Talk:British Isles/Archive 7

message: Does anyone have a source for the comment about the british isles consisting of 6000+ island and islets, it seems a lot.  I'm researching this subject and I'd love to find a source.
: Don't have a source - but Clew Bay alone has 365, so although 6000 does seem high, it's also plausible. Bastun 23:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The drumlins in Clew Bay do not actually number 365. The "one for each day of the year" is a myth. -- Evertype·✆ 10:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are 117 by my count. See the article on Clew Bay for a chart. -- Evertype·✆ 14:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I've never found a definitive source on this. I think part of the problem is how you define an island. Do count every rock poking out of the water or does it have to be habitable or a minimum size and at what tide. Estimates seem to vary between 2000 and 6000. josh (talk) 11:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I too would love to know the answer to this. I think the simple definition of "A land mass, especially one smaller than a continent, entirely surrounded by water" is inadequate for this purpose until you describe the boundaries of the area (Faeroes? Sark? Irish Sea?) and the minimum land mass (? a hectare? an acre?) I can find no usefully defined number but I did find, on bbc.co.uk in a page about an Alan Titmarsh programme - British Isles, A natural history, this quote: "The UK coastline is nearly 32,000km long if you include the islands." I fear that's another unsupported comment.
DuncanGrey 14:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I've just found on the www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk site the claim that "The coastline length around mainland Great Britain is 11 072.76 miles." I calculate this to be 17 819.8799 kilometers - without islands.DuncanGrey 18:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Another source is the Rough Guide to Scottish Highlands and Islands 2006: "there are aproximately 790 islands, 130 of which are inhabited." DuncanGrey 11:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  6000 islands 

message: The page is currently edit-protected. Would an admin please change "the Pale" in the section Vikings and Normans to "the Pale". The former page was just moved to the latter (after a consensus discussion). Pale is now an article on pales in general (there are several others, besides the famous one).--Srleffler 03:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, unprotected too anyway. Let's hope people can play nicely here now. --Robdurbar 19:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for minor change 

message: OK, so I've unprotected this article. Now let's see if people can get back to editing it without personal attacks or incivility, eh? What is the general view on how this (and linked articles shcu as Britain and Ireland and British Isles (terminology)) should progess now? --Robdurbar 20:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unprotected (am I mad?)

message: I have had a go at taking up Red King's challenge and revising the history.  It's not much shorter, I am afraid, but I have tried to focus it on things best done here rather on national pages.  As well as a brief survey of the development of political structures, these include:
*  History before the national formation.  Could be done elsewhere, but isn't.  Only drawback is that it is very complicated, so a bit of a sketch.  
*  Middle Ages.  National entities exist, but they are being run by an international elite.  I think a decent overall story emerges.  
* 17th century.  I am a complete convert here: the history of this time can only be properly understood on the basis of the entire archipelago (and even then it is a bit insular).  There are some other decent articles around, such as that on the Wars of the Three Kingdoms, so I have avoided detail.
*  Population movements.  Lots of this and very important:  it could be argued that this is one of the real motors of history.   
I have tried to keep the section NPOV for obvious reasons, so no moral commentary.  I have also tried to minimise any Whiggishness- any sense that the past is just a long march to the glorious present. MAG1 22:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: History

message: Dublin: "Baile Átha Cliath or simply Áth Cliath was founded in 988 nearby: the two towns eventually became one."  Eblana was a separate settlement.  As for the High King not being weak - read the article.  Maybe the mythological High Kings weren't, but the 'modern' office was certainly so; figureheads, compromise candidates, etc., elected from the fine. Bastun 00:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well if peacemakers are weak, then the High King was weak. The High Kings played more of a Kofi Annan type role, working out disputes etc between other lesser kingships.  I would have thought of that as more of a strength than a weakness. MelForbes 12:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A comparison of a medieval ruler to the head of a modern international organization seems deeply anachronistic to me. john k 14:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Given the complete lack of power (whatever about good intentions) exhibited by Kofi Annan and the UN in getting it's constituent members to agree anything, behave, and stop blowing each other up, I actually think it's a pretty apt analogy that serves to prove my own point rather well :-) Bastun 14:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it's a very apt anlogy, thanks. Also there are many things anachronistic on the BI page. Very off topic! Only for the UN a lot of folk may not be here today editing WP. MelForbes 16:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: National formation

