (and hope!) by the original author. It is shorter now, which is better. The point made about the proper order in which to present names is well taken. I see a couple of tweaks that I’m hoing the author wouldn’t mind being made – the message is unchanged (do say if I’ve changed anything vital). I have inserted ‘all’ before ‘the islands that are part…’. I have inserted ‘present’ in front of ‘United Kingdom’. I have removed ‘largely’ from before ‘fall within’. I have replaced ‘in the 1920s’ with the shorter and more precise ‘in 1922’ – I (naturally!) think that this date of independence is very important. Finally, I think that the only thing that really needs to be put in italics is ‘mistakenly’, as this is where I believe the emphasis should lie. Having 'British' in italics might make it sound a little like a dirty word! I respect TharkunColl’s point questioning the singling out the period 1801-1922, but I think it’s use is meant in an explanatory before-and-after context (i.e. before and after the island group separated into two separate, sovereign states). I liked some elements of Robdurbar’s suggestion on this too I might add.  
Paragraph 3
I can’t with clear conscience argue against those who contend that the third paragraph is currently too long overall. I think it is too. I definitely think however that the first two sentences are really, crucially important.
Regarding the alternative terms sentence, I think their (brief) specification in the introduction is important and appropriate. ‘Britain and Ireland’ should be in there I think due to widespread usage (especially given the fame of the ‘British and Irish Lions’ rugby squad). ‘Islands of the North Atlantic’ (IONA) is a bit of a dead end I think – it was thoughtfully suggested during the peace process negotiations, but the obvious implication it has for including Iceland (the first North Atlantic island I think of!), coupled with the lack of its use anywhere else (to my knowledge – please correct me if I’m wrong), makes me believe that it doesn’t qualify as an ‘alternative term in use’. ‘Anglo-Celtic Isles’ is in some use (I personally can vouch for this!) and should I believe also be specified. Detailed background/explanation of all alternative terms should of course be left to the appropriate dedicated section further down the article.
Regarding: ‘Some other British sources also either do not include the island of Ireland at all, or else just include Northern Ireland, in the definition. Some international publications send confused messages as to whether they include or exclude Ireland in their definition of the British Isles’, I understand the author’s argument for including it. I definitely think it is unnecessarily long however. Might the author accept the following?: ‘Some British and international sources also either do not include the island of Ireland at all in the definition, or else just include Northern Ireland’.
Paragraph 4
I gratefully don’t think that anyone is now arguing that 'British Isles' is just an innocent geology/geography term, totally unconnected with contentious political implications. I strongly argee with Bazza - can it be possible?!!;OP - and Dave here that, as the article isn’t solely political, geological/geographic descriptions should be included in it – and hence be mentioned in the overview-providing introduction, in accordance with Wikipedia practice. I therefore suggest completeing the paragraph with the following (a further minor tweak, after Bazza’s, of Dave’s helpful input):
‘’The islands are largely low lying and fertile, though with significant mountainous areas in Ireland, Scotland, Wales and the north of England. The regional geology is complex, formed by the drifting together of separate regions and shaped by glaciation. The history of the islands is one of emergence of nations, and tends to be considered on a national basis.’’
Ok…please give your comments (it would be helpful to all if they were categorised under headings ‘Paragraph 1’, ‘Paragraph 2’, etc...). Best regards, User:PConlon 01:39, 14 July 2006
Paragraph 2
Your hope is misplaced, i edited that paragraph. Are we on a discuss–then–edit schedule? If so then i have no excuse but ignorance.EricR 06:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My thoughts. The content of the paragraphs seems reasonable to me (though I am now having trouble figuring out just what the decided on current layouts actually are). One thing, it's minor but it really bugs me. The intro starts talking about the geographical makeup of the area, drops into political and nonemclature discussion then goes back to geography. Not to belittle the issue of the disputes over the name but I feel that paragraph 4 should be moved to paragraph 2 and then the other two moved down while changing nothing. I wouldn't change the wording. It just seems very jarring to me in a read through that it jumps about topics then comes back to the one mentioned in the first line. Ben W Bell talk 07:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

