Talk:British Isles/Archive 32

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.

Wiki-ed - I could seemly have reverted your bold changes and asked you to discuss them. Instead I made a minor change to conform with the sources. The material (as the second sentence says) does not exist, it is therefore only reported as per my amendment. Its also not clear and still in dispute if translations of British Islands in Greek etc. really mean the same thing as the British Isles. Happy to accept there are roots, hence the moderate amendment.

Your call really, as its stands its not neutral and does not conform to the cited material. I'm happy to revert back to the prior position (before your edits) for discussion but I thought it better to give you a chance to accept a reasonable and minor change. --Snowded ^TALK 13:05, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

In response I'll point out that this matter has been discussed already above, although you didn't take part. As for the other points I see that as I type Highking has inaccurately (Avienus was 700 year later) reverted my revert (whoops BRD???), altered sourced text (replacing a reference with an opinion is not "neutral") and is engaged in plagiarising the sources (can't quote verbatim). However, while it's typed out you can see that Davies disagrees with your argument about translation - a fiction invented by Wikipedia editors to justify a POV. The contention that it is not neutral and does not conform to the cited material when each sentence is an abstract of the listed reference for that sentence is quite amusing, especially given your edit history on this article.

And please drop the condescending threats ("better to give you a chance" etc) - you know full well that if you reverted you'd get blocked. Talking of which Highking - you'll need to self-revert some of your recent edits. Wiki-Ed (talk) 14:14, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The policy is Bold, revert, discuss. You were bold and I suggested an amendment which you then reverted. I am fully entitled to revert the whole of your edits under that policy. Its been discussed but not agreed. Also your wording is contradictory. It starts by saying this was the first use, then proceeds to say that the material does not exist but is only reported. I'm sorry if you took my attempting to get an agreement as condescending or threatening it wasn't intended as such. Your comment on my edit history I will treat with amusement. As I say its your call, but its not your way or the highway. I'll leave it for a bit to see and if nothing happens, then I will either attempt another amendment or revert to the position before your bold edit. --Snowded ^TALK 14:32, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

An "amendment" is either a revert or an insertion of material. You inserted some material (being "bold"); I reverted it. You could, as you say, have reverted my previous insertion, but I believe you have no (neutral or verifiable) grounds for doing so and Highking has now somewhat muddied the waters. As for the wording: the first sentence referred in the past tense to material which existed (we know because of the later writers quoting from it) but no longer does so - not unusual in history, not contradictory and not in disagreement with the 3rd - 7th sentences of the first paragraph of the cited source. However, if it would help the readability it could be amended to say The British Isles first appeared in the historical records in the writings of travellers from... without losing conformity with the references supporting it. Wiki-Ed (talk) 15:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Snowded on this one. @Wiki-Ed, I fail to see why I need to self-revert anything, please explain. Also, I do not understand your point about Avienus. As to my edits, I corrected your inaccuracies. Snyder's reference for the historical writings specifically deal with Britain and Ireland. Using "The British Isles first appeared" is wrong. They were there all the time, and there is no evidence that the area defined as "British Isles" has any correspondance to the current area, but that the references are to Britain and Ireland. I corrected the quotation from Davies, and I've placed the quotation in italics? And rather than get into a long discussion on the various theories as to usage of 'P' transforming into usage of 'B', I tried to state it as neutrally as possible, otherwise the etymology section would get cluttered up with each theory and there is no need for the detail here. And like Snowded, I'll treat your name-calling with amusement. --

HighKing (talk

) 15:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

This is getting rather surreal. But I'll humour you and deal with your points in order:

• The article is supposedly under a Bold-Revert-Discuss rule whereby an admin declared he'd block anyone who reverts a revert (see above 22 June). However, he's seems to be otherwise engaged so perhaps you'll escape.
• The Snyder reference supports the contention that the first historical record was from the ancient Greeks. It was not being used to support the use of the term "British Isles" which, I should point out, we are using to refer to both Britain and Ireland in this article. (Snyder describes the work of Avienus (4th century AD) and the names he used but does not mention how Pytheas (4th century BC) treated them.) If that's presuming too much from one source I can insert another, for example Foster page 1 sentence 6&7. Snyder would then support (a) the fact that the first records dated to the Greeks and Foster would support (b) Pytheas referring to the "British Isles" as the "Pretanic Isles". However, this change would probably provoke a syntheis tag from a certain editor.
• Following the change you've made to the sentence quoting Norman Davies it does not read as well as it did. "Historians like Norman Davies..." do not say what Norman Davies said. He said that. He infers that they may debate the details but agree the general concept; without the first half of the sentence this is not clear - it should not have been cut.
• You removed a sourced statement from the paragraph dealing with the Roman terminology. I don't see why you think your edit is more neutral although from previous discussions I would guess you were trying to remove the word "derived", even though the source used it and even though you quoted Davies in the paragraph above saying the same thing. The current sentence is not verified and does not appear to be precisely accurate.
• Please point me to the name calling. I don't see it. Wiki-Ed (talk) 19:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that your interpretation of

WP:BRD is surreal. You are saying that if you make a change and someone tries to improve it, then the new default position is your amendment. In other words you are encouraging total reversion as a full response. The change was a simple matter of logic. You can't say that the first reference was from X, then say that X does not exist. Two out of your three comments above contain name-calling and I think you know it. As it is HighKing has improved matters, however if you are unhappy with people amending your additions then the only solution it to argue every change here before making it to the page. --Snowded ^TALK

20:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

If I knew about "name calling" I wouldn't be asking for anyone to point me to it. I assume you mean you don't like me querying the validity of your/Highking's edits - big difference between that and a personal attack.

As for BRD, I was reading this - in particular the bit that says "In future I will block any editor who reverts a revert on this article". As to what constitutes an "amendment" and what constitutes a "reversion" etc, that is entirely subjective. Needless to say I don't agree with your self-assessment of the value or reasoning of your edits, so we probably do need to discuss each sentence one by one.

Most of the points I've raised above are for Highking to answer, but you've addressed one: "You can't say that the first reference was from X, then say that X does not exist". Not me - the sources. Snyder says "Outsiders, literate and with broader geographic knowledge, left the first recorded names for Britain and its inhabitants. The earliest appear in a periplus ('circumnavigation'), or sailing manual, written by a mariner from Massilia (Marseilles) in the sixth century BC (A). Though we do not possess this manual (B), it was used (along with information from the Carthaginian admiral Himilco) by the Roman writer Avienus in his poem Ora Maritima ('The Maritime Shores') c. AD400 (C). (pg.12)

Earliest reference (A) has been lost (B) but was used by later author (C) so that we, today, know some of the content of the original. I don't see the problem - are you contesting what the sources say or contesting how we reflect it? I accept that "in the historical records" might confuse the issue, despite the sentence being in the past tense, hence my proposal above.

The other points still need to be addressed or some will need to be tagged as OR. Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Just curious: Why have ya styled your quoting of Snowded, to match his moniker style? GoodDay (talk) 22:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

You mean the colour? I thought it would make it clearer who I was quoting since I've used italics quite a lot. Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

" given your edit history on this article" is at best a slur and that's but one example, you are going to "humour" HighKing; please try and get more collegiate and realise that when people amend something you have written they are trying to work with you and avoid an edit war. The quotation you provide from Snyder makes exactly the point I was making, it reports use of material in a poem. There is an issue, as you well know, that spreads across several pages on the origin and legitimacy of "British Isles" and the citation position is far from clear otherwise it would have been resolved by now. Finding ways to deal with this requires collaboration not confrontation. --Snowded ^TALK 23:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

From my perspective I see you reverting or amending my edits within 20-30 minutes but without providing much of an explanation. An observation, not a slur. And if your intention was to be collegiate why did you not engage in the discussion (above) before I reworded the paragraph?

As for the substantive point: You originally said that there was some sort of fallacy in referring to material that no longer exists but is referenced in a later source which does exist; are you now saying that the extant source is unreliable because it is a poem? If so we've moved from verifiability to neutrality. If you do not think the source is accurate then you need to provide an alternative source which balances or counters it. In fact you might do well to provide more than one since Foster (pg.1) and Davies (pg.47) corroborate the existing statement. If you cannot provide sources to support your opinion then your amendment cannot stand. Wiki-Ed (talk) 13:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

In response to the points raised above:

If you argue that the Snyder reference was no being used to support the use of the term "British Isles", then why have you been so insistent to use the term? This article does not swap about "British Isles" and "Britain and Ireland" interchangeably. They are two separate and distinct concepts.

