Talk:British Isles/Archive 8

message: For all Great Britain and Ireland coverage of Samaritans see .  Interestingly enough, one of their regions crosses the Welsh border.  Whether they use the term or not is neither here nor there:  this is an article about a collection of islands off the north-west of Europe:  bits of rock with people on them, not a jumble of letters.  Some organisations are organised over the whole group of islands, and this is therefore the place to mention them.  MAG1 23:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Samaritans

message: *Take a look at this  --MelForbes 14:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks familiar. "The Television Wiki is based off of the Wikipedia project. Further revisions have been made in order to enhance the articles for tv fanatics. However, because tvWiki.tv is so new, we need some great original content. Please register and chip in!" So what's the problem?  ...dave souza, talk 15:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I had to laugh when I read the bit that said, "This is not a result of anti-British sentiment" - judging by the remarks made by some of the editors here, nothing could be further from the truth! In the real Wikipedia, a phrase like that would be expunged as POV within seconds. And if it's not a silly question, why have such a lengthy article on the British Isles in a Wiki devoted to TV? TharkunColl 15:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So what's the problem? Who is talking about problems? Well, it does have a more refreshing upbeat style. The WP article seems a bit stuck in the 1950's. TharkunColl, really!. MelForbes 15:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Delighted you like it. Looks very much like a mirror of this article from a long time ago, the disambiguation at the top looks rather better, though not the second line about the rugby team..  ...dave souza, talk 18:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Comment. I never said I liked the content. I like some of it, but would edit some too. What I said was, that it was written in a more upbeat style.  I like the relaxed tempo of the writing. I see your comment (before your re-edit) about an Irish problem, well it might well be a British problem too. -MelForbes 18:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Guess we'd all edit some bits. And with luck peace will break out and render these old clichés obsolete! ..dave souza, talk 19:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Nothing really, I just wondered why they had an article like that at all. TharkunColl 15:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Being pro-Irish does not equate to anti-British sentiment, and is rather simplistic. Iolar Iontach 15:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Comment. I will second that.  Born in Britain of mixed pedigree and Ireland now my home, it seems to me that the accusation of being anti-British is a weapon that some editors will use in their argument. It's a weapon of last resort, and a rather weak one at that. -MelForbes 15:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Well I've never used it - despite being called a racist, an imperialist, and an ignoramus. TharkunColl 15:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Some of the editors here take every opportunity they can to slag off the British and our alleged (but in reality totally non-existent) imperialistic attitudes, which really only serves to weaken their case. TharkunColl15:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hang on - I thought they didn't have a case to begin with??--Shtove 17:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Perhaps the people of Iraq should have Britain's totally non-existent, imperialistic attitudes explained to them. That would be an interesting polemic. Iolar Iontach 15:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. I rest my case. TharkunColl 17:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, yes world opinion is wrong and to argue argainst an illegal occupation and the reasons for it is anti-British sentiment, despite the fact that a majority of British hold a similar view. I wish the world that I live in were as black and white, actually on second thoughts perhaps not; it seems a bit crude. I'm off to spray paint a few walls with "Up the Ra" and "Brits Out" now. Iolar Iontach 23:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Some other wiki's entry

message: Certain editors clearly have an agenda when it comes to political useage of the term and are attempting to circumvent this reality. The term is used politically and to claim that it is not, or to allude to it not being used in this way, either by stating that the term is purely geographical or via an ommission is blatant PoV. Everytime evidence of political useage of the term is produced the goalposts are substantially moved. It appears that the burden of proof is much greater to show evidence of political use than it is for so-called geographical useage. How does anybody know that an organisation is using the term in a geographical sense and not a political sense? The addition of the disclaimer: The British Isles is a geographical term means absolutely nothing if the organisation using same has been culturally and/or politically influenced to use it, just as I (as an Irish person) have been politically and culturally influenced not to use the term the British Isles. I am reverting the article to state that the Channel Islands are sometimes included by political convention. Iolar Iontach 16:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because something is used on a political website doesn't mean its use is political. The statement "Kent is located to the southeast of London" isn't a political usage, and neither is the usage on the site of "Jersey is the most southerly island of the British Isles". It's a simple geographic usage, like saying Great Britain is in Europe, or Canada is in the northern hemisphere. There is quite a difference between something being used as a term by a political body and a term being used as political. Ben W Bell talk 17:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ben, British Isles reeks with political overtones and undertones.  The term is actually written into British law, and alluded to quite a bit.  New British legislation avoids using the term, and now uses the term British Islands. Why are the Faroe Islands not included, the are in the same archipelago? Political? --MelForbes 19:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  MelForbes: I am surprised to hear that the term 'British Isles' is written into British law, certainly in the last century.  Would you have any references or examples for this?--Stonemad GB 22:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Technically Mel is correct as it is used in the The Education (Listed Bodies) Order, 1997 (UK) when referring to a theological 3rd level institution that contains the term "British Isles," but I don't think it has been contained in any UK statutes as a term, legal; political; geographical or otherwise since, I believe the Interpretation Act, 1978 was implemented. However, the Isle of Man government uses it in official government addresses, which it could be argued is further evidence of political useage, as addresses are political constructions rather than geographic. Iolar Iontach 00:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

