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.

Archive 30

←

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

→

Archive 40

An RFC has been opened inviting comments on whether the Channel Islands should be treated as part of the British Isles on Wikipedia. All views are welcome here. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid ( coṁrá) 20:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the page due to the roving single purpose IP addresses breaking the 1RR. Though I was originally very sceptical about it, the 1RR ruling seems to have calmed the article down and lead to more sensible discussions. Canterbury Tail talk 12:58, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

This off-topics section has been moved to the reference desk per WP:NOT#FORUM. Please continue discussion there. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid ( coṁrá) 14:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Just a warning to all involved in the removal/reinstatement edits. 3RR applies to talk pages just as well as articles themselves. Canterbury Tail talk 12:52, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Instead of 'The BI are a group....' having 'The BI is a term often used to describe a group....' It'd be a nice compromise even having this just in the opening line and leaving the rest of hte article as is. Worth thinking about, It wouldn't harm the aricle but rather (in my eyes anyway) reflect its true nature more accurately. Fionnsci ( talk) 13:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. See the archives to check how many times it's been rejected on previous occasions. Ghmyrtle ( talk) 15:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The argument against is simple and valid: the article is not about a term, it's about a group of islands. To start with "The British Isles is a term" would change the fundamental subject of this article. As Fionnsci correctly says, this has been discussed to death many times before; let's move forwards, not backwards. waggers ( talk) 10:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

@Waggers: From the OED:The term is generally regarded as a geographical or territorial description - now what do you think they are refering to? Þjóðólfr ( talk) 11:08, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Not necessarilly relevant to us. A dictionary describes the usage of terms. As a rule, an encyclopedia describes the things referred to bu those terms.-- Peter cohen ( talk) 13:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

My point is that Waggers's strong point of view is not supported by his weak argument. @Peter cohen, The article is about the British Isles and Ireland. The British Isles is simply one of the terms that is used. Þjóðólfr ( talk) 13:55, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually the article is about the British Isles, the British Isles and Ireland is simply another term used for it. Canterbury Tail talk 14:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed - in articles the alternative terms are detailed in the opening sentence. Why not here? Þjóðólfr ( talk) 15:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Because there are too many of them. For sake of readability, there's a separate "alternative names" section and the second paragraph summarises the naming issue. Trying to get all of that into the first sentence just isn't practical, and would take the emphasis away from the primary subject of the article. This is the consensus that was agreed upon some time ago - please see the archives for the full discussion. waggers ( talk) 15:18, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The article is subject to extra special editing restrictions precisely because no consensus was achieved. A narrow minded attempt to impose a single term, (for that is all it is) is what takes the emphasis away from the primary subject of the article. Þjóðólfr ( talk) 15:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The article is subject to editing restrictions because of edit warring and other uncouth behaviour by a particular group of editors; failure to achieve consensus on a talk page alone would never be sufficient reason to make an article subject to such restrictions. waggers ( talk) 10:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

That's verging on personal attack territory; it's certainly not civil. I suggest you tread carefully. waggers ( talk) 14:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Is this personal attack that I am verging on? that you have a strong point of view or is that that you have a weak argument? or is it a delusion? Þjóðólfr ( talk) 14:30, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

If the argument was so weak you would have been able to address it by now rather than switching your attack onto named individuals. waggers ( talk) 14:45, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

What attack? What named individual? - You are an anoymous user same as me. Þjóðólfr ( talk) 15:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

This talk page is for discussing the article. You are not discussing the article, you are discussing me. Please stop. waggers ( talk) 15:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I think we digress Þjóðólfr ( talk) 15:25, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Per Waggers, the article is on the islands not the term (as distinct from a dictionary entry per the OED). Compare Ireland and Éire or Great Britain and Britain (name). If memory recalls the MOS has something to say about constructing ledes in such a way. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid ( coṁrá) 16:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Wishful, head-in-the-sand and self-serving thinking there by ( User talk:Waggers): this article is entirely about the name - entirely. If the name used here were, for instance, the Celery Islands, there would be no controversy unless of course some 'celery people' had occupied and ruled Ireland for centuries ramming their culture down our throats and keeping the native Irish out of power century after century. It is simply dishonest to claim that the name is not the entire problem. Duh. Dunlavin Green ( talk) 13:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The opening para could be restructured along the lines of:-

The group of islands off the northwest coast of continental Europe that include Great Britain, Ireland and over six-thousand smaller islands are known, historically but now often controversially, as the British Isles. There are two sovereign states located on the islands: the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and Ireland. The "British Isles" also include the Crown Dependencies of the Isle of Man and, by tradition, the Channel Islands, although the latter are not physically a part of the island group.

Ghmyrtle ( talk) 14:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I like that. best we have had in a long time. -- Snowded ^TALK 14:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it gives too much weight to the controversy, an unfortunately still to this point unquantified controversy. I don't see much wrong with what we currently have. There is a lot of weight to the naming in the current version, but it's not right there at the very opening sentence. After all this article is about the geographical area, the naming controversy is that away. Canterbury Tail talk 14:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Ghmyrtle, that's fair to a degree but I think it overstates the "historical" aspect; the earliest recorded use of the name British Isles is in 1577. There was a long history of using other terms prior to that and even in the 17th century "Britain and Ireland" was a very common, arguably much, much more common, term to use, and was used always by writers such as Francis Bacon who never used the term "British Isles" in his works. Dunlavin Green ( talk) 15:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't put it up in anticipation of a consensus miraculously appearing...! - but it's there on the table, if others wish to discuss or play around with the wording. Ghmyrtle ( talk) 15:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Whatever ya'll want, no prob. GoodDay ( talk) 15:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

ALT 1: "...are known, widely but controversially, as...."

ALT 2: "...are known, widely but increasingly controversially, as...."

Better, or worse? Ghmyrtle ( talk) 15:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

#1, is more accurate. One can't proove either way, that the controvery is increasing or decreasing. GoodDay ( talk) 15:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Increasing can be referenced Þjóðólfr ( talk) 17:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Ya bugger, hehehe. GoodDay ( talk) 19:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

None of these are any good. The current version is adequate. Mister Flash ( talk) 17:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Wikipedia is not a forum or a place to advance views on a topic. Please use keep discussions on article talk pages relevant to improving articles and away from general discussions. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid ( coṁrá) 10:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm from the USA so please excuse my lack of understanding in this area. This regards potential changes to a Wikipedia article which I mostly wrote. I received comments from someone from Ireland ostensibly about other things but, long story short, it appears that it was actually about objecting to the fact that I used the term "British Isles" (the usage / context was benign). Is this term controversial with a significant number of people, such that I should try to avoid using it in or remove it from a Wikipedia article? 75.24.138.102 ( talk) 14:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC) It is to some people, that's for sure, but the extent of which is unclear and undocumented. British Isles is still the most common term in the world for that geographic area, however some dispute that. The controversy is mainly by people living in Ireland objecting to the term for some perceived claim of ownership, but it is still used in Ireland. This means the whole things is annoying unqualified and subject to conjecture and unsupportable and unreferencable claims. Canterbury Tail talk 14:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC) An example of conjecture and unsupportable and unreferencable claims would include British Isles is still the most common term in the world for that geographic area and The controversy is mainly by people living in Ireland Þjóðólfr ( talk) 14:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC) Valid points, yet more qualified and quantified than the controversy against the terms in the many references throughout the article and archives. Canterbury Tail talk 15:03, 23 December 2009 (UTC) The context is key. If you're preparing to make a change which does indeed refer to the entire geographic area then it may be appropriate. If your edit will refer only to a particular island then it should be specific. Wiki-Ed ( talk) 23:33, 24 December 2009 (UTC) The article is both right and wrong funnily enough, The british isle`s do not contain ireland as described in the article. Only northern ireland falls under british rule. I`m not to sure why it is written up like it is and if it is ok with those who edit this page i`d like to rectify some of the mistakes. Thanks. -- mark nutley ( talk) 18:15, 25 December 2009 (UTC) You too are both right and wrong funnily enough! Yes, NI and not the rest of Ireland falls under British rule but the BI is not a political entity, it is a geographical description (and a poor one at that). Fionnsci ( talk) 18:18, 25 December 2009 (UTC) Bugger me sideways, your right :) I has always assumed after we got independence we were no longger a part of the british isle`s. So what exactly is the controversy then? if it has always been know as the BI i really can`t see any good reason to change it :) -- mark nutley ( talk) 20:00, 25 December 2009 (UTC) Actually Mark, you were correct. Sovereign Ireland is not part of the British Isles - Wiki is one of the last remaining hold-outs, which, for political reasons, claims it is. I note the BBC weather forecast now refers to the "British Isles" and "Southern Ireland" as separate geographical entities in their weather forecasts. Sarah777 ( talk) 00:30, 26 December 2009 (UTC) The above is mistaken. As much as I wish the phrase didn't exist, it does and it does include Ireland. The controversy is that the term 'British' in relation to Ireland suggests that Ireland is still part of the UK. And btw, Mark, your apostrophes are backwards! (not that they should be there anyway....) Fionnsci ( talk) 00:35, 26 December 2009 (UTC) No mistake. The term is obsolete, perpetuated by Wiki based on British political pov despite being abandoned by most. Sarah777 ( talk) 00:40, 26 December 2009 (UTC) Sarah if it is obsolete, can you please tell people in Ireland to stop using it, and then the rest of the world. It is heavily used, but often misunderstood in its meaning. Canterbury Tail talk 02:59, 26 December 2009 (UTC) It is used to mean several different things; most usage is not as the term is defined by Wiki - take the BBC example - such usage in Britain is common. And the term "British Isles" is far more commonly used in the British Isles than it is in Ireland. Sarah777 ( talk) 12:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC) Sarah, you're making very little sense, give it a rest. Fionnsci ( talk) 13:49, 26 December 2009 (UTC) Attack the ball not the man Fionnsci, or you'll find I'm a skilled man-tackler. I make a lot of sense. It's the POV merchants should take some rest. I'm fully refreshed and ready to improve the project by upholding WP:NPOV. To claim there is no controversy is bizarre when the term is commonly used in the UK to mean the UK and NI and references to this are then used by Wiki pov warriors to justify a definition that includes sovereign Ireland. Sarah777 ( talk) 14:20, 26 December 2009 (UTC) And it is heavily used in Ireland to include Ireland in the definition, even in government circles as has been shown endlessly in the archives. Some don't like the name and usage, some don't understand the name and usage, but neither stops the fact it is used in that context even in the places where the claims are that it isn't used. Canterbury Tail talk 14:35, 26 December 2009 (UTC) "it is heavily used in Ireland" - Not true. I've never heard anyone use it in conversation. Yes it has been used (an rarely so) but to suggest that it is heavily used is false. Fionnsci ( talk) 15:14, 26 December 2009 (UTC) Okay, maybe not heavily used, but it's definitely used, in news, media and government as sources have shown previously. Canterbury Tail talk 16:15, 26 December 2009 (UTC) The term British Isles applies to the entire archipelago. The word British means " English, Welsh, Scottish, and Irish", collectively. There are some people in the country legally described as the Republic of Ireland who do not like any association with the word British, well too bad (i.e., the term British = ( English + Welsh + Scottish + Irish)). ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! ( talk) 21:08, 26 December 2009 (UTC) Wrong ArmchairVexillologistDonLives, legally described as the Republic of Ireland there is nowhere legally described as ROI the legal and correct term for the country is Ireland another wikipedia mistake. BigDunc 21:21, 26 December 2009 (UTC) Hello BigDunc. Please read this, Names of the Irish state. Take care ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! ( talk) 21:36, 26 December 2009 (UTC) Wikipedia's own definition; 'British is the adjective and demonym associated with Great Britain and the United Kingdom'. There we have it. Ireland is part of neither and the term bears no relevance to Ireland. Don't try to suggest it does. Fionnsci ( talk) 21:41, 26 December 2009 (UTC) Great Britain Island, ... would refer to the Great British. ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! ( talk) 21:52, 26 December 2009 (UTC) ( edit conflict) As I said a wikipedia mistake, read Article 4 of Bunreacht Na hÉireann which states The name of the State is Éire, or, in the English language, Ireland. In fact I am almost certain the word Republic doesn't even exist in the constitution, Best BigDunc 21:44, 26 December 2009 (UTC) Dunc he's a notorious troll, don't feed him. -- Snowded TALK 22:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC) You know Snowded, I am getting tired of you calling me a troll. I'm gonna ask you nicely to stop doing that. So please stop calling me a troll. ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! ( talk) 22:51, 26 December 2009 (UTC) Lol! You pass the duck test. Deffo a troll! Sarah777 ( talk) 01:09, 28 December 2009 (UTC) Stop behaving like one and I will stop warning people that responding to your "odd" questions only ends up with talk page disruption. The talk page is here to discuss improvements to the article and resolve issues. If you can learn to follow that and also abide by your own talk page promise to GoodDay to follow policy on indentation and white spacing (one of the misdemeanors for which you have been previously blocked) no one will be more pleased that I. -- Snowded TALK 23:36, 27 December 2009 (UTC) Hello BigDunc. Here is an excerp from the Republic of Ireland Act 1948 Republic of Ireland Description Main article: Names of the Irish state Section 2 of the Act quite simply provides: "It is hereby declared that the description of the State shall be the Republic of Ireland That was all I meant eh. Take care on ole Insulae Nobilis :) ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! ( talk) 22:02, 26 December 2009 (UTC) @Marc, take a look at a page specifically set up to examine usage and to develop future guidelines. Reading the specific arguments pro and con may demonstrate how seriously silly and foolishly serious the topic can be. Pay specific attention to some of the arguments put forward and a pattern will emerge which might help you understand the broader discussion. -- HighKing ( talk) 22:29, 26 December 2009 (UTC) Dunc, the word 'Republic' is not used in the constitution. See the Republic of Ireland Act, 1948, which explains that "Republic" is still a description, that it does not change the name of the state. That would have required a referendum. -- Red King ( talk) 00:06, 27 December 2009 (UTC) For the umpteenth time, if "British Isles" is only a geographic term, why does it include the Channel Islands? The correct term to use (according to HMG), which is political, is British Islands. -- Red King ( talk) 00:06, 27 December 2009 (UTC) Because it manifestly isn't merely a "geographic term"! See the mental contortions the BI apologists have to engage in to include the precise British nationalist view of what constitutes the British Isles? Only on Wiki could such a naked political handle be imposed on an article. Sarah777 ( talk) 01:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC) Hello RedKing. The inclusion of an island, or a group of islands into a larger group of islands (i.e., an archipelago) is an arbitrary choice. The inclusion of the Channel Islands into the British Isles is arbitrary, and traditional. Additionally, there is no geographical term that is totally devoid of political content (that is how geographical terms come about). ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! ( talk) 00:14, 27 December 2009 (UTC) I've no concerns about the content. GoodDay ( talk) 00:41, 27 December 2009 (UTC) Arragh don't worry about ArmchairVentriloquestsDontLive's indentations. They are easily fixed. Personally, I think his incontinent punctuation compliments his incoherent arguments perfectly :) Sarah777 ( talk) 01:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC) First point - Don!! Bloody Hell! Please indent properly in these discussions. What's up with you boy! Next point; regarding HK's mention of the SE page to support the suggestion that British Isles is controversial. It does nothing of the sort. It simply indicates that there is a controversy as far as HK is concerned. He is, or was, the instigator of the SE page, and the heated debates mostly boil down to attempts by others, me inc., to counter his actions. Mister Flash ( talk) 18:13, 27 December 2009 (UTC) Hello MisterFlash. You wrote "First point - Don!! Bloody Hell! Please indent properly in these discussions. What's up with you boy!"... well, I'll indent the way I please. The point of indenting is just to have an (indent) to distinguish from one-post-to-another. There is nothing written in blood that you have to have it all lined up like a military formation across-the-page. ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! ( talk) 18:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC) Actually, you don't indent the way you please (note: my corrections to your post). GoodDay ( talk) 19:02, 27 December 2009 (UTC) In response to the OP if they are still watching, this thread proves that British Isles is a significantly controversial term. BigDunc 13:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC) Is "British Isles" a significantly controversial term? Part II Only when people from the British Isles claim that it includes sovereign Ireland. Sarah777 ( talk) 01:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC) The term British Isles applies to the entire archipelago. The word British means " English, Welsh, Scottish, and Irish", collectively. There are some people in the country legally described as the Republic of Ireland who do not like any association with the word British, well too bad (i.e., the term British = ( English + Welsh + Scottish + Irish)). ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! ( talk) 02:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC) As has been pointed out to you several times the word British applies to the English, Welsh and Scottish, with some more recent and disputed use including the people of Northern Ireland. It does not include the Irish. If you are going to make a statement like that then you badly need to provide a reliable reference, otherwise your repetition of the claim in this forum appears disruptive. Oh and please don't send me a map, we had enough of that nonsense on Middle Francia. I am responding to you partly becuase you have finally started to conform (other than one minor error which I corrected) with Wikipedia editing conventions. Any movement to being a non-disruptive member of the communituy is to be encouraged and is the best way of avoiding the "Troll" label-- Snowded TALK 07:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC) To a certain extent I'm with Don on this. What is "British"? It's of, within or part of the British Isles, including the people. How come it used to include Irish but doesn't any more? Are we making the rules up as we go along, just to appease Irish sensibilities? Perhaps. I would contend that the Irish, like the Scottish, the English and the Welsh, are a sub-set of the British race - the race of people indigenous to these islands. And to try and include NI and not RoI with the "British" epithet is just plain idiotic - there's little or no difference between the genetic or cultural origins (save fairly recent religious differences) between the people of the North and the Republic. Mister Flash ( talk) 10:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC) He he! Another leopard with spots! Quelle surprise! as we say in Dublin! Sarah777 ( talk) 13:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC) This argument makes no sense: "the race of people indigenous to these islands" would exclude the vast majority of of the people of Great Britain, as the Anglo-Saxons do not fall within that definition. To say that the Irish " ... are a sub-set of the British race" is just insulting. Enough of this, please. Daicaregos ( talk) 12:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC) If you want to be scared look at the definition of who is British on the BNP site, it includes more or less all invaders/immigrants up to the 15thC but eliminates anyone thereafter. The prhase used by Flash is common in British Nationalist circles (not necessarily the same thing as BNP) and the desire of some editors to establish a pre-1920 view of the British Empire has been one of the disruptive factors on these pages over the years-- Snowded TALK 13:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC) Another has been the stance taken by those who are in denial about the fact that the island of Ireland is one of the British Isles. Mister Flash ( talk) 21:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC) Including NI in British is idiotic. The example I had in mind was the last Olympics where it really seemed that NI was just ignored/forgotten and it was idiotic. If you check your history it has always been British and Irish when the two ethnic groups are described. Its worth remembering that we are talking about two different celtic groups here, as well as different histories of invasion and conquest. On your argument above you could include a large part of France as being British. If you really want to argue the above postion then you and Armchair need to find some reliable sources. -- Snowded TALK 10:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC) I'm reluctant to venture into this whole tiresome "BI saga", but The Times Style Guide recognises that "Britain" is sometimes used lazily as another name for the UK [1]. The Penguin Encyclopedia of Places says the same thing. It's also worth remembering that people from NI are generally entitled to either British or Irish citizenship. Most NI Protestants and even a few NI Catholics identify as 'British'. Identities in these islands are complex... but I wouldn't use the term " race" as a description for the British, Irish, English, Welsh or Scottish or any other national or ethnic group.-- Pondle ( talk) 12:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC) Seems the BNP are on patrol - even the spelling ain't too bad - must taking lessons from a good Christian Brother :) Sarah777 ( talk) 14:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC) Sarah! Canterbury Tail talk 16:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC) Was that an accusation of BNP membership pointed at me, Sarah??? -- Pondle ( talk) 14:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC) Ignore Sarah777. It's a troll. Mister Flash ( talk) 15:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC) Deepest apologies Pondle - it was not aimed at you - it was a comment on the racist wittering of ArmchairLives and MrFlash. I can see now that my juxtaposition was rather unfortunate, indeed, appalling in view of your reasonable comments. I even agree with what you said. Sarah777 ( talk) 19:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC) Well said, Sarah. Once again, we should all be grateful to the rabidly anti-Irish contributions of this ArmchairVexillologistDonLives character and this Mister Flash individual. In their little xenophobic world all us Irish are shoved into their little British nationalist fairytale world of the "British Isles" and therein we are, as expected, stripped of our Irishness and our history. Irish history, the Irish people, only have a history since the British defeat of us in Kinsale in 1602. Ever since that, we, the Irish people, must fit into the masterrace project of the British (i.e. the English and their conquered Scottish and Welsh cannonfodder). Everything, in their nationalist insecurity, must be "Britishised" in order to propagate and consolidate this very recent myth (c. 17th century origin) of "Britishness". Yes, this is a fundamental part of the same extremist British project that had 25% of this planet under the boot of the British Union Jack. Fanatics, if ever there were ones. It is only - and I do mean only - antediluvian sections of British society who believe British imperialism is moderate, never mind normal. This article is as sick, depraved and masterrace as it was when it was first created. By a long shot, this is the most nationalist, jingoistic and irridentist British article on wikipedia - and users like the above two "contributors" thankfully remind the naïve here what the real agenda is, the subjugation of dissenting voices to their British nationalist mythmaking. Long live the European Union and the continuing marginalisation of British nationalism and the anti-Irishness which is a central foundation stone of Britishness. Dunlavin Green ( talk) 18:53, 29 December 2009 (UTC) Entertaining stuff. GoodDay ( talk) 19:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC) "the English and their conquered Scottish and Welsh cannonfodder"? Really? Was that really necessary? Thats quite insulting. I would like to point out that Britishness was actually a Scottish invention (that until recently the English actively avoided). They even went as far to try to rename Scotland and England/Wales into North Britain and South Britain respectively. -- Phoenix ( talk) 02:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC) I'd blame the Cecil family on that one .... -- Snowded TALK 07:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Of the two diagrams in the article, one is captioned a Euler diagram and the other a Venn diagram. What's the difference? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.42.76.202 ( talk) 00:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