message: : So, let's get this straight. If somebody comes on to Talk:British Isles and says, without a username, that the term "British Isles" is a politically loaded invention of British nationalist claims to Ireland, the person in question must be, in Dave Souza's view, a "troll"? I wonder, I just wonder, are all the other "anonymous wikipedia editors" (a tautology in the great majority of cases) writing at this moment similarly classified by a writer who has done his best to inject-what was that phrase?-  yes, political tentacles into this article?      At least we can thank him for that honesty. So much for the months, if not years, of (blatantly self-serving and historically antirational) protestations by British wikipedians that "British Isles is not a political phrase!!!" The Emperor (and indeed  the Empire) has no clothes. Amen. El Gringo 20:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Emperor has no clothes

message: No confusion about it. The term is objectionable to me and any Irish person I know. That this discussion continues is testimony to how controversial the term is. And that some British people think it's an acceptable term (just as the British Empire was acceptable to their compatriots in former days) makes the term very controversial indeed. El Gringo 17:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since when has Wikipedia been dictated by what El Gringo thinks. You may understand the term but that isn't surprising as you live here. Some editors seem to be playing a game of "how much can we condem the term within the lead". The banner already mentions that it is a controversy so why do need to hammer in yet another redundent word of condemnation. josh (talk) 18:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

text: (edit conflict) Hmm, we have: objectionable, rejected, avoided, and replaced all in the very opening of the article; and a pointer to the Terminology section where details of the controversy can be found. Is your contention that the name is never confusing or that we need more than five modifiers to let the reader know that it's disliked in Ireland? Just how redundant should the opening be?EricR 18:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well that wording with confused in it was what was decided upon in the discussions on this talk page. Just because El Gringo isn't confused.com doesn't mean others aren't. Ben W Bell talk 18:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

text: As I recall, the "confusion" term was introduced with reference to aspects such as whether or not the Channel Islands are included. These points are addressed in British Isles (terminology) which should be linked in the banner. ...dave souza, talk 18:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

text: "confusing" is a weasel word. "disputed" is better. British Isles is the most clear term of all (as indicated in the alternatives selection), however disputed and unpalatable. Other versions of that reality are original research and have no place in wikipedia. A discussion progressive terms from this outdated term is vital, but separate from the main definition. That is the only way forward, and is my proposal for this POV page. Widefox 17:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's this "confusing" [[weasel word]]? 

message: This article got in mention in today's Irish Times (2 Oct 2006) - the article is available online here at eircom.net.
The interesting thing is an Irish schoolbook publisher got it wrong! The remark about the Irish embassy being urged to monitor British media is interesting.
zoney  ♣ talk 09:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How did the publisher get it wrong?  BI is a geographical term for these islands.  Just because Folens changes their school atlas doesn't mean any other publisher in the rest of the world will be changing theirs.  It is interesting, though.  It's not too long ago at all since I wrote on this talk page that my daughter's Irish-published school atlas used the term 'British Isles' - and then suddenly this story appears - and quotes Wikipedia.  I wonder if this is an example of metaWikiness, where Wikipedia editors initiate events that can then be written about on Wikipedia? :-P Bastun 09:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not at all - the issue is a long-standing one, and just as much as there are those who care about it, there are plenty of people who are oblivious to it (even if they might care if it was drawn to their attention). Folens were probably in this "oblivious" category - it doesn't mean the issue didn't exist. Certainly my geography books were good and traditionalist :) (unsurprisingly so for some of them which were in Irish!) zoney  ♣ talk 09:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks for a good link, interesting story. The "recent complaint by a parent" contrasts with the hordes of enraged Irish parents we might have expected from discussions here, and the advice from Minister for Education passing the buck to the parent to take the matter up indicates less than active Irish government concern about the issue. Their monitoring of the British media also seems not to have resulted in any action. By the way, although "John O'Connor of Folens" suggests some Irish connection, Folens is apparently Dunstable based. ..dave souza, talk 10:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hmm. The Folens you list was only founded in 1986 and doesn't appear to have an Irish distributor/subsidiary.  But there is a Folens.ie and I certainly used their books pre-'86.  Bit of a coincidence, though, to have two schoolbook publishers of the same name in adjacent countries without there being some sort of connection. Bastun 10:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Teaches me to just click the first link in a search. Looks like the UK one might be a spin-off, neither caring to point out the other's existence. ..dave souza, talk 17:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Does this mean that until wikipedia got its  mitts on this thing an Irish publisher was publishing atlases that had "British Isles" in them?  I like how we seem to be being cited as "evidence" that the term is controversial...if only mainstream media actually knew how to use wikipedia. john k 12:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Extraordinary. The Times editorial cites this article in inverted commas, but without acknowledgement. Then goes on to tell us that "The Times Atlas of the World identifies the principle city of what used to be called the Holy Land as...". Ouch. Well down to Grauniad standards. Then in their news item "A spokesman for the Irish Embassy in London said... 'We would discourage its useage'.” Would? If what? So, all in all, can The Times still be considered a reliable source?  ... dave souza, talk 19:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

text: To john k; this is a fundamental flaw in Wikipedia (and indeed all encyclopedias). When you write about the world, you also help create the world; however, it is and will always be that way, we can't do much to change it. As for dave; I think its fairly frustrating to realise that newspapers are often our best source, even if they're frequently wrong, misguided and hyperbolic! --Robdurbar 08:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

text: john k is right, this flaw is addressed in the policy of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox which unfortunately there's a tendency to breach in this article: zoney's comment that "there are plenty of people who are oblivious to it (even if they might care if it was drawn to their attention)" rings true, and it's not Wikipedia's place to try to make such people care. My comment was slightly jesting, but we know that Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Does an unreferenced second hand quote from Wikipedia become a reliable source when it's in a Times editorial? I'd hope not. ...dave souza, talk 14:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If only nobody read wikipedia (or, even more importantly, mirrored it!).  That would make writing it so much lovelier.  This does raise the horrifying possibility of wikipedia becoming a source for itself - a wikipedia article is used as the basis for an article in a mainstream publication, which can then be cited by wikipedia as a source for an assertion that originated in wikipedia itself.  How dreadful. john k 03:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The horror increases: I came across a peachy example of the madness of the Wiki-world   here. In one of his podcasts (after about 3 minutes), David Duke cites a WP article on Jewish law in order to set out his case on Jewish supremacism. Yet the cited article has a talk page full of debate about anti-Jewish bias in the article itself! This type of thing is going to happen more and more until ... somebody bombs WP (suicide or laser-guided optional).--Shtove 19:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

text: At the local library, the Irish Student's Atlas by Elenor Butler  M.A. , Educational Company of Ireland Limited, which was the major atlas  (60 pages of maps)   used by second level students in the 1960's and 1970's in Ireland, does not mention the term British Isles. On the relevant map page the caption is, Ireland, Great Britain and North Sea.  So Folens were out of step on the matter, are in fact coming back into step. So WP is still only reflecting the world, and not making it. ;)MelForbes 21:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Irish Times article concerning the term British Isles 

message: There really needs to be a mention of this famous rugby team, made of of players from the British Isles. They used to be called the British Lions, but the PC has brought in the Irish part. Worthy of a mention in this article.--HamedogTalk|@ 02:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree (though it mightn't be famous for much longer). And the name isn't PC - it's just accurate.--Shtove 08:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mention of the [[British and Irish Lions]]?