Talk:British Isles/Archive 4

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.

Well, I suppose since I went to the trouble of reading through this morass, I should comment.

A few points. For me, the most important issue is that we need an article about the island group that includes "Great Britain, Ireland, and nearby islands". It seems to me that there is no doubt that the only name in common usage for this assemblage is the "British Isles." Various other names have been suggested, but none has really caught on.

Now, in terms of the issue of controversy, it seems to me there are two questions, which have sometimes been conflated:

1. Is the use of "British Isles" controversial?
2. Does the term "British Isles" necessarily include Ireland?

The answer to the first question would appear to be "yes." It would appear that the term tends to be avoided in Ireland, and that at least a fair number of people in Ireland object to the usage of "British Isles" as implying British political supremacy over the Republic.

The answer to the second question seems to me to also be "yes." Certainly there are many people who don't use the term (although I think the degree of controversy has been exaggerated here), but when the term is used, it is almost always used to include Ireland. Exceptions may be found, I'm sure, but I think it's much more fair to say that "a lot of Irish people don't use the term 'British Isles' because they find it politically objectionable," than to say "a lot of [Irish] people use the term 'British Isles' as excluding Ireland, because they find Ireland's inclusion to be politically objectionable."

The use of "British Isles" in a way which excludes Ireland is also, so far as I can tell, incoherent. Can anyone point to a geographical reference that uses the term "British Isles," but excludes Ireland?

Taking this idea to its logical conclusion, it would apparently mean that part of the United Kingdom (Northern Ireland) is not part of the British Isles. Or are we to assume that Northern Ireland is part of the British Isles, but the Republic of Ireland is not? If Ireland is excluded, what about the Isle of Man, also not part of the UK? If someone can point to a coherent definition of "British Isles" in a way which excludes Ireland, so much the better, but so far the best that has been provided is a quote from a politician in a letter not primarily concerned with geography, and a whole lot of assertion.

The basic fact is that nearly everybody who doesn't like the term "British Isles" as a term inclusive of Ireland simply doesn't use the term. Most everyone who uses the term "British Isles" uses it to include Ireland.

So, hopefully having dealt with the "the term British Isles may not include Ireland" complaint [okay, I'm sure I haven't successfully dealt with it, but moving on...], there arises the question of how to deal with the fact that the term is controversial. It seems to me that this needs to be discussed on this page, and that there needs to be some discussion of the history of the term (such as it is). But it still seems to me that the article should be mostly about geography, because while the term obviously has other connotations, the reason to have an encyclopedia article called

Nice wading. The take-home message of your post seems to be that there are two possibilities: 1) Majority view: The British Isles are a geographical term for Ireland, Great Britain, Isle of Man, etc, but the term may be politically controversial. 2) Significant minority view: The British Isles were once a geographical term for Ireland, Great Britain, Isle of Man, etc, but this term is no longer (or should no longer) be used. The current article is factually wrong by stating that the inclusion of Ireland is controversial. The inclusion of Ireland isn't controversial. The term itself is controversial, and the point of dispute is whether the land masses should be called "Ireland, Great Britain, and Isle of Man" or "the British Isles." Flying Jazz 01:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Or the "Anglo-Celtic Isles" or whatever other neologisms have come along. (And I think the article has to stay at

john k

02:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I accept that most of the world uses the term "British Isles" to describe the group of islands in question. I've lived in a number of countries and can testify that there are people who use the term, believing that if reflects a political reality, i.e. that all of Ireland remains under British rule.

By maintaining in the article that the term "British Isles" is used/or has a geographical or other validity, we are simply perpetuating this ignorance.

I've lived in Germany for years and am currently living in Greece. In both these countries, the terms Scotland and Wales are practically unknown, and the majority view (even among educated types) is that England is coterminous with Britain, and even the United Kingdom.

It is interesting that the Wikipedia article on England acknowledges this confusion, and I think the wording could (and should) be adopted here.

"England" is sometimes used incorrectly as a synonym for Great Britain or the United Kingdom, usually arising from innocent confusion over local geopolitical terminology.

If Wikipedia is all about reflecting usage and taking into account how terms are understood by people around the world rather than how they are defined, and if British Isles remains as Feline1, TharkunColl, Dave souza & co would have it, then the article on England will have to be similarly altered to reflect the worldwide view that England is coterminous with Britain. --Damac 07:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I thought that the

British Isles (terminology) was there for just that purpose and, if needed, any article needing to clarify what'what can refer to it. --Bazza

08:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. "British Isles" is a term which properly refers to Great Britain, Ireland, and neighboring islands. This is what it was originally defined to mean, and what it still generally means. That a lot of people are ignorant is completely immaterial. There's a difference between a misconception and a term which can promote misconception. There are all kinds of names which can promote or suggest misconceptions. We shouldn't avoid them because of this, we merely have to be careful to explain it, and, as Bazza suggests,

john k

09:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure about that last part John? After all, Northern Ireland is part of the UK, and you didn't include it with Scotland and Wales. Perhaps you didn't know. --Mal 09:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Baisically agree with the above. It would be original research to move this page to a title other than British Isles, and it goes to pains to describe the situation. John k's sumamry baisically sates my position. --Robdurbar 09:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

By the way, what's with "for the group of islands, or islands, or an archipelago," - all these terms mean the same thing, why on earth do we need to include the same information three times? This is incredibly awkward.

I'm afraid I have to take issue with this. Official RoI government documents and minutes do use the term.

• An official Dáil debate
• Shannon flooding interim report stating it is the longest river in the British Isles
• Official report which mentions how Ireland suffered when foot and mouth hit the British Isles
• Official report which discusses the redevelopment of the Central Mental Hospital in Dundrum, one of the oldest services of that nature in the British Isles
• Discusses a virgin train line in County Westmeath as probably the longest in the British Isles
• A minister is asking for easier access to birth certificates which "is the norm throughout the rest of the British Isles inlcuding Northern Ireland"
• Discusses Leopardstown racetrack and how it compares favourably with any other track in the British Isles
• Discusses freedom of movement from Eastern Europe to the British Isles

All these are official reports and minutes from both the Dáil and the Seanad. Ben W Bell talk 18:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Jtdirl, would you please provide some refs and explanations for your recent RV and additions, namely:

• "...largely coterminus with the former..." do you intend coterminous as in the regions had the same boundaries, or coterminous as in the terms were synonymous?
• "...part or all of Ireland" how can an archipelago contain part of an island?
• A number of editors have raised issues with the Lloyd George footnote, would you please address those concerns?
• could you provide a ref for "...widely disputed in Ireland and elsewhere"?
• could you provide a ref for the claim that British Islands was intended to replace British Isles when refering to the archipelago?

Thanks,

Two viewpoints

Martin, in a nutshell there are two viewpoints. One, expressed strongly by Jtdirl/FearÉIREANN, is that, increasingly, everyone tries to avoid using the term, and that almost every sentence in the intro should deprecate the term or emphasise that it offends millions of people. The other, which is my view, is that such controversy clearly exists in the Republic of Ireland and possibly to a lesser extent elsewhere, that as JFE says it has become "politically incorrect" in some diplomatic and academic circles, but that the term is still much more widely used with no intent to "oppress" anyone and the introduction should start with a one sentence paragraph giving this common definition without caveat before going on to describe the controversy. Both are agreed that the term has no synonym in widespread use. No doubt others hold variations on these themes.

JFE has given an interesting account of proper professional sourcing. I was intrigued by the statement that "The BBC and the Guardian both ask that "British Isles" not be used, or in the latter case, that "British Isles and Ireland" be used if at all possible", since this went against the Guardian article from 2001 cited previously. It states that when "the Guardian style guide has no entry, which is the case here" they turn to a definition in Collins dictionary: "A group of islands in W Europe [in Europe, please note, not quite near to Europe], consisting of Great Britain, Ireland, the Isle of Man, Orkney, the Shetland Islands, the Channel Islands belonging to Great Britain, and the islands adjacent to these." I wondered if the style guide might now have an entry, but that seems not to be the case. Indeed, several [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] more recent examples using the term quite freely turned up in a quick search. Perhaps JFE was going on hearsay, but seems to be in error here. The BBC News style guide which is available as a pdf makes the interesting statement that "The British Isles is not a political entity. It is a geographical unit, the archipelago off the west coast of continental Europe covering Scotland, Wales, England, Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands." The recent TV series by Alan Titchmarsh: British Isles: A Natural History, is currently widely available in book form under the same title. Which just goes to show the importance of reliable sources and not the fascinating anecdotes which I am sure JFE has come across as being entirely convincing in his usual company.

By the way, MelForbes, sorry to hear of your detestation of the term "British", shame that you won't enjoy the tales of Para Handy, "Chust wan of Brutain's hardy sons". ...dave souza, talk 07:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

dave souza, please don't misquote me, please read again. I said the words "British Isles", not Britannica or Britain. It shouldn't be classed as one as there are 3 nations on it namely, Wales, Scotland and England, and it's quite a large island too, it's more a land mass than an island. When you start misquoting me over over my very clear and simple input, then I really do wonder about your other edits! And BTW, if the Channel Islands are part of the British Isles as you state, then it is quite clear that the term "British Isles" is a political term. Get your atlas and have a look! MelForbes 10:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Clarification, you detested the British Isles, then went on about things British. Fair enough. Note that it's not me stating that the Channel Islands are part of the group, but the Guardian and BBC definitions that others had already misrepresented (unless there's a secret policy I've not found). Trust you'll restrict your viewing to commercial channels to avoid upset. ..dave souza, talk 10:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Dave, you are misquoting me again! I said I detested the name "British Isles" and not Britain or the name Britain. Looking back on my edit, maybe "detest" was too strong a word to use, and ill-judged, but it's done. Really I don't want to labour this, it is a political label amd the centre of Britain is London, not Scotland, not Wales, but London! If you are comfortable with this, that's fine by me, everyone to their own views! MelForbes 11:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Isn't the centre of Britain more likely to be Cumbria or thereabouts? London seems a bit far south to me. That being the case, I have no problem in terms of comfort level, with Cumbria being the centre of Britain - short of millions of megatons of explosive power, I think there's probably very little I could do about it if I were uncomfortable with it. --Mal 09:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by Britain? Be factually correct as you wish others to be — the island you refer to above (Scotland, England and Wales) is Great Britain, which is just one component of the British Isles. And what exactly is the difference between a land mass and an island? --Bazza 12:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Technically America is an island for it is sorrounded by sea, but all those thousands of islands off the coast of Canada are not called the American Isles! MelForbes 13:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Shows how easy it is to trip over these terms! MelForbes, I apologise for misunderstanding your post and am glad that you have no problems with the name Britain. All these labels are indeed political, and also to a greater or lesser extent geographical. Whether caveats in every sentence give undue weight to dispute about their suitability is the question in hand. ..dave souza, talk 12:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I would recommend avoiding the term Britain on its own.

British Isles (terminology) lists two meanings for it, which means it is ambiguous unless qualified each time it is used. --Bazza

12:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Why is the naming dispute given so much priority in the introduction — over half of it. One paragraph on that topic should be enough in the lead, the rest should be in the terminology section. --Bazza 12:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

And, again on the introduction, what is the logic behind the order in which the main islands are listed? Is it alphabetical, largest first, smallest first, or Irish first? I don't care what order is used as long as it is NPOV and has some validity. --Bazza 12:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

If one of the countries supposedly in the British Isles has a dispute with the terminology then that has to be explained at the beginning. If the peoples in Great Britain had a dispute over that or other terminology, they too would have a right and expectation to have the fact that there is a dispute stated up front. If you don't state it up front then you are conveying the impression that there isn't a dispute and that is POV. Similarly if either the Unionist or Nationalist community have a major dispute over terminology then it would be only right to make it clear at the start that a dispute exists. Hiding the fact that there is a dispute, and stating one side in the dispute's interpretation as facts, with a mention later on 'oh by the way, a large number of people disagree' is editorialising and POV and not an option. Rob's edits are balanced and neutral. FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 13:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)}

If one of the countries supposedly in the British Isles has a dispute with the terminology then that has to be explained at the beginning. No country has any dispute over the term British Isles. --Mal 09:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

By my count, the introduction as now has eight sentences, five of which refer directly to the dispute, one refers to avoidance of the term and another states it is sometimes understood to be restricted to UK sovereignty. In addition the disambiguation line refers to contentious. Only the last sentence in the intro is free of such implications. I am glad to see that you are content with Rob's edits that he negotiated with you, but my concern remains that this formulation gives undue weight to a minority position and does not fairly state the normal usage. ..dave souza, talk 13:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

What you regard as "normal usage", but what millions of others regard as abnormal and POV usage. Vast numbers of people disagree with your interpretation. The article has to reflect the fact that you are not the only person whose views matter. Get over it. FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 14:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)}

But the problem is millions upon millions more people in the English speaking world the world over use the term than the couple of million (potentially) that regard it as abnormal and POV usage. It is not only the considerations of those in the Republic of Ireland that matter, but those of the entire world. Yes I agree that the views of the population of the Republic should be mentioned however they are a minority and that should also be taken into consideration. Ben W Bell talk 14:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

You've conveniently ignored both my observations: that the introduction gives undue weight to the naming dispute, I say again One paragraph on that topic should be enough in the lead, the rest should be in the terminology section.. On the logic behind the list of entities in the British Isles, I repeat What is the logic behind the order in which the main islands are listed? Is it alphabetical, largest first, smallest first, or Irish first? I don't care what order is used as long as it is NPOV and has some validity..—The preceding

unsigned comment was added by Bazza 7 (talk • contribs

) 07:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The terminology article uses "became independent", the Irish Free State article uses "separated". Either would seem better than "seceded". ...dave souza, talk 16:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I too would very strongly agree that the controversy surrounding the term is given way too much weight in the introduction. The present intro would be appropriate for an article solely discussing said controversy, but for a general article about the term (as it is understood by almost the entire English speaking world), it is too much. In my opinion, all that is needed in the introduction is to say: "The use of the term in considered controversial by some, especially those in the Republic of Ireland (see Terminology)". Martin 16:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I would have thought that the

I think the introduction as it stands at the moment is about right (apart from the spelling of "archipelago") - it makes it clear that "British Isles" is the most commonly used term while also giving an explanation of why a significant minority dislike the term or disagree about which islands are included in it. It is pretty clear that there is "extreme sensitivity" and "pov pushing" on both sides of the argument, not just on one.Rhion 17:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The order of islands is based upon the order in which they came into my head; and quite frankly, that's about as valid and neutral as many of the other justifications that have been put in for various arguments on this talk page ;) --Robdurbar 18:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

As for numbers of mentions; I agree it could be cut by a sentence or two, but the problem would be which two sentences? How about merging the 2nd and thrid pargaphs into:

'The use of 'British Isles' to describe the entire archipalego is disputed, particularly in the [[Republic of Irleand]', where official documents and the media tend to avoid this potenttialy offensive term. This is because the islands coincide almost exactly with the former United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, from which the Irish Free State (now the Republic of Ireland seceded in 1922. The word British can be seen as wrongly implying continued United Kingdom sovereignty over the entire archipelago, with British Isles interpreted to mean the islands that are owned/part of Britain.^[1] Furthermore, British Isles is sometimes understood to refer only to those parts of the archipalego that are still under British sovereignty. --Robdurbar 18:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Pretty close I think, if we're going to have this information in the introduction at all (which I'm unsure as to whether it should be or not). However if we're keeping it up there then this is close. I'd consider changing "Where official documents and the media tend to avoid this potentially offensive term" to use "often" instead of "tend to" as in our searches it seems to be minorly common but not as common as elsewhere. However I must say I'm still in two minds about this "disputed" as simple searches across sites such as the internal search in the Irish Times (www.ireland.com) shows they do use the term quite often. Ben W Bell talk 18:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, I'd much prefer the word "controversial" to the word "disputed," as I think that this simply makes more sense. I'm not sure what it means to say a term is "disputed." To say it is controversial makes sense, and is clearly true. Second of all, it's just not true that "British Isles" is ever really used to refer only to those parts of the archipelago still under British sovereignty. The inclusion of the island of Ireland as one of the British Isles is so strong that the British government has made up a new term,

john k

19:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Considerations of undue weight should not get in the way of clarity in the lead section. It may be enough to simply note the controversy in the introduction, but the lead should attempt to resolve the ambiguity as much as pratical. There is cited alternate usage as a geopolitical term—but this was moved to the terminology section; and is really not fully explained. Previous versions implied a usage as an archipelago, but excluding Ireland. If this can be cited then it should be mentioned within the introduction. The intro should devote as much space as required to resolve the ambiguity, keeping in mind

EricR

18:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

What is ambiguous about defining the term as it is commonly understood, mentioning that some disagree with the definition or its application, and then providing a link to an appropriate place in the article where the issue is examined more in-depth? I think a separate controversy section might be a good idea; that would go a long way to ensuring the issue is addressed in as much detail as needed, and also that it does not pervade the rest of the article to such an extent that we give it undue weight. Martin 18:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The lead section should stand on it's own as an overview and summary of conflicting usages. My thought is that the introduction should provide the

EricR

19:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

It's a good point that the extent of the dispute needs to be verified. Anyway, in my opinion it is essential that the caveat "(despite a terminology dispute)" be removed from the first sentence: it could be replaced with "in purely geographical and historical terms". Whether as a continuation of that paragraph or as the start of the second paragraph, the dispute could be better explained by the following:

In political terms the islands include two sovereign states, the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom, and use of the term 'British Isles' to describe the entire archipalego is strongly disputed in the Republic of Ireland and some other contexts as the word "British" is associated with the United Kingdom and the former United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland which included the whole archipelago before the Irish Free State (now the Republic of Ireland) separated in 1922.