After reading both of those articles, I think both are actually Euler diagrams, not Venn. Can someone change this? I can't edit the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.42.76.202 ( talk) 16:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid ( coṁrá) 17:03, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Not quite. You are no admin Rannpairti, and your replacement during the holiday period of the diagram at Terminology of the British Isles that shows all definitions of British Isles, to your favoured CI-always diagram, was the edit of a perennially committed SPA. I've put the actually informative (my god! Informative!) multi-definition one back in at TotBI, and it is time to do it here at BI too - now the article is no longer locked 24/7, like it used to be during your previous life as an IP. I think we should supply some information for the readers, instead of trying to render the 'term' confusing and ineffectual all the time. I mean - why would anyone really want to something like that? If you don't like the wording of the multi-definition diagram you can easily change it (but try not to over-write the old one this time, if you do).

Happy new year, by the way. Matt Lewis ( talk) 18:11, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Happy new year to you too, Matt. The request by the IP was for a change to be made to this article. That was is done. No admin privileges are required to change a word in a the language diagram from "Venn" to "Euler" but the article is semi-protected so the IP couldn't make the change.

"...your replacement during the holiday period of the diagram at Terminology of the British Isles that shows all definitions of British Isles, to your favoured CI-always diagram, was the edit of a perennially committed SPA..." The diagram on that page was changed by a Guilford based IP to your preferred diagram from the long-standing consensus on 6 December 2009. I reverted to the consensus diagram.

" I've put the actually informative (my god! Informative!) multi-definition one back in at TotBI ... like it used to be during your previous life as an IP..." The current diagram is here for been years. It was changed earlier this month. I know you would like to have it changed. That's not an unreasonable request but I've reverted your change for the time being (and to this article to) in order to give you the opportunity to seek consensus for the change. Please, try to achieve consensus or demonstrate that your view is upheld by reliable source (such as by the RFC on this matter). --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid ( coṁrá) 19:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Before either of you continue reverting each other here & at the related terminology page, there's something ya both should consider - get a consensus for your preffered versions first. GoodDay ( talk) 19:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

When I used to work on this article, it was constantly locked - and the ongoing debate over the channel islands (people favoured 'geographical' by the way) was always over-shadowed the 'controversy' issue (or the Ireland naming debates). But you know all this perfectly well. I have enough your games anyway: in changing the BI Terminology article diagram you contravened your own so-called 'RFC' (so how can you call me up on that?), and people putting it in here to be consistent with Terminology was something you tried to avoid by creating your sudden 'RFC', just before it happened. I absolutely demand to know which IP addressed you were using during the period the BI article was mostly locked for - in fact, the whole period between your two admitted accounts. Saying the IP addresses were "dynamic" (and writing an essay on how human IP's are) is just not enough for me to show you WP:AGF. You have admitted to a significant amount of IP editing, and you can still give me a lot of the 'range', or provide a number of diffs. Can you do perhaps 20 'off-topic' I wonder? It is just too much for me to swallow that "none" of your IP edits were on these UK/Ireland issues, as you have virtually no editing history outside of them. I'm asking you as politely as I can right now - as I have more pressing on-Wiki things to do than this, and very little time at the moment to do them in.

At your 'RFC' I have provided the latest full OED and the Encyclopedia Britannica (and the other major encylopedias) - how bloody dare you suggest I have no relable sources, just because I've had no time to find the unfindable type of sources you demand - ones where people detail on the internet what they needn't do - that they are not making an exception. You remind me of too many other 'dialogues' Rannparti.

GoodDay - instead of being so typically you, can you consider offering something positive for a change, like a comment which diagram you prefer perhaps? No, no don't bother - I already know the answer: you don't care which, as long as we stop disagreeing with each other(!). Matt Lewis ( talk) 20:26, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Howabout 'no diagram' for the time being. Present both your choices on this talkpage, have a 1-week straw-poll. Majority's choice gets added back to article. GoodDay ( talk) 20:31, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but we have that flipping 'RfC' don't we. As Rannparti has removed any diagram from Countries of the UK too, perhaps he could do without either here for a bit? After all, his favoured diagram does not exactly follow the introduction of the article does it? The two-definition one simply follows it. I won't accept him messing with Terminology of BI though - that really needs a fully descriptive diagram. Fair is fair. Matt Lewis ( talk) 20:40, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of diagrams would be wise. The RfC-in-question, has been dormant for 'bout a month, so there hasn't been a decision on including/excluding Channel Islands. GoodDay ( talk) 20:47, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Matt, I'm not trying to trick you or to 'lure' you into being blocked and I'm not playing games. (Its fair that Canterbury Tail unblocked you because I didn't see the edit notice either - even though it is a big and red.)

Yes, you did supply a quotation from the full OED on the Channel Islands' RFC page. The quotation you supplied from the Full Oxford English Dictionary reads: "British Isles: a geographical term for the islands comparing Great Britain and Ireland with all their offshore islands including the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands." It is on the basis of references like that that I say the current diagram is most accurate - but of course I support "meatier" discussion of the matter in article texts.

The current diagram has been on this page the terminology article for two-and-a-half years. A Guildford based IP replaced it on December 6th and I reverted it when I saw it (Dec. 30th). Simply seek a consensus to remove or replace it if you feel it is wrong.

With respect to my edit history between my former and current account, ANI is the place to go, or CheckUser, or an RFC/U - but repeatedly casting aspersions on different article talk pages is not. It's is uncivil and it does not assume good faith. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid ( coṁrá) 03:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The quotation that I supplied (from the latest complete OED) says clearly "...Britain, Ireland and the Isle of Man, and sometimes also the Channel Islands" - as I've expressed and explained all through the RFC. The definition you give above is your own 1989 preferred definition. To deprive people of a two-definition diagram really is an act of extraordinary unfairness by you, Rannparti, given the what the Intro states, the general comments on the matter throughout the discussions, and the available sources - not to mention plain common sense. Only (I think) the rather 'imperialist'(?) Mister Flash has thus far supported you regarding the diagram – but with this article that is more than enough. 'Status quo' regarding the main article is meaningless at British Isles - everyone knows that. Look through the endless scrolling 'Talk' if you want to see consensus for a liberal geographical approach (where CIs are seen as best left out by most), and you will also find people not able to (or unwilling to) touch this nightmare article. Look at the OED and Britannia and the other encylopedias if you want definitions of multiple use (where the CI's are primarily an 'addition'), and look at 'real life' if you want to see countless examples of multiple uses of BI both with and without the Channel Islands.

Consensus will be found at the end of your RFC on the matter, which is obviously the sensible time to do it. RE your editing past, I chose to ask you personally for diffs, and you haven't given me any. Matt Lewis ( talk) 23:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Be aware, 1RR is still in effect on this article, as evidenced by the warning every time you edit the article. One person has already been temporarily blocked due to this, and I'll reset the article to before the violation. Canterbury Tail talk 22:39, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe you have just reverted a revert - maybe you should block yourself. Þjóðólfr ( talk) 23:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I reverted to the 1RR, and clearly stated so. To the situation before the 1RR was broken. Canterbury Tail talk 02:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Reverting to the version before an edit war is explicitly endorsed by Wikipedia:Protection policy. - 2/0 ( cont.) 22:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The restriction is is unique and explicitly excludes normal Wiki processes. Still, now we have 2 admins maybe a "normal" restriction that encompasses Wikipedia:Protection policy could be implemented. Þjóðólfr ( talk) 23:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The 1RR enforcement on this article has always included rolling it back to before the 1RR was broken. And no editor will be blocked for doing so. Failure to do so means someone can edit war and "win." Canterbury Tail talk 02:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

A poll has been set up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/Poll on Ireland article names. This is a formal vote regarding the naming of the Ireland and Republic of Ireland and possibly the Ireland (disambiguation) pages. The result of this poll will be binding on the affected article names for a period of two years. This poll arose from the Ireland article names case at the Arbitration Committee and the Ireland Collaboration Project. The order that the choices appear in the list has been generated randomly. Voting will end at 21:00 (UTC) of the evening of 13 September 2009 (that is 22:00 IST and BST).

Close per WP:NOTAFORUM and Godwin's law
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Please excuse my ignorance if I have blundered anywhere in this post. If you exclude those with opinions at the most extreme ends of the spectrum, it seems most would acknowledge that the term is mostly historic, but has a small amount of current usefulness and usage as a description of isles in a certain geographic area, with some common roots. So, folks who would want to wipe the term off of the face of the earth (or erase it from Wikipedia) are not correct. But, for example, trying to "cover" all of current Ireland in an article about the "British Isles" would be like trying to "Cover" the current USA in an article about the 1750's British Empire. And to me it appears that the "British Isles" article somewhat tries to do this for the included territories. (This analogy is only useful regarding coverage, due to huge differences in elapsed time, the situation is very psychologically different.) So, besides such coverage being out of place, it would tend to imply much more current relevancy of the term, and somewhat imply that all of Ireland is "British", which would get many folks justifiably angry. Why not change the "British Isles" article to about a one page article which gives it's historical definition, has a map and that nice venn diagram, acknowledges that it is largely a historical term, but has a small amount of current usage & usefulness. Move all of the other coverage to the articles on the countries (or other most-relevant current divisions)and include links or references in this article to those articles to learn more about the places included in this term. Sincerely, 75.24.138.102 ( talk) 17:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC) You appear to believe that "British Isles" is a political term, analogous to "British Empire". In fact it's a geographical term dating back to the Ancient Greeks, so Ireland is still very much part of the definition, despite the attempts of a handful of people to politicise the issue. In the phrase "British Isles", "British" does not refer to the state (UK), and predates it by some two millennia (indeed, the state was named after the geographical entity, and not the other way round). It would be like the people of Canada or Brazil, say, objecting to being described as being part of "America", since that term is nowadays very often used for the state (USA). ðarkun coll 18:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC) I specifically understood and understand that it is not a political term. I think that you mistakenly thinking that my analogy was claiming to be analagous in that respect, which it is not. 75.24.138.102 ( talk) 19:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC) "the "British Isles" would be like trying to "Cover" the current USA in an article about the 1750's British Empire." - that sounds pretty political IP-user. It sounds as if it is your view that the term "British Isles" is a historic imperialistic term. It may be, but that is certainly a political view, with all due respect. It's not for example the view of many people internationally, who treat the phrase neutrally to mean these islands. Like many such phrases, I don't doubt that it is loaded with historic, cultural and political meanings and values. Surely the article should just explain those, which it does seem to do a fairly good job of doing. Jamesinderbyshire ( talk) 19:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC) I really don't have an opinion in this. I just happened to look into the article because a friend of mine in the US was getting beat up by someone from Ireland for using the term "British Isles". And, even though I'm the best at Geography of anybody I know, I really didn't even know what is specifically included in British Isles , Great Britain, the British Islands, or the UK until I read this article (much less have a political opinion on those terms) But it just seemed to me that somebody from outside the war might be able to make a helpful suggestion / perspective regardign the Wikipedia article. I have neither the expertise nor the standing to participate in the debate about the terms. 75.24.138.102 ( talk) 20:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC) I occassionally used the term British Isles when I lived in Dublin, and nobody even so much as blinked, let alone beat me up! I find it utterly bizarre that someone from Ireland would go to the US and attack an American citizen for using a geographic term which is taught in all American schools. It would be like a visting Texan in Ireland attacking someone for using the word Yank.-- Jeanne Boleyn ( talk) 07:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC) I think you are seeing a peculiarly Wikipedian phenomenon, the tendancy for the most extreme ends of opinion on a given subject to be endlessly over-represented and fought over in the article and talk page. See the archives for this article for a fine example of the genre! I spent some of yesterday wading through it. If you took half the stuff on there as a reflection of reality, these islands are a morass of bitter historical hatreds and half-recalled grevious insults, brewed up daily by vengeful thoughts and a burning desire to re-launch open warfare immediately - but with typos and lots of minor mistakes of interpretative historical theory! Jamesinderbyshire ( talk) 10:07, 23 January 2010 (UTC) @Jeanne - I'm not getting involved in the argument about British Isles. I just thought I'd point out a little subtlety in language. In the US, to "get beat up" has a different meaning to "be beat up". The former means being "put down", "argued against", "ridiculed", etc. The latter is a physical expression of violence. I seriously doubt the guy in question was physically attacked. I read it that the guy just got a hard time over it. That's all. -- MacTire02 ( talk) 10:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC) When I lived in California, to get beaten up (to be grammatically correct) meant to be physically assaulted. I never knew the language had altered so drastically since I left the New World to take up permanent residence in the Old Continent. Oh well, one learns something new everyday at Wikipedia. Guess my street credibilty is now in a shambles.-- Jeanne Boleyn ( talk) 10:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC) As a resident from across the pond, I can confirm that MacTire02's take on this is accurate. But to JeanneBoley, not to worry, in this case, we haven't changed the language so radically to where the term has a new linguistic definition,75.... was just using it as a (commonly used) metaphor. North8000 ( talk) 23:52, 24 January 2010 (UTC) No problem. I can dig it. Thanks.-- Jeanne Boleyn ( talk) 07:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC) What is the ancient Greek source? I know Strabo used something like Prettans or Brettans (c. AD 10), although I don't think he directly calls them "Islands of the Brettans" or some such (in Latin or Greek presumably) - this leaves us with Pliny, Naturalis Historia, 4.103, "Albion was its own name, when all [the islands] were called the Britannias; I will speak of them in a moment"... and perhaps Ptolemy, Geographia, 2.1 "Hibernia, Island of Britannia" (c. AD 150). It's not really an ancient name as such, the term dates from somewhere in the early Modern, probably 16th Century, at least in it's "modern" format. Jamesinderbyshire ( talk) 18:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC) The "British Isles" is a "political term"? Lord no, it is sheer accident that the term's first usage can only be dated to a period when the British monarch was attempting to claim ownership of Ireland (John Dee in 1577, to be precise). There is nothing political about it; not even the part where Ireland has been under British colonial occupation for centuries. Nice people are these British colonialists. Harmless. Just trying to help the poor Irish by invading their country, ethnically cleansing and dispossessing the people, transferring all the land of Ireland into the hands of British Protestant settlers and holding the entire native Irish Catholic population under the racist and sectarian Penal Laws for centuries. Oh yes, in this context how on earth could asserting that Ireland is part of something British nationalists term the "British Isles" be political? It's a nice, innocuous little "geographical" term, just as harmless and apolitical as British rule in Ireland. And so the myth from the ideological descendants of profoundly racist and anti-Irish people such as Edmund Spenser and Rudyard Kipling goes on. Pathetic. Every single thing about what the British have done here is political. All the sand in all the world covering your head could not transform the sheer viciousness, utter savagery and abject inhumanity of those people in Ireland against the Irish people into mere "geography". Patronising. Insulting. Self-serving. And offensive. Dunlavin Green ( talk) 01:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC) Which British monarch was claiming ownership of Ireland in 1577? There was no such thing as a British monarch until 1707. Queen Elizabeth I was an English monarch. The British did not invade Ireland in 1169, it was a Cambric-Norman invasion led by Richard de Clare, 2nd Earl of Pembroke, supported by the Pope, and instigated by the King of Leinster, Dermot MacMurrough. This was long before the birth of Martin Luther and Henry VIII, therefore no Protestants were involved. And in 1169, I would very much doubt that there was an English Saxon amongst the group of Normans and their Welsh and Flemish mercenaries.-- Jeanne Boleyn ( talk) 07:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC) Aside from the basic fact that she was a monarch from Britain, her first cousin was James V of Scotland. She was deeply involved in Scottish politics from at least the Treaty of Edinburgh in 1560 when she began undermining her cousin, Mary Queen of Scots, there through her support for, and finance of, pro-English Protestants. With these pre-1577 connections it is disingenuous to claim she was not a British monarch, especially given the Welsh origin of the Tudors. I haven't a clue what you are doing going on about the Norman Invasion of Ireland and introducing some strawman argument about it being/not being British. Stick with the topic, please. Dunlavin Green ( talk) 10:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC) And you are being factually incorrect when you call her a British monarch as there was no such thing as a British monarchy until 1707. As for the Tudors Welsh origin; well yes, the dynasty was indeed Welsh; however due to intermarriage with the French and Norman-English, Queen Elizabeth I was roughly just about 1/16th Welsh, which still doesn't make her a British monarch as Wales was not the kingdom of Britain. The Tudor involvement in Scottish politics pre-dates Elizabeth as it was her father Henry VIII who began the wars of the Rough Wooing to capture Mary,Queen of Scots and forcibly wed her to his son, Edward. Mary, Queen of Scots was an intrigant who was largely responsible for her headlong fall into disaster, the first being when she claimed the English throne and bore the royal arms of England. I'm not personally anti-Marian, but one has to view Mary Stuart realistically, without the patina of glamour historians and Hollywood has bestowed upon her.-- Jeanne Boleyn ( talk) 10:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC) Perhaps Ptolemy was being "profoundly racist and anti-Irish" when he called Hibernia an island of Britannia back in Roman times? It was essentially a neutral term originally of course, simply a reference to the "Prettans" or "Brettans" that classical Mediterranean peoples believed inhabited these islands, but as pointed out above has become imbued with colonialist, racist and imperialist overtones towards Ireland in more recent centuries. The article does reflect that. Jamesinderbyshire ( talk) 09:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC) And the Swastika is, using your specious Ptolemy analogy, still a flag of peace? Or maybe something has happened which has profoundly changed the meaning of both and thus the meaning of the words? It is preposterous to propose that the term "British Isles" means the same thing now as 'Pretanic' did two thousand years ago. But this is the level of argument used by the very people who are politically motivated to use the same term which they claim is merely geographical. But what can you expect from a cultural world where under the entry 'Irish' in their dictionaries we have definitions ranging from 'contradictory' to 'illogical' to, ironically, 'ironical'. Dunlavin Green ( talk) 10:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC) Of course the swastika is no longer a flag of peace and of course I didn't propose that British Isles doesn't still mean the same as did Bretanic or Brettans in Roman times. As I said at the end of my comment. And you won't find definitions of Irish or Irishness like that in Wikipedia, thank goodness. Jamesinderbyshire ( talk) 10:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC) Well, next time please don't bother trying to be sarcastic in an attempt to belittle my points. And I checked the OED online, as well as other English dictionaries, and they still have such definitions of 'Irish'. I agree with the other parts of your post, except about the article reflecting the Irish objections. It doesn't; at least it does not do so anything like adequately Dunlavin Green ( talk) 11:07, 23 January 2010 (UTC) Oh dear, Dunlavin, you've just fallen foul of Godwin's law. If you wish to cultivate a long memory for past conflicts, then how about this: the Irish were raiding the coasts of Britain, taking slaves (e.g. St Patrick), settling and setting up petty kingdoms from at least the 4th century onwards, long before the British intervened in Ireland. Indeed, that intervention was designed to stop such raids by pacifying the place, and was sanctioned by the Catholic Church. ðarkun coll 11:29, 23 January 2010 (UTC) As long as British Isles is in usage, it covers the entire island of Ireland. GoodDay ( talk) 20:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Ha, ha.. I was was about to revert Dunlavin Green, almost as a matter of course, but his restoring of this section is entirely proper, so I won't, even though I disagree 100% with what he says. Mister Flash ( talk) 19:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