text: On the issue of the IoM; its not geographically more significant but it IS politically. Eric R's edits to paragrsaph 2, have, I think, been beneficial too. If you want to do an edit that good, no need to necessairily discuss first! --Robdurbar 08:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

text: It would be nice to have a list of the three or four largest-by-area islands rather than restrict it to just the two big ones - List of the British Isles by area suggests Great Britain, Ireland, Lewis, Skye and several thousand... (curiously still in alphabetic order: spooky). --Bazza 12:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I think the two words should be left - they economically state that the term is used but that some people have a problem with that usage. From what I have read in previous "discussions" the controversy is not limited to the islands' inhabitants. I say again that these elaborations do not belong in the introduction but in the detailed sections which follow. --Bazza 12:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that the term is often used without any controversy, as evidenced by the definitions and style guides, but in diplomatic circles and in some academic circles it's avoided. For balance we need to correctly say that there are sensitivities about the term without creating an inaccurate impression of a world wide furore. ...dave souza, talk 14:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "albeit sometimes controversially"? --Bazza 09:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I still do not understand why the usage controversy requires two paragraphs in the introduction. I would hope that more summary information on other topics can be placed there once the article is expanded more on some fronts (e.g. climate, inter-island transport, etc.), so requiring the current information to be brief. There should not be footnote references - the information in the introduction should be expanded on in the main article, which is the place for references; placing them in the introduction guides readers past the detailed stuff rather than to it. --Bazza 12:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I believe I was the one who put British in italics - it was to emphasise (showing my HTML origins!) that it was the actual word British on its own which is being talked about. If convention says double-quotes, then that's what should be used. --Bazza 12:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I should have read the manual before commenting! Wikipedia:Manual of Style says "Italics are mainly used to emphasize certain words. Italics for emphasis should be used sparingly.", then goes on to say "Use italics when writing about words as words". Thus italicising British since we're discussing the word is correct, emphasising mistakenly could be permissible but risks confusion that we're discussing it as a word rather than saying that it's a mistake. Best to read the MoS and see if you agree with my interpretation. The point about "double" being preferred over 'single' quotes (unless for nested quotations) is covered in the Quotation marks section. ..dave souza, talk 14:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Revised proposal (cont.)

message: ===Footnote 10===
To support the argument that the use of this term is controversial and sometimes offensive in Ireland, footnote 10 states As evidenced by the complaints received by the readers' editor of a major British newspaper: Ian Mayes, "Where are we?"." The Guardian is misrepresented: the article is essentially about confusion about the various terms, and does not refer to any complaint received about the term British Isles. It reports letters by unnamed writers, one suggesting that the phrase should be consigned to history and replaced by Britain and Ireland for general purposes, UK and RoI for political purposes. One reader points to the origin of the term including the Irish more than later immigrants, and suggests that if this were widely known there would be less resentment: sadly, hopelessly optimistic judging by this page. One reader reports that "My Irish friends regard [it] as grossly offensive. My response to this is 'There are several hundred islands off the north-west coast of mainland Europe of which the second largest is Ireland. What do you call them?' Of course, there is no answer to this." Sounds familiar. So we have one alternative suggestion, one report of hearsay about someone's friends. This does not appear to be a reliable source, and the analysis that "complaints" evidence the argument violates Wikipedia:No original research. ..dave souza, talk 21:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Remove both until an acceptable cite is located which meets WP:V and WP:RS. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Footnotes

message: To support the argument that the use of this term is controversial and sometimes offensive in Ireland, footnote 10 states As evidenced by the complaints received by the readers' editor of a major British newspaper: Ian Mayes, "Where are we?"." The Guardian is misrepresented: the article is essentially about confusion about the various terms, and does not refer to any complaint received about the term British Isles. It reports letters by unnamed writers, one suggesting that the phrase should be consigned to history and replaced by Britain and Ireland for general purposes, UK and RoI for political purposes. One reader points to the origin of the term including the Irish more than later immigrants, and suggests that if this were widely known there would be less resentment: sadly, hopelessly optimistic judging by this page. One reader reports that "My Irish friends regard [it] as grossly offensive. My response to this is 'There are several hundred islands off the north-west coast of mainland Europe of which the second largest is Ireland. What do you call them?' Of course, there is no answer to this." Sounds familiar. So we have one alternative suggestion, one report of hearsay about someone's friends. This does not appear to be a reliable source, and the analysis that "complaints" evidence the argument violates Wikipedia:No original research. ..dave souza, talk 21:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Footnote 10