The argument appears to me to be rather too developed for the introduction, and the footnote expanding one side of the dispute would be better in the Terminology section: if not, a balancing footnote supporting the other side will be appropriate. ..dave souza, talk 18:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC) modified 18:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello, just catching up...business temporarily distracted me from important things like this (I'm not joking!!). Ok, I'm completely square with FearÉIREANN's comments at the top of this section...absolutely spot on! El Gringo, many thanks also for your comments. I'm also totally in agreement with those who have requested a balanced first paragraph...the serious problems with the term need to be highlighted clearly and appropriately, yet the 'Executive Summary' nature of a Wikipedia first paragraph should be preserved. The detailed/thorough explanation of the contentious implications of the term and its avoidance by many can go in a section below - but certainly NOT be hived off to any 'terminology' side article!! [Stupid remarks from some above do not deserve a response.]

To my reasonable English or British colleagues, you should understand exactly my motivation here... Firstly, I love my country dearly and our independence to govern our own future is enormously valued - as anything would be that was aspired to for so long and was bought so dearly. Secondly, due to the international nature of our business, my London-based organisation has 50+ nationalities. When I assumed my position, time after time I was asked if I was British 'because you're from the British Isles' - can you imagine how peeved I was!?! No offence to those of you who are British, but if you were repeatedly mistaken for anything else (particularly a former invader) you'd be rather unhappy also.

I'm going to have to reflect on what we have now and then give you my thoughts (here in discussion)...sure, we have all the time in the world don't we (praise be - something in my life that doesn't have a deadline!!). User:PConlon 22:25, 10 July 2006

Again of the above it is john k's contribution that seems to express the situation more eloquently than the others. Note I used the word 'understood to refer to only those parts that are still under British sovereignty' to indicate that this may not be the intended meaning in some of the given examples. Taking his and other comments into mind leaves with the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs merged into:

'The use of 'British Isles' to describe the entire archipalego is controversial, particularly in the [[Republic of Irleand]', where official documents and the media often avoid this potenttialy offensive term. This is because the islands coincide almost exactly with the former United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, from which the Irish Free State (now the Republic of Ireland seceded in 1922. The word British can be seen as wrongly implying continued United Kingdom sovereignty over the entire archipelago, with British Isles interpreted to mean the islands that are owned/part of Britain. Occaisionally, British Isles is understood to refer only to those parts of the archipalego that are still under British sovereignty. ^[2]

I think with this forming the second paragraph, and a terminology section straight after in the intro, I could agree with dave souza's comment that this is adequate representation of the debate in the intro (thus removing the caveat from the first paragraph). --Robdurbar 21:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

(the above edit conflicted with the 'fresh approach' bit, but I thought I'd leave it in anyway) --Robdurbar 21:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

At first reading the balance seems ok to me, and without the caveat in the first paragraph the problem is greatly reduced. My concern is more that we're telling the reader about a controversy involving two countries without first having said anything about the countries, which is why my recent suggestions name the sovereign states first. The question of the boundaries and the various state names seems a bit involved in detail for the intro: it would surely be preferable here to say here something setting out the principle that Ireland separated in 1922 and resents the implied ownership in the wording, going through the state names in the detailed section. The same goes for the footnote, though a balancing footnote at the "most commonly known as" sentence could give the BBC and US definitions. ..dave souza, talk 22:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that if we must include the last sentence we should also link to the term

A fresh approach

Just to see if a better balance can be struck, I've tried incorporating the naming question at the outset in a less contentious manner. Here's a proposed first paragraph of the intro:

The large

Crown dependency of the Isle of Man, is commonly defined to include the British Crown dependencies of the Channel Islands which lie close to the coast of France, and sometimes is held to include the Faroe Islands which are an an autonomous region of the Kingdom of Denmark

.

This would then be followed by brief paragraphs outlining the content of the main sections, including the name controversy but not letting it get out of proportion. ..dave souza, talk 21:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm not sure whether the mention of the Faroes is worthwhile (it sounds - and I'm sure that not the intention - rahter expanionist), though it is interesting to include the alternative names in the intro (though on the other hand where does that stop? Also, are these names really that important to go in the intro?) I prefer my above version; but then, I would wouldn't I ;) --Robdurbar 21:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The Faroes really just came up because I was looking in the main article for political status: no great need for them to be there, but on the other hand the only reason to include the Isle of Man is political as it looks from a glance at a map to be rather smaller than some of the Hebrides etc. The main idea was to establish the principle at the outset that alternative names are proposed, and why, without overwhelming the context of the article and focussing the lead on disputes and controversies. ..dave souza, talk 22:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Do we have any sources that include the Faroes as part of the British Isles? If not, we shouldn't mention them. We should mention them if this is actually common usage.

john k

23:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

As Gringo, PConlon and others have been repeated ad nausaum, re Dave's proposal, the answer is an unambiguous no. The claim that Ireland is covered by the term is widely disputed, not just in Ireland but internationally. (That is why the term is avoided internationally.) The dispute is not political, not is British Isles a geographic term. The dispute is far more complex and the fact that a fundamental dispute exists has to be stated explicitly in the opening. To mispresent the reason for the dispute, state as fact one interpretation and so by implication rubbish the other one, and then bury any detail until later on in the article, is a complete non-starter. You only have to look at the words of the British historian who wrote a book on the history of the archipelago, Norman Davies. He was blunt.

The Isles ceased to be British precisely fifty years ago [he was writing in 1999] when the Republic of Ireland left the Commonwealth, though few people in the British residue have yet cared to notice. (Norman Davies, The Isles Macmillan, 1999. p.xxii.)

The opening paragraph cannot state as fact something disputed internationally, just because British writers are blind to the dispute. Others internationally aren't. It may be inconvenient having to give a detailed explanation at the start, but it has to be there. The only other alternative is to have no definition of what the British Isles is in the opening paragraph. If there is a definition, it has to reflect the different viewpoints, not state one as implicit fact. FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 22:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)}

I appreciate your enthusiasm for redefining the English language, though that seems to be what Wikipedia is not. Obviously this is a first draft, and given verifiable fact about the extent to which the term is controversial the wording can be modified in that light. ...dave souza, talk 22:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Well the problem with that is that it gives the views of a small minority equal weight with those of the overwhelming majority (and that doesn't constitute an endorsement of either position). I mean to say, quote a lot of people in Ireland, Great Britain, and North America dispute Northern Ireland's status as part of the UK, but that doesn't mean that the NI article should say that Northern Ireland is "considered by some" to be in the UK. Conversely, it would be ridiculous not to mention the dispute at all and to fail to give it the depth of analysis it deserves. *If* the term is not defined in the introduction as including Ireland, then it cannot be used in that way in the rest of article, thus making this whole article a complete waste of time. And also, if we're going to mention that some consider it does not include Ireland, then we're going to have to stop saying that it's a term used to describe the archipelago; if it doesn't include Ireland, then it clearly is not a term used to describe the archipelago. Martin 23:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

A completely false and misleading claim. Firstly it is a demonstrable fact that Northern Ireland is part of the UK. Some people may not like the fact, others do. But fact it is. It is not a demonstrable fact that the name of the archipelago is British Isles. It is a matter of dispute, with states, millions of people, academics, writers and others all disagreeing. Your claim about a "small minority" is so ignorant of facts as to be laughable. "British Isles" is rarely used in Ireland, certainly in any way that implies that Ireland is in it. It is declining in use in Scotland. The EU avoids the term. The US avoids the term where possible. Maybe you regard the rights of English people as superior to everyone else, and their definition as gospel. If this was Englishopedia that might have some relevance, but as it isn't it doesn't. Just because one state has more citizens than another is more irrelevant on Wikipedia. If numbers decided things that way on Wikipedia, then as most Wikipedians are based in the US, Wikipedia would have to be written in American English, using American dates. The default page for the Times would be the New York Times. Queen Elizabeth would be described as Queen of England, American attempts to call the Prince of Wales Mr Charles Windsor would have had to be conceded and we would regard Saddam Hussein's surname as Hussein. None of those are true. If the article claims, as it claims, that there are two sovereign states on the British Isles, and one of those disputes its inclusion, then that is one out of two. It doesn't matter whether it has 1 million or one hundred million citizens. If one of the two sovereign states disputes their alleged position in a term's use, then that has to get major coverage. FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 00:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)}

Once again, you are claiming that the meaning of the term is disputed, when the evidence so far provided only shows that the usage of the term is controversial. Davies, one would add, is a historian of Poland, and his history seems to be largely designed in order to make people think by using weird, unorthodox terminology and calling the plantagenet kings "Edouard II," and so forth. The book is essentially a long polemic against anglocentric ways of thinking about the history of the, er, British Isles. Even so, Davies is not saying that the meaning of "British Isles" is disputed. He is saying that there are no British Isles any more. I see nothing in Davies to suggest that he is saying that "British Isles" now means the same thing as the UK government term of art

john k

23:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

How can the Davies quote above possibly be used as a reference. Neither a strictly literal reading nor recognizing the play on words can support the contention that "Some academics also dispute the use of the term." The quality of citations in this article is going from bad to worse, any old thing stuck between <ref> tags is not a proper supporting reference.

EricR

00:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Strange how, if the "British Isles" is only rejected by a "minority" of Irish people, as all our Irish experts from Britain tell us, that the Irish government and all nationalist parties to the

He calls Edouard II that, and Henri II that, because that is what they called themselves at the time, as you well know, John. Edward II and Henry II were later anglicised names constructed to create the impression that they were English kings first and foremost, when in fact some of the early kings rarely set foot in England. I am surprised that you still keep mispresenting Irish viewpoints and claiming that it is only the usage that is disputed when Irish users have been repeating here over and over and over that it is the 'meaning that is disputed. How many Irish users have to say that before you actually hear what they are saying and stop thinking they are saying the exact opposite to what you claim? The dispute is over meaning. It always has been over meaning. It always will be over meaning. It is the meaning that suggests that the term means the entire archipelago. That has been disputed by every Irish government, by the opposition and by numerous others. They say that the British Isles does not cover Ireland, does not include Ireland, that Ireland is not in it. Davies makes that quite clear too. The British Isles no longer describes the archipelago, in his own words. There is no term to describe the archipelago. There has not been since the 1940s. (BTW the same time the Commonwealth also dropped its British tag.) Irish users could not have been more clear. I am puzzled as to how you still haven't got the message. FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 00:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)}

Of course they didn't call themselves that. In writing, they were always named in Latin. Standardized English and French spellings both developed only considerably later. And I have never heard that the first language of "Edouard III" was anything other than English. In terms of Davies, again, he is not saying what you are saying he's saying. Yes, he's saying that the term "British Isles" is now incorrect because the Republic is no longer British. However, he is most certainly not saying that the term "British Isles" means something different from "UK+Republic+Man". And I know that you've been repeating that the meaning is disputed, but you've yet to provide any substantial evidence of this - you just keep repeating it, which is why we keep disagreeing. As to Irish users, several Irish users (Zoney, for instance) have been considerably more reasonable on the subject than you have, and you are, so far as I can tell, the only person who is actually suggesting that there is some other meaning for the term "British Isles" than the one used here.

john k

10:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The real Acid Test. If the Channel Islands were to politically join with France, then would they be any longer part of the so called "British Isles". Ireland politically broke away from Britain round about 1922, so it follows that Ireland is not part of the BI's. Look!, we don't need Einstein to sort this. MelForbes 01:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, Ireland did not "break away from Britain" around 1922. In a way, the islands separated around the time of the retreat of the ice sheets at the end of the last ice age. Considering the term 'British Isles' was first introduced centuries ago to describe a collection of islands which included Ireland, it follows that Ireland is part of the British Isles. --Mal 09:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, including the Channel Islands makes "British Isles" a cultural concept, rather than a purely geographic one. But they aren't universally included.

john k

10:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Jtdirl, of course it is not a demonstrable fact that the name of the archipelago is British Isles; as you well know, there is no official term. And remember, this is the English language Wikipedia, so with regards to English language terms, the views of the whole anglosphere count; I am only following Wikipedia guidelines when I say that the views of the minority do not carry as much weight as the majority. Are you actually telling me that you find my assertion that a minority of the English speaking world dispute the term "laughable"? So you're saying that the majority of the people who speak English on planet Earth do not use "British Isles" to include Ireland? And what's more you apparently base all of this on nothing more than your own opinions, given that you have not produced a scrap of evidence to support your theory that the entire world avoids using the term, in contrast to the many many references produced from government sources (Irish and others), the media (Irish and others), and commonly accepted reference dictionaries, which show widespread international usage.

And then, what's more, your argument does not even obey primary laws of logic. If the majority of Ireland, the EU, and the US "avoid using the term", then surely they do so because the term includes Ireland? If the term "British Isles" does not include Ireland, and therefore does not imply British sovereignty in Ireland, then there is nothing controversial about the term, and no one would need to avoid using it. Either:

(a) British Isles includes Ireland, in which case people find it offensive and avoid using it; or

(b) British Isles does not include Ireland, and so there is no controversy over using the term.

Which is it? Your insistence that the merest mention of the term is a huge faux pas, would seem to imply that you are arguing in favour of (a), yet you also seem to believe that (b) is also the case. No wonder your argument is so confused, given that it is not even internally consistent. But hey, maybe I'm just being picky. You know us "northerners do love wars", right?

193.1.172.163, if you're directing your reply at me, firstly, I do not regard myself as British (even though I come from the British Isles (sorry, couldn't resist it!)). As for why the term was omitted from the Belfast Agreement, I would imagine that it's because some people object to the use of the term. Has anyone on this page denied that this is the case? Martin 16:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Someone seems to have placed footnote references before full stops and commas. That is incorrect. Note citations are placed outside (i.e., after) a full stop and comma.

It is incorrect to write "this is a footnote^[3].

The correct format is to write "this is a footnote.^[4]

It may have been a genuine mistake by someone. Anyone who has written books or theses will be aware of it. Copywriters automatically ensure that all such notes are placed after the comma or fullstop. (One of the reasons they are done that way is because writers otherwise very often forget to add in full stops or commas having added in a large footnote. It may also have been linked to technical issues when people wrote using manual typewriters rather than PCs.) Some small number of US manuals prefer placing footnotes before full stops but in general that is seen as incorrect by most of the world's style guides. UK style guides in particular (and as a British topic this article is written in British English) regard doing that as fundamentally wrong. FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 13:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)}

I think it's probably because the debate on this matter has got people who have never used footnotes before to start using them.Rhion 15:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I had no idea how to put a footnote in Wikipedia until now. As for full stops, I just copied the style that was already there (and I can't remember what it was). TharkunColl 16:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Might be my fault; I'm used to writing in the

Harvard referencing system, which puts refs (tho not footnotes, which I very rarely use) before the full stop; it seems counter intuitive, to me, but that's the way it is. --Robdurbar

18:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

No problem, guys. It is an easy mistake to make. Over the years I must have written thousands of footnotes in academic work, and among the thousands of articles I have worked on here, so I used to the issue. If you see the problem cropping up in any other articles, correct it. Various referencing systems use different rules (Harvard's rule on referencing is the opposite of how many Europeans write references) but most if not all put footnotes outside full stops and commas. FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 20:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)}

I was under the impression that the Harvard referencing was perfectly acceptable on Wikipedia? Martin 23:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

What is the preferred format for further citations of the same work? I was using title and page, but it seems you are using author, title, and page. Ibid. is dangerous unless you add a more complete citation in an html comment, just try searching the history for a deleted parent citation some time.

EricR

00:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Ibid and op.cit are standard citations used in hundreds of thousands of articles on Wikipedia, just as they are used in billions of books published worldwide. For those who may not know what they mean on WP, users usually link the first mention of each to the page explaining the term, then use the rest unlinked. That is standard notation, used here as elsewhere. It also enables younger readers through using the links to understand what footnotes in that standard form mean and how to read them. So it also adds to their education. Apparently some American users do not like using them on WP. However most Americans and just about all non-Americans have been using them for ages. I suppose to avoid deletion problems we could put the text in a hidden box, or use author also. FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 01:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)}

Considerate and inclusive guy that I am, it struck me that Robdurbar's approach could be developed into a way of setting out the controversy at the outset in a manner that met the requirements of

For clarification of the various names and the naming controversy see

British Isles (terminology)

.