There seems to have been a resurgence again in the anon related POV vandalism on the article again. Do people think it's a good idea to semi-protect the article? I know it's been discussed before, but the results where inconclusive. Historically it has seemed that some people where socking on IP addresses to get around editing restrictions but that isn't happening here (that I can see), just some of the same IP ranges cropping up and doing the term and controversial thing again. So thoughts? Canterbury Tail talk 17:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. This article definitely needs semi-protecting. There has been too much edit-warring here and, personally, I don't feel that that has contributed positively to the article. We need a quality NPOV article. Anonymous IP sockpuppeting/editing/moving etc. is only detrimental to the improvement of the article. Any issues regarding naming etc. should be raised on the talk page as per wiki guidelines and not on the article itself. -- MacTire02 ( talk) 18:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

This article will always be prone to POVish IP edits (just as much as it is prone to POVish edits by registered users). What has been positive about the recent spate is that they have not led to edit warring. There has only been one or two incidents of actual vandalism ( example).

We should not lock down the article just because a random readers adds that the term is controversial. We know that it is and we should expect that some readers will feel that that is not expressed strongly enough in the article. This article get 500-1000 readers per day. Some of those will edit it. That's a part of the wiki process. If the edit falls short of NPOV, we revert, cite the talk page and move on. We don't lock the article down because of it. This is a wiki and it needs to be editable. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid ( coṁrá) 20:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

And this is why I opened up for a discussion. It has been suggested before. I'll leave it to the community to decide. Canterbury Tail talk 21:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

? - Indeed. That was my 2 euro cents. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid ( coṁrá) 22:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

IMHO in each case where a Wikipedia article is merely a battleground for a larger "war" that is occurring elsewhere, the article is always an unstable contentious mess. Usually via the combatants using Wikipedia rules to fight the war. I don't think that current Wikipedia processes and rules are up to the challenge of handling those situations. As a result, what you see in this article is the inevitable result of the combatants being merely human under this set of rules (or lack thereof) rather than some unusually "bad behavior" that needs locking out. North8000 ( talk) 04:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes indeed, permanent semi-protection is required. GoodDay ( talk) 00:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

"Are you sure you're really one of the Wild Geese or have you just been reading too much wikipedia? No self-respecting Irish person I have ever met has referred to Ireland as being part of the "British Isles" - a Victorian term which is avoided by the British and Irish governments as well as the dear old Guardian (although it is still much enjoyed by various Times-reading toffs, Tories in "empire denial" and the lesser-spotted West Briton)."

The Guardian makes the correct call. While Wiki remains in the grip of British editorial control. Sarah777 ( talk) 00:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

And since when is Godwin's Law reason enough for a British editor to close a discussion about British pov in this article title? Sarah777 ( talk) 00:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I wondered about this, but I didn't comment as I lack experience. I have searched and can't find anything about Godwin's Law justifying closing a debate in the Wikipedia policies. However, the discussion was closed on other grounds that do connect to a policy, so I suppose the Godwin's Law thing is not really a relevant remark. Sarah777, can you please put the correct Guardian reference in, your link doesn't seem to go to a Guardian article? Thanks. Jamesinderbyshire ( talk) 13:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Done! (If you search 'lesser-spotted' you'll find the quote). It appears the Guardian is conducting a debate on Irish Unity, oddly enough. Sarah777 ( talk) 13:39, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

"Godwin's law" is no reason to close a debate. Presumably, the closing editor though it was a clever remark. The substantive reason to close that discussion was that Wikipedia is not a forum.

Sarah, the quote above is from the comments section, not The Guardian. The comments section on that page is a forum. Wikipedia (still) is not. -- RA ( talk) 17:11, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Quite, that "correct call" is actually made by forum contributor malefeminist, a self-described "Irish Republican." As erudite as I'm sure malefeminist is (I find online forums to feature some serious heavyweight intellectuals, don't you?), I don't think he qualifies as a reliable source. Rockpocke t 20:57, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

And this segment is related to improving the article how? Should probably be closed under the not a forum rules. Canterbury Tail talk 02:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Now I see that someone has a robot removing / archiving items for being over 14 days old. And previously someone removed / archived / closed a discussion citing "Goodwin's Law" which is a general (non-Wikipedia) comment, not a Wikipedia policy. 99.141.252.19 ( talk) 10:27, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, the last time I suggested that comparing the British Empire to the Third Reich was unfair to the Germans I got in trouble. So I won't say it again. Sarah777 ( talk) 12:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Sarah777, the British Empire in no-way, shape, or fashion, compares to the Greater German Reich under the leadership of the Furher. ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! ( talk) 02:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Your quite right, Don, and Sarah should know better than to make such a silly comparison. The Third Reich lasted only 12 years, whereas British rule in Ireland has continued for over 800 years. Those flakey, fly-by-night Germans were a mere blip in history: they just don't have anything near the persistence required to get anywhere close to the same repress-your-neighbours-league as the British. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello Brownhairedgirl.

If the (English-Welsh-Scottish) had wanted to "death-camp" the Roman-Catholic Irish out of existance, there would be none left. Simply put, the extermination of the German Jews does not compare to the treatment of the Roman-Catholic Irish. If we (i.e, the non Roman Catholic Irish) had wanted you (i.e., the Roman-Catholic Irish) gone ... you'd all be dead. And you-all are still there. Please do the "mental-math", eh. ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! ( talk) 03:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Interesting that you make assumptions about the religion of an editor who has not declared anywhere on wikipedia whether they adhere to any god-franchise, or none. Interesting, too, that you say "you-all are still there". Which Western European nation has a lower population now than in the 1840s? (Clue: there's only one). -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 04:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The Irish are everywhere! I ran into one just earlier today. He got up and walked so I had to turn back. Matt Lewis ( talk) 21:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Guys, please remember WP:TALKNO - this isn't the right place to air your political/historical grievances.-- Pondle ( talk) 13:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Are comments like that helping to improve the article in any way, shape or form? (Rhetorical question in case it wasn't blindingly obvious) waggers ( talk) 13:46, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The archive bot has been in operation for some time now and is nothing new, certainly nothing "aggressive". waggers ( talk) 14:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

It has been accepted for a long time that one week inactivity is enough to end any discussion for a long time but when the bot is coming along to delete everyting every month you do feel it to be fast. Though Wikipedia means fast encyclopaedia. I have been trying to suggest to the arbitration committee that runaway train-size arguements should be given their own project space where they can be worked on without clouding over the projects and articles they weigh down on usually. And also that those involved in such debates should be encouraged to produce an article in Wikipedia space detailing all the facts about the dispute for easy reference and input from impartial editors. I don't know how good an idea that is or if I have explained it to the very well but I put it at [ [2]]. The Arbitrators do not seem to have understood it anyway. ~ R. T. G 13:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that you are right that when you have huge or difficult debates that something with more structure and longevity would be useful for resolving them. But I'm not sure that it would help in this case. I think that the nastiest of the stuff I see in this discussion is not aimed at influencing the content of the article. It's more like Wikipedia's role in that respect is just providing a meeting place for opponents in a larger "war" to do battle. 75.24.138.102 ( talk) 13:46, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

It occurs more and more, why do they not call them something like "The Three Great Northern Islands of Europe". Maybe one of these days. ~ R. T. G 13:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

3? Mister Flash ( talk) 20:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

What you see here in the talk page of British Isles and some other places appears to be the usual case of people in contentious articles who hold the most extreme views (generally a very small minority in the real world debate) seeking to tilt the article in their direction, whilst a number of less partial editors and admins attempt repeatedly to sooth the argument and keep the article impartial. In most of these articles I've observed, the end result is a rather shallow article, fluctuating content between one end and the other and lots of hard-working people getting more and more fed up and eventually throwing their hands up and quitting. It's a basic, basic weakness in the Wikipedia model that the persistent nature of the dogmatic will tend to win out over the well-meaning and sensible: result: a deceased article with little fizz or depth. Personally I don't believe this can ever be resolved in the Wikipedia model, no matter how much bureacracy is thrown at it. Clearly some other model will eventually emerge but it won't be the same as this one. In the meantime, editing or attempting to edit highly controversial articles appears to be a hobby for the time-rich! Jamesinderbyshire ( talk) 10:50, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

How absolutely right and well said! Articles on acrimonious topics everywhere in Wikipedia are in a low quality eternal mess, and the best quality contributors give up and leave. But the Wikipedia model works well on the other 95% of articles. And so I think that smarter-written policies are in order rather than waiting for the whole Wikipedia to die and be replaced. But the method for policy changes itself needs to change, with a need for consensusing a bigger picture rather than just editing sentences. 99.141.252.19 ( talk) 12:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The first two sentences of the article use the word 'Ireland' in two different senses.

"The British Isles are a group of islands off the northwest coast of continental Europe that include Great Britain, Ireland and over six-thousand smaller islands. There are two sovereign states located on the islands: the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and Ireland. "

The first meaning 'Island of Ireland', the second 'Republic of Ireland'. The links refer to the correct wiki pages but when the whole article is about the confusing and ambiguous meanings of the various words it seems a poor choice of words. I propose that the second use of 'Ireland' be changed to the name of the page it links to. ie 'Republic of Ireland' and maybe the the first is changed to 'Island of Ireland'. Chris97 ( talk) 21:20, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Something like: "There are two sovereign states located on the islands: the United Kingdom, which occupies the entirety of the island of Great Britain and a north-eastern portion of the island of Ireland, and the Republic of Ireland, which occupies the remaining five sixths of the island of Ireland."? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rannpháirtí anaithnid ( talk • contribs) 21:55, 11 April 2010

Some may not consider the word "occupies" to be neutral. How about "comprises", or "consists of..." ? Ghmyrtle ( talk) 09:16, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I was just about to suggest comprises as it's not loaded with political inuendo like occupies.-- Jeanne Boleyn ( talk) 09:19, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

LOL! ... maybe "comprises" Great Britain and "occupies" the north east of Ireland? ;-P ... but seriously, yeah - didn't put much thought into that. "Comprises" is far better. --RA ( talk) 10:45, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Could the capitalisation of the word island, (i.e., Island) be used so that the Island of Ireland and the Island of Great Britain would be listed? You see in North America there are islands known as Long Island, Island of Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, Vancouver Island, Channel Islands of California, etc. ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! ( talk) 02:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe that in this case "island" is a part of the name (either for Great Britian or for Ireland). --RA ( talk) 07:56, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with RA; there is no such place as Island of Ireland or Island of Great Britain. While both are islands by definition, the word island does not form a part of either nation's official name.-- Jeanne Boleyn ( talk) 09:14, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The facts are that there are two islands, Ireland and Great Britain; and there are two sovereign states, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. There is no such state as "the Republic of Ireland" (which is merely a description of the constitutional status of Ireland, that it is a Republic, not a Monarchy). So that part of the text has to stay – you can regard it as a teaser trailer for the rest of the article. -- Red King ( talk) 10:19, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

This is the part that I find frustrating. The Island of Ireland does not exist. The Island of Great Britain does not exist. But the the Isle of Man, Channel Islands, Isle of Wight, Isles of Sicily do exist.

Heck ... the Frisian Islands do exist!

Frustrated Don ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! ( talk) 12:06, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I didn't name them, Don.-- Jeanne Boleyn ( talk) 12:48, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello Jeanne Boleyn.

It is possible that the term British Isles implicitly meant the Island of Great Britain (i.e., Isle of Great Britain), and the Island of Ireland (i.e., Isle of Ireland)? ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! ( talk) 15:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

My suggestion is The British Isles are a group of islands off the northwest coast of continental Europe that include the islands of Great Britain and Ireland, and over six thousand smaller islands.[7] There are two sovereign states located on the islands: the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the republic of Ireland. The absence of capitals for "islands" and "republic" mean that those two words are descriptive, rather than forming part of any name. (And remove the hyphen from six-thousand.) I recall this being discussed and resolved a while back, so I'm guessing that some edit has muddied the waters since. Bazza ( talk) 13:05, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

In these situations, I prefer to avoid the pipe-links & stick with Ireland for the island & Republic of Ireland for the country (as that is the current name of those articles). The world will not come to an end, by avoiding the pipe-links. GoodDay ( talk) 14:45, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. I don't have an issue with the Republic, but am aware that others do. Regardless, the original comment was that the text as it is is confusing and needs to be clearer, which I agree with. How about The British Isles are a group of islands off the northwest coast of continental Europe that include the islands of Great Britain and Ireland, and over six thousand smaller islands. ^[1] There are two sovereign states located on the islands: the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the republic of Ireland. ^[2] which seems to work just as well? Bazza ( talk) 15:01, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Ireland (republic) is another possibility. GoodDay ( talk) 15:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

That's another option, but does not read as well, I think. I've been bold and used my second suggestion. It will need re-linking should Republic of Ireland get renamed. Bazza ( talk) 12:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I've amended it sligtly in place: using capital 'R' (no need to step toe around it), changed UKGBNI to UK, changed the note a little and clarified "Crown Dependencies". --RA ( talk) 13:03, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't "step toeing" around anything. The name of the second sovereign state is "Ireland", and it is a republic, hence the small "r", similar to the small "i" for island in the preceding paragraph. The original poster to this thread asked for the distinction between the identically-named island and sovereign state to be made clearer, and I used the "island" and "republic" to do so. I think your amendment has made this less clear. Bazza ( talk) 10:37, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Apologies. But there is no need for artificiality. A common and well understood means to differentiate the island from the state already exists. This was worked out (painfully) through an ArbCom process. See the second bullet point of the resulting MOS entry. --RA ( talk) 12:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that last link. Nice and clear. Bazza ( talk) 14:05, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The article should begin "The British Isles is a group of islands ..." rather than "The British Isles are a group of islands ...". I would make the change straight off, but any change to the lead should be agreed on the Talk page first. Cheers, Daicaregos ( talk) 13:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

From memory, this has been discussed in the archive. (But there's no harm is discussing it again.)

I would say "are", not only because "Isles" is plural (and so the subject of the sentence is 3rd person plural), but because a "group" of anything is a plural (and in this case 3rd person plural).

Compare with: " The Beatles were are group from Liverpool", not "The Beatles was a group from Liverpool". Or " U2 are a group from Dublin", not "U2 is a group from Dublin." (However: "The Beatles was the name of a group from Liverpool" and "U2 is the name of a group from Dublin.") --RA ( talk) 13:46, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:MOS does not seem to give any definitive guidance. This site suggests that it depends on whether the emphasis is on the "groupedness" of the islands, in which case it takes a singular verb (cf. "The Cabinet is united..."), or on the "separatedness" - ("The Cabinet are divided..."). Or, it could just be that it don't matter either way.  :-) Ghmyrtle ( talk) 14:09, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Before Yoko, The Beatles "was" united? :-)

I think what the site means is that you can play on the collective plural ("group") but check with the "true plural" ("British Isles" or "Beatles") to see if it sound weird. So, talking about the Beatles, it is possible to say that, "Before Yoko, the group was united", and that, "After Yoko, the group were divided". But "the Beatles" at all times remains a plural (i.e. always "The Beatles were", never "the Beatles was"). --RA ( talk) 14:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes. See Collective noun#Metonymic merging of grammatical number, and Synesis (of course!) Ghmyrtle ( talk) 14:59, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

"Metonymic merging of grammatical number" !! - my mind(s) is(/are?) melted! :-P

OK, so is/are the "British Isles" one of these metonymic merging yokes? And which is most appropriate form for the lead sentence? Does it demonstrate a POV to use one form or another? Should we mix it up to demonstrate the "united" and "disunited" perspectives? Should we can add a footnote about these "metonymic" things? --RA ( talk) 15:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

We did discuss this before, but we didn't get into this kind of detail :( First point - the article is written in British English, so there should be no assumption about it taking the singular verb forms as in American English. Secondly, from the perspective of the anti party, the article supposedly refers to a singular political entity and "is" would be the appropriate form. However, everyone else sees it as a geographic term for a disparate group of islands and "are" seems most appropriate. Not saying I watch how IPs edit articles or anything... Wiki-Ed ( talk) 18:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

(1) No good reason to change existing wording. (2) It doesn't matter anyway. Ghmyrtle ( talk) 19:16, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

So its come down to this ...argueing grammar. Holy-Cow! The term archipelago means a group of islands. So the Maltese Islands are an archipelago of three islands off the coast of the Island of Sicily. The Ionian Islands are an archipelago off the coast of Mainland Greece. The Azores Islands are an archipelago off the coast of North Africa.

