Talk:British Isles/Archive 10

Modern Useage section
This, is, generally fine after Hugh's latest edit. However, I would suggest that we include a sentence or two to explain why it is considered offensive. As far as I know, no-one has ever suggested that it is considered offensive for any reason other than the insinuation of British control over Ireland. This is a sourceable point and one that is key to understanding why there is a problem with the term. --Robdurbar 10:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I've put back a section in the terminology article regarding anecdotes of international dignitaries confusion regarding Ireland and Britain. Maybe its of use here also:


 *  The term British Isles has led to several high-profile and embarrassing faux pas. The then United States First Lady Nancy Reagan, on a state visit to Ireland with her husband, the US President Ronald Reagan, inquired of Irish officials how often members of the British Royal Family visited. When told that they didn't, Mrs Reagan expressed surprise, given the fact that Ireland was "in the British Isles". Irish officials informed her that Ireland is not part of the British Isles and had not been since Irish independence in December 1922. During a stop-over visit to the Republic of Ireland in 1989 by the then leader of the USSR, Mikhail Gorbachev, indicated that he assumed Ireland's head of state was Queen Elizabeth II, given that she was the British Queen and his officials said that Ireland was a part of the British Isles.[10]. Even those who should be familiar with its use are prone to mistakes — such as the BBC in an article on the British weather, which refers to the "country" of the British Isles.[11]

--sony-youth talk 10:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * My own opinion is that the main article should be about the geography, history and so on. There should definitely be reference to the confusion over the term, but the proper place for expanding on it is, as you've done, over on the terminology article itself. Bastun 11:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed, now that its there, and I can understand a worry about 'creep' of more and more detail in the terminology summary, until it fills the page; but I would argue that the casual reader would look at what we have now and see no explanation for why it could be objectional. There was a couple of sentences in the article which Hugh removed under the basis of there being objections to the term for other reasons; I wasn't aware of any and, my point was, that as long as there aren't - and so we're not opening oureslves up to thousands of explanations being put on this page - then I think they're a valuable two sentences which, for me, would see the coverage of the terminology on this article complete. --Robdurbar 13:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * On the reason for being annoyed by the term, while I don´t have sourceable material (at least for the moment) another common reason for annoyance I know of from friends is something more akin to what the documents from NI might call "parity of respect" - or something like that. The impression I have is that the issue is often just that they feel Ireland is not a British Island (or Isle) and any collective term for the islands should include mention of Ireland. It´s not necessarily a political point at all.  They see calling Ireland a British Isle as disrespectful...not necessarily insulting or anything, primarily disrespectful.  Hughsheehy 08:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * nods* - I've heard that too. "Parity of esteem" might be the term? Again, I think something best covered in the naming dispute page. Bastun 09:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yep, parity of esteem sounds right. Horrid term, but as close as I can get..   In any case, because there might be lots of reasons, I would support not getting into why it´s seen as annoying, just that it is.  That it is annoying is fact...I´m afraid that a list of the reasons would unavoidably get into speculative territory and become another edit war (probably with some justice). Hughsheehy 11:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi. I think that the REASON for objection should definitely be stated, in addition to the simple recognition of its existance, though concisely. As Robdurbar so succintly put it, ‘the insinuation of British control over Ireland’ covers the crux of it well. I also like Hughsheehy’s ‘parity of esteem’ wording; that should be crafted in, with perhaps the example of the ‘British Lions’ to ‘British & Irish Lions’ namechange as illustration of the feelings held. An encyclopedic entry titled ‘British Isles’ must have ALL aspects of the term covered – respectfully and with appropriate weighting in both article introduction and main body. Pconlon 19:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, but the parity of esteem argument really isn't a million miles from the 'it might make people think we're british argument'. Given the comments above, I think we should have something, but leave it rather general. How about:
 * Furthermore, some of the terminology may be controversial. Those who object to the term do so because the adjective "British" is most commonly understood as 'of Great Britain' or 'of the United Kingdom. They argue that the term therefore suggests that the UK somehow domiantes Ireland, when the two are in fact sovereign equals. (with relevant sources inserted, bien sûr)
 * I think this covers both the objections we've had raised - and, more importantly, all those that we've had sourced. Again, if something like that were included, I would see the terminology section as 'complete'. --Robdurbar 08:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I still feel that this makes the whole thing too political. It also starts to feel too carefully phrased - somthing deliberately concocted to have a vague but inoffensive meaning.  Hughsheehy 17:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Those are fairly intangiable objections, if you don't mind me saying. Surely the objection is a (geo)political one; indeed the point is, really, that those who obejct see it as a political term (or one that could be understood as such), even if most do not use it politically? To me it just explains the situation in as simple english as is possible. --Robdurbar 19:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I know, it's terribly intangible and I don't mind you saying it. I just can't figure anything better at the moment.  Again, I can express part of it in non WP terms as something like "irish isn't a subset of british.  ireland isn't a subset of britain.  they're culturally, historically, etc., different...and that doesn't have to be a political statement, but the term 'the british isles' entirely ignores ireland - which is the second biggest chunk of land".  Even if the UK still included the whole of ireland, the objection to the term "the british isles" could still be made on those grounds, even by people perfectly happy to be within a UK like that.  that is a key understanding it took me a while to reach, even if i'm not expressing it well.   The objection is NOT necessarily (or even predominantly) political.  Now, for sure, the history of the two islands makes the issue more edgy, but isn't necessarily the whole issue.  Boy, i hope people can understand any of this..  Hughsheehy 16:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes! It's exactly why, for example, the British Lions are now the British and Irish Lions, as PConlon alluded to above. Bastun 18:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment; A whole load of gobbledygook! They were known as The Lions, then they became known as the British and Irish Lions. They were never officially named the British Lions.  Please get your facts straight before you start ranting. MelForbes 22:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, let's keep it easy people! While 'British Lions' may not have been an official title (I honestly don't know myself), I remember it commonly being referred to as such in Britain. The change of title was no doubt prompted by this parity of esteem thing. I do understand what you're saying user Hughsheehy! Suitable wording covering your excellent point should be included, but the political aspect can't be overlooked. Perhaps a good tweak to user Robdurbar's wording would replace 'dominates' with 'has a controlling influence over' - this sounds a little less sensational. Pconlon 10:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the team was officially called, ironically, the 'British Isles'. The Lions name was attached, and in saying British Lions the British changes its meaning from something geographical to something political.  I see the word British as having variable meanings, and its the attachment of British to the United Kingdom that was always dodgy.  What we really need is new terminology, officially recognised.  The Council of the Isles ought to sort that - although it is officially called the British-Irish Council, even though it includes Man and the Channel Islands.  Then there's the conflation of 'British Islands' with 'British Isles' - quite correctly Ireland is not a British Island. Stevebritgimp 08:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Edit to intro
Bastun, I’m glad that you recognise the significant level of objection – beyond ‘a radical minority’ that some remarkably contend. Given the general avoidance of the term that exists in the Republic of Ireland, it can be fairly said that majority opinion is beyond ‘widespread indifference’. For the sake of accuracy, I am changing ‘The term is used less frequently in the Republic of Ireland than within the United Kingdom’ to ‘The term is not generally used in the Republic of Ireland.’ This is better wording, and more concise than the ‘…not used to any great extent in…’ wording. Incidentally, if any contributor here hasn’t seen the Cannes Film Festival-winning ‘The Wind that Shakes the Barley’, I’d highly recommend it. It presents very well the majority Irish view (still strong today!) of our identity and place in these islands and Europe as a whole. Pconlon 19:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * it can be fairly said that majority opinion is beyond ‘widespread indifference’  is a matter of opinion, I think - but one we won't be able to resolve without someone like IMRB poll. In any case, I do think your edit is relatively accurate (we could argue semantics about 'generally', 'widely', etc.) and certainly more succinct - 'tis fine by me. Bastun 01:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, a poll (or even a referendum) would be good! I'm glad you agree that the wording is relatively accurate at least - its converse certainly isn't true anyway. As it is, any nationalist venom - from either direction - is happily kept out of it. I really like to keep things as concise as possible, especially in the intro; long-winded and vague wording only invites endless re-editing!! Cheers. Pconlon 22:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC) [typo corrected]


 * Boards.ie had two different polls (and yes, a boards.ie poll is not a proper poll) that used quite different wordings but got results of between 30% and 60% saying that they didn't like/use the term British Isles in reference to Ireland. The exact question you ask will dominate the result on a question like this.  Hughsheehy 09:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Second sentence
I suggested this

Although this is a purely geographical term, inclusion of the political word "British" makes it the subject of misunderstanding and a cause for offence in some quarters, for example in Ireland.

but was reverted. Any other opinions? I think it is accurate, far easier to understand and gets to the heart of the matter.Abtract 10:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that purely geographic is a vast oversimplification. As I noted in my edit summary, menaing is created as much in the understanding of the term as in the use of it. If people understand the term policially - and I think its unquestionable that they do - then it becomes political. In Northern Ireland, its very arguable that its use (or absence) would be a political discions. And its certainly mis-used politically - there's the good old quote from a BBC online weather article "in a small country like the British Isles". Furthermore, you'll have some people tell you that British means 'of Great Britian' - given that Great Britian refers to an island, that would make 'British' a more geographical term. To summarise: I wish it were that simple.--Robdurbar 10:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Agree with Rob: the misunderstandings are often due to vagueness as to what's included rather than political intent, and British is rather ambiguous in political terms, as well as having other connotations. Somewhat to my surprise, the present wording of the opening paragraph seems to cover the complexities very well. .. dave souza, talk 11:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * And again, the physical area and the island group is perhaps a geographical reality, but that does not mean that the term itself is necessarily a non-political term. I come back to my example from long ago...if these were "the rainy isles" or "the green isles", or "the atlantic isles" it might be a purely geographical term, but "British" always had at least an ethnic meaning. It's a tricky subject where clarity is key, and keeping within the limits of what can be said is vital to avoid more edit wars.  Hughsheehy 16:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the suggestion user Abtract, but we've raked over this ground before and it really isn't possible to fairly argue the 'purely geographical' position. Users Robdurbar, Dave Souza and Hughsheehy have all made their points well. To contribute a personal anecdote, I travel abroad quite frequently and am sometimes asked if I'm British - as I come from an area often described as the 'British Isles' - a simple, honest mistake, but frustrating nonetheless! Pconlon 10:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The article implies that those who do not see the term"British Isles" as purely geographical (and the inclusion of Channel Islands and exclusion of Faroe Islands suggests that it is not a purely geographical term) misunderstand the term ("the subject of misunderstanding"). I suggest that such people have a perfectly valid understanding of the expression that differs from that of the author. Perhaps this may be reflected in a less condescending way?

