Talk:Names of the British Isles/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 8

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Britishness and Ireland

I have concerns about the description that "the term British had never applied to Ireland until the late 16th century and onwards". I would date it from far later, 19th century maybe, if not 20th century. Do we have any sources for this claim? --sony-youth^pléigh 13:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's something from a quick Google search that says Ireland was "British" in the mid/late 17th Century; I don't know if it's any good as it's from a book review, so may fall considerably short of being WP:RS - however the book it's talking about may well be worth exploring if anyone can get hold of it:

By the time that the English parliamentarian army came to Ireland, to mop up the unrest that had been inflamed by the rebellion of the winter of 1641, Ireland, it is implied, was already "British."

Waggers (talk) 14:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The scare quotes make it unsuitable, rather than the fact that it is from a book review. The point is whether someone at that time would call an Irish person British, or if Britain was understood to include Ireland, rather than whether we can look back now and say that Ireland was "British" (in scare quotes) at the time.

Reading the wider context of the quote, it seems more that the section (and the book as a whole) is referring to the process of anglicisation and the development of an effective "British" (actually, English, hence the scare quotes) political presence in Ireland - which was ineffective up until that point - not identity politics. --sony-youth^pléigh 16:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I'd agree with that assessment. Thanks for the link to scare quotes too - one of those things we're all familiar with but didn't know they had a name! Waggers (talk) 21:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments on here are just so missing the point.

There are many comments on this topic failing to understand the issues at hand here and as a consequence totally fail to miss the point of this debate at the depth of feeling behind it. I just read something Tom wrote that suggests the only people against the name 'British Isles' are those who still think of Britain as the enemy. I am sorry but that statement betrays much ignorance of this subject. I am British by birth but born to Irish parents and spent my youth between Ireland and England, Part of my schooling was in England and because of this experience I can fully understand the ignorance that many British people have on this subject. British schools did not (and I presume still do not) teach anything about the atrocities that were committed in the name of the British Empire around the world and especially with regard to Ireland. I have many British friends, my wife is British, lived and worked in Britain for many years and on the whole like the British people. I really hate having to make that statement but with regards to Toms nasty accusation with regard to the motives of people with my viewpoint I feel I am left with no choice.

I also hate to see names thrown around such as "English Channel" "British Columbia" and the "Irish Sea", I will be honest these so called counter aguements just make me want to vomit on my laptop, again they display a real lack of ignorance on the subject.

>>> You are correct here, but I suspect that you didn't mean to be.

Ireland whether you like the fact or not was the subject of a barbaric British occupation for many many years. At times the Irish people were treated no better than animals, comparisons can certainly be drawn with the plight of the Aborigines and Native Americans amongst other and both of these groups have seen the apologies and return of land to them in recent years. In fact one wonders were the Irish people black would we have seen an apology from Britain by now? Worth thinking about, But I digress. It took the lives of many many brave men and women to realise the long held dream of an Ireland free from British rule in uprisings, wars and the civil war. Many more died during the time of British rule including the more than a million deaths during the famine as well as the many who died through poverty and starvation throughout the occupation. And not forgetting the millions more who were forced to leave Ireland for good in search of a better life elsewhere. British rule was nearly the death of a culture, a language and a nation, this may sound way over the top but is actually sadly very true. The dream of an Irish Republic was a hard fought one, it literally tore the country apart and created wounds that have still not fully healed.

>>> This may all be true, but it is completely irrelevant. Now here comes the nonsensical deductive step:

So it is a huge insult to still refer to Ireland as being part of the British Isles, it really is.

>>> Why? It implies no ownership by Britain?

If people cannot see this then I do not know what is wrong with you.

>>> Perhaps the deficiency is the ability to think logically?

I promise you that many British people I know are of the assumption that Ireland is still somehow part of Britain, or the United Kingdom and the term 'British Isles' certainly contributes to this misconception greatly hence why it has fallen out of use in recent years.

>>> If your argument is "ignorant people often misuse the term, therefore we should not use it", then you may have a point. But all the above is irrelevant in this context.