...so ... the British Isles are an archipelago located blah, blah, blah...

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! ( talk) 01:50, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not certain as to what you're going on about. Also, you're still not indenting properly (which I find to be annoying). GoodDay ( talk) 15:04, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

This article has not touched on the Naming conventions of the Islands within the archipelago itself, in question. All that we have been talking about is that some people do not like the term British Isles.

Now, upon review of the list below,

List of islands by area

one will note that it is common convention in the English language to have an "Island of" prefix, and/or an "Island" suffix in the Name of the geographic entity known as an Island. For example Island of Blah, or Blah Island is the common form of the Names of islands.

( Greek): Nesos

( Latin): Insula

( Italian): Isola

( French): Île

( Spanish): Isla

( Portuguese): Ilha

( English): Island, Isle

( Dutch): Eiland

( German): Insel

Question: Does the island Name of "just" Great Britain, and "just" Ireland make sense?

In other words: What grounds are there for excluding the Names of Island of Great Britain and Island of Ireland from being listed here in the British Isles article?

Addenda:

Please note the Welsh have the word Island (i.e., Ynys) in the Names too,

List of islands of Wales

So if the English and the Welsh can agree on this (i.e., adding Island to the Name) can we not do it here too?

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! ( talk) 03:53, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Some islands are known as "Isle of.." etc. (eg Isle of Wight), others are not (eg Lundy). Great Britain and Ireland are not commonly called "Isle of.." or "Island of..", so that is what WP reports. There is no consistency and WP cannot impose it. AVDL, before you start further debate on these pages, I again suggest that you format your comments appropriately, and recognise that your opinions are extremely fringe ones. (Note to others: we have been here many times before with this disruptive editor.) Ghmyrtle ( talk) 06:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

There are lots of examples of island which do not have the word island in their title. North Uist, South Uist, Eigg, Islay..... So to answer your question What grounds are there for excluding the Names of.... There is not a precedent for ALWAYS having the word island or isle associated with the name of an island. Hope this answers your question. Bjmullan ( talk) 07:30, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Now this is most interesting ... the Lordship of the Isles

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=%22Lordship+of+the+Isles%22+&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

you mentioned Islay it was apart of this!

http://lordshipoftheisles.webs.com/

The Scottish Gaelic word Eilean, and the Irish Gaelic word Oileán mean the English word Island. I'll bet my bottom-dollar that the -ay ending of Islay is some form of Old Norse for the English word of Island! (Note: the Islands of Norway show a pattern of an -øya ending ... this is definitely shaping up here!).

BINGO!!! Here we are. The Norse-Gaels are believed to have migrated from the Islands of Northern Scotland to the Faroe Islands. The List of islands of the Faroe Islands and the Regions of the Faroe Islands show clearly that Sandoy in the Faroe Islands, and Sanday in the Orkney Islands, are both Sand Island. So Lundey, in the Old Norse language (i.e., Lundoy, or Lunday) translates to Lund Island (i.e., Puffin Island) in the English language.

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! ( talk) 10:55, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any proposal for a change to the article? -- Snowded ^TALK 12:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes ... Island of Great Britain and Island of Ireland be listed not just Great Britain, and just Ireland. ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! ( talk) 13:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Better to say "The British Isles are a group of islands off the northwest coast of continental Europe that includes Great Britain and Ireland, and over six thousand smaller islands. There is no need to two "islands" in the same sentence. All the stuff above Armchair is not really relevant to that proposal and would you please learn to format you comments, I've lost count of how many times multiple editors have asked you to follow convention. -- Snowded ^TALK 13:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Island of Great Britain and Island of Ireland? I fail to see the purpose of this request. GoodDay ( talk) 14:59, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Especially seeing as neither place exists by those names. I think this discussion is rather pointless and suggest that we close it.-- Jeanne Boleyn ( talk) 15:55, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello Jeanne Boleyn.

Is it Prince Edward, or Prince Edward Island? In all of the Islands of the Canadian Arctic archipelago the word Island is explicitly indicated. Why not indicate it here for the Island of Great Britain, and the Island of Ireland were the whole convension started? ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! ( talk) 16:19, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Because Great Britain and Ireland do not have Island as part of their official name, whereas the others do. I really think to prolong this discussion is pointless because what you propose is OR and will not be implemented on either article.-- Jeanne Boleyn ( talk) 16:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello Jeanne Boleyn.

If the official Names are "just" Great Britain, and "just" Ireland where did the convension of adding Island into the Name come from? Why is it done if the original Home Islands did not do it? How do we really know the Names are not Island of Great Britain, and Island of Ireland? ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! ( talk) 16:45, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

if no other editors engage with this then I think its over ArmChair -- Snowded ^TALK 17:25, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

There is plenty of evidence that Britain and Ireland is an alternative name for what some (invariably less educated, nationalistic) British people still term the "British Isles" - over 551,000 results on this images search clearly equate "Britain and Ireland" with what those people call the "British Isles". Just because this reality does not fit the politics of people who want to equate Britain and the UK does not make it any less of an alternative name so to censor it and contend that "United Kingdom and Ireland" is the alternative name is just politically contrived. In fact, there is only a mere 33,500 image results which equate the "United Kingdom and Ireland" with the "British Isles". So, whose agenda is being met by this attempt to equate Britain and the UK and deny the much greater prevalence of the term "Britain and Ireland" for the "British Isles" when it comes to the "alternative names" section of this article? Britain is the shortened form of Great Britain and is the name of the island between Ireland and France. This is a basic fact. When the British conquered Ireland they invented a new state which they named the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland". "And" being the giveaway word. It's a very recent trend to try and say a part of Ireland is now a part of "Britain". Britain and the UK is not, and never was, synonymous. Even in UK law in 2010 Britain and the UK are not equated: check the name of the state once again. Equating both is politically-motivated revisionist ahistorical nonsense. 86.44.32.114 ( talk) 02:08, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Why would British people be less educated if they use the term British Isles? Perhaps, it would in fact show they knew their history? The very problem is the term Britain and Ireland equates the islands and the countries. The term is ambiguous and can be misleading. It can refer to either the two islands commonly called Britain and Ireland or the two countries commonly called Britain and Ireland. It implies the islands commonly called Britain and Ireland are the same as the countries commonly called Britain and Ireland. In actuality the islands of Great Britain and Ireland and the countries of the United Kingdom and Ireland are two different things, consisting of different territory. The term Britain and Ireland can also be politically charged, implying Northern Ireland is or should be a part of the Republic of Ireland. There is no mistaking what United Kingdom and Ireland refers to, nor can it imply anything, be politically charged or mislead readers, hence it is the term which gained consensus on this talk page after a lengthy discussion by multiple users. United Kingdom and Ireland is as official, clear, and neutral as it gets. Is it, as your comment appears suggest, that you are dismissive of United Kingdom in favour of Britain because you don't believe Northern Ireland is or should be a part of the United Kingdom? 88.106.92.111 ( talk) 04:26, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment: 1. It would imply that they "know" a certain take on their history, a very jingoistic British take on it which has claimed rule over Ireland and the Irish people for centuries. To try to extricate the political reality of British misrule over the Irish from the true politics behind this term is a futile exercise in obscurantism. 2. You are talking about what you view as imprecise language: "The term (Britain and Ireland) is ambiguous and can be misleading." This, even if it were true (and it's not) is totally irrelevant. The fact is that the term "Britain and Ireland" exists as a very, very common alternative to the term "British Isles". You clearly are unhappy about it. But that does not give you or anybody the right to remove it from this article and replace it with what you view as a precise term "United Kingdom and Ireland". The irony that your favoured term is clearly oblivious to the fact that there are parts of the UK which are incontrovertibly a part of Ireland does not bode well for your definition of "precise" terminology. Given this reality, perhaps it's not really precision that you're seeking. 3. If you really, really believe that the use of the term "UK" does not imply anything (like a British claim to a part of Ireland, like British subjugation of the Irish people from 1800 on ....)and is a harmless British term hanging over Ireland then I can say without fear of contradiction that you have proven my point about people who use the term "British Isles": they have an undereducated, nationalistic view of British history and British colonial rule in Ireland. 86.44.32.114 ( talk) 19:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

The ambiguity over the term "Britain and Ireland", and the relative brevity of the phrase, are precisely what make it a popular choice of term for those, such as publishers covering both states, who see no advantage in highlighting issues of political control and sovereignty or using a longer term when a shorter one fits better. The term "United Kingdom and Ireland" draws attention specifically to the issue of political control, by using the term UK, and is therefore only used in a political context. Ghmyrtle ( talk) 10:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

British Isles is a geographical term taught in many schools around the world, however, admittedly outside of Ireland. Obviously if a person learns the term in school, and later uses it, he or she is not displaying ignorance. I try not to use it in a political context, but I admit I use it in a geographical sense, and old habits die hard.-- Jeanne Boleyn ( talk) 13:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

@ Jeanne (simply because I don't want to get involved in the debate): I'm from Ireland Jeanne, and we actually did learn the term British Isles for these islands. In fact, I only became aware of the dispute through Wikipedia several years ago, and since then I have done a lot of reading on the topic (not research, just trawling through old articles, commentaries, letters to the editor sort of thing). Personally, I think people get way to charged up over such trivial things. It's only words after all. The English language has a history of changing the meaning of words, or changing words to suit a meaning. -- MacTire02 ( talk) 13:46, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Are you for real with this: "I think people get way to charged up over such trivial things. It's only words after all." Spare us the right-on sounding flippancy. Are you seriously contending that words and terms do not hold immense power, are not used to claim, control, dehumanise, deny, deprive human beings and entire peoples of pride, self-esteem and other noble values?

If you don't like what I say, why read it? I directed it at Jeanne, not at anyone else. But to be honest I was being serious. Words are words. They are not alive. They do not hold any magical powers. The problem lies with the people who use, or abuse them. You even said it yourself - "...words and terms...are not used[sic] to claim, control, dehumanise..." Note the use of the word "used". Who uses them? People do. The words do not use themselves. So I reiterate, they are only words. -- MacTire02 ( talk) 21:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I always heard the term and often used it when I lived in Ireland. I was frankly surprised when I came here two years ago and saw the furore here on the talk page. I have been insulted on this page as well by a few Irish IPs, despite the fact that my father was the son of Irish immigrants!-- Jeanne Boleyn ( talk) 13:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Why you'd expect not to be insulted simply because your Daddy "was the son of Irish immigrants" is beyond me. Truly it is. 86.44.32.114 ( talk) 19:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

And why should I be insulted? I am at Wikipedia mainly as a content editor, not as a combatant in a war over words.-- Jeanne Boleyn ( talk) 06:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

You're missing the point: you asserted that, on the basis of your father being the son of Irish immigrants, you should not be insulted. Why do you think such a basis would give you a right not to be insulted? There are many things that would give somebody a right not to be insulted. That you think where your Daddy allegedly came from should be one of them sounds bizarre. 86.44.43.208 ( talk) 14:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, so it sounds bizarre. It's not the first time that accusation has been levelled against me. So big deal. What is the intense probe into the meaning of my casual comment adding to this wearisome, monotonous debate?-- Jeanne Boleyn ( talk) 14:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I would do my best to ignore them if I were you, to the best of my ability. If people resort to insulting each other then that's simply not an academic debate on the topic, and reflects their own level of ignorance, arrogance, and impatience. We should all strive to make ourselves better in whatever way we can - even if that means listening to the opinions of those we don't agree with. It's only through this method can we really be sure about our own convictions, as well as opening our eyes to how others see the world. There is, scientifically speaking, only one world, but there are almost 7 billion ways of looking at it. Are we really sure we have the right one? -- MacTire02 ( talk) 14:02, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

How does your specious claim "it's only words" add anything to serious academic debate on this topic? 86.44.32.114 ( talk) 19:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Simply put, I wasn't adding anything to the debate. I already said so. I was speaking to Jeanne. -- MacTire02 ( talk) 21:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Your intelligent, mature, and unbiased point of view should be adopted by all the editors here.-- Jeanne Boleyn ( talk) 14:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

To 86.44.32.114. Firstly, I don't know how you got it into your head the idea that I'm promoting the term British Isles, when it's the term United Kingdom and Ireland I was promoting, perhaps it's due to your hang-up over the term British Isles? It's obvious now what this discussion is pushing at, that Northern Ireland is not or should not be a part of the United Kingdom. You say the British claim a part of Ireland. No, they hold sovereignty over a part of Ireland. There is a difference. Learn the difference before you make such a comment. And what's with all the anti-British sentiment spewing out in your comments about the oh so bad British subjugating the Irish? The fact is Northern Ireland is a part of the United Kingdom, not Ireland, and the country is officially called the United Kingdom, not Britain, for the very reason that it encompasses more than just the island of Great Britain, despite your views on the matter. I know some users related to Irish articles on here find it hard to accept that Northern Ireland is a part of the United Kingdom, hence the Britain pushing, but they are just going to have to live with the fact that it is. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a forum for Irish editors to write a dream world of Irish nationalism. Get with the real world and quit your whining and self pity over the supposed past deeds of the British. 88.106.122.202 ( talk) 04:13, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

1. You are digressing you are claiming that "United Kingdom and Ireland" is a more precise alternative name than "Britain and Ireland" and the latter has accordingly been removed. This very subjective decision has no basis in wikipedia policy. What is at stake is that "Britain and Ireland" is a much more common alternative name for this "British Isles" misnomer than the "UK and Ireland" term which you want to use. Just because you claim your term is more precise does not give you the right to remove "Britain and Ireland". That is sheer obscurantism, an attempt to deny realities which you do not approve of. What you perceive as being "precise" should not be determining the alternative terms in this article. There is no "Britain pushing" other than the fact that the term "Britain and Ireland" a a far, far more common alternative name for "British Isles" than your chosen, politically-motivated "UK and Ireland" term. Britain has been the name of the island between Ireland and France for a long time, believe it or not. "Britain and Ireland" has been used in the English language by writers as far back as Francis Bacon. It is the "United Kingdom" which is clearly, and obviously, a political creation of recent times. And you are trying to push it over a term which is much more common and of much longer vintage: "Britain and Ireland". Why? You, for reasons best known to yourself, seem intent upon equating Britain with the UK - and that's just an ahistorical and contrived politically-motivated effort. 2. As for your "sovereignty" stuff, the British state claimed sovereignty over all of Ireland for centuries. The British, as has been their collective culture for many centuries, have been claiming all sorts of things over all sorts of natives on this planet. It doesn't really matter how you people dress up your occupation: the British are an illegitimate force when they claim a right to rule any place beyond Britain. Simple as. 3. Contrary to your assertion, Northern Ireland is, patently, currently part of the so-called UK, just as all of Ireland was until December 1922. It does not make British rule in Ireland any more legitimate than it was in 1603, despite your evident wishes. It simply acknowledges that the British have a greater capacity to inflict violence upon the Irish people. In the big scheme of Irish history, British rule is a blip and has been on the wane for over a century. It's nothing but a temporary little arrangement no matter how desperately some people try to claim Ireland as one of their "British Isles". You'd want to be seriously historically blinkered to think this modern notion known as the UK will be here in 50 years, never mind in a century. 86.44.43.208 ( talk) 14:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

It would make things less annoying if the 2 anons would create accounts. GoodDay ( talk) 15:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

They prefer to rant and pontificate behind the bogus shield of an IP.-- Jeanne Boleyn ( talk) 15:29, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

You mean you don't know who they are - well, we all know who 44 is anyway. MidnightBlue (Talk) 18:20, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

If you think someone is a sock come out and say it if not just keep it to yourself. Bjmullan ( talk) 18:31, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

He doesn't seem to operate as a sock - just forgets to log in a lot of the time. MidnightBlue (Talk) 18:50, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Why have scholarly references in the intro to the article been replaced with "for example"s from Yahoo and hobby websites? The scholarly references should be replaced. Howsoonhathtime ( talk) 16:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I have been bold, and the scholarly references are back. They make the Yahoo reference look a bit silly, but it's still there. Wotapalaver ( talk) 00:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you can't just negate the archived discussion that went on above, and the new discussion that's emerging. I've reverted your bold change. LevenBoy ( talk) 11:09, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

What discussion? There were lots of people insulting each other and pushing for deletion of text that is supported by scholarly references simply because they don't like it. The substitute text and references are considerably weaker and less reliable than the previous, thus worsening the article. The text and scholarly references need to be replaced. Wotapalaver ( talk) 01:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we should check what these so-called "scholarly" sources actually say. The first reference (British Culture of the Postwar) gives us a page number and, indeed, the (late) author of that chapter does actually use the very same words we use here. The second reference (The Reformation in Britain and Ireland) does not give us a page reference - the chapter (2) it refers to mentions "British Isles" very frequently, but covering the Reformation, as it does, it stops a few centuries short of analysing modern usage. So we have, in fact, a single broad-brush source asserting a very general concept with no in-depth analysis or supporting references. Given the controversy I would suggest that this is not enough, hence the revised wording we've adopted which recognises different approaches without asserting a scale. Wiki-Ed ( talk) 09:54, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

You may have unintentionally coloured your description of the 2nd reference in an unjustly negative way. The page number is 17. It's available on Google Books. At the start of Chapter Two, it states

At the outset, it should be stated that while the expression "The British Isles" is evidently still commonly employed, its intermittent use throughout this work is only in the geographical sense, in so far as that is acceptable. Since the early twentieth century, that nomenclature has been regarded by some as increasingly less usable. It has been perceived as cloaking the idea of a 'greater England', or an extended south-eastern English imperium, under a common Crown from 1603 onwards.

And later on the same page states

Nowadays, however, 'Britain and Ireland' is the more favoured expression, though there are problems with that too. For the same of convenience and without any coded undertones I have, however, opted simply to use both expressions interchangeably. There is no consensus on the matter, inevitably.