Modern Usage section
This section only seems to describe problems with the term, or at the very least alternative terms. This makes it seem as if the term is universally recognised as problematic, which it isn't. There seems to be nothing about the fact that the vast majority of people who live in the British Isles have no problem with calling them that. TharkunColl 00:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * WP:SOFIXIT? --Robdurbar 09:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Again I'll point out that the assertion that the vast majority of the people who live in the British Isles use the term is (a) unsupported and (b) potentially irrelevant. As per the example of nigger from the USA - at any time between 1800 and 1960 there was probably a vast majority of the population that used the term and saw no problem with it.  By itself, that is not a good criterion to assert that the term is not problematic.  Apart from that, I would prefer if that section would focus more on the inconsistency of use and have inserted text to reflect that.  I hope it suffices.  Hughsheehy 15:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Why should the article be based just on your personal preferences? Is this not a classic definition of POV? TharkunColl 19:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The article does not have to be based on my personal preferences. However, my personal preferences are still my personal preferences.  I agree with you that the section doesn't have to - and probably shouldn't - focus on the naming dispute aspect, since that is covered in many places.  However, if talking about modern usage of the term, then the fact that it is often used in widely varying ways is a highly relevant fact.  My preference is that the section should reflect that.  What's your preference?  Hughsheehy 20:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * We can't pretend that present day usage of the term is not controversial to at least some degree (and certainly in Ireland), and the article has to say that. Conversely, TharkunColl is certainly correct to imply that the usage is uncontroversial in Britain (but then so is "Southern Ireland" (sic) ). The section must do no more than summarise the main articles listed at the head of the section: there is a danger of slipping into reproducing them.  It seems to me that the section is no bigger or smaller than it ought to be. If we begin to add material like "controversial in Ireland but not in Britain", we run that risk. --Red King 20:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * But what I really came here to ask is "which dictionary defines it?". I have no doubt that it does but citation is still essential. --Red King 20:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Some examples:
 * Shorter OED, electronic version 02.10.96s - "Britain, Ireland and the Isle of Man, and sometimes also the Channel Islands"
 * Longman Modern English Dictionary, ISBN 0 582 55512 4, - "a group of islands off N.W. Europe comprising Great Britain Ireland, the Hebrides, Orkney the Shetland Is and adjacent islands"
 * Merriam Webster] - "Function: geographical name, island group W Europe comprising Great Britain, Ireland, & adjacent islands"
 * Some references at dictionary.com - includes for example the American heritage dictionary - "British Isles, A group of islands off the northwest coast of Europe comprising Great Britain, Ireland, and adjacent smaller islands"
 * Encarta - "British Isles, group of islands in the northeastern Atlantic, separated from mainland Europe by the North Sea and the English Channel. It consists of the large islands of Great Britain and Ireland and almost 5,000 surrounding smaller islands and islets"
 * A reference that defines it in this "modern" way would be interesting. Mucky Duck 21:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Sources were given here which showed that the term is uncontroversial in Britain: The Guardian article by Ian Mayes cited as proof that there was a controversy made it clear that this was only known of by people with Irish acquaintances, and both the Guardian and BBC style guides require that it should not be used as a political description, but have no difficulty with it as a geographical description. There were also US dictionary definitions from the internet which defined the term as including Ireland without qualification. I'd suggest that TharkunColl puts in a brief statement of its geographical usage in Britain and apparently the US without awareness of there being a problem, with these references. If you can't find them and need help, let me know. .. dave souza, talk 21:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Again, from my own POV, this section should talk about modern usage....where the fact that it's used in varying ways is the main issue. The naming dispute may need to be mentioned, but the point is the variation in use  - not the dispute, which is widely covered elsewhere. Since the term is most used in Britain it is also most varying used in Britain, whether uncontroversially or not. That isn't the main point, from my POV. Again, the point is that the way the BBC and other media use the term is not consistent.  British Isles is used to mean the UK, just Britain and Britain's small islands, the whole British Isles, etc.,etc.,etc.  I put the section in and I was just trying to keep it brief, so mea culpa if it's going to become focus of an argument.  The Guardian article mentioned above is (I believe, but without looking) the one that's now on the naming dispute page under the Perspectives in Britain section...so part of the problem may be (again) the scattering of relevant info across several pages.  Hughsheehy 09:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

BBC's use of "British Isles"
Someone has deleted my question less than a day after my posing it. I will try again - here with context Mucky Duck 20:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I made a list of lots of places that the BBC used the term in various different ways and posted it on the discussion page a couple of months ago, either here or on the terminology page. The BBC (and other UK media) use the term to mean all sorts of things, including the definition that this page uses. I have no doubt that the weather forecast often uses the term in that way, but Philip Avery on the weather forecast is just one sample. It´s a fact that the term gets used in a bunch of other ways - including as in "The British Isles and Ireland". (the specific question of whether that then includes NI or not, and thus whether the implied definition of "Isles" is the same as "Islands" is far too scary to get into).


 * As I said then, I hesitate to put in an edit any view that says to the BBC or other major media that their usage of a term (in an obviously professionally edited context and not just in quotation) is not "correct". I can say that it is inconsistent and confusing...although I got accused of pushing an "Irish Republican agenda" by saying that. I think that - if you look - you´ll see that use of the term in ways that imply clearly different definitions is not at all uncommon. I hesitate to say that it´s the majority use or even close, but it´s certainly not uncommon. Hughsheehy 22:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Are you referring to the list here? Mucky Duck 22:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