The islands of Ireland, Great Britain, and several thousand surrounding isles together form the largest archipelago in Europe which is most commonly known as the British Isles, but this name has no official status and is considered unacceptable by a significant minority of the people of the islands.

The islands, situated off the northwest coast of the continent, include two

I would hope that this approach is not too offensive to those strongly defending the majority usage, and that all will contribute to making this a better lead to the article. ...dave souza, talk 06:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC) attribution corrected 07:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

That seems well worded, if a bit over extenesive on history, but that's a minor issue. To my mind, we now have at least two versions of the intro that seem to balance the issue well. --Robdurbar 07:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Apologies for mixing you up with Ben. The history is needed in outline, in my opinion, for those many readers who may still think that the whole place is called 'England! ..dave souza, talk 07:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Basically fine with me, although I'd prefer that we not state straight out that "British Isles" is anachronistic. But then again, most of the proposed solutions have been fine with me.

john k

10:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

One point - I think the phrase "politically incorrect" is best avoided. The one thing we haven't had here yet (much) is rants about "political correctness", and using the phrase would probably inspire some even if it is not meant in that way. Let's not go there. "No longer accurate as a political description" or something perhaps.Rhion 11:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Both good points, picked up the latter when JFE told us that the BBC ask that it shouldn't be used. Probably better to trim the sentence to something like "At the point of separation the term British Isles became technically inaccurate, but it had entered common usage as a geographical term and continues in widespread use." ...dave souza, talk 11:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Another idea: trim / clarify the 1922 bit to "A long struggle by Irish nationalists for independence culminated in a separation in 1922 leading to the creation of the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland." ...dave souza, talk 12:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC) fmt modified15:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay. JTDirl you keep on claiming that the term "British Isles" isn't used in the Republic of Ireland. It isn't used in the US, it isn't used in Europe. Any simple search on the net shows that this isn't the case. You continue to claim this, and I'm well open to being persuaded that this is the case, but as yet we have not seen any real evidence that this is in fact the case. We have seen plenty of evidence that the term "British Isles" is used in the RoI government, it is used by Irish newspapers, it is used in the Republic of Ireland. The Encyclopaedia Britannica, an American publication defines it as "group of islands off the northwestern coast of Europe. The group consists of two main islands, Great Britain and Ireland, and numerous smaller islands." We have seen US dictionary definitions supporting that it is used to include Ireland and numerous other pieces of evidence that the term is in fact used relatively widely in all these areas you proport it to not be used in. Now I realise you cannot easily use something as base as Google search hits to prove a negative but we need some kind of verifiablility to all these claims and as yet the only piece of "proof" is a single letter to an editor in an Irish newspaper. We need something more concrete to back up these claims, something verifiable. We can all use anecdotal evidence on this one, and infact I recently spoke with a friend in Dublin who says that he and no one he knows takes issue with the term as it's purely geographical, but this isn't evidence. Quick searchs through even the RTE sites show that they use the term (and I actually caught a newsreader using it on an RTE broadcast the other night) in both our described meanings (with and without Ireland). It does seem that the media and government in the Republic of Ireland is more than happy to use the term when they wish to make something seem part of something larger (such as most advanced pit facility in the British Isles, longest river or railway line etc) which seems to completely contradict your claims. The usage seems to be in both the cases of the media and the government usages that it is okay for geographical terminology but a definite no no for political uses, which one would expect to be the case for a geographical term. Ben W Bell talk 07:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I contacted a couple of my Irish friends overnight on this issue. Apparently the vast majority of Irish people avoid using the term in question. Mainly it is seen as a political label going back to an era when England imposed an often bloody and imperial rule in the area. I do believe that it is noteworthy, that if the majority of the people of the second biggest island of the archipelago do not consider themselves part of this de facto political label, then by all means they are not. MelForbes 12:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

And these couple of friends have conducted surveys of the entire Irish population, and had them published in reputable sources? Good, because in that case your evidence is not a worthless anecdote. TharkunColl 16:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah now, ah now. We'll have less of that, MelForbes. We really are delighted to be John Bull's other island which is why the political representatives of 80% of the island's population have names such as Her Majesty's Loyal Soldiers of Destiny and the Royal Tribe of British Milesians. Sure, you'd have to be deaf to not hear millions of Irish people thudding at the door of empire this morning screaming to be let in and stripped of this "Irish" nonsense. With such majority support for British rule over Ireland, who could deny that the term British Isles is just rejected by a tiny minority? We are dying, and have been dying for centuries, just to be part of the British world. Sure any eejit could tell you that. And lord knows there's a fair slew of the aforementioned here (not to put too fine a point on it). On behalf of all Irish people on earth I'd like to say four words: God Save the Queen. Now, where do I remove this cursed Irish from my passport and get a proper identity like, em, British? El Gringo 12:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, you could always move to England, just like millions of your fellow countrymen and hey presto! Your sprogs will be English! Magic eh? TharkunColl 16:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey TharkunColl, maybe you should personally muster a force and invade Ireland again, steal the land, expel all the Irish to Connaught, surely that should solve your dilemma. MelForbes 17:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I have commented out the third paragraph of the intro because of the following concerns:

• To what extent the term is controversial or offensive needs a cite.
• Official and media use of the term needs a cite.
• Some academics..., cite provided is innapropriate
• No alternative names..., better to state the term which has gained some usage, IONA, which is verifiable and serves to illustrate that there is a dispute.

Thanks EricR - I was also going to tackle the second paragraph to shift emphasis and remove ambiguity ("Britain") but I thought I'd propose here first: Because it contains the word British, the term British Isles can be mistakenly interpreted to mean the islands that are part of the United Kingdom.[1] This is because the islands largely fall within the same boundaries as the former United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, from which the Irish Free State (now the Republic of Ireland) seceded in 1922.[2] --Bazza 14:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I've also deleted some of the text which fails to meet

Also, to prove that "Anglo-Celtic Isles" is a geographical term, rather than, say, a term used to describe the islands in the early middle Ages (as I would suspect is the most common usage of said phrase), I'd think we should try to find references to this term that are not historical, and are, as you note, clearly a proper name rather than a description.

Just noticed something! Correct me if I'm wrong. Is user

john k and user TharkunColl one and the same person. If so, it is against Wikipedia ethics to use 2 personalities on the same page. MelForbes

17:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Um be very careful what you are accusing people of. john k is a long standing user with many many thousands of edits under his belt and is also an Administrator. Him and Tharkuncoll are not the same person. A simple check of their contributions and user pages should have told you that despite the fact that John K is the only person to have ever edited Tharkuncoll's user page.. People can have similar view and not be the same person. Ben W Bell talk 17:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Noticed something?? What convinced you of this? If you'd actually read this page, you'll see that earlier I criticized Tharkun rather harshly for suggesting that Derry/Londonderry was a majority Protestant/Unionist city. I've also had other instances of disagreeing with him. As noted, I've been around for several years, while Tharkun, as far as I know, has only been here for a few months. He also seems to be British, while I am American. I am using my real name here. What gave you the impression we were the same person?

john k

21:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

This sub-section has desceneded into a series of personal attacks, original research and off topic discussion (especially TharknuColl and MelForbes),. Please contribute helpfully. --Robdurbar 18:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I just ran across a possibly useful reference while looking for a cite for the Nancy Reagan gaffe:

"A further and much more effective unionist tactic in countering the nationalist insistence on the territorial integrity of the island of Ireland was to change the geographical frame of reference to that of the whole archipelago of the British Isles."

"...nationalist opinion remains sensitive to the potential of the British Isles map image, and that is reflected in nationalist rejection of the very description 'British Isles'. Nationalists use the awkward and ambiguous description 'these islands' as an alternative. However, outside the British Isles, or these islands, if preferred, the term British Isles remains quite commonly used."

"...a satellite television station broadcasting to Ireland was prevailed on to drop the description British Isles from its weather forecasts."

Guelke, Adrian (2001). "Northern Ireland and Island Status". In John Mcgarry ed. (ed.). Northern Ireland and the Divided World: The Northern Ireland Conflict and the Good Friday Agreement in Comparative Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. p. 231. {{cite book}}: |editor= has generic name (help); |pages= has extra text (help)

The author is quite clear as to the term refering to an archipelago, and goes so far as to discuss secession and perceptions of legitimacy re: contiental, island and archipelago states. The reference identifies the controversy yet places the dispute between nationalists and unionists. As this is so far the only reference documenting the extent of the dispute, should this be reflected in the article text?

As "

verifiability, not truth" is the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia, it should certainly warrant serious consideration. Martin

20:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I claim no expertise whatever about Ireland, but since the title of the book states it is about NI, then it would be natural to place the dispute there between nationalists and unionists. The nationalists could be expected to express a heightened sense of the feeling in the Republic. and are there any Unionists in the RoI? Such extrapolation to the RoI could not be counted a reliable source, but the book does constitute good evidence of the viewpoint in NI. ...dave souza, talk 20:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. This reference seems to strongly suggest what most of us have been saying: 1) those of Irish Nationalist bent tend to not like the term "British Isles," and b) this is because the term includes Ireland, and suggests that Ireland is part of the UK. As somebody noted somewhere on this page, JTD's argument seems kind of incoherent - on the one hand, the term "British Isles" is horrible and rejected by Irish people, but on the other hand the meaning of the term is uncertain. These don't really go together.

john k

21:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

EricR

00:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

What is the problem with you people and the word "British"? Can you not understand that "British" is as ambiguous a term as "Irish"? All people in Ireland (North AND SOUTH) ARE British in the geographical context of coming from the British Isles. Similarly all people on the island of Ireland ARE Irish in a geographical context of coming from the island. If all people in Ireland (island of!) could accept the unquestionable fact that there is both a common British culture and identity unique to the entire British Isles, and a common Irish culture and identity unique to the island of Ireland then we might have a few less problems on the island.

I also see that a certain Irish admin (not hard to guess who) has been at his old tricks of ruining articles by inserting paragraphs upon paragraphs of PoV waffle, heavily exaggeraging controversy by over-stating minority viewpoints, and by using his WP privilidges to futher his own agenda. This article is becoming worse now than the Northern Ireland article, and that's saying something! Remove all this over-inflated controversy now and keep the simple facts! Jonto 20:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Chill. The OED states that the term is geographical - for WP purposes that's acceptable. It doesn't mean that all people in Ireland can then be termed British. We all know the problem of those from the north of Ireland terming themselves British - that's their free choice, and nobody ought to deny it. But this is where the problem arises - the term is political through-and-through, with historical origins (1621 and all that). How does WP reconcile the OED statement (and others to the same effect, no doubt) with the political implications? I say, give the definition, briefly describe the controversy, then devote the rest of the article to a list of links to articles that cover the substance in better detail.--Shtove 21:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I might have considered to decipher any logic in your argument, but then you instantly lost all credibility when you chose to say this:

"We all know the problem of those from the north of Ireland terming themselves British"

All people in Ireland (geographical context) CAN be termed British (geographical context) whether they like it or not. All people in Ireland (geographical context) CAN be termed Irish (geographical context) whether they like it or not. These are raw facts, and anyone who choses to argue with them obviously has an agenda to push. Enough said. Jonto 21:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh Dear, this is getting political, or maybe it was political already. In fact the whole issue is political, it is not factual. MelForbes 21:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Exactly - that's why you need to strip out most of the political "offensive" bollocks from an article about a term in GEOGRAPHY while no other realistic common name for the archipeligo is in existence.Jonto 22:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

 "while no other realistic common name for the archipelago is in existence"

The other realistic common name is e.g. In Britain and Ireland as opposed to the phrase In the British Isles. Yes Jonto, it's that simple. BTW your rude language does not impress me one little bit. MelForbes 22:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Nice to see you don't know the differences between "Great Britain", "Britain", and "British". Apologies for the word "bollocks" (not that I'm worried about impressing you), but I had not visited wikipedia in quite some time and was quite disgusted to see the recent state of this article; despite the older edits clearly also over-emphasising any "offence", newer edits simply take the issue to a completely new ludicrous level.Jonto

Wouldn't that be In Great Britain and Ireland, and doesn't that leave out the

·

23:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I thought that the Isle of Man was British, Ireland is not. Your theory defeats it's own purpose. MelForbes 23:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

My theory? o___O What are you talking about, I don't have a theory. Can you really call the

·

00:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I wrote British, not Britain. MelForbes 00:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

You said "In Britain and Ireland". -

·

00:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Then, why should Ireland be called British when quite evidently it's not, apart from Northern Ireland. MelForbes 00:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

"British", as I have said is as ambiguous a term as "Irish". RoI is not British in the sense of being in the UK, but British in the sense of being in the British Isles.Jonto 01:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

(undented) The Isle of Man is not British. Britain is an ambiguous term: if referring to the big island in the British Isles, then call it Great Britain. If referring to the largest sovereign state in the British Isles, call it the United Kingdom. The name Ireland is similarly ambigous because it refers both to the second largest island in the British Isles, and to the second largest sovereign state; it should be used with care as well. The adjective British is also ambiguous: as well as pertaining to the aforementioned ambiguous Britain, it is also the adjective used to describe United Kingdom nationality, and should therefore only be used in isolation when no ambiguity can be ascribed. This is why there is an excellent

British Isles (terminology) page. Stating that people from Ireland are British is ambiguous on two counts and should be avoided. --Bazza

09:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Probably because "Anglo-Celtic" isn't particularly inclusive. There are other cultural or ethnic groups with origins in the British Isles, besides Celts and Angles. --Mal 10:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm just staggered Jonto...no offence (as your original remarks were written in a well meant way), but you are way, way out there. Your statement regarding 'the unquestionable fact that there is both a common British culture and identity unique to the entire British Isles' is quite, quite wrong!!! The majority population of Britain (i.e. most English people, who are by far the largest population group on the island) are of Anglo-Saxon/Norman rather than Celtic origin...very different cultural groups. This majority population in Britain did unquestionably dominate the island group is every sense for centuries, during which time they (naturally I suppose) started using the English term 'British Isles' to describe the whole area they dominated - IT IS A PRIMARILY POLITICAL TERM. To use this term to infer that we Irish are 'British' is, well, very inaccurate, to say the least. The following analogy is not meant to be smart-arsed or impolite - taking an apple and naming it an orange will never make the apple an orange! The problems existing in our island's north eastern corner ('Northern Ireland') is due to the forced mixing of these two very distinct cultures, in a way that each saw the other as a threat...sparking hundreds of years of almost continual conflict. What we are (hopefully) moving towards is a future in which each culture (or tradition if you will) respects the other and is able to live peacefully side by side. To repeat an important point (made far, far above), the term 'Irish Nationalists' is used to describe the section of the community in Northern Ireland who aspire for their lands to become part of the Irish Republic. I and most of my fellow Irish contributors are citizens of the Irish Republic and are in reality no more British than the Danes. Thank you for your genuine attempt to offer a solution, but you have only served to show that many, many English people, while not intentionally showing any hostility towards us Irish, totally misunderstand where we've come from, what we are and what we aspire to in the future.

To my Irish colleagues specifically...we all have been doing and continue to do a tremendous job fighting to have our identity clearly and properly presented here. What we do here needs to be fair and appropriate - so that it will be respected and will endure. We are getting close to an acceptable solution, but we aren't quite there yet. We can present the majority Irish view (very negative toward the term as it is!) without needing to be overly wordy and without rubbing the faces of our (mostly well intentioned) British colleagues in it. Oh, incidentally, The Irish Times may be writing an article about this soon.

To my British colleagues, who accept that the term argued over here is rather more than a simple geographic one and simply want a very commonly used term to be described without excessive political verbage...please be patient a little longer, we're getting there! User:PConlon 23:14, 11 July 2006

Please do not make ignorant assumptions about my background and knowledge of the political situation in Ireland. I am not English - I am from NORTHERN IRELAND. I am Northern Irish, I am an Ulsterman, I am British and I am Irish. I have heard enough about the NI situation to know how pointless, inward looking, and primeval the whole problem in NI is. I have also travelled and worked extensively throughout the world and have met people from the British Isles in almost every corner of the globe.

You also need to bring yourself into the 21st century - all your arguments about "culture" relate to events happening hundreds, if not thousands of years ago. Please look at the British Isles as they are TODAY in 2006. You will find that people within the British Isles have in more cases than not, more in common with each other than with any other region in Europe (any region outside Europe that we would have as much in common with would most likely have been a former British colony at some stage or another). We are the only major region in Europe where English is our first language for a start. We all have a reputation of drinking a lot! We have a similar sense of humour and music (Have artists like U2 and the Corrs not also accepted "Brit" awards?). Go to almost any "English" or "Irish" pub throughout the world and you will not find purely "English" or "Irish", but most often a large mix of people from across the British Isles.

