Talk:British Isles/Archive 27

Example Who disagrees? Lucian Sunday (talk) 15:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I dont think we should mention devolution, although that is the section where the confused already comment is made. I think it should just say that the BBC style guide recognizes that use of the term British Isles along with other things such as the United Kingdom, Great Britain leads to confusion. My problem is at the moment it takes it out of the context of all those different terms and misleadingly suggests the BBC says the British Isles is confusing. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I have no problems with the text, however no other text that is referenced and stable should be removed. The second paragraph must stay in.

talk

) 16:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The second paragraph was not deleted; it was moved. Lucian Sunday (talk) 16:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Well then it should not be moved; the text is in the intro for a reason and there is on consensus to remove it.

talk

) 16:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

There are plenty of references in the alternative names section that make the point about alternative names. Some are good, others not so good, one is diabolical - and it's this one. No amount of rewording will correct it. It is clear to all right-minded people that the BBC are not specifically talking about BI when they use the word "confusing" in a section about devolution. The reference is outrageous and I've removed it. MidnightBlue (Talk) 16:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Back in February I commented on this as follows: 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 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?".

(Updating above comment in relation to the style guide source being used in the intro.) I am still unsure what point is trying to be made by the use of the BBC style guide quote in the intro. Surely the relevent quote, if the guide is to be used, is the bit saying "The British Isles is not a political entity. It is a geographical unit, the archipelago off the west coast of continental Europe covering Scotland,Wales, England, Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands." The current quote is unclear in meaning - what is confusing? The way I read it, what is confusing is the whole plethora of names that can be applied to different parts of the UK and Ireland, which the article does not make clear. The quote is also tacked on to the end of a paragraph that doesn't make a vast amount of sense anyway.

Overall, I think that the "confused already..." should be taken out of the article. It is confusing what it is in relation to, and there is a much better quote from that same source, specifically regarding the British Isles.

talk

) 15:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

From the lede: "Britain and Ireland" is a frequently used alternative name for the group.

My impression was that "Great Britain and Ireland" is equally or slightly more common as the "...and..." name - anyone else? A quick google search shows they're about the same (2mi hits apiece), though "Britain and Ireland" will pick up the various GBaI hits too, I suppose.

The Isles is likely the most neutral alternative term. It's too bad it's not commonly used. GoodDay (talk) 14:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't like it as nothing about the name indicates which isles are being referred to.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Unquestionably neutral, though. GoodDay (talk) 14:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Unquestionably not neutral though, since it implies the rest of the world isn't important. 70.29.213.241 (talk) 05:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

It does have a rather fey quality to it, I admit. Makes me think of Scottish Highland castles in the mist; purple mountains, heather, ghosts, fairies....., romantic, but not solid enough for the name of a Wikipedia article. I would go for Celtic Isles myself.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The truth is there is no common used alternative despite this article and certain editors attempts to over play alternative names. This was best shown was we went through the two requested move attempts last week where the main editor who strongly supports a name change, requested the name change to two different things.. It goes to show there isnt ONE alternative. We can not sit here on wikipedia and decide what is neutral or not, we shouldnt pussy foot around the fact there is only one core name for what this article describes, and that is the British Isles. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Neither should we accept improper usage of the term in articles which is the biggest problem I find on Wikipedia. Most editors don't appear to have a clue as to what constitutes proper usage of a geographica or historic geopolitical term, so I'm not surprised that some editors object to it's usage in all forms while others just use it willy-nilly without a care. That's what the task force

HighKing (talk

) 15:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Holy smokers, I forgot about that Taskforce. GoodDay (talk) 15:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

What about English Isles, denoting the predominant language we use. 167.1.176.4 (talk) 13:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

{{

Please add {{Cite web|url= to the beggining of the reference which currently reads <ref>http://www.nweurope.org/page/projet.php?p=&id=606|title=EMDI - Espace Manche Development Initiative|last=Thenail |first=Bruno|publisher=European Community INTERREG IIIB NWE Programme|accessdate=2008-06-24}}</ref> to fix the citation. (it's at the beginning of the second paragraph of the "Transport" section). Thanks! –

Done, thanks. --Amalthea 14:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! –

T • C

) 14:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Could anyone upload this 1680 map[1] to wikicommons, I'm having probs with upload tags. It would be public domain at this stage I guess.