message: "As a result of the inaccurate presumption of continued United Kingdom sovereignty over the entire archipelago" - pretty important point this, referenced by footnote 11: Indicative of the confusion was the blurb written for Wildlife of Coastal Waters: British Isles, a 2002 book, which referred to "Britain's coastal waters . . ." (). Shock horror! A publisher writes an inaccurate blurb for an amateur handbook on spotting birds, whales, fishes etc. by Tony Soper! Unfortunately we're not given the blurb to consider: could it be "Britain's coastal waters are one of the richest wildlife habitats in the world." ? Whoever wrote that has problems with English as well as with Geography. Or perhaps "Synopsis: A full-color, finely illustrated guidebook to the wildlife surrounding the British Isles for seafarers and visitors of the English coastline. Synopsis: Exploring the inshore wildlife of Britain's coast, stretching from as far south as Brittany to the North Cape,". So now we have England claiming sovereignty over Brittany! Perhaps these publishers thought that England and Britain were in the British Isles, rather than claiming sovereignty over them? Or perhaps they failed to read Author's Note, by Tony Soper, "Coasting the inshore waters of these islands.... As for seabirds, the coast and islands of Britain and Ireland host a significant part of the world’s populations," Well, that's perhaps evidence for two of the alternative formulations, used in the blurb for a book with the British Isles in its title. This looks like a classic case of Wikipedia:No original research#What is excluded? - "It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source" ....dave souza, talk 15:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Footnote 11

message: My response would be to remove them, then, and either find a new source or palce a  note to challenge people to do so. --Robdurbar 17:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Remove both until an acceptable cite is located which meets WP:V and WP:RS. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment on both

message: I have just logged in and what do I see. KillerChihuahua not very helpful, this is certainly not your finest hour. MelForbes 19:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please be more precise. You seem to be engaging in a vague ad hom against me, with no specifics as to how you may or may not disagree with my actions, which include removing content not sourced per WP:V. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a group of editors here trying to sort out certain issues, which I an not going to restate for you, that I am sure you are aware of. Consensus will not be reached by a unilateralist approach. All editors are endeavoring to be strictly direct with each others views on the matters in question. You have given little to this talk page, and I believe you should not have butchered the article to suit your own personal ideas. MelForbes 19:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Consensus takes a back seat to WP:V, WP:NOR. I plan to "butcher" much more unless some decent sources are found. I have no "personal" ideas about this subject whatsoever, and as you have now made 3 uncivil remarks about me personally, I will make of this an official notice about violating the no personal attacks policy. Assume good faith and cease disparaging my presumed motives, about which you can not possibly have any concept whatsoever, unless you are a mind reader, which I most sincerely doubt. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

text: You are quite correct, dave. The burden, as I have mentioned, lies with those who want the information included. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I've hidden the relevant assertions for the time being. Frankly, I'd been assuming good faith and had accepted that there was some substance to this controversy, but this creative use of sources means that the whole section, and the introduction, will have to be carefully reexamined. It also needs some effort to present fairly the view that the term is used geographically without malice. ..dave souza, talk 19:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine, what citation do we use for the first paragraph? MelForbes 20:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The intro is a summary of the content and does not necessarily require seperate footnotes. The information is referenced in several footnotes, http://www.know-britain.com gives the simple term. Was there something else you felt was unsourced in the intro? If so, we need to check the references given in the appropriate section of the article proper and ensure everything is correctly cited. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, I was hoping to get back to St. Cuthbert's Co-operative Society and how Sean Connery worked as an artist's model for life classes at the Art College, but will try to find it: so much chatter here, it may have been archived. ..dave souza, talk 20:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