It was archived here by Robdurbar. --sony-youth talk 20:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Some of the examples struck me as open to interpretation, and slightly off topic but illustrating how easy it is to come across dodgy usage, found yesterday at the dentists a magazine (irritating and uniformative website) called Art of England with small print next to the title "inc. United Kingdom". So someone in Scotland must subscribe to it. ... dave souza, talk 21:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It's rather more than a question of "open to interpretation" in this case. Not a single one of them actually supports the claim and some of them, presumably mistakenly, actually misrepresent what the referred page says. Mucky Duck 17:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * MuckyDuck, are you suggesting that I misrepresented what the pages said? Hughsheehy 09:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting anything. And I'm certainly not imputing motive. I'm simply presenting the bald fact that some of your comments misrepresent what the page says. Mucky Duck 18:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If they´re bald facts, present the facts. Hughsheehy 19:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I thought that had been done perfectly adequately already. But Ok, explain this example:
 * http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/music/worldmusic/britishislesandirelandrev1.shtml uses the term "The British Isles and Ireland", and that´s the way they mean it.
 * Where does this use "The British Isles and Ireland"? Or this one:
 * http://www.bbc.co.uk/voices/recordings/] shows only the UK on the map but describes it as the British Isles. (Note that this and most other pages do include the Channel Islands)
 * Where does it decribe it as the "British Isles"? Or this:
 * http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/britishisles/ shows the British Isles as being only the UK.
 * Where?
 * Mucky Duck 19:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Please use Google cache to examine the older versions of the first two pages, which have since changed, but which used to use the descriptions I described, and then please consider whether your accusation that I misrepresented anything can be sustained. It isn´t rocket science to check the cache of a a page if you want to accuse someone of misrepresentation.  (http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:VVsCbBN1VOcJ:www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/music/worldmusic/worldmusic.xml+%22This+section+will+help+you+revise+the+traditional%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&client=firefox-a and http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:6w1jek5Q3C0J:www.bbc.co.uk/voices/recordings/index.shtml+%22Listen+in+to+the+diverse+voices+of+the%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&client=firefox-a).  As for the 3rd page, the google cache does not contain the page I saw any more.  I wonder if someone went and asked the BBC to change those pages.  It seems odd that they should have changed in that kind of specific way.  Should we try to ask them? Hughsheehy 23:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Sigh. Here we go again. Firstly I did not say you misrepresented the the pages. I said that your comments misrepresent the pages which is clearly and demonstrably true. I had assumed, and made this clear, mistake - you say that the BBC have corrected the errors, fair enough I accept that. However it may be the list does not in any way support the claim that the BBC makes editorial use of the "modern usage" and this claim should be withdrawn. Along with all the personal attacks and unfounded allegations. Mucky Duck 21:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * As far as I can see, I did not misrepresent, and my comments did not misrepresent the content of any of the pages. The google cache shows clearly that the pages in the examples you give to accuse me of misrepresenting the pages did use the terms I described at the time that I made the references.  They have apparently changed since then.  That is something that can happen with the web and not under my control.  They did use the terms I mentioned, like "the British Isles and Ireland" (which implies a definition of the British Isles that excludes Ireland) or use the term the British Isles to describe things that were purely within the UK, at the time that I made the references, which is now several months ago.  These were all in pages to describe BBC programs and thus rank as "editorial" content and that is how the BBC used those terms.  Meantime, I´m not going to grace Mucky with any further response.  He is apparently not interested in the actual facts and the way of denying that he is making an accusation of misrepresentation while simultaneously making the same accusation again is frankly amazing.  Hughsheehy 13:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I have made it perfectly clear that I accuse you of nothing (except making unfounded personal attacks on me, which are becoming very tiresome.) Your comments quite clearly do misrepresent the position now - what they said months ago is unimportant. It is clear from this that the BBC do not make editorial use of the modern usage and that where it does appear on their pages it is an error. Mucky Duck 16:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * From Webster, definition of misrepresent. "1 : to give a false or misleading representation of usually with an intent to deceive or be unfair ".  Mucky said I misrepresented the websites' content.  My comments did not misrepresent anything.  The fact that the pages have been changed does not mean that they misrepresent anything now either.  The comments were meant to document and demonstrate the fact that usage of the term British Isles was varied and inconsistent. That fact was demonstrated.  I´m not going to bother demonstrating it again.  Hughsheehy 18:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I have no intention of entering into a sterile debate on the definition of misrepresent and start trading dictionaries with you (since when were you interested in dictionary definitions anyway.) I made it perfectly clear, from the outset and repeatedly, that I was accusing you of nothing. That should be quite sufficient. Mucky Duck 22:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Apologies, I did not intend to archive anything so recent, lazyness on my part --Robdurbar 11:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * No sweat - I can see how that could happen. Mucky Duck 17:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Political reasons
I've tidied up the sentences a bit, and added the term "political reasons" for the various objections. Are they otherwise? TharkunColl 00:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * As per discussion above, the reasons are many, not just - or even primarily - political. Also, I believe that you (or maybe Arcturus or Mucky) have previously said that there is no such thing as a "British Isle".  If that is true then the "British Isles" is a singular noun.  It is a group, not they are a group. If they are a group then it would be correct to say that Ireland is a "British Isle", which I believe has been described on the discussion pages as something like "a ridiculous thing to say" (note, not verbatim, but gist).  Hughsheehy 00:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not that there's no such thing as a "British isle", it's just that there's no such standard phrase with a specific meaning. If you say "British isle" you could easily be talking about Bermuda or Pitcairn or loads of other places (though not Ireland, and arguably not Great Britain either since in modern usage, on its own, the term "isle" implies a small island). The term British Isles, on the other hand, has a long-eastablished and specific meaning, which is why the govt. had to invent the term "British Islands" when they wanted to say something else. To say that British Isles, as a phrase, is not in plural form is utterly preposterous. TharkunColl 09:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Although I think it was me that originally put "is a group" into the intro, I have checked with my dictionary (Collins) and, much to my surprise, it says it is a plural noun. So I have learned something new today, thank for that TharkunColl ... but you might consider not using words like preposterous :) Abtract 09:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Style guides do seem to vary on this. The Economist style guide (online) suggests that the primary thing is to look and see whether the collective noun stands for a single entity.  In this case I believe it does, which would mean it is a singular noun, like "The United States". The United States is very rich.  Some of the states are poor. Similarly you would say "The British Isles has an area of xx sq.km"
 * Interestingly, the Blackwell Publishing sytle guide mentions the British isles and says "Avoid using the British Isles.", which is interesting.
 * Do we have a grammarian here to help with this, or would further discussion be "utterly preposterous"? There are two different views, both with some validity. A discussion I can immediately find is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_and_British_English_differences#Singular_and_plural_for_nouns and suggests that there is no 100% correct answer, but that a document ought to try to be consistent  Since this page is absolutely not consistent, let´s find a consensus before starting an edit war and saying that half the contributors to this page have been "utterly preposterous".  At least they haven´t necessarily been so sure of themselves, even if they can spell political. Hughsheehy 09:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * In fact, reading a little more, the right answer may depend on the sense intended.. E.g. the British Isles is a group, but the British Isles are usually quite rainy. Again, do we have a grammarian? Hughsheehy 10:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I have solicited opinions on Talk:English plural. Abtract 11:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * And reading a little further, Tharkun should read the WP guidelines and their suggestions in etiquette before being so free with the accusations that people are being preposterous. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English.  Since American or Indian English are by far the majority in the world, should we now re-write the article to use those varieties (at least in American English, collective nouns generally take the singular) since he is generally so sure that majority view should prevail?  Hughsheehy 11:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Slow down tiger :) Abtract 11:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I take 'British Isles' to be singular in the same way that, for instance, 'Wolverhampton Wanderers' is singular - it refers to the name of a group and not to the items individually in that group. Hence 'the British Isles is ...' and not 'the British Isles are ...' (but 'the British isles are ...' and not 'the British isles is ...'. Matthew 13:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * From the BBC style guide "The British Isles is not a political entity. It is a geographical unit, the archipelago off the west coast of continental Europe covering Scotland,Wales, England, Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands."  Of course, the BBC is being utterly preposterous.  www.bbctraining.com/pdfs/newsstyleguide.pdf. Hughsheehy 18:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Political reasons - what other reasons are there? I have seen none. This is a fair addition to the opening paragraph. TharkunColl 00:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Surely it's "in a political context" rather than for political reasons? Abtract 00:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Again, there are many reasons, as discussed above. The section in the first section about political and historical reasons requires verification and citation.  Please provide.  Hughsheehy 19:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * What other reasons have ever been cited? A wish to not be thought of as "British" is just about as political as you can get. TharkunColl 22:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Respect, identity, culture, geography, etc.,etc.,etc. are not political. Please read the discussion above. Hughsheehy 07:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * "... for political reasons ..." is also a loaded phrase - it could be used to suggest that the term was being objected to as part of some strategy, or in order to achieve certain goals. It's just lacking clarity. "In a political context" is better, but would suggest that the term itself is politicaly neutral and that objections to it were transitory. I don't think its possible (is it necessary?) to summarise objections to the term in one or two words. --sony-youth talk 08:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Again, I have been consistently opposed to getting into the reasons in the introduction. However, if we do, we must cover a reasonable presentation of the reasons and that will make the intro too long and is likely to move the whole dispute back into the first paragraph.  This time, instead of disputing the existence/validity of the objection, we'll be disputing the reasons.  God help us.  However, I'll have a go too, with an alternative presentation of the reasons that I believe is valid.  Gimme a while.   Hughsheehy 10:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * After inserting my expanded section, Abtract felt it was getting out of proportion. Again, I am forced to agree.  Hughsheehy 12:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * What does TDC mean? Abtract 12:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry...I have too much jargon in my life. Top Dead Centre.  Hughsheehy 13:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Meantime, this was my go at an intro with reasons. Abtract felt it was too much and I can't really disagree with him.  "The British Isles are a group of islands off the north west coast of continental Europe comprising Great Britain, Ireland and a number of smaller islands[1]. The term British Isles can be misunderstood and is sometimes considered objectionable, mainly in Ireland, where the term has been viewed not only as an anachronistic geopolitical term rather than a neutral geographical designation but also as a term that does not give appropriate recognition to the second largest island or to the second largest sovereign state in the islands.[2][3][4][5]".  It's an attempt to build in the discussion previously from the Modern Usage section.   Hughsheehy 14:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It looks like the intro is starting to suffer from "detail creep" (again). Stop after "mainly in Ireland." Remember that this is an introduction to what follows: "it should clearly explain the subject so that the reader is prepared for the greater level of detail and the qualifications and nuances that follow" (MoS). Some younger readers, or those whose first language is not English, may well throw their hand up in horror at "anachronistic geopolitical term rather than a neutral geographical designation". Build the discussion in to the main bulk of the article, or into the British Isles naming problem page. Bazza 17:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yep. I agree entirely.  That was pretty much my point in the original discussion.  If we start on more detail, where would we stop?  Hughsheehy 17:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Channel Islands
I dare say it has been discussed before but why aren't the CI included? I have looked up a few references and they mostly seem to include CI in BI so why don't we? Abtract 09:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Including the Channel Islands makes sense only if British Isles is a geo-political term. If it is a geographical term, they are not a part, being part of the continental Europe. The term British Islands covers them. But the term, British Isles, is confusing, ... etc. etc. :) --sony-youth talk 21:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes I know all that but the point is does the real world include them and certainly Collins Concise Dictionary does and this site and this is very clear . I imagine there are two schools of thought but these two sites are way up at the top of google searches (1 and 5 excluding the WIKI site) on BI. In addition I was surprised to see that although the beginning of our article excludes the CI, they are included lower down in British Isles. My feeling is that we must be consistent (obviously) and we ought to include the CI for completeness (with proper citation) but state that some people would exclude them. :) Abtract 00:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It would certainly make a good point to demonstrate that British Isles is redundant as a purely geographical term. I see both the Governments of Jersey and Guernsey describe their respective islands as belonging to the British Isles. Given the multiplicity of definitions, should this not be noted in the introduction to the article? For example, "The term British Isles can be misunderstood ..." should be changed to "No definitive understanding of the term exists ..." It should also be noted that the only common themes between definitions are:
 * their proximate location off the north-western coast of Europe
 * current and historic political links between islands often included and the British (English?) monarchy
 * It should also be noted that since the Channel Islands are often included - as well as (though this is no great justification) the governments of the Channel Islands claiming to be a part of the British Isles and the Irish government claiming not to be - that the term cannot be used seriously in a strictly geographical sense as it always implies some measure of politics in order to define it, not just rocks and seas. This would also make it easier to understand why so many people in Ireland reject the term. What think you? --sony-youth talk 05:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The term had no connection with the English monarchy, historical or otherwise, when the Greeks and Romans invented it. As for which islands are included, small islands such as the Channel Islands or the Faroes do not affect the definition - Great Britain and Ireland, and surrounding smaller islands. If Ireland is not included, then the term becomes pointless anyway. The only people who interpret the phrase politically are those who don't like it. That's rather like saying that I don't like the name "Europe" because it implies that my country is part of the EU. TharkunColl 16:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi TharkunColl. I'm not arguing for or against one interpretation or another, just trying to get to the root of this term as it is used today without original research or POVing. On your post above, I have two points:
 * 1) On geographic or geopolitical: So are the Channel Islands included or not? If they are then the term makes no sense as a strictly geographical term (though the section in the article as to why it was adapted by map-makers is informative). The governments of the Channel Islands attest that they are. Many dictionary definitions include them also.
 * 2) On etymology: Did the Romans and Greeks included the Channel Islands? Does it matter if they did or not?  Is not the current, English-language term unrelated to the Latin and Greek terms (except, possibly, through 16th century myth building)?  Can an etymology be drawn from the Greek and Latin term to the English-language term?  (I think not, though suspect that their similarity is not purely coincidental i.e. that the 16th century coinage of the term in English would have been based on it).  The article says the term was generally unused by the middle ages - only once being asserted, in Latin, by Athelstan seeking to politically unite the Great Britian and Viking Dublin (again, geopolitical, but not equivalent to the British Isles of the Romans and Greeks or the one of today since it does not include Ireland, only a small Viking foothold) - and that even writers in Latin used a different term (insularum according to the article).  The article also states that the term was never used in any indigenous language of the area and that the English-language term was was coined in the 16th century (by the same person who coined the term British Empire and sought the rename the North Atlantic the British Ocean - hinting again at reasons for it being understood as geopolitical).
 * To restate my post above: no definitive understanding of the term exists, but two themes are present in what islands are often included:
 * their proximate location off the north-western coast of Europe
 * current and historic political links between islands often included and the British (English?) monarchy
 * Finally: "The only people who interpret the phrase politically are those who don't like it." Could this not be turned on its head? What are the motivations for those who don't want interpret the phrase as a geopolitical one? (Incidentally, doing so does not imply imperialism or any other such nature for the term.)
 * Have I made a mistake? --sony-youth talk 18:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know if the Channel Islands should be included or not, and I don't really care. The main substance of the definition includes the two major islands of Ireland and Britain, plus surrounding islands. And are you trying to say that even though the phrase was adopted from a Latin one, it should still be regarded as having nothing to do with it? And as for the Athelstan quote, there may well be others from the middle ages - but what we can't say is that that is the only one. Athelstan received fealty from rulers in both Britain and Ireland, so his use of the phrase is very illuminating. And a final word about John Dee - he was also heavily into the occult, so perhaps next people will be saying that the phrase British Isles should be rejected as part of a Satanic conspiracy! The truth of the matter is that he was a scholar, and interested in geography. TharkunColl 22:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Starting a new header below ... --sony-youth talk 00:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Channel Islands and Etymology: Geographic or Geopolitical?
(Started new header from discussion above.) Whether caring or not, we are editing an encyclopedia - facts are facts, we must accept them without bias. My concern with the etymology is that there is a 1,500 year gap and a jump in languages. From How British is British by Richard Todd on being made dean of British Literature since 1500 at Leiden University (the Netherlands):
 * When I use “Britannia” shall mean whatever Britain was at a given historical moment. From a purist point of view this means that I can scarcely in practice use the term at all of any period before 1603, when the English and Scottish thrones (but not their legislatures) were joined, and James VI & I introduced the term “Great Britain” in 1604 to describe his new kingdom. Indeed, the word “Britain”, as the online Oxford English Dictionary assures us, was only used historically (and very rarely) before the Reformation.

