Talk:British Isles/Archive 5

message: I have commented out the bits referring to the Anglo-Celtic isles. The reason for this is that the website seems to talk almost exclusively about Anglo-Celtic culture in England (and how that should replace the term "Anglo-Saxon" culture, and there are no verifiable sources for its use on this page or on Anglo-Celtic Isles. I am sure someone will come up with something and restore the commented bits. MAG1 23:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone will eventually need to find a source for this, as well as 'British and Irish Isles'. WP:NEO is pretty clear, we need a source which discusses the term, not one which uses the term. I don't doubt that something can be found—but right now both names are unverified.EricR 05:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The website linked said 'on the anglo-celtic isles' --82.63.152.130 06:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are referring to the website www.anglo-celtic.org.uk then unfortunately that site actually only uses the term to refer to England. Not Wales, Scotland, Ireland or anywhere else, just England. Ben W Bell talk 06:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, but we now have a article which say anglo celtic isles in start but not in rest of article. I am confused? Is it used? --82.63.152.130 17:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Anglo-Celtic Isles

message: Somebody wanted (more?) evidence earlier that the expression "British Isles" is used to mean Britain and her islands and didn't include Ireland at all. Well, result No 2 (No 1 is this article) on a Google search of "British Isles" does just that: http://www.the-british-isles.com. British isles are those islands off Britain owned by Britain. Discussion over. Oíche mhaith agaibh go léir. El Gringo 00:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. The problem with that page is that it, as has been mentioned before in this very discussion page, is that it obviously has been created by someone without proper knowledge of the meaning. If people get the meaning wrong we need to educate them as to its use, meaning and the implications, not simply change the terminology to suit. Unfortunately that website seems to be missing a contact email for us to get in touch with them about their errors. Ben W Bell talk 07:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: This has absolutely nothing to do with any national narrative of mine. If I were to bring my national and political predujuces (sp?) into this discussion then I wouldn't be maintaining a neutral point of view. And you have no idea what my political or national leanings or thoughts are, and you probably never will as they are irrelevant. I deal in evidence, and the evidence that I have seen, that I have researched and that I have come across shows overwhelmingly that British Isles as including Ireland is the most common usage in the world, and not just in English but in foreign languages as well. Yes there are some that have issues with the name, that has never been disputed. Yes there are some who outright find it offensive, still not disputed. However the fact remains that it is in very common usage and evidence has not as yet been presented to overrule that. There is evidence presented that there is confusion over usage of the term, there is evidence presented that some people plain don't like the term, none of these I have disagreed with and both of which I believe require some discussion and presentation on the article. However Wikipedia is based on verifiability of facts, not people's opinions. Oh and I don't believe I have ever edited or been involved in any way with the page Britain or Great Britain. It seems to me that by maintaining this accusatory tone against people that you are bringing your prejudices into this, not me or many of the other editors on this page who are trying to come up with an agreement on this page. Ben W Bell talk 13:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: This site also seems to use the term British Isles to mean England, Scotland and Wales, rather than Isles owned by Britain. Anyway Britain obviously owns Islands that are nowhere near and certainly not part of the British and Irish Isles. Alun 07:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually you make a good point, the grography/geology/ecology info in this article is probably duplicated elsewhere, and would certainly fit into other articles. In one respect geographical regions are as artificial as political states. One could argue that the Ireland article is the more correct place for this sort of information as it is a discrete land mass. Alun 12:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Welcome to the British Isles

message: If I may be so bold as to invoke User talk:Ben W Bell's words above, 'If people get the meaning wrong we need to educate them' and ask you all to go over to the Britain page and vote for the redirect to Great Britain. El Gringo 12:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have to think on this one, but I must say on first glance I almost agree. A merge would be best as there is info on one page that is not on the other. Britain should be merged into Great Britain and a redirect put in place. I think anyway. Ben W Bell talk 13:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This should be discussed on the Britain or Great Britain articles, not here. --Bazza 16:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Talk:Britain|Redirect Britain to Great Britain]] 