text: This is so called editing is really shitty and not very impressive regarding good faith!  Why wasn't the citation needed tabs put into the articles by KillerChihuahua in the first instance. Anyone claiming good faith now, has a hill to climb, I am really very suprised.  MelForbes 20:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Read WP:V...dave souza, talk 20:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Not very helpful

message: Perhaps some of you do not recall your welcome message; perhaps some of you never received one. I would like to remind everyone editing this article that the three pillars of Wikipedia policy are WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR. This article contains much that is not verified and may well consist of original research. This must change, people. Find sources which meet WP:RS or the content must be removed. Any NPOV issues must be worked out here on the talk page. On the same subject, I remind all of WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and WP:AGF all of which are being routinely ignored on this talk page. 
All Wikipedia policies can be accessed via WP:RULES. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep digging! MelForbes 19:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no intention of digging. I am here to enforce policy. It is up to those who wish that information included to "dig" for acceptable sources. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia does not have enforcers. It has admins who administer, and developers who develop things. If you want to become an enforcer, join the police or propose that such a role be created on Wikipedia. It does not exist right now. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 20:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jtdir / FearÉIREANN, you have been reverting fully discussed changes to a state which violates policy. I can only regard this as blatant vandalism. ..dave souza, talk 20:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh, by the way, on Wikipedia everyone enforces policy. I thought you'd have known that. ..dave souza, talk 21:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yet more far fetched nonsense. What you mean is that a handful of British users "decide" something that hey presto, that is policy and Irish users better shut up. That will not be happening. The article is littered with claims that you and some British users make, without citations, merely the statement that it is facts. Maybe it is time all those unsourced claims were deleted too. Or have disputed and dubious tags put on them. Irish users have regularly come up with wordings to accomodate the differing British and Irish perspectives on the issue. Some British users instead insist that the British view is "fact" and everyone else's view a "minority". You can claim that as many times as you wish. It still is wrong. You could try working with users sometime, not bulldozing your viewpoint through and trying to add in weasel words and questionable edits that carry the tone "of course we all know this is wrong, but the Micks believe it." FearÉIREANN\(caint) 21:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't even know where to start with that - as an experienced editor and Administrator, you surely do not have to be reminded of the policies, yet rather than mentioning parts of the article you find are incompletely or un- sourced, or providing sources, you are making a blanket accusation (of whom? "handful of British users" is 1) not enlightening and 2) irrelevant.) Perhaps a nice cup of tea would help? KillerChihuahua?!? 15:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks for adding sources which you feel support the assertion of controversy: I;ve moved these to the section as discussed above. Unfortunately your attitude does not appear to have improved, and these sources will have to be carefully examined. ...dave souza, talk 21:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Patience, please. ...dave souza, talk 23:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Right, sorry about the delay: as a full time carer, I had to give my wife some attention. As you perhaps recall, when commenting out the disclaimer earlier I pointed out that there's a disclaimer in italics immediately above that paragraph. We've already discussed our concerns: hopefully we can find a form of words on this talk page that makes it clear that there's a problem without implying that one view or the other is invalid. You've cited book titles: it would be really helpful if you could post here the text that confirms the offence taken at the term, and how widely such offence is taken. That's all I can think of just now, time for bed. ...dave souza, talk 23:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is clear evidence on this page that there is controversy, yes. There is still no sourcing for putting that in the article. Wikipedia is about verifiablility, not truth. KillerChihuahua?!? 11:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Policies reminder