In regards to NI in you are quite wrong - people in Northern Ireland in 2006 have more in common with each other than anything else. Also, one thing that annoys me about many southern Irish nationalists is that they seem to think that the problems in "the North" are nothing to do with them, despite the fact that the problems are an extension of an island-wide civil war in which the southerners decided to eventually leave us northeners, and forget that they are still part of the problem today. They call their state "Ireland", which IMO is quite arrogant. Many forget that the south was part of the United Kingdom for longer than it has been independent. Southern Irish nationalists often selectively seem to forget that many of the things they take for granted every day are thanks to the fact that they were formerly in the UK. If many in the south could see the reality that they have alot more in common with the rest of the British Isles than not, then perhaps it would go a long way to helping things in "the North", and relationships throughout the whole British Isles in general.

Your definition of "Irish nationalist" is also very narrow in scope and is not that definition to which I was referring - I was not solely referring to the NI variety, but to anyone across the island, especially including patriotic southerners. A lot of nationalist Irish also seem to define there "Irishness" as simply "not British" (whatever that means), despite the fact they (despite your best attempts to deny it) have more in common with the people in the UK than anywhere else. You seem to simplify culture in the British Isles into being defined by being either "Celtic" or "Anglo-Saxon", despite completely forgetting that the UK and British Isles in general has a large and diverse mix of genetics from many "tribes" other than the 2 mentioned (And didn't we mainly originaly all originate from central Europe anyway?) and that there are probably far more "Celts" in the UK than in the RoI. As the old saying also often goes, "The Irish are more English than the English themselves".

A widely accepted geographical term only becomes political when certain people choose to make it so. I urge editors not to succumb to this nonsensical attempt to convert a standard 2006 geographical term to a political one due to overly zealous nationalistic political viewpoints.

Jonto 23:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC))

You are simply incorrect. The term British Isles is derived from Classical examples in Latin and Greek. Until the Stuart period the word "British" referred to the Celtic inhabitants of the isles, and the English establishment resisted the term "British" for a hundred years or so. TharkunColl 23:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I find your essentializing of Irish, English and British cultures highly offensive. Please refrain from such monologues and concentrate on the article. --Robdurbar 22:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Chill again! The pro-inclusion of Ireland side has been the most offensive to date with sprogs, bollix and maybe a possible sock. It behoves none of us to get too precious! MelForbes 22:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The word is spelt "bollocks". TharkunColl 23:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

TharkunColl, thanks for informing me, it's plain to see that I don't know much about the word. MelForbes 00:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually it can be spelt Bollox, bollix, or bollocks. FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 23:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)}

Re the claim that that Thar and JohnK are the same: that is not true. I have known and respected John for years, even through we disagree on some things (and agree on a lot more). Jonto, BTW, is a notorious POV pusher who in the past has been blocked for what was widely deemed as vandalism of articles by doctoring neutral articles to push a Unionist and frequently bitter anti-Irish agenda. His reappearance here is to be expected. Rob has made determined efforts to work to achieve balance here. Unfortunately some editors, specifically Dave, Thar and to a lesser extent Martin and Eric seem so blinded by their own conviction that they know the truth that they dismiss obvious evidence and twist meanings of Wikipedia policies to ridiculous lengths to try to justify an untenable position here. All they achieve is edit wars. Every time they delete factual information to push their agendas, Irish users like Gringo, Damac, DJ, PConlon, myself and others will simply reinsert the facts. If that has to be done a thousand times it will be done. While Irish contributors have added in wordings that covered and allowed for various meanings (such as stating that the term was variously interpreted by different people as including the full archipelago or the full archipelago minus Ireland — an accurate representation of reality. Some people hold one view, others the other) they blank out one widely held viewpoint and insist that their country's one is the only one. Irish users have never tried to suggest that there isn't an interpretation of British Isles that includes Ireland. They have openly said that there is, merely pointed out that others hold a different interpretation. It has been a handful of British contributors who have consistently sought to remove any semblance of balance and turn the article into a British statement of British views, with those British views stated to be facts. That is extreme POV-pushing.

The extent of the twisting of the Wikipedia policies was seen in the farcical removal of a reference that academics don't all agree even when a footnote proved the point. Apparently that academic isn't qualified in their eyes to be referred to as an academic, even though he is an internationally renowned academic who wrote a history of the frigging isles, because he didn't write the viewpoint they wanted to hear. They deleted a paragraph that was ludicrously described as original research even though all it did was summarise what it is stated in other Wikipedia articles and elsewhere in thousands of books — that the word British has been dropped from international organisations from the British Commonwealth to British crown and replaced with more neutral terminology, because British was seen as carrying baggage. Successive Canadian, Australian and governments have said that. It has been written for years. It is written in Wikipedia articles. But yet again the British POV-pushers think that because it does not suit their agenda they can dishonestly label it as something that it isn't and then delete it. That, unfortunately, has been their approach all the way through this. All they do by such bloodyminded arrogance is make creating a consensus more difficult. Because while Irish editors have worked with the likes of Rob to try to agree on things, and have inserts wordings that never denied the British viewpoint, the likes of Thar et al think that they can just run roughshod over everyone and delete every non-British viewpoint, take things out of context, mispresent what is said, and falsely label things. As I have said, Irish users will not be letting this issue drop. If they have to fight til Christmas or beyond to ensure this article does not become a British propaganda piece they will do so. FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 23:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)}

BTW Mel, I'm curious as to who the supposed sock is? All the editors I have seen on the pro-inclusion of Ireland side bar PConlon are people I have dealt with before and none are socks. I don't think PConlon is either. FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 23:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)}

Almost all of the Irish govt. references to the British Isles have been removed. Why? TharkunColl 23:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

FearÉIREANN, I don't mean your side, it's the other, apologies for my grammer and spelling. See an earlier edit of mine [8] MelForbes 23:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Quote from jtdirl: "Jonto, BTW, is a notorious POV pusher who in the past has been blocked for what was widely deemed as vandalism of articles by doctoring neutral articles to push a Unionist and frequently bitter anti-Irish agenda. His reappearance here is to be expected."

[removed personal attacks. -

·

00:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)]

- I have never been blocked from Wikipedia

- "Doctoring neutral articles" - hmmm jtdirl - what contributions have you been making to this article recently?

- If you do recall my only real previous editing was to attempt to NPOV all the Sinn Fein propaganda that was propagated by the notorious "Lapsed Pacifist". Please check the histories.

- If I'm so "bitterly anti-Irish", why do I often describe myself as "Irish"? Why have I spent considerable months of my life in Dublin and have many friends from the Republic? I'm not "bitterly anti-Irish" - I'm "bitterly anti violence", "bitterly anti corruption to law and order in NI", "bitterly fed up with pointless wrangling in NI", and "bitterly against zealous nationalism (of any kind)".

Jonto 00:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

And how about Ultra Loyalism? MelForbes 00:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Did you actually ever care to read anything I had ever written? If you did then you would realise that I was against "ultra-" anything Jonto 01:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Can I also add that "Ultra Loyalism" as you put it is a form of nationalism.Jonto 12:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Your edits weren't as neutral as you believed and did trigger off edit wars. (Though I did agree with your stopping of users removing the ark survey stuff from the Northern Ireland article. But then I wrote the stuff that mentioned that surveys show that support for Irish unity actually stands in the early 20s, not high 40s in Northern Ireland, as republican myth claims.) But I suppose some of your clashes were thanks to the extreme POV-pushing of the thankfully gone Lapsed Pacifist (amazing how he did a runner just after I had reported him to the arbcom) pushing extreme republican POVs all over the place and doctoring names just to offend Unionists reading WP. (His antics even got him into the Irish newspapers, where he was held up as an example of a pain-in-the-butt republican. We all suspected that he was a plant from a political party. The fact that he did a runner as soon as people began checking his edits and where he was editing from, confirmed everyone's suspicions.) I was of course wrong to say that you were blocked. I was trying (stupidly) to do two things at once and wrote here what I meant to write about someone else somewhere else. So apologies. Mea culpa. Mea maxima culpa. Or in Irish: Tá bron orm. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 02:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the apology JT. Happy 12th ! :D Jonto 12:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

If a 'sock' is a fake account made by one person pretending to be someone else, then I can assure you I'm not a sock. My surname is Conlon and I'm from Dublin. Jonto, sorry to mistake your origin (hope you're enjoying the holiday today then!) - I'm so used to English people saying things along the lines of your point of view. I've heard your view and you mine; I guess that we have to agree to disagree on some points. Still, we should all be able to find some mutually acceptable middle-ground regarding the article wording. On the classical geographers point, I believe that they simply made a mistake in naming all inhabitants of these isles Prettani (as you might do if you have never been to the place and lived in Roman times!) and the mistake was carried forward. Btw, I'm obviously a new contributor to Wikipedia and don't know how to set up a user page - if someone could explain how to on my discussion page, I'd appreciate it. User: PConlon 16:32 modified, 12 July 2006

User:PConlon said:

"The majority population of Britain (i.e. most English people, who are by far the largest population group on the island) are of Anglo-Saxon/Norman rather than Celtic origin...very different cultural groups."

The term "Celtic" is linguistic - just like, for example, "Germanic", "Slavic", or "Romance". There is no Celtic "race". And since the term is linguistic, it follows that only a tiny proportion of the inhabitants of Scotland, Ireland, or Wales are "Celtic". The rest speak English and are therefore "Germanic". TharkunColl 00:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Eureka TharkunColl, let's call'em the Germanic Isles. Second thoughts, bad idea, you might be highly offended. MelForbes 02:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

This might be quibbled with, though, due to the fact that the fairly recent ancestors of many to most present day English-speakers in Ireland, the Scottish highlands, and Wales spoke Celtic languages, and often today maintain a Celtic identity, even if they no longer speak Celtic languages as their first language (or at all). (This whole post, where I appear to disagree with my sock puppet Tharkun, is obviously simply a lame attempt to distract attention from the fact that we are the same person).

john k

00:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Apologies

john k, it does look unusual to edit another user's page with a redirect, and I did say possible. Sprogs use by TharkunColl I thought most offensive. MelForbes

00:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong with sprogs? I could just as easily have said kids or children. TharkunColl 07:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Evidence of peoples divided by a common language! What in the Saff is commonplace slang evidently has distasteful connotations for MelForbes. Perhaps if you'd said bairns or weans it would have been taken more lightly. ...dave souza, talk 08:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong with "sprogs"? Well it is the language of the gutter. It has no place in enlightened argument! Also, it's use and support is telling. MelForbes 11:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

It is a perfectly good word, and your comments reveal a rather distasteful snobbery I'm afraid. However, your suggestion that I should force all the Irish into Connaught is not only offensive but also ridiculous. I mean, I know it's a big hotel and all, but come on! Then again, perhaps you meant Connacht, the Irish province. And as for your comment "it's use and support is telling", I have no idea what you're going on about. TharkunColl 11:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

There, you are off again. I guessed that you wouldn't have an idea. BTW, thanks for correcting my spelling. Is that Irish spelling or the British spelling? MelForbes 11:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Thar does like to be offensive, as his tone and content of his stuff above shows. But as I mentioned before, John is a unambiguously a trustworthy wikipedian and most definitely not someone who uses sockpuppets, much less ones he then fights with and whose views he (and many others) regularly find at best annoying on occasion, on other occasions deeply offensive. I can vouch for John's intergrity. FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 02:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)}

I can verify that in this part of the British Isles, "sprogs" is not considered offensive or insulting at all. --Bazza 09:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually it is erroneous to claim that "The majority population of Britain (i.e. most English people, who are by far the largest population group on the island) are of Anglo-Saxon/Norman rather than Celtic origin." All people from Great Britain are descended from the original inhabitants of the Island from the paleolithic. There is certainly some Teutonic genetic influence in England and Scotland, this is most pronounced in York (about 60% Germanic to 40% indigenous in the male line of descent, so still a substantial indigenous contribution) and Norfolk and along the east coast of England, interestingly the areas are those which are known to have been part of the Danelaw rather than those supposed to have been settled by Anglo-Saxons.[9] The claim of very different cultural groups is interesting, maybe this can be claimed of the situation a thousand years ago, but I see no real evidence of any great difference between the cultures of the different nations of Great Britain in the present time, especialy with regard to popular culture. Alun 09:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Tosh. All people from Great Britain are not descended from the original inhabitants. My friend sitting next to me now is a Sikh of Ugandan Asian descent. This discussion is getting way off topic and is liable to start insulting a lot more people than a minority of contributors have managed to do so far. --Bazza 09:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah well, poor use of words, my appologies to your friend and all other people to whom I may have caused offence. It's not off topic to claim that something in the article is incorrect though. Those of us who do have ancestors that lived in Great Britain in antiquity are certainly not exclusively descended form Celts or Anglo-Saxons, as if there was some sort of ancient ethnic cleansing and subsequent apartheid. This is just a modern political fabrication. The thing that scares me is that it is so similar to the repugnant contentions of racial purity that have so blighted Europe over the last century or so. Alun 09:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I presume this is an innocent mistake (I believe some editors, paritcularlry vandal fighters, have to turn minor edits off or all are marked thus?) but I note that Jtdril completed about 10 edits, leading to the following diff [10], marking all of them as minor and with no edit summaries. Please be more careful in future; even if each edit was minor, the effect of doing lots of minor ones in a short time is quite major; and edit summaries would be helpful. --Robdurbar 09:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

As TharknuColl has noted before, I have removed a number of sources/examples from the article. This is where points appear to be referenced by half a dozen citations/examples. As I have stated previously, this:

• Unecessairily increases page length
• Is not required. If a user were to question a point further, extra sources can be shown on the talk page to the enquirer
• Is close to being a violation of
  WP:POINT

--Robdurbar 10:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

It is noticeable that JTD / FE has once again failed to respond to requests for reliable sources for his assertions, but instead has flung wild accusations around on this talk page. This comment reads like a description of JTD's own doings and misstates other people's positions while showing a clear failure to assume good faith. It claims that others "dismiss obvious evidence and twist meanings of Wikipedia policies to ridiculous lengths to try to justify an untenable position here" despite having failed to answer civil questions about the policies or to point out here his evidently different interpretation. JTD goes on to say "All they achieve is edit wars. Every time they delete factual information to push their agendas, Irish users like Gringo, Damac, DJ, PConlon, myself and others will simply reinsert the facts. If that has to be done a thousand times it will be done.", once again threatening to edit war. Interestingly it claims that "They deleted a paragraph that was ludicrously described as original research even though all it did was summarise what it is stated in other Wikipedia articles and elsewhere in thousands of books", indicating that JTD has a very different interpretation of

More importantly, I wonder what people think of the current page, to see how we can proceed? I'm not really sure where we're at so I propose a bit of a straw poll --Robdurbar 12:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC):

Your diplomacy in a very difficult situation is very much appreciated, Rob. The consensus I had in mind came in the #Introduction discussion above, where by 21:47, 10 July 2006 we seemed to have agreement that the caveat could be removed from the first paragraph. JTD made no comment on that section, though he did make a remark on my alternative proposal #A fresh approach. Although wishing to avoid the talk page is understandable, JTD managed to make a further seven full contributions to the talk before you implemented removal of the caveat, at which point JTD promptly added a slightly reworded caveat as a minor edit with no comment on the edit or on the talk page. At around the same time JTD removed the commenting out from part of the lead being questioned on the talk page and added a modified version: the need for full discussion is still evident. This only seems to confirm an intransigent and uncooperative attitude, which I hope will now improve. ..dave souza, talk 18:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Explanation

Taking the version by MPF 11:31 UTC July 12 2006 as a standard version of the page, what do users think of the current situation of the page? Please try to list yourself into one of the approximate following categories, and maybe give a bit of description as to where you think the page ought to go.

I propose we allow this little poll to run for 60 hours from now i.e. till 01:00 UTC on July 15th. It's purpose is not to give an indication of consensus, just for people to clarify where they think the article is and where it needs to go. I fear that the current discussion is a bit confused and often goes off topic; hopefully, this poll can clarify it.