It has nothing to do with the idea of a modern Britain, I am not insulted to be associated with a modern Britain and the word British does not insult me personally that much. But it is a huge insult to the lives of the many who spent their lives fighting for freedom. It is a huge insult to the country and ideas of an Irish Republic and is a term that should be left in History along with the many other terms that are now deemed to be too offensive to be used anymore.

>>> Now you're starting with the conclusion "offensive".

This is why this subject is the cause of so much passionate debate and I really believe that there are people on here who do not have the faintest clue as to what they are arguing for, Ireland ceased being part of the British Isles when the country was finally declared independent of Britain.

>>> What? Did the country move? Did it suddenly drift across the Atlantic? The British Isles is and always has been a geographic term for an archipelago. No amount of misuse will change that. The appalling treatment of the Irish by the British will not change that.

This should not even be an argument, this is fact. Murphy71 (talk) 23:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

>>> Ha!

>>> As a side note, reference 23 is absurd. Despite containing deviation into irrelevant stuff, it refers to the term Britain, and not British Isles. It may all be true, but definitely not relevant.

Same old, same old. We've heard this all before. GoodDay (talk) 22:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

So? Repeating the truth doesn't make it any less the truth. We've heard your jaded retort so so many times too. Sarah777 (talk) 23:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Please do not use talk pages for general discussion of the topic. They are for discussion related to improving the article. They are not to be used as a forum or chat room. See here for more information. Thank you.

Use of the term British Isles in articles

This discussion on Talk:British Isles#Use of the term British Isles in Articles may be of interest to some here. Bardcom (talk) 15:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I have created a proposal on the use of "British Isles" in articles at WP:British Isles; please read it and comment there; it is only in the very beginning stages. Tb (talk) 18:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Anoter proposed guideline

I have numerous concerns about the proposal as they are currently written and have written another proposal. My main concerns were that the proposal as it is written here did not walk the line of WP:NPOV, did not have an adequate grounding in current consensus and practice, and did not offer any concrete guidelines per se that an editor could follow or easily understand (in the broadest sense of the term).

My proposed guidelines are here. --sony-youth^pléigh 20:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Anoter proposed guideline

I have numerous concerns about the proposal as they are currently written and have written another proposal. My main concerns were that the proposal as it is written here did not walk the line of WP:NPOV, did not have an adequate grounding in current consensus and practice, and did not offer any concrete guidelines per se that an editor could follow or easily understand (in the broadest sense of the term).

My proposed guidelines are here. --sony-youth^pléigh 20:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Dispute Tag

Hi all. The NPOV dispute tag on this page seems to be undiscussed. Can someone explain the NPOV problem or is the tag a left-over from the previous discussion/dispute on the main British Isles page? Wotapalaver (talk) 11:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

we do not seem to be citing a source that there is in fact any dispute. Between whom and whom is this alleged dispute taking place? All we have is various terminology for the same archipelago used in various contexts. This makes for an Terminology of the British Isles article, but hardly for a Category:Geographical naming disputes one. The very least we can ask is the citation of a secondary source addressing the "dispute", perhaps a scholarly article entitled "The British Isles naming dispute" or some equivalent. The point of this article appears to be to give the impression of encyclopedicity to an on-wiki editing dispute. WP:SYN and WP:DUE apply, not to mention WP:CFORK, since the actual scope of this article is identical to that of Terminology of the British Isles. --dab (𒁳) 12:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

@dbachmann. Are you addressing the NPOV tag or the new proposed merge tag which you put on recently? Wotapalaver (talk) 12:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Is this the discussion section for the merge? If not, where is that - it should be linked. Anyway, I oppose. The dispute is among others, between typical UK usage and typical Irish usage. Johnbod (talk) 13:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Uncertain Oppose. I see no good reason for such a merge, but am willing to listen to arguments. Wotapalaver (talk) 07:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I removed the merge tag on the other article, added over a month ago, with "discuss" pointing to the page there - non one had commented there at all. I didn't realize the tag here was only added a month later! I think I will remove this one too anyway, as the set-up is such a mess. If dab wants to replace them, after reading WP:MERGE, fine, but the discussion now started here should be linked to from both articles, and set up properly. Johnbod (talk) 17:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

ok, I am happy with keeping the articles separate, but they need to clearly delineate their respective scopes, and summarize each other's content up front (WP:SS). For all practical purposes, this is a sub-article of the Terminology one, focussing on suggestions of terminology in Ireland in particular. The article title might reflect this (Irish objections to the term British Isles?) dab (𒁳) 18:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Datapoint