In essence, in the English language, "British XXX" terms appear suddenly at the close of the 16th century and start of the 17th, at the same time that the modern identity of British was being coined. Thus, the English-language etymology cannot be seperated from politics. With regards to the Channel Islands, their inclusion (or not) is important because it clears whether the term can be understood as solely geographic, or whether it should be understood geopolitically, today. Please reply remembering that we are writing an encyclopedia. Our passions are incidental. If you have evidence to the contrary of what I have written, I would sincerely welcome it. (By the way, Athelstan did not rule Ireland (or the Isle of Man) - as I noted in my previous post - only received fealty from the Viking king of Dublin. His main adversaries in England were Vikings, and this king supported them and lost. The terms are not equivalent.) --sony-youth talk 00:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * There is no satisfactory answer with regards to the Channel Islands - some people include them, and some don't. As for Athelstan, there are also many places in Britain that he didn't rule, and just because his authority did not stretch to all of Ireland does not mean that his use of the term was any more invalid than any king who claimed a wider jurisdiction than he actually had. And his adversaries included not only Vikings, but also the British of Strathclyde and the Scots. The gap between Athelstan and Elizabeth is much less than 1500 years. And if you want examples of the use of the term Britain in the middle ages, then a good example is Geoffrey of Monmouth. TharkunColl 00:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It is now in the archive page, but there is a long standing request to provide citation that Athelstan received fealty from any Irish based King or - by implication - that his writ extended to any part of Ireland. Olaf (I think that was the name of the Irish Norse King mentioned) attacked and re-took the territory in the North of England that had been lost to Athelstan in 937 and Athelstan's heirs had to fight to take it again.  Meantime, the reference currently in the edit is - as far as I can see - incorrect in date and unsupported in that the list of kings is too long.   Similarly, if the Channel Isles is included in the British Isles, then it is NOT a neutral geographical term, and the objecting views in Ireland would thus be validated.  Also, it'd be great to see a specific citation from Geoffrey that used the collective term "islands" (with the word British or not) as a way of describing all the British Isles.  I looked - albeit not too extensively - and didn't manage to find one, but I was looking in reasonably modern translations.  There are lots of references to "islands" which don't refer to the whole British Isles, and even once to Claudius leaving the government of the "British Islands" in the hands of Arviragus (1st century AD, possibly mythical figure), but it is not clear that this included Ireland.  Hughsheehy 08:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Try The Mammoth Book of British Kings and Queens by Mike Ashley for detailed info on Athelstan. We are not here to make any judgement about the "validity" or otherwise of Irish objections to the term (regardless of whether the Channel Islands are included), we are simply here to report facts. The term is used in Ireland, even by government ministers and members of parliament, and the dictionary definition does include Ireland. TharkunColl 09:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * If we are finished with judging the validity of the Irish objections to the term, that's great. On Athelstan, please give a citation.  The one currently in place, which I believe you entered, is (as far as I can see) not correct or complete.  I might be wrong, but I get different dates and lists of Kings from the sources that I can access. Hughsheehy 09:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow. The Mammoth Book is searchable online on Amazon.  Great text - but I gotta get to work today!  However, it aligns with the original Anglo-Saxon Chronicle that was the source of my original question re Athelstan, i.e. it shows that 927 was the date that Athelstan got fealty from the other British Kings and makes no mention of fealty from Olaf, instead noting that Olaf reinvaded the North of England after the 937 battle.  Again, I stand to be corrected, but it looks as if the current edit is not correct in that regard and that Athelstan's use of the term British Isles (or the Britannic Islands, which is another - possibly better - way of translating the Latin) effectively referred to Britain and its surrounding islands (Orkney, Hebrides, etc., ) and not to the whole modern British Isles. Hughsheehy 09:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hughsheehy as adequately summarised what responce I would have made. However, the 1,500 year that I refered to are in regard the time and language differences between Greek/Roman cognate and modern term.  How did I mislead you in this matter?
 * With regard to Geoffrey of Monmouth, I share Hughsheehy's concerns. Could you provide a quote and reference? Even if you can, then would this not be, as the OED describes, one of the historical and rare usage of the term during the Middle Ages? --sony-youth talk 09:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Athelstan lived in the 10th century, and Elizabeth in the 16th. This is 600 years, not 1500. The reference in Geoffrey is to the terms British and Britain, which you seemed to imply in your previous post was not invented and/or used until the time of Elizabeth. If you still want a reference, then the title of Geoffrey's work itself should suffice. TharkunColl 09:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see. Appologies. When I said "Greek and Roman", I meant "Greek and Roman" (Strabo, Ptolemy, etc.), not "Greek-language and Latin". The "Britanniae insulae" of Athelstan is not cognate to the modern term - did not include Ireland, Man, nor was he king (rex) of Scotland.  Likewise, the the Britain and British of Geoffrey refers to the southern half of modern-day Great Britain and are also not cognate to the modern terms.  To again restate the OED: medieval usage is "hisorical" and "rare".
 * With regard to your reply to Hughsheehy, I agree with the sentiment: we are here to report facts. Our personal interests are incidental. --sony-youth talk 10:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Athelstan was the only Anglo-Saxon king who defeated an Irish ruler, and was the only Anglo-Saxon king who used the phrase British Isles. Your assertion that when he used it he did not intend its normal Latin meaning, and was not including Ireland, is unsupported. That he probably never actually exercised authority in Ireland, or even Scotland, is irrelevant. We are looking for written references to the phrase, and are not here to judge whether those references were justified. TharkunColl 12:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Again, he defeated Olaf (calling him an Irish ruler is ambiguous) in one battle. Olaf apparently did not submit to him and reinvaded a couple of years later, retaking York and the north of England.  In any case, it's not clear that Athelstan was the only Anglo-Saxon king to defeat an Irish ruler.  Olaf Cuaran (successor to the other Olaf as ruler of York) submitted to Edmund 1 in 943.  Edmund 1 was Anglo-Saxon and Olaf Cuaran was probably every bit as Irish as Olaf GOTHFRITHSON, i.e. not very.  I also don't know if Athelstan was the only Anglo-Saxon ruler to use the phrase "The British Isles".  Can you please give your source for that?  It would be highly relevant and potentially important data.   Meantime, in the context of someone claiming to be King of The British Isles, it is relevant fact that they had no authority or kingdom in Ireland and that the (Irish) King that you say gave fealty to him did not do so at the time you say he did.  Hughsheehy 13:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, Geoffrey used British and Britain. No argument from me.  For the moment, my interest is in the term "British Isles".  Did he use that term, and if so, how?  I can't find any other case than the one i mentioned a few moments ago, and there it is "British Islands" that is used, and probably excluding Ireland. Hughsheehy 09:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The reference to Athelstan's defeat of Olaf of Dublin is on p.475 of the Mammoth book, and it was in 937. He may well have received fealty from some kings ten years earlier, but it was in 937 that he defeated Olaf. And at no point does it matter whether Athelstan really did hold authority over the whole of the British Isles, he merely claimed it. If you want to claim that he only meant islands other than Ireland, rather than the normal Latin meaning of the phrase, then please provide a reference. TharkunColl 12:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Defeat is not fealty. Your entry (again) says that the named Kings submitted and gave fealty after the battle in 937.  That is not substantiated by page 475 or by the Mammoth book or by the AngloSaxon Chronicles.  Several British Kings are documented as having given fealty in 926 and 927, including the Welsh Kings.  Constantine subsequently broke with Athelstan by allying with Olaf.  After the Battle in 937 the Mammoth book (p463) describes Olaf as "only just escaping" and then "rethinking his tactics" before he reinvaded the North of England and took York again in 939, again in alliance with Constantine.  (as an aside, the alliance with Olaf is described as increasing Constantine's power).
 * Therefore, none of the sources I have available substantiate your version of events and in fact they clearly contradict your version.  Whether or not my recent entry was POV (which I deny and which you don't substantiate) your entry is apparently incorrect.
 * I don't in any way deny that Athelstan took that title, but it not substantiated in any way that he meant to claim authority over the whole of the modern British Isles and if he did not have authority over any of Ireland that is worth mentioning. As for the original meaning of the Latin or Greek phrase, should we assume that he was also claiming authority over Thule, etc.? If you are asserting that he was claiming authority over all that additional territory, I'd like to see a reference for that one.  Meantime, your version in the edit is NOT supported by the reference material and is actually contradicted by the reference material, so I am again fixing it. Hughsheehy 13:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it's time for a little calm reflection here ... this section (Origins of the term) is in danger of growing out of all proportion. IMHO it should be a relatively short expose of where "Britain/British" was first used, and its etymology, and a similar Short example or two of early uses of "British Isles". It doesn't need to include details of who was or wasn't king of which particular bit of the islands for what period - such information is not doubt worth having somewhere but not in this article. I will show you what I mean by making a dramatic edit in the next few minutes - if this doesn't meet with general approval then it can of course be reverted, but please consider it as an attempt to improve the article by removing unecessary clutter. :) Abtract 14:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Given the continuous debate on the term, the origins are important. If the edit is dramatic and removes relevant material, I'm likely to revert it.  Any importance Athelstan has on this page is in use of the term, potentially closing a 1500 year gap in use of the term.  Hughsheehy 14:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * BTW, since this page isn't about Britain/British, material on those terms would be out of place. This page is about the British Isles.  Besides, more information is almost always better than less information and selection of which less will bring in danger of POV edits. Hughsheehy 14:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Skeptical also TharkunColl, sorry. I see from the Wikipedia article that his minters struck "ÆĐELSTAN REX TO BR" (Athelstan, King of All Britain) on their coins. Google only returns this article (British Isles) and its mirrors to a search for "Athelstan" + "Britanniae insulae". A quick look at scholarly engines returned nothing useful for "Athelstan" + "British Isles" or "Athelstan" + "Britanniae insulae" or "Athelstan" + "King of the British Isles". "Britanniae insulae" is not present in the Mammoth book either. All sources do commonly call him King of England, however.
 * What I fear is what Hughsheehy hints at: that the meaning is different. Different semantic equals different word.  If Athelstan did take the title, what did he mean by it? The southern half of modern-day Great Britain? The whole of modern day Great Britain?  Or a more extensive mass, taking in more (or the whole) of modern-day British Isles?
 * I see the source text is an Anglo-Saxon dictionary that cites it in an example of the usage of "Breoten-wealda" meaning "The Ruler of Britain", providing little context to interpret "Britanniae insulae" (and other Latin titles) in a wider sense:
 * Referring to Athelstan the dictionary quotes: Ongol-Saxna cyning and Brytaenwalda ealles dyses iglandes ego ÆtfelstaHus rex et rector totius hujus Britanniae insulae. (My translation: "Anglo-Saxon king and ruler of all of England, known as [in Latin] "Athelstan, king and restorer of all of the British Islands.")
 * The second entry is interesting because it is alsmost identical in wording, but with the modifier that this king ruled not all of England but only Anglo-Saxon England (iglandaes Angul-Saxonum). He is not said to have bourne the title "rex et rector totius hujus Britanniae insulae"), but is "ruler of all Britain"):
 * Of an unknown king: Ongol-Saxna cyning and Brytenwalda ealle dyses iglandaes Angul-Saxonum necnon et totius Brittaniae rex. (My translation: "Anglo-Saxon king and ruler of all of Anglo-Saxon England, also [in Latin] ruler of all Britain."
 * A third entry I cannot properly translate:
 * Of another unknown king: He waes se eahtepa cyning se pe Brytenw(e)alda was octavus rex qui rexit Bryttaniam. (My translation: "He was the eight king, the ruler of Britain, was [known as] [in Latin] the eight king that ruled Britain.")
 * Given the little context, and only one source among many that mention Athelstan (he was after all the first King of England), can it safely be asserted that the "Britanniae insulae" that Athelstan is quoted as being king of should be interpreted as the modern-day British Isles? Personally, I'm falling on the side of no. However, musing on this matter fall into that nasty hole know as WP:NOR. --sony-youth talk 14:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Surely that's missing the point ... Britanniae insulae (or British isles) is simply a developmental stage, its precise definition is imaterial (unless anyone is trying to insert a POV which of course none of us is!). What is material is that such a term was used at that time ... and then on we go to other examples until we arrive at the present day. That's the point at which it becomes material which islands are included or not. We are not here to validate (or disagree with) the term's usage from a historical perspective but to state how it is currently used, in encyclopedic terms. This is why I have removed all the unecessary clutter from that section, to get to the heart of it. Abtract 15:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem/issue is that the history probably is the heart of it, and that's why the section is "Origin of the term". If we ignore the classical references and start with Dee in 1577 then the term is easy to present as a piece of politically inspired invention.  If we ignore the discrepancies between the different historical uses then we can see a continuity that isn't necessarily there.  If we ignore the fact of its current use it's possible to get into debates on whether it should be used at all (which is beside the point). It's key to get the facts and present them.  I've said it before on this section and others ....each of us and any reader can form their own POV from reading the facts....but we shouldn't have a POV that edits the facts for us.    Also (and sorry for this) I don't like much of the way you edited the section.  I'll put comments on your talk page, but you should expect me to put a lot of the text back. If nothing else, this section is the best fun for someone like me that likes a bit of history.  Besides, WP doesn't have space limits, so it isn't a problem to have lots of content.   Hughsheehy 15:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Not according to the OED or any other source we can find. The term Britanniae insulae is in Latin and we don't know what it refers to. Unless a genuine etymology can be found before 1600, then were are engaging in defining a false etymology. This is why there are rules against this sort of thing on Wikipedia. --sony-youth talk 16:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * My uncertainty about the need for deleting content (often argued over long and hard ;-)) is backed up by WP policies. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editing_policy#Major_changes  and several other places.  WP doesn't have to be concise....does it?  Meantime, not sure how to read the "this sort of thing" comment.  Should we look at the history or start from 1577 - or whenever it can be traced in English? Hughsheehy 16:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that the source doesn't state when Athelstan claimed to be "restorer of the British Isles" (and, indeed, it may not be known). In a sense, therefore, a judgement call is unavoidable in how we interpret it. In 927 he took personal control of Northumbria, the first West Saxon king to do so, hence his designation as the first king of a united England, and at the same time received the fealty of various Scottish and Welsh kings. Ten years later, however, he fought the Battle of Brunanburh, which was long remembered as the greatest victory the Anglo-Saxons ever had. Athelstan reached the height of his power, and is known to have defeated, amongst others, a ruler from Ireland (and Olaf's return two years later was only possible because of Athelstan's death). His assumption of a grandiose title - more wide ranging than any other Anglo-Saxon king that I know of - is surely more likely to have occured at this point, rather than ten years earlier. Why else would he say "British Isles"? Many Anglo-Saxon kings had claimed to be rulers of "Britain", but Athelstan needed something even greater.