Wikipedia is NOT a democracy and votes are evil; so this is definately not binding, but more a place for us to broadly 'show our hand' and say what we think of the current situation. --Robdurbar 12:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Categories

The article is about right

Users in this category feel that only minor changes (e.g. change in format or grammar) need to be made to the contentious sections of the intro and terminology. They feel that the given entry represents a neutral and verified view of the situation

1. I could see an argument for removing a little of the terminology debate from the intro, but generally feel that we've reached what should be an acceptable version of the article. --Robdurbar 12:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
2. I think it is about right as it stands. Rhion 16:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The article is slanted to the 'Irish' point of view

Users in this category feel that the page gives too much prominance to the 'Irish view' that the British Isles is an offensive term that may not always include the Republic of Ireland

1. The lead is overwhelmingly slanted to emphasise the importance of the controversy. Of eleven sentences, only two fail to mention it, and this preoccupation excludes topics that the article was originally about. The controversy is mentioned in the disambiguation line at the top referring to the terminology article for detail, which I favour, but this is superfluous if, as some demand, the controversy is fully explored in detail in this article. The layout of sections has been altered to bring the controversy to the top, for no other reason than to emphasise it, in a terminology section which sets out a one sided case. ...dave souza, talk 16:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
2. It does spend an excessive amount of time talking about a minority who find the term offensive when the rest of the English speaking world (including many UK dictionarys and encyclopaedias) has been proven to use the term as a geographical term. It is a geographical term, not a political one and is used as such by the majority of the English speaking world other than a minority that "choose" to take offense and claim it as a political label. Ben W Bell talk 17:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
3. I have some concerns about neutrality here. If we state that the term can be mistakenly interpreted to mean the islands that are part of the United Kingdom then I think we need to make it clear that people who knowingly use the word are in no way implying this. In fact the article should state that the term is exclusively geographical before we mention that it is sometimes misunderstood. I also think we need to explicitly say that the UK state makes no territorial claims over any part of the Republic of Ireland, as the article is phrased in such a way as to imply that use of the term infers this. If we are going to include the Irish governments attitude ( British Isles is now not an officially recognised term, and no branch of the Irish government, including the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Irish Embassy in London, uses the term), then we need to say the same about the UK, after all I would not expect there to be any official recognition of the term, it is a geographical term and has no official or legal status anywhere. If we include reference to the fact that certain (usually commercial) websites seem to misunderstand the term and apply it only to the UK or even only to Great Britain, then we should show evidence that certain Irish websites also use the term British Isles, and use it to include all of the Islands in the archipellago. I think that neutrality is important and think that at the moment the article makes no attempt to give any alternative POVs. It seems to me that we are lacking balance here. Alun 20:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The article is slanted towards the 'British' point of view

Users in this category feel that the term 'British Isles' is given too much legitimacy in the article. In paritcular, they may think that other terms are being deliberatly ignored, or that the article states too definately that RoI is part of the British Isles

The article gives too much prominance to the terminology debate

Users in this category feel that the terminology debate is given too much prominance in the article. They should express how they feel the problem could be tackled differently, and how neutrality could be maintained or introduced by reducing the info on the debate

1. I think that there is far too much attention paid to the British Isles controversy. State what the controversy is certainly, state that it is not used in Ireland, fine. It can be done in one or two sentences, it only needs to be mentioned once in the introduction for anyone to get the point. Put the rest of the info in the terminology article. Otherwise ditch the terminology article and have everything here. I can't help but feel that the point is laboured somewhat, with several things being repeated. Alun 14:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
2. Agreed in principle. Halve the terminology explanation in the introduction, give a synopsis in this article and an expanded explanation in
   British Isles (terminology) or, if too long for there, British Isles (naming dispute) or similar. --Bazza
   15:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
3. Somewhat. It's not too bad, but the discussion does seem excessive to me.
   john k
   15:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
4. I believe this. I also believe the introduction has become unwieldly and if we are keeping the info in the intro about the dispute it should be moved below the contents, into the terminology section or even a new section. It is enough to mention that some people take offense over the use of the term in the intro without going into details on it (just five words is enough), it is after all just an introduction. Ben W Bell talk 16:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
5. The extent of coverage of this minority issue both in the lead and in the terminology section unbalances the article, and detail should be in the terminology article or a new naming controversy article. ...dave souza, talk 16:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
6. Agreed, too much of the page is taken up with the terminology dispute, in particular too much taken up with citing individual politicians' and (even more so) journalists' gaffes. Gorbachov's is perhaps notable, as he ought to have known better - but Reagan?!? Wow! What a surprise!! Is there anything he didn't make a gaffe about? And that "Utah British Isles Association", so what!? - the less said of that sort of extraneous body, the better. - MPF 22:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
7. The positioning of the Terminology section also suggests that it is the most important thing about the British Isles. The lack of any survey on the matter or any large coverage suggests otherwise. The article should be primarily about the geography and history of the islands (a subject treated by entire books and articles). josh (talk) 00:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Other viewpoints

Users in this category feel that none of the other headings (broadly) cover their POV. They should give an explantion of what they think is wrong/right with the article and how it needs to progress

1. Different headings of British Isles which may help.

• 1. Political; Includes Britain, Isle of Man, Channel Islands and hundreds of smaller islands.

The official term used in this context is

john k

15:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Politically, the British Isles are divided into RoI, UK, IoM. (signed afterwards) --Bazza 18:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

• 2. Political Historical from 1800-1927; Included Britain, Ireland, Isle of Man, Channel Islands and hundreds of smaller islands.

1949, when Ireland became a Republic and left the Commonwealth, would seem a better date for the end. And the opening date would clearly be 1603, when all parts of the islands came under a single ruler

• 3. Geographical; Disputed, as Ireland was never part of Britain.

Nobody has yet presented any evidence that the geographical meaning is actually disputed. There is an archipelago. The most commonly used name for it is "British Isles." There are some who think this name is inappropriate, because, as you say, Ireland is not British. As to Ireland "was never part of Britain," that is not true. Britain is considered an acceptable short form of "United Kingdom," and before 1922 it was the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.

john k

15:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't use "Britain" — it's imprecise. I maintain, though, that Ireland is, for the purposes of this article's geographical descriptions, part of the British Isles. (signed afterwards) --Bazza 18:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

• 4. Cultural: Non-runner as Britain was P-Celtic and Ireland was Q-Celtic. MelForbes 14:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you serious? Firstly, what you are referring to is linguistic, not cultural. even in this linguistic sense, the Celtic languages are related, and since the early centuries of the common era they have only been spoken in the British Isles and Brittany (whose P-Celtic speakers came originally from Britain). At any rate, when people talk about the British Isles as a cultural unity, it is surely at least as much the unity provided by the English language, and the common culture and history of these areas from the 17th to 20th (and, in terms of culture, if not politics, into the 21st) centuries that provides the cultural meaning of the term, not anything about P-Celtic and Q-Celtic.

john k

15:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

What's this P and Q stuff got to do with culture? --Bazza 15:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

• 5. More.

I have been wanting to add Geology and Geography in this article but the edit wars around Ireland has prevented me. There are aspects which can be covered (such as inter-island distances, transport, communications) which are not appropriate for the individual islands' articles. --Bazza 15:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Note

I didn't rubbish your input. If you use technical terms like in a general discussion you shouldn't be surprised if they're questioned. I'm not a linguist. --Bazza 18:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

• 6. Biogeography, ecology, etc. I consider more should be included about the British Isles in their most widely used context, as a region sharing many common features of geology, flora and fauna, etc. Better reference should also be made to international organisations covering the region like the
  Botanical Society of the British Isles. - MPF
  22:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

• 7. Linkboxes and categories. Rather than the current Regions of the World infobox at the bottom of the page, there should be a European Regions linkbox, including Balkans, British Isles, Iberian Peninsula, Scandinavia, etc. - this would perhaps help others realise the non-political, trans-national nature of what is being described on the page. Similarly maybe there should be a Category:Regions of Europe. - MPF 22:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The article is unclear, and fails the reader

1. The natural subject matter of the article is an archipelago, the most common name of which is "British Isles". However, there a few points which should be made as clear as possible to the reader—i believe policy and precedent in other naming disputes supports a clear and concise overview of these points in the article lead:

• There are other names proposed/in usage for the geographical entity. "Islands of the North Atlantic" is ceartainly verifiable, was its usage deemed so minor that it does not warrant inclusion in the intro? And what of the descriptive phrases "the isles"/"these isles". We have a reference stating "these isles" is used (though not as a proper name) to replace "British Isles" when refering to the archipelago. I seem to recall the phrase once once explained in the terminology article, but has since been removed.
• The name chosen for the article has other definition/usage/connotations. At one point the Burk cite was used to clearly support alternate usage. The text preceding the footnote has changed to such an extent that i'm now unsure of the intention of this reference. Regardless, we should be able to find a reliable source for alternate usage, and there is much evidence of connotations and confusion.
• The name is controversial/offensive. Hopefully a reliable source can be found which documents the extent and basis of the controversy.

In my opinion these points need to be concisely presented in the article lead, and expanded on within the body if necessary. Doing so does not lend undue weight to a particular POV, but falls within the requirement that we provide a clear overview of the subject matter and article scope.

We should be careful not to mix and match the above points. Evidence of conflicing and confusing usage is not evidence one of the islands has somehow moved from the archipelago. A body of text follows the introduction and clarification of terminology, text which some readers may find more useful than the discussion of the disputes. Editors should take care not to imply that, when such things as geology and climate are discussed as in similar wiki articles, the text is referring to anything but the archipelago and unambiguosly includes Ireland.

2. As a result of the emphasis on the terminology dispute the article now has four sections going over the history: it would be much clearer for the reader as well as being more concise to combine the Origin of the term with the history and political history. This should be brief and be focussed on the archipelago wide matters, referring only to main island or national histories rather than providing an extended list of links as the present history section. Having set the context the terminology section would not have to repeat points, and should give a short, clear and balanced explanation rather than going into detail to try to justify the nationalist perspective: such detail to be in a linked article. ...dave souza, talk 17:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I like the outline of history links, and was considering adding more, but if it is the way of building a more logical page layout then by all means delete it.

EricR

20:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, the work is appreciated. In a way most of the section is sub-pages of

Shetland Islands and the Channel Islands: think thats it? What I'd suggest is these infoboxes as well as links, say, to prehistoric Ireland and Roman Britain etc in a section noting the origins of the term Pretani, and so on. A brief run through the history with each section headed by points about development of the name and its implications could then be followed by the terminology section: this leaves a question if there's a need for more space for archipelago wide prehistory and history, and whether a better alternative might be to combine the brief history of the name (Origin of the term British Isles plus main points in unions / independence of nations) under the terminology heading (or Name heading?) as a precursor to that section. It would be worth discussing these possibilities before launching into a reorganisation. ..dave souza, talk

21:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[removed inflammatory post. - dave souza, talk 17:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)]

Really the post should not have been removed, for to remove it indulges in selected censorship, and where did we come across that before. That being said, can anyone tell when the term "British Isles" ceased to be a political statement. If anyone has the answer to that question, then it would go a long way to resolve the wording at issue. MelForbes 18:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. As a compromise, I'm gonna retrieve it and add it to archive 3. --Robdurbar 20:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the intro in the version linked above by Robdurbar, I see the following footnotes:

4. For example a tourist site called Isles.com excludes any mention of Ireland, focusing on the three nations of England, Scotland and Wales exclusively, with Ireland not mentioned.
5. Other British Isles websites similarly exclude Ireland from their definition of the term. For example this site focuses exclusively on the Britishness of the British Isles, and leaves out mention of Ireland.
6. TIME magazine is a classic example. When quoting the cost of advertising in the magazine, it only quotes pounds sterling, the currency of the United Kingdom, and excludes the euro, the currency of the Republic of Ireland. When discussing circulation it defines it as the circulation of the "British Isles (inc[luding] Ireland)". Yet the circulation on the advertising cost page and on the circulation page are different. Similarly it uses as a representative issue of its magazine one showing a picture of Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, who possesses no relationship with the Republic, while on its home page showing a picture of the Thames in London. No images of Ireland are used, and only one mention is made at all. (It further adds to the confusion by using American English spellings rather than either British English or Hiberno-English, an action not likely to endeer itself to those covered by either definition of membership of the British Isles).

The first two footnotes apply to small, unofficial websites of no significance whatsoever. The last footnote simply doesn't make any sense to me. The issue of the cost of advertising not including costs in Euros is utterly irrelevant to how Time defines "British Isles." And why does the fact that images on it mostly have to do with England or the UK? Most of the people in the British Isles live in England. This is like if one said that the term "North American," which is a geographical adjective created specifically to mean "Americans and Canadians" does not include Canadians because all of the pictures on a web page about "North America" are of things in the US. It just doesn't follow. And the point about British English seems completely irrelevant to me - what does it have to do with anything?

Footnote 6. Advertisers in the UK are most likely to sell their products in the UK and therefore want UK circulation. The fact that there is RoI circulation is just a bonus but not something that is a massive factor in the choosing of the advertising. People wanting to buy advertsing want to know how the circulation and the breakdown makes their decisions easier. The RoI one is included as Time magazine doesn't have an RoI specific issue and it is just lumbered with the UK one but most advertisers will only be interested in the UK circulation (which has to be listed for advertisers in UK magazines by law). As for it being American English this is because Time Magazine is a US magazine, that just happens to have regional versions. By and large its articles are almost all written in the US and used in every version with the odd editorial in the regional variations and of course different advertising. If it was all the same advertising they'd be missing out a fortune on revenues as most US companies wouldn't want to advertise elsewhere and regional based advertising for various versions makes more money. They have to print it abroad anyway so you may as well slot in different adverts. Ben W Bell talk 16:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, well I understand now, but I don't understand how any of this is relevant to what "British Isles" means.

john k

17:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Lol, well I think this is more about the footnotes used. To be honest, it was pure laziness on my part, I didn't check through the footnotes that had been used, for which I apologise. 'TheBritishIslesShow' website casued by Internet explorer to crash when I tried to load it, so that can go; I've replaced the others with examples from 'lons clubs international' and Oxford University, which the article had also previously used.

As for the Time link, it is poorly written; I barely undersrtand the point. If you understand it, Ben W Bell, then maybe try and re-write it? --Robdurbar 17:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I understand what the footnote is trying to say, and in all fairness I believe the author of the footnote has actualy misconstrued what he/she was trying to write and that the note is actually irrelevant, or at the very least a poor example. As I've stated above there are very good reasons for what Time does in their magazine (advantages of working in a magazine and events company). Ben W Bell talk 20:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The footnote is directly relevant and accurate.

The magazine claims that it is a British Isles edition, yet in reality only focuses on Britain, undermining the claim that the term is some sort of neutral geographical term and not only that is British-orientated. Would a magazine aimed at the what it called the American continent only refer to the United States currency, United States topics, use United States images, etc. If it did there would be an outcry from all the other countries on the Americas, who would accuse it, rightly, of meaning the United States and being dishonest in its use of terminology. Canada and all the other states on the Americas would go ballistic at such an approach, as would the people of Scotland if Time purported to publish a claimed United Kingdom edition that focused exclusively on England and ignored Scotland and the rest of the UK. If you purport to be a British Isles edition, and the British Isles means, the British users here claim, a set of islands including Britain and Ireland, to leave out one of the world's biggest currencies, one used by one of the biggest islands supposedly in the British Isles, and only quote UK's currency, is a massive PR faux pas. If you claim to be a British Isles edition including Ireland, it is absolutely crazy to use as a sample cover an ancient edition that is exclusively of interest to one part of the islands. To have entirely UK contents to the webpage (bar one single mention of outside the UK) and then call it a British Isles edition sums up exactly the perspective of Ireland on the "British Isles": that it means, and is generally understood to mean, the isles that are part of or belonging to Britain, and that non-British topics don't feature in the definition. TIME's stuff embodies exactly how the British Isles is seen by many worldwide — as the United Kingdom by another name. Which is why Ireland has insisted for decades that it does not belong to the British Isles and that to suggest it does is disrespectful at best to Irish independence. TIME's stuff unambiguously thinks 'British Isles = United Kingdom'. As Ireland has experienced worldwide, that is the general attitude, which is why Ireland does not accept any claim that it is part of the British Isles, and won't accept it.

BTW as someone who works in the media, it is a golden rule in promotion in other cultures that one never ever ever ever uses the promoter's language and always the language of the culture one wants to promote in. To use American English in an advert aimed clearly at the United Kingdom is about a big a faux pas as one can commit. American magazines no more use AE for UK promotion than UK magazines use British English for promotion in the US. As Wikipedia experience shows only too well, locals in both places take high offence at the other side's English being targeted at them. Americans think BE old fashioned, long-winded and ridiculous. British people see AE as evidence that Americans cannot spell and are only semi-literate. Advertisers will tell you one only ever uses one's own form of English in the other's jurisdiction if you are using it to stress your identity. You never ever ever use it casually in a document sent to advertisers because some of those advertisers will be very nationalistic about their own language and will react to receiving bumpf written in the other version with the words 'fuck you. I'm not advertising in a magazine that can't be bothered to use proper English in its promotional material.