Just sharing a "UK and Ireland" cite with you all: Monaghan gold "The mine, found by Conroy Diamonds and Gold, is believed to be the biggest gold mine ever found in Ireland or the UK." (It's not in the UK.) jnestorius^(talk) 22:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I saw the same report in a different medium and the same phrasing was used. It seems like a conscious avoidance of "British Isles". However, one point. Clontibret is REALLY close to the UK/Ireland border so it's possible that parts of the deposit extend into NI. In any case, as a claim to fame for a company seeking investors, a claim of the "biggest in Ireland or the UK" is certainly more impressive than "the biggest in Ireland" and probably better than "the 253rd in Western Europe". Wotapalaver (talk) 09:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

"(the Republic of) Ireland and the UK" refers to two sovereign states. "British Isles" refers to an archipelago. --dab (𒁳) 10:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

and the sovereign states occupy the archipelago except for the strange constitutional position of the oddly non-belonging Channel Islands and the similarly tiny Isle of Man....we've been here before. Wotapalaver (talk) 09:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

though the term, in fact, dates back to Ancient Greek times...

The article states that the term "British Isles" dates back to Ancient Greek times. I don't know about that. Didn't the term in ancient Greek translate as "Islands of the Brytons" or some such? Is this a case of WP:SYNTH --Bardcom (talk) 23:43, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The term in both Greek and Latin translates as British Isles. TharkunColl (talk) 00:00, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

It'd be "Brytonic Isles". British Isles is a 1620 invention, and doesn't include Ireland since 1920. Changing maps can be a slow arduous process. Ireland certainly isn't British, that ended with Cromwell and The Famine. Historians calculate that the British killed about 8,000,000 Irish people between famine and slaughter, so how could Ireland be British? A bit like calling Israel a part of the Reich. Ugh! 93.107.0.137 (talk) 02:10, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you should climb back into your time machine and return to the 19th century. CarterBar (talk) 10:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

No, that's wrong. "Brytonic Isles", is a ridiculous modern concoction, invented simply in order to avoid saying "British Isles" - and it's wrong anyway, since it references the people. In Latin this would have been something like Insulae Britonnorum - "Islands of the Britons" - but this form never occurs. Your assertions about Cromwell are not only completely irrelevant, but also, alas, wrong. Cromwell was dug up and his head stuck on a pole, which indicates pretty strongly what the English thought of him. In other words, it is unreasonable to blame the English for Cromwell, because they hate him too - he was a regicide and a usurper. As for the famine, the British government tried to do many things to help, according to the economic theories of the time. What you think you know about it is merely anti-British propaganda, I'm afraid. TharkunColl (talk) 08:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

"Maybe you should climb back into your time machine and return to the 19th century. CarterBar (talk) 10:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC) " --- LOL, I think you and TharkumColl are in the Time Machine. There'll never be an end to this dispute, because you lot don't compromise. So it goes on and on and on. Sigh! 93.107.66.58 (talk) 13:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Just out of interest, are you the same anon user who keeps popping up with a similar IP address and similar opinions? TharkunColl (talk) 14:55, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Thark - I see that you concede that "British Isles" is a political term based on your edit comment at River Shannon. That's a useful step forward in this debate. And I must point out that , as per the notorious Arbcom ruling on the Great Genocide of the 1840s, claiming that the ancient Greek/Roman names equates to the "British" Isles is WP:OR; which is one of the seven deadly Wiki-sins. Sarah777 (talk) 16:08, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Good to see ya'll working things out in a civil manner. Very good indeed. GoodDay (talk) 16:18, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Sarah - I don't remember any edit summary where I stated or implied that BI is a political term. If I really did make such a statement, my words have been misunderstood. BI is not a political term, though this hasn't stopped some people investing it with political meaning (i.e., those who oppose it). The term in English dates to 1577 (John Dee) at the very latest, and is a calque on the Latin phrase, which had been re-appearing on maps for approximately one hundred years prior to that. Dee, let it be remembered, was a Classical scholar and cartographer (see OED). TharkunColl (talk) 16:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