But nevertheless, I am not making a case for change, I support the current text. -- HighKing ( talk) 11:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

So much for my Google word search. Good that we know what it says. Wiki-Ed ( talk) 12:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

<>If Wiki-Ed had read the whole page he would have seen that the first deleted reference says "Many of the Irish dislike the 'British' in 'British Isles...." before going on to say "In response to these difficulties, 'Britain and Ireland' is becoming a preferred usage.....". So, one reference says that "Britain and Ireland is becoming a preferred usage", and the second reference says "Britain and Ireland is the more favoured expression". Can someone remind me again why these references and the text which said "Although still used as a geographic term, the controversy means that alternative terms such as "Britain and Ireland" are increasingly preferred" has been deleted, other than the common reason on this page, which is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The old text was clear, short, and was fully supported by scholarly references. The new text is has clearly inferior references, and contains the weasel words "sometimes used". I'm sure lots of terms are "sometimes used" and that references of equal quality can be found to demonstrate such. The old text needs to be restored. Wotapalaver ( talk) 17:49, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

If you can provide lots of sources which confirm that there is an overwhelming trend, throughout the geographic area in question, to move from "British Isles" to "Britain and Ireland" then we might be able to say something more specific than "sometimes used". As it is, two sources are not enough for such a generalised assertion, particularly when, as you've kindly pointed out, one of them seems to be referring only to Irish people (a minority in the population of said area) who dislike the term. Wiki-Ed ( talk) 18:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The previous text did not say there was an "overwhelming trend", so that strawman can be ignored. It said that "Britain and Ireland" was increasingly preferred and provided serious scholarly reference that said pretty much exactly that. If Wiki-Ed, or anyone, can provide any contradicting references then there's room for discussion. Otherwise the text and the references must be restored. Wotapalaver ( talk) 07:22, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

And you don't think that "increasingly preferred" is weasel wording? It is not a case of us needing to provide references refuting those words; it is for you to find references that support changing the text to something definite. On the basis that a great many "scholarly" sources already use "British Isles", including one of the two cited here, you need to provide quite a lot of counter-evidence, bearing in mind the various arguments above. If, as you believe, the term is "increasingly preferred" then it shouldn't be too difficult. Right? Wiki-Ed ( talk) 10:19, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

"Increasingly preferred" is not weasel wording because it's an accurate representation of the scholarly references, which say that Britain and Ireland "is becoming a preferred usage" and that Britain and Ireland is "the more favoured expression" and also because it's not weasel, unlike "some people say" or "sometimes used". We need to restore text that was stable in the article for a very long time, which accurately reflects reputable scholarly references, and which was recently deleted on essentially spurious grounds. And yes, if you don't believe that the references which I am insisting should be restored are balanced, you do need to provide references that disagree, otherwise the references that say Britain and Ireland "is becoming a preferred usage" and that it's "the more favoured expression" are reputable, verifiable, and will go back in the article along with the text that summarised them. Wotapalaver ( talk) 23:32, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you're getting this: Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. [3] You have two sources, both of which devote nothing but a single line to this assertion; there is no referencing, no analysis, and one of them goes on to use the opposite term in preference to the one that is supposedly "more favoured". Wikipedia does not give undue weight to minority view points and there is a good case for removing this section altogether. Against this the vast majority of sources use "British Isles" or some other term, including "UK and Ireland" which is much more accurate than "Britain and Ireland" - as per the discussion above. If you need a sample of references check the bibliography of the article. Wiki-Ed ( talk) 10:44, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I get it quite well. These references say what they say, and they are more accurate and serious than references to the Yahoo UK & Ireland home page, or to the GenUK home page, which is a hobbby website. Should we include all the hobby websites we can find as being serious reputable sources? Should we? I think not. The text that was previously there, and the references, need to be restored. Wotapalaver ( talk) 13:20, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikied - aren't you confusing B&I v (UK&I + BI). Agree that there is a lot of citation for British Isles, but if we look at new usage then B+I is a more common geographical term than UK and Ireland which is not often seen. -- Snowded ^TALK 12:55, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Well now, that's the issue really. Are authors using "Britain and Ireland" as an equivalent geographic term or a vague political term? Perhaps both? The sources we have cited for this section don't examine the issue in detail (cf Norman Davies book on the whole subject) and so it seems more like lazy penmanship; We cannot determine what they mean, such is the brevity of their coverage. As such I don't think they are any more reliable as sources than those being disaparaged by Wotapalaver... Which, let's be honest, says it all. Wiki-Ed ( talk) 14:11, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

<>Plus, apart from the previously referenced recommendations from style guides, I believe this one is new. "British Isles A geographical term taken to mean Great Britain, Ireland and some or all of the adjacent islands such as Orkney, Shetland and the Isle of Man. The phrase is best avoided, given its (understandable) unpopularity in the Irish Republic. The plate in the National Geographic Atlas of the World once titled British Isles now reads Britain and Ireland". That's from the Guardian. Wotapalaver ( talk) 13:22, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

It's opinion from the Guardian and it's not worth the paper it's printed on. MidnightBlue (Talk) 13:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

The Guardian style guide has been held to be a reliable source Midnight. Is this just a general dislike of the Guardian or something else? -- Snowded ^TALK 13:37, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

The phrase "the phrase is best avoided" is merely the opinion of the style guide writer. Who knows what his political leanings are, but it seems from his "given its (understandable) unppopularity in the Irish Republic" he's likely to be pro-Irish nationalist. I've nothing much against the Guardian but who are they to foist usage rules on the rest of us. MidnightBlue (Talk) 13:43, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree that it is no surprise the style guide of a newspaper like the Guardian asserts that its writers should avoid terms which would offend its readers. However, this says nothing about a changing trend. Wiki-Ed ( talk) 14:11, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

"a newspaper like the Guardian"... So, apparently there are editors on here who prefer references from hobby websites to either scholarly books or to national British newspapers. Well, that's interesting, but irrelevant. Wikipedia policy has a different view and takes national newspapers and scholarly texts pretty seriously. In any case the previous text accurately represented scholarly references, which references are supported by the recently changed content of a style guide in a national British newspaper. The case is closed. Saying, as the article did for a long period of time, that Britain and Ireland is increasingly preferred is strongly supported by references and not contradicted by anything other than some editors preconceptions. The previous text, and the scholarly references, must be restored. Wotapalaver ( talk) 17:45, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

When you've made your case and found a preponderance of sources which actually address the topic (unlike the newspaper) then you can change it. Until then we stick with the consensus agreed above. Wiki-Ed ( talk) 19:43, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

What is the world and WP coming too? Full of Guardian reading republicans who want to foist their ideas on the world. I think the Daily Mail should start a campaign against them. I think the Britain and Ireland makes sense... Bjmullan ( talk) 18:08, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

You think "Britain and Ireland" makes sense? Righty-oh. Wiki-Ed ( talk) 19:43, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

<>The case is made beyond doubt. No contradictory source has been suggested that suggests any problem with restoring the previous long-stable text, which is fully in line with scholarly reference and now also with a style guide from a national British daily, all of which specifically address usage of the term "British Isles". All of these clearly indicate that "Britain and Ireland" is increasingly preferred instead of "British Isles", and the reason is clearly stated to be the problems with the term "British Isles". This doesn't mean that there's any case, or attempted case, to rename the article. None of the references assert that "British Isles" isn't (still) the common name. Wotapalaver ( talk) 23:23, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Considering that the text was changed from "increasingly used" to the current format of "now sometimes used" because of an objection over a reference (by an account that suspiciously appears to have been created specifically for this single edit), and that the change was reverted (OK) and re-reverted (in breach of the 1RR rules), and given that the discussion above indicates that there is no consensus for the change, and it has been revealed that a reference has been found to support "increasingly used", the article should revert to the previous text with the new reference. Can an admin give an opinion on whether a revert to the original text would be OK under the 1RR ruling please? -- HighKing ( talk) 00:38, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't have time to go through the diffs, however to say something can never be re-reverted or altered because it was editing as such at some point in the past is probably stretching 1RR to the extreme. However, 1RR aside, whatever is agreed upon with a consensus is fine. If the consensus is for an edit, and it is a good and reasonable consensus, and hasn't been the subject of a back and forth edit war over the last few days, then I can't see anyone blocking anyone for a 1RR. Canterbury Tail talk 01:04, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

It's clear that there was and is no consensus for the edit on 27 April, judging from the subsequent debate and comments here, nor was a test for consensus applied. It's also highly suspicious that the edit was made by an account that appears to have been created specifically for that edit alone. That, by itself, should have raised flags (and the undo button) sooner. Also, looking at the edit history of the article, the 1RR rule was blatently ignored to the point of CT's notice below. The clarification given by CT above indicates that my revert will not breach the 1RR rules, therefore I'll revert to the previous stable version and add the newer references which meet the claim which was disputed. I also believe though, that there is room for changing the current text to tweak what is being said, rather than an edit designed to remove the sentiment altogether. -- HighKing ( talk) 12:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The problem here is that neutrality trumps Verifiability. We have millions of sources saying "the sky is blue". It's not controversial. We have a few sources saying the "sky is red". Well, yes, sometimes it is, but not that often and the sources don't cover the issue in the terms we are using them (i.e. proportions of red vs blue). The fact that we can cite sources - misleadingly - against a claim does not mean it should be mentioned as per the policy on undue weight. In addition the weaselly phrase "increasingly preferred" is plagiarising one of the sources. If we come up with another term we end up using weasel words ourselves. Wikipedia asserts facts and facts about opinions, but not opinions as facts. [4] The solution might be to qualify that the phrase is the opinion of a certain author by placing it in inverted commas. Of course then we come back to the point about undue weight since it is only one author expressing this particular view. The proposed reversion of the text would be in violation of a number of WP policies. The current text is not much better, but it is a little clearer that it is about a minority POV. Wiki-Ed ( talk) 09:54, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here and "the sky is blue" is a very poor example. It is very clear that the majority of sources will use British Isles and the proposal is not to remove those. There are now sources that establish continued use is controversial and one national newspaper (a reliable source) has advised the use of Britain and Ireland. The form of words needs to be agreed, but the Guardian is more than authoritative enough. We can't say that British Isles is no longer used of course. -- Snowded ^TALK 11:57, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The fact the term is used is not controversial. The fact that some people prefer alternatives is not controversial. The opinion that a particular alternative is "increasingly preferred" is controversial. Regardless of whether you like my analogy or not, Wikipedia policies are quite clear on the issues here. The reliability/authority of the sources is not in question; their neutrality (in terms of undue weighting) is. The use and proposed use of weasel words is always a good indicator. Wiki-Ed ( talk) 12:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Please explain how the Guardian style guide is not a neutral source. -- Snowded ^TALK 12:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point. No source is neutral. Neutrality on Wikipedia means proportionately representing reliably sourced viewpoints. The cited sources do not provide sufficient weight to make the case they are being used to argue - an unquantified assertion about changing language usage. Wiki-Ed ( talk) 14:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

It speaks for itself that the Guardian style guide is not a neutral souce: "The phrase [British Isles] is best avoided, given its (understandable) unpopularity in the Irish Republic". Such a tone of phrase would not be tolerated in Wikipedia precisely because it would be viewed as POV. MidnightBlue (Talk) 17:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

<>Wikipedia policy on reputable sources give the Guardian somewhat more rights than a mere WP editor. The Guardian's point of view has significant weight. It's a reputable and verifiable source. A WP editor's point of view has little or no weight and does NOT count as reputable or verifiable. Also, it's the Guardian and the scholarly sources, all of which say the same uncontradicted thing, and the previously stable text reflected the references accurately and neutrally. Reading through the "discussion" by which the previously stable text was removed is a depressing example of how WP can go wrong. The previous text, and the scholarly references with the addition of the Guardian, need to be restored. Wotapalaver ( talk) 11:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

So in your opinion the "Guardian's point of view has significant weight". Wikipedia might agree that it is a reliable source, but it doesn't outweigh all the other sources using different terminology. Moreover, it doesn't even support what you're arguing: The phrase is best avoided, given its (understandable) unpopularity in the Irish Republic. The plate in the National Geographic Atlas of the World once titled British Isles now reads Britain and Ireland. You'll note that it doesn't say "Britain and Ireland" is "increasingly preferred", it doesn't even talk about trends at all. To say that it does so is synthesis - a form of original research. Talking of which, I just did some myself: a search of the Guardian website returned more results for "British Isles" (1336) than "Britain and Ireland" (999); so much for "uncontradicted".

Regardless of the putative reliability of the three sources the article must reflect the balanced view of the majority of sources. Wiki-Ed ( talk) 12:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The Guardian ref does not support the claim that B&I is increasingly preferred, but the quote by HK near the top of the discussion does. (Well, in fact not "increasingly preferred", just "preferred".)

The article should reflect the balanced view of the majority of sources, but not all sources speak to this matter. Looking at sources that don't touch on it isn't helpful. --RA ( talk) 13:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. However, if we discount the Guardian and look at the other two sources (British Culture of the Postwar and The Reformation in Britain and Ireland) we can see that neither of them address the topic in detail either. The second source - quoted above by Highking -uses the term "more favoured" (more weasel words like "increasingly preferred" - plagiarised from the first source). If they provided in-depth analysis of changing patterns of usage then they might have some weight, but as it is we have two one-line throw-away comments in two books about different subjects. I would argue that these sources do not "speak to this matter" either and we are assigning undue weight if we use them to this effect. We either avoid them altogether or make it clear we are quoting the authors' opinions; we do not showcase those opinions as accepted fact - as per the WP policy formulation I referred to above [5]. Wiki-Ed ( talk) 15:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about "plagiarising" two words. In any event, it is attributed, no? So it is (by definition) not plagiarism. Nor would I worry about other authors using weasel words - that is a concern that hangs over our writing, not theirs. They have already passed their editorial guidelines.

I think you are quite right how to treat sources though. We should not treat every statement as fact but should present them fairly and openly. The sources above would support a statement such as, "Although still used as a geographic term by some, alternative terms such as 'Britain and Ireland' are said to be increasingly preferred as as a consequence of the controversy." --RA ( talk) 15:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

My concern is not over their writing; it is about our writing. How would we express the same thing in our writing without using weasel words (which, with respect, is what you've done!)? Wikipedia's editorial policies tell us we should not use certain phrases to disguise coverage of minority opinions. It would be accurate to say that Some authors, such as Siobhan Kilfeather, believe that alternative terms such as 'Britain and Ireland' are "increasingly preferred" as a consequence of the controversy, but it is not accurate to extract more and synthesise a sentence that tells us the term is an increasingly preferred alternative. Wiki-Ed ( talk) 17:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The sources support the statement that Britain and Ireland is increasingly favoured over British Isles. Unless you have a reference to support a claim that the the terms is decreasingly favoured (or that it's favour has stayed the same over time), I don't see the point in continuting this discussion.

Also, having given more time to reading the Guardian style entry, it looks fine too. --RA ( talk) 18:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

You're asking me to prove the negative. We have two source asserting alternatives are preferred against a huge range of other sources which continue to use the original form (including one of the two cited here...). The sources may provide weasel-worded support for the claim, but in the face of all those other sources (start with the bibliography if you wish) they simply do not carry enough weight to merit inclusion in this way. Wiki-Ed ( talk) 21:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not asking you to prove a negative. We have sources that assert support for the statement that use of Britain and Ireland is increasingly preferred vis-a-vis British Isles. You dispute these sources. I'm asking you to provide sources that show either:

• Use of Britain and Ireland is decreasingly preferred vis-a-vis British Isles
• Use of Britain and Ireland is remaining stable in preference vis-a-vis British Isles

If you cannot provide sources that contradict the ones we have then we will assume that the ones we have are correct. --RA ( talk) 21:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

You're asking me to prove that a minority opinion isn't a minority opinion by finding sources which say it isn't, despite only have two tenuous sources for your own case. If there were sources directly contradicting the opinion it would (a) acknowledge the existence of the theory and (b) give credence to the arguments expressed here - and only here on Wikipedia - that there is significant debate on this issue. Oddly - or not - it's rather difficult to find sources which do exactly what you specify. However, one reliable source I have which covers the historiography of the term thoroughly is Norman Davies tome on "The Isles, a History", which (the title is a clue) does not recognise "Britain and Ireland" as an "increasingly preferred" term, in fact it isn't even mentioned (although he does discuss several other alternatives). You know full well that it's possible to find sources to say anything (Flat Earth etc); this is not about verifiability, it is about neutral weighting. I've suggested a compromise that would communicate the point without misrepresenting it - perhaps it would be better to discuss that or the text that User:Snowded has just inserted? [6] Wiki-Ed ( talk) 23:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Having close the previous discussion, I endorse your assessment of the situation Wotapalaver. This discussion has a very different colour, 'for example' references are inferior and the quotations provided by HighKing are bang on. I support a revert to either yours or Howsoonhathtime's version from the 10th of May. I also suggest that HK's quote be put into the references so that it can be seen by future editors. --RA ( talk) 12:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I support the statement made above by RA fully. Bjmullan ( talk) 13:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I oppose the use of the term Britain and Ireland as an alternative to the British Isles. The British Isles is a geographic term, if there is to be an alternative geographic term listed here at Wikipedia, it should be one that actually refers to geographic entities i.e., the Isles themselves ... Great Britain and Ireland (not Britain and Ireland). ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! ( talk) 16:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I oppose the move back and support the current position. It is a matter of fact - the alternative is sometimes used. As WikiEd says, we have no hard information about how usage may be changing, just opinions. MidnightBlue (Talk) 16:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

MBM - you reverted the article and in breach of the 1RR rule set by CT below. -- HighKing ( talk) 17:28, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Not so. Your edit was not a revert. It was an out-of-process modification that was still under discussion. As such you should not have made that edit. MidnightBlue (Talk) 17:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Your interpretation is deliberately obtuse as my edit summary clearly marks it as a revert, and the text used is clearly from the previous version of text. -- HighKing ( talk) 17:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Why did you make the edit when the matter was still under discussion? MidnightBlue (Talk) 17:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I also support using references, as per policy and sentiments expressed by RA above. -- HighKing ( talk) 17:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted MBM. (Struck: Self reverted, what is the restriction on this page?) The text is adequately cited. If referenced statements are in dispute, those who dispute them should concentrate on getting finding references to support their position. --RA ( talk) 18:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I have changed it back to the term United Kingdom and Ireland, as previously agreed. This article was peaceful ... for a little while... before this Philibuster ... Oi. ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! ( talk) 18:22, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Note in Honesty:

I edited the Britain and Ireland phrase out, and changed it back to the previously agreed United Kingdom and Ireland. I pressed Edit ... and SHAZAM! the United Kingdom and Ireland term is back ... but the Edit History does not show my edit (I don't want any 1-RR accusations coming my way. Oi.) ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! ( talk) 18:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)]

It's not new, but rather surprising that it continues on this page. Once more we have more editors rowing in with "I oppose" and "I prefer", but no references. Conversely, there are references which state that Britain and Ireland is increasingly preferred. These are scholarly reputable verifiable references, which the previously long stable text summarized well and fairly. The text that was previously long stable, and the references, need to be restored. Wotapalaver ( talk) 19:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The "references" are merely the opinions of the authors. They have provided no analysis to back up their assertions and one of the references is riddled with weasel words such as "some". Of course it's relatively easy to find references such as these, given the resentment of all things British displayed by a voiciferous minority. It would be much harder to find opposing references since in the world at large there is no controversy about the matter. For the most part, in fact I would go as far as to say in total, the so-called controversy has been manufactured by Wikipedia editors. MidnightBlue (Talk) 22:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Exactly my point... but expressed more concisely :) Wiki-Ed ( talk) 23:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Just a reminder to everyone that the article is still under a 1RR editing restriction, with people violating it liable to be blocked temporarily and their warring edit reverted. I'm not seeing it clearly being violated, but just everyone be careful. Canterbury Tail talk 21:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

See here. -- HighKing ( talk) 17:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

That's not a 1RR violation. Prior to that edit today, MBM had not edited the page since 10 May. --RA ( talk) 18:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

it's not to do with wether or not MBM had edited, more to do with the general flow of edits. However ultimately what happened was HighKing performed an edit, MBM reverted. No breach. RA then reverted, which was a breach, but realised the error and went back. Technically a 1RR violation, but RA self-reverted when he realised the issue. Canterbury Tail talk 18:20, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

( edit conflict) CT, can you clarify what the editing restriction on this page is? The edit notice is muddled up. First, it says it 1RR. Then it says, "Do not revert or undo another editor's revert." (Which is slightly different.) Then it says, follow the BRD. (Which is slightly different again.)

