Talk:British Isles/Archive 25

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

This debate is absurd.

The British Isles means the Island of Great Britain and Island of Ireland.

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 04:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Plus of course hundreds of smaller islands and, depending on the definition used, the Channel Islands. But yes you're right, that meaning has not changed - but as far as I'm aware nobody was arguing that it has... waggers (talk) 09:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Can we find a definition that excludes the Channel Islands? No. The British Isles includes the Channel Islands. If the Channel Islands are not included the correct description is Britain and Ireland, or Great Britain and Ireland, or Ireland and Great Britain, etc. Great Britain includes Skye, Wight, etc. and Ireland includes Achill, Clear, etc. (btw, I use OED as my reference) Wotapalaver (talk) 13:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, again it depends on the definition you use. Strictly speaking Great Britain is an island, and Skye, Wight, etc. are separate islands from it, so "Great Britain" does not include those other islands - similarly for Ireland and Achill, Clear, etc. But in any case, this discussion isn't relevant to any proposed changes to the article. waggers (talk) 15:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I use OED as the definition and by definition Great Britain includes Skye and Wight etc. Similarly, Ireland includes Achill, Clear, etc. Please show me a serious definition that says anything like "Skye is not in Britain". Wotapalaver (talk) 18:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

This is what I wrote here earlier today and a wikipedia editor who has this on his User Page was clearly offended. My oh my. My bad. So, here it is again:

Personally speaking (of course) I think the British should just give up the ghost, get over their loss of empire, and start living side-by-side with the Irish without feeling the need for such jingoistic terms like "British Isles". After Germany and France, Ireland remains Britain's third largest market in absolute terms, a quite surprising reality which is often overlooked. That's a lot of jobs in Britain depending on just being respectful neighbours to the Irish. Economic sanity, not to mention neighbourliness, is on the side of avoiding this term. 86.42.99.141 (talk) 13:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC).

British Isles is not a jingoistic term. MidnightBlue (Talk) 20:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It is, in its entirety, a jingoistic term. From its origin with John Dee onwards it is designed to lay a claim upon Ireland and recreate a new English world called Britain. It is a terminological construction central to the myths that underpin the modern British state and British identity. To deny this is as futile as denying that the people who use this term most in British society are the same people who are on every eurosceptic bandwagon going. When they use the term "British Isles" they are expressing an alternative British (or is it English?) world view that is in contrast to what the EU means to the same people. 86.42.99.141 (talk) 20:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I do not support the National front or the BNP. I removed ur comment because it was offensive and clearly aimed just to stir things up. Im sorry but we can not go around rewritting maps because of a few cry babies. The British Isles is a term widely used by many people, im sorry if you dont like the term but a debate on wikipedia is not going to change it. :) You had a silly and pathetic little rant on another talk page aswell, which talk pages are not designed for. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

No more of this kind of chat or

Actually, the references and evidence suggest that maps are indeed being widely re-written. The value judgement about "cry babies" is hardly pertinent. Also, I've asked before - can we please have references to support the assertion that the term "British Isles" is still widely used by many people? Wotapalaver (talk) 16:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• To many the British Isles means; "The Islands belonging to the British". I'm afraid the IP has some good points to make, and that the concept arose in the 17th century, and during the rise of the British Empire. The problem with the term 'British Isles' is that it is ambiguous, that it has different meanings for different people. A British Unionist Nationalist would argue very strongly in favour of including Ireland in the British circle of things, whereas an Irish person wouldn't see themselves as being British, considering the sometimes horrid history of of Britain's occupation of Ireland. So it follows that most Irish people would not consider themselves British. The term is ambiguous, and has no single meaning, and the article should reflect those facts. Therefore a
  talk
  ) 19:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:British_Isles&oldid=268474905

Now can we end three or four years of chatter? 129.234.4.1 (talk) 14:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I suppose we could, but your suggestion is simply wrong. It's that simple. Wotapalaver (talk) 09:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

How should the references be included in the article to fairly represent what they actualy say. The authors of the refs say Britain and Ireland is becoming the preferred term. Should we quote that directly or say that some commentators ie: the authors, prefer it? I include here both refs.[1][2] —Titch Tucker (via posting script) 01:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

How can we iterpret the references as saying "Britain and Ireland is becoming the preferred term for some commentators"? The commentators/authors of those refs do not at any point say that they prefer that term. What they do say is that Britain and Ireland is becoming the preferred term, two entirely different things. If people are happy to use these refs then we must represent them properly, not include wording which does not exist. Titch Tucker (talk) 12:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

"It has been reported that Britain and Ireland is becoming the preferred term rather than British Isles by x, y, x (refs placed here)." ?  DDStretch  (talk) 17:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Or: "X, y, and z report that British Isles is becoming the preferred term instead of British Isles." ?  DDStretch  (talk) 17:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I would have no objection to either one. They are an accurate reflection on what the refs say. Titch Tucker (talk) 19:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem with Britain and Ireland is that there is no mention of Islands. That could be misleading to readers.--jeanne (talk) 20:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

"Britain & Ireland" would cover all of the islands of both Britain and Ireland, or Great Britain if you like. We don't say "Iceland Isles" instead of Island. Or "America and its isles" for fear of the exclusion of Hawaii from America. Britain and Ireland is a very well used alternate term, and it's not for Wikipedia to finesse the term, otherwise it's OR.

talk

) 21:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Iceland is only one island, Britain and Ireland comprise two sovereign states on separate islands, so they cannot be compared. British and Irish Isles would solve the polemical problem, but that would be OR on my part.--jeanne (talk) 08:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone considered, merely pointing out Britain and Ireland as an alternative name, without mentioning it's being used more or used less then British Isles? GoodDay (talk) 21:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• Looking at the archive, it has been pointed out before, and a "great debate" has almost always followed. "Britain & Ireland" is probably more used than 'British Isles', but merely saying that might cause another "great debate".
  talk
  ) 22:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's not say it. Let's just say Britain and Ireland is an alternative name. GoodDay (talk) 23:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Is there any specific disagreement over the proposal put forward by DDstretch? Titch Tucker (talk) 23:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I would support including "X, y, and z report that Britain and Ireland is becoming..." - the problem with the "It has been reported that..." version is that someone will then use that as justification for a page move, and we end up with an edit war and page protection. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 07:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I also think DDstretch's second option is best. --Snowded TALK 08:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

This is (as usual) madness. If we put this kind of nonsense verbiage in around these references, why not around every other reference on Wikipedia? Can you imagine if every reference had to be included by name? It's ludicrous! A list of hundreds of names to support that fact that the EU has more than one member state. Thousands of names to support the fact that London is in the South East of England. Either references are good, which these are, or they are not. If they are good, then unless there's verifiable reputable reference that somehow contradicts what they say (which there isn't) they can be used in Wikipedia as verifiable fact. If you start down this road to placate loopers I can only wish you luck on every other article on Wikipedia. Wotapalaver (talk) 09:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Example of where this loopiness goes. "Encyclopedia Britannica, The Times Atlas of the World, National Geographic [insert another thousand names of verifiable reputable sources} report that London is in the South East of England. " Right, this is a BAD suggestion. Wotapalaver (talk) 09:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I also support DDDstretch's second version, except that we don't need to name x, y and z. Their identities are clear from the references (the first reference is a poor one as I mentioned above and I suggest it is removed), so all that needs to be said is "Some commentators [authors of the reference(s)] report that ....". MidnightBlue (Talk) 13:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

This article will ultimately have to be sent to an arbitration committee in the next couple of years or so, when indeed Wikipedia becomes a more serious encyclopedia. In the meantime, it should be stated in the article, (as per editor GoodDay), that the islands are also know as Britain & Ireland, and that should be said. It may take some time for this debate to resolve, but it's surely on the horizon.

The suggestions from GoodDay and MidnightBlue make the most sense to me. waggers (talk) 09:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The suggestion from MidnightBlue would require that all referenced text in every article be so prefixed with the name of the sources. It's a lunatic suggestion driven by his IDONTLIKEIT response to what the references say. I note he has no such proposal for other references, but what happens when other editors do? Wotapalaver (talk) 09:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no requirement for a solution devised for a particular circumstance to be copied elsewhere. In this context given the controversy it works. Now please stop using words like "lunatic" its not helpful. --Snowded TALK 12:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

There might be no "requirement", but how do you propose to separate references that do need to be so tagged from those that don't? There is no way. WP requires that references be verifiable and reputable. The references that MidnightBlue proposes to tag because he doesn't like them are reputable and verifiable. It is therefore of no interest to WP whether he doesn't like them and his proposal does not represent any justifiable controversy, it represents IDONTLIKEIT. I could as well start a controversy over other references on the page and no-one would be able to argue that the other references should not also be tagged in this crazy manner. Therefore, his suggestion does NOT work. Wotapalaver (talk) 13:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

After reading Siobhán Kilfeather's essay (currently reference #11) as far as Google Books allows, that is, I find it peppered with inaccuracies, misleading weasel worded statements and bias. If it was a WP article it would be NPOV tagged; it doesn't really provide confidence in it as a good source. -Bill Reid | ^Talk 19:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

CommentTo change the name of a distinct geographical region takes more than a couple of books. The British Isles has been known by that name for centuries. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Known by that term, it should be said, by the same British people who have, well, robbed, occupied, brutalised and oppressed the Irish people for centuries. The same people who also called the Irish barbarians, savages, and much more. And, furthermore, the British as they are commonly known today didn't even exist until, at best, the seventeenth century which coincidentally is when the term "British Isles" first entered the English language. This term is zealous jingoistic nomenclature if ever there was one, just another part of the myth-making exercises underpinning the creation of the British state. And there I was thinking the British were above such crass displays of nationalist tribalism! 86.42.99.141 (talk) 20:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Know by that term by just about everyone. Instead of ranting why don't you address the subject in hand, namely the efficacy of the references. Try to do so without bias. MidnightBlue (Talk) 20:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I have struck the comments as being in clear violation of

WP:TALK and because they merely inflame the situation. See comments at end, as well.  DDStretch  (talk)

22:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

@BillReid. You might be right, but the reference is not a Wikipedia article. It's a reputable published work. In addition, just as a note, the author of that article was a highly regarded international scholar and a senior lecturer in Queen's University Belfast. I believe this is her Obituary in the Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/2007/apr/27/guardianobituaries.booksobituaries) and here is the note from Queen's (http://www.qub.ac.uk/schools/SchoolofEnglish/NewsandEvents/DrSiobhanKilfeather/). I look forward to seeing your credentials as a scholar in the area.
@Martin. You might be right too. The point is that the books report that the change is happening. You may agree or disagree that it should happen (which is irrelevant on WP) but unless you can provide reference you cannot really argue about whether it is happening.
@All. Again, these are typical credentials of references that some editors here are denying existed, are describing as a bad sources, etc. It's apparent that the sources are absolutely eminently reliable and reputable and that - therefore - something else is going on here. That something is IDONTLIKEIT, as always. Should I now change my position and insist that we describe the credentials of the sources in the text? Ooh, tempting. Wotapalaver (talk) 19:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes I had read her obituary previously. Her essay was not based on her academic fields of interest and it showed. Throughout the essay, she wrote about what she knew in an Irish context and getting things rather wrong in the British context and that is what I based my comment on. For example:

Inaccuracies:

• In one passage (page 15) she wrote that support for the Second World War caused division in Scotland and Wales saying that some nationalists opposed 'England's imperialist war' when as far as I know, it was Trotskyists who opposed the imperialist war, or maybe she was referring to the loopy Douglas Young, the chairman of the SNP's Aberdeen Branch, who believed that Britain was going to lose the war and that the Scots should negotiate for peace with Hitler.

• She made the statement The United Kingdom is a name that attempts to encompass two kingdoms, Scotland and England; when of course the United in United Kingdom is not the union of Scotland and England but the union of the kingdom of Great Britain with the kingdom of Ireland.

• She went on ... a principality, Wales; there is no principality of Wales only a titular Prince of Wales

Misleading weasel worded statements:

• Many of the Irish dislike the 'British' in 'British Isles' . The word many is unquantified and non-specific, that gives no idea of the scale of the issue.

• In response to these difficulties, 'Britain and Ireland' is becoming the preferred usage—. Again a non-specific phrase which is unquantified and not backed up by citation.

• It is a common perception among Scottish, Welsh and Irish populations that they face personal discrimination in England, and that for much of the last fifty years they have been discriminated against en masse by the Westminster government. It is a common perception; this is another of those inprecise, unquantified and non-specific phrases that is without citation

• 'while the Welsh and Scottish are not keen on 'Great Britain' . Meally-mouthed are not keen on statement. I'm not keen on lots of things but it doesn't mean that a lot more are

No sources to back up any of the above, just pure POV.

Bias

• Northern Irish Catholics, Ulster Unionists, Scottish and Welsh peoples may have very different and quite specific grievances against English dominance within the British Isles, but they have shared, for much of the post war period, the experience of being ruled by Westminster governments which have received little mandate from the non-English provinces of the United Kingdom. A strange, convoluted sentence in which she expressed her opinion that the Westminster governments did not receive mandates from the 'non-English' provinces. Well tell that to the 80% of Scottish voters and 80% of Welsh voters who consistently vote for unionist parties. -Bill Reid | ^Talk 20:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

So Bill Reid (who?) disagrees with this published author and university academic. That's nice. Excuse me if I, and WP, takes the academic and published author more seriously. Bill Reid might well be right, but it's entirely beside the point. His opinion (whether correct or not) is neither verifiable, reputable, nor published - and is therefore entirely irrelevant. Wotapalaver (talk) 16:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Your replies to people always seem to be laced with invective. Please reply in a civil manner and people might take you more seriously. I think I've shown that she got her history wrong and so the points she was trying to make became suddenly nonsensical; that she wrote in an entirely POV style regarding her description of the use of British Isles and that her interpretation of the Scottish and Welsh mandates that these two countries give/gave to Westminster governments was completely opposite to the truth. She provided absolutely no sources to back up her views. I'm pretty sure I could go back to her essay and find more errors but instead you should be arguing against what I've said and make editors (including me) accept that this book is suitable for a source for this article. -Bill Reid | ^Talk 18:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no invective. There is simply the fact that your opinion is unimportant. Verifiable reputable references are important. The reference is verifiable and reputable, from an eminent (albeit now dead) academic. That you disagree is entirely irrelevant, unimportant, and even fairly uninteresting. Wotapalaver (talk) 09:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment on BBC style guide reference As someone previously uninvolved in this discussion, I have had a look at the BBC style guide, which is causing some contention. It is clear to me that the 'Confused already? Keep going.' comment is in reference to the previous two paragraphs which define various terms such as United Kingdom, Great Britain and British Isles. It is a fair enough comment that it is confusing. However, the article is currently wrong to state The BBC style guide's entry on the subject of the British Isles remarks, "Confused already? Keep going." . The BBC style guide entry is not on the subject of the British Isles, but on the matter of devolution. In addition, the comment quoted is in reference to the previous two paragraphs talking about both the British Isles and the UK, Great Britain etc. A more accurate statement might be: The BBC style guide's entry on the subject of devolution remarks, with respect to the British Isles, United Kingdom, Great Britain and crown dependancies, "Confused already? Keep going." I can see that that may be a bit wordy though!

I do not see how the quote fits in with the section headed "Alternative names and descriptions". The source actually defines what the British Isles refers to, and does the same for the UK etc. It does not offer any alternative description for the British Isles. The quote taken in context does not fit into where it is currently positioned in the article, and certainly needs a more adequate description than currently offered to explain what is being meant by "Confused already?".

A good assessment of the reference, if I may say so. It is very clear that the BBC Style Guide is not offering alternative names for the British Isles, nor is it stating that there is confusion around the use of the term. In short, it's a bad reference, in fact, it's no reference at all. When article protection is lifted I intend to remove the offending sentence and its reference. Any objections to my doing so? MidnightBlue (Talk) 18:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

There are two main standards of the English Language of concern here. One is British English, the second is American English. There former is governed by the Oxford Style Manual (2003), whereas the latter by the Chicago Manual of Style.