With regards to Dee, I'm glad I found that quote. I appear to have beaten the OED by about half a century. But to cut out all the Latin and Greek references to the term would be to give a false impression that it was invented by Dee, when, as a scholar, he surely knew of its existence in Latin. TharkunColl 16:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I am amazed that no-one else can see how imaterial it is when and where Athelstan ruled, the significant thing for this article is the term he used for these islands, not what precisely he meant by it.Abtract 16:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I totally agree with you. It was not I who called into question what he meant. The term was used. Surely that's the most important thing. TharkunColl 16:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * How do you know that it was used for these islands if you don't know what it meant? --sony-youth talk 17:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, to begin with the Greeks and Romans did not use the syntax British + Isles. The Romans used Britannia (having conqured only the Britanic part of the islands) based on Prettanikee (Great Britian) from the Greeks, who did not refer to the islands by a single group name (as far as I know). The people from the OED, also being scholars and (presumably) knowing of the Greeks and Romans, would have traced it to that point did they believe it to be true. They placed it at 1621, without reference to any previous etymology in a different language. I do congratulate you on your earlier find and suggest you submit it to them (as far as I know they welcome open submissions of this kind), but, with regard to the Greeks and Romans, where is the link?
 * As for Athelstan, we don't know what Britanniae insulae means. Although, it is a curiousity. We don't (at this time) know what the source is - it is referenced as example material in a dictionary and is unsubstantiated anywhere else. The coins of the time show a different title. What did it refer to? When was the title given and who by? Was it by the people of the England, other people of the time, by the people he defeated, posthumously, or was it revised? Speculation like this is dangerous stuff - we're writing an encylopedia, people rely upon us for credible information. Its interesting, but we don't know what it means. And the most credible source of etymology puts British Isles 600 years later. --sony-youth talk 17:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Athelstan: proof
"Æthelstan was styled 'rex Angulsaxonum' ('king of the Anglo-Saxons') until the late 920s, when this style was superseded by 'rex Anglorum' ('king of the English'). In 930s the charters gave the king grander titles, claiming not only kingship of the English but lordship over all of Albion or Britannia: 'rex et primicerius totius Albionis regni', 'rex tocius Britannie'. First among the rulers of the English, Æthelstan used the title REX TOT(ius) BR(itanniae) on his coins."

This states, quite clearly, that it wasn't until the 930s that Athelstan began using any title grander than "King of the English". Therefore the "British Isles" title cannot have been adopted when he received the fealty of those kings in the 920s. And yes, I'm fully aware that the "British Isles" title is not among the examples given above, but it is clear nevertheless that it dates from the 930s, not the 920s. TharkunColl 16:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * So, does Britanniae insulae mean (modern-day) Great Britain or British Isles? I notice the quote above equates Albion and Britannia. The Romans used Britannia for the whole of the British Isles and Albion for solely Great Britain. --sony-youth talk 17:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Britanniae insulae means "British Isles" (other translations into modern English are obviously possible, but "British Isles" is the idiomatic form). As I've said before, this doesn't mean that Athelstan really had authority over the whole of the British Isles, merely that he claimed it. It is not our job (in this article) to evaluate the truthfulness of his claim, it is simply to state that he made it. And yes, Albion was certainly an older name for what we now call "Great Britain". There term Britannia (and variants) was a collective name that included the two large islands of Hibernia and Albion. It was only later that the Romans applied the same name to that part of Britannia over which they ruled. TharkunColl 18:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, a note that this "proof" doesn't prove anything about fealty from Olaf, which was one of the main points where the previous edits were unsupported and still - as far as I can see - incorrect. As for the date, it may narrow it down, but the original edit said that the title was adopted after the battle and after receiving fealty from the kings in 937....where it is not supported that this was the sequence or that they gave fealty at the date of the battle.   Thus, it's a great reference and a much better edit can now be written but it doesn't prove that the original edit of the section was correct.  Also, the reference to British Isles is still from a glossary of language, not an actual history.  Finally, and again, if a King claimed to be ruler of the British Isles (or Britannic Islands or Islands of the Britons, or whatever) and had NO territory in Ireland, that is a significant fact in the context of this topic.  We cannot be sure what he meant, whether he meant the territory to be only Britain and surrounding islands or whether he was big into self aggrandisement, but the apparent fact that he claimed that title and had no writ in Ireland is relevant fact. Hughsheehy 19:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Many kings - especially the Anglo-Saxon kings of a newly unified but still rather shaky England - made extremely grandiose claims. His authority in Scotland must be regarded as something that existed only on paper anyway. The current edit makes no mention of fealty. If we know this title must date from the 930s (Athelstan died in 939) then the Battle of Brunanburh is by far the most likely occasion for him to have adopted it. The new edit, however, doesn't even say this. TharkunColl 19:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see a problem with saying that it's most likely he took the title after the battle. I'm not sure how it's relevant unless we can know what he meant.  One other question that may be helpful in tracking down more references to his taking that title, since currently it's only mentioned in a glossary of language and not a history.  Was the original title he took in Old English (Anglo-Saxon) or Latin?  Hughsheehy 19:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I hate to contradict myself so soon (the 19:19 ref above) but the site at http://www.geocities.com/eurprin/oldengland.html states that Athelstan took the title Æthelstanus monarchus totius Brittanniæ in 927. I haven't checked the bibliography references on the page so I'm not sure it's a good reference.  927 was when he received fealty from the kings as mentioned, and was 10 years before the Battle of Brunanburh.  The site does not give any reference to any title of Athelsan's more grand than "totius Britanniae".  Also, none of the online sources I can find make any reference to any claim to be King of the British Isles.  It seems strange that they would neglect to mention such a major claim.  Hughsheehy 19:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * If someone has access to this page http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0013-8266%28191810%2933%3A132%3C433%3ATSOTMK%3E2.0.CO%3B2-D&size=LARGE they may see an article from 1918 that might give more information. TharkunColl, since it's your topic and your area, I hope you can find something. I'm off for a while. Hughsheehy 19:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately I cannot access that page. TharkunColl 00:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Three points:
 * "It is not our job (in this article) to evaluate the truthfulness of his claim, it is simply to state that he made it." - It is our job to represent facts truthfully. Suggesting (as including it in a section titled "Origin of the term" does) that this is an origin of the term British Isles, when we do not know if it is so, is speculation and grossly misleading. This is where false etymologies come from. I know you would like it to be so, but we do not know that it is.  We need a source saying that this is so.
 * "As I've said before, this doesn't mean that Athelstan really had authority over the whole of the British Isles, merely that he claimed it." - What evidence is there that Athelstan claimed authority over Ireland and the Isle of Man (therefore, including Albion, the British Isles)? Again, the problem is that we do not know what was meant (and who by, and when) by Britanniae insulae except that it is syntactically similar to what we are searching for.
 * (Now a bitter pil.) What would, however, be apparent is that the term (if it existed, and whatever it meant) is rare in association to Athelstan. As Hughsheehy points out, would you not expect a title bearing such a remarkable similarity to the British Isles to be more widely reported on?  Yet in every other source the title is "rex tocius Britannie" or such-like. There may however be possibly a prosaic reason. The source of the quote in the dictionary is cited as another dictionary, "based on" another collection and "enlarged and completed" in 1874 (not a just secondary source, but a secondary-secondary-secondary source compiled much after the fact, maybe geographically distant):
 * Cl. and Vig. Dict. An Icelandic-English Dictionary, based on the MS. collections of the late Richard Cleasby, enlarged and completed by Gudbrand Vigfusson, Oxford, 1874.
 * I suspect a mistranslation or revision somewhere along the line. Is there anywhere else he bears the title King of "Britanniae insulae" (or similar)? The title from this source differs too greatly from other sources and the source itself too untrustworthy to be take it seriously on its own. --sony-youth talk 22:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I made no claim that Athelstan's usage of the term constituted its origin. Perhaps we should retitle that section as "history" of the term. As for disputing the validity of the reference itself, that is surely original research. You ask what evidence have we that when Athelstan said "British Isles" he meant to include Ireland. The term included Ireland in previous usage in Latin, so what evidence do we have that he did not include Ireland? Look at the Battle of Brunanburh page, and you will see that the Irish were intimately involved.