The claim that the other websites are of no consequence is crap. They show clearly that the claim that everyone bar a few Nationalist paddies define the BI as UK, Ireland and some islands as clear bullshit. They show as not even every British source accepts the supposed definition. Regrettably, as Irish users have commented on here and elsewhere, British users here seem so wedded to their insistence that they are right that they cannot cope with mention of the fact that there is widespread opposition to their viewpoint in many walks of life, in Britain as well as in Ireland. They are so blinded by their POV-pushing that if the Queen was quoted they'd turn around and say "she is only a figure-head. Her words carry no weight" while if Blair was quoted they'd say "but is is only an unpopular prime minister." They are so in denial that they are blind to the clear evidence that their viewpoint is not the only one. FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 21:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)}

Hear hear FearÉIREANN, hear hear! MelForbes 22:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I would think that the proper issue with whether Time is a true British Isles addition is whether it is sold on newstands in the Republic, and not whether it actually deals with issues about the Republic. Most American magazines are, in fact, sold in both the US and Canada (and have prices listed in both US and Canadian dollars), and are thus de facto North American editions, even though they don't talk about Canada very much. I wouldn't even be surprised if they only list ad prices in US dollars elsewhere in the magazine. If TIME is indeed sold in Ireland, then it is a British Isles edition, whether or not it has any interest in actual Irish issues. And the fact that Time uses American English, as much of a faux pas as it may or may not be, is completely unrelated to the issue of what "British Isles" means. As to the website, I thought we were supposed to take our understanding of usage from reliable sources. A couple of websites are not a reliable source. I'm sure I could find a million websites that call Elizabeth II "Queen of England," and I'm sure you would be the first to quite rightly say that this does not allow me to say that it is disputed whether or not "Queen of England" is an appropriate way to describe her. You have dismissed fairly clear examples of usage of "British Isles" to include Ireland by Dail members and Irish ministers on various grounds, and yet you somehow think that a couple of random websites (one of which does not even work) are relevant examples of usage? Beyond that, you're really moving into the area of failing to assume good faith. Perhaps if you try to think for a minute about why people might have good faith reasons for not agreeing with you, this thing might not be so heated.

john k

22:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

john k, you wrote about the "common culture and history of these areas from the 17th to 20th", between Britain and Ireland. Well it would have made me wriggle with laughter if it weren't for the true facts of that era. Did you study the history of British common culture in Ireland. The "culture" (British rule) was so cruel and horrific that it set Edmund Burke to described it as "a truly barbarous system; where all the parts are an outrage on the laws of humanity and the laws of nature; it is a system of elaborate contrivance, as well fitted for the oppression, imprisonment and degradation of a people, and the debasement of human nature itself, as ever proceeded from the perverted ingenuity of man". Don't lecture me about culture please. MelForbes

00:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

You are the first person I have ever heard accusing Edmund Burke of being blind, for he wrote those words, not I. Okay, now on that basis let us make Australia, New Zealand and the Falkland Islands members of the British Isles too. MelForbes 14:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually John, you completely miss the point. British contributors here have ad nausaum insisted that there is no dispute about the term British Isles, even when there patently is. They have insisted that only the Irish have problems, yet problems show up all over the place. They insist that everyone else but the Irish agree on the terminology and definition f British Isles. Yet a thirty second search threw up British website after British website after British website that completely contradicted what Thar, and Souza and others have been insisting endlessly on the page, about the uniformity of British opinion on the topic. British users dispute the Irish belief that internationally the term British Isles is equated with United Kingdom and as a result causes deep offence in Ireland. When highly moderate Irish users pointed out the nature of the offence, they were accused of pushing extreme nationalist POVs, and subject by continuous rascist attacks. Yet a simple glance at an international magazine like TIME proves the Irish point: a supposedly reputable magazine, though available in Ireland, able to take advertising from Ireland and priced in Ireland in euros, thinks the term British Isles so anglocentric that though the document is supposedly targeted at Irish advertisers too they cannot be bothered using Irish currency, and just use British currency. Though supposedly targeted at both Britain and Ireland as supposed equal members of the British Isles, the magazine uses 100% British images, 100% British cultural references, shows front covers 100% devoted to British topics, and in all the paperwork mentions the word 'Ireland' only once, and this is documentation that they supply to potential Irish advertisers. And then they wonder why Irish advertisers boycott the thing, and why so few people actually read it.

Every reliable source on word meaning and usage that has so far been presented agrees that "British Isles" includes Ireland. Surely for determining what a word means, dictionaries, style guides, and the like are our proper sources, not random websites? As to TIME, see Ben Bell below. The US and Canada comparison is a propos.

john k

10:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Your nonsense (and yes it is nonsense) about the Queen, etc, misses the point completely. (And you know very well that I was the one who stopped the Queen of England crap on Wikipedia, and insisted on proper accuracy in titles). If Irish users had said that no-one ever uses "British Isles" in Ireland then the references produced in rebuttal would have some value. But that is not what was said. What they said was "most people don't . . . the vast majority of people don't." Anyone with even a passing acquaintence with Ireland would know how true that is. The fact that the British users here reacted with such shock and disbelief, and practically accused those saying that of being Brit-hating IRA supporters - that was the tone of some of the attacks - shows just how limited their knowledge of Ireland is. Irish people qualified what they said, just as they qualified what they wrote to cover British sensibilities (They didn't say in the article Ireland wasn't in the BI, just that the question was a matter of dispute. Merely pointing out a self-evident fact drove some British editors here into a rage.) With one or two exceptions (Alun and Rob come to mind) the British contributors in contrast have not qualified what they have said, but stated unambiguously that everyone on the planet except a few Brit-hating paddies agreed that Ireland was in the British Isles. The links on the page are there for context. They show that, contrary to the claims some British users continually inserted, even in Britain there is no agreement on whether the term British Isles covers Ireland. The BBC sometimes uses the term as a geographic one. Other times, specificially on news programmes, it tells its staff not to use it. On other occasions, it says "British Isles and Ireland".

Every reliable source on the planet agrees that "British Isles" covers Ireland. It would appear that sometimes people say "the British Isles and Ireland" to avoid offense of Irish people at being included in the British Isles, but this is basically redundant. There may be a fair number of people who use the term incorrectly, but that does not mean that a term is "disputed." Otherwise one could just as well say that it is "disputed" as to whether or not "England" means "United Kingdom," because one can certainly find a lot of examples of that (which was my point about that). People being wrong is not the same thing as a meaning being under dispute.

john k

10:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, people being wrong is also not the same as people being confused. Alun 10:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC) Actually I don't agree, most reliable sources, or a majority may agree, but not every one. Alun 14:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

As to the not showing good faith, it is hard to justify doing that after rascist attacks, after blanket statement of untruths, after insistence despite all the evidence that the term British Isles was purely geographic, with language in the article continually doctored to suggest that. Only today another paragraph was doctored to suggest the complete opposite of what it said prior to the doctoring. The trouble was the paragraph demonstrated with detailed sourcing that the claims made of universal British agreement on the meaning of British Isles was bunkum. So, as usual with this article the paragraph was doctored to say something else, entirely without evidence to justify the claim. No matter how many times the simple elementary demonstrable fact that the BI term is controversial and disputed is shown, certain users insist on demanding that the opening paragraph state unambiguously that there is no dispute and no controversy. Instead they expect it to be OK to bung of mention of the fact that a few Micks have a problem with the title to somewhere in the article (even that wasn't originally tolerated in the article until Irish users got fed up seeing the anglocentric biased editing going on and intervened. I personally don't have a problem with people claiming Ireland is in the British Isles (even though I would never say that myself) but the antics of various British users on this page, their tone and attitude, offended me, a moderate.

Irish users have regularly proposed compromises, and wordings to incorporate British and Irish sensibilities. With a few notable exceptions, the response of British users has to demand that British statements be stated in the opening paragraph as fact, with Irish qualifications relegated to ambiguous paragraphs later on, once the reader has been told the British view as the "fact". And you wonder why Irish (and non-Irish) users alike are so fed up with the attitude they face here. That is why Irish users are not going to allow the issue to drop. If they have to, they will fight attempts to add in a British bias to this article until Christmas, this time next year, or as long as it takes. FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 01:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)}

Back the the issue on Time magazine. If it is sold in the Republic of Ireland and the UK then it is a British Isles edition under the definition. Whether or not the magazine contains RoI content or not is really irrelevant, if it is distributed in the RoI (and the different sets of circulation figures show it is) then it is a British Isles edition. As for the currencies their offices are based in the UK and therefore they use the pound. It is not a great conspiracy to put down the population of the Republic of Ireland, just a commercial working reality. And as for it not containing items on Ireland, well Time Magazine contains articles on the world over not just the British Isles, and even when it does do the UK is it really unreasonable for it to focus on the goings on of the majority of the population and what they'd be interested in? Remember the population of the Republic of Ireland only makes up approximately 5.5% of the total population of the British Isles, so getting the odd mention in a predominately UK based magazine that is also distributed in the RoI isn't unreasonable. Anyway if it is being sold in the RoI then many of the population there is buying it and obviously doesn't have a problem with that particular issue. It is the same with all cross border circulated magazines and items.

The US/Canada ones listed before are a good example. Many US magazines are circulated in Canada but contain no Canadian content. Why? Because Canada constitutes only about 11% of the potential readership and you need to cater for the majority of your coverage, not the minority. Similarly going back to British Isles magazines there are hundreds of magazines produced in the UK, that are UK centric and cover only UK topics that are circulated in the Republic of Ireland and hence circulated in the British Isles. Why? Because the economy of the RoI isn't sufficient and the readership not great enough to justify the costs of producing specific issues of these niche magazines for solely that market, it's not a deliberate attempt to put the nation down it is simply a matter of economics. Ben W Bell talk 07:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

'Anyone with even a passing acquaintence with Ireland would know how true that is' - I'm afraid that this is original research, true or not. I think that a problem is that there is no way to prove the minority/majority view in either the UK or Ireland; we can only ever say 'some' until we have figures, for both cases.

I think the Time example - as Jtdirl I think suggests - should be used to show the confusion over the term, rather than justify either sort of use. Btw, I'd remove the bit about American English from the footnote, it just adds confusion.

--Robdurbar 09:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I would like you to clarify just how the Time example can be used to show the confusion over the term. It seems clear to me that the publishers of Time refer to this edition as a British Isles edition because that is where it is circulated. No confusion there. If you can show that this edition is not circulated in the RoI then you would be correct. It seems to me to be an example of a source that does not actually support the contention in the article. Alun 09:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Well is that not the point? Have we verified that this copy is circulated in Ireland? If one of our Irish contributors could just pop down to the nearest newsagents....? --Robdurbar 10:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

It may very well be. In that regard it is not a

WP:RS if we do not even know if it is circulated in the RoI or not. Alun

10:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I know some users are genuinely trying to understand what the problem Ireland is with the claim that it is part of the UK. Imagine for a moment if things were in exactly in reverse. If the islands were called the Irish Isles. And it was insisted the England, Scotland and Wales was part of it (even though people in the UK kept saying 'no we are not'. And everywhere you went worldwide you met the statement 'so you are English. That's part of the Irish Isles. So do you like having President McAleese as your head of state?'. 'If you are English, that means you are Irish. So you use the euro then?' 'You are Irish. So did you vote for Bertie Ahern to be your prime minister?' 'Do the Irish let you English people have a parliament, or do you send your MPs to Dublin?' etc. We face that all the time. People think "British Isles = British", meaning "Irish = British". So I had someone come up to me and offer me sympathy on the death of "your lovely Lady Diana". Or tell me how I must be "so proud to have a great lady like the Queen Mum". Or have someone in the Middle East go into a rant about how he hated my Imperialistic prime minister. "Bertie Ahern?" I asked. "No, your prime minister Blair." "No. No. No. He is the British prime minister." I replied. "And you Irish in British Isles so you British" he snapped back. Personally I have no problem with the royals — I've met the Prince of Wales and Duke of York and liked them. I just get fed up telling them that they are someone else's royalty, not mine. And I get fed up telling people not to blame the Irish for British policy in Iraq, or the lies over Saddam, or Bush's relationship with Blair, etc. The TIME magazine stuff is just more of the same pain-in-the-butt stuff we Irish are fed up to the teeth with. The person who did the document was so ignorant that they thought "sure everyone in the British Isles loves the Queen. Lets put the front cover we had of her in the leaflet. And everyone in the British Isles uses the pound, don't they, so lets use it. And everyone in the British Isles will identify with pictures of London", etc etc etc. And Irish people, as they are used it, would look at that bumpf and sigh — "for fuck sake. The Queen is nothing to do with us [nice lady, but has no more to do with us than Hillary Clinton or Mrs Putin]. Nor is London anything to do with us. And we haven't used sterling for nearly 30 years. But these ejjits in TIME don't get that." FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 22:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I can see your point, if it's sold in Ireland and the UK then one would expect the cover price to be in both euros and pounds. I do admit that it is sometimes not so obvious to British people to see the nature of the problem, and you are quite right if the situation were reversed then there would be an almighty stink in the media. I have been generally keeping out of this discussion as I can see both points of view, but don't really understand why there is so much passion involved. As I said before I am unconcerned with the nomenclature used. I had not even considered that there was any problem with the term British Isles untill this discussion took off. I have started to pipe links like this [[British Isles|British and Irish Isles]] in my recent editing, so as not to cause offence, though it seems whatever one does someone will get offended. I had a look at the Geographical Sociey of Ireland website to see if there were any pointers as to how to refer to the archipellago, but all I found was a reference to Ireland and the U.K. for subscriptions for their publication.[11] By the way imagine how us Welsh feel about the so called Prince of Wales. Alun 13:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, that they give a circulation figure which notes "Including Ireland" suggests that it is circulated there, doesn't it?

john k

10:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Forget about TIME, the same edition is circulated in various European cities. Take Mercedes as the new bench-mark instead. They make a right hand drive version, they never make a BI version. Maybe better not rely on commercial enterprises to establish the facts, as almost anything can be proved or disproved by using such criteria MelForbes 14:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe they sell it in Japan. Or South Africa. Or Australia. Or New Zealand. Or India. Or Mozambique.

Or... Don't complain if a bad example has led to total confusion. --Bazza

15:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I and and zillions of other people believe that Ireland is not part of the British Isles or the British Islands. Then, why does the article insist on including the whole island of Ireland in that term. Surely this must be the model case of POV on Wikipedia. Surely it is up to the people of Ireland if they want to call themselves British, surely it is not in the gift of the British editors, as Wikipedia is an open source encyclopedia and is under obligation to its terms of reference to remove itself from all POV. We have some facts established, but not with certainity, that Britain, Man, Dogs, Skye, Wight etc are part of the British Isles or British Islands, but then again many Scottish people, especially, will quickly grumble about such claims. Ireland should be removed from the first sentance of the article, because this claim is devoid of certainty. One solution is to contact other Irish editors only, classed between Ireland and Northern Ireland , and have them vote for inclusion or exclusion, as British ruled Northern Ireland may be divided on this issue. MelForbes 14:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

So just how many is a zillion? Also how can you have part of an island be in the British Isles? Surely either the entire island is or it isn't. Also we are not in a place to make up definitions for terms wether or not Irish Wikipedians, British Wikipedians or Congoan Wikipedians wish to, ours is the place only to report verifiable facts. As it stands there is a massive overwhelming evidence that the term British Isles includes Ireland in its usages, and the term is used as such in the Republic of Ireland. Surely your insisting it isn't in the face of such evidence is POV pushing. Ben W Bell talk 17:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment: This article is about the British Isles, of which Ireland is most assuredly part. It is not about Great Britain or the United Kingdom, in which case I could see the point. This is a geographical area; make a brief mention of the countries included in the article, not in the intro, and let it go. There is nothing in the North America article about Canada not being part of the United States of America. This is making an issue of a non-issue. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

No, the heart of the problem is this, to many people the term British Isles does not include Ireland and to other other folks it does. That's where the certainty lies, in those 2 different points of view. The problem for Wikipedia is this, which point of view does it choose to represent, and because of the uncertainty, can it choose? Wikipedia cannot include an uncertainty as a certainty, therefore Wikipedia cannot choose. The island of Ireland must be omitted from the list of countries in the BI, and any case for inclusion or exclusion discussed in a later sentences or paragraph. BTW as an anecdote, I spent some years in Wales and my experience there was that many Welsh people avoid word British wherever possible, so it's not Ireland alone. MelForbes 18:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Are there any cites for this? KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Not at all. First, which are you taking exception to — British Isles or British Islands? Secondly, this article bends over backwards to say that (a) it is about the major group of islands off the northwest of Europe and (b) the name given to that group in this article is open to dispute, said name having been chosen because it is in common use (rather than zillions of people using it). If you care to follow the recent discussions you will find that people have been constructively attempting to come to a concensus to allow the article to expand; you will also notice that there are no offerings for an alternative commonly recognised term to describe the set of islands. Come up with such an alternative and you will contribute substantially to this article, rather than offering only negative criticisms. --Bazza 18:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The British Isles and Ireland would be the most universally acceptable name for the group of islands. The following quote yet again explodes the myth of this "certainty".

Quote from

English Law, The Interpretation Act 1978, Schedule 1 distinctively identifies the following: "British Islands", "England", and "United Kingdom". The use of the term "British Isles

" is virtually obsolete in statutes and, when it does appear, it is taken to be synonymous with "British Islands".

So, British Islands = British Isles QED -MelForbes 19:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The Interpretations Act also states that land includes "Land covered by water" and a person could be a "body of persons". It's purely used to define language for use in Acts of parliment, which don't generally require to refer to the Republic of Ireland. It does not define the English language. josh (talk) 19:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

You miss my point, I was not quoting The Interpretation Act 1978. That was just part of the broader quote. The relevant part was bolded. The point was this; when it suits British Law, both British Isles and British Islands are interchangeable and mutually inclusive. Okay, now get rid of the wool. Quote; "British Isles".........when it does appear, it is taken to be synonymous with "British Islands" -MelForbes 20:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The Act appears to give guidance on how to interpret wording on statutes rendered obsolete by the separation of the RoI. The date long predates modern definitions, showing its usage has not entered the language in terms of dictionaries and style guides. Anyone got a link to a RoI dictionary? ...dave souza, talk 20:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The remarkably ingenious and convoluted argument built on the failure of Time magazine to price their rag in Euros is presented as supporting in some way the statement that "Some international publications send confused messages as to whether they include or exclude Ireland in their definition of the British Isles." It seems a bit unnecessary, as we already have

Wikipedia lists British Islands as being a UK legal term. It includes the Channel Islands which are not part of the archipelago. So British Isles ≠ British Islands. You've decided that "British Isles and Ireland" are universally acceptable — on what grounds? Also, make up your mind if you're quoting British law or English law. And stop bolding your comments so much - it's too much like shouting in my face. --Bazza 21:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for shouting in your face. Quote, "The Channel Islands are not part of the archipelago." When did that happen, like who is making the rules here, who is deciding who is in or out of the club. I can get loads of citations, going back years and years, stating that the Channel Islands are part of the British Isles. Also "Britain and Ireland" is very acceptable too, but really, the issue is not about Britain and Ireland, the issue is concerning the name "British Isles" MelForbes 22:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The rules here are

Link 4 as of now refers to The Welcome Trust, in the University of Oxford, equates the British Isles (its study is called People of the British Isles) with the United Kingdom and excludes the people of the Republic of Ireland. The page linked gives no such indication. Sub-pages such as Press and News refer to Oxford professors investigating how genetic structure varies geographically in the UK, an area which by either definition is in the British Isles. There appears to be no mention of the people of the RoI being excluded: the spin in the footnote thus seems to be a violation of

Even then, I don't think that its particularly worded better than the current intro (tho the current version is mainly mine, so I obviosuly think its worded fairly well!). If any changes were to be made, I think it would be to the current paragraph 3 - maybe even to the extent that it is removed overall - but I'd rather see the straw poll run its course first. --Robdurbar 20:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Thoguh obviously I wouldn't stand in the way of the above intro if others preferred it. --Robdurbar 20:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for making a constructive effort to find a way forward. As I've pointed out a few times, vague caveats about the name only serve to denigrate it in a one-sided way; "albeit controversially" is unacceptable, but the sentence could end with a colon then "alternative less widespread names include the Islands of the North Atlantic (IONA) or the Anglo-Celtic Isles, or sometimes the archipelago is described as Britain and Ireland or the British Isles and Ireland." A more concise alternative would be to end it with "other names are in less widespread use." The "Despite this dispute" sentence would then be unnecessary. The Isle of Man is not geographically more significant than the Hebrides, the Orkney Islands and the Shetland Islands, and is not included in the style guides and dictionary definitions. The successive Irish names and dates are excessive detail for the intro, and I'd suggest ending the paragraph with "all part of the present United Kingdom, which has been incorrect since the independence of what became the Republic of Ireland." If the paragraph can be more concise, good. The intro should also mention the other main sections of the article, and I suggested a paragraph on geography and geology above. ..dave souza, talk 21:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Some proposals are good. Some unacceptable. albeit controversially is a must. It is a matter of controversy. (This page alone shows that.) It has then to be stated in the opening. Leaving it out implies there is a consensus on the definition, which clearly there is not.

The re-ordering of the islands in alphabetically makes sense.

The statement about the former United Kingdom is vital because that is the crux of the problem. The British Isles as internationally understood for well over 100 years was largely similar, though not identical, with that entity. That entity's borders continued to be a source of controversy right throughout the twentieth century (i.e., the partition of Ireland, Scotland's role in the UK, home rule, el al). Most, though not all, UK people (as shown here) don't see how later developments could have impacted on the definition of the BI. Most, though not all, Irish people don't understand how later developments following the scrapping of the old UK could not but have an impact on the definition of the BI. So the position and definition of the former United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland is crucial and has to be be stated up front. Without it the context for the controversy would not be clear.

Your proposal for The Irish Free State (now the Republic of Ireland) seceded in the 1920s. The Republic left the Commonwealth of Nations (then known as the British Commonwealth) completely on 1 April 1949’ to ‘The Irish Republic (then the Irish Free State) became independent in 1922. The Irish Republic left the Commonwealth of Nations (then the 'British Commonwealth') completely on 1 April 1949 is completely wrong. The Irish Republic was the name of an Irish state from 1919 to 1922. The description of the modern Irish state is the Republic of Ireland, not Irish Republic, though the latter, wrongly, is often used (usually by the British — for some reason they couldn't use it in 1919-1922 but now use it for a state with a different legal description. Calling the RoI the IR is a bit like calling the United Kingdom the Kingdom of Great Britain. It is an old name no longer used. We in an encyclopaedia cannot make such an elementary mistake. It is also standard in history writing to use the relevant original name and then what it changed to in brackets, not the other way around. We don't write about "Tony Blair's predecessor (Winston Churchill) led Britain during the Second World War" We write "Winston Churchill (a precedessor of Tony Blair) led Britain during the Second World War." The same rules apply to states. It was something called the Irish Free State that left the UK, not the Republic of Ireland. Apart from anything else, The Irish Republic (then the Irish Free State) became independent in 1922 is open to wide misinterpretation. It could be understood to mean The Irish Republic ([which] then [became] the Irish Free State) became independent in 1922. That is why the original name is used, with the later adaption in brackets.

Re Some other British sources also either do not include the island of Ireland at all, or else just include Northern Ireland, in the definition. Some international publications send confused messages as to whether they include or exclude Ireland in their definition of the British Isles. Given that British users here wish to state the dubious claim that Ireland unambiguously is in the BI as fact (something that is not on) it is vital to state upfront that the there is not absolute unanimity in both the UK and Irl as to whether Ireland is in or out. Most in the UK believe it is in. Others don't share that assumption, as do international sources. Similarly in Ireland while a large majority believe that Ireland is not part of the BI, a minority believes that it is. We can only leave that out of the start by leaving out any statement as to whether Ireland is in or out. If, as a lot of users here do, we have to make the claim that it is in, we cannot avoid including the necessary qualifiers as to who believes this and who doesn't up front. Stating something as supposed fact at the start, and burying qualifiers into the text is POV. It gives a misleading impression to those many people who only skim the first paragraph of an article and don't go further.

Dave's claim about putting in a paragraph about geology and geography is a non-starter. The statement that the BI is only a geology and geography term is patent nonsense. If there are paragraphs about those in the opening, then there must be a paragraph about each of the other meanings: culture, politics, history, geopolitics, heritage, publishing, archaeology, etc. We cannot possibly fit all of those into the opening. So then we can't do geology and geography, just two of a long list. FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 22:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)}

The purpose of an introduction is to give a taster of what's to come. From the MoS: The lead section should contain up to four paragraphs, depending on the length of the article, and should provide an overview, or executive summary, of the main points the article will make, summarizing the primary reasons the subject matter is interesting or notable, and including a mention of its notable controversies, if there are any. This article is not about the naming controversy, as you might expect from the undue weight given in the introduction: there is other information as well which deserves to be in the introduction. (I can't find the reference to this only being a geo article.) --Bazza 08:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Revised proposal

The recommendation that names be in alphabetical order is accepted. The need to avoid any implication that there is consensus in the definition could be met by showing the dispute in the first sentence. It should be stated that "British" is deemed controversial by a significant minority, with expansion of the historical reasons for this going in the relevant section. I accept the point that history should be mentioned as it is the subject of section(s) of the article. However omitting any mention of the sections on geography and geology appears to go directly against

The islands of Great Britain, Ireland and several thousand surrounding isles together form the largest archipelago in Europe which is most commonly known as the British Isles, but this name has no official status and is considered unacceptable by a significant minority of the people of the islands.

The islands include two sovereign states, the

British crown dependencies. Because it contains the word 'British

', the term British Isles can be mistakenly interpreted to mean that the islands are all part of the present United Kingdom. In the Republic of Ireland the use of the term is seen as controversial and sometimes offensive. Official government documents and the media there rarely use the term. Despite this dispute, no single alternative name for the isles as a whole has gained wide acceptance.

This approach, it is hoped, will meet all concerns. ..dave souza, talk 08:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The alphabetical order has the happy virtue that it is also the order of size, which is what I would have argued for had the two not been coincident. TharkunColl 08:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I suggest the following minor alterations to the above:

• para 1. "but" becomes "although": ...known as the British Isles, although this name...
• para 3. Two islands don't make sense as written. I suggest: The archipelago encompasses an area...
• para 4. ambiguous wording and capitalised compass point: ...Scotland and the north of England.

--Bazza 08:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, history suggests that at some point a reference requirement will be demanded for "significant minority". --Bazza 08:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me; though I would quite like some sort of mention of the fact that part of the controversy is that the whole British Isles were once one country (-IoM and the Channel Islands, of course).

Or, just how about replacing the second half of the second paragraph with: 'The state that is now the Republic of Ireland left the United Kingdom shortly after

World War One. Thus the term's use is seen as controversial and possibly offensive in the Republic of Ireland, and both government and media rarely use it. However, no single alternative name for the isles as a whole has gained wide acceptance.' --Robdurbar

09:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The British Isles (minus the Isle of Man etc.) only formed "one country" (if "country" is actually the correct word for the union) for little more than a century. Prior to that there were many different polities on the islands, in increasing number the further back one goes. The 19th century period of union, from a historical perspective, is actually quite anomolous, and we appear to be gradually returning to the more usual state of affairs. So why, in other words, do some editors want to single out the period 1801-1922 as somehow more significant than any other in terms of influence on nomenclature? The term British Isles existed long before this, by nearly two millennia. TharkunColl 09:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Leave the expansion to the article, not the introduction. There is plenty of room there (or, if necessary, in a separate article) to discuss the historical evolution of the controversy. If the introduction says there is a dispute and explains what the dispute is, then that should suffice. Otherwise, it's in danger of becoming bloated again. --Bazza 11:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad that the suggestion offered is at least appreciated for its attempt to be generally acceptable...I really am trying to be fair here. Thank you for all your points and corrections so far. I'll go through them with a fine toothcomb this evening and at least make the changes that there aren't standing objections to. I'll try to offer a way forward on debated points also. Best regards, PConlon 12:51, 13 July 2006

Britannia was the part of the island that the Romans conquered. Whilst Caledonia (now Scotland) wasn't. Therefore Britain = England + Wales i.e. Britannia? Great Britain (i.e. Greater Britain) was formed in 1707 when the Scottish abolished their own parliament and joined in a Union with England. Therefore, islands off Scotland = Scottish Isles. See here British Isles. See here British Islands. Can any one tell the difference between an isle and an island? , well Wikipedia can't. MelForbes 21:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

You are confusing the normal English words isle and island with proper nouns that may contain them. TharkunColl 21:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not just Irish objections, have a look here too Anglo-Celtic Isles,,,MelForbes 22:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Revised proposal (cont.)

Good evening (good morning actually!) all from User:PConlon, I hope some positive progress is the result of the last few hours... I’ve made the suggested changes that were unopposed in the discussion above. I'm well aware of the great need to keep the introduction concise. While, some changes are minor grammatical ones which don’t need to be listed (e.g. insertions of ‘that’s and ‘there’s), those of any significance are listed below…

Accepted changes made:

Paragraph 1

Listing of ‘Great Britain’, ‘Ireland’ and the ‘Isle of Man’ in alphabetical order. [For this it’s just as well that those of us who wanted our country renamed ‘Brilliant Ireland’ didn’t get our way!!;0)]

Change of ‘isles’ to ‘islands’.

Paragraph 2

[See below]

Paragraph 3

Insertion of ‘government’ between ‘Official’ and ‘documents’.

Insertion of ‘there’ between ‘the media’ and ‘rarely’.

Removal of ‘Some academics also dispute the use of the term’.

Paragraph 4

Change of ‘and totalling…of land’ to ‘amounting to a total land area of…’.

Continuing discussion points:

Paragraph 1

Given Dave's point that ‘the Isle of Man is not geographically more significant than the Hebrides, the Orkney Islands and the Shetland Islands’, should we list them all or should we remove the Isle of Man? I’m personally torn between being inclusive and being as concise as possible…opinions?

On 'albeit controversialy', I am certainly right with FearEIREANN on the crucial importance of its inclusion – it is necessary to clearly highlight the lack of consensus on the definition. This is a fact recognised by all here and I don’t believe that the wording used is too aggressive or denigrates the term unnecessarily.

Paragraph 2

I see that this has already been modified - I assume (and hope!) by the original author. It is shorter now, which is better. The point made about the proper order in which to present names is well taken. I see a couple of tweaks that I’m hoing the author wouldn’t mind being made – the message is unchanged (do say if I’ve changed anything vital). I have inserted ‘all’ before ‘the islands that are part…’. I have inserted ‘present’ in front of ‘United Kingdom’. I have removed ‘largely’ from before ‘fall within’. I have replaced ‘in the 1920s’ with the shorter and more precise ‘in 1922’ – I (naturally!) think that this date of independence is very important. Finally, I think that the only thing that really needs to be put in italics is ‘mistakenly’, as this is where I believe the emphasis should lie. Having 'British' in italics might make it sound a little like a dirty word! I respect TharkunColl’s point questioning the singling out the period 1801-1922, but I think it’s use is meant in an explanatory before-and-after context (i.e. before and after the island group separated into two separate, sovereign states). I liked some elements of Robdurbar’s suggestion on this too I might add.

Paragraph 3

I can’t with clear conscience argue against those who contend that the third paragraph is currently too long overall. I think it is too. I definitely think however that the first two sentences are really, crucially important.

Regarding the alternative terms sentence, I think their (brief) specification in the introduction is important and appropriate. ‘Britain and Ireland’ should be in there I think due to widespread usage (especially given the fame of the ‘British and Irish Lions’ rugby squad). ‘Islands of the North Atlantic’ (IONA) is a bit of a dead end I think – it was thoughtfully suggested during the peace process negotiations, but the obvious implication it has for including Iceland (the first North Atlantic island I think of!), coupled with the lack of its use anywhere else (to my knowledge – please correct me if I’m wrong), makes me believe that it doesn’t qualify as an ‘alternative term in use’. ‘Anglo-Celtic Isles’ is in some use (I personally can vouch for this!) and should I believe also be specified. Detailed background/explanation of all alternative terms should of course be left to the appropriate dedicated section further down the article.

Regarding: ‘Some other British sources also either do not include the island of Ireland at all, or else just include Northern Ireland, in the definition. Some international publications send confused messages as to whether they include or exclude Ireland in their definition of the British Isles’, I understand the author’s argument for including it. I definitely think it is unnecessarily long however. Might the author accept the following?: ‘Some British and international sources also either do not include the island of Ireland at all in the definition, or else just include Northern Ireland’.

Paragraph 4

I gratefully don’t think that anyone is now arguing that 'British Isles' is just an innocent geology/geography term, totally unconnected with contentious political implications. I strongly argee with Bazza - can it be possible?!!;OP - and Dave here that, as the article isn’t solely political, geological/geographic descriptions should be included in it – and hence be mentioned in the overview-providing introduction, in accordance with Wikipedia practice. I therefore suggest completeing the paragraph with the following (a further minor tweak, after Bazza’s, of Dave’s helpful input):

‘’The islands are largely low lying and fertile, though with significant mountainous areas in Ireland, Scotland, Wales and the north of England. The regional geology is complex, formed by the drifting together of separate regions and shaped by glaciation. The history of the islands is one of emergence of nations, and tends to be considered on a national basis.’’

Ok…please give your comments (it would be helpful to all if they were categorised under headings ‘Paragraph 1’, ‘Paragraph 2’, etc...). Best regards, User:PConlon 01:39, 14 July 2006

Paragraph 2
Your hope is misplaced, i edited that paragraph. Are we on a discuss–then–edit schedule? If so then i have no excuse but ignorance.

My thoughts. The content of the paragraphs seems reasonable to me (though I am now having trouble figuring out just what the decided on current layouts actually are). One thing, it's minor but it really bugs me. The intro starts talking about the geographical makeup of the area, drops into political and nonemclature discussion then goes back to geography. Not to belittle the issue of the disputes over the name but I feel that paragraph 4 should be moved to paragraph 2 and then the other two moved down while changing nothing. I wouldn't change the wording. It just seems very jarring to me in a read through that it jumps about topics then comes back to the one mentioned in the first line. Ben W Bell talk 07:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

On the issue of the IoM; its not geographically more significant but it IS politically. Eric R's edits to paragrsaph 2, have, I think, been beneficial too. If you want to do an edit that good, no need to necessairily discuss first! --Robdurbar 08:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

It would be nice to have a list of the three or four largest-by-area islands rather than restrict it to just the two big ones -

Skye and several thousand... (curiously still in alphabetic order: spooky). --Bazza

12:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Paragraph 1 My concern remains that "albeit controversially" gives undue weight to an issue that has only been shown to be a minority concern. If absolutely necessary, I would go along with changing the sentence to end with "is most commonly known as the British Isles, but this name has no official status and is considered controversial by a significant minority of the people of the islands.". ..dave souza, talk 08:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the two words should be left - they economically state that the term is used but that some people have a problem with that usage. From what I have read in previous "discussions" the controversy is not limited to the islands' inhabitants. I say again that these elaborations do not belong in the introduction but in the detailed sections which follow. --Bazza 12:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that the term is often used without any controversy, as evidenced by the definitions and style guides, but in diplomatic circles and in some academic circles it's avoided. For balance we need to correctly say that there are sensitivities about the term without creating an inaccurate impression of a world wide furore. ...dave souza, talk 14:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

"albeit sometimes controversially"? --Bazza 09:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Paragraphs 2 - 4 Robdurbar has a good point: having mentioned the controversy and the two sovereign states in the first paragraph, the area covered and geography paragraphs could then be followed by the naming discussion.