I've included the Norman Davies quote exactly. If you want to argue over the readability, take it up with Snyder. Arguing that it does not say what Norman Davies said is odd, given that I've quoted verbatim.

You're correct that I removed the word "derived" (even though a source used it), because we've also seen sources that use other words such as "substituted" and "transformed", and explanations such as "Caesar may have believed he was correcting a mistake", etc. I tried to pick a suitably neutral word that would deal with all theories, rather than make the section unnecessarily long by explaining each theory (thought I'd explained that already).

Like Snowded, I really don't believe a poem is a reliable source. At all. Ever. Poets are notorious with the facts. --

HighKing (talk

) 18:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Use poems as a substitute for history? Good heavens knows where it could end,

Tfz

18:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

"British Isles term, is in dispute, the argument continues on. Much has been complained, causing lots of pain. Where did it all go wrong?". GoodDay (talk) 18:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Well

Tfz

18:49, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

(1) Highking, thank you for responding point by point. However, I don't think your doubt about the validity of a primary source used by a secondary source is relevant unless the secondary source is somehow discredited and proved to be unreliable. Snyder has picked

Diodorus and his quotes from Pytheas; Harley picks Strabo's criticism of Pytheas in Geographica. They all support the same point and as I have said already, I was using Snyder to support a statement that it was outsiders who created the first records. Following on from this, as I suggested above, I could add Foster and/or Allen to support the use of the term "British Isles" in this context. However, I can see there might be some confusion arising from mixing secondary sources which use different primary sources, so, as a new proposal, the sentence I proposed should stand with Allen and Foster

as references; Snyder would be removed.

(2) Yes, you have included the Norman Davies quote exactly, but you've cut the first part of my sentence which explained what he was talking about (an abstract of the two sentences above the one you have copied out) so I think it looks a bit out of place. The other point I was making was a (perhaps pedantic) grammatical point: "Historians like Norman Davies state that..." should read something like "The historian Norman Davies states that..." otherwise it infers they all said the same thing. The only caveat is that if we change it (as proposed) then we have to assume that the reader will understand that his use of the word “details” refers to the sentence above and hope that no-one sticks a ("which") tag on it.

(3) Understood your reasoning for removing "derived" and although I don't agree that the historiography is necessarily weighted that way, I think it seems sensible to keep it short and simple as you propose. One point I would suggest you look at again is whether "Pretani" corresponds directly to "Britannia" (I'd suggest "Pretannia" as per Snyder – 2nd para - who you could re-insert to support the new wording). Wiki-Ed (talk) 19:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I have removed these sentences. It is clear that noone has any sources which show this is not original research, and it's not simply a matter of removing the word "likewise" and "letting the reader make up their own mind". We can clearly see that these publishers do continue to use the term British Isles elsewhere and we do not know the decision process behind the naming of the atlas. There is an equal amount of evidence that they decided not to title it "British Isles" as there is for a decision not to title it "England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland And Ireland". The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 20:11, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Under what basis are you deleting referenced material, and under what paragraph here on talk. I notice you just opened a new heading here.

Tfz

20:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Under that absolutely huge section entitled "references" to which you contributed. Don't play innocent. [1] The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 20:41, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I have argued against you here and on the pov page, and that was it. That doesn't give you the right to remove other editor's hard work.

Tfz

20:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

2 + 2 = 5? BritishWatcher (talk) 20:48, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Hard work? Please familiarise yourself ASAP with Wikipedia's policies. "Hard work" is not one of Wikipedia's policies, and is not a valid justification for retaining original research in articles. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 20:49, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe change to something like this, as it is relevent information, and those companies "DID" change in recent years, and I know it's unpalatable for some to swallow. Anyway, here ---Likewise, publishers of road atlases such as Michelin,[39][40] SK Baker,[41] Hallwag,[42] Philip's,[43][44] Reader's Digest[45] and The Automobile Association (AA)[46][47] do not use the term 'British Isles' with Great Britain and Ireland or Britain and Ireland in their recent maps. Michelin[48], Philip's,[49][50] and the AA[51] refer to the term "British Isles" on their website and in print publications. In 2008, Folens, an Irish publisher of school text books, decided to abandon using the term in Ireland while continuing to use it in the United Kingdom.[52][53]---

Tfz

21:11, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I see no difference between that proposal and what you have put back into the article. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 21:14, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Where I have now underlined it.

Tfz

21:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

You are completely failing to understand the problem with this sentence if that is your proposal. Again, instead of rewording it, the answer to charges of original research is to provide a reference showing that it is not. This sentence is extrapolating from a finite number of instances (some of which incidentally contradict the statement made) to the general statement that they "do not use" the term. Have you checked every single publication? Even in the unlikely case that you have, and even unlikelier case that you can prove that you have, how do you know that these publishers do not have an atlas planned for publishing in 2010 entitled "British Isles"? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 21:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I never claimed my rewording was the solution, although it is a step in the right direction. It is of interest, who uses and not-uses the term on their maps. I think this section could be expanded, and it can be easily reworded to satisfy all editors, but deletion is draconian.

Tfz

21:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

And why on earth are we limiting this "interest" to maps, for goodness sake? What about these several hundred books published since the year 2000 with the term in the title? And this huge number of hits for books using the term? [2] This is just a silly line of reasoning. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 22:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

You are forgetting that the term is far more common in the United Kingdom, than in the rest of the world. That's why some of these problems arise.

Tfz

23:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The world/ the UK, are you really contending that there is a difference here on Britipedia? I'm afraid you're clearly delusional with that idea.86.44.47.236 (talk) 23:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Where is the fiery Sarah gone? She didn't take any of their nonsense here. 86.44.47.236 (talk) 23:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

This statement is not supported by the references.

Ref 12 A spokesman for the Irish Embassy in London said: “The British Isles has a dated ring to it, as if we are still part of the Empire. We are independent, we are not part of Britain, not even in geographical terms. We would discourage its useage.”

Ref 13 In his response, the Irish Minister for Foreign Affairs stated that "The British Isles is not an officially recognised term in any legal or inter-governmental sense. It is without any official status. The Government, including the Department of Foreign Affairs, does not use this term. Our officials in the Embassy of Ireland, London, continue to monitor the media in Britain for any abuse of the official terms as set out in the Constitution of Ireland and in legislation. These include the name of the State, the President, Taoiseach and others."

What we know from this is that the Irish Embassy in London discourages use of the term, and that the Irish Government simply doesn't use it. It is synthesis to therefore say that the Irish Government discourages it. ðarkuncoll 11:24, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I made a note the below reference should this issue resurface

Caoimhghin O Caolain asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Dermot Ahern, last year about the Government position on the term, and whether "its use by government agencies and the media in Britain was discouraged in any way by his department". Ahern replied: "The British Isles is not an officially recognised term in any legal or inter-governmental sense. It is without any official status. The government . . . does not use this term

Ref Irish Times Islands in the stream 15 July 2006 (ps the . . . is by the IT - not me). Þjóðólfr (talk) 12:03, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

How about The Irish government does not use the term and the Irish Embassy discourages its use. Þjóðólfr (talk) 12:07, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

• This has been argued over of late, and by same editor. The Irish embassy is representative of the Irish government, that's their
  Tfz
  12:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

If that is the case then why does the government response to the same question not also state that they discourage its usage. 87.115.54.227 (talk) 21:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Because the Irish Government only has authority in Ireland (state). If it says it doesn't use it, that's it as far as Ireland is concerned (accepting that its citizens have free speech and can say what they like). But outside Ireland (in the UK in particular), the Embassies may seek to persuade the local media and government organisations of its view, which is that they wish to discourage its use. --Red King (talk) 00:01, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

That's your interpretation. Not using a term does not equate to being opposed to its usage. 87.114.132.166 (talk) 00:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

So how do you account for it? Non-use is just an accidental omission by the vast majority of Ireland's political, academic and media elite? Head. Sand. 86.44.47.236 (talk) 23:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't have to account for it. I'm not asserting anything other than its lack of use by the Irish government is for unknown reasons. It is up to you to provide the references to back up your conclusion. 87.114.146.85 (talk) 11:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with all of Hippo's edits, therefore I reverted some of them, and Hippo reverted back[3]. Some of this is still under discussion. 'Am asking SheffieldSteel to have a look at the reverts.

As I understand it,

WP:V still operate here. --hippo43 (talk

) 20:03, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 20:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support - Clearly some people just jump to conclusions, such presumptions should not remain in wikipedia articles. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose. why is there this hurry to remove longstanding edits. Surely this can wait for some more discussion, and intent to edit is concluded.
  Tfz
  20:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment The problem is it's OR. The mere fact that it has existed for X months is neither here nor there - there is no OR policy exemption for that. The solution to accusations of OR is to provide a reference showing it is not. Clearly, noone here is intending on doing that. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 20:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Comment If there was a table of atlas names from reputable publishers, over time, with no conclusions drawn that would not (I think) be OR. Using reported name changes as evidence of a shift is, unless (for example) a newspaper wrote and article on the shifts in names drawing such a conclusion. At that point it could be referenced. I'm not sure that a straw poll with the usual suspects lining up on both sides will help. I think the Atlas information is relevant to the subject, but as currently expressed, in wikipedia language, its OR as RedHat points out. I suggest reaching an agreement on how the material could be used and not violate OR rather than getting into yet another argument. --Snowded ^TALK 21:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you, and your point about making changes to get any OR out of the sentence is germane. But I can't see why RedHat wants to remove all of the sentence, as it is of interest to the subject, on who uses the term, and who does not.

Tfz

21:32, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

It is verifiable that four out of five of these publishers (AA, Michelin, Philips and SK Baker) continue to use the term. So why on earth are you even suggesting that they have stopped? The evidence that they have not stopped is there for anyone to see. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 21:48, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Use within the body of the atlas is relevant, but so is a change of the title. This is a messy subject, and the term is in transition so there are going to be no neat and tidy solutions. We need to find a way to incorporate relevant information that is factual so that readers can make their own minds up. --Snowded ^TALK 21:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The obvious response to that is: who decides what material in what publications is relevant? (Answer: an independent verifiable secondary source as per Wikipedia:Notability#Notability_requires_verifiable_evidence) Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree, it is a messy subject. Maybe not rush with it at the moment, but examine over the next 7 days or so. Then some editors will have an opportunity to make their wishes known, rather than just baldly commenting.

Tfz

22:42, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean, baldly commenting? This was first raised (this time) on 19th, since when all the usual suspects have commented - including you - repeatedly. A comment is a comment, bald or otherwise. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 22:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Interpret baldly whichever way you want to. The bottom line is that you didn't get the go ahead to delete those sentences. Just introducing a subject, then commenting, and then discussing, doesn't give the go ahead to delete. There can be far better ways to edit articles than to demolish bits and pieces. I think that sentence does need some tweaking, but that section could also be expanded so as to give more information on the term's usage in current map-making, map-printing.

Tfz

23:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

And neither did you get the go ahead to add it back, now did you? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC) (that is to say, there is no such thing as a "go ahead" at Wikipedia)

Where have you been?

Tfz

00:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I've been right here, discussing it above. BRD does not mean "get unanimous agreement" or indeed "have his Lordship Tfz agree to it". We're never going to get 100% agreement here, but it's obvious we have a majority view this sentence should go. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 09:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support Predictable vote or not, this is rather blatant OR. Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose More of the same shenanigans from the usual Britannia Rules the Waves brigade. It is very clear (and referenced) that maps have been dropping the term and replacing it with some of the many alternatives. This seems like the latest case of Wikipedia:I just don't like it from them. 86.44.47.236 (talk) 23:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's play "pin the IP on the editor". I wonder who we have here making comments that fly in the face of the evidence and attacking those who don't agree with their fringe theories? Wiki-Ed (talk) 09:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Considering that your edits on Wikipedia to-date have been largely related to narrow British nationalist topics like 'British Isles'. 'British Empire' and 'Britannia', I don't think anybody is going to question your expertise on "fringe theories", User:Wiki-Ed. Well done. 86.44.47.236 (talk) 00:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Reminder to Wiki-Ed of

HighKing (talk

) 14:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The only thing that it is difficult to understand is why you think anyone should "assume good faith" when an IP is blatantly abusive.Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Whatever aboout
  WP:SYN. --Red King (talk
  ) 10:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose The text does not mention that the publisher made a decision for all publishers. Highly inappropriate POV wording for this poll, designed to skew the results, and this poll should be invalidated. Text factually states that maps that used to use the term "British Isles" now use a different term. Any inferences, etc, can be made by the reader. --
  HighKing (talk
  ) 12:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Clarifying Note to counterbalance NPOV poll text: The text does not state that the publishers completely dropped the term, or changed policy - it simply states that maps that used to use the term, now don't. The present wording states a simple fact, but I can understand why some editors (and guess where their allegience is?)

HighKing (talk

) 14:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Cough cough. AGF??? Anyway, the statement is not factually accurate - it implies something that is not borne out by evidencee. This is synthesis. Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Text factually states that maps that used to use the term "British Isles" now use a different term. As has been proven, that fact is incorrect and is not backed by the sources. Those same publishers continue to use the term "British Isles" in their maps, as was pointed out some months ago. The present wording is distorting reality in order to push a point of view, and needs to be changed. Where a publisher has clearly changed policy, as with Folens, that should remain. Skinsmoke (talk) 14:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support. as per comment above.--LexCorp (talk) 00:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support per WP policy statements ref'd by others above. In any case, this para - to the extent that it is ref'd - would be better placed at
  British Isles naming dispute rather than here. Ghmyrtle (talk
  ) 07:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Since 'British Isles' is a last remnant of a dead empire, and not all dictionaries include Ireland, my very 'tame' edit to reflect that fact was unceremoniously reverted by Wiki-Ed after one minute of existence[5]. How do you justify that revert, WE?

You are making an assertion that the cited source is inaccurate. Provide a source to support that assertion. Wiki-Ed (talk) 23:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Later today, I will.

Tfz

23:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted this edit. This is simply adding to the problems of OR in this article. The definition of "British Isles" does not "generally" include Ireland. It always includes Ireland. Per any dictionary. And it is not OK to add original research and then say "later today I'll add a source". No, provide the source up front. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Can't see what is wrong with "generally", and it's now obvious that some editors don't want to give way on the littlest of words, whilst the very same editors want whole paragraphs deleted. This line is more appropriate, [6].

Tfz

00:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not surprised that you can't, because you don't seem to understand when something is original research and when it is not. If you provide a reference confirming that it "generally" includes Ireland, sure, you can add this to the article. That dictionary does not even come close to making the same claim that you inserted into the article. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The reference says "sometimes", and does not say "generally". So the reference says that they are sometimes called the BI. It would follow that Ireland is sometimes named as a BI. Generally is stronger to suit your POV. It's sad you cannot see that.

Tfz

00:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's look at what the reference actually states, instead of trying to put our own interpretations on it! It reads as follows :-

"British Isles: Name sometimes given to Great Britain, Ireland and the adjacent islands. Its divisions are, England, Wales, Scotland, Northern ireland, Irish Free State, Isle of Man and Channel Islands. They cover over 120,489 sq. m., and have a pop. estimated at 48,000,000."

There is nothing about it "generally" including Ireland.

There is nothing about it "sometimes" including Ireland.

The reference does refer to the "Irish Free State". The same page refers to "the Dominions" and "Glamorganshire". Just how old is it? If we are to try and explain a term being used in the 21st century, can we at least try to find contemporary references. Skinsmoke (talk) 01:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Tfz: your edits are getting more and more ridiculous. Firstly, if it's a question of saying "sometimes", a reference from 1937 is utterly inappropriate for a definition in 2009 (happy people were "sometimes" called "gay people" back then). Secondly, and more importantly, we are in this sentence defining the term. We are not defining the commonality of the usage of the term. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

And some ancient Greek from far away eastern Europe is a prime reference in your mind. That says it.

Tfz

01:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

You what? I haven't stated any opinion about any of that. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 02:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Marseilles is in western Europe... Wiki-Ed (talk) 09:03, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Ireland may not be part of the British Kingdom (it never was--unless you believe the Arthurian legend, but it was "joined at the hip" in a way for some time), but it is part of the British Isles and always has been. It is a British Republic, the same as if Scotland, England or Wales or Northern Ireland declared themselves republics and separated from the Union, perhaps even joining in with the government of Dublin. Nobody disputes that Ireland isn't any longer in the Union, even though Northern Ireland is, unless of course, the person who is making allegations like this is an island expansionist to declare republicanism throughout the island of Erin. This is the only motivation for making any of these claims.

Tendentious editing is against Wikipedia's rules. I know my own motives are questioned when writing it this way, but I am not opposed to the idea of the British Isles being ruled from Dublin, or "Celtic" people being monarchs of all the islands, instead of Germans. I simply have no political motivation here and that sets me apart. A Merry Old Soul (talk

) 19:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Please, noone feed the

WP:TROLL. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t

19:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Please, observe

WP:AGF. A Merry Old Soul (talk

) 19:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

British is a "thingy" conjured up about 1,600 AD to create a

Tfz

21:06, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, "British" in the sense of the late 16th-early 17th centuries only pertains to the shaky claims of a Protestant Scottish king over his English (, French) and Irish dominions, inherited claims from his Catholic mother and father, after the failure of the Battle of Pinkie to secure Mary, Queen of Scots for Edward VI and for there to be an incorporation of Scotland into England as Leon was into Castile. "British" in the negative sense that you mingle it with, refers to propaganda of Irish Nationalism, beginning in the wake of the American Revolution and onward until the Troubles. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 22:08, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Above boxed, is the wording that all this so called edit-warring is about, but maybe it's more about ego, because there is absolutely nothing in the sentence to offend anyone. It's a simple observation to back up the bit that the term BI is not universally used. Remember this should be about the reader, and not the editors.

Who are you suggesting is "offended" by that wording? We have discussed it several times over now and explained over and over again. It is a matter of adhering to Wikipedia's policy of

No Original Research, not "offence". We have also held a straw poll, where a clear majority was in favour of removing the wording, unless reliable sources can be found demonstrating that the publisher took a decision to deliberately and consciously stop using "British Isles" (like we have with Folens). The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t

14:08, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm offended. It offends me that people try to shoehorn their own "research" into Wikipedia to present a POV which hasn't been published by a single reliable source. If a reliable secondary source notices some pattern of name changes and comments on it in relation to the subject of this article, great - we can include it in the article. If not, it is pure OR. "Simple observation" by wikipedia editors is original research. Is it so hard to understand? --hippo43 (talk) 14:21, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Here is more

Tfz

15:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

• "The British Isles have a long and complex shared history. While this tends to be presented in terms of national narratives, many events transcended modern political boundaries. In particular these borders have little relevance to early times and in that context can be misleading, though useful as an indication of location to the modern reader. Also, cultural shifts which historians have previously interpreted as evidence of invaders eliminating or displacing the previous populations are now, in the light of genetic evidence, perceived by a number of archaeologists and historians as being to a considerable extent changes in the culture of the existing population brought by groups of immigrants or invaders who at times became a new ruling elite."

What are you talking about? I haven't yet read every word on wikipedia, so haven't been able to remove all the original research yet. Without getting into the specifics of the passage you added above, my understanding of the policy is that if the material is an accurate summary of published material, it is not OR. Observing changes in book titles which are not reported in reliable sources is OR. Nobody would need to 'lecture' anyone about OR if editors would read the policy. --hippo43 (talk) 15:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The paragraph you brought up isn't the subject of this discussion, but you're right - it looks like shit to me. I'm sure we can do a better job summarising the history than that. --hippo43 (talk) 15:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

That entire paragraph should go. Not a single reference in it. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 15:47, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

And for some of these reasons hit upon, and I stated this before, the article should be shorter and more succinct, for the longer it gets, the more subjective the prose becomes, and more prone to 'opinion'. Hope I'm getting my point across.

Tfz

15:25, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

You've lost me a little. If you're saying that the article is bloated and the way to fix it is to add unsourced observations about road atlases, I disagree. If you're saying that the article is bogged down in crap about the significance of the name, etymology, alternative names and descriptions, and should instead focus on the group of islands, their history, geography, culture etc, then I completely agree. --hippo43 (talk) 15:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Ditto. We can all work together to clean up the article and remove the unreferenced or badly written crap. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 15:51, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Back up a bit. Do we know these atlases moved from covering all of the British Isles to just Britain and Ireland? May not be comparing apples to apples here. If they previously covered the Isle of Man, for example, and now only cover Britain and Ireland, then it's not the same thing. Canterbury Tail talk 15:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree, as I pointed out above. The editors 'observing' that atlases' titles have changed from BI to B & I are assuming that they are covering the same thing, and inferring that the different title is evidence of a particular motive. --hippo43 (talk) 15:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Easy to agree and talk about assuming and inferring (and yet to infer yourself that the text is evidence of a motive which it clearly doesn't say any such thing). But did you look? It really wasn't too difficult to search and find an example for Michelin. From this image and this one of an antique Michelin map, they only map Great Britain and Ireland. --

HighKing (talk

) 22:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

These maps do appear to map only GB and Ireland (though one includes the Isle of Wight, not part of GB). However, your illustration proves nothing. As well as obviously being original research, it is not exhaustive - do you have a verifiable list of every atlas released by this publisher? To verify that a publisher had specifically changed the title of the same publication from 'BI' to 'B&I' would need the publisher themself or a secondary source to say as much. --hippo43 (talk) 22:34, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Funny how touchy you get when I merely answered a question posed earlier. My illustration isn't meant to prove anything - unless to show how easy a task it was. And what's original research about my answer? Please point that out, because you keep going on about OR and it's unfounded. --

HighKing (talk

) 00:17, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Not touchy at all. Your answer was original research because you researched it, so it was 'research' and it was not previously published elsewhere, so it was 'original'. Do you disagree? --hippo43 (talk) 00:38, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Eh? So answering CT's question is now OR? Please behave. --

HighKing (talk

) 01:49, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

What's OR is this line of reasoning:

Verifiable statement 1: Publisher P published an atlas A1 under title "T1" in year Y1.

Verifiable statement 2: Publisher P published an atlas A2 under title "T2" in year Y2.

Conclusion: Publisher P changed the title from "T1" to "T2" in year Y2.

The conclusion does not necessarily follow (ie it is synthesis). It is not logically true (there are a multitude of explanations other than the conclusion), and it is not true in reality. You don't need to take my word about that: read what Michelin have to say [7]. Many decades - and a completely different title - went by between the "BI" and "GB&I" titles. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:41, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

So what about:

In the past, Publisher P published an atlas A1 under title "T1" which only mapped areas GB&I. This atlas is no longer available under this title. Today, Publisher P publishes an atlas A2 under title "T2" which maps the same area. --

HighKing (talk

) 01:49, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

You have introduced the unpublished facts "which only mapped areas GB&I", "This atlas is no longer available under this title" and "'T2' which maps the same area". If these points have not been published in a reliable source, then they are your own observations, and it's OR. --hippo43 (talk) 01:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Wrong. I'd point out the map I referred to earlier....which was published. Point out too, as fact, that a similar title doesn't exist today to map the same areas (from publishers website list of publications). Policy does not require that separate observations like these to have been previously published to appear together. Let the reader draw whatever conclusions they want... --

HighKing (talk

) 02:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

"though one includes the Isle of Wight, not part of GB" (hippo43) -- Perhaps you meant the Isle of Man. The Isle of Wight is not only part of GB, it's part of England. Alarics (talk) 09:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

AFAIK the Isle of Wight is politically part of England, and part of the UK, but it's not geographically part of GB - it's a separate island. --hippo43 (talk) 20:16, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Tfz

21:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The article is about the group of islands, not the states - ie geography. Great Britain is an island, not a country. The Isle of Wight is not part of GB, but a separate island. --hippo43 (talk) 00:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Even though it's not on the island of Great Britain, it's still part of the

Tfz

00:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• First paragraph: we begin with a very good and succinct description of the term, then we suddenly, and inexplicably, say "The earliest citation of the phrase 'British Isles' in the Oxford English Dictionary is dated 1577 in a work by John Dee". What a bizarre jump! And then we find the sentence repeated in the etymology section. Proposal: move that sentence to etymology, where it belongs.
• Second paragraph: "Although still used as a geographic term, the controversy means that alternative names such as '"Britain and Ireland"' are increasingly used." Two references are given, the first p9 actually says "'Britain and Ireland' is becoming a preferred usage" (preferred is not the same as more frequent). The second [8] says "'Britain and Ireland' is the more favoured expression". Proposal: change "increasingly used" to "increasingly preferred" so it is in line with the cited references.
• Political co-operation within the islands paragraph: "despite independence of most of Ireland" is a very odd way of phrasing it. Proposal: change to "despite the fact that Britain and Ireland are separate states" (or words to that effect).
• History: It's completely unsourced. Proposal: junk that entire paragraph.
• Language: Again, badly in need of sources.
• Language: "During the last 60 years there has been a great deal of immigration into Great Britain (less into Ireland)." Indigenous languages of the British Isles which predated modern political boundaires - fine - but talking about the languages of recent immigrants just seems odd - the immigrants are coming to Britain or Ireland, they aren't migrating to an entity called the "British Isles". Proposal: ditch this paragraph.

The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 17:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree with almost all of this. I would combine the Etymology and Alternative Names sections, or move them to a less prominent spot. Do we really need the first two sections to cover the name/s?

Agree re 'increasingly preferred.'

Political cooperation - I'd go with 'Although Britain and Ireland are now separate states'

History - agree. Bin the paragraph. Add a short summary of the main article.

Languages - I'd keep info on recent migration and languages. The article is about the islands and the people who live there so should include recent migration as well as historic migration. It should essentially reflect the content of Languages of Ireland and Languages of the United Kingdom. I would use less specific wording than "the last 60 years", however.

Good proposal all round.

--hippo43 (talk) 21:00, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

It might have been better if you'd numbered your proposals?

For some, the John Dee first usage is very notable and belongs in the lede. For me, I'd support the move to Etymology. Also, whereas you emphasise "preferred", I believe the word "becoming" is more relevant to support the "increasingly used" bit. But your proposed text is more in line with the references and I support it. --

HighKing (talk

) 21:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd also support the broad approach proposed by RedHat as modified by Hippo - and I'd add that the part of the Demography section dealing with the major cities looks out of place in an article that is not about a political entity, though the part about the changing % of the BI population that is in Ireland could stay. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd keep the info on major settlements - this is about a geographic area, so where people live is relevant. I would, however, move the Languages stuff to follow the Demography section. --hippo43 (talk) 22:25, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

1. "British Isles" is only one of many terms for "this archipelago", so the first sentence of this article is at once attempting to claim BI as the sole "name" rather than accurately reporting it as one of many terms. 2. The John Dee reference is directly related to the politics which refuses to allow the word 'term' to be reinstated in the first sentence of this article; by pointing out that the term "British Isles" can only be dated to 1577, when it was used by an imperialist, the reader is aware that "British Isles" has a political origin as well as a controversial present, both of which are inextricably linked unless you want to brush all rejection of the term out of the article except for a finely tuned and well-censored obscure little footnote in the article. Of course nobody here would want to do that, or would they? 86.44.47.236 (talk) 00:41, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

First paragraph - Dee is definitely out of place in the intro and the etymology section proves why. Though I would broadly agree that etymology ought to sit lower down, given the likelihood of future editors coming along and sticking random "facts" in the intro it might be better to keep it in a more prominent place.

Second paragraph - agreed, although "used" on its own might be more balanced. The first source appears to be talking about the Scottish, Welsh and Irish when it says it is becoming a "preferred usage". The second source contradicts himself a few times, saying "regarded by some as increasingly less stable" in the paragraph above the one Redhat quotes from, and admitting to using the terms interchangeably later in the same paragraph. In both cases, therefore, the sources are qualifying what they mean, whereas the current wording on this article does not.

Political - agreed.

(Shared) history - this subject is usually handled by nation rather than by geographical area. I would suggest that is why it is unsourced. Remove.

Language - this is geographical info and I can see the case for keeping it in and finding the sources.

The references could do with tidying up a bit too. Wiki-Ed (talk) 16:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest that anyone who is really interested with Problems with the article, address these issues first. Þjóðólfr (talk) 16:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

How about engaging with the rest of us instead of writing snidey little comments like that? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 17:26, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Sir, I believe Here is the correct place for such exchanges between you and me. Þjóðólfr (talk) 17:29, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm concerned about of Ferrick lack of 'good faith' as per example [9], and also about Canterbury, who is playing "Admin" here, but who is also in the middle of the debate at times.

Tfz

18:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Support all the proposals, except the third: Britain and Ireland are not separate states: they are separate islands: part of Ireland (i.e. Northern Ireland) is united with Britain in the UK. Mooretwin (talk) 19:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Support the proposed changes although i agree with Mooretwins concerns about saying "Britain and Ireland", it must be clear we are talking about the sovereign states not the islands so shouldnt use Britain. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Britain and the UK are synonymous. [10] "Britain, UK: These terms are synonymous: Britain is the official short form of United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Used as adjectives, therefore, British and UK mean the same." The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 19:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Britain and the UK are synonymous if you are British and are trying to rewrite history and geography to suit the current geographical extent of the extended British state that is currently named the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. How revealing that a part of Ireland suddenly becomes part of "Britain" in order to suit this British nationalist agenda. Pathetically jingoistic, as usual. 86.44.47.236 (talk) 21:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The United Kingdom is often refered to as "Britain", your pathetic accusations and attacks on editors here are not wanted. The trouble is not that "Britain" isnt used when talking about the United Kingdom.. its that it also is thought of by some as talking about the island. Also ofcourse in the current introduction because of Irish nationalists we have the silly claim that "Britain and Ireland" is becoming an alternative name for the British Isles.. which is a complete joke. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:05, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

It can still lead to confusion when saying "Britain and Ireland" Saying United Kingdom and Ireland, is easiest way to avoid that although i would prefer ofcourse United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland, which is even clearer. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:53, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Just correcting Mooretwin's misunderstanding of the distinction between "Great Britain" and "Britain", which I guess proves your point about people getting confused... The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 19:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

'Britain' is also used as a synonym for 'Great Britain', viz. recent advertising in Northern Ireland for HSS ferries "to Britain" from Belfast. Regardless, use of "Ireland" is also confusing as it is an island as well as a state. Mooretwin (talk) 20:10, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure - people incorrectly use those terms synonymously, as you have done here. But that doesn't make it so. Details at Terminology of the British Isles. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 20:16, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of whether it is correct or incorrect, the term "Britain" is used sometimes as a synonym for "Great Britain", and hence its use here may be ambiguous for many readers. Best to use UK and ROI for absolute clarity: especially as this article is about geography, and "Ireland" and "Britain" may be confused for geographic terms. Mooretwin (talk) 21:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

We could split hairs here. Does the

Tfz

21:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Well that comment just proves the problem. "Britain and Ireland" is perfectly adequate and is used to include UK, IoM and CI too" The IOM and CI are not part of the United Kingdom, so how can just saying Britain be talking about them all? Especially when currently in the introduction we have the stupid and misleading statement that "Britain and Ireland" is becoming an alternative for the group. This is why it is safer to say United Kingdom and Ireland, in a perfect world we would say United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland :) BritishWatcher (talk) 21:53, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

"British isles" is problematic too, because it literally means "islands belonging to Britain", yet some editors have no gripe with that. Hair splitting is what causes disputes on pages like these, and they never end. The whole object is to have a 'neutral article' that everyone is happy with. And indeed this can be done.

Tfz

22:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

What rubbish you talk. Does the Sea of Japan belong to Japan? Does the Irish Sea belong to Ireland? It is from YOUR point of view that British Isles some how claims ownership over Ireland. Ofcourse we should have a neutral article, but its impossosible to have one everyone is happy about because certain editors refuse to even accept the term British Isles is a perfectly reasonable geographical term, to such an extent that certain editors who shall remain nameless have tried to have this article moved and remove "British Isles" from wikipedia. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:10, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

British Isles does not mean that all the Islands belong to Britain. All of us here know that. On the other hand, there will be people around the world who don't know that and will presume it does. That's not an argument to change the title, just a statememt. Jack forbes (talk) 22:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Totally agree that some people may think it, but thats a bit different to it meaning "Islands belonging to Britain". The same argument can be made for use of "Ireland" in the text of articles.. people thinking its about the Island instead of the country, yet we are forced to just say "Ireland". BritishWatcher (talk) 22:30, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, making assumptions about what the reader will or will not get confused about is a very slippery slope, given the range of ages, education and English language skills of its readership. Wikipedia should explain things clearly and succinctly as they are, and if the reader is confused, they can use other articles in the encyclopaedia to clear up their confusion. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 22:35, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

But we currently have the intro saying "Although still used as a geographic term, the controversy means that alternative names such as"Britain and Ireland"[dubious – discuss] are increasingly used." There for it seems sensible to avoid saying "Britain and Ireland" further down in the text if we are talking about the sovereign states. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:39, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I've protected this article, yet again, for constant edit warring. Two weeks unless some agreements can be made over this latest edit war. Canterbury Tail talk 20:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd recommend a month. But 2-weeks should suffice. GoodDay (talk) 20:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Up holding

Tfz

20:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I'm thinking of recommending it be added to the list of the perma-protected. Canterbury Tail talk 20:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• I'd agree with that, as long as it was written by professionals.
  Tfz
  20:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

That would be understandable. GoodDay (talk) 20:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

(conflict) - and I just protected the last version. Protected version is not an endorsement of the article at the time of protection, just what it happened to be when the protection was applied. Canterbury Tail talk 20:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Upholding NOR. Nice work CT. --hippo43 (talk) 20:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Birds of a feather? Nice one H. --

Tfz

20:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Um are you trying to imply something here Tfz, or am I just misreading an innocent remark? Canterbury Tail talk 20:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I do still have a sense of humour in all of this;), and actually think you are a good admin, although I don't always agree with you.

Tfz

20:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Not everyone does, but I appreciate your comment. I'm used to being called a protestant bigot and a republican sympathiser all on the same day. Today I think it's just been the republican terrorist supporter, but hey the day is still young :). Canterbury Tail talk 20:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

A man for all seasons, eh! But still, you should be upholding

Tfz

20:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Why uphold WP:BRD when the material is so clearly OR? Besides, surely the original insertion of this crap is the B of BRD, and removing it is the R, no? In that case, until there is consensus (D) for including it, it should be left out? --hippo43 (talk) 21:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

We also conducted a straw poll, and while Wikipedia is not a democracy, there was a clear majority in favour of removing this original research about the naming of maps. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 21:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

A consensus of sorts was acheived above, so one could say that agreement has already been achieved (in line with WP:VER, WP:NOR etc). The issue now is that some editors will never accept consensus and will never accept Wikipedia's three core policies. Once the protected status has been relaxed we can expect them to revert again. Therefore I think the Administrative community need to consider ways of enforcing those core policies, perhaps by more direct action against those who flout them.Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

A consensus of sorts is not a consensus. I think it is very unfair and incorrect to protect the article in a way that removes the very material that the straw poll, while still running btw, was discussing. CT, this is a bad move. I've seen occasions where material has been reverted in the past before protecting. Makes we wonder (or not) why this didn't occur in this case.... I agree with protecting the article, but it should be protected in the state *before* edit warring, otherwise it looks like you are officially endorsing the changes and for two weeks! Also, this article was under a strict 1RR policy, and no reverting of reverts. I see no action has been taken. --

HighKing (talk

) 01:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Guidelines are not to revert to a particular version when protecting an article, as that presumes endorsement one way or another, and involves the admin to a greater level than should be (unless it's to revert vandalism which is different.) When protecting for a content dispute the current version should be protected at the time of the protection. See

WP:PREFER. The version of an article at the time of protection during an edit war or conflict is not an endorsement, and unless there are exceptional circumstances the protecting admin should not be reverting it to one version or another as that can be seen as putting forward a preference and then protecting so no one can change it from their preference. Canterbury Tail talk

02:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I understand, and under normal circumstances, that policy makes sense. But what happened to the 1RR restriction on this article? That should have been an automatic ban for hippo and reversion as the first admin action. Failure on this point is why I have brought this up. --

HighKing (talk

) 21:31, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

please lock the current version for a month. BritishWatcher (talk) 02:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I've locked it for two weeks, that should be plenty for some kind of consensus to be reached. Also if people don't like the current version you are quite welcome to request an edit to the article here, and if it has consensus it will be done. Canterbury Tail talk 02:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

HighKing, surely the pre-edit warring version is the one without the contentious material? Reverting the insertion of original research is not edit warring, just the R of BRD - the war only starts when the material is reinserted, surely? Moreover, why would the version from before an edit war automatically be the preferred version, in favour of the non-OR version? If the OR version were protected, it would seem that an admin was endorsing the OR. --hippo43 (talk) 02:20, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Lets not go down this route and discuss the merits of which version should be protected or not, it won't end well. Lets just concentrate on getting a community consensus for the article to avoid further edit warring. Canterbury Tail talk 02:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough - probably good advice. --hippo43 (talk) 02:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)Perhaps my question was missed (twice) above, but I'm still waiting for a response to what happened to the previous 1RR on this article, which was serving us so well? And which has now resulted in zero editors getting blocked despite a breach of this rule, and an article being locked down in such a way that it favours the editor edit-warring in breach of 1RR. Does this mean that the 1RR restriction has been lifted? --

I see no evidence on this page that the 1RR is still in force, and no comments from Sheffield Steel on the matter. And the article was locked down not in favour with anyone, but the way it was at the time it was protected. Canterbury Tail talk 14:18, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• Quite obviously SheffieldSteel is away since 17th of July, and you must know since you have undermined his adminship on this page. The article was locked down in favour of Hippo's aggressive editing, and his/er flouting SheffieldSteel's good adminship & good jurisprudence here.
  Tfz
  19:05, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

To quote CT: "Lets just concentrate on getting a community consensus for the article to avoid further edit warring." In order to achieve consensus for the reinstating of that material, you will have to convince the majority of editors here that it does not constitute original research. And we've explained what is required for that (sources which discuss the changing pattern of usage, rather than data collection conducted by Wikipedia editors). The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 13:41, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)@CT, are you now declaring that SheffieldSteel's "no revert of a revert" (

No I'm not saying it is no longer in operation. I guess I could just unprotect the page, and block Hippo and Tfz, but I'd rather not block anyone. As for reverting it to pre-edit warring, sorry I'm not doing that unless there is consensus to do so. Now lets call an end to this should it be protected or should it not talk, and actually discuss building a consensus to the article so we can stop all this edit warring and have an open to editing article again. If there is consensus to put it back to pre-edit war then I shall do so, if such consensus can be obtained before the protection expires. Canterbury Tail talk 12:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

@CT, OK, so what you're now saying is that it needs consensus to put it back to the pre-edit war version .... but it doesn't need consensus for the current version which you will enforce by protecting the article? And to be clear, I've no problem with it being protected, but I am very concerned that it is protected at a version which has no consensus, which goes against a ruling by another admin which you were aware of, and where you appear unwilling to review your actions and perhaps make good something which is clearly against consensus and policy. The appropriate action would have been to block both editors, but they didn't even get a warning... So as a theoretical question: When this protection period has been lifted, and if I revert the article to the pre-protected-non-consensual-editwarred-version, are we just right back to where we should have been all along, or if someone reverts my revert will you merely protect the "wrong" version again? It could be the start of a trend. I know that you do not participate in discussions here but I can see how more unscupulous admins could use this tactic to ensure that their preferred version is "protected" at all times. --

HighKing (talk

) 11:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

@CT, btw since you pointed it out

HighKing (talk

) 12:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I will make no more comments on the version that is protected. Discussion is better off with energies directed at obtaining a consensus on what should or should not be included in the article rather than trying to pick apart policies and guidelines. It has been five days since the article was protected and there has been very little discussion, and no consensus on what should or should not be included. If an edit war breaks out again after the article is unprotected then it may well be protected again. Whatever version it is protected on will be the version it is protected on. If you really want it reverted back to the version before the edit warring started, then show me a consensus. However on this page there is no clear consensus either way therefore I'm not picking a consensus for the community, the community has to pick the consensus. Do note however that edit warring once protection is removed will not be condoned, and if people persist on it when protected is lifted then warnings and blocks may well be handed out as necessary, just like any other edit warring, however I feel protecting generates more consensus than blocking editors. Canterbury Tail talk 10:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

HighKing - we have had a straw poll, and we have had a discussion. It is clear that the majority do not feel this information is in line with Wikipedia's policies. The fact that the article is protected one way or the other is neither here nor there. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 22:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I think its a good idea to have this article protected all the time, aslong as if consensus is reached to make changes those changes are made. Consensus being majority support for a certain change, we cant just not make changes because one or two trouble makers. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I've lost count of the number of times you've been reminded of policy regarding

HighKing (talk

) 11:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

wow, thanks for threatening me HighKing. perhaps you should

WP:AGF aswell instead of making threats to editors and encouraging people to get warned. BritishWatcher (talk

) 11:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Please behave. I did not threaten you. I did not even threaten to threaten you. But you've been warned on more than one occasion in the past about your behaviour and language, and it appears that regular warnings are needed to remind you to moderate your name-calling and to pay attention to policy. And hopefully, since I doubt you'll pay attention to what I say, a passing admin might point out to you what you are doing that needs attention. --

HighKing (talk

) 11:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe they should take a look at your actions because you seem to keep telling different people to behave and getting into arguments with different people.

WP:AGF says "Making accusations of bad faith can be inflammatory and hence these accusations may be unhelpful in a dispute" , I did not call a single person a trouble maker, it is a general comment about people who at every stage attempt to disrupt this articles status and that would include all sides in the dispute. Is use of the phrase "trouble maker" banned from talk pages? BritishWatcher (talk

) 12:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

@Canterbury & BritishWatcher, I was upholding BRD, and Hippo was flouting it. But to be fair to Hippo, he admitted that he didn't know at the time it was under BRD, so I have no real gripe there. And @BW,

Tfz

12:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Protection is the best bet it takes us weeks to agree to make the smallest of changes anyway, its just a case of one of the admins making a change when there is majority support. There seems to be support for many of the proposed changes so those should happen once the final points are agreed even if a couple of editors disagree with them.. they all seem like reasonable changes to me. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Much of the above surmises that the definition of "British Isles" is agreed upon, which in reality is far from the truth. Indeed one of the many contradictions about the claim that the name is geographical and not political concerns the Channel Islands which geographically are not part of the British Isles but because they are subject to the British crown they are included in it by some people. Furthermore, the principal online website covering the British Isles - http://www.the-british-isles.com/ - explicitly excludes both the Channel Islands and Ireland from its definition of the British Isles. Moreover, there are many thousands of sources referring to the "British Isles and Ireland", a usage which clearly excludes Ireland from the definition of "British Isles" advanced by some posters above. These range from historical studies, geographical studies and political studies which have been written by academics across the world. 212.2.179.60 (talk) 10:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

In reality, the term 'British Isles' means nothing more than a shrunken '

Tfz

12:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Just because some site has the web address The-British-Isles.com means nothing at all. Plenty of sources state the British isles includes the channel Islands and we mention they are not physically part of the group in the introduction. I dont think we could be any more clear on this matter, so i see no need for change. Thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 11:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

"For more information on Wales visit 'Welcome to Chester'"....!! Demonstrates that site's reliability, I think (not). Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Well at least we know the version used in Ireland includes Ireland in the definition otherwise there wouldn't be these discussions. Plus that's the version used by RTE and various government agencies such as Tourism Ireland and others. So lets just stick to the facts, we're not here to make definitions but to report. Canterbury Tail talk 12:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

British Isles Until 1949 a collective title for Great Britain, Ireland, and the numerous islands surrounding the two larger islands, including the Isle of Man. In 1949 the Republic of Ireland left the British Commonwealth and so could no longer be included in the title. Ref "British Isles" Concise Dictionary of World Place-Names. John Everett-Heath. Oxford University Press 2005./Ref This is an alternative definition from a cast Iron

JGA Pocock, stated "the term ‘British Isles’ is one which Irishmen reject and Englishmen decline to take quite seriously" Þjóðólfr (talk

) 12:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Interesting find there, Þjóðólfr. Despite his definition though, he uses the term not once but twice in his introduction. "The majority of the place-names in the British Isles are of Old English and Old Scandinavian origin." and "The British Isles have experienced five major invasions by foreigners who spoke a different language." And, he has written this "general note" about the "British Isles" after the Preface:

British Isles: from 1536 these have included the following states:

... ommitted a few lines ....

1801-1922: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland

1922- : Irish Free Sate (later Eire (1937) and the Republic of Ireland (1949))

1922- : United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

So I don't see how he squares that general note where he dates the inclusion of Ireland from 1922 to the present, and his usage of the term in the intro, with his definition. You can see all this on Amazon's search inside feature. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• Majority of place-names in Ireland are from
  Tfz
  23:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't finish quoting all of the sentence. It continues on the next page "...and from the Celtic group of languages (Brithonic, Irish and Scottish Gaelic etc)". So if you are suggesting the author is excluding Ireland from his definition of British Isles in that case, you are mistaken. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Why do the British want Ireland so much:). I was really only pointing out that most names in Ireland come from

Tfz

01:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

"British Isles" is still used far more than " British Isles and Ireland" lol BritishWatcher (talk) 12:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The British population far outnumbers the Irish population. --

HighKing (talk

) 13:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Well that does mean far more English speakers know the term British Isles than the "British Isles and Ireland". Also ofcourse its not only British people that use it, Irish people do, Irish map publishers still print the term in their books, people from some other countries know it BritishWatcher (talk) 13:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

HighKing (talk

) 10:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Can people please discuss the contentious points that caused the edit war that resulted in the article being protected. I've seen people promising to revert upon protection lifting, and others promising to revert that revert. If this is all that is going to happen, I shall just extend the protection to prevent further disruption to the article, or impose blocks on the editors concerned for deliberate disruption. I would like all the interested parties to reopen the discussions on the section of the maps and references and attempt to come to some kind of consensus. Having the article blocked is not good for anyone or the project, having editors blocked for edit warring and disruption isn't either and edit restriction sanctions on the article is also not a good idea. Please discuss these points rationally, calmly, without commenting on other editors and their perceived POVs and come to some kind of consensus. If a consensus is reached before the protection is lifted, then I will happily lift the protection earlier in order for editing to recommence. Canterbury Tail talk 02:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

How can we ever reach a consensus on this? We have explained why it is original research. We have even shown that four out of five of the publishers who supposedly stopped using the term continue to do so in the very same publication. We have had a straw poll, showing a clear majority in favour of removing the wording. We have stated that cases where there is clearly no OR (Folens) can stay. Yet, HighKing refuses to back down, and will continue to play the "no consensus" card. So now what? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 02:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

That's rich. @CT - this is another fine mess you've got us into. @TRHOPF, majority isn't consensus, and if you check my comments on this issue, I'm not sticking my heels in over this issue and I believed we were making progress right up until the protextion. I had dropped the "Likewise" from the text, and provided references that were requested. I could likewise accuse you and other editors of not accepting that the text does not make any inferences but states bald facts, which are relevant, and leaves any interpretation up to the reader. TBH, I'm more conserned with the issue of the sudden dropping of the "no reverting a revert" rule, which worked and guaranteed collaboration...cos all we have now is a situation that CT won't explain despite questions I've asked, and now he's threatening to block anyone who reverts to the pre-protection state, I suppose on the assumption that the current text has consensus??? Who knows? He's not answering or explaining anything? So I'd say to CT, go ahead and perma-block the article cos you're is the only one that has a clue as to what is going on. Sad.... --

HighKing (talk

) 09:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Would a flagged revision system be appropriate? It would need an active admin to simulate the system proposed on the project page (at least until the tools are active on WP) and a reviewer (or a group of them) to consider whether proposed revisions were accurate, neutral and verified. If we want to make progress we cannot maintain a system that is reliant on achieving consensus when the votes of opinionated IP/sockpuppets are counted and where some editors pay no heed to Wikipedia's core policies to reject whatever they don't like.

Highking - hitting out at CT won't get you anywhere. He was quite correct to stop the farcical situation which allowed verified neutral revisions to be reverted by opinionated IPs without recourse. Wiki-Ed (talk) 10:09, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

There was no farcical situation in the case of the current lockdown. There was a clear policy in place, posted on the admins noticeboard, which CT was aware of. CT didn't like it, as evidenced by his comments, and as soon as SheffieldSteel goes on holidays, CT decides to implement his own version without notifying any of us that this was going to be the case, protecting a version in dispute while a clear pre-dispute version existed, and we're all still left in the dark as to what exactly the current situation is. I've been threatened with being blocked if I revert when the protection expires. Fine. His threat has been successful. I'm withdrawing from this article until this mess has been cleared up and the exact situation clarified as per the questions I've patiently posted have been answered - let majority rule implemented by majority British contributers have it's way, and damn consensus. --

HighKing (talk

) 11:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I have my reservations about that yes but I never decided to implement my own version. Personally I'd forgotten about SS's 1RR and saw no evidence that it was still in place (I don't read every single page on Wikipedia constantly to know what temporary rules are still in force and what aren't), but the article had managed to get far beyond that state anyway and into a point where it was full edit warring, 3RR violations the lot. If people wish to revert it after the protection is lifted then fine, that's editing. If people are just promising to continue reverting back and forth both ways that's edit warring and is a different issue. Since everyone seems to want the 1RR to still be in force then fine, if that is what the community wants then lets continue to enforce it afterwards. However it was obvious it didn't work in this case with the number of reverts and passes and back and forth, and such a solution is no replacement for a proper consensus. And the other points still stand, people need to stop wasting time making comments about other editors, and picking apart fine points of guidelines and policies and try focusing their energies on finding some stable consensus for this article. You don't like the version it was protected on, I get it, however neither version has consensus one way or another currently.

And also for everyone, HighKing is quite correct, majority isn't the same as consensus. Wikipedia is not a democracy, and consensus isn't determined by voting, see

WP:WHATISCONSENSUS. Maybe we should take the current point of contention to RfC or Mediation. Canterbury Tail talk

11:51, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Majority rule is fine with me. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

That may well be, but it's not fine with Wikipedia. It's not how things work here. Canterbury Tail talk 11:51, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

But what exactly are we meant to do? We can not go to RFC every time we want to simply change a word/sentence or remove a source from the article. Polls on specific issues seem like a reasonable solution and when there is a clear majority those changes should be implemented. Otherwise nothing can ever get done. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Get a consensus. A poll is one way or working towards a consensus, but consensus is made by discussion not voting, and a majority vote isn't consensus usually consensus (though in some cases it can be, but that's on a case by case basis.) For the points in question, from what I can see of the discussions above there was no clear consensus to remove the info, yet no clear consensus to keep it either. Canterbury Tail talk 14:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

no clear consensus to remove it, no clear consensus to keep it, a clear majority vote in favour of removing it. yet it would have to remain in the article? BritishWatcher (talk) 15:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

No, consensus is not

opinion can be ignored. However, to decide whether legitimate objections have been raised requires a neutral arbiter. This takes us back to my suggestion above about the flagged revisions project. Wiki-Ed (talk

) 16:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I would like to see the article remain locked, and changes implemented by the admins when there is consensus for certain changes. Above there is clear consensus to remove certain OR claims, but if one editor disagrees we cant just keep OR in the article. If we want any change it should be put to a poll, if a clear majority support something it should be implemented. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

A majority vote of course does not itself show consensus. It can, however, help bring about consensus if, for example, everyone agrees to abide by the results of a majority vote.

Frankly, there is little point in taking off the protection. A consensus will never be reached. The same edit wars have been going on here on this article at this stage longer than the First World War and will continue as long as this page can be edited. For years it has been protected to stop edit wars, unprotected, seen more edit wars, protected, unprotected, seen more edit wars, protected . . . and so it continues. The moment the protection is removed it will start off all over again. (Yawn!) FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 18:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

In spite of the straw poll, in spite of the 2:1 majority of editors believing it goes against OR, HighKing *will* revert as soon as protection is lifted. [11] The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I wonder what you were hoping to achieve by that post? --

HighKing (talk

) 09:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The Admins seeing that a clear majority want certain parts of the article changed and that it should not be reverted. If this no revert of revert rule applies, it is impossible to make any change because one person can just undo it and we are stuck. The Admins should make the change that has been agreed above to remove original research. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

But the term BI is original research, for every time it's mentioned there are dozens of times it's not mentioned. It's a peculiarly British thing, and most of the world ignore the term altogether. We will never get an encyclopedic article written about the term at Wikipedia I'm afraid. Six years of archives proves that. 1RR, lock-down, BRD, you name it, means zilch to the non-quality of the piece.

Tfz

04:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

And indeed the very first edit and comment on this article concerned the legitimacy of the term "British Isles" on this article. Actually the first version of this article, on 13 October 2001, was more accurate and inclusive than what now exists. It was: 'The British Isles is a term sometimes used to describe the geographic area consisting of the islands of Britain, Ireland and other related islands. Many people in Ireland do not like the term "British Isles" because it implies that Ireland is British. They prefer "Britain and Ireland".'(Here). In the current version, the "British Isles" is no longer just "a term" which is "sometimes used"; it is put forward as the term, and the latest manifestation of this politicisation is the attempt to remove all Irish objections from a prominent position in this article. Lastly, here is the first discussion archive, with the title issue dominating every discussion. Dunlavin Green (talk) 10:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

The frequency of usage of a term is not part of its definition, which is what the opening sentence should do. Think of any words which are synonymous - e.g. buy and purchase. Because you can only use one of those in a clause, that means English speakers are "sometimes" using the word "purchase" to refer to the act of exchanging money for goods. But that doesn't make the definition of purchase "a term 'sometimes' used to refer to the act of exchanging money for goods'. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 11:19, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

That example belongs to a dictionary, and not to an encyclopedia. We have been listening to these two faced arguments for a long time, the archives are full of it. Argue point A when it suits your "Cause", argue point B when it suits the "Cause". Very often

Tfz

12:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

More attacks on British Editors. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

A bit laughable from the editor who coined the sometimes used term, "anti-British Isles Brigade". I might be more 'British' than you, if truth be known, and why would I attack a section. I'm only talking about nationalists "with a cause", and no-one else.

Tfz

13:19, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Ya'll should consider creating another article called Britain and Ireland. Within that 'new' article, have it explained that it's a term being increasingly used in place of 'British Isles'. GoodDay (talk) 13:35, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

See Great Britain and Ireland. Jack forbes (talk) 13:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I see (citations are needed there, though). Perhaps there's a way to write into this article, that 'British Isles' is being used gradually less? GoodDay (talk) 13:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Jack for that link, i did not have that on my watchlist until now. What an awful article that should not even exist. That should be a dab page with

British–Irish relations and yes the British Isles.BritishWatcher (talk

) 13:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Umm GoodDay that would already be in the intro .. "Although still used as a geographic term, the controversy means that alternative names such as "Britain and Ireland" are increasingly used." BritishWatcher (talk) 13:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Forgive my laziness, but why the latest disputing? GoodDay (talk) 13:49, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Editors are unable to remove Original Research from the article despite a clear majority in favour of certain changes. Consensus here appears impossible to reach. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) Would you show me the 'original research' in question? Perhaps, my opinon on it might help things (as I'm quite neutral about the article's content). GoodDay (talk) 14:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'm catching on. The crux of the latest dispute is basically: 'Let's not over-kill, on the fact the 'British Isles' has alternate names used. GoodDay (talk) 14:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I have been following the (epic) discussion above and some comments made are very disheartening to read from contributors to an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is no place for a popularity contest on a given subject; it should impartially present all the subject’s significant attributes. If a valid and properly-referenced perspective is held by a not-insignificant body of contributors, then without question it should be included accurately. The term in question here covers two separate entities (islands in this case) and to me it is little surprise that a large proportion of those living on the smaller one hold the term as being highly objectionable. I do not believe that it is without reason that the forum created to facilitate cooperation between the different governmental administrations on the islands is titled the ‘British-Irish Council’, or that the only sports (rugby) team with membership drawn from across both islands is officially titled ‘The British and Irish Lions’. To try and censor appropriate inclusion of a valid encyclopedic entry on any sensitive point can only have one effect – an endless editing struggle that can only be detrimental to the cause for which Wikipedia stands. Kind regards, Pconlon 21:17, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

We have an

talk

) 23:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, it is far from a strawman to Irish people. The term does hold immense value to a very nationalistic group of British editors - look at some of their User Pages, for example - who are determined to assert it over Ireland and the Irish people in an attempt to create an alternative political entity which is distinct from that great threat to the modern concept of Britishness (i.e. Englishness dressed up to give the Scots and Welsh the impression that they were not conquered by England): the European Union. Open-minded English people avoid the term. Dunlavin Green (talk) 00:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Having just come off a block for personal attacks [12], the first thing you do is attack another editor rather than their contributions? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Ahem! It's not a competition - you certainly shouldn't feel the need to practice on my talk page. I'm sure you've nothing to fear though. --

HighKing (talk

) 01:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

TRHoPF has been warned for his comments towards yourself. Canterbury Tail talk 11:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, User:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick, pointing out that the editor in question's contribution to his own User Page is to place a massive Union Jack with the words 'Long live the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland! God save the Queen!' on it is merely a matter of fact about the nature of his contributions. An embarrassing contribution certainly for those of you who are trying desperately to claim that "British Isles" is a harmless apolitical term with no connection to centuries of British misrule over Ireland and against the Irish people. Still, nice try at attempting to divert attention from the nature of the contributions from such editors. While I'm at it I note, for instance, your own contributions are overwhelmingly favourable ones to articles about British imperialism. Hmmmm could there be a general pattern in these contributions (that word, again) from the advocates of the term "British Isles"? Dunlavin Green (talk) 01:51, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

You don't even know the first thing about me, or my beliefs, so I suggest you stop being so judgmental about me. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 02:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I know from your contributions that you have a keen and conspicuous interest in British imperialism, and you aren't looking at it from the perspective of the natives. In fairness to you, your contributions sometimes make you seem like an altar boy when compared to those of that English-English editor, User:Wiki-Ed. Dunlavin Green (talk) 11:02, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

British people are not the only people who dislike and fear the European Union. I personally know plenty of Italians, Czechs, as well as Irish people who absolutely detest the EU and everything it stands for.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Oddly enough Jeanne, I don't doubt you. With a population of almost 500 million and containing 27 states it would be extraordinarily unusual to have everybody agreeing. Euroscepticism in Britain, on the other hand, is exceptional in its intensity and its nationalist motivations. It is particularly unusual in the extent of media hostility to it, while a spring 2008 poll showed more people in the UK viewed membership of the EU as negative than positive. Then again no nation in Europe or indeed the world has lost as much as Britain has lost in the past 80 years: there must be a scapegoat for the wounded pride. Dunlavin Green (talk) 11:02, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Please stick to discussing the article. This is not a general forum for discussion. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 11:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)