message: Is this the actual position of any of the editors here, or has the very first sentence slipped into an equivocal usage of the article title? That the name is disputed is well documented, that there is alternate usage of the term is as well; but refusing to be included in the term is a much different matter than refusing to be included in the archipelago. The article should take care not to imply the latter extraordinary claim unless someone can find a strong source to support it.EricR 05:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As you point out, the insertion of "(one state on the archipelago disputes its inclusion)", apparently to get the issue into the first sentence in case readers go no further, produces ambiguity as well as an ugly sentence. To clarify matters I've changed the sentence to read "which is commonly though not universally known as the British Isles, despite issues arising when the term is used in relation to Ireland." Others may be able to find a better form of words. ..dave souza, talk 10:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems good to me, but I've split the paragraph just before the "Historically.." bit to separate out what's being talked about from its history. That's still four paragraphs as per the guidelines. --Bazza 10:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

text: But she is queen of England! England is a place that she reigns over. This fact is unaffected by whatever titles she happens to use. TharkunColl 11:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No. She is Queen in England. "Queen of England" is a constitutional title which has not existed since the 1707 Act of Union. Similarly she is Queen in Scotland, but not Queen of Scotland, because that title has not existed since 1707. And between 1801 and the 1920s, the monarch was king or queen in Ireland, not of Ireland. The title King of Ireland was only resurrected in constitutional law in 1927 and abolished in 1949. One can only be monarch of a state. England and Scotland, while still nations and countries, ceased to be states when they merged in the Act of Union in 1707. Ireland as the Irish Free State only became a legal state in 1922. However the concept of dominionism at the time saw dominions as in effect subsets of the United Kingdom, hence the primacy of UK law, and the fact that the UK parliament could legislate for its 'dependent children', the dominions. In 1927 dominions via a Commonwealth conference the previous year were given recognised statehood, including a direct relationship with their as opposed to Britain's monarch. As a result, though different dominions asserted their equality via the crown at different speeds, from 1927 the King became king of them, and not merely in them. So your claim that she is "Queen of England" is constitutional bunkum. The last "Queen of England" was Queen Anne up to 1707. Since then there have only been monarchs in, not of England. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 19:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

text: You have changed/added, "though to some inhabitants this term is considered controversial". I see that as maybe politicizing the paragraph again. Bit of a nuance here, do people claim to inhabit the British Isles , or claim to inhabit their respective countries? Referring to the inhabitants of the BI is akin to the BI being a sovereign state in itself. Some are saying it's a geological term, and some claiming otherwise. I think it's going to confuse again. Addition of the word most to commonly may distract the reader. -MelForbes 11:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Suggest just "though some consider this term controversial". But "most commonly" (or an equivalent) is needed to indicate that this is the clear majority usage. Commonly might just be 30%. ColinBell 12:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

text: A minor issue is the use of "regions" - it would be more appropriate to say either "countries" or "nations", both of which are historically correct. Agree that it's not worth getting into the kingdom vs. principality issue. ...dave souza, talk 13:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me if used with the historical qualifier, otherwise could could see problems arise concerning NI. v ROI. -MelForbes 15:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I think the top line is necessary. Remember, here as elsewhere for every reader who reads the article, many more will have a 10 second glance and then shoot off somewhere else. That is the nature of encyclopaedias. British Isles is so controversial — a term practically of devotion to some, a term of detestation to others, to the majority either unoffensive (most British people) or annoying and creepy (most Irish people) — that you really do need at the very start to have something that says to people, before go apeshit and suddenly decide to stop at this page and totally change it, "look. we know this is a controversial topic. Before you start angrily ripping the guts out of the article, read the terminology section and give it a chance." That is what that line is. If it isn't there, people will jump in feet first editing at the begining not realising that the stuff they think is missing actually is already covered elsewhere outside the introduction. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 19:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  One state on the archipelago disputes its inclusion 

message: The article is well paced, up to the terminology section. Refer the terminology to a main article, and cut the political history section altogether (leaving links to comprehensive articles).--Shtove 01:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Solomon's Cut 

message: PConlon, you have stated 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...very different cultural groups." However, recent research into this very subject apparently suggests that the majority of the English population was, and still is, Celtic in origin. When the Angles, Saxons, Jutes, et al, arrived they did so in relatively small numbers, and did not displace the population - they controlled it.
The Normans arrived later than that still. How much impact did the Romans have? Quite a lot.
What the Celts of several billion years ago(!) have to do with our generic and, in a very real sense, shared modern culture in 2006 anyway though, is anybody's guess! How much impact did the Romans have on the rest of the British Isles, including Ireland? Quite a lot. How much impact does modern American culture have in the British Isles today? Quite a lot.
You go on to say, "This majority population in Britain did unquestionably dominate the island group is every sense for centuries, during which time they (naturally I suppose) started using the English term 'British Isles' to describe the whole area they dominated - IT IS A PRIMARILY POLITICAL TERM."
However, it was not an "English term" to begin with. If anything, it was probably Celtic in origin.. certainly it was used by the Greeks and the Romans. The term was a description of the PEOPLE of the islands. It was a corruption (read: translation) of the name the people of these islands apparently used to refer to themselves. At that time there was no Protestantism, no Potato Famine, no Cromwell, no Home Rule Bills, no Bloody Sunday, no Darkley and no Omagh.
Your apples and oranges analogy is flawed. A more correct analogy would be that both apples and oranges are fruits.
The "norther-eastern corner" of Ireland does not need singles quotation marks around it - Northern Ireland is a reality - not a neologism. Nor are the problems in Northern Ireland merely some kind of "forced mixing" of "two very distinct cultures". Perhaps you weren't aware that Presbyterians spoke Gaelic. The problems were really started as a result of a culmination of religious wars throughout Europe, the fact that Ireland hadn't solidified as a single unified country, and the introduction of laws designed to prevent the possibility of further war breaking out in that particular region of Europe.
Now this is where you manage to confuse yourself: "I and most of my fellow Irish contributors are citizens of the Irish Republic and are in reality no more British than the Danes." Citizens of the Repubic of Ireland are Irish given that that is the national description, or nationality. Citizens of the United Kingdom are British given that that is the nationality of that country. You are confusing nationality with ethnicity.
Thank you for your genuine attempt to explain yourself, but you have only served to show that many, many Irish nationals (and nationalists), while not intentionally showing any hostility towards us Irish, totally misunderstand where we've come from, what we are and what we aspire to in the future.
"To my Irish colleagues specifically...we all have been doing and continue to do a tremendous job fighting to have our identity clearly and properly presented here." I don't know what that has to do with presenting facts in an encyclopedia. However, I suppose that there are indeed those - particularly amongst ourselves - who attempt to present point of view as fact. --Mal 10:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Beware, User Mal loves a good row.  Just thought to let you know, sleep!!-86.42.158.200 11:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I think all those points have already been rehearsed above. The weekend newspapers were full of this new research that the English are German (post World Cup wave of The Krauts aren't so bad after all) following 15 generations of apartheir policy following the 5thC invasions. But when you read them, the articles say that English genetic make-up is 54% Saxon origin. My understanding is that south of the Thames indigenous genes are dominant, with Saxon genes dominant to the north, as far as the Tweed. Why do we care? Auf wiedersen.--Shtove 16:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are quite right, and remember they are only measuring the male Y chromosome, if the Anglo-Saxons didn't bring many women with them (and so mainly had children with indigenous women), then the 54% figure is effectively cut in half (and the range is 24.4%-72.5% depending on the region of England, for some reason these figures are median figures rather than the arithmetic mean, the distribution is very heterogeneous for these markers and cannot distinguish between Anglo-Saxon and Danish-Viking Y chromosome markers, so it's likely that the estimate for Anglo-Saxon origin is an over estimate, some people must be descended from Guthrum's men!!). Beware journalists seeking a good story, it's false authority. Alun 18:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Very common Gaelic mistake 