 * As for a "bitter pil. [sic]", surely the only bitter pill here is for those who will not accept that the term really did exist.TharkunColl 00:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * TarkunColl, please. "History of ..."/"Origin of ..." are synonymous and equally misleading, and my word was "suggest" not "claim". As for "disputing the validity of the reference", I looked at the source of the reference, something I fear was not done before (its in the first few pages of the book). There are no reference to this being the "origin" or "history" of the term British Isles. The term is not used by any authors or historians on Athelstan or the British Isles. Including it in any such section is unfounded, original research and misleading. The only date we have from a credible scholarly source is 1621. --<span style="font-family:Zapfino, sans-serif">sony-youth talk 08:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I never said that the Athelstan citation was the "origin" of the term - it is simply an example of its use in history. The actual "origin" of the term without doubt predates any written sources. That section of the article contains many such examples of its use in history, and I cannot understand why this Athelstan quote should be so contentious (unless perchance it contradicts some preconceived notion). Your assertion that "the term is not used by any authors or historians on Athelstan or the British Isles" is pretty extraordinary, and I think you need to provide proof that you have consulted every single author and historian who has ever written on Athelstan or the British Isles. The 1621 date you mentioned (with regards to the first use of the term in English) is also incorrect, as John Dee used it in 1577. TharkunColl 09:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The Athelstan quote is contentious because the (your) previous versions of the edit related to the quote have been unsupported and even contradicted by the source material and the current version is only tenuously supported by a very secondary source and is not supported by any of the other reference material that anyone can find so far (and I at least have been looking pretty hard) . There is no need for POV to even be vaguely involved for people to have a problem with this quote.  Again, if someone can find a supporting reference, great.  Meantime, it's vastly dodgy.  Hughsheehy 12:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear ... I have just loooked up "insulae" and it appears to mean a "block of flats" so maybe this was a vernacular way of say "British people" ... or maybe I looked it up in the wrong place :) Abtract 09:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed, the British flats! That´s quite good!
 * Meantime, I am now vastly uncomfortable with this Athelstan reference. There has been a sequence of versions with claims that were not supported by the references; assertions that the new version was proven that were then disproven 30 minutes later, and the whole edifice (sorry, trying to make a pun on flats) rests on - as sonyyouth puts it - a secondary secondary secondary source.  As for the challenge that someone should have to search all the possible sources to prove that a secondary source is not valid, that seems extreme and I suspect it is neither reasonable or in line with WP policy.  If we extended that policy we might have aliens landing in Medieval London before long.  I have been looking hard and I have not found any other reference to the current claim, which claim is in a glossary and not in a history. It may be that a glossary uses entirely invented terms just to give translation examples.  In any case, it seems very strange that another reference has not/cannot be found.  If one is found, great, but Athelstan may have to go for the moment.  Meantime, the idea was to try to find references to British Isles (or anything like it) between the Romans and John Dee.  We apparently still have a gap of a millenium and more, which is an issue if we look at the characterisation of "British Isles" as a traditional term.  Hughsheehy 09:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * OOps.. one other thing. The earliest "re-use" of British Isles that I know of in the 1500´s is in Latin and is in Munster's reprint of Ptolemy´s Geography.  1550 from memory.  Still leaves a 1300-1500 year gap...maybe more. Hughsheehy 10:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * "... every single author and historian ..." - clearly this is an impossible task and is never a valid appraoch to historical research (which we should not be engaging in). What is the common approach is to provide supporting material new claims. Does any other secondary source (or even primary?) refer to this title?
 * What we do know is that we can find only one (dubious) use of the term. Other sources we can find on Athelstan do not refer to this title (genuinely extraordinary if he had been known by it, and so remarkable that they don't if he had). If he had been known by it, we still don't know what was meant by it - southern Britain (i.e. the Britain of the time), the whole of modern-day Great Britain, the modern-day British Isles?
 * The source where it is found is in a dictionary citing another dictionary, "based on" another collection and "enlarged and completed" in 1874 translating Anglo-Saxon to English via Icelandic. No-where is this cited by anyone as being part of the origin of the term (or "history of" or "use of the term in history"). We just don't know what it is. --<span style="font-family:Zapfino, sans-serif">sony-youth talk 10:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree Althestan has to go but the gap is hardly "an issue" since we are not trying to validate British Isles simply to record its current meaning and usage ... and its origins for academic interest. In fact a gap is hardly surprising since we may well be seeing two separate threads, the latin one where Brit, Britannia etc were used and then the modernish one - there doesn't have to be a join. Abtract 10:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed..not trying to validate anything because I want to, just looking for data where there seemed to be a gap. There does seem to be a gap.  Hughsheehy 10:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The awful spelling of the Latin phrase that mentions Athelstan is quite obviously of Dark Age provenance - a modern "invention" to use as a "linguistic example" would have made a better job. But in any case, why should a glossary of Anglo-Saxon phrases not be a valid citation? Why is it any less believable than any other source? It seems like gross POV to state that it is somehow unreliable. But in any case, Wikipedia is based on secondary sources, it is not based on Original Research. There is no 1500 year gap - the Athelstan quote cuts the gap almost precisely in half. And why should Athelstan's (or, more correectly, his scribes') use of the term be so remarkable? It is only remarkable for those people who have already assumed that there was no such term in the Middle Ages, and so when evidence is presented, they question the evidence rather than their own assumptions. TharkunColl 12:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * P.S. Blocks of flats were called insulae because they were self-contained, i.e. they were like islands. We too use the word "island" in ways that are in origin metaphorical, rather than literal. Traffic islands, for example, have nothing to do with water. And Donne's famous line "no man is an island" would be nonsensical if taken literally, because it is obvious that no man is a bunch of land surrounded by water. TharkunColl 12:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed ... but the fact that there is another meaning of the word which could imply that he was claiming not the British islands but the British people, together with the doubtlful provenance, surely means this whole Athelston para must be removed or at the very least toned down considerably. Abtract 12:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you being serious? How many blocks of flats do you think there were in Dark Age Britain? How on earth could this be referring to people? Does anyone here honestly believe that if Athelstan said insulae, he meant anything other than "islands"? This, after all, is what the word means in Latin. TharkunColl 12:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * No doubt your latin is better than mine but is quite clear that insular has two meanings - island and apartment house. Abtract 12:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the context makes it abundantly clear which meaning is intended. What Dark Age king, after just having defeated an alliance of all his enemies, is going to proclaim himself "Restorer of all the British apartment blocks"? I wouldn't even bother discussing it were it not so funny! TharkunColl 12:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Whichever meaning was intended (and let's bet on islands), the source is still highly dodgy. The referenced webpage says that it is an interim version that volunteers are correcting on an ongoing basis, so it may not be a correct transcription of the actual glossary at all.  If you look at the scan of the page mentioned (either P105, which is referenced or p124 which seems to be the right one) the text quoted is not there and I can't find it on any other page of the document that supposedly provides this reference (and I may be missing it, since old english isn't my forte).  http://lexicon.ff.cuni.cz/png/oe_bosworthtoller/b0124.png or b0105.png.  The scanned pages are also online on http://beowulf.engl.uky.edu/~kiernan/BT/bosworth.htm.  I can't find the text quoted there either.  TharkunColl, instead of accusing us all of POV, please check the reference.  Also, you again assert that the claim was made by Athelstan after the battle in 937 which - as we've seen - is not actually supported by any reference and is speculation on your part.  Since he'd already apparently claimed to be King of Britain 10 years earlier than this battle, your narrative for this whole thing is apparently entirely yours.  I'm removing Athelstan until a proper reference can be found.  This has been a sad episode so far. Hughsheehy 12:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I've been having a look at all of Athelstan's other titles, and those of other Anglo-Saxon kings, and have come to the opinion that when he said Britanniae insulae he probably meant "island of Britain", as most other references are to Britanniae, an apparemtly plural form but translated as "Britain". I am also of the opinion that there will be some who are now willing to accept the source as genuine, since it is apparently no longer important. TharkunColl 13:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that whether that's your opinion is anything to do with the point. If you have found lists of Athelstan's titles and this one doesn't appear in those lists and the original source you quoted (as far as I can see - and I am happy to be corrected) does not actually contain the title you quoted, then that is the point and is more relevant than your opinion.  Besides, if you have lists of the titles of other Athelstan and other Kings from the era, a great question is whether any of them use the term in any way?  That would be more interesting than your opinion.  The ball is in your court to provide references......solid ones.  Hughsheehy 13:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The best source for the titles used by the Anglo-Saxon kings between 871 and 1066 is the one I linked to earlier, but even that does not claim to be exhaustive. The Britanniae insulae title is not among them, but - if genuine - may only appear on a single charter. As I said before, the atrocious Latin is typically Dark Age. The word insulae certainly looks plural, but it may only be in that form to agree with the noun Britanniae which is used a number of times in various titles and is translated as "Britain" (singular). A more literal translation would be "Britains" (plural), but such a form does not exist and is nonsensical in English. When the Roman province of Britannia (singular) was divided into smaller provinces in the third/fourth century, and all the provinces were grouped together as a diocese based in London, the diocese was called Britanniae (plural), so this pluralisation of place-names was clearly unexeptional in Latin, but is unheard of in English. How we should translate such a term into modern English is a matter of opinion. TharkunColl 13:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * (Speculation ...) Okay, so when Britannia (singular) was broken up the Romans, they grouped together under the name Britanniae (plural)? Athelstan, being the first king of England, united ('restored") them again? Hence Britanniae (plural)? (More speculation - just 'cos its fun - and still totally uninformed.)  "Insulae" as a metaphor for the (previously) separated (now united/"restored") "Britanniae" (plural) - i.e they were "islands", now reunited ("restored")?  Or, "insulae", as in house, as in a Royal House?
 * Regardless, this is speculation. Its interesting but it doesn't belong here.  See what they say on the Athelstan about it.  Its curious, but, we really don't know what it means.
 * Regarding, the "gap" between Romans and Dee. I don't really see a gap, unless we are trying to link the two (directly) etymologically. Personally, I could do without the Greek and Roman names, but every article gives what the Greeks and Romans called a place (however, does it have to be so long?). More important (in my opinion) are the words used by "locals" - of which British Isles became foremost.
 * (Hughsheehy, see the entry for "Breoten-wealda" last entry on page 105 and continued on page 106, the reference page is here.) --<span style="font-family:Zapfino, sans-serif">sony-youth talk 15:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Apologies to TharkunColl for my oversight in not finding the referenced text on the pages. As I said, old english is definitely not my forte and I certainly messed up there.  Now all we need is to verify that quote....if we can. Hughsheehy 15:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Since when had rector meant restorer .... rather than guide or leader? Abtract 16:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * In the phrase ego Æðelstanus rex et rector totius hujus Britanniae insulae, does anyone known what hujus means? It might clear up the plural/singular conundrum. Can we please, however, stop imagining that "house" is even a possible translation of insulae? An apartment block is not a house, and was not used as a metaphor for one (still less is it a "royal house" - which is not, of course, any sort of building). This whole apartment block thing is a red herring, and I really hope that we can all accept that "island/s" is what is intended here.