For example, I reverted MBM's edit above. Under 1RR that would be fine (i.e. one revert per 24hrs) but under the other two it would be not. --RA ( talk) 18:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

To be clear, I don't mind either way (and "Do not revert or undo another editor's revert" within 24hrs) is probably best as it stops tag teaming. --RA ( talk) 18:28, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter who does the reverting, the 1RR isn't about exclusively any particular editors edits, it's the edits in general. If someone does an edit, someone else reverts, if a third editor then reverts that revert that's a breach of the 1RR. Obviously within reasonable time constraints. Calling MBM's revert of HKs revert a breach is taking it a bit far. Canterbury Tail talk 19:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Well let's all just abandon discussion here. It counts for nothing. Both HK and RA have taken it upon themselves to impose their preferred version while discussion continues (RA's self revert acknowledged, but for the wrong reasons). If that's not provocative I don't know what is! MidnightBlue (Talk) 18:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Should we just lock the article and edit by consensus request only? Canterbury Tail talk 19:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think we should - but you need to do it unilaterally otherwise we'll have a never ending discussion about it. It's just out of order for editors to make changes as they have done today while a discussion is in full flow. I suggest yoou try a full protection for a while. MidnightBlue (Talk) 19:11, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind so much, but WikiEd's latest suggestion was possibly heading towards a compromise. MidnightBlue (Talk) 19:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

This discussion all predisposes that the edit by User:Hrotovice had consensus and was agreed. The subsequent edit war, and the subsequent discussion here, clearly shows it did not have consensus. Also, the original objection was based on references, and references have now been shown to uphold the original text. My revert (and it was a revert) placed the text back to the original text, and I also added in the newer references. It is most unusual that the interpretation is that MBM's revert was OK. Clearly this is ignoring the facts. I asked the question of CT earlier about performing the revert and was told it was OK. If the original edit had consensus, and if references could not be found, I would fully understand and support the edit. This isn't the case. -- HighKing ( talk) 19:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

No need to lock it. Aside from this fuss about Britain and Ireland there have been two positive edits yesterday and today. What happened this evening? HK made an edit believing there was consensus. MBM reverted. And I reverted MBM. I self-reverted when I suspected the restriction on the article was not standard 1RR. Let's not make a drama out of this.

About the 1RR and the edit notice. It does not appear that 1RR, at least how I understand it, is in place. 1RR as I understand it is an extension of 3RR, which applies to individual editors in a 24hr period. What we have here is a "don't revert a revert" policy.

To clarify this can we change the edit notice so the first line reads something like, "Due to a long history of edit warring, this article is temporarily under an editing restriction known as "1RR", which means: Do not revert or undo another editor's revert."

The absence of a time limit is also a bit of an oddity. For example:

• Who determines if there is consensus? HK, me and Whatapalaver and others would count the above as consensus, given that the arguments against are of the " I don't like it" kind.
• Who determines what is the right version? HK's edit this evening for example was a revert to an earlier text merely adding quotations ref tags. From that perspective, it was MBM that reverted the revert.

For those reasons, if we are going to continue with the restriction we need to put a time limit on it. As it stands now it is just too fuzzy. --RA ( talk) 21:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Well User: SheffieldSteel ( talk · contribs) put the edit restriction in place in the first place. And I now notice he's just returned to Wikipedia after a very long Wikibreak. Perhaps we should either ask him, or agree here with consensus what it should mean. Canterbury Tail talk 01:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Not a bad idea. In the meantime we have just seen an IP revert a revert - if someone could deal with it? -- Snowded ^TALK 01:55, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

That edit was mine (I thought I was signed-in, in that Windows Explorer pane). That text was not agreed too at great length, the version with United Kingdom and Ireland in the place of Britain and Ireland was agreed to (until the philibuster above). ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! ( talk) 02:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I think agreeing a text here first would be better. The restriction is a good idea. --RA ( talk) 07:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I thought it might be ArmChair - please self revert, you have just broken the IRR restriction. You should know by now to discuss such a radical change. Also if you look back over the archives you will see multiple and extensive discussions about this paragraph. You have removed all of the text. The specific issue of UK&I v B&I is a matter of citation and note the acceptance of my compromise above. -- Snowded ^TALK 09:25, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Again, the references are clear, consistent, and uncontradicted. Unless the objections go beyond IDONTLIKEIT then they have no validity. I may agree with Armchair that saying "Britain and Ireland" is ambiguous, formally incorrect, sloppy, or whatever. It doesn't matter what either of us thinks when there's reference. The references say that "Britain and Ireland" is increasingly preferred to "British Isles". Unless people have reference to show that's not true then their personal feelings about it are just not relevant.

RA's phrasing isn't how I'd say it, but at least it's supported by respectable reference, although one of the previous references has been missed. It's worth recovering. Previously there was Hazlitt and one other, apart from the Guardian. From the article history it's "British Culture of the Postwar: An Introduction to Literature and Society, 1945-1999, Alistair Davies & Alan Sinfield, Routledge, 2000, ISBN  0415128110, Page 9." Wotapalaver ( talk) 15:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Re-added the Davies/Sinfield ref with quotation, which is excellent for the purpose it is being used. --RA ( talk) 17:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit notice

I would like to tweak the edit notice a little to make it clearer what the edit restriction is. This is the first run:

Warning: Editing restriction in place! Due to a long history of edit warring, this article is under an editing restriction: DO NOT REVERT or undo another editor's revert. If you do so, you may be blocked from editing. Instead, follow the bold-revert-discuss process and discuss the issue at the article's talk page. Once a consensus has been reached on the issue, normal editing may resume. Thank you.

Do we have any agreement on when we can agree that consensus has been reached? Probably that is impossible to know for sure, so is there a time limit we can put on the restriction? I think a fairly long time limit such as 72 hours would be appropriate e.g. editor A makes a change, editor B reverts, editor A must wait for 72 hours before they can revert B, after which time B can revert A again and A must wait another 72 hours.

A proposal for a text containing a time limit is as follows:

Warning: Editing restriction in place! Due to a long history of edit warring, this article is under an editing restriction: DO NOT REVERT or undo another editor's revert. If you do so, you may be blocked from editing. Instead, follow the bold-revert-discuss process and discuss the issue at the article's talk page. Once a consensus has been reached on the issue, or 72 hours has passed, editing may resume subject to the above restriction. Thank you.

I have also removed "temporarily" since the restriction does not seem temporary any more. --RA ( talk) 07:58, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

How about I just remove it entirely. Then it's a normal article, subject to normal rules on disruptive editing, edit wars and protection due to warring? That way everyone knows where we stand. Canterbury Tail talk 17:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Can we canvas for an additional policy on Wikipedia, or at least apply it to this article? That all article edits and talk page entries must have supporting reference. Otherwise I fear that this article will simply return to rampant edit warring and opinion based editing as soon as protection is removed. It's done it before. Wotapalaver ( talk) 18:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

With respect to articles, this is already the case. As for talk page entries, I don't think reff'ing talk page comments is a good idea but I do think that keeping discussion to sources or discussion of sources is important. You can always take ideas like this to the Village pump.

I've also been thinking about taking a suggestion to the pump that quotations accompany refs where possible (the reason being multiple e.g. so that they can more easily be verified as supporting what they say the support, so that the text they support doesn't change inappropriately while the quotation remains in place, and also so that they don't "drift" around an article away from their original location). --RA ( talk) 18:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, looks like it's a free-for-all. Carry On Editing - never mind the discussion to try and resolve the matter, just stick your preferred version in and see what happens. So I'm having a think about what I would like and I'll stick it in soon. The present arrangement, arrived at without agreement, is just an excuse to stuff the article full of anti-British Isles rhetoric, what with no fewer than three references, text quoted in full, each denouncing the concept. Incidentally; controversy, what controversy? It's in your minds and nowhere else. Talk about OR! MidnightBlue (Talk) 20:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

CT, I don't believe that this article is ready to return to a "free for all". I think a restriction of some kind is still necessary so that contributors work out disputes without escalating into edit warring. --RA ( talk) 20:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

But RA, you are not working it out. You and Snowded and maybe others are putting in your preferences while still discussing the matter, so I've only followed suit. MidnightBlue (Talk) 20:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Lock the article down for 6 months. GoodDay ( talk) 22:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Except MidnightBlue are putting in preference, others are putting in reference. Wotapalaver ( talk) 08:22, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The intent of the edit notice was to prevent edit warring and disruption. It has been at least partially successful, in that there seems to be less of that going on (and when reverting like crazy is not happening, I think everyone finds it easier to discuss things calmly and productively). Unfortunately it seems that editors are focussing on the letter of the law rather than its spirit, which (I think) is why there was a proposal to allow re-reverts after 72 hours. But a slow-burning edit war is still an edit war.

The question is, what sort of editing environment do you folks want to work in?

My ideal was a situation in which we get the benefits of full protection (i.e. no changes to the article without consensus) without the bureaucracy of filling out {{ editrequest}}s. I'd like it to be easy for anyone - including new editors and unregistered users - to make non-controversial productive edits. I'd like users to know that they can revert an edit that hasn't been discussed and that it will then be discussed, or dropped. I'd like POV-pushers to know that their edits won't stick, and that no amount of wikilawyering, sockpuppeting or gamesmanship will help. On a side-note, it may be helpful to include a wikilink to WP:CONSENSUS so people can read up on what it is and how to determine if it's been reached.

Suggestions welcome. SHEFFIELDSTEEL ^TALK 14:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

It helps considerably if the rules are taken to be a "bright line". It doesn't help if the simple rule can be bent or twisted, or is re-interpreted post-an-event (e.g. to include new time-limits) or if admins go missing if action is required, or if other admins refuse to agree to the interpretation, etc. All these have happened to some degree in the past. We need consistency and simplicity. The editing environment we would like to work in is one where admins are neutral, where the rules are simple and upheld, and where wikilawyering and gamesmanship are acted on quickly and fairly. And while the magic wand is out, ideally a neutral authority could evaluate arguments, fairly summarize them, and guide towards a decision to keep things moving. -- HighKing ( talk) 14:49, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The dismissal of the Guardian reference and others sources because some people think the editor is biased in some way represents the problem we have in dealing with issues. The Guardian is a reliable source, the fact that it says the term is unpopular in Ireland does not make it a biased source, it provides a reliable third party source to support the statement that it is unpopular and that B&I is now used as an alternative. Rejection of that source is to take an ideological stance, something which is clearly happening here. We work from sources. Those sources establish the continued use of British Isles, so its stands. They also establish that Britain and Ireland is an alternative, and provide reasons. So that should stand. While some editors may prefer other phrases this place is not about personal likes or dislikes it is (to repeat myself) about reliable third party references -- Snowded ^TALK 22:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd have more faith in the political correctness stance of the Grauniad reference if it didn't then proceed to get the name of my country wrong... Just sayin'... Bastun ^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The debate on neutrality is about weighting, not reliability (although the tone of the Guardian reference does leave a question mark cf comparable neutrally worded entries for The Times and BBC). What we had was synthesis - the Guardian simply doesn't say "Britain and Ireland" is an increasingly "preferred" or "favoured" term - the contention that there is a trend is what we were discussing. Having said all that, I agree with Snowded's compromise edit. Wiki-Ed ( talk) 23:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Wiki-Ed, I'll continue our exchange from above down here since it is relevant. Above, I pressed you for references to contradict the statements you object to. You say you can't find any. You say can't find sources because this issue is one that only exists on Wikipedia. You then bring up The Isles by Norman Davies as an example. That is a very odd example for you to take. Davies not only acknowledges the issue but the issue itself was a source of inspiration for the book (see the introduction). As you say above, "the title is a clue". It is ... but I don't think you get the clue. On the question of the issue, Davies very firmly pins his colours to the mast: "The Isles ceased to be British precisely fifty years ago", he writes on page XXII, "when the Republic of Ireland left the Commonwealth, though few people in the British residue have yet cared to notice."

So, let's stick to sources. If the best source you can find to support your position is one that not only acknowledges an issue you say does not exist but supports it in a manner that derides people who hold your view, might I suggest you're argument is dead in the water? This does not mean that you are wrong. For better or for worse, it is verifiably not truth on Wikipedia. --RA ( talk) 00:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

No, I said it would be impossible to find a source that refutes a specific minority opinion as expressed in single lines in two separate sources. If it were a popular theory then one would expect to find evidence of a debate on the 'particular alternative term ('Britain and Ireland') that we are talking about. Norman Davies discusses alternative names as part of a wider discussion on neutral terminology. He does not even mention this supposedly "increasingly preferred" option. However, he does note, as you've kindly pointed out, that the majority of the population of the area in question don't care about this topic at all - as reflected in the sources he goes on to critique. I would also highlight the hypocrisy of suggesting that I've cited a source which contradicts my argument - take a look at the terminology used in the sources you're using to prop up your case. Wiki-Ed ( talk) 09:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Have you read the book? Davies uses "Britain and Ireland" throughout. I genuinely don't understand why you ever mentioned that book. Not only does it mention an issue you say does not exist, not only is the title a pun on that issue, not only does it poke fun at those (such as yourself) who are oblivious to the issue, but throughout the book Davies uses a phrase you say he does not even mention. --RA ( talk) 13:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I mentioned it because it does not mention the specific term you are referring to. Rather than trawl through page by page I checked with Google and guess what? [7] Moreover, given Davies objection to various alternatives I think he would object to the term "Britain and Ireland", probably for the reasons covered in the original discussion above(i.e. it's inaccurate). Wiki-Ed ( talk) 14:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

You mentioned it in order to disprove a proposition that no-one had made or were likely to make? I see. There's a name for that kind of argument: straw man. --RA ( talk) 17:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Er, hello, are you reading what I'm typing at all? As other editors have also pointed out, you cannot demand sources discounting other sources on specific sentences. Authors may address particular chapters, the title or the tone of whole books, and I cited Davies as an example of someone doing that. If 'Britain and Ireland' were the "more favoured" usage one would think a book which spends a good portion of its introduction discussing alternatives might mention it. Wiki-Ed ( talk) 19:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Snoweded, I agree wholly. Sources only count. Not likes or dislikes. I am very much at blame for the current drama since I supported the change from the copy that HK, Whatapalaver and others want to revert to owing to the objections of a GB-based editor who disliked "Britain and Ireland".

You are right to revert to that copy. However, the changes you added ("sometimes recommended") sound a little weasley and is only supported (in a weasel manner) by one of the supporting references. The other references says that, "Nowadays, however, 'Britain and Ireland' is the more favoured expression, though there are problems with that too." For that reason I don't think that "sometimes recommended" is very good. Maybe something like "...alternative terms such as 'Britain and Ireland' are also common"? --RA ( talk) 00:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Happy with also common, suggest you revert armchair (who has broken the rule) then make the change you suggest as a separate edit -- Snowded ^TALK 09:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Lol. The only reason I support the change is because it accurately reflects the weasel wording of the two sources being cited. The alternative you're suggesting is simply not supported by what those sources say: they do not state that the specific term is "common" and any inference that they do so is synthesis. We can go with (a) a weaselly worded statement which reflects the opinions of the cited sources, or (b) we can attribute it specifically and directly to whoever said it, using their own weasel wording. Wikipedia policy prefers the latter (as I outlined above), but the former (Snowded's proposal) would look tidier. Wiki-Ed ( talk) 10:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Given the various conflicts I think a period in which we adhere tightly to the sources is probably a good thing -- Snowded ^TALK 11:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Wiki-Ed, you don't appear to understand "weasel words" and how it is a concern with respect to the words we use, not the words used by other authors.

I've changed the genuine weasels words ("sometimes used") to be explicit and to more tightly adhere to the references ("have gained favour"). --RA ( talk) 13:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

So you haven't used weasel words there then... If you haven't followed my argument then I apologise for not being clear: to express your point (not that expressed by the sources) you need to use weasel words or synthesis. You've plumped for a bit of both. Neither are acceptable on Wikipedia. Wiki-Ed ( talk) 14:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

What would be helpful would be if you could explain how I used weasel words or synthesis rather than simply saying that I did. From my point of view, I added a statement that "alternative terms such as Britain and Ireland have gained favour" and this statement is supported by a reference that states that "[n]owadays ... 'Britain and Ireland' is the more favoured expression". No weasel words. No synthesis. --RA ( talk) 17:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The current text is composed of two clauses, the first asserting that the original term is less widely used, the second asserting that alternatives are widely used: Although British Isles is still used as a geographic term, the controversy means that alternative terms such as Britain and Ireland have gained favour. Okay, well let's start with the easy one:

• The Guardian tells us that it thinks the term 'British Isles' is unpopular in certain areas. It also provides an example of an alternative term. This support the first assertion; it does not support the second assertion that there is a particular trend. This is synthesis.
• British Culture of the Postwar tells us that 'Britain and Ireland' is a preferred usage (the key word is omitted from the reference) and mentions a growing trend for another alternative. Note that "a preferred usage" is not the same as "gained favour" - it indicates a desire; the current text suggests an established pattern. COmbining this with the other two sources to support fragments of the assertion is synthesis.
• The reformation in Britain and Ireland tells us that 'Britain and Ireland' is "the more favoured expression". This most closely matches the second assertion in the current text. However, like The Guardian, it uses a caveat (2nd sentence, 1st para, page 17) to indicate the controversy is limited in scope, which disagrees with the first assertion in the current text. So a bit of synthesis there to make it fit, but the real problem is the weasel wording, paraphrasing Hazlett's second paragraph to express an assertion of a growing trend. This is a red flag. Who favours this expression? "Some" people? Is one term favoured above all other terms? Or does it mean that the sum total of all the alternatives is more favoured than the original? (The source does not cover either).

Pedantic? Perhaps, but exceptional claims require exceptional sources and those cited are ambiguous on this subject - leaving a large question mark over the weighting assigned to them here. Any more core policies to breach? Oh, no, that's all of them. Snowded's prior wording was at least weighted correctly, which made it a suitable compromise. The current revision is not. Wiki-Ed ( talk) 19:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

It is hardly an exception claim. Do you really think a term such a 'British Isles' is so sacred that it is irreplaceable?

With respect to the first clause in the sentence, it does not assert "that the original term is less widely used" as you say. It says the term is still used and makes no comment as to whether it is less or more used. It is supported by the Hazlett ref ("the expression 'The British Isles' is evidently still commonly employed"). So we can move on with that.

The second clause tells us that the "the controversy means that alternative terms such as Britain and Ireland have gained favour". This is supported by the Hazlett ref ("Since the early twentieth century, that nomenclature [British Isles] has been regarded by some as increasingly less usable. [Author then describes elements of the 'controversy' by way of explanation as to why it is less usable.] ... Nowadays, however, 'Britain and ireland' is the more favored expression..."). It also is also supported by the Davies/Sinfield references ("In response to these difficulties [e.g. objections to its usage due to the association of the word British], 'Britain and Ireland' is becoming preferred usage..."). The Guardian reference merely notes one instance, it isn't a strong reference but doesn't detract from the point.

All straight forward stuff. No synthesis. No weasel words. --RA ( talk) 20:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Just a complete over-egging of the pudding. MidnightBlue (Talk) 20:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

First point: it might not be an exceptional claim where you are, wherever you are, but in the UK, which accounts for the majority of the population of the archipelago, it is. For example, The Guardian style guide is exceptional in advocating a different approach; other publishers and institutions' style guides do not even recognise a controversy (Times [8], Telegraph [9], BBC [10], EU [11]). The term is not irreplacable, but the notion that it is being widely replaced by more favoured alternatives is not correct.

Second point - the phrasing of the sentence infers that 'British Isles', mentioned in the first part, is in some way less used than it once was compared to alternatives, in the second part. This could perhaps be solved by inserting 'commonly' between 'still' and 'used'.

Third point - Sinfield/Davies are the editors of "British Culture...", but the article was written by the late Siobhan Kilfeather and reverts to using 'British Isles' instead of the supposedly "preferred" terminology; the same thing happens in Hazlett's book. Cobbling together - as you describe - concepts from different sources (which are internally inconsistent) looks like a prime example of synthesis. It wouldn't be a problem if there were lots of sources and/or the claim was unexceptional, but from the perspective of the oh-so-ignorant majority, it is exceptional and the use of these sources seems highly contrived. Wiki-Ed ( talk) 21:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

On your first point, I can appreciate that. But just because you are surprised by something, or were oblivious to it, does not mean it an exceptional claim. It may just means that like Davies wrote in the book you brought up, "few people in the British residue have yet cared to notice." That does not even mean that it is not happening on the "British residue". All of the publications I have discussed with you are published in the "British residue" by residents of the "British residue". For example, the sources you link to above don't mention "Britain and Ireland" as an alternative or that is it has become more common. They do not even mention that there is an issue with British Isles. Yet, they use "Britain and Ireland" as an alternative e.g Times, BBC, EU, Telegraph. This example from the Times uses the two interchangeably. (Adds: the EU one also equates the two on page 19.)

On your second point, "still commonly used" is supported by the Hazlett reference.

On your third point, you actually make two points. Taking them separately: (a) The author explicitly states her position at the start of her chapter. (b) I don't know what you mean my "cobbling together concepts from different sources". The sources are not "cobbled" together. I certainly have not described them as such. Each of the sources stand on their own without synthesis. --RA ( talk) 22:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The "exceptional" point is about minority views being given undue coverage relative to the sources. Most people in the "British residue" do not read the Guardian, they do not read books on gender/literacy in 18th century Ireland, they do not read about the Reformation. You have three (potential) sources, plus a few instances - which have been cited most thoroughly further down in the article - in other publications. They are exceptions to the general pattern of usage.

As an aside, you've linked supposedly interchangeable usage by the EU and Times, which illustrates why some people get confused. Note that the Times article is talking about locations on the two islands, not the others. If a source is talking about the two islands and not the rest of archipelago it will use those names; it does not mean that one is an alternative for the other term.

On the second point - so why don't we insert "commonly", just so readers know where they stand?

Third point - I wasn't saying the sources are cobbled together (although the random ranting in one of them makes me wonder). I was saying - referring to your explanation in your previous post - that you're picking and mixing different ideas from the sources available to construct something that doesn't reflect what they say on their own. No doubt you see them as complimentary, but I see semantic differences - three opinions on the same niche subject. If this were cut and dried they could all say the same thing: "Britain and Ireland is now a commonly preferred alternative." They don't. We do (or we did until MBM inserted some clarification - which I agree with). Wiki-Ed ( talk) 00:20, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

On the first point, again, just because you were unaware of something does not mean it is exceptional. The sources say B&I has become gained favour in use. You said this is untrue (at least in the "British residue" of our islands) and asked if it was so why the phrase does not appear in the Times/BBC/EU/Telegraph. I showed you that it does (just as the sources said it would!). Doing so was in fact simply an exercise in courtesy: we are not interested in "truth", we are only interested in "verifiability".

On the second point, do it.

On the third point, I do not "pick and mix" different things from different sources to support the statement. Both the Hazlett and Davies/Sinfield references support the second clause (as I wrote it anyway) independently of each other. Only the Hazlett reference supports the entire sentence. Are you suggesting we remove the first clause?

Now, I hope you take this the right way but in the absence of sources to support your position, I don't see this dialogue going any further. --RA ( talk) 08:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

You'll have noticed this dialogue has been going on some years already and, no doubt, will continue so long as editors continue to insert poorly sourced material in support of exceptional claims, whether you are here or not. We have a few sources (a) asserting there is a step change in usage and (b) using the original term anyway. Conversely we have the majority of sources (a) not acknowledging any change in usage and (b) using the original term but occasionally using alternative terms. This is not enough to support the statement without a caveat (e.g. of the sort used by Snowded or MBM). Finding a source to say something to support your point of view does not mean it meets the WP criteria for verifiability (and, importantly, neutrality which governs it). From the perspective of the "British residue" it's a bit like saying the "moon is made of cheese" and linking a few random books, e.g. [12]. The source itself indicates that the claim is false through its own coverage, but astronomical sources don't bother because it's beneath their contempt. As an aside, there are more sources discussing the moon and cheese than there are discussing the nomenclature of the British Isles.

The statement as-is does not reflect the balance of sources. It can go in to illustrate the controversy, but it needs to have a caveat to make the weighting clear. We've had a number of proposed compromises, but one side of this debate seems unwilling to consider anything that refutes their minority POV. Wiki-Ed ( talk) 10:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

<>I've noticed that this dialog has been going on for years and the constant is rather different than Wiki-Ed implies. Actually editors who say that the controversy is overstated or that alternative terms are not gaining favor never, and I mean NEVER, produced any references to support their view. Conversely, multiple high quality sources have been provided saying that the term is controversial and that other terms are gaining favor. Interestingly, the example text that Wiki-Ed quotes about the moon being made of cheese has a statement on the page which says "Long ago, people thought the moon was made of cheese because they had no way of studying it. Today we know better." This is hardly a good source to support an argument that sources can be found to say that the moon is made of cheese, but it's again useful to note that Wiki-Ed does not offer any source that might contradict the references about usage of the term "British Isles". Wotapalaver ( talk) 14:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I picked it because it's just like the sources being used to support your argument, i.e. it's patent nonsense. Because of this (and unsurprisingly) there aren't any sources directly contradicting the assertions. However, fortunately there are ways to verify that they are nonsense and they'll be edited into the article once it has been unlocked. Wiki-Ed ( talk) 18:22, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

This article is surely now one of the most blantantly POV-ridden pieces in Wikipedia. Many so-called references are now used to support the anti-BI perspective. They are written out in full and occupy an inordinate amount of text in the reference section. This article is not about an imaginary controversy, it is about geography. Readers new to the subject certainly get a message here - that British Isles is to be avoided. That is not what this encyclopedia is about. Our mission is to impart facts, not to promote biased opinions, as is being done here. The article is a disgrace and should be flagged up as one of the worst in Wikipedia. Any ideas how this can be done, or perhaps better, how we can remedy the current situation? For starters I would suggest removing most of the references, which are clearly there just to ram home POV. MidnightBlue (Talk) 20:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

If it were up to me, there'd be no mention of any controversy at this article. Such a controversy belongs in the Ireland article, IMHO. But of course, it's not up to me. GoodDay ( talk) 22:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

References generally get excessive when material is challenged. Given that there are only a couple of paragraphs related to the question of the controversy of the name I think you comments are a little excessive. If people are not going to challenge the base material, then its possible to remove some references and generally tidy things up a bit. If you think its one of the worst in Wikipedia then you should take the matter to ANI, if you do then we can address the question of single purpose editors .... -- Snowded ^TALK 04:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I've now removed some of these references that clearly do not support the statement to which they have been applied. LevenBoy ( talk) 11:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Having rationalised the refs in the second paragraph I think the article is now a lot tidier. LevenBoy ( talk) 11:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Strictly speaking the naming issue should get nothing more than a single paragraph. After all the dispute article is thataway. Canterbury Tail talk 11:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

As I also say below, removing references from an article where denial of references is rife counts in my book as a very bad idea. Please restore references. "tidying up" and deletion of references is not the same thing. Wotapalaver ( talk) 13:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

A single paragraph is surely a bit short? I mean, there's summary style and there don't-mention-the-war style.

If anything jumps out at me it's the lede. There's only two paragraphs: one listing the islands and states that are located in the archipelago and another describing how a common term for the archipelago is today falling out of fashion. There's surely room for two more paragraphs in between the first and last paras describing the geography of the archipelago and the nature of its inhabitants? --RA ( talk) 12:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Equally, if the article starts discussing things like popular culture and sport, it is expanding beyond the definition of a "geographic" area. We don't talk about a mountain or a lake in these terms. So long as the article expands beyond a simple geographic description, we'll always end up here. -- HighKing ( talk) 14:52, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the intro needs more geographic information. I had been looking at his earlier but decided to wait until the current flurry of edits stops. By having more material on this it would certainly help to reduce the apparent overemphasis on naming, although ultimately I believe that information has no place in the intro anyway and should sit in the section set aside for it - and WP does have an article on that topic, as has been pointed out. Wiki-Ed ( talk) 15:15, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you could consolidate into a section if you kept a statement that its use is controversial in the lede -- Snowded ^TALK 15:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Why not consolidate it into British Isles naming dispute? MidnightBlue (Talk) 16:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

End up where? The region fields a single sporting team in, for example, rugby union and league (there are others too that I can't remember right now). The region has a single political consciousness in the British-Irish Council. The region forms a linguistic region of Europe in so far as it is "the English speakers". And so on. Why would we not discuss these things? --RA ( talk) 15:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

If Mount Everest had a football team, I'd expect a short mention in the main article and a link to the article that actually deals with the team. (And arguably, the British Isles don't field a single sporting team since the crown dependencies don't field teams - the rugby teams, for example, are only representative of Ireland, England, Scotland, and Wales (nor do they claim to represent the geographic region known as the British Isles). Same with Golf, for example, except that's Great Britain and Ireland.) In some respects, this is exactly the same point being raised by other editors stating that the main article shouldn't rehash the same naming-controversy content that has it's own article. -- HighKing ( talk) 22:17, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

There's no need for the second (naming controversy) paragraph in this article's content. Merely put at the top of the article the following - For the controversey surrounding the name British Isles, see British Isles naming dispute. GoodDay ( talk) 21:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Do you want to make the change GD? MidnightBlue (Talk) 22:23, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

'Tis best to wait & see if my proposal gets consensus from all involved in the current discussion. GoodDay ( talk) 22:30, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Support: (move it to British Isles naming dispute). ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! ( talk) 01:05, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

It's IDONTLIKEIT again, and the classic reaction. "Oh s***, there really is reference, we'd better argue to move the content to the article that was specially created to hide the references we don't like". Instead, the naming dispute article's content should be moved back in here because lots of it is historic information. Wotapalaver ( talk) 22:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Very well said. Dunlavin Green ( talk) 00:51, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Meantime, another reference, [13] Page 130. Discussing how "British isles" is controversial, the book says "Britain and Ireland is the preferred description". McGraw Hill publisher, a guide on Genealogy research from a recognized genealogy expert, US based. Wotapalaver ( talk) 22:50, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, if we could just move all traces of resistance to this British nationalist term from this article everything would be so much more aesthetically pleasing to our jingoistic friends over in Britain. I see more references have been produced to show this term is controversial and rejected in Ireland. Looks like the John Bulls will have to hurry up with their plan for this article. Dunlavin Green ( talk) 00:51, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The information should stay and if anything should be expanded as suggested by Wotapalaver. Bjmullan ( talk) 08:19, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Its referenced and relevant, it should stay -- Snowded ^TALK 08:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks like the paragraph's here to stay. GoodDay ( talk) 22:15, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Most of it had already been there for something like 18 months to two years, IIRC, before the recent festival of "I know better" started. Wotapalaver ( talk) 16:02, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Laven, you reverted my fixing of a typo here. The typo I fixed was an error I made by self in transcribing a quotation accompanying a reference. The original quotation can be seen in context here.

I presume this was an accident on your part. I presume you didn't see that it was a quotation accompanying a reference. Are you OK to 'revert the revert' and return to the version without the typo? --RA ( talk) 11:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I reverted the typo to allow me to revert the previous edit. I'll fix the typo. LevenBoy ( talk) 11:27, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Typo not there now that the new reference has gone. LevenBoy ( talk) 11:31, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Why are you removing references? --RA ( talk) 11:43, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

They are not needed. There are far too many of them, and as other editors have remarked, they now seem to be being used just to push a partiular point of view. LevenBoy ( talk) 12:54, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

References are always needed on this article. They are vital to ensure that the article stays accurate and they are important to stop editors whose personal store of knowledge exceeds all bounds from coming in and deleting text that they don't like. It's harder to find references than to delete them, so don't delete them. Wotapalaver ( talk) 13:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted Wotapalaver's last two edits. They appear to be there just to make some point or other. MidnightBlue (Talk) 15:59, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I have re-inserted Wotapalaver last two edits as I believe that they make a valid point & I do not believe consensus has been reached here to remove them. Bjmullan ( talk) 16:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

My last two edits were putting in Citation Needed tags on chunks of the article that had no references. I'm pretty sure that (i) Midnight is supposed to assume good faith and (ii) that if you want to remove a Citation Needed tag you should put references in. Tsk tsk. Wotapalaver ( talk) 16:03, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The refs are being used to reference a particular point. Whether there is one, two, three or more references, it doesn't "push" that point any more. An editor above has remarked that the statement they support is an "exceptional claim". I don't believe there is anything "exceptional" about it, except perhaps that we learn something new everyday. But for those who do find it surprising, the more refs the better. --RA ( talk) 13:25, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

No, you are POV pushing and that's all there is to it. One reference is sufficient if it's a good one. You are just filling up the article with anti-British rhetoric in the form of extended statements from the references, so how about we just use the references without the extended statements? MidnightBlue (Talk) 15:55, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

If it has references it's not POV. The more references is has, the less POV it can be called. It's all too apparent on this article that more references are always required since someone somewhere is likely to pop up and insist that their personal knowledge is supreme. WP policy disagrees. Wotapalaver ( talk) 16:04, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

"If it has references it's not POV". Lol. Okay, hands up who hasn't read and understood the WP policy on neutrality. Wiki-Ed ( talk) 19:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

<>If there are some references to contradict the currently available set, then we can have a discussion on neutrality. Meantime, there are references one way only so a discussion on neutrality is only needed when Wiki-Ed reveals himself to have been hiding a bunch of sources. Wotapalaver ( talk) 21:10, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I've not been hiding any sources, they're all in plain view. What's aggravating is that some talk-the-talk contributors are too lazy to look for them. Fortunately the weekend has given me the time to document those sources... unfortunately someone has managed to get the page locked so they can't be edited into the article. Wiki-Ed ( talk) 18:27, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Since the edit warring is alive and well, I've protected this before someone gets blocked. 2 weeks. Canterbury Tail talk 17:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Good move, but please revert BJMullan's last edit, which was in breach of the 1RR rule. MidnightBlue (Talk) 18:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't care who did what edits in respect of whatever rules, the article is protected. People decide what you want edited on the article and an admin will do it. If there is still arguments and no consensus over it at the end of the two weeks, I'll extend the protection. I'm interested in the stability of the article and disruption to it. Canterbury Tail talk 18:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Just as a holding operation it might make sense to replace the excessive scattering of citation needed tags, with a marker on the whole section. -- Snowded ^TALK 18:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

CT - please remind yourself of your comment in the section above labelled 1RR. I must now ask you to deal with the edit by Bjmullan which breached that rule. I'm not particularly asking you to block him, but please revert the edit. Thanks. MidnightBlue (Talk) 18:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Please remind yourself of all the other comments, the confusion, and the offer of abandoning it. Also the discussion that never reached a conclusion about what it means that is still under discussion. Canterbury Tail talk 20:34, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree with the page being locked for long but maybe a brief lock to head off an edit war is a good idea.

On the substance if what may have turned into one on this occasion, Wotapalaver asked when adding the {{ cn}} tags to the Languages section, "Who wrote this?" Well, as I posted to his/her talk page, I did. Three years ago last week.

Since then the standard of referencing required on WP has risen enormously (which is a good thing). So it is hardly surprising that three-year-old text should be marked with {{ cn}} tags in 2010. What is gob-smacking though is that a section I wrote in 2007 is still there three years later, essentially untouched and in no substantive way improved upon (one new paragraph was added).

Now this might stand as testament to the strength of my writing - but I don't think so. What I believe is that more energy has been put into wrangingly over what to call the subject of this article than actually writing about it. That is a very sad state of affairs.