message: Why would  Irish people want to be classed as members of the British Isles, that's the 64,000 dollar question. For the British came and murdered, raped, stole the land, imposed their satanic penal laws. The history of the British in Ireland is nothing other than a shameful episode. Edmund Burke again, quote, "a truly barbarous system; where all the parts are an outrage on the laws of humanity and the laws of nature; it is a system of elaborate contrivance, as well fitted for the oppression, imprisonment and degradation of a people, and the debasement of human nature itself, as ever proceeded from the perverted ingenuity of man".unquote. Even though Irish people have forgiven, it's thanks, but no thanks! MelForbes 23:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This section should be dealt with in the same way as the prior "English Isles" section.EricR 23:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am only stating the fact that people in Ireland do not want to be associated with the term British, and that is a fact. This is true history, holocaust denial is a criminal offence in some countries. MelForbes 23:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's appreciated that you may have learned all your life cruel England's to blame, but Wikipedia's policy of neutral point of view requires stating both viewpoints backed up by verifiable facts. This is an issue where different nations have perceptions shaped by very different media coverage of the issues, and if you want other people to sympathise with your viewpoint, a shillelagh is not a good way of communicating. ...dave souza, talk 06:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

text: It may surprise you dave souza, I am Scottish born, but don't live there now. I have worked in various countries including Wales, Ireland and the United States. But in all my travels, it was we Scots who bitched most about about the dreaded English (British) , the Welsh did it to a much lesser extent, but much more of a rarity in Ireland. I knew that my edit would provoke a hostile response, so nothing surprises me, but on reflection, maybe it did illicit some shock and awe amongst some. Truth can irritate, but also it must be remembered that truth avoidance will only prolong this so called discussion. A paragraph should be added to the article explaining why the term might be objectionable to some.  I think that would be an excellent proposal.  MelForbes 11:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Burke, he good: spent his political capital in a futile attempt to rein in the abuses of empire and preserve us from ideology. Given the end of empire, the term British Isles only makes sense in a geographical context (including Faroe Islands?). Why not just give it up and go to a list of links? And let the Scots grow up to take an independent place in the EU.--Shtove 21:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hear hear, and long live Alex Salmond! MelForbes 21:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I always get pissed off by the the British did such and such in (include favourite historical atrocity) so every man jack of them today are all still personally responsibe bollocks. What a given state does at a given time in not the personal responsibility of every single member of the population of that state, and is certainly not the responsibility of those born centuries or decades after the given event. The UK has done, and continues to do repugnant things, as a British person I am not responsible for these things, just as all Irish people are not all responsible for the atrocities commited by certain repubican/nationalist organisations in the past. No one side is lilly white in Ireland, the UK state and various governments do bear the overwhealming majority of the blame for past murderous behaviour to be sure, but let's not descend into blaming the British population. Alun 05:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Alun I wholeheartedly agree with everything you are saying. All of the footsoldiers and command represented each of the 4 nations without doubt, so we are all in this sad shit together. One of the questions is, can a nation turn it's back on this shit and leave if firmly in the past. Enough said without labouring the point, thanks. MelForbes 10:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Murderous British

message: Hey guys, I've just noticed. Hugh Linehan's Connect column in The Irish Times 15 July 2006 is about our little spat here. The Irish Times site is pay-for-view so I can't link the page. It is on page 2, left hand column of the Weekend section, for those users with copies of the Times lying around. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 01:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a LITTLE SPAT! For God's sake, national pride is at stake. Jtdirl deserves a Zed-but in the sternum.--Shtove 20:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Why not list on WP:PRESS?EricR 01:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Concur, and paste whatever seems to be the most concise bit which outlines the article's opinion. KillerChihuahua?!? 11:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah now, there's interesting, we can get a citation that the term is disputed in the RoI from a media column inspired from a Wiki discussion page about attitudes to the dispute in the RoI. So we are inspiring people to produce material that we can then use as a reference. Nice.... Alun 11:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, that is incorrect. This only sources that there is a dispute on this talk page, and is useless for using as a source for a dispute outside this talk page. KillerChihuahua?!? 11:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I wasn't being entirely serious!!Alun 12:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Apologies - on this page, you never know. KillerChihuahua?!? 12:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Point of information:  reading WP:PRESS, don't forget that the argument includes editors who are Irish AND British, and (touch wood) recent rather than current edit war? ..dave souza, talk 17:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This discussion is getting media coverage 