The Oxford Style Manual (2003) does not advocate the capitalisation of island on its own. It advocates its capitalisation

Island of Great Britain,

Island of Ireland,

Channel Islands,

Isle of Wight,

Isle of Man,

Isles of Scilly

of the word Island (and Isle(s)) within their long-form names (Island of Great Britain and Island of Ireland).

I would prefer to use the Oxford Standard for the British Isles.

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 20:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Sooo, what are you proposing for the article? GoodDay (talk) 21:17, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Howdy GoodDay.

I am proposing this

Archipelago

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/archipelago

How about this ...

"... The British Isles is an archipelago consisting chiefly of the Island of Great Britain and Island of Ireland and its adjacent islands. They are located north of the Continent (separated by the English Channel), and to the west of Scandinavia (separated by the North Sea) ..."

How is that folkes?

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 21:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC).

Great Britain and Ireland will do. GoodDay (talk) 22:39, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. The Island of Great Britain and Island of Ireland are neccesary.

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 00:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Archipelago

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/archipelago

How about this ...

"... The British Isles is an archipelago consisting chiefly of the Island of Great Britain and Island of Ireland and its adjacent islands. They are located north of the Continent (separated by the English Channel), and to the west of Scandinavia (separated by the North Sea) ..."

How is that folkes?

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 15:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but im confused. I didnt think the opening sentence was the problem. I thought the current dispute was around the issue of if it was accurate to talk about it being controversial or that "Britain and Ireland is becoming the preferred descrption" in the opening paragraph and if the sources back up such claims. Changing the opening sentence will not resolve that, but perhaps im missing something. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Can I go back to GoodDay's suggestion of 31 January? Do we actually need to raise the contentious question of whether one term is being increasingly used, or how many or who prefer one term or the other? Would it not be simpler and clearer to revise the third sentence to state: "Britain and Ireland is an alternative term in use for the archipelago" ? Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello BritishWatcher (talk), and Ghmyrtle (talk).

I apologise for being un-clear. That was not my intent.

I propose that we replace the whole first paragraph,

"... The British Isles are a group of islands off the northwest coast of continental Europe which comprise the island of Great Britain, the island of Ireland and a number of smaller islands.[7] The term British Isles is controversial in relation to Ireland,[8] where many people[9] find the term objectionable; the Irish government also discourages its usage.[10] As a result of these problems, "Britain and Ireland" is becoming a preferred description.[11][12] ... "

with this paragraph listed below,

"... The British Isles is an archipelago consisting chiefly of the Island of Great Britain and Island of Ireland and its adjacent islands. They are located north of the Continent (separated by the English Channel), and to the west of Scandinavia (separated by the North Sea) ..."

How is that folkes?

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 19:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it seems reasonable to me. I've never believed that the disagreement over the term should feature so prominently in the lead. My only suggestion would be to leave out 'Island of ...' in each of the cases where it's used. Perhaps something like '... consists of Great Britiain, Ireland and ...MidnightBlue (Talk) 20:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

ahh i see, thanks for clarifying. Yes id support such a change that would remove the disuputed sentence about the other description from the main paragraph. It certainly deserves a mention worded accurately and well sourced but not in the lead paragraph. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Howdy, howdy.

In British English the Oxford Style Manual (2003) [Chapter 4] would have

"...the Island of Great Britain and Island of Ireland and its adjacent islands. ..."

in American English the Chicago Maunal of Style would have

"...the island of Great Britain and island of Ireland and its adjacent islands. ..."

Similarly, in British English the Oxford Style Manual (2003) [Chapter 4] would have

"...the Government of Great Britain and Government of Ireland ..."

in American English the Chicago Maunal of Style would have

"...the government of Great Britain and government of Ireland ..."

Since are discussing the British Isles ... I would personally prefer that one utilises the Oxford Standard (i.e, the Oxford Style Manual).

Just a thought, eh.

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 21:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)It's pretty good intentions, but I for one would like to continue to see the lede make it clear that the term is contentious. --

I agree that there should be a reference to the term's contentiousness, but placed after the term "British Isles" has been defined and explained. My proposal would be to reorder the sentences, so that a reworded version of the section on contentiousness comes as a third para rather than as part of the first para, as follows:-

The British Isles are a group of islands off the northwest coast of continental Europe. They comprise the island of Great Britain, the island of Ireland and a number of smaller islands.

There are two sovereign states located on the islands: the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and Ireland. The group also includes the Crown dependencies of the Isle of Man and, by tradition, the Channel Islands, although the latter are not physically a part of the archipelago. [I would propose deleting the next sentence: There are other common uncertainties surrounding the extent, names and geographical elements of the islands.]

The term British Isles is controversial in relation to Ireland, where many people find the term objectionable; the Irish government also discourages its usage. Britain and Ireland is an alternative term in use for the archipelago.

Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes mentioning its controversial in the 2nd or 3rd paragraph is better than in the first. Although i still dont like the use of this "alternative name". Could we not just talk about why its offensive / controversial in the 3rd paragraph instead of the current "alternative". Ive not looked through the sources for that alternative it just seems kind of stupid and obvious to me. When talking about the islands Britain and Ireland, shock horror some may say "Britain and Ireland". BritishWatcher (talk) 23:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

True, but they don't say "Atlantic Isles", "Celtic Isles", or whatever. The last sentence could perhaps be rewritten: "Of the alternative names for the archipelago, Britain and Ireland is the most commonly used." Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

That certainly sounds alot better worded that way yes. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello Ghmyrtle.

The sentence below in American English,

"They comprise the island of Great Britain, the island of Ireland, and a number of smaller islands",

How using British English below,

"They comprise the Island of Great Britain, the Island of Ireland and a number of smaller islands"

Eh?

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 23:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any valid reason to use capitals for the word "island". But that is a side issue. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello Ghmyrtle.

I am an English-Canadian (i.e., English-Speaking Canadian).

Ahem ... "English-Canadian English" is a mixture of British English and American English.

Now ... the Oxford Style Manual (2003),

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Oxford-Style-Manual-Robert-Ritter/dp/0198605641/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1233805640&sr=1-1

seems like "one vaild reason" to use the capitalisation of

"... Island of Great Britain, the Island of Ireland ..."

Take care eh, ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 03:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

This seems an absurd suggestion. Why does that manual suggest that "island" should be capitalised? Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello Ghymrtle.

The Oxford Style Manual (2003) does not advocate the capitalisation of island on its own. It advocates its capitalisation

Island of Great Britain,

Island of Ireland,

Channel Islands,

Isle of Wight,

Isle of Man,

Isles of Scilly

of the word Island (and Isle(s)) within their long-form names (Island of Great Britain and Island of Ireland).

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 03:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, the use of "comprise" in the above suggestion is ungrammatical. In short: "all of the parts comprise the whole", whereas "the whole consists of all of the parts". Either swap the things round on either side of the "comprises", or use some form of "consists". In any case, "island" is probably unecessary for Great Britian, though more contentious for "Ireland".  DDStretch  (talk) 08:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Fair point, DDStretch. How about:-

The British Isles are a group of islands off the northwest coast of continental Europe, including Great Britain, the island of Ireland, and a number of smaller islands. There are two sovereign states located on the islands: the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and Ireland. The group also includes the Crown dependencies of the Isle of Man and, by tradition, the Channel Islands, although the latter are not physically a part of the archipelago.

The term British Isles is controversial in relation to Ireland, where many people find the term objectionable; the Irish government also discourages its usage. Britain and Ireland is the most commonly used alternative name for the archipelago.

Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Excellent, full support --Snowded TALK 09:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Well-written and concise.--jeanne (talk) 09:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Disagreed. The British Isles is a group. "Sovereign state" is not a good term. Mississippi is a sovereign state. Ireland and the UK are countries. The group does include the Channel Islands, by definition. The Channel Islands are not part of the physical archipelago of Britain and Ireland, but they are physically part of the British Isles. Other than that, the sources we have say (IIRC) that "Britain and Ireland" is becoming a preferred description (which actually means that the term "British Isles" is falling into disuse since Britain and Ireland and British Isles mean different things). Unless someone has evidence of frequency of use (which I'm unaware of) we still have nothing to suggest that British Isles is more common than "Britain and Ireland". The controversy needs to be mentioned in the top section of the article. Wotapalaver (talk) 09:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry but it is just totally false to claim that "the term "British Isles" is falling into disuse". It may not be used in Ireland, but it is used regularly in Britain. I fully accept the term is controversial and this should be mentioned in the opening paragraphs although i dont think it deserves to be in the first paragraph. However this idea that the term British isles is rarely used now is just false and inaccurate and clearly pushing a biased point of view.

"The term British Isles is controversial in relation to Ireland, where many people find the term objectionable; the Irish government also discourages its usage. Britain and Ireland is the most commonly used alternative name for the archipelago." seems far more reasonable and accurate although i still think its stating the obvious that the two islands are named individually instead of a single "Isles". BritishWatcher (talk) 11:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

For anyone who is confused by "Sovereign State" (I suspect none) we could say "Sovereign country. I would use Britain and Ireland rather than British Isles as would many others, but for the current state of play and citation the proposal is fine. --Snowded TALK 11:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

My suggested text - deliberately - does not suggest that one term is used more than the other, or refer in any way to any change in the degree one or the other is used, because that is controversial. I also suggest that "sovereign states" should link to this page, to get past the "country" issue which is also (probably even more) contentious. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

PS - but I do accept that the British Isles is (not are) a group. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Stick with sovereign state as it is accurate; Wotapalaver, Mississippi is not a sovereign state. It is just a state. --Pretty Green (talk) 13:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The United States is a federal union or republic of states with substantial, but not sovereign powers. It was in point of fact, the issue of states rights which was one of the major causes of the American Civil War, as the Southern states insisted on their Constitution-guaranteed rights to decide the laws in their own jurisdiction, with less federal interference and domination.--jeanne (talk) 13:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Would "nation states" be a suitable alternative? waggers (talk) 14:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, stick with sovereign. Is the UK a nation? Or England? What about Northern Ireland? Or the Isle of Man? Some Irish would tell you that the nation of Ireland is RoI + NIreland. Many Scottish would say Scotland is nation but the UK isn't. The thing that differentiates the UK and RoI from these other bodies is their sovereignty. Pretty Green (talk) 14:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Though this does seem to be an (interesting) side issue. The overall rewording of the intro seems pretty good to me. I don't think the article should take a stance on whether more people say British Isles or Britain and Ireland or whatever else they want to call it - it should present the common alternatives as such and the uncommon ones (eg North Atlantic Islands) as such. --Pretty Green (talk) 14:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, sovereign state is not the right term. California, Mississippi, etc are sovereign states. It's easy to provide reference to this. As for "falling into disuse" I accept that it's not a well chosen phrase on my part there's no reference I'm aware of that says anything like "fallen into disuse". However, if another term is becoming preferred then there is a clear implication that something else is becoming less preferred....which means that "falling into disuse" is perhaps exaggerated, but not to be discarded. Wotapalaver (talk) 17:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

This tactic of saying something like "It's easy to provide reference to this" has been used by the same editor before on Talk:United Kingdom#Use of the word 'Country' where the view was restated on 17:39 19 January 2009, in a debate about the use of "country":

"Yes, they are all easily verified and I will provide sources."

But Wotapalaver never did supply the sources, even when reminded by a number of editors, including myself:

"You say that all your statements are easily verified, but you do seem to be having remarkable difficulty in verifying them when asked. To recap: the two claims you made which you claim are easily verified are: (i) "plenty of sources do not describe them as countries", and (ii) "the vast majority of the international sources (do not describe them as sources)". Now, are you going to supply the verification, please? As I said above, reviewing WP:RS, WP:V and WP:CITE may help you see exactly what I am asking you to kindly supply. If you are interested in contributing to the improvement of this article, and of persuading others that your claims have merit, then you would surely satisfy this request, wouldn't you? Thanks."

Instead, Wotapalaver seemed to abandon that article after a number of extra comments (none of which supplied the requested sources), and increased his contributions here in this general thread. Now we see edits from the same editor which make a very similar statement here. I think that unless the editor is prepared to come up with the goods of verified reliable sources, adequately referenced here to back up the claim about the relevant issues being "easy to provide reference" for (in a similar form for which I asked the same editor on Talk:United Kingdom), we might consider simply ignoring this opposition so that we could then proceed with a consensus view of all the other editors.  DDStretch  (talk) 17:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Nope, I didn't abandon the other articles. It's just that some reference denial started here, and I can only concentrate on one article at a time. As for "sovereign state", I could refer you to the Mississippi state government website (http://www.mississippi.gov/flags.jsp), to Mississippi State constitutional document, (http://billstatus.ls.state.ms.us/documents/2000/pdf/HC/HC0019IN.pdf), to law cases involving the sovereign state of California (http://vlex.com/vid/36808151), to Article 1 of the Louisiana state constitution (http://senate.legis.state.la.us/documents/constitution/Article1.htm#%C2%A726.%20State%20Sovereignty), etc., etc., etc. I appreciate that the "sovereign state" misapprehension is widespread. That's hardly my fault. I also appreciate that lots of Wikipedia editors have negotiated agreement between themselves without ever seeming to consider that consensus in contradiction of reference is worthless. Not my fault either, nor my problem. Wotapalaver (talk) 22:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

At last we have some purported references! Pity about the totally insulting message left on my talk page, where you attempted to blame me when, in fact, the burden of evidence is clearly upon yourself, since it was you who kept on making the claims. It was quite correct for myself and others to ask you to provide the references.  DDStretch  (talk) 23:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• Well you did 'up the ante' a wee bit here[3]. May I ask all editors to address the subject, and not comment on other editors. Maybe just refer to the "two countries", as it reads better.
  talk
  ) 02:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Legitimately, given the editor's previous history of evading the responsibilities that the burden of evidence placed upon him/her. If he/she didn't like it, he/she should have responded appropriately to the reasonable requests. But that is the end of the matter. What do people think of the references that have been offered?  DDStretch  (talk) 02:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The show the use of"sovereign" in connection with "state" within the USA. The use in this context is not ambiguous, it is normal to reference both the UK and Ireland as sovereign states. They could be called sovereign nations if someone has problems with this, but the rewording is otherwise unchanged. --Snowded TALK 06:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

An American state governor does not have the power of the British Prime Minister or Irish Taoiseach.--jeanne (talk) 07:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I love it, "purported references", ha!! These "purported references" are state constitutions and legal documents showing that US states are self-described and legally accepted "sovereign states". As for "sovereign nation", shall I pull up the descriptions of Indian tribes as "sovereign nations"? The UK and Ireland are countries, plain and simple. As for me having a "previous history of evading the responsibilities of the burden of evidence", the remark is ludicrous and shameful and DDstretch knows well that 30 seconds on Google would have found the same references I found. Other than that, I don't make edits without reference. When I didn't have time to address the errors on one article because of people trying to delete references on another, I chose a place to focus. It does not in any way change that fact that what I am saying is supported by reference. "Sovereign state" is not a good term for the purposes of this article. Wotapalaver (talk) 09:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

They were "purported" because they needed examination to see if they were as good as they were claimed to be (and doubts about them have now been voiced): this cannot be contentious, since youir arguments have made the same point previously with other references. And, no matter how many times it is said, the obligation is on the people making the claims to supply the references. That is how wikipedia works, otherwise we could have any old claim made, and in response to evidence have responses like "you find the evidence" which is not on, as it would be tantamount to saying that we had to consider all claims made by others as being verified until we could show that they were not verified. This point has been made by more than just me to you on a number of occasions, and it is a major wikipedia policy described in

WP:BURDEN, so it is not something you can evade by accusing myself as being "lazy" (on my talk page) for not doing your work for you. Your comment that the legitimate concerns raised as "ludicrous and shameful" just does not correspond with the facts or with the wikipedia guidelines.  DDStretch  (talk)

10:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

--Snowded TALK 10:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

There is huge ambiguity in saying "sovereign state" since entities that are not countries can be, and are (as shown by unargued references), "sovereign states". As for DDstretch, when 30 seconds on Google produces results that demonstrate that what I'm saying is correct, his choice to engage in all sorts of accusations merits the assumption that he's not interested in the references. Wotapalaver (talk) 10:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I also think "state" might be the better choice here. I agree with wotapalaver that "sovereign state" would not be a good choice, but wonder whether "

independent state" may be even better.  DDStretch  (talk)

10:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

There are still a few minor problems with that - although nobody has recognised the likes of

WP:NPOV, something like "United Nations member states" would be clear, unambiguous and neutral. waggers (talk

) 11:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Within the context of the page, and the meaning of the word State there is no significant ambiguity (to say huge is a nonsense). Independence I could live with but it is ambiguous; Scotland and Wales have after all some independence so you might have to say fully independent and it gets silly. Waggers suggestion is a good one though. lets go with that. --Snowded TALK 11:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

On reflection, you are right about the problem with "independence". The (small) problem I have with "sovereign state" is that some may argue that Ireland does not have a sovereign, even though sovereign doesn't include that notion, and so... Wagger's solution does look quite good, however.  DDStretch  (talk) 11:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, "United Nations member states" is unnecessarily cumbersome for a lead/lede, and "sovereign states" works fine as a commonly understood term (and can be referenced per Article 1 of the Montevideo Convention of 1933)- any confusion to readers (vanishingly unlikely, in my view) can be discussed later in the article if necessary. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

There will never be a definition that suits everybody but List of sovereign states is the title of the article on wikipedia the covers "fully independent" "Sovereign" "countries" as mentioned by Ghymrtle so i think we should just use the term Sovereign state and link it to that list. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

(reduce) We should not point at that list nor use the term "sovereign state". The term "sovereign state" is all over WP and it's usually shown with a link to an article called "Sovereign State", even though that article has been deleted and the links all bounce on to another article on "sovereignty" or something. All the places that link exists will have to be re-written. The page "list of sovereign states" is a confused list of various things, but it isn't a full list of "sovereign states", and it caveats itself to death in the first paragraph. The commonly used and appropriate term is the simple term country. France is a country. Spain is a country. Germany is a country. The USA is a country. There are two countries in the British Isles; the UK and Ireland. Scotland and England are parts of the UK. They're historical countries, but for the purposes of a multi-country article the relevant country is the UK. It may be appropriate to have a technical discussion on the status of Scotland in the article on Scotland or in the article on the UK, but it's not appropriate in this article. Unless we start counting things like the Texas Hill Country or Kentucky Horse Country or the the Kentucky bluegrass country (also known as the Kentucky bluegrass region) as countries too, then - in any international discussion - the UK is one country. Its internal arrangements are entirely relevant within the UK, but not in an article like this. Wotapalaver (talk) 14:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

That approach is clearly not acceptable on grounds of clarity, as evidenced by debates elsewhere which show that the word "country" has multiple definitions. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

There definitely appears to be a consensus here for "sovereign state" with only one contributor opposing it. We've been through a number of alternative options without widespread support for any of them (the second best option appears to be the "United Nations member state" suggestion, which

Wotapalaver hasn't commented on). I suggest we cut the circular arguments and go with "sovereign state" - perhaps including the wikilink to the list so that the meaning is perfectly clear. Failing that, are there any objections to "United Nations member state" other than Ghmyrtle's perfectly valid comment that it's a bit clumsy for an opening paragraph? waggers (talk

) 15:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Go with sovereign state, it reads well is unambiguous in context and is the consensus solution --Snowded TALK 15:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok. I'm happy with either sovereign state or United Nations member states.  DDStretch  (talk) 17:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy with sovereign state. It's used extensively in WP and elsewhere. It is a concise term. MidnightBlue (Talk) 18:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Sovereign state is entirely unacceptable because it's too vague and people (as shown here) think it means something it doesn't mean. (Oh, I love it that the Montevideo convention has been hauled up. Go read the article on it. It's as relevant as the League of Nations was. Go on, read the article.) Some formula with country is still easiest and best. "two independent countries" could be simple, although "two countries" would be better. Scotland, Wales, etc are not independent countries. People understand what a country is. International law commonly speaks of countries. Wars are between countries. France is not commonly described as a "United Nations Member State". It's a country. The UK is a country. Ireland is a country. Wotapalaver (talk) 18:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Please don't bring the country argument into this current discussion? GoodDay (talk) 18:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like we will not get unanimous agreement, but we do have consensus (all bar one) on sovereign state. I see no new argument in Wotapalaver's latest comment --Snowded TALK 18:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Neither do I. On that basis, let's close this discussion and go with "sovereign state." Can someone remind me of the exact change we're supposed to be making, and I'll do it (as the page is protected) - unless of course another admin beats me to it. waggers (talk) 10:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

off topic discussion

As a result of these problems, "Britain and Ireland" is becoming a preferred description.

Why are these references considered so good as to go in the first paragraph? We could could cite any number of references - dictionaries, encyclopedias etc. - that don't say anything of the sort. In short, why does the article's first paragraph cherry-pick citations to give the "anti" view? ðarkuncoll 00:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Why do you call it the "anti "view? Titch Tucker (talk) 01:15, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Becasue that's exactly what it is. The lead sentences, the section on alternative names, and other parts of the article are used to promote the anti-British Isles POV. MidnightBlue (Talk) 10:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

That is nonsense, its simply reporting reality. Deleting the whole article would be a POV --Snowded TALK 12:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Well all I can suggest is that you actaully read the article. Quite clearly you haven't, but if you maintain that you have, the only other thing I can think of is that you don't understand the core Wikipedia principle of NPOV. MidnightBlue (Talk) 12:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Well what a surprise, disagree with MidnightBlueMan and you have not read something or fail to understand it. Shame on me. --Snowded TALK 09:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The current introduction is clearly pushing a point of view. We have one sentence describing what the "British isles" are and then two sentences basically saying its controversial and not used much anymore. I agree that the fact the term is controversial should be mentioned in the intro but i dont think there are grounds for the bit about Ireland and Britain being the prefered description. There isnt enough sources to back that up. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Editors are reminded of the behavioural guideline concerning appropriate messages on talk pages:

Ok. Let us all calm down. It is not the done thing to remove other editor's comments, unless they are clearly abusive, from talk pages, and the above exchanges, whilst sometimes violating

WP:TALK or of being worded inappropriately. Some messages are neither. Let's just walk away from this section, eh? The point could have been made in a less inflammatory way, and the response to it could have also been less aggressively worded.  DDStretch  (talk)

01:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah hah! AVD has been edit warring on this talk-page (while I was asleep). GoodDay (talk) 14:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The article needs to make it clear that when writers used the term British Isles in the 16th and 17th centuries, the word "British" meant what we today would call "Celtic" - and was therefore specifically not an English claim to hegemony. It was not until later - 1707 to be precise - that the British state appropriated the word "British" for itself. ðarkuncoll 12:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Good point that, it was John Dee wasn't it who made the first claim? --Snowded TALK 12:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Dee is regarded as the first to use the term in English, though the Latin term had already been revived by Continental geographers during the previous hundred years or so. ðarkuncoll 12:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Tharky (and always respect your scholarship even when I disagree with its application!). Are you going to draft something? Its an important addition. --Snowded TALK 12:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd be surprised if any such addition were accepted, since it casts doubt on the idea that the introduction of the term into English was politically motivated. ðarkuncoll 12:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Well that depends on the wording. The use of "British" in the 16th Century related to national identity and an attempt to gain legitimacy by linking to Arthur etc. I think the issue with its political use is mainly late 18th/19th when it gets linked to Irish and other issues. Trying to impose 20th/21st century notions of nationalism and empire onto that period is a nonsense. --Snowded TALK 12:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

It's interesting that the term British first appeared in the 16th century when the Welsh-descended Tudors sat upon the English throne. Henry VII had even named his eldest son Arthur as a tribute to his British, as opposed to English, heritage.--jeanne (talk) 07:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The term British didn't appear in the 16th century. It has existed in English since the Anglo-Saxon period, and referred to the Celts up until the 18th century. ðarkuncoll 22:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The name Arthur almost certainly has its roots in Ireland, and first appeared in Irish literature. There is a strong case to be made that the Arthurian legends were appropriated from the Irish stories of Cormac McArt, as they had suddenly appeared in Britain. But that's another issue, and would create hot collars on the King Arthur page.

talk

) 23:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

It was also used frequently in Brittany; in point of fact many medieval Dukes of Brittany were named Arthur. Brittany has not been brought up on this talk page. Bretons are clearly of Celtic origin.--jeanne (talk) 05:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

AS I promised  DDStretch  (talk) on my userpage, I am not going to wade into this British Isles "thing", anymore.

Parting thoughts ...

(1). the British Isles,

(2). Scandinavia,

(3).

Nothing exists in a vacuum, so once you folkes finish butchering the British Isles, there are two more terms left to throttle.

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 21:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Errr, I guess so. I don't know. GoodDay (talk) 21:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

This talk page reminds me of a hamster on his wheel.--jeanne (talk) 09:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The British Isles are a group of

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and Ireland.^[5] The group also includes the Crown Dependencies of the Isle of Man and, by tradition, the Channel Islands, although the latter are not physically a part of the archipelago.^[6]

The term "British Isles" is controversial in relation to Ireland, where many people find the term objectionable because the word "British" is associated with the United Kingdom; the Irish government discourages its usage.^[7][2][8] "Britain and Ireland" is a commonly used alternative name for the archipelago.^[9][10]

I've removed the "adjacent" from the first sentence as not all of the British Isles are adjacent to one another - the Channel Islands being of course a prime example. waggers (talk) 11:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Archipelago has an association with a scattering of small islands, and doesn't do the islands justice. Yes the Hebrides are an archipelago, but not the 7th, and the 20th biggest islands in the world. For example, we never hear of the "New Zealand archipelago". Consistency should be considered.

talk

) 11:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, that gives us something like this:

The British Isles are a group of

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and Ireland.^[12] The British Isles also includes the Crown Dependencies of the Isle of Man and, by tradition, the Channel Islands, although the latter are not physically a part of the island group.^[13]

The term "British Isles" is controversial in relation to Ireland, where many people find the term objectionable because the word "British" is associated with the United Kingdom; the Irish government discourages its usage.[14]^[2][15] "Britain and Ireland" is a commonly used alternative name for the group.^[16][17]

waggers (talk) 11:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

It sounds good to me.--jeanne (talk) 12:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't like the word many, because it is not quantifiable, however the word some is not a good word either and at that point I run out of ideas. Other than that it looks good to me. Canterbury Tail talk 12:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

This may be a situation where the passive mood is required. Using it, together with other grammatical changes then required recasts the text thus:

The term "British Isles" is controversial in relation to Ireland, where objections have been raised because the word "British" is associated with the United Kingdom, leading the Irish government to discourage its usage.^[18][2][19] "Britain and Ireland" is a commonly used alternative name for the group.^[20][21]

Would this be better? It is a bit more clumsy, but removes the adjectives that seem to be the problem.  DDStretch  (talk)