So, if we are now to argue over The Wrong Version, the version that should be kept is the one where the section I wrote in 2007 is marked top-to-bottom with {{ cn}} tags. So should it be. And maybe it might spur contributors here to turn their attention to the substance of this article. --RA ( talk) 19:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

If I should have marked the section with an overall CN tag then apologies. By marking one by one I had thought to make the process of citing easier and more trackable. I don't doubt the content of the language section, it just needs to be cited. The sporting section seems to be lacking both citations and relevancy. Wotapalaver ( talk) 21:26, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I still think a 6-month protection of the article, would be best. GoodDay ( talk) 22:19, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

First thing to do after any unprotect is restore the references recently "tidied up" by Levenboy. The words "tidied up" and "deleted" need to be different in meaning, not the same. Wotapalaver ( talk) 16:06, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Only if there is consensus. If edit warring resumes again it will be protected again, for a longer period. Canterbury Tail talk 22:02, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

There was no consensus to remove them, and they'd been there for long time. In any case, it would be nice to see the editors on this page agreeing on at least one thing; that without reputable verifiable sources it doesn't matter what they think they know. Wotapalaver ( talk) 11:55, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

CT, I'm not sure what you're trying to achive at this article. First you issue a statement that anyone who reverts a revert will be in breach of the 1RR rule, will be blocked and will have their edit reverted. All editors bar one, so fas as I can see, have adhered to that rule, but when that one editor blatantly reverts to what is clearly a very stupid version of the text in just about anyone's eyes, you don't block him and you don't revert his edit. However, you do protect the article, leaving it in a quite hideous state for all the world to see. I ask you again, please get rid of those idiotic cite tags. By all means put a cite banner at the top of the section, but at least restore some semblance of order to the article, otheriwse I suggest you move on. MidnightBlue (Talk) 19:58, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

As stated above no one could agree what the 1RR should actually have been. I'm not here to push things on people, block people for things they may no realise they have done etc. The conversations above just go to show how confusing the entire 1RR thing is and has been, when no one can decide how it should be enforce, what it should stand for or even fully what it means under what situations. As a result I suggested removing the restriction and using normal editing rules. During that conversation someone broke the 1RR, possibly, however I'm not about to block someone for maybe breaking a rule while we're in the middle of discussing it, which is what the situation was at the time. Just like I don't expect people to make edits while a discussion is ongoing about those edits, I don't think it's very fair of me to push a maybe rule and block people while the meaning of said rule is under discussion. If I did that people on this page would start complaining about it.

And as always, no matter what happens with protection, the wrong version is always protected. It's not possible to win when you protect a page unless it's against blatant vandalism. And as I've said before many times, give me a consensus and I'll make the edits. However as always happens on this article, when it's open for edit people are all chatty about edits, but the second it is protected people just go quiet and move elsewhere. This topic needs consensus, the article needs consensus and it needs constructive talk. If the protection expires and it undergoes more edit warring, the next protection will be for longer. Everyone just needs to work together.

And I'm not moving on, someone needs to overlook this page and stop things from getting constantly out of hand. I no longer edit this page, and whatever consensus says is fine. I may chime in on comments occassionally if things seem to be going out of hand. I'd much rather not block people, but this page is bringing out the worst nationalistic tendencies in some editors who can't get their way (on both sides of the debate), so maybe in the future some blocks will be needed for tendentious editing. Canterbury Tail talk 20:57, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Let's not gang up on the admin - he's just doing the neutral thing. That said, the problem seems to be tendentious single-purpose editors trying to make a point because they don't have any other way to express their inability to delete this article. It would be nice if admins could block them instead of locking it for everyone else. Wiki-Ed ( talk) 20:13, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I've had my run-ins with CT in the pass but very much respect his judgement and his neutrality. The edit I did was not meant as a blatant abuse of the IRR (more out of confusion as per above) but there are people here that are very quick to revert but not so quick to discuss and reach consensus. And yes please do not attack the admin they are here to help. Bjmullan ( talk) 21:20, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Would these be suitable sources for some citations? [14] [15] [16] I don't think they cover the points in the current article as-is, but at least they're accessible. Wotapalaver ( talk) 15:35, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Another ref seems to be the Oxford Companion to the English language (1992, page 931), but the information doesn't cover all the text from the language section. The refs in Nan, the life of a travelling woman (p234) again give some overview, but not all the facts in the text. Wotapalaver ( talk) 09:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

(crickets)

"The page is protected, hence there is nothing to talk about." Discuss. SHEFFIELDSTEEL ^TALK 18:05, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Welcome back to the page Sheffield. Welcome back to the project. It's been awful lonely in here without you this last year. Canterbury Tail talk 23:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

There isn't much to discuss. The language section isn't / wasn't controversial. User:Wotapalaver was trying to make a point and is now making a rather half-hearted effort to supply references to text originally inserted by User:Rannpháirtí anaithnid. I suspect the latter editor is probably doing a more thorough job in the background - the onus is on him after all - and will insert references when he is able to, i.e. next week. For the intro the onus is on other editors to find sources which refute those that have been shoehorned in to support the current text. Wiki-Ed ( talk) 21:12, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Again, nice to see AGF being demonstrated by editors on here. In any case, it doesn't matter whether the section was controversial, it had not a single source or reference and it needs to have them. Same for the section on sport and culture. Should I merely have deleted the sections? That's what policy might have us do. As for me making a point, my only point is that if there's source material and references then there can be content. Wotapalaver ( talk) 07:39, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Wiki-Ed, I'm not doing anything in the background related to the Languages section. I had considered sandboxing the section and adding citations for it there but decided against it. I'll add citations when the article gets unlocked but not before then, I'll explain why.

SheffieldSteel: "The page is protected, hence there is nothing to talk about." Not "hence", I'd say the page is protected and there is nothing to talk about is closer to the truth. What is there to discuss? The ins-and-outs of what reference we are going to use to support the statement that Norn became extinct in the 19th century ( reference)? Or is it the thorny question of determining the number of Manx-medium schools that will hold us at the negotiating table ( reference)?

CT, can you please unlock the article and I will add the references as requested later this evening? Adding references to statements such as these (regardless of the tone and temperament in which they were requested) is just wiki-business-as-usual. If it will ease tensions then revert to the version without the {{ cn}} tags and I will work off the tagged revision adding references where they were requested.

Treating this article as different only encourages the perception that it is different. That is not a sustainable solution to the problems faced by this article. It discourages the participation of editors who are willing to contribute positively to it. And I feel it encourages editors to participate in a partisan manner rather than as colleagues and collaborators. It maintains the perception that Wikipedia is a battle ground when that is exactly the perception that we should be discouraging. If editors cannot maintain basic editing decorum then they should be blocked or page/topic banned (through whatever mechanism) but the article should not be made suffer because of them. Under the current pattern of regularly protecting the article, (from what I can see) it is the article that suffers most of all. --RA ( talk) 09:32, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree entirely with the last section. Ban the troublemakers rather than block the article. On the first part - I meant that I figured you (RA) probably had the references to hand to insert when you were able, which, from what you've said, you do. And, responding to Wotapalaver, WP:VER makes it clear that references are only required for material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged (otherwise the whole encyclopedia would look as messy as the intro to this article). The in-line citation fad is relatively new - it used to be the case that sources were listed at the end of an article and readers were expected to consult the references. In-line citations were only used for particularly controversial statements. Hence, despite the extensive scrutiny applied to this article, no-one saw a need to add tags to that section until now... Wiki-Ed ( talk) 09:43, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Verifiability says "All material in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable published source to show that it is not original research, but in practice not everything need actually be attributed. This policy requires that anything challenged or likely to be challenged, including all quotations, be attributed to a reliable source in the form of an inline citation, and that the source directly support the material in question." In my view detailed statements about languages are not sufficiently general knowledge to go in the project without sources. This is not like saying "The sky is blue". In any case, RA is proposing to edit several of the sentences and change their meaning pretty significantly now that there are sources. Ultimately, I'm likely to challenge anything that isn't general knowledge anywhere in the project and fully accept that any edits I make may be similarly challenged. Wotapalaver ( talk) 06:59, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

1st paragraph

Below are references for the first paragraph of the Languages sections.

• The ethno-linguistic heritage of the British Isles is very rich in comparison to other areas of similar size WB Lockwood (1975), Languages of the British Isles Past and Present, British Columbia: Ladysmith, ISBN  0-233-96666-8, An introduction to the rich linguistic heritage of Great Britain and Ireland.
• ...the last of their continental relations becoming extinct during the 4th, 5th and 6th centuries before the 7th century... Waddel, John; Conroy, Jane (1999), Spriggs, Matthew (ed.), "Celts and Other: Maritime Contact and Linguistic Change", Archaeology and Language, vol. 35, London: Routledge, p. 127, ISBN  0=415-11786-0, Continental Celtic includes Gaulish, Lepontic, Hispano-Celtic (or Celtiberian) and Galatian. All were extinct by the seventh century AD. {{ citation}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character ( help)
• ...often as a means to conceal meaning from those outside the group... Varner, Gary (2008), Charles G. Leland: The Man & the Myth, Morrisville, North Carolina: Lulu Press, p. 41, ISBN  978-0-557-00885-8, Shelta does in fact exist as a secret language as is used to conceal meaning from outsiders, used primarily in Gypsy business or negotiations or when speaking around the police.
• ...with few monoglots remaining in the other languages of the region... J. M. Y. Simpson, R. E. Asher (1994), The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, vol. Volume 5, Oxford: Pergamon Press, p. 2505, ISBN  9780080359434, Thus, apart from the very young, there are virtually no monoglot speakers of Irish, Scots Gaelic, or Welsh. {{ citation}}: |volume= has extra text ( help)
• ...The Norn language appears to have become extinct in the 18th/19th century...Hindley, Reg (1990), The Death of the Irish Language: a Qualified Obituary, Oxon: Taylor & Francis, p. 221, ISBN  0-415-04339-5, Three indigenous language have died in the British Isles since around 1780: Cornish (traditionally in 1777), Norn (the Norse language of Shetland: c. 1880), Manx (1974).

More to follow later.

--RA ( talk) 19:32, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I was under the impression that "British Isles" was merely a "geographic" term (at least according to all the political British nationalists here). If this is the case, why are things like languages and other non-geographical information being included in it? It seems like some people want to have their cake and eat it at the same time. In fact most of this article is now about politics and other non-geographical stuff. Freud would be impressed. 86.40.48.59 ( talk) 09:53, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

See Scandinavia, Balkans and Iberia, amongst others. MidnightBlue (Talk) 11:03, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

The first ref doesn't support the assertion that the heritage is "very" rich. Also, from the title of the reference, it isn't about the British Isles - is it? Wotapalaver ( talk) 01:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The Norn reference allows the text to be quite a bit more specific than it was before, no? Similarly the note about monoglots being mostly only the young is also relevant info. Shouldn't these points be included in the text? Wotapalaver ( talk) 12:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

So finally somebody has removed the controversy from the opening paragraph, as if the existence of almost 40 discussion archives on this page alone, the objections of the sovereign state of Ireland (the correct, internationally-recognised name, by the way but let´s overlook that, also), the dropping of the term by international organisations such as National Geographic, its removal from Irish school books, and much, much else has nothing to do with this controversy. This is the worst, most politically-motivated article in Wikipedia - and that´s saying something - a page where, among other things, references for ´many´ objections result in the references themselves being deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.58.205.45 ( talk) 14:37, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Once again, anon IP kicks off an edit war. When will they be blocked from this article? Wiki-Ed ( talk) 17:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The term is certainly controversial now and has been so for several decades, perhaps longer. It has not, however, always been controversial so there is a danger of recentism here. Since the term has been in use since Roman times it might be better to say currently controversial or some similar wording. AJRG ( talk) 17:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The issue is given a paragraph in the introduction. There's no need for it to be mentioned in the first sentence as a defining element of the term. This article is about the subject, not a name given to that subject. We should focus on the subject, not that name. --RA ( talk) 17:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I like AJRG's suggestion -- Snowded ^TALK 17:36, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I total agree with RA, once in the lede is enough. Bjmullan ( talk) 17:45, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the term certainly is controversial now - and like you say it has been controversial for several decades at least. For example the following from 1981:

The geographical term "British Isles" is not generally acceptable in Ireland, the term "these islands" being widely used instead. I prefer "the Anglo-Celitc Isles", or "the North-West European Archipelago". - D. A. Coleman, ed. (1982), Demography of Immigrants and Minority Groups in the United Kingdom: Proceedings of the Eighteenth Annual Symposium of the Eugenics Society, Volume 1981, London: Academic Press, ISBN  0121797805

Sure, in terms of the Roman conquest of Britain, the controversy around the term is a relatively "current" event; but saying something is "currently controversial" when it has been so for at least 30 years (and probably refs can be found going back to 1922 or further) is rather peculiar. In the same terms, we could say that the larger island is "currently called Great Britain" (as opposed to the far longer established name, "Albion", of Roman times). Or that the Parliament of Ireland is "currently independent from the Parliament of England" (something that it has only been for 107 years of since 1494). --RA ( talk) 18:20, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Uhm. Not to poke the bear, but really, a eugenics book? That doesn't overly strike me as a RS. I rank it up there wth frenology and Flat Earther. -- Narson ~ Talk • 18:30, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

:-) Probably why the are now called the Galton Institute. --RA ( talk) 18:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Actually, "eugenics" is in the name of the organisation (which has since changed) that published the book, not the book itself. I think the book is fairly respectable in historiographical terms. Talking of which, following Pocock in 1975 several authors came up with a variety of different names, some of which are quoted here, some of which are not. There has been quite a lot of bandwagon-jumping since then, but no consensus on an accurate or concise alternative. Unfortunately the current introduction does not reflect this and picks one alternative, seemingly at random. I am working on an update to ensure the historiography, limited though it is, is accurately and neutrally covered. Wiki-Ed ( talk) 18:58, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The introduction ...are a group of islands is sufficiant. GoodDay ( talk) 22:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Two US examples from 1942:

Americans in Ireland Show British Their Parade Tactics

American troops today stepped out proudly in a show for their British buddies and Irish townsfolk in the first ceremonial since the second A.E.F. vanguard landed in the British Isles less than two weeks ago.

Los Angeles Times. Feb 6, 1942. Page 5.

Book review of NAPOLEON AT THE CHANNEL (Carola Oman) By HERBERT GORMAN

All this was in 1798 and, ominously enough, there were 'invasions' of the British Isles -- that is, if Ireland be considered a part of those Isles, an admission that no Irishman would make.

New York Times. Aug 9, 1942. Page BR1.

which show both the established use of the term at that time and its growing sensitivity. AJRG ( talk) 08:53, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The opening sentence of an article should be free of value judgements. Paragraph 2 does more than a good job of describing the term. Wikipedia articles begin "Adolf Hitler was a political leader", not "Adolf Hitler was a wicked political leader"; "Nigger is a noun", not "Nigger is an offensive noun". "British Isles is a controversial term" is simply inappropirate for an encylopedia. Pretty Green ( talk) 09:24, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree. We start with simple facts. The British Isles are a group of islands.... Anything else comes after to retain NPOV as much as possible. -- HighKing ( talk) 13:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

"Are a group" or "Is a group" ? SHEFFIELDSTEEL ^TALK 12:58, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Discussed above and in the archives. Apparently both are fine. There's something about whether you want on emphasise the "collectiveness". Personally, I go with "are". A ready reckoner puts "are" ahead 29 to 5 on Google Books ( "are" vs. "is"). --RA ( talk) 13:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm keeping quiet on that one. It would become a point of contention if it was understood :D Wiki-Ed ( talk) 14:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Aren't at least two 3RR bans due - not even to count the 1RR rule - for the firefight on the 6th? Where are the admins? Wotapalaver ( talk) 03:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The whole of the second paragraph in the intro should be moved down to a separate controversy section - it isn't of main importance in an objective Wikipedia article about the British Isles. It's only of main importance within a segment of Irish opinion. Jamesinderbyshire ( talk) 09:29, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Its a long standing consensus to keep a reference in the lede. If "controversial" was inserted then that might allow the move of the second paragraph down but not otherwise. Opinions of editors as to the range of the controversy are not relevant, what matters is that there is a body of cited material that says it is and also evidence of a move away from the name by atlas publishers and others who are hardly Fenians.-- Snowded ^TALK 09:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I seriously doubt that anyone has carried out an exhaustive survey of the literature of the last 100 years and mapped out the controversy and skilfully weighted it to prove it one way or the other! Snowded claims something as evidential that is not. What we are seeing here is a tussle between references brought forward to serve interests. The debate will clearly go nowhere as a determined faction will "fight to the last m? \mjjkanmn nb mnnn" over what is in fact a minority view, in true Wikipedia fashion! In the meantime, we are stuck with an article that highlights a dispute at the top that isn't of that significance. Ask most people around the world where the "British Isles" are and they can point to the correct place on the map. Jamesinderbyshire ( talk) 09:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry James, the point is that there are references that show it is controversial and that some avoid its use. To state that is therefore legitimate content. If anyone said it was a universal opinion, or a majority one your point might have some validity, but no one is saying that. Your (or my) opinion about the legitimacy or otherwise of that controversy has little relevance. The various references do not permit its removal as a valid geographical term, neither do they allow us to ignore the controversy. -- Snowded ^TALK 10:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Nobody is saying there aren't references to indicate the controversy. As you know, the issue is inclusion and weight in the introduction. At the moment the intro reads as if the controversy about naming conventions is the most important fact about the BI. This is nonsense. WP is meant to be an international resource and this is just the outcome of internal WP faction-fighting. By all means have an extensive controversy section (and indeed of course there are whole articles about it too!) but downgrade the significance in the intro, which does not align with real-world relevance. Jamesinderbyshire ( talk) 10:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The lede summarises the article and the controversy is significant (one of the two governments is after all cited). The current wording does not make it the most important fact. Please avoid provocative edit summaries and asserting that consensus outcomes are faction fighting. It really doesn't help. Address content issues not the motivation of editors who disagree with you. -- Snowded ^TALK 10:25, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

(1) There isn't a consensus about it, despite your repeated claims to the contrary. (2) Are you really, seriously claiming that there are is no faction within the WP communities that wants to see all British-Isles-related articles renamed or removed? Jamesinderbyshire ( talk) 17:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

<reduce indent> The flaw in the lead is not the presence of the controversy paragraph, it is the absence of a paragraph detailing other significant aspects of the isles eg geography, climate etc. From WP:LEAD: "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies. " So the controversy is fine, but I'd argue that the lead doesn't necessarily provide many of the other points. -- Pretty Green ( talk) 10:46, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I mostly agree with this. The prominence of the controversy paragraph is partly caused by the absence of other material one would expect to find in the intro. However, this should not excuse the use of synthesis (NOR) and over-weighting (NPOV) of niche sources. The other problem we have is that a minority believe the term is political, making it rather difficult to develop additional geographic content when they insist upon highlighting a political point. Wiki-Ed ( talk) 12:46, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Nice to see that the reference deleters are back. Next we'll have more discussion on how the text about the controversy is a fringe view then - once that's been debunked through provision of references - that there are too many references. Oh, wait, people are already saying it's a fringe view and references are getting deleted at the exact same time. Wotapalaver ( talk) 11:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes it is a fringe view really, coming from the Irish fringe. I think we should phase out reference to it here because there is a whole article about it elsewhere. We should just link to that article. Hrotovice ( talk) 19:15, 11 June 2010 (UTC)