 * Interestingly, the Old English phrase that the Latin supposedly translates is not an exact equivalent: Ic Æðelstān Ongol-Saxna cyning and Brytænwalda eallæs ðyses īglandæs, which means, word for word, "I Athelstan, Anglo-Saxon king and Britain-ruler [of] all these islands". It also appears to be written in the Mercian dialect, hence the "O/o" in Ongol rather than the West Saxon "E/e" for Engel. Notice here that this is an English sentence that uses the phrase "these islands"... Hmmm - perhaps I should have kept my mouth shut? TharkunColl 16:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Assuming it should read huius, http://www.nd.edu/~archives/latin.htm translates it as of this. So "King and Rector of all this (these?) British islands".  I am reminded of The last King of Scotland.--Red King 23:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay thanks, that makes perfect sense. TharkunColl 00:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Abtract, "Restorer" was used as the translation in the article page, I reproduced it here because I though someone who knew better had translated it. TharkunColl, sorry for my wild speculations (but I did mark them off as such!).
 * Incidentally, searching for "hujus insulae" + "Britain" brings led me to this document saying that Thule was "Mainland, the largest of the Shetland Islands" (which given its location to the north-east of Albion - and the detail that modern-day Scotland was reproduced in - makes sense to me at least.). What think others? --<span style="font-family:Zapfino, sans-serif">sony-youth talk 09:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * One other thing. From a check just now on other titles (e.g. http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-9300(192801)22%3A1%3C146%3ATSATOH%3E2.0.CO%3B2-U) it seems that "ruler of" or "king of" takes the genitive case.  As far as I can see, IF Athelastan was claiming rule over the "British Isles" then isles would take the plural genitive.  Insulae isn't that case.  It is (in this context) the singular genitive, so Athelstan was claiming to be ruler of the island of britain.   If  it was plural genitive it would be insularum.  I feel I should have realised this before.  Hughsheehy 20:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow
Is there any other talk here about stuff not related to the term that is after all the name of the page. I'm assuming such a term exists. It has different meanings. We can include them all. My point is that I see Oppenheimer in the references - I read a digest of his book, and again, maybe my perceptions based on that digest are skewed, but he seemed to feel the Celts came from Spain, and originated in the Med (somehow re-invading Italy and Turkey!). While this tallies nicely with the Book of Invasions, I suspect it deeply. Also Oppenheimer asserts the reason the English were so successful in taking over was that they already existed in the pre-Roman population. Oppenheimer is a geneticist making cultural and linguistic arguments without a background in them. Interesting, but suspect. He seems oddly to fall into that Victorian trap of combining genetics, culture and language into that single entity called race. So we were all Basques (brown haired, long nosed) and then we were visited by dark people, somehow speaking an Indo-European language, but who were famously described as blond by eye-witnesses. For once I'm on the side of traditional histories and analyses using all disciplines. I suppose it's a published book and all that, oh well. Stevebritgimp 09:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

'I'm assuming such a term exists.' So does "Nigger", with people of a certain frame of mind. 89.100.195.42 00:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * And naturally there is an interesting WP article on it. Abtract 00:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Regarding Oppenheimer the Basque connection isn't so surprising. The Irish myth  of the Milesians tells of where the final inhabitants of Ireland (who named the Island after the goddess Ériu) came from were "nine brothers of Íth set out from their territory (said to have been around modern Bayonne in the Basque Country) and invaded Ireland." For a long time, Irish archeology was confused at the lack of evidence for a celtic invasion. Opinion now is that there never was one. Rather the celticisation of Ireland was cultural, not military. --<span style="font-family:Zapfino, sans-serif">sony-youth talk 21:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Isle/island
"Isle" and "island" are interchangeable: one is of French origin, the other is from Anglo-Saxon. Interestingly enough, the silent "s" in "island" is false and has only come about by imitation of the pronunciation of "isle". As a side note, before printing there were not that many books, nor a widespread interest in antiquities, nor many works of geography. Saying something like a term was only rarely used does not have much meaning as an absolute, only if it is relative to other terms expressing the same thing. of course, such an assertion needs a reference to someone who knows what they are talking about. MAG1 14:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

IMHO they are not quite interchangeable. Isle is mainly used in specific naming situations Isle of Man etc. I don't think we would say in everyday speech Orkney isles or I am going to visit the isles off the Scottish coast Abtract 13:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Agree with Abtract. OED says Isle is a "noun, poetic" and apart from the normal implication of smaller size it's thus not equivalent in normal use.  If we're translating (for instance) Latin into English we should translate into English, not poetry.  Hughsheehy 00:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Other Latin names
The source I cited above that located Thule as Mainland, the Shetland Islands, if I'm not mistaken, gives the British Isles as Oceani insulas (translated as "Islands of the Oceans"), Ireland as Beata (translated as "Blessed Isle"), Great Britain as ''Fortunata' (translated as "Fortunate") (see chapter 1, section 7-9).

This is from a 6th century source. I've heard of Ireland being called the Sacred Isle (looking for the ref now), the Blessed Isle is not far off and Fortune stirs my memory somewhat. Geographically, Oceani insulas is bang on target.

What are other people's opinions? --<span style="font-family:Zapfino, sans-serif">sony-youth talk 09:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Heylin, whose work was a piece of historical geography, gave the name of the "Isles of the Ocean" as denoting all the islands in the North Atlantic including places such as Iceland. In a world where the ocean was thought to be limitless (well before Heylin), such a designation would make sense. MAG1 12:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I think we should bear in mind that we are writing an article on British Isles not blessed isles or isles of the oceans or sacred isles etc. Abtract 13:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * He puts these islands off the coats off the coast of modern-day Portugal (referrring to "the twin promontories of Gallaecia and Lusitania" and "the Strait of Gades"). This part is strikingly like this the myth of Isles of the Blest. However, other things are spot on. He puts the Isle of Man (correctly called Menavia) in between them, as well as the Orkneys (correctly called Orcades) and the Shetlands (supported as being Thule) with the Shetlands being described as the furtherst north. He aslo describes Scandinavia (correctly called Scandia) as being in the same sea but being an artic area further to the further north again (please look at a globe, not a map, before saying that Scandinavia is not north of the British Isles). --<span style="font-family:Zapfino, sans-serif">sony-youth talk 14:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * On Tacitus and Thule. Different people said Thule was different things at different times.  The issue is to identify what the particular writer thought it was or meant it as when they used it.  Tacitus calling Shetland Thule is not inconsistent with Pliny meaning Iceland or Norway when he says Thule.  The word Thule was also used for some place in the Baltic and - later on - for Greenland.  Hughsheehy 00:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Angliae, Scotiae et Hiberniae, sive Britannicar: insularum descriptio
We need to get a correct translation of this: we have different ones in the various BI articles, and I'm far from convinced that any of them are right. Is there a Medieval Latinist in the house? (who could also have real fun with http://library.lib.mcmaster.ca/maps/images/raremaps/107223v.jpg which apparently is the reverse side of the map). --Red King 13:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * One website I found completes 'Britanicar:' thus: Angliae, Scotiae et Hiberniae, sive Britannicar[um] insularum descriptio. Apparently, later copies of the map have Angliae, Scotiae et Hiberniae, sive Britannicae insularum descriptio. (I think I remember from Eats shoots and leaves that colon  was originally an abbreviation marker. --Red King 13:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * There is a Latin/English dictionary at http://www.nd.edu/~archives/latin.htm (you have to scroll down or push the Genesis section down out of the way). It translates Angliae, Scotiae et Hiberniae as "of England, of Scotland and of Ireland". sive is "or if", "but if".  Insularum is (among others) "of the islands".  I don't understand Britanicarum - Notre Dame says that "arum" is a plural genitive ending - so could it mean "of the Britons"? --Red King 13:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * At a guess it says, "England, Scotland and Ireland, or Britannia: descritpion of the islands." Do we also have a date for this? I notice its very finely printed, so long, long after the rediscovery of Ptolomy (hence Britannia). From looking at it, it appears to me to be even after the circa.1600 date for British Isles. It would be more interesting to find uses of Britannia in the post-Roman era before 1300 (rediscover of Ptolomy). And more details on where British Isles came from. --<span style="font-family:Zapfino, sans-serif">sony-youth talk 15:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Doh! Just seen that this is covered in the article: "Similarly Ortelius, in his atlas derived from Mercator´s original maps, uses the title "Angliae, Scotiae et Hiberniae, sive Britannicar. insularum descriptio". This translates as "England, Scotland and Ireland, that I describe [to be] the British islands".[24]" --<span style="font-family:Zapfino, sans-serif">sony-youth talk 16:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, but I don't think it is right &mdash; where is sive translated? &mdash; and it is not the same translation as given at British Isles (terminology) ("a description of England, Scotland and Ireland, or the British Isles"). We can't just guess, which is what I suspect has been done to date.  The nearest I can get is I describe [lit. "I see", according to ND] the islands of England, Scotland and Ireland, or of the Britons..  I don't see any basis for translating it as British, because Britanicarum is genitive plural.  Unless of course "of the Britons" and "British" are synonomous.  But I'm still guessing! --Red King 00:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I would be cautious about translating Britannia as the British Isles as this would put a modern idiom on a much older word.  Certainly, the Britannia of Ptolomy covers an area equivalent to the modern-day British isles, but in the same sense that America is equivalent to the the New World, or other such examples. A lot is lost in moving between idiom and word. As for Britons, I don't know ... can one talk of a Britannia being a Briton?