Done; see File:England, Scotland, and Ireland (Morden 1680).jpg. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:07, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I propose moving

I agree. MidnightBlue (Talk) 18:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The first few paragraphs, including those in the section "Alternative names and descriptions" amount to nothing short of a rant against the whole subject of the British Isles, and includes despicable manipulation of references to imply that they mean things that they obviously don't; it is an absolute disgrace and sheer POV of the worst kind. Are there any suggestions as to how this situation could be remedied - could this perhaps go to arbitration in an attempt to cleanse it of POV? MidnightBlue (Talk) 18:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I think "cleansing it of POV" is precisely what the Irish have been calling for since the first edit. Finally, we agree to rename this article. Long overdue. 78.16.156.240 (talk) 00:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The other section is a completely other story. Technically it is referenced material and I don't think I can comment on it being 'manipulated' or not. I am just thinking about the 'names of the islands through the ages' section.

talk

) 18:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Good suggestion, MITH. The 'Names thru the ages' section is way too long, as is 'Alternative names...' This article should be about the islands, not the names of the islands. Move it all to

British Isles naming dispute. --hippo43 (talk

) 01:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I think there should be some mention of names throughout history [although curiously the native Irish name in medieval times, Oileáin Iarthair Eorpa (Islands of Western Europe), is not there]. I'm not overly concerned either way. However, the other proposal - to remove the debate about the name - seems like an attempt to remove the historical and modern political realities attached to the name for reasons best known to the proposer. Not many lovers of knowledge would appreciate this sort of obscurantist act. 78.16.156.240 (talk) 01:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree this stuff should be mentioned, but at the moment it dominates the article - the intro then two big sections. Strip most of it out and clearly link to

British Isles naming dispute and Terminology .... Nothing to do with obscurantism. --hippo43 (talk

) 02:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I also agree. There's too much text given over to the "Political" aspect of the term - it could definitely do with some pruning. --

HighKing (talk

)

Maybe if people are sincere - and I do mean sincere - about 'pruning' this article of its political aspects they could start with the name on this article. Otherwise such expressed "desires", for want of a better word, seem quite hollow. Meanwhile, all Irish people here who are speaking English are doing so precisely because of British political policies in Ireland since the 17th century. Please be honest about this. It's much more admirable, in my view. 78.16.156.240 (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The last line in the lead Confused already? Keep going sounds silly for an article that is meant to be taken seriously. If phrases like that are allowed to remain, it's no wonder that most academics dismiss Wikipedia as a blog of POV not to be regarded as a true source of information.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed its a stupid phrase and really doesnt belong on this article. If it belongs anywhere it belongs on terminology of the UK or British Isles. But some people refuse to allow it to be removed sadly BritishWatcher (talk) 18:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. It should go. It's laughable. MidnightBlue (Talk) 19:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Whatever about referencing it in this article, I agree that it isn't very encyclopedic in the current article in it's current form. --

HighKing (talk

) 21:07, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

It is a stupid unencyclopedic aside. Remove it. I'd love to know what argument is being used for its inclusion. --Narson ~ Talk • 11:28, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I've found a reference for the Cornish for British Isles, Enysow Predennek [2] is it suitable? --Joowwww (talk) 19:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I would say so, go for it - when the article is free again. MidnightBlue (Talk) 19:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Umm i think a second source should be located to back up that one (if a second one even exists). On the main page of the site it says "As you can see there are a lot of empty pages, this site was only started in March 2009 and it's still under construction. But I hope to have it finished very soon." I dont know if thats a reliable enough source, perhaps we could phone round the few hundred people that can actually speak the language and see if they know? Tax payers money going to revive dead languages, how wonderful. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Few hundred fluently, few thousand able to make decent conversation. Plus I'd bet it's a mere fraction of what we pay for expensive artwork in government buildings, ten-course meals for foreign dictators, MP's partners' porn subscriptions, a BBC that sends 30 reporters to the G20 summit, and nuclear submarines commissioned for the purpose of "deterrant". But that's a discussion for somewhere else. --Joowwww (talk) 21:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Lol @ MPs porn subscriptions, good point. :) Although on a serious note a second source to back it up would be helpful, because it was only a year ago they agreed on a written form accoridng to the Cornish language article. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The only other thing that's barely close to a source is some kind of guitar forum [3] which gives "Ynysow Predennek", which is what British Isles was usually translated as before the

ISBN 978-1904808060) has the translation in. --Joowwww (talk

) 22:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thats fine as a second source for me, just wasnt sure about using a single site which is very new, and a google search for the term finds nothing. No objections to it being added once protection is removed, get in quick tho coz it probably wont stay unprotected for long.BritishWatcher (talk) 22:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