And if he were editing Wiki the Arbcom would dismiss him as a synthesist! Sarah777 (talk) 16:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

He is speaking to us from beyond the grave - remember that he was also a great occultist. TharkunColl (talk) 16:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

By the way, on articles like River Shannon; ya'll shouldn't be edit warring. Recommend getting things straightened out here first, then impliment changes to the related articles across Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 16:43, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Trying to settle the BI issue is very confusing. Reminds me of the fellow who always bunked his head with a hammer. When someone asked him why he was bunking his head? he said he liked how it felt, when he stopped. GoodDay (talk) 23:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The term was also not used by pretty much anyone for a millenium (as TharkunColl knows) and was only brought into English by politically inspired writers as part of a political project in the Tudor era or maybe even later. Let's get that in there too. There's a Canny ref on the /References page (IIRC) with a date on the controversy. Wotapalaver (talk) 10:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

It's the "politically inspired" bit that is wrong - it's just synthesis and OR, which is against the rules. And Dee was a Welshman, by the way. TharkunColl (talk) 10:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Note, Thark reverted me with a (IMHO) nonsensical edit summary. I have put my additional text back into the article. It's accurate and can be endlessly supported by reference. Oh, change "English" to "English and Welsh". It's fine by me. Wotapalaver (talk) 10:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no evidence that the reintroduction of the term had anything to do with the conquest of Ireland, so mentioning them in the same breath is merely POV and OR. TharkunColl (talk) 10:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Tharky, what was the Greek and Latin phrases that date back to way back? I'm curious as to how the term "British" was coined... --Bardcom (talk) 11:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

αι Πρετανικαι νησοι and αι Βρεττανιαι νησοι were the two variant spellings in Greek, and the Latin was Britanniæ Insulæ. Sometimes, in Latin, the singular form Britannia (literally, "Britain") was used for the whole archipelago (only later did the term become restricted to that part of Britain over which the Romans ruled, i.e. the province of that name). As for how the word "British" was coined - in English, I assume you mean - it is simply the English adjectival form of the Celtic word. It is found, for example, in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, where it is interchangeable with the term "Welsh". TharkunColl (talk) 12:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Tharky. I found Britain (name) from these references. Very interesting - it tells a slightly different story. The Pretani or Cruthin were a semi-mythical people who lived during the Iron Age, and the islands were referred to as Brettaniai or Prettanike. It looks to me from the other articles that the term "British Isles" was not around in ancient times. Have I got it wrong? --Bardcom (talk) 12:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Pretanikai nesoi and Brettaniai nesoi translate as "British Isles". So the term was very much around in ancient times - though not in English, since the English language didn't exist back then. Whether the Pretani were semi-mythical is not really the point - the Britons certainly believed them to be real, and indeed that they were them, because Brython is derived from the same word. TharkunColl (talk) 12:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The greek for British is βρετανικά and not Βρεττανιαι (Brettaniai). It's a little mischevious to say that the Greek term translates as the "British Isles" seeing as English as a language wasn't around back then :-), and the term British wasn't either. That's taking WP:SYNTH to record levels :-)

Doing some research on this from a Greek and Roman POV... The Romans used the term Britannia to refer to Britain. Pliny the Elder writing around AD 70 uses a Latin version of the same terminology in section 4.102 of his Naturalis Historia. He writes of Great Britain: Albion ipsi nomen fuit, cum Britanniae vocarentur omnes de quibus mox paulo dicemus. ("Albion was its own name, when all [the islands] were called the Britannias"). Getting closer, but still different.

Around AD 100, Ptolemy includes both Britain and Ireland – he calls it Hibernia – in the island group he calls Britannia. He entitles Book II, Chapter 1 of as Hibernia, Island of Britannia, and Chapter 2 as Albion, Island of Britannia. Again, no reference to British Isles.

The name Albion for Great Britain fell from favour, and the island was described in Greek as Πρεττανία or Βρεττανία, in Latin Britannia, an inhabitant as Βρεττανός, Britannus, with the adjective Βρεττανικός, Britannicus, equating to "British". Aha! First reference to an adjective equating to "British". But with the Roman conquest of Britain the name Britannia was only used for the province of Roman Britain - therefore the adjective British was used in relation to inhabitants of this province.

It seems to me that the term is pretty modern and it's usage does not date back to ancient references. Tharky, did I get some stuff wrong here? --Bardcom (talk) 13:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The Greek terms translate as "British Isles" - and that's a simple fact of language. If anyone is being "a little mischevious" is is you. Following such logic, one could not translate any term from one language to another. The term in English is almost certainly 16th century - no one is disputing this - but it was a translation of the Latin term, which, after a long absence, had started to reappear on maps again from about 1500. These maps were almost all from Continental Europe, with no political axe to grind. TharkunColl (talk) 13:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The Greek terms do not translate as "British Isles" on the Babelfish online translator, and the article Britain (name) doesn't agree with you either. --Bardcom (talk) 17:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't aware they had Latin and Ancient Greek on Babelfish, but even if they do that is hardly a reliable source (though just for the record, according to Babelfish, the modern Greek for British Isles is βρετανικά νησιά - which is pretty damn close to the ancient phrase, allowing for 2500 years of language evolution). And using other Wikipedia articles as sources is not allowed, because they might be tainted with inaccuracies and POV. Those terms do translate as British Isles, it's a simple fact. Your argument will simply be construed as a deliberate attempt to further undermine anything to do with British Isles on Wikipedia. TharkunColl (talk) 17:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict with GH below)Sure, and according to Babelfish, the text you provided translates as Brettaniai. Very close though, I grant you, especially when you look at the Greek letters. But it doesn't translate to the "British Isles" - they simply can't have, seeing as how the term "British" hadn't even been coined yet. BTW, I'm getting very tired of the constant fallback position of "deliberate attempt to undermine yada yada yada". I'm more interested in establishing facts, and understanding why certain perceptions exist, etc, than name-calling. --Bardcom (talk) 17:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

(unindent)-The term British Isles was coined in about 1600, when the British (English) finally dominated Ireland. That's a fact, a fact, a fact, and no matter how you dress it up TharkumColl, it still remains a fact. Why weren't they called British Isles in 1400, because the British only dominated The Pale. That's a fact, that's a fact, that's a fact. The truth is the truth, is the truth, and it will never change. You think that if one repeats an illusion often enough, it then becomes a reality. I'm not buying that one, and never will. More Lewis Carroll stuff. Brothers Grimm? 93.107.132.58 (talk) 17:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Brettaniai and Pretanikai were the Ancient Greek forms of the Modern Greek Bretanika. It's not rocket science. As for your assertion that the term "British" was used around 1600 for political reasons, I'm afraid to say you have really stumbled quite badly there. In 1600 the English did not call themselves "British", and would have been horrified and extemely offended at the thought. In 1600, "British" meant Welsh. And Dee was Welsh. So what you called a fact (three times) turns out to not be true. The Welsh did not dominate Ireland in 1600, and the English would have had no particular political reason for coining a term that to their ears would have sounded like it meant "Welsh Isles". TharkunColl (talk) 18:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• You're kidding!! 93.107.132.58 (talk) 18:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, getting there, but I still see a little WP:SYNTH in saying the term existed since ancient Greek times. The Ancient Greek terminology evolved over time, sure, but the ancient Greek term also included Thule (Iceland?). So the term used in modern Greek, which is a different term, is the equivalent to the ancient Greek term - but not the same. A bit like the Welsh term Prydain is translated into English as Britain, but is not the same term and had different meaning as it referred to the early Brythonic speaking inhabitants of Ireland and the north of Scotland. Tharky, thanks for the pointers. --Bardcom (talk) 18:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh no, don't tell me Gold heart is back again (IP 93.107.132.58)? GoodDay (talk) 19:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Or how about Thule = Shetlands? No one knows for sure, but since Pytheas travelled round the coasts of the British Isles, which is more likely? The term used in Modern Greek is not a different term, it's the same term. In English, in Dee's time, the word "British" was usually spelt Brytish. Doesn't mean it's a different term. TharkunColl (talk) 22:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

How about the references that say that Thule in the relevant Greek texts was most probably Iceland - oh or maybe it was Norway? How about the fact that the term wasn't used for more than a millennium and was then applied to Ireland by English and Welsh writers as part of a political term. Sticking one part of the story in and blanking other equally true parts of the story isn't NPOV. Wotapalaver (talk) 17:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Thule could just as easily have been the Shetlands. And your assumption that the term in English was intended to be political is baseless, since in the 16th century the term "British" was not used by the English to refer to themselves, but rather it meant Welsh. TharkunColl (talk) 17:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe Dee's writing was called political, as was the usage in 1621. Wotapalaver (talk) 17:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Dee merely translated the term from Latin. The Latin term had been appearing on maps since about 1500 - maps made in Continental Europe, with no political axe to grind. TharkunColl (talk) 17:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Did he? Can you reference that? Besides, pretty much all maps made at the time had a political axe to grind. Wotapalaver (talk) 17:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Another reversion by TharkunColl, using arguments that he knows well are invalid. I don't have to use another Wikipedia article as the source because the other Wikipedia article - as he well knows - sources the material very well. Wotapalaver (talk) 10:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Compromise across the board

Perhaps we should have British Isles included across all United Kingdom related articles & use Britain and Ireland across all Republic of Ireland related articles. Whatcha'll say to that? GoodDay (talk) 20:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely not. That would imply that the term was somehow unsuitable for the Republic of Ireland, which is of course a political stance. Furthermore, "Britain and Ireland" ignores the many hundreds of other islands that make up the archipelago. TharkunColl (talk) 22:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

And Iceland ignores hundreds if small islands too, a fallacious argument indeed. And the United States of America ignores hundreds of islands too, And Greece does the same. What a load of pov-ridden bullshit. 93.107.7.254 (talk) 00:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The above anonymous user is actually the permanently banned User:Gold heart. Expect him back again very soon with another different, though rather similar, IP address. TharkunColl (talk) 08:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

At least I'm not a filthy pov-pushing racist like you are Thark, You should be banned from Wikipedia. You were blocked because of your edit warring over Muslim articles. Your block should have been permanent. 93.107.64.86 (talk) 16:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Permanent, like yours you mean? Indeed, you would be banned anyway for a personal attack like that, if you weren't already. Isn't it funny how those on this side of the dabate never, ever resort to such mindless, gutter tactics as yours - often despite extreme provocation. TharkunColl (talk) 16:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not an attack, it's a fact, and you are a racist, and you are backed up by your British admin buddies. Call a spade a spade, and of course you don't like it, but it's true. What are you talking about ""this side", it sums you lot up, there are not supposed to be "sides" in creating an encyclopedia. 93.107.64.86 (talk) 17:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

By "this side" I am referring to those who wish to include facts, and do not wish to censor them for political reasons. As for being a racist, I challenge you to point to any racist statements or edits I have made. You mentioned my contributions to the Islam pages. It hardly needs pointing out that Islam is not a race, and all my edits there were likewise concerned with a wish to remove any sort of political censorship. But why bother talking to you? You shouldn't even be here and your opinions, therefore, are valueless. TharkunColl (talk) 17:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Your opinions are not just valueless, you are a liability to the whole project, and you should get a permo ban. 93.107.64.86 (talk) 17:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

And you should know! TharkunColl (talk) 17:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