 * Its unfortunate that we don't have a genitive case in English. The nearest equivalent is of or ′s. By way of example, in Irish, Bhreatain Mhór is Great Britain and Éire is Ireland.  Their genitive case is used in Ríocht Aontaithe na Breataine Móire agus Thuaisceart Éireann, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern (lit. North) [of] Ireland.


 * In such a case, I think British islands is probably the best way to go. It gets close to the genitive case but avoids the idiom. --<span style="font-family:Zapfino, sans-serif">sony-youth talk 13:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Further problem: insularum is also genitive plural! When we say "I speak of the islands", that is not genitive case, is it? Is it dative? I've asked for help at talk:Latin, hopefully someone will turn up to solve this cryptic clue! --Red King 20:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * talk:Latin has this to say: "If you have questions on the Latin language, please use Reference desk/Language instead of this talk page." Might help.--Shtove 23:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Genitive would be "the culture of the island." As a rule of thumb, since this could also be written as "the island's culture"', island is 'genitive.' This rule of thumb can produce some strange sounding results, however. In the example above, its possible to imagine the "United Kingdom" referred to as being Great Britain's and Northern Ireland's United Kingdom. Both Great Britain and Northern Ireland are 'genitive.'  If you said "Great Britain and Northern Ireland's United Kingdom" (only one 's) then Great Britain and Northern Ireland would be a lexical unit (implying a semantic unit also).  In the same way, you don't say, "Johnson's and Johnson's shampoo", rather you say, "Johnson and Johnson's shampoo", since Johnson and Johnson is (not are) a lexical (and so, semantic) unit.


 * More examples with island:
 * "The opinion of the culture of the island is bewildering." - culture and island are 'genitive' ("The island's culture's opinion is bewildering.")
 * "John's opinion of the culture of the island is bewildering." John and island are 'genitive' ("John's opinion of the island's culture is bewildering.")


 * Regarding genitive plural. This is just a matter of a noun that is in the genitive case being plural at the time.  So for example, in "The culture of the islands is bewildering", islands is 'genitive plural.'  This causes problems in English because now what do we say if we want to use 's?  "The islands' culture is bewildering", which sounds exactly the same as the singular form when spoken (singular: "The island's culture is bewildering.")


 * It sounds like a good idea to get the Latin boys involved. It would be excellent if we could get consistent and accurate translations from Latin across all these articles. --<span style="font-family:Zapfino, sans-serif">sony-youth talk 00:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Might I suggest the following: "England, Scotland and Ireland, or Britanica's islands' representation." Using the ND aid:


 * sive = or
 * Britannicarum = genitive of Britannica ~= Britannica's
 * insularum = genitive plural of islands ~= islands'
 * descriptio = representation, description, figure


 * I would also suggest that "descripto" is redundant, referring to the map itself (as in "A map of ..."). So a modern translation would be, "A representation of England, Scotland and Ireland, or Britanica's islands." --<span style="font-family:Zapfino, sans-serif">sony-youth talk 01:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Does the map not say Irish and British Isles? Or am I reading it wrong!.--Oxymoranapus


 * Could Britannicarum insularum translate into English as "of the Britannic Islands". Britannic is a perfectly good English word and is extremely close to the Latin.  Hughsheehy 09:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Ancient terms
Very impressed with this section - it uses more sources than I recall from months ago, and addresses citations and all the other issues. Given the toing and froing that went on for ages, there obviously was no handy treatment on the topic - might this now be the best available?--Shtove 19:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Blanking sourced edits, commonly-known facts and corrections
First, blanking text is regarded as vandalism. With regard to historical writing, deliberately omitting relevant information regarding a subject or source is regarded as a sure sign of bias - in Wikipedia terms POV.

I will now list the changes which were blanked and explain their inclusion:


 * Change in meaning of Britannica from equivalent geographic area to modern-day British Isles to mean modern-day Great Britain and especially the area the southern, Roman-controlled areas before the end of the Roman Empire. This is just such common knowledge that I did not include sources. See the Britannia article, where it is included also without citing source. If an editor disputes this, and is unwilling to verify it for themselves, then simply state how many sources (and of what kind) would be necessary to satisfy them and I will source it for them.


 * Regarding Bede and "insularum" - "insularum" does not appear anywhere in the text, nor does it make any sense as a signifier. It is in the genitive case (see discussion above) and so roughly equivalent to the possessive case in English i.e. island's with an 's.  So requiring a possessed noun, as in "the isand's [noun]." What is the possessed noun? "Oceani insula" does appear in the text and is described in my edit as it appears.


 * The sudden rediscovery of Ptolemy's maps and the influence of it. Widely sourceable and (I had assumed) well known.  I'll dig up references. It explains the sudden resurgence of Britannica as a name for the British Isles following a gap of over a millennium.


 * Transition of Britannia from an archaic name for Great Britain into a British nationalist symbol. - This section was taken verbatim from the Britannia article, where it appears without need for sourcing, again due to its common acceptance - source will follow if it is contentious here. This is necessary to explain how Britannia, a cognate mutation of Britannica, became "British" as in the British Isles and to introduce the national cultural environment of Dee and Helwyn, who are cited as being sources of the term. This is especially pertinent as we are tracing the transition from Britannica to the British Isles.


 * Scholarly opinion of Dee's and Heylwyn's geography as being influence by (proto-)nationalism. - As with all historical research, it is necessary to include pertinent information regarding subjects and sources - otherwise, bias (or at least sloppiness) can be inferred. Current scholarly opinion is that both were influenced in their writings by a degree of (proto-)nationalism. This is why it is necessary in the preceding paragraph to explain the nature of the 'nationalism' they were exposed to. Hiding or disguising this fact is untruthful and a certain a mark of POV.


 * That Dee is also attributed as coining British Empire and British Ocean - These two terms are syntactically and semantically related to British Isles. Ignoring, disguising or omitting that they were coined by one of the sources we attribute British Isles to is, quite simply, unbelievable.  We want to trance the origin or the term British Isles and we ignore two other syntactically and semantically related terms coined in a similar period by a sourced we have identified as an originator of the term we are researching??  Unbelievable!!


 * Map of BI in BE. - The term British Isles emerges at the same time as the term British Empire. Their growth in acceptance as new terms followed each other. To understand the society/culture/politics of the British Isles during the period in question (i.e. before Modern Usage etc.) necessitates understanding that it was as the centre of an Empire (its like talking about Ancient Rome and not mentioning that it was at the centre of the Roman Empire). Not wanting to include it can only, again, be explained by bias-inspired neglect. It is also necessary to show a period map naming the islands as the British Isles.

Now for the edits which were put back in:


 * Bede and "insularum" - Discussed above - factually incorrect and linguistically nonsensical.


 * Regarding Heylwyn and "He used this term for both Great Britain and Ireland (as well as the other islands) because "ancient writers call this Iland a Brttiʃh Iland" - This is misleading. The sentence refers to Great Britain and Ireland [two objects], then says that "ancient writers call this island [singular] a British Island [singular]" Which island is being referred to? Necessitates clarification, which I included.


 * "The description "The British Isles", or its equivalent in Latin, also started to be used by mapmakers from the late 16th century onward." - Unsupported especially regarding the British Isles in English and, to a lesser extend, regard the "equivalent in Latin." Although, I do accept that I did too hurriedly delete it. Apologies, I put it back in (with a better translation of the Latin).

If I have made an error, please correct me, but blanking (supported and sourced) text is no way to approach disagreement.

--<span style="font-family:Zapfino, sans-serif">sony-youth talk 14:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

"Commonly known facts" are not what WP is all about ... I reverted the edits in question because they had no citations and because they removed statements that had citations. Also there was a huge amount of change in a very short period without any discussion on this talk page, IMHO this was to much in one go. It may well be that some of this is good stuff but perhaps you could take it a bit at a time and make sure you source each part as you go ... I am going to revert it again because it is all unsourced opinion so far as it appears at the moment.Abtract 15:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure. That sounds like common sense - especially in this circumstance. However, you have (accidentally?) reverted everything. The unsourced elements were:
 * Change in meaning of Britannica from equivalent geographic area to modern-day British Isles to mean modern-day Great Britain, esp. the southern, Roman-controlled areas before the end of the Roman Empire.
 * The sudden rediscovery of Ptolemy's maps and the influence of it on late-medeaval map-makers
 * Transition of Britannia from an archaic name for Great Britain into a British nationalist symbol, and the national culture that Dee and Heylwyn were writing in
 * With regard to the first two of these, I had believed they were of the sort of "common knowledge" that would uncontroversial (admittedly, silly in this context) and so do not require sources. The third, for sure, I knew would eventually require citation. Anyway, they should present no trouble to source.


 * However, I think you are to some degree mistaken. The only sourced elements that I "removed" were:
 * With regard to Bede and "incularum"
 * With regard to Heylwyn and "ancient writers call this Iland a Brttiʃh Iland"
 * The paragraphs referring to maps from 16th century onwards re: English-language and Latin versions of British Isles
 * On the first of these, I corrected it because it was simply incorrect. (In fact, my correction even cites the same source.) The second, because it required clarification - which island is being referred to? As for the third of these, I agree that I acted too hastily and have put it back in but. Although, I think it should be marked with as "citation needed."


 * You have once again blanked all of the edit - not only the three unsourced elements, but also the correction and clarification as well as the pertinent and reliably sourced materials. If there any parts which you doubt, please mark these relevant with,  and  as per guidelines.


 * Removing unsourced or poorly sourced material is only suggested to be done if you find it "very doubtful and very harmful." If you find it only "doubtful and (quite) highly harmful" you should first bring it to the talk page. Again, the only material I removed was relating to usage English-language and Latin versions of British isles on maps from the 16th century. This I put back and suggest it be marked with  .  You are continuing to remove sourced material and material which you (I believe) do not find doubtful. --<span style="font-family:Zapfino, sans-serif">sony-youth talk 16:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I reverted all the edit because it was difficult to sort the wheat from the chaff. Believe me I have only one desire in this ... to improve the article. However, unsourced edits that put quite a new slant on the section and which themselves remove three previously referenced items seems unduly fast. There has been considerable discussion on many much smaller edits yet this covered a lot in one go. I suggest one sourced (and I stress sourced) edit at a time is enough for us to cope with. I am on the side of the angels, I want a better article. I have reverted it again, let us see some on sourced edits :) Abtract 20:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Apologied if I have overstepped the rv mark; I think I have been feeling too close to this article - I did have the best of intentions. I am going to take a break from it and work on other articles :)Abtract 22:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem. I enjoy you around and please stay. I've put refs in where you had marked for citation. Not the most authoritative regarding Ptolemy and the piece re: