Talk:British Isles/Archive 10

message: Bastun, I’m glad that you recognise the significant level of objection – beyond ‘a radical minority’ that some remarkably contend. Given the general avoidance of the term that exists in the Republic of Ireland, it can be fairly said that majority opinion is beyond ‘widespread indifference’. For the sake of accuracy, I am changing ‘The term is used less frequently in the Republic of Ireland than within the United Kingdom’ to ‘The term is not generally used in the Republic of Ireland.’ This is better wording, and more concise than the ‘…not used to any great extent in…’ wording. Incidentally, if any contributor here hasn’t seen the Cannes Film Festival-winning ‘The Wind that Shakes the Barley’, I’d highly recommend it. It presents very well the majority Irish view (still strong today!) of our identity and place in these islands and Europe as a whole. Pconlon 19:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: it can be fairly said that majority opinion is beyond ‘widespread indifference’  is a matter of opinion, I think - but one we won't be able to resolve without someone like IMRB poll.  In any case, I do think your edit is relatively accurate (we could argue semantics about 'generally', 'widely', etc.) and certainly more succinct - 'tis fine by me. Bastun 01:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, a poll (or even a referendum) would be good! I'm glad you agree that the wording is relatively accurate at least - its converse certainly isn't true anyway. As it is, any nationalist venom - from either direction - is happily kept out of it. I really like to keep things as concise as possible, especially in the intro; long-winded and vague wording only invites endless re-editing!! Cheers. Pconlon 22:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Boards.ie had two different polls (and yes, a boards.ie poll is not a proper poll) that used quite different wordings but got results of between 30% and 60% saying that they didn't like/use the term British Isles in reference to Ireland.  The exact question you ask will dominate the result on a question like this.  Hughsheehy 09:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit to intro

message: I suggested this 
Although this is a purely geographical term, inclusion of the political word "British" makes it the subject of misunderstanding and a cause for offence in some quarters, for example in Ireland. 
but was reverted. Any other opinions? I think it is accurate, far easier to understand and gets to the heart of the matter.Abtract 10:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that purely geographic is a vast oversimplification. As I noted in my edit summary, menaing is created as much in the understanding of the term as in the use of it. If people understand the term policially - and I think its unquestionable that they do - then it becomes political. In Northern Ireland, its very arguable that its use (or absence) would be a political discions. And its certainly mis-used politically - there's the good old quote from a BBC online weather article "in a small country like the British Isles". Furthermore, you'll have some people tell you that British means 'of Great Britian' - given that Great Britian refers to an island, that would make 'British' a more geographical term. To summarise: I wish it were that simple.--Robdurbar 10:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with Rob: the misunderstandings are often due to vagueness as to what's included rather than political intent, and British is rather ambiguous in political terms, as well as having other connotations. Somewhat to my surprise, the present wording of the opening paragraph seems to cover the complexities very well. .. dave souza, talk 11:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And again, the physical area and the island group is perhaps a geographical reality, but that does not mean that the term itself is necessarily a non-political term.  I come back to my example from long ago...if these were "the rainy isles" or "the green isles", or "the atlantic isles" it might be a purely geographical term, but "British" always had at least an ethnic meaning. It's a tricky subject where clarity is key, and keeping within the limits of what can be said is vital to avoid more edit wars.  Hughsheehy 16:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the suggestion user Abtract, but we've raked over this ground before and it really isn't possible to fairly argue the 'purely geographical' position. Users Robdurbar, Dave Souza and Hughsheehy have all made their points well. To contribute a personal anecdote, I travel abroad quite frequently and am sometimes asked if I'm British - as I come from an area often described as the 'British Isles' - a simple, honest mistake, but frustrating nonetheless! Pconlon 10:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Second sentence

message: Is there any other talk here about stuff not related to the term that is after all the name of the page.  I'm assuming such a term exists.  It has different meanings.  We can include them all.  My point is that I see Oppenheimer in the references - I read a digest of his book, and again, maybe my perceptions based on that digest are skewed, but he seemed to feel the Celts came from Spain, and originated in the Med (somehow re-invading Italy and Turkey!).  While this tallies nicely with the Book of Invasions, I suspect it deeply.  Also Oppenheimer asserts the reason the English were so successful in taking over was that they already existed in the pre-Roman population.  Oppenheimer is a geneticist making cultural and linguistic arguments without a background in them.  Interesting, but suspect.  He seems oddly to fall into that Victorian trap of combining genetics, culture and language into that single entity called race.  So we were all Basques (brown haired, long nosed) and then we were visited by dark people, somehow speaking an Indo-European language, but who were famously described as blond by eye-witnesses.  For once I'm on the side of traditional histories and analyses using all disciplines.  I suppose it's a published book and all that, oh well. Stevebritgimp 09:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And naturally there is an interesting WP article on it. Abtract 00:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Regarding Oppenheimer the Basque connection isn't so surprising.  The Irish myth  of the Milesians tells of where the final inhabitants of Ireland (who named the Island after the goddess Ériu) came from were "nine brothers of Íth set out from their territory (said to have been around modern Bayonne in the Basque Country) and invaded Ireland." For a long time, Irish archeology was confused at the lack of evidence for a celtic invasion. Opinion now is that there never was one. Rather the celticisation of Ireland was cultural, not military. --sony-youthtalk 21:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wow 

message: "Isle" and "island" are interchangeable:  one is of French origin, the other is from Anglo-Saxon.  Interestingly enough, the silent "s" in "island" is false and has only come about by imitation of the pronunciation of "isle".  As a side note, before printing there were not that many books, nor a widespread interest in antiquities, nor many works of geography.  Saying something like a term was only rarely used does not have much meaning as an absolute, only if it is relative to other terms expressing the same thing. of course, such an assertion needs a reference to someone who knows what they are talking about.   MAG1 14:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with Abtract.  OED says Isle is a "noun, poetic" and apart from the normal implication of smaller size it's thus not equivalent in normal use.  If we're translating (for instance) Latin into English we should translate into English, not poetry.  Hughsheehy 00:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Isle/island

message: The source I cited above that located Thule as Mainland, the Shetland Islands, if I'm not mistaken, gives the British Isles as Oceani insulas (translated as "Islands of the Oceans"), Ireland as Beata (translated as "Blessed Isle"), Great Britain as Fortunata' (translated as "Fortunate") (see chapter 1, section 7-9).
This is from a 6th century source.  I've heard of Ireland being called the Sacred Isle (looking for the ref now), the Blessed Isle is not far off and Fortune stirs my memory somewhat.  Geographically, Oceani insulas is bang on target.
What are other people's opinions? --sony-youthtalk 09:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He puts these islands off the coats off the coast of modern-day Portugal (referrring to "the twin promontories of Gallaecia and Lusitania" and "the Strait of Gades"). This part is strikingly like this the myth of Isles of the Blest. However, other things are spot on. He puts the Isle of Man (correctly called Menavia) in between them, as well as the Orkneys (correctly called Orcades) and the Shetlands (supported as being Thule) with the Shetlands being described as the furtherst north.  He aslo describes Scandinavia (correctly called Scandia) as being in the same sea but being an artic area further to the further north again (please look at a globe, not a map, before saying that Scandinavia is not north of the British Isles). --sony-youthtalk 14:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On Tacitus and Thule.  Different people said Thule was different things at different times.  The issue is to identify what the particular writer thought it was or meant it as when they used it.  Tacitus calling Shetland Thule is not inconsistent with Pliny meaning Iceland or Norway when he says Thule.  The word Thule was also used for some place in the Baltic and - later on - for Greenland.  Hughsheehy 00:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other Latin names 

message: Very impressed with this section - it uses more sources than I recall from months ago, and addresses citations and all the other issues. Given the toing and froing that went on for ages, there obviously was no handy treatment on the topic - might this now be the best available?--Shtove 19:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ancient terms 

message: Good evening, it's good to see healthy academic debate above! Just a note to highlight that into the introduction's first parargraph I've reinserted the following: 'The term is not generally used in the Republic of Ireland'. I feel that this is too important a point to pass without reference in the article's introduction - as important information for anyone visiting Ireland (given the associated sensitivities). I see from the discussion above that some of my Irish colleagues earlier suggested inserting an explicit reference to the political reasons behind this. I think that the 'considered objectionable' link allows anyone who wishes easy access to a full explanation of the reasons for objection/avoidance - inserting wording in the introductory paragraph around the 'political reasons' inflames passions unnecessarily in my view. Kind regards, Pconlon 19:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I think it was mostly TharkunColl who wanted to insert the "political" reasons.  I think his user page used to say he's from Mercia (it doesn't any more). Hughsheehy 19:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Hughsheehy. I can well see his point, but putting 'political reasons' in without an explanation immediately following it has in my view an incomplete feeling about it - and, as we well know, a balanced explanation usually ends up being far too long for an introductory paragraph! I'm content for the objection that many of us have to be clearly referenced and the point concisely made about its usage (or lack of it) in Eire - with an easily accessible link provided for those who desire a further explanation. I've been impressed of late with the general fairness and goodwill with which users have tended this article. Best regards, Pconlon 22:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Keeping intro succinct, but complete

message: This is probably a bad idea ... but ... I created a template of the timeline we currently have for the etymology of British Isles. I really don't see this being put on any page - for a start its way to big - but I was trying to get my head around the timeline as we have at the moment. Partly, this is because I feel the section lacks narrative (not that I would see one being put in any time soon).
Anyway, I would be grateful if people could look at it and see if it is agreeable to them. In some ways, this is just so I know if we are all on the same wavelength, in part, at least, because of my exchange with dave souza above.
The template itself is here but a more readable version may be here.
Thanks. --sony-youthtalk 22:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like a really good idea to me, the outline looks helpful. Some of the notes may be a bit misleading, and need a bit more detail to make the situations clear. I've a bit more information to hand now and am slowly getting to grips with it: would you prefer me to put my comments in list form here for discussion? ... dave souza, talk 20:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure! Here is good. Thanks. --sony-youthtalk 21:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good - thanks for taking the effort.--Shtove 00:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments on timeline 

message: Or, at least, the BBC appear to be anyway! Robdurbar 13:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What? Is there a link to some BBC talk about this article?--Shtove 17:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lol, no I'm afraid its nothing that exciting. The repeatedly cited BBC weather article has recently been changed from "a small country such as the British Isles" to "a small area such as the British Isles". Of course, I am being a little presumptive - it could just be run-of-the-mill copydediting, but this is a page that had been left unchanged for a couple of years... --Robdurbar 22:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also the music page and a couple of others that had been previously referenced where the BBC used the term in various ways....all suddenly changed.   One does wonder.  Maybe we could ask the BBC why these pages were changed after being static for a long time and then suddenly, once ref'd on WP, being changed.  The webmaster would know.   Hughsheehy 07:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Big Brother Is Watching You

message: The references supplied to "other maps and atlases use the term 'Great Britain and Ireland instead" in Modern Usage are all road and rail maps. These would naturally use this since British Isles is a geographic term and hence not altogether appropriate. This need to be made clear because the current wording makes it look as though these maps are deliberately avoiding the use. In my previous edit I said that such maps "generally" use the political term because I can't demonstrate that they always do. I would be quite surprised to find one that does not. Naomhain 10:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You may well be correct in your feeling.  It's just that unless there is substantiation it's not really valid to assert it in the edit. However, if there is even one that does not, would that invalidate "generally"?  I haven't looked for one, but I suspect you could easily find one.  Also, I'm not sure why on earth road maps are not "geographic".  A road is not political, at least not "generally".  Besides, at least a few of the publishers just call the books "Atlas" and they include far more than just roads. Hughsheehy 19:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fascinating topic actually.  I know that the discussion of atlases etc., only started recently when someone (I think Mucky Duck) asserted that not only dictionaries defined the British Isles as they are normally defined, thus kicking off a bit of a ref war.  I was looking at Amazon.co.uk last night and noticed that older atlases (e.g. AA, Reader's Digest, etc., typically before 2000 or so) refer to the British Isles, whereas they seem to refer to Great Britain and Ireland or Britain and Ireland in the more recent editions.  I wondered if anyone else had noticed the same thing in any other context.  It's possibly in line with the discussion above on Google trending, but may indicate a tendency for the British Isles to fall out of use.  Very speculative for now. Hughsheehy 11:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Entertaining speculation, though all this listing is pushing towards original research. For what it's worth, the road atlases in my house refer to Great Britain and don't have maps of Ireland, so it's also possible that the Ireland section was seen as an addition to the GB road maps. On an earlier point, my small Philips Essential Atlas of the world doesn't include the Channel Islands on the British Isles pages, though it has Orkney and Shetland in inset boxes and could have done the same with the CI. .... dave souza, talk 11:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, for now it's pure speculation on my part...maybe not even mature enough to rank as speculation, more an open ended question - and one that I have no idea whether it's true.  As for the listings, the "I've got more on my side than you have on yours" is tedious but historically this article has been host to lots of denial of the facts.  References seem to be a way of "trumping" denial.  Hughsheehy 14:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: "Demonstrated" more than "asserted", I think you'll find. With  verifiable,  reliable sources. Mucky Duck 17:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, and noone seems to be denying that.  However, the issue of atlases NOT using the term had previously been restricted to poor Folens.  It seems to be a wider subject and one that goes beyond the original turf.  Hughsheehy 21:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other maps and atlases