text: That's not what is being discussed here though. What is being discussed is that the reference quoted was claimed to use it as a political reference, when it is being used as a geographical reference. Is it used in other places as a political reference, quite possibly, I don't know I haven't gotten involved in these discussions, but not in this instance that is being discussed. Ben W Bell talk 19:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How on earth can it be a geographical reference? Geographically, the Channel Islands are not constituents of the archipelago. This is quite simple really: on the website concerned it cannot possibly be a geographical reference. Iolar Iontach 22:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the most likely explanation is that the person writing the website was not aware of the grey areas around the boundaries of the term 'British Isles' (it is an obscure topic to say the least, and a pretty meaningless one as the term does not denote any status other than geographic) and used it mistakenly.  Possibly they confused it with British Islands.  As you will know, the terminology for this island group is famously confusing.  There are many possible explanations, and it is pretty pointless to speculate on them.  But I think that to suppose that the front page of the Jersey governmental information portal is being used to demonstrate that there is a political convention in the Channel Islands that they should be included in the label 'British Isles' in the next edition of school atlases is pretty unlikely.  --Stonemad GB22:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ignorance of toponyms and British legal terminology (from the Interpretation Act) is irrelevant here. When the Channel Islands are included in the term it is evidence of it being used in a political manner, whether intentional or not. Iolar Iontach 22:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Nobody has stated that political useage implies a political scheme, did Heylin not think to include them as geographic parts of France? That would be the first place that I would think of, primarily because that's where they are, but being a mere lawyer, geography is clearly beyond me. Again, just because someone claims (or even believes) that they are using the term in a geographical sense does not make it so. Iolar Iontach 22:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

text: That statement is buried in the article, the average person's attention span wouldn't be long enough to reach the point where it is raised. Up until that point one is led to believe that it is a mere, inoccuous geographic term which clearly circumvents the reality of the situation. Just as the reality that the Channel Islands are included by political convention has been circumvented, and the Faroes have been left out because as MAG1 says there is no political overlap. The sentence also has factual problems; it isn't a legal term and carries no legal meanings, as the Irish government has stated. Iolar Iontach 11:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Before the article proper even starts, there's a note saying "The term "British Isles" can be confusing and is objectionable to some people, particularly in Ireland [1]. See the Terminology section below for details of the controversy."  So readers are alerted immediately to the 'controversy', get a footnote outlining aspects of it and a whole section discussing the terminology, suggested alternatives in use and not, whys and wherefores...  That's plenty of advertisment, for those who are seeking info on the 'controversy', or those who aren't but who stumble on it and find it interesting.  And those just seeking info on the generality of the British Isles can ignore that (or not, as they see fit) and read the rest of article. Bastun 12:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's face some facts here. If one is Irish, then Ireland is not included. If one is Northern Irish (e.g. a Unionist), then Ireland is included. Both sets of people live on the island of Ireland, and somehow both sets must be accommodated. That's where the wording of the article comes into play. To say Ireland is included is a POV to many, and to say it is not included is a POV to others. It must be remembered that Ireland is not a British Isle. But some would argue that Northern Ireland is British, and others would argue strongly against that view. Therefore my position is that Ireland is sometimes included, depending on ones point of view, and that the term first of all is a political term, and secondly a geographical term. To say it's not political is indulging in POV too. MelForbes 14:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And around we (all!) go again with the same circular arguments.  And PoV, not "facts". "If one is Irish, then Ireland is not included." - according to you.  "If one is Northern Irish (e.g. a Unionist), then Ireland is included." - according to you.  (And I'm sure there are plenty of Unionists whose distaste for all things RoI would lead them to say it isn't included ;-) ).  It must be remembered that Ireland is not a British Isle.  Again - according to you.  Not a British island, certainly, but there are millions of citeable examples of... - ah, why am I being drawn into this.  If I take this page off my watchlist and come back a year from now, the archive will have tripled in length and exactly the same arguments will be going on. Bastun 14:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And that's because the arguments are real. My references above are generalities.  And just in case it hasn't clicked yet, that's what Wikipedia is about. MelForbes 17:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Political Useage of the Term

message: Given that British Isles is not favoured by all, why not take the first sylable from "British" and the second from "Irish" and put them together consecutively for a new name for the islands? Dainamo Dainamo 17:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Or - he, he! - why not take the first syllable from "Irish" and the second from "British", then put them together? Why has no one thought of this? Inconceivable! And a thundering disgrace! You, sir, should be shot. Except, your're British, so no harm done - please accept a generous pension, paid for by others.--Shtove 00:53, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Compound word to compromise