message: Sorry to butt in at a late stage, but as the author of the Irish Times article mentioned above, I wanted to make a couple of brief and (I hope) useful points. First, if anyone wishes I can make inquiries within the paper as to whether we have records of any debate about the terminology prior to 1996 (when the online archive starts). Second, as was correctly observed above, I don't personally have a huge difficulty with the phrase British Isles, but I suspect a majority of people in Ireland/Eire/Republic of Ireland (take your pick) do. For example, I mentioned this when presenting The Last Word programme on Today FM last week and the phone text opinions from listeners were approx 2/1 against. I know that's probably not worth much more than canvassing opinions in a pub (possibly less). But I think it also reflects the fact that opinion in nationalist Ireland is not as uniform as some contributors would have us believe. Third, the phrase British and Irish Isles is absurd. It's used by nobody and will be peculiar to Wikipedia. I do believe that there is a need for an overarching phrase to describe the archipelago as a geographical entity. I think there's also a strong argument that the same is needed to describe its shared cultural space. But, given the above, I don't see much chance of that. Finally, there were loads of other items I didn't have space to touch on in what was intended to be a relatively lighthearted article, but I offer this paragraph which I had to delete for space reasons:
'I live in a state called  Ireland, which is located on an island called Ireland. But there are parts of Ireland which are not in Ireland. These parts are called Northern Ireland. However, the most northerly part of Ireland (the island) is not in Northern Ireland, but in Ireland (the state). Some of the residents of Northern Ireland refer to it as Ulster. But a substantial portion of Ulster is not in Northern Ireland, including the most northern part of Ireland (and Ulster). And the whole shebang, according to most geographers, forms part of the British Isles, which are only partly British, although there is a majority of British people in Northern Ireland (but not Ulster). Oh well... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.70.70.194 (talk • contribs) 20:25, 17 July 2006
:Thanks for a really useful contribution, you are of course welcome to join in at any time and it's far from being too late. It's a good idea to log in and get a username, which is actually more anonymous than  not signing it which means your name appears as your IP address. It's a great shame that paragraph isn't in your article, or we could have cited it! Note that it can be best to bring up things you've written yourself on the talk page and suggest that others might incorporate it, or follow the guidance at Wikipedia:No original research#Expert editors. This article has a lot of improvement still needed, and I'm glad to see it under way...dave souza, talk 06:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Author's comment

message: I'm glad to see the article improving, with more clarification of who does and doesn't think the term is controversial. In this light I've modified the "controversial" reference in the first sentence to make it clear that the sensitivity, though important, is not universal. The author's comments above help to confirm that, though as always published sources are needed. I've also added some clarifications to the Terminology section. However at the moment I think it goes into too much detail of various meanings and proving that there's confusion about the term: that would in my opinion be better in the British Isles (terminology) article. However before the link gets ditched, I'd urge everyone to read Chewin' the Fat: if nothing else it will probably show that sense of humour varies significantly across these islands. Will try to tackle the History section sometime...dave souza, talk 07:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why would you want to tackle the history section.  What can you say that is not already in History of Britain or History of Ireland? --Red King 10:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: An overview including Orkney, Shetland, IoM, Channel Islands... wait and see, please. ..dave souza, talk 10:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Basically agree, a rewording would be welcome. However the point's been made that it's not just a proportion of the Irish, as well as unverified claims re. Scottish and Welsh nationalists there's the point about expats getting upset - again unverified but anecdotal evidence on this page makes it plausible. A tricky one. ..dave souza, talk 05:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Improvements

message: I have been bold, or perhaps foolhardy, and tried to sort out the article's arrangement.  I have put in some sourced stuff, chucked out unsourced stuff and tangential information (bit of a judgement call there, sorry if I got it wrong), and tried to arrange it coherently.  In particular I have put in the different definitions of British that have caused this controversy.  Sorry if I have trodden on anyone's toes, but it would be really nice if you would accept good faith.  I have tried to read the discussion, but it's pretty unreadable I am afraid.  
It would be really good if we all thought about the reader rather than pushing our agendas.  The reader coming to this page is probably looking for an introduction to this part of the world and pointers on to other articles.  As far as I see it, the questions to be answered are as follows with my answers:
*  Should the page exist.  Yes in my opinion.  There are things that this group of islands share, and this should be included in the article. There are a number of articles that include British Isles in their title, but they are difficult to track down at the moment.  
*  Should the article be called the British Isles.  Again, yes in my opinion.  As a collective noun for the archipelago, it is by far the most popular.  It may be unpopular in Ireland (neutral statement), but it is not inherently offensive for a very large number of English speakers.  Google searches generally muddy things in Wikipedia, but in this case a couple of minutes will show that British Isles is used innocently (i.e. geographically rather than politically) by a large number of organisations.  
*  Should there be a substantial section on the name?  Again yes IMHO as it is quite clearly a big thing in Ireland.  However, as always it would be good if the section was kept on subject and contains verifiable facts rather then editoralising.  Actually, again in my opinion, the section on Irish usage was pretty good.  
*  What should the page be used for?  IMO its best use would be for various types of natural history:  the weather does not stop at the Irish sea or at any other line.  The natural history of the islands is distinct from continental Europe and this would be a useful function for readers.  I'm not so sure about a combined history.  It would be a good thing to do, but probably impossible in Wikipedia as various brands of partisans try to ride their hobby-horses over it.  It would definitely better to get non-controversial stuff done first.  
Quite happy to admit blunders, but it would be good to keep to WP:EQ and WP:V.  It would also be good if people were specific in their messages about what they want to happen to the articles.   MAG1 20:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of the edits are very good. I'm not sure about the Western European Isles paragraph (if you inserted that bit). Whilst I agree its worth mentioning, much of it seems editorialised - unintentionally, I think, inserting opinion over fact. Comments such as 'soure:any good atlas: and 'If the inhabitants of Iceland and the Faeroes consider 'these islands' to be western, it follows that they can have no objection to the term 'the West Europe Isles' are just very poor. If you didn't write it, I'm sorry, but I just looked at all the recent edits as one; if you did, its one poor paragraph in a strong rewrite! --Robdurbar 22:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Revision

message: Okay. Under alternative terms we have the entry for Anglo-Celtic Isles. Now there is a line saying it even has its own website. www.anglo-celtic.org.uk. Whoever put this in, you do realise that this website for promotion of the term is actually only applying it to England, is about England and only England. It's not being used in relation to the British Isles. Ben W Bell talk 14:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some time ago on this page Irish users were subject of a bitter racially-sounding attack. It bitterly enflamed relationships here for a time. Please do not now stand attacking British people in the same manner. PConlon's edit is correct (and he like I and others are Irish). British Isles is the most commonly used name. Many Irish people take offence. But just as British people cannot (as some on this page did) seek to deny the opinions and perspectives of Irish people, so Irish people cannot seek to deny the opinions and perspectives of British people. It is a fact that BI is used worldwide. People may differ on its meaning, very often depending on whether they were of British or Irish descent. But most people internationally mean the entire archipelago, often with no insult intended to Irish people, because they have no knowledge of how offended some Irish people are by that usage. Any search of any sourcebook shows that BI is the most common name for the archipelago. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 23:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Probably some compromise will ensue, which will be challenged again in the not too distant future. That's why I believe it's particularly important not to shut down the other pages that refer to alternate descriptions. Or it'll go on and on and on. -MelForbes 21:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with alternate-name pages is that they're either redundant forks (ie, they broadly the same content under a different name) or they're just simple definitions - "X is another term for Y, which is where the article you're needing is". Unless there's significant differences in the content appropriate to the name (like the Ossian thing above, where one is folklore and one Macpherson-lore), having multiple pages (as opposed to the traditional forest of redirects) doesn't make much sense. I'm all for having entries about the names proposed as alternates, but scattering them all into seperate articles as opposed to condensing them together in one place just doesn't make practical sense, unless those articles have something significant to say about the term itself. Shimgray | talk | 23:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are several of these articles; in addition to Anglo-Celtic Isles, there's also Islands of the North Atlantic and Britain and Ireland.  Again, I think that a British Isles naming dispute along the lines of Sea of Japan naming dispute would be an appropriate and helpful place to merge these.--Pharos 23:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternative Terms