message: On user talk:Red King, an IP left this cryptic message: 
Hey, you have unbalanced the paragraph in the British Isles page. Have you not being reading talk! The paragraph deals with the history, not 2006. -86.42.134.177 19:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that there are only four nations in the British Isles. England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales. Northern Ireland is an artificial state that should never have happened. TharkunColl 23:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All states are artifical. Saying Northern Ireland should never have happened doesn't erase the fact that it did and it is strictly a separate political entity within the UK. Whether it is a country or full state on it's own is definitely open to debate among the entire world, but it's still there and has to be accounted for whether it's wanted or not. Ben W Bell talk 07:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess, that's why the word historically was used.-MelForbes 12:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not only that but you're opening a debate as to whether England, Scotland and Wales are separate nations or are part of one nation, the UK, which is a bit of a live issue at present. ColinBell 14:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please understand the difference between a nation, a state and a country. A nation is a group of people, it is not a political entity, and it does not necessarily need to have a geographical boundary (it is a bit like an ethnic group, the Kurds are a nation, as are the Palestinians, these people are sometimes refered to as stateless nations, see List of active autonomist and secessionist movements). There are four nations in the British and Irish Isles, the English, the Irish, the Scots and the Welsh. There are two states in the archipelago, the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom. The word country is sometimes used to refer to a state, and sometimes used to refer to the geographical territory a nation lives in, so it means different things in different contexts, so the UK and the Republic of Ireland are countries, but so are England, Scotland and Wales. If Wales were to become independent at any point then it would be a nation-state. Northern Ireland is neither a country, nor do it's population identify as a single nation. States are legal entities and are therefore artificial. One could argue that nations are racial or ethnic entities, one could also argue on one level that these are artificial, though they do not feel artificial, people feel a real affinity for members of their own nation due to a shared sense of common identity that they do not feel for people outside of their nation. Alun 17:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Alun is correct.  The word "nationality" doesn't help, since that relates to statehood.  Lots of HMG documents refer to "the English Regions and the other UK nations". so it is a valid use.  The NI case is a "statistical anomaly".  --Red King 17:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm perfectly aware of the distinctions. But your "four nation" division is certainly not universally agreed. In England currently there's a real tension between thinking of ourselves as English and as British - this is hardly surprising given we've been politically united to the rest of the UK for centuries, and share considerable cultural heritage, history and blood. (Personally, although born and bred in England, my father's family are all Scottish, so I'm reluctant to identify myself as English as it would deny a chunk of my heritage.) In Scotland and Wales, the concensus is different, of course - but this is at least to some extent only a phenomenon of the last 30/50 years. And of course for the NI Unionists, their nation is definitely the UK. Given all this, I would be very wary of making any categorical statement of whether there are two nations or four. (I'm discounting the HMG documents as evidence given "Nation" presumably has a specific technical legal meaning.) ColinBell 23:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a great Irish song that might help the English with this problem - A Nation Once Again. I prefer the European version.--Shtove 16:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

text: The UK is not a nation, and can never be a nation, it is a state. Some people may describe themselves as British, which is perfectly acceptable, but people who describe themselves as British are also usually English or Welsh or Scots or Irish  (this is not always the case for people from ethnic minoroties). At best you might argue that there are five nations (including British), but I think it is more accurate to think of British as more of a supra - ethnic but closely related group rather than a nation. Ethnic identity is not an either/or situation, one can be British and Welsh, British and English etc. I think NI Unionists usually identify as British, English, Irish or Ulster Scots ethnically, but I think (and I may be wrong here) that people living in NI can have British and/or Republic of Ireland citizenship. British citizenship is really UK citizenship and is based on British nationality law and is not the same as ethnic/national identity. Alun 03:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just stumbled upon your post in the Fresh Start (cont) section where you asked to be described as British (and not English or Welsh), and am struggling to reconcile it with what you have just said above, since it seems to me a strong argument that the UK (or Britain) can be treated as a nation. We also need to take into account historical trends: Scottish national feeling was not nearly as strong in (say) the first half of the 20th century as it is today, and through that period, I'd argue that treating the UK as their nation rather than Scotland would make more sense. (Leaving aside the complications of the Irish Question...) ColinBell 10:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I never asked to be called British, I said that I accept being British, I identify as British, but I am Welsh. One can have more than a single identity. In some ways British people can be considered a nation, I don't think there are any hard and fast rules, but I still contend that most people who identify as British also identify as Welsh or English or Scots or Irish (or even various combinations of these things), it's about how one identifies themselves and people are not always easily pigeonholed. So my argument is that four nations and two states is acceptable because I think it would be hard to  argue that British people are not also at least one of  the four. Alun 12:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

text: And please beware of the ethnic bit: while English may be an ethnic identity with incomers relegated to being "British", there are plenty of, say, Pakistani Scots who identify with this nation. Not to mention Scots Italians and Irish. ....dave souza, talk 11:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I never said that either, I said it's  not always the case, not it's never the case. People are free to identify themselves as they wish. Alun 12:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Four nations is convenient, if only for rugby. There is also a "British nation", a term used today on BBC4, providing an overlapping identity that some are happy to use but which others reject. While many in NI identify themselves as British, the same people will often also consider themselves Irish.  And, if memory serves me well, will come under that nation for rugby purposes. The Orcadians can be ambivalent about Scottish nationality, and it would be interesting to know what nation those inhabiting the Isle of Man identify with. Legally, British nationality law appears to have definitions that seem odd to us mere inhabitants. However such subtleties should not be gone into in the intro. ..dave souza, talk 00:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be interested in a view from the Isle of Man too. I remember being on a marine biology course there when another participant received a letter addressed to "Port Erin, Isle of Man, Lancashire, England". It was delivered! Rhion 11:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I cannot conceive of any English person who would object to being called British, and the English tend to use the terms "English" and "British" interchangeably - a tendency that has been criticised by the other nations of the UK, but in many contexts is perfectly accurate. For example, I could just as easily say "I am English" or "I am British", and both would be correct. For the English at least, we are clearly not talking about two distinct nationalities or ethnicities - we are not English and also British. Such would be an absurd view. All the British institutions - parliament, monarchy, state, law, culture also happen to be the English ones as well. The conclusion must be that when an English person uses the term, the two words - English and British - mean precisely the same thing. TharkunColl 16:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The two words English and British are not synonyms at all. I am British and also Welsh, I am definitely not English. parliament, monarchy, state, law are not English, the Parliament is of the UK, not of England (there are Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish MPs, or hadn't you noticed?), Law varies regionally, but is generally of the UK (I acknowledge the differences in Scotland, but the UK Parliament makes law there as well), the state is the UK not England (there is no English army, and there are no English Embasies), and the monarchy (though I detest their existence) is still a UK monarchy, why else are we a United Kingdom, if you were correct then the queen would not be queen of Wales or Scotland, which she obviously is. There are English people who do not identify with being British, just as there are Welsh and Scots and Northern Irish people, that is their prerogative, because you cannot conceive of any English person who would object to being called British does not make it true. In 2003 about 17% of the English population described themselves as English not British, nearly one in five. See the above citation in one of my posts. Alun 18:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

text: As for your other points, about their being no English army, embassies, law, parliament etc., the fact is that all of those institutions are staffed primarily by English people, so your contention is at best arguable and at worst simply false. What a lot of contrived nonsense. English people comprise the largest ethinic group in the UK, so their representation in state run institutions is obviously larger, how does this make the institution English? By your reasoning the UK is England, because it is mainly made up of English people. By your reasoning I am English, which I obviously am not. Oh, and by this reasoning the British Empire was really the Indian Empire, as there were certainly mor Indians in it than anyone else. You appear to be clutching at straws. Alun 14:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

text: If that's what you choose to believe... I've now removed the word "nation" from the article which seemed the simplest way to resolve this. ColinBell 13:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Historically the archipelago has contained four nations: England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales". I believe that the bold above, (from a previous edit), rather than the present "The archipelago contains England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales" is much more preferable. It recognizes that all of the different countries were/are nations, which should make it comfortable for a nationalist view too.  It doesn't muddy any waters for the reader, and if interested will read further for more explanations. MelForbes 14:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, had I remembered that wording had been out there I'd have used it instead (before a more extensive rewrite proposed below) although I'm wary of using the term as it's something of an oversimplification. ColinBell 15:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Four Nations in the present tense 

message: No it's not, it is just not used... Owwmykneecap 00:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exaclty. Avoiding its use or using it in alternative ways is a way of reacting to a term considred controversial. --Robdurbar 10:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  controversial in Ireland 

message: It seems that, yet again, this talk page is being allowed to fall into discussions of the relevance of various names and irrlevant discussion of self-identifying terms (it makes no difference whether an Englishperson calls him/herself European/British/English/Cumbrian/Barrowvian or Marshian - its not going to help us decide how to present any of the issues in this page.)
Indeed, if we compare the two areas of controversy - the terminology and the intro sections from a while ago (chosing my version of July 11th, when the unverified tag was removed and the version of end 26th July), there is acutally little difference, other than in syntax and ordering . The intro, for example, contains and contained 4 paragraphs (though in the July 11th version one had been briefly commented out, for some reason): one describing the archipalego, one detailing its geography/geology/climate, one on the sovereign states and dependencies in the isles and one on the use of 'British Isles', particulaarly focused on the use of the adjective British. 
I would argue, then, that this represents a consensus. If we have been editing and re-editing with so much discussion for so long and baisically changed nothing, then I think that we should be looking to accpet that the intro now deals with the issue pretty much as well as it can. Of course we all have our own opinions, and own preferred syntax/rewording; but these are minor issues which we could debate for ever and never find a 'right answer'. Doing so just allows the few extremists who float around this page occaisionally to insert their own POV and inaccuracies into the article, confusing everything and leaving an aritcle that is regularly messy.
As for the terminology section; this has been more seriously overhauled. However, much of what is said is still the same. I would aruge that the only major additions are those bits which come just before the 'alternative terms' sub-section. If these are accepted by most editors, then I think we can see that a consensus is developing there too.
--Robdurbar 10:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I consent that we leave it as it is. The debate now has boiled down to very fine usages of detail that doesn't change the overall tone. It needs to be stressed though that this is a Wikipedia consensus as some users (not necessarily ones who have contributed to this page, though one has) has been seen to be removing usages of British Isles from articles where they don't personally agree with it. Ben W Bell talk 10:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Progress/Lack of Progress/Relevance of Talk

message: The page makes claims that both Dennis Canavan (in Attitudes in Ireland) and Sir John Biggs-Davison (in Alternative Terms) originated this phrase. ColinBell 13:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: AFAIK Biggs-Davison has always been credited with the term. I saw him interviewed on I think it was The Late Late Show explaining why he coined the term. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 20:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The UUP had long been interested in such an overarching Council of the British Isles and it had also been an idea that inspired British Conservatives like Sir John Biggs-Davison who had earlier coined the acronym IONA, Isles of the North Atlantic, for a similar vision.Maybe there is some confusion over applying the acronym to the council versus applying the name to the archipelago? Or confusing Isles and Islands? Also, if things weren't unclear already, just found another usage of Iona by Charles Haughey: "a federation of the 'Islands of the North Atlantic', comprising the independent republics of England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland."EricR 21:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I've updated the references page with some sources for IONA. I was unable to access all the references listed on Islands of the North Atlantic, but what i found seems to conflict with the text of our articles. Do you know of any other sources available?EricR 16:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Coining of IONA (inconsistency)

message: :As part of the work needed on the Terminology section, a citation is still requested for the assertion that "In Northern Ireland its use can be seen as sectarian": for convenience I've copied the comment below from the archives: presumably this could be developed into a suitable reference? ..dave souza, talk 18:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The author uses nationalist and unionist throughout, i think we would be going out on a limb a bit to infer sectarian.EricR 21:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point: it's a bit easy to automatically infer such things in a national context where pretending to play the flute is all across the newspapers as "sectarian". It would make more sense to change the sentence to read ""In Northern Ireland nationalists reject the description British Isles, whereas unionists, when countering nationalist insistence on the territorial integrity of the island of Ireland, change the geographical frame of reference to that of the whole archipelago of the British Isles."  The terms nationalists and unionists to be linked to the appropriate pages. This would get over the point of different use in the NI communities without getting into whether or not it was sectarian. ...dave souza, talk 22:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

text: It's a point that needs to be covered and made clear throughout that section: later on "Ireland" is used to mean the RoI, when evidence presented earlier shows that the term isn't avoided as much in NI and this confusing usage muddles the issue. ..dave souza, talk 00:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Terminology

message: The citation provided for this name having usage in English was to a mailing list, and did not discuss usage of the term. What the isles are called in other languages spoken within the isles i think has a place in the article, but i'm unsure about mentioning Icelandic names.EricR 21:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed --Robdurbar 19:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: West European Isles

message: :I added a para explaining problems with this term.  This wasn't covered previously.  Would be interested to see what people think.--Stonemad GB 10:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Though this is a legitimate cause for a paragaph, it is all entirely original research. It is, I think unintentionally, a paragraph of your opinion on the phrase. It also contains inaccuracies - Northern Ireland is not necessairily included twice, whilst the bit on Scottish/Wlesh independence is enitrely speculative. So this term does not meet the necessary criteria of being mutually acceptable, unambiguous, geographically precise and applicable to all periods in history' - what term does? The second point in the paragraph is very confused too. Baisically, i udnerstand what you're trying to do but its a very weak paragraph. --Robdurbar 07:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the explanation.  You're right, in a way.  There are no published critiques I can quote on the term 'British Isles and Ireland', simply because it is not a term used by any serious organisation - for good reason.  It would be a bit like referring to 'North America and Canada' - if you saw that written down you would do a double-take, and think that the writers were unprofessional.  The references given for the term are all very weak - the Gibbon Regional Studbook, published by the East Midlands Zoological Society is a particular pearl.  The fact that someone referred to it once in the BBC world music microsite is irrelevant - if the BBC used it regularly in the news, and had it listed as an acceptable term on its style guide, it would be very different.  As a phrase it is factually incorrect according to the globally accepted use of the term British Isles - which does, like it or not, include Ireland - and there is no evidence for it being used on anything other than a very occasional basis out of ignorance: which does not merit inclusion in Wikipedia, any more than referring to a 'colonel of truth' would.  See WP:NEO.--Stonemad GB 08:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I have deleted the bit saying the term 'British Isles and Ireland' is used by Collins publishers, and the reference.  The reference was for a book called Touring Map Scotland(Collins British Isles and Ireland Maps).  But the book, while it does exist, is called merely Touring Map Scotland, and is published by Collins Publishers.  The erroneous title given in the reference refers to its Amazon listing, which is incorrect.  Just to be sure I checked on the Collins website, and all their maps refer to Britain and Ireland, except for one planners road map, of the British Isles.--Stonemad GB 13:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I have deleted the reference to surftheisles.com, used as an example of 'the isles' being used as a replacement for the term 'British Isles'.  The reason for this is that the website has a front page title saying 'Surf the British Isles with Surf the Isles', indicating they do not wish to replace the term 'British Isles'.  I have also deleted a reference to 'BI & Ireland' being used by nursing charities, as the reference given, to Medicalert Foundation British Isles and Ireland, was to a charity now renamed simply The Medic Alert Foundation (see UK Charity Commission for details), indicating that if anything the term is used less than it was.--Stonemad GB 08:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I baisically agree with you BUT we should note that it does get used, whether 'intentionally' or because people presume that British Isles = UK. --Robdurbar 17:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed deletion of British Isles and Ireland

message: This name also is only supported by citation of authors using the term, not discussing the terms meaning.EricR 22:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Anglo-Celtic Isles

message: This is a name for which we have references concerning origin, meaning, and extent of usage. Should it be included in the article?EricR 22:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Atlantic archipelago

message: This can be parsed as two proper names and a conjunction, use as a single proper names needs a supporting cite which discusses it as a term.EricR 22:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? Why should it matter if the term used is actually a phrase and not a single proper name? --Robdurbar 19:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you describe say Australia and New Zealand as a term, meaning some particular thing? How about Hawaii and Oahu? When seeing Great Britain and Ireland how are we to know the writer is trying to avoid British Isles? If it is placed withing quotes is that good enough, or should we have a secondary source which states: "Britain and Ireland is used to avoid using the name British Isles"?EricR 19:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [Great] Britain and Ireland

message: Another little (big?) point here.  In the opening paragraph it says "Great Britain and Ireland".  Should it not say "Britain and Ireland".  It appears from the WP article on GB that it is a political term, so maybe the Great should be left out at that opening stage. -MelForbes 14:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  Great Britain is the island; Britain doesn't really have a strict definition - sometimes it's used as shorthand for Great Britain, but more often as shorthand for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.  If the Great Britain article seems overly political, it needs editing to change that; Great Britain, like the British Isles, is a geographical (not political) term. Waggers 14:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Reading Great Britain i would most often assume the author meant the island, but dictionaries do seem to give two definitions for both Great Britain and Ireland. My guess would be the island is most often listed first for Great Britain and the republic first for Ireland. An older version of the article made things clear with "the island of...", but this was changed in order to get the "most commonly know as..." modifier into the first sentence. MelForbes are you reading Ireland as refering to the republic in that sentence?EricR 14:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well Great Britain can be a political term, to refer to the UK excluding Northern Ireland. I think the best thing to do here would be to put Great in parentheses. People probably use both "Great Britain and Irleand" and "Britain and Ireland". Depending on how someone is using the word 'Ireland', as EricR points out, both could be used; and even then, 'Great Britain' could be being used incorrectly in the phrase but it still sounds correct. --Robdurbar 15:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was reading some very old text (pre 1920) on the BI's, and apparently the BI's were at that time just Ireland and Britain, just the 2 isles. All the other isles were just incidental, with no big deal about them whatsoever. Yea, I was reading the paragraph as just islands, but it seemed contradictory as I read elsewhere on WP that Great Britain was a political term. As by way of example, if a person lived in the Isle of Wight, would he/she live in Britain or live in Great Britain? -MelForbes 15:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither, both, or either one. Choose which and we can find some definitions to suit (i like neither).EricR 17:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL, now we are not sure about Britain v Great Britain, I don't suppose that he/she would choose the BI as the first or even second choice, or even the third.  Point I'm making is that a lot of these terms are loose terms and are not written in granite! -MelForbes 17:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually good point there MAG1, history is usually written by guys! -MelForbes 19:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Great Britain?