The naming discussion itself has excessive detail that belongs in the section itself, and by extending to two paragraphs with considerable footnoting gives undue weight to the point. Rather than getting bogged down in showing both viewpoints and footnoting each, I'd suggest keeping it short and putting the detail in the section. ...dave souza, talk 08:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I still do not understand why the usage controversy requires two paragraphs in the introduction. I would hope that more summary information on other topics can be placed there once the article is expanded more on some fronts (e.g. climate, inter-island transport, etc.), so requiring the current information to be brief. There should not be footnote references - the information in the introduction should be expanded on in the main article, which is the place for references; placing them in the introduction guides readers past the detailed stuff rather than to it. --Bazza 12:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Paragraph 2 A minor point regarding JPC's comment that "Finally, I think that the only thing that really needs to be put in italics is ‘mistakenly’, as this is where I believe the emphasis should lie. Having 'British' in italics might make it sound a little like a dirty word!" is perhaps contrary to the manual of style, where italics are used for proper nouns, for example book titles. Italicising "mistakenly" perhaps carries a hint that it is being questioned whether it's really a mistake, or part of a plot to oppress the Irish. Using 'single apostrophes' as quotes is standard in certain contexts, but I seem to remember somewhere that it can stop searches from operating properly, and "double inverted commas" are preferred. ..dave souza, talk 10:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe I was the one who put British in italics - it was to emphasise (showing my HTML origins!) that it was the actual word British on its own which is being talked about. If convention says double-quotes, then that's what should be used. --Bazza 12:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I should have read the manual before commenting! Wikipedia:Manual of Style says "Italics are mainly used to emphasize certain words. Italics for emphasis should be used sparingly.", then goes on to say "Use italics when writing about words as words". Thus italicising British since we're discussing the word is correct, emphasising mistakenly could be permissible but risks confusion that we're discussing it as a word rather than saying that it's a mistake. Best to read the MoS and see if you agree with my interpretation. The point about "double" being preferred over 'single' quotes (unless for nested quotations) is covered in the Quotation marks section. ..dave souza, talk 14:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Apologies but just got time at the moment to skim read what's been discussed in the last day or so (am in stunning Switzerland this weekend)... We haven't of course agreed any discuss-then-edit schedule, but I believe it's best to take small, sure steps and, before making changes, try to give everyone who is following this closely a reasonable chance to give their views - it's so hard to follow what's going on otherwise! If permitted, I'll give my properly considered point of view on Monday - I've certainly picked up the points made about introduction topic order and the appropriate use of italics. User: PConlon 12:15, 15 July 2006

Footnote 10

To support the argument that the use of this term is controversial and sometimes offensive in

My response would be to remove them, then, and either find a new source or palce a ^[citation needed] note to challenge people to do so. --Robdurbar 17:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Remove both until an acceptable cite is located which meets

WP:RS. KillerChihuahua^?!?

18:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I have just logged in and what do I see. KillerChihuahua not very helpful, this is certainly not your finest hour. MelForbes 19:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Please be more precise. You seem to be engaging in a vague ad hom against me, with no specifics as to how you may or may not disagree with my actions, which include removing content not sourced per

WP:V. KillerChihuahua^?!?

19:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

There is a group of editors here trying to sort out certain issues, which I an not going to restate for you, that I am sure you are aware of. Consensus will not be reached by a unilateralist approach. All editors are endeavoring to be strictly direct with each others views on the matters in question. You have given little to this talk page, and I believe you should not have butchered the article to suit your own personal ideas. MelForbes 19:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Consensus takes a back seat to WP:V, WP:NOR. I plan to "butcher" much more unless some decent sources are found. I have no "personal" ideas about this subject whatsoever, and as you have now made 3 uncivil remarks about me personally, I will make of this an official notice about violating the no personal attacks policy. Assume good faith and cease disparaging my presumed motives, about which you can not possibly have any concept whatsoever, unless you are a mind reader, which I most sincerely doubt. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I previously would have agreed with the approach of adding a cite tag, but my imperfect understanding of policy has been refreshed a bit in the course of these discussions, and I had forgotten about

You are quite correct, dave. The burden, as I have mentioned, lies with those who want the information included. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I've hidden the relevant assertions for the time being. Frankly, I'd been assuming good faith and had accepted that there was some substance to this controversy, but this creative use of sources means that the whole section, and the introduction, will have to be carefully reexamined. It also needs some effort to present fairly the view that the term is used geographically without malice. ..dave souza, talk 19:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Fine, what citation do we use for the first paragraph? MelForbes 20:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The intro is a summary of the content and does not necessarily require seperate footnotes. The information is referenced in several footnotes, http://www.know-britain.com gives the simple term. Was there something else you felt was unsourced in the intro? If so, we need to check the references given in the appropriate section of the article proper and ensure everything is correctly cited. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I was hoping to get back to St. Cuthbert's Co-operative Society and how Sean Connery worked as an artist's model for life classes at the Art College, but will try to find it: so much chatter here, it may have been archived. ..dave souza, talk 20:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

This is so called editing is really shitty and not very impressive regarding good faith! Why wasn't the citation needed tabs put into the articles by KillerChihuahua in the first instance. Anyone claiming good faith now, has a hill to climb, I am really very suprised. MelForbes 20:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Read

WP:V...dave souza, talk

20:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Keep digging! MelForbes 19:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I have no intention of digging. I am here to enforce policy. It is up to those who wish that information included to "dig" for acceptable sources. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not have enforcers. It has admins who administer, and developers who develop things. If you want to become an enforcer, join the police or propose that such a role be created on Wikipedia. It does not exist right now. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 20:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Jtdir / FearÉIREANN, you have been reverting fully discussed changes to a state which violates policy. I can only regard this as blatant vandalism. ..dave souza, talk 20:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, on Wikipedia everyone enforces policy. I thought you'd have known that. ..dave souza, talk 21:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Yet more far fetched nonsense. What you mean is that a handful of British users "decide" something that hey presto, that is policy and Irish users better shut up. That will not be happening. The article is littered with claims that you and some British users make, without citations, merely the statement that it is facts. Maybe it is time all those unsourced claims were deleted too. Or have disputed and dubious tags put on them. Irish users have regularly come up with wordings to accomodate the differing British and Irish perspectives on the issue. Some British users instead insist that the British view is "fact" and everyone else's view a "minority". You can claim that as many times as you wish. It still is wrong. You could try working with users sometime, not bulldozing your viewpoint through and trying to add in weasel words and questionable edits that carry the tone "of course we all know this is wrong, but the Micks believe it." FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 21:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't even know where to start with that - as an experienced editor and Administrator, you surely do not have to be reminded of the policies, yet rather than mentioning parts of the article you find are incompletely or un- sourced, or providing sources, you are making a blanket accusation (of whom? "handful of British users" is 1) not enlightening and 2) irrelevant.) Perhaps a nice cup of tea would help? KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for adding sources which you feel support the assertion of controversy: I;ve moved these to the section as discussed above. Unfortunately your attitude does not appear to have improved, and these sources will have to be carefully examined. ...dave souza, talk 21:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC) corrected 22:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Interesting behaviour. Even though there is clear agreement on this page that there is a controversy (just disagreement as to its degree and how that is communicated) you delete the qualifier insisting there is no evidence, so creating the impression to readers that there is no controversy. Evidence is provided, so you delete the qualifier and the evidence. Users have in the past been blocked for such behaviour, which is at this stage blatent vandalism. All that sort of behaviour achieves is to prolong an edit war indefinitely. FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 22:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)}

Patience, please. ...dave souza, talk 23:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Right, sorry about the delay: as a full time carer, I had to give my wife some attention. As you perhaps recall, when commenting out the disclaimer earlier I pointed out that there's a disclaimer in italics immediately above that paragraph. We've already discussed our concerns: hopefully we can find a form of words on this talk page that makes it clear that there's a problem without implying that one view or the other is invalid. You've cited book titles: it would be really helpful if you could post here the text that confirms the offence taken at the term, and how widely such offence is taken. That's all I can think of just now, time for bed. ...dave souza, talk 23:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

There is clear evidence on this page that there is controversy, yes. There is still no sourcing for putting that in the article. Wikipedia is about verifiablility, not truth. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Why would Irish people want to be classed as members of the British Isles, that's the 64,000 dollar question. For the British came and murdered, raped, stole the land, imposed their satanic penal laws. The history of the British in Ireland is nothing other than a shameful episode. Edmund Burke again, quote, "a truly barbarous system; where all the parts are an outrage on the laws of humanity and the laws of nature; it is a system of elaborate contrivance, as well fitted for the oppression, imprisonment and degradation of a people, and the debasement of human nature itself, as ever proceeded from the perverted ingenuity of man".unquote. Even though Irish people have forgiven, it's thanks, but no thanks! MelForbes 23:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

This section should be dealt with in the same way as the prior "English Isles" section.

EricR

23:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I am only stating the fact that people in Ireland do not want to be associated with the term British, and that is a fact. This is true history, holocaust denial is a criminal offence in some countries. MelForbes 23:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

It's appreciated that you may have

verifiable facts. This is an issue where different nations have perceptions shaped by very different media coverage of the issues, and if you want other people to sympathise with your viewpoint, a shillelagh is not a good way of communicating. ...dave souza, talk

06:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

It may surprise you dave souza, I am Scottish born, but don't live there now. I have worked in various countries including Wales, Ireland and the United States. But in all my travels, it was we Scots who bitched most about about the dreaded English (British) , the Welsh did it to a much lesser extent, but much more of a rarity in Ireland. I knew that my edit would provoke a hostile response, so nothing surprises me, but on reflection, maybe it did illicit some shock and awe amongst some. Truth can irritate, but also it must be remembered that truth avoidance will only prolong this so called discussion. A paragraph should be added to the article explaining why the term might be objectionable to some. I think that would be an excellent proposal. MelForbes 11:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• Editors take heed, objectionable would be a far far more appropriate word than offensive. MelForbes 13:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

"Take heed"? Sheesh. I concur on the terminology change and have made it in the article. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Once again, the quote from Burke, whose own background is a perfect example of the interconnections between Britain and Ireland that make the term "British Isles" a useful one. Nobody here is trying to condone English atrocities in Ireland in the 17th-20th centuries.

Burke, he good: spent his political capital in a futile attempt to rein in the abuses of empire and preserve us from ideology. Given the end of empire, the term British Isles only makes sense in a geographical context (including Faroe Islands?). Why not just give it up and go to a list of links? And let the Scots grow up to take an independent place in the EU.--Shtove 21:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Hear hear, and long live Alex Salmond! MelForbes 21:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I always get pissed off by the the British did such and such in (include favourite historical atrocity) so every man jack of them today are all still personally responsibe bollocks. What a given state does at a given time in not the personal responsibility of every single member of the population of that state, and is certainly not the responsibility of those born centuries or decades after the given event. The UK has done, and continues to do repugnant things, as a British person I am not responsible for these things, just as all Irish people are not all responsible for the atrocities commited by certain repubican/nationalist organisations in the past. No one side is lilly white in Ireland, the UK state and various governments do bear the overwhealming majority of the blame for past murderous behaviour to be sure, but let's not descend into blaming the British population. Alun 05:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Alun I wholeheartedly agree with everything you are saying. All of the footsoldiers and command represented each of the 4 nations without doubt, so we are all in this sad shit together. One of the questions is, can a nation turn it's back on this shit and leave if firmly in the past. Enough said without labouring the point, thanks. MelForbes 10:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

'Once again, the quote from Burke, whose own background is a perfect example of the interconnections between Britain and Ireland that make the term "British Isles" a useful one.'- what complete and utter bollocks, John K. And you, I must admit, are prone to intelligent contributions. So, because we have "interconnections" our Irish identity should be subsumed into a British context of "British Isles". What specious, sophistic intellectually weak logic on your part. Nonsense worthy of the Steven Ellis types of this world, a sort who wish to replace the myths of Irish nationalism with the myths of British imperialism and then attempt to tell us they are merely writing about "interconnections" which, as such, need to be wraped up in- surprise, surprise- British cloaks. Oh yes, where have we Irish heard this before? The sense of communal history that surpasses British occupation here is far too acute to ever accept the myths of British nationalism as our own. You, alas, have evidently embraced the terminological inventions of their imperialist tradition and put them on Irish society as being ours. One word: No. 193.1.172.163 23:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey guys, I've just noticed. Hugh Linehan's Connect column in

15 July 2006 is about our little spat here. The Irish Times site is pay-for-view so I can't link the page. It is on page 2, left hand column of the Weekend section, for those users with copies of the Times lying around. FearÉIREANN\^(caint)

Just a LITTLE SPAT! For God's sake, national pride is at stake. Jtdirl deserves a Zed-but in the sternum.--Shtove 20:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Why not list on

EricR

01:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Concur, and paste whatever seems to be the most concise bit which outlines the article's opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah now, there's interesting, we can get a citation that the term is disputed in the RoI from a media column inspired from a Wiki discussion page about attitudes to the dispute in the RoI. So we are inspiring people to produce material that we can then use as a reference. Nice.... Alun 11:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that is incorrect. This only sources that there is a dispute on this talk page, and is useless for using as a source for a dispute outside this talk page. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Well I wasn't being entirely serious!!Alun 12:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Apologies - on this page, you never know. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

There shouldn't be a big problem with linking the Irish Times when a cite is needed, as their login page offers 24hrs for 2€ and I'm sure enough editors would be willing to pay that to verify cites: a lot cheaper than the Lancet or Nature. ..dave souza, talk 17:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Point of information: reading

WP:PRESS, don't forget that the argument includes editors who are Irish AND British, and (touch wood) recent rather than current edit war? ..dave souza, talk

17:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

is not accurate as a statement of the dispute since it implies that no offence would be given if the term was used "correctly". As I understand it the term can give offence regardless of whether or not the usage is "correct". How about:

The term 'British Isles' can be confusing and can cause offense to some people. See the Terminology section below for details of the controversy.

I don't think the lede needs citations as long as everything in it is supported by citations in the main body of the article. In the main article I think we need to have every statement supported by a citation. At the moment some of the statements on the "Irish" side have citations which don't fully support the statements made, while many of the statements on the "British" side do not have any citations at all. (I write as a Welshman who has never considered himself to be "British" by the way, though I'm not sure if that counts as neutral.) Rhion 07:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

That seems a good proposal to me, and as an interim measure I've changed the italicised bit as suggested as well as adding a brief description of the "British" issue to the lead. Please take that as a basis for discussion rather than a definitive statement. For what it's worth I've always been rather fond of the "Brutain's hardy sons" idea and, like many Scots, like having both a British and a Scottish identity. This caused slight difficulties when i moved to near London for a while, and decided to call myself British, but as soon as I spoke to someone they'd say "Yewre Scotch, awent yew?" So I had to just accept being Scottish and live with it. Not really a problem. ..dave souza, talk 09:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

And regarding cites, a few "British Isles" references have been mentioned in talk, but either haven't been added or haven't survived. That's part of the sorting out that's needed ..dave souza, talk 09:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Here is what I found:

• Great Britain; British Isles; Ireland: The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001-05. British Isles has links to Great Britain and Ireland; both the GB and Ireland articles state they are located in the British Isles. No further information, really.
• The United Kingdom and Ireland "The UK and Ireland are regarded, for the purposes of this Genealogical Information Service, as being made up of England, Ireland (i.e. Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland), Wales, and Scotland, together with the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. Together, these constitute the British Isles - which is a geographical term for a group of islands lying off the north-west coast of mainland Europe."
• British Isles: "The British Isles comprise an archipelago located in northwestern Europe. There are two large islands, Britain and Ireland, and a large host of small ones; these include the Shetland, Orkney, and Hebrides groups, as well as numerous others."

Colliers apparently has a British Isles article, it is used as a source on the terminology article. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

As a bit of a rough hack, I've put a version of the terminology section at the top incorporating the sort of info that seems appropriate to me, and have included untouched the second and third subsections which still need work. At the same time I've commented out the original, so it's still there. Treat this as a draft for discussion / amendments. Enjoy! ..dave souza, talk 14:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I've commented out two sentences which seem unencyclopedic, unsuitable for the intro, and which aren't sourced: "Unfortunately, associations of