It's best to ignore him, Tharky. GoodDay (talk) 18:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The suggestion you made G'Day is an excellent one and very similar to the compromise agreed some time back. It is a pity that POV pushers continue to try and insert the offensive term into as many Irish-related articles as they can. This is the root cause of so much "troubles" here; and is a rather good reason to rename the BI article - so it can no longer be used as a "trojan horse" to describe Ireland and things Irish as "British". Sarah777 (talk) 23:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

What compromise? I've asked you this before - please point to the discussion, and the consensus reached, concerning this issue. And by the way, your Trojan horse scenario rather lets the cat out of the bag with regard to your political motivations. TharkunColl (talk) 00:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The chances of the British Isles article being re-named, is very remote (as it's a historical name). PS- I sure was hoping my idea would be adopted. GoodDay (talk) 23:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

You guys/gals should consider my proposal (or atleast something similiar to it). It's better then edit wars and page protections. PS- even better the Britain and Ireland for Ireland related articles? Simply don't put anything. GoodDay (talk) 21:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree 100% - but it doesn't satisfy the British Nationalist editors or their Admin Supporters Club. Sarah777 (talk) 21:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Here are some further suggestions for their POV Crusade;

Dublin

• Guinness's brewery is the largest in the British Isles.
• The Spire is the tallest sculpture in the British Isles.
• Phoenix Park is the largest park within a city-limit in the British Isles
• Molly Malone is the bustiest statue in the British Isles
• O'Connell St is the widest Main Street in the British Isles
• Dublin is the most westerly city with more than a million people in the British Isles
• Dublin is the most westerly Capital City in the British Isles.

The possibilities are endless, only restricted by the limitations of the imaginations of so many of the POV pushers. Why not turn every single Ireland-related article into a battleground. For the good of the project, of course. Sarah777 (talk) 22:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Some of those are actually quite good. Thanks. TharkunColl (talk) 22:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm confident that my compromise (or something similiar to it) will eventually be adopted (after some kicking & screaming, perhaps); it's inevitable my fellow British & Irish cousins. GoodDay (talk) 22:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The Spire is also the largest sculpture in the area bounded by (insert a pair of longitudes and a pair of latitudes), or pick an arbitrary set of countries like this: "The Spire is the tallest structure in Ireland, Thailand, and Peru." If the area definition is neither relevant nor generally acceptable in the area that we're talking about, we probably shouldn't use it. E.g. Saying that Croke Park is the biggest Gaelic Games stadium in the British Isles would be ludicrous because it's irrelevant. Similarly, saying that The Shannon is the longest river in the British Isles is dodgy because the term British Isles isn't generally used in the area where the Shannon lies, so it's a misplaced description somewhat akin to saying that Edinburgh is in England (on a worldwide basis most people call the UK England). Saying that London is the largest city in the British Isles is unlikely to raise hackles from anyone much. I disagree slightly with Goodday's suggestion only because it's not always needed to mention Britain at all when talking about something in Ireland, or to mention Ireland at all when talking about something in Britain so sometimes the term "British Isles" should simply be replaced by "Ireland" or by "Britain". As shown in one of the examples where Bardcom removed the term British Isles, the correct and relevant term could even be something like "Southern England". Wotapalaver (talk) 10:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll add that from personal experience, the edits that seem to be the most contentious are these types of articles where an "est" is involved as in longest/shortest/highest/coldest, etc. --HighKing (talk) 16:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd need to check, but I'm pretty sure that

• Phoenix Park is the largest park within a city-limit in the Europe.
• O'Connell St is the widest Main Street in Europe.
• Dublin is the most westerly Capital City in Europe.