From Archive 24: [4]

On further inspection, we have an even more acute problem with the Cornish Ynysow Predennek Google, one posting in guitar forum, Google Books, 1 hit but can't check text, Google Scholar draws a blank. The Manx Ellanyn Goaldagh also draws a blank on Google Scholar and only a single on Google Books, though there is some evidence of use on other websites on Google. The Manx translation probably scrapes through

WP:V; the Cornish is nowhere near, and should be removed or tagged if no better sourcing is forthcoming. Prominently displayed information in an important article needs solid foundations. Knepflerle (talk

) 15:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Native name (in Irish) is also "Na hOileáin Bhriotanacha", which is a) referenced, and b) is in more widespread use. Compare this with this. Mere assertion in the edit summary by you and the anon IP doesn't cut it, I'm afraid. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 20:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Those references to 'Na hOileáin Bhriotanacha' are all from a single source, the Collins Gem dictionary, which was only published in 2002. There is no other source. On the other hand, Dineen's dictionary in 1927 records "Oileáin Iarthair Eorpa" (as is referenced in this article already), while at least as early as 1584 the Annals of the Four Masters has this record: 'Sir Niclas Maulbi gobernóir chóiccidh Connacht d'écc i n-Áth Luain fá initt, fer foglamtha i m-bérlaibh & i t-tengtoibh oilén Iarthair Eorpa esidhe'('Sir Nicholas Malby, Governor of the province of Connaught, died at Athlone, about Shrovetide. He was a man learned in the languages and tongues of the islands of the West of Europe'). Source: Annals of the Four Masters, M.1584.2: http://www.ucc.ie/celt/published/G100005E/index.html. In other words, there is considerably more support for "Oileáin Iarthair Eorpa" than there is for this neologism from 2002, Na hOileáin Bhriotanacha". 86.40.111.63 (talk) 20:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC) PS: The error on this article "CollinsHapper Pocket Irish Dictionary" (Happer rather than Harper) has 401 of your above results [5]; in other words half of your Google results are ultimately from this page (unless the same spelling error was made on another page that mentions "Na hOileáin Bhriotanacha", which is highly unlikely). 86.40.111.63 (talk) 20:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Now who's talking about "mere assertion". Show us your source for 'Na hOileáin Bhriotanacha' as long ago as 1584, or indeed another source besides Collins Gem in 2002.86.40.111.63 (talk) 20:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

These results exclude most of the WP mirrors and the term certainly does seem to be in use. Only 110 results, though, so although used, it does indeed appear to be less used than Oileáin Iarthair Eorpa (310 results). When it was first used is irrelevant. But yeah, 310 > 110, so I agree OIE should come before OB. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 17:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 19:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmmmmm. Define Archipelago, and then explain the Channel islands being part of the British Isles. And round and round and round we go. (*yawn*) It's only geopolitical usage that is objected to (in the main)... --

HighKing (talk

) 20:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Look on the bright side HK; at least Armchair is highlighting the political anti-

WP:NPOV showed similar awareness we might solve this problem quicker. Sarah777 (talk

) 20:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

No its not its geographical usaged that is objected to. Its funny how nationalists suddenly change their stories. If the british Isles is not an Archipelago, then why does this page even exist? sarah777 you do realise that by continually accusing others of POV, it does not hide your own nationalist motives.Ben200 (talk) 23:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I've never made the slightest secret of my "nationalist motives". Unlike the British POV merchants.Sarah777 (talk) 22:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Really, "Great Britain and Ireland" is a false dichotomy. If people really believed it was supposed to be about two islands, it should read Islands of Albion and Erin, because the Britains are all the islands. The Britanniae are more than Albion and whatever parts politically connected, which would also include Erin, even if Republican propagandists hate this and want to change the situation so bad, they are fighting PR battles on Wikipedia. This is supposed to be geography, but the psychological warfare over definition never stops. Catterick (talk) 20:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you read the pro-POV tracts in the archives; this is purely about politics. The imposition by majority voting of a British collective name for Britain and Ireland. (talk) 22:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

See

WP:TE, m:MPOV and comply. Catterick (talk

) 22:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

See

WP:NPA and comply. Sarah777 (talk

) 23:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The reason why "Britain and Ireland" sits uneasily with most of the inhabitants of the British Isles is, I think, twofold. Firstly, if referring to the islands, then it omits all the hundreds of smaller islands. Secondly, if referring to countries, then it's simply wrong - the correct equivalent would be "England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales". ðarkuncoll 23:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

That's no quite correct. We don't have to state the "Australian Isles", or the "Icelandic Isles", as it is a given that the smaller sourrounding islands are included. That's a

talk

) 23:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

So why the objection to "British Isles" then? The island of Britain plus its smaller surrounding islands. Last time I checked, Ireland is smaller than Britain and is part of the surrounding group of islands. ðarkuncoll 23:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

A very red herring! An excuse actually. The UK includes all the "countries" bar Ireland; so Britain (or some collective variant) and Ireland adequately covers the geography. But not the politics, as we see with the frantic efforts to include the Channel Isles. Sarah777 (talk) 23:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The Channel Islands are tiny and unimportant. ðarkuncoll 23:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Frantic efforts to include the channel islands? At the start of your incorherent rambling, you kept crying about British imperialism and POV, now you've suddenly changed it into an argument about geography. sarah777, please accept history or get yourself a Delorean. Ben200 (talk) 23:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Technically, the Channel Islands (including non-baliwick islets) are as part of Continental Europe as the British Isles are. In the British Archipelago, I would also include the Faroe Islands, but for some reason, they are always ignored. The Faroes could hardly have any political association with other islands, but they are still relevant. Perhaps politics is what keeps them removed. Sarah's argument would perhaps apply to any bias that excludes the Faroes. By the way, usage of the word "British" is just as universal as "American". It can mean many things, but in geographic terms, it is not strictly tied to one nation, and like "British", "American" is not exactly identical to the identities used by inhabitants of the dominant nation. Consider the Home Nations and the individual identities of the States. Catterick (talk) 23:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Well I think we should either keep the status quo, or break this article into two seperate ones: "Islands of Great Britain" and "Islands of Ireland". Then have a smaller one refering to the historical connection of Ireland and the United Kingdom.Ben200 (talk) 23:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I think we have too many articles splitting hairs to please malefactors. Understand a similar situation: In the context of geography, other nations than US citizens actually get upset at US (and others') use of the term "American" to refer primarily to themselves. Imagine if Republican propagandists got as envious of the English and Scots for appropriating the term for their island, while often ignoring that the Irish just as easily fit the definition of British. How strange! Channel_Islands#Other_islands_in_the_English_Channel should be included here. Why include Norman islands and not those of Brittany? This is an example of politics having disrupted the nature of definition. If we're arguing for inclusivity on geographic terms with Ireland and indeed, the Norman Channel, then why not the Breton? It's as arbitrary and governmentally defined as the exclusion of the Faroes. Catterick (talk) 00:11, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Observers will note the 100% political and zero percent geographical content of the musings of Ben200 and Catterick above. One rests one's case. Sarah777 (talk) 08:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Ahem! So "politics" is now "disrupting" that innocuous apolitical term "British Isles" covering Ireland. The British occupy Ireland for centuries, strip the people of everything from their lives to their land to their language (and that's just the letter 'l'), build their walled settlements on the good low lying land and throw the surviving natives up to the mountainous land, impose their language, perceptions and names on every single townland in the country and then certain British editors here accuse the Irish of being "political" with geography. Jesus Christ. What sort of history are these people learning? How profoundly delusional are these particular people? This is breathtaking stuff. There is nothing geographical about the term "British Isles" covering Ireland. It is a solid claim of British hegemony over Ireland, and fits perfectly into centuries of such claims over Ireland, and over the rights of the Irish people to self-determination, self-expression, and self-representation of who they are, and the name of the place in which they live. This is like watching White Afrikaneers trying to hold onto their past dominance and accusing the natives of being "political" when the natives have the temerity to reject the coloniser's impositions. Nothing lasts forever: not the Roman Empire and not the British Empire. Please take yourselves quickly to Stage 5 of the

Kübler-Ross model. 86.40.111.63 (talk

) 08:42, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

British and Irish are a false dichotomy. You have an Irish strain of Whig history, an Irish form of Cromwellianism. Don't pretend you're shocked. I'm the least surprised at this ideology-driven filibustering. Catterick (talk) 09:12, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Cool! You learn something new everyday. I am a proponent of Whig history.