Which would indeed be notable. "The possibilities are endless, only restricted by the limitations of the imaginations of so many of the POV pushers." Er, weren't you supposed to stop this type of thing as a condition of your last unblock? @Wotapalaver. "Similarly, saying that The Shannon is the longest river in the British Isles is dodgy because the term British Isles isn't generally used in the area where the Shannon lies" would appear sensible, until one goes and looks and finds "The Shannon is the longest river in the British Isles" on a lot of Irish websites. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 18:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, Bastun, Sarah777 is the most uncivil Wiki editor in the British Isles? Sarah777 (talk) 21:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

@Bastun - "a lot" is hard to be sure of, but at least some - yes. However, based on what I see on websites and in the references I expect that the number is fewer than it would be if the term was not controversial. The UK is also called England on a lot of websites, on tombs, in calls to arms, etc... What should we do with that? Wotapalaver (talk) 21:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Dispute tag

Can the dispute tag be removed? There seems to be no active discussion of the dispute tag, which indicates that the dispute is not-active. In the absence of continued evidence of dispute I'll remove the tag in a week. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 11:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Please do no such thing. There is a dispute; it is currently being played out elsewhere. Unless you want to start a whole new dispute?? Sarah777 (talk) 18:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

That's the problem Sarah. The dispute should be held here & at the Taskforce. But, it always ends up at British Isles. -- GoodDay (talk) 16:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The dispute on the BI page is about something else. What's the dispute HERE supposed to be about? If there isn't a dispute HERE then there shouldn't be a tag on this page. 79.155.154.185 (talk) 16:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The dispute tag is here because this article, together with British Isles, is really just a vehicle for the POV pushers aiming to eliminate use of the term. It is a totally unencyclopedic article. MidnightBlue (Talk) 18:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Unhelpful comment from MBM, but very practically explains why the dispute tag is still in place. --HighKing (talk) 13:25, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Quite unhelpful comment from MBM. The obvious counter-argument of course is that 'the other side' is trying to impose the term and unilaterally eliminate any objection to it. Please see section below. Pconlon 12:21, 18 December 2008 (GMT)

No-one is trying to impose the term on anyone. Those who don't like the term claim there is a dispute, but the only dipsute is in their own minds and in their writings. In other words, there is no dispute, there are just people around who don't like it. Many of these people are attracted to Wikipedia because they can use articles like this and British Isles to further their agenda. MidnightBlue (Talk) 23:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

MidnightBlue, in the words of Boxxy, "you trollin'". ʄ!•¿talk? 03:26, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

No, but I think you are. Expressing an opinion, as I've done above, is just that. Your interjection on the other hand serves no useful purpose whatsoever. MidnightBlue (Talk) 18:07, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Nope. The article makes it clear that "No branch of the Government of Ireland officially uses the term British Isles", so your assertion that there is no dispute, or that if there is then it's a fringe position is complete and utter nonsense, expressed only to get a rise out of people. I was just stating the blatantly obvious, however now that I have done that I am going to follow wikipedia's advice and not feed the troll. ʄ!•¿talk? 14:33, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Make sure you don't starve to death. MidnightBlue (Talk) 17:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Oxford English Dictionary revisions

The September 2008 revisions to the OED include all words relating to "Britain". The new draft entry for "British Isles" gives the following definition:

A group of islands, including Britain, Ireland (Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland), the Isle of Man, the Hebrides, the Orkney Islands, the Shetland Islands, the Scilly Isles, and the Channel Islands, lying off the coast of northwestern Europe, from which they are separated by the North Sea and the English Channel. Chiefly with the.

The term is generally regarded as a geographical or territorial description, rather than as one which designates a political entity. The term is deprecated by some speakers in the Republic of Ireland.

The earliest citation given is (hyperlinks added by me):

1577 J. DEE Arte Navigation 65 The syncere Intent, and faythfull Aduise, of Georgius Gemistus Pletho, was, I could..frame and shape very much of Gemistus those his two Greek Orations..for our Brytish Iles, and in better and more allowable manner.

jnestorius^(talk) 02:37, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Dispute tag removed

Dispute tags are used to indicate active disputes on the existence of a page. There is clearly much to debate as to this article's content (that it includes 'disagreement and different views' is properly highlighted in the note at the very top of the article), however the existence of the British Isles naming dispute is not in question. This page covering the topic is appropriate - and necessary in my opinion to avoid the rerun of editing wars that have raged on the British Isles page in the past. The discussion on this point is no longer active, so I have removed the dispute tag. All contributors are always welcome to constructively input content to the article. Kind regards, Pconlon 12:18, 18 December 2008 (GMT)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.