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 16:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

There is only one cure for pathetic Whig History Delusion; read that great modern English philosopher

Straw Dogs. Whiggish religious belief is the hand-maiden of Western Imperialism. It's what gave us Hitler's gas chambers. Sarah777 (talk

) 14:02, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

If we are going to have to hold hands for every edit, then I'm afraid I won't be partaking in this article's improvement. The converse principle is, to write on the talk page something you see is in error from an edit revision, then discuss it. Reverting out of hand so much stuff, without explanation, is absolutely

I can't help but feel that's a bit of an over reaction Catterick. There's being bold and there's being stupid. This is clearly an extremely contentious article, and the wording so far has been hammered out line by line, word by word. Equally clearly it hasn't yet reached the stage where it satisfies both sides of the argument (and it's looking increasingly likely that it never will). In those circumstances making such a large edit, which was likely to be objected to by a significant number of editors, wasn't a very wise move, particularly as some of the changes you made were altering terms which have been settled on by extensive discussion and arbitration (your change of Ireland to the Republic comes to mind). Nobody is asking you to hold hands with other editors whilst making changes, but perhaps checking out the article's history and thinking what those of differing views will make of your changes might be wise if you expect your edits to remain in place. Skinsmoke (talk) 01:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Look, nobody until you has identified what may be objectionable in my edit revision. This stands more as a personal attack than a legitimate complaint to the material, since it has not been discussed by those who keep removing it and stifling the discussion by doing so. So why is the Republic not the Republic, in difference from the Monarchy? These are two separate governments in Ireland. The Republican government in Ireland does not have exclusive usage rights to the term "Irish". Do you know what NPOV is? So, you are basically blaming the victim here and saying I asked for it, just by contributing to the Wikipedia, the encyclopedia all can edit. Catterick (talk) 01:27, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Catterick, stop being so defensive. It was not a personal attack at all but a suggestion of how you could make progress and include some (if not all) the points you were trying to include in the article. If you are considering yourself a victim simply because someone reverted your edit perhaps you are getting too personally involved. Take a break for an hour or two, have a look at the thing when you are feeling a little less incensed, and try to see what other editors may find objectionable. (The same advice could equally well apply to one or two others involved in the various wrangles on this article).

I personally couldn't care less whether the country whose government is based in Dublin is referred to as Ireland or the Republic of Ireland. However, there has been an extensive discussion on Wikipedia, and the consensus reached was that it should be referred to as Ireland, whilst that part of the island remaining in the United Kingdom should be referred to as Northern Ireland. To arbitrarily change the name in an article against that consensus is practically begging someone to revert your edit.

Incidentally, just to set the context straight, I believe the article should remain under the title of British Isles in the absence of any accurate and recognisable alternatives. Skinsmoke (talk) 01:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for a thorough explanation as to why the rest of my edits are unworthy. You tell me to not be "defensive". I was being censored for my "offensive" approach. Which is wrong in me? Quit harping on me. Let those who ripped my contributions out of the article come speak for themselves as to what is inaccurate in what was written. They revert war and hide, having no explanation for their behaviour, just blaming me for it. This is ad hominem. Focus on the specific data alone and not on me. Their behaviour is not excused by blaming me. They have to criticise what was added or removed, or changed about the article itself. To do anything else, is to make it personal and avoid the whole purpose of editing at Wikipedia. What utter crap that Wikipedia has degenerated into. I don't see the point, if this stuff is always going around, with virtually no progress on anything, because of sectarian, separatist filibustering and politically correct compromises that palliate perjuries. Catterick (talk) 02:06, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you must take an oath to commit perjury, surely a precondition for palliation? I have sworn only to defend

WP:NPOV. What have you sworn Catterick? Sarah777 (talk

) 08:37, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Since I started formulating a reply, I note that you have changed your last comment. Thanks for that - it's appreciated. Your original response asked me to tell you what was wrong with the edits, so here goes :-

(1) such as the Isle of Man Why mention one island? Why the Isle of Man rather than Orkney or Shetland or the Isles of Scilly? Does the edit add anything to the article?

(2) Republic of Ireland / Ireland As mentioned above, the term was agreed on by consensus

(3) the Channel Islands, although the latter... Wording is messy and convoluted. Doesn’t improve on the original. Is the long piece about the Breton islands relevant to the article, as it describes the situation of islands that are not included in the British Isles? If it is relevant it needs rewriting into simpler English.

(4) After medieval dormancy... Hideous murdering of the English language!

(5) The term British Isles is controversial... The term is controversial in Ireland. Inserting in relation to the conventions of Irish nationalism comes across as trying to slant the article to a particular point of view and is unnecessary. Incidentally, what are the conventions of Irish nationalism? Do you mean that Irish nationalists object to the term? If so, why not say that instead of using that horrendous phrase?

(6) government of the Republic As already explained, consensus is to use the term government of Ireland

I am not attempting to excuse the behaviour of others and I am not blaming you. I am trying to suggest how you can get at least some of your edits included in the article. Bear in mind that some of the people who reverted your edits are on the same side of the basic argument as you. If you can't convince them, you have no chance of convincing those on the other side of the argument.

Please try and take this as constructive criticism rather than as an attack. Not everyone is out to get you, you know. Skinsmoke (talk) 03:01, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

If you think you have the mandate to edit without fear, then incorporate those things. Do you have to look over your shoulder when editing this article? If so, then get somebody else who feels "immortal" and can do things without automatic revert. You lot are nitpickers (grammar nazi stuff) and don't like outsiders. You fix it then. You at least acknowledge that there is some merit to what I put there, although I must clarify that I never, ever consider my edits to be perfect. They are simply well intentioned. By the way, nobody has replied to my points in the discussion above, like the manifold usage of "Irish", "British" and "American" and that no government has exclusive ownership of those terms. You may come up with false consensuses to please the malefactors, but why go to such lengths for appeasement? It works against the article's quality and respectability. Catterick (talk) 03:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

• No need to retire. There is some merit in what you put there, but some of your editing was offensive, and soapboxish. You say that other editors are being allowed to edit, but not you. Well, your editing was tendentious at the very least. Write it off as experience, a sort of "Baptism of Fire". Welcome to the British Isles page.
  talk
  ) 01:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Leaving aside the whole name issue, can we look at expanding the intro to include one or two sentences on each of the history, geography, language etc of the islands? At the moment it is just a short paragraph on what the islands are, then straight into the naming dispute, which has its own separate article. If readers want info on the British Isles Naming Dispute, they can go read that article. If readers want info on the British Isles, they should be able to get a decent short summary in the intro of this article. --hippo43 (talk) 18:32, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Only a month ago we "trashed out" the 'intro' here. This was supposed to leave it stable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:British_Isles/Archive_25#Introduction_-_revised_proposal __

I'm aware that it's been previously discussed, though that discussion focused on the wording with regard to the naming dispute. I'm not suggesting removing the material on the name, just that the intro should cover the subject of the article, not just the dispute around the name. --hippo43 (talk) 19:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Hippo43, You advocate expanding the intro yet You remove information. Whats that all about then? Lucian Sunday (talk) 19:23, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I advocate broadening the scope of the intro, and removing irrelevant info - they are not incompatible. The intro is not about the British Empire or the term 'British E/Impire'. Also, the 'although' doesn't make a lot of sense in that sentence. --hippo43 (talk) 19:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Why do we have to mention the so-called naming controversy twice in the into? I suggest that reference to the term being depracated in the OED be removed. MidnightBlue (Talk) 18:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, is there a list of map publishers that used to use the term "British Isles" and now appear to have stopped? For example:

National Geographic 1949 Map of British Isles

Refers to "Britain and Ireland"

Very anecdotal and unscientific I admit, but has anyone else got some examples? --

That second example is actually very interesting. Click into the map, zoom in, and read the text above the "Britain and Ireland" title. "The island of Great Britain comprises England, Scotland and Wales. These, plus Northern Ireland, constitute the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom, Ireland, Isle of Man and Channel Islands make up the British Isles." So while the map is called Britain and Ireland, it is because they are saying it's a political map, but those islands comprise the British Isles (not political.) In fact, to my mind that even further strengthens the position of British Isles as an internationally used term, but not political. Canterbury Tail talk 12:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I teensy weensy disagree and mostly agree. The point about "further strenghtens the position..." is really missing the main point, which is that many organizations are re-evaluating their usage of the term to ensure that it is used correctly (and solely?) as a geographic term. --

HighKing (talk

) 14:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Further more why revert back to the statement `a growing number`. Why not keep in its neutral term and just leave it as `some`.--Rockybiggs (talk) 13:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately some is a weasel word of the highest order. It means everything and nothing at the same time dependant on how you want to read it. So we only in fact have one map maker that has done so that we can reference? Canterbury Tail talk 13:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted that edit. Whilst "some" is indeed a weasel word, the refs in no way support "a growing number of ..." because they refer only to one company. Clearly, if refs can be found to other mapmakers that have removed the term, then that's not a problem, but at the moment the refs do not support the statement. Black Kite 13:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

At the moment the refs only support A, not even some. Canterbury Tail talk 13:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)The latest edits are fine by me. --

Should you look, there is a quite extensive list of such removals. Michelin, Phillips, Hallwag, and the AA are all referenced. Also, the statement from National Geographic that they are abandoning its use on all future maps is explicit confirmation of its removal. Ironically, in the 'na hOileáin Bhriotanacha' search a moment ago, it appears the term has also been dropped by French channel, France 24, following a complaint: http://www.cainteoir.com/ (under 16 February 2009). Vincent Morley had this to say about the neologism 'Na Oileáin Bhriotanacha': 'Aistrítear 'the British Isles' mar 'na >hOileáin Bhriotanacha'. Thabharfainn geall nár >chualathas a leithéid i mbéal Gaeilgeora riamh'. (...he had never heard its like coming from the mouth of an Irish speaker)86.40.111.63 (talk) 16:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Being dropped in French? Sorry but an unreferenced blog posting does not a reference make. Canterbury Tail talk 17:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Obviously all those organisations are dropping the British claim because, unlike Wiki Anglo editors they realise it is inaccurate and offensive. And they don't even have to be concerned about

WP:NPOV, as Wiki is supposed to be. Sarah777 (talk

) 22:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

It's the most common term for the islands, is no more inaccurate than Irish Sea, Indian Ocean, Sea of Japan etc and is used extremely widely worldwide even by official organisations globally. Even used in Ireland, as has been proved on many occasions. Canterbury Tail talk 11:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect. It is far less accurate - totally inaccurate in fact; as has been pointed out repeatedly in the archives nobody lives in the seas - that's not an analogy. And the historical perspective clearly shows it is a political label; invented by a British Imperialist. Sarah777 (talk) 01:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

There's a new (geographical) example of a use of British Isles to refer to the islands here. Bazza (talk) 13:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The reference to National Geographic dropping the phrase British Isles isn't really stacking up here. The map quoted is dated 2006, before they supposedly changed their policy. Despite the quote from the Sunday Tribune in January 2008 that the term is not to be used in the future, their website (linked above) currently describes the map for sale as :-

Britain and Ireland Political Map : The political boundaries of the British Isles : $10.99

As far as I can see from checking back to the Sunday Tribune article (British Isles References Leave Irish Eyes Frowning), a complaint was made by the president of the Irish National Caucus that National Geographic's Travel Catalogue 2008/09 had a page advertising a guided tour of the British Isles. The complaint was that the tour was exclusively of the Republic of Ireland, and did not even extend to Northern Ireland. The president of National Geographic replied that the organisation had changed the way it referred to Ireland and would now refer to the British and Irish Isles. The Sunday Tribune appears to have assumed that this meant that the maps would be changed. Apparently that was not the case. Skinsmoke (talk) 14:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

All this is original research that map makers have switched to using Britain and Ireland, and variants thereof, instead of British Isles. Can someone please reference where Britain and Ireland are being used as a replacement for British Isles. Just because something is using the terms Britain and Ireland, to indicate two islands, doesn't mean it's an attempt to not use British Isles, as they may not be covering all of the British Isles. It seems there is some confusion over Britain and Ireland meaning the same thing as British Isles, and it appears to be thought that someone saying Britain and Ireland is as a direct replacement for British Isles. Unless referenced (such as the Folens case), it's just original research and putting intentions and objectives to someone else. Canterbury Tail talk 15:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I've deleted the folowing sentence from the lead section: "Since Irish independence, the term British Isles is deprecated by some speakers in Ireland while others regard the British Isles as a geographical or territorial rather than political description." Others and Some are weasel words that need supporting by an explicit reference, not by some vague allusion to the OED. For those that want this sentence please provide a good reference. MidnightBlue (Talk) 15:54, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Those are the terms used by the OED; if you dont like it write to them. Lucian Sunday (talk) 15:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Have you got the exact text? OK if you have, but in any case the issue of Irish dislike is already mentioned up front. How many more times do you want to labour the point? MidnightBlue (Talk) 16:01, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Until a few months ago this article had well cited support for 'many' Irish objecting and this appears to have quietly dropped for 'some' Irish objecting. I strongly doubt that the term "British Isles" ever attained widespread use in the English language as spoken in Ireland. It certainly did not exist in the Irish language, which remained the language of the majority of Ireland's population until the 19th century. In that sense I would disagree with the premise of Oxford English Dictionary that independence led to the term being less used. They really need to prove the term had been widely used before that. On the other hand, I am still waiting to hear a real Irish person use the term "British Isles". This article has a very strong British bent and seems to be really a group of British people agreeing with each other and shouting down the evidence for "many" Irish objections. 83.71.254.45 (talk) 11:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Thats a debatable point of view, this article goes out of its way to inform people the term is controversial and we have an entire article covering that matter. The British Isles HAS been widely used for a long period of time and a great example is included in the article, where it mentions that an Irish map publisher used the British Isles in books it published for Ireland up until a year or two ago but continues to use British Isles in books for Britain. If British Isles is so offensive to all Irish people why the hell is an Irish publisher continuing to use the term? Surely theyd refuse to print it? Before the article was locked a week ago, an entire paragraph was added to the introduction with no consensus, where it over plays the Dee guy being the first to use the term (which appears to be debatable) and the fact he was an imperialist. If this article is biased, its because of Irish nationalists not British editors. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Assuming that page protection is an undesired alternative. Ya'll better iron out a solution here. GoodDay (talk) 16:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

• I would agree with "page protection". but only at the stable version. If anyone wants to change the "intro", they should bring it here for discussion first.
  talk
  ) 16:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

It amazes me how the same arguments and edits/reverts come round again and again. MidnightBlueman, why didn't you ask for a reference before making your edit? If none were forthcoming who knows, you may have been able to make your edit without being reverted. Jack forbes (talk) 16:13, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The current version is indefensible, and it isn't stable. As said above, it is a weasel-word bit of text that isn't needed in the intro. I'll take it out again, pending an adequate reference, but I think we'd be better off without it altogether. LevenBoy (talk) 17:39, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words#Exceptions: When the holders of the opinion are too diverse or numerous to qualify. For example, "Some people prefer dogs as pets; others prefer cats." Lucian Sunday (talk

) 22:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Why does it mention that he was an advocate of imperial expansion? These are weasel words, suggesting that the term British Isles is somehow connected with imperialism. Dee was also an advocate of communication with disembodied spirits - should we mention that, too? And then it goes on to state Irish objections, despite their having been mentioned just a few lines higher. This whole paragraph is blatant POV I'm afraid. ðarkuncoll 18:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey, the article title is blatant POV and you support it!! Dee's imperialism is extremely relevant to his coining an Imperialist term, obviously. As for the disembodied spirits - that was usually the only way to communicate with native people after the British armies had been through a place. Sarah777 (talk) 01:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I think its important to mention that Dee was the first to use it, and that he did so in the general service of Elizabethan claims (that led to Imperium). Agree that Irish objections only need to me mentioned once. How about extracting a sentence from the paragraph and putting it in the lede? --Snowded (talk) 18:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

What evidence is there that he did it in the service of any sort of claim to imperium? His use of the term comes from a geographical treatise. ðarkuncoll 20:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Wiki policy says we present the facts - let the reader decide, not the would-be censors. Sarah777 (talk) 01:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

As I remember it from various tortuous discussions on this and other pages over the last year, several historians (third party source) made that speculation as to his motive. --Snowded (talk) 20:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree - Irish objections should only be mentioned once. Also agree that we should mention that Dee used it first. Not sure that much background on Dee is relevant to the lead here, but if it leads to a more stable version, I don't object. --hippo43 (talk) 20:53, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree - The objections should be mentioned once only in the lead paragraph. MidnightBlue (Talk) 21:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

• Any changes in the intro should involve consensus, like we successfully did six weeks ago. The article should reflect the real world usage, and non-usage of the term.
  talk
  ) 00:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

As I had mentioned before English Ambassador to France Nicholas Throckmorton referred to Isle of Britain (when discussing Queen Elizabeth I of England and Mary I of Scotland) as early as 1560, so the term pre-dates Dee's usage. John Dee was mainly an astrologer not medium, although he may indeed have communicated with spirits.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Let's rename Britain and just mention British objections "once"? 83.71.254.45 (talk) 11:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Sarah777 is quite correct. Wiki policy says we present the facts - let the reader decide. It appears that John Dee used the phrase - fact. Any attempt to attribute a reason for his use of the term is supposition and point of view, and really has no place in the article. As it stands the lead is a little messy and repeats itself. The second and third paragraphs could do with merging and rearranging. Taking Sarah777's point above, how about :-

The first English use of the term "Brytish Isles" was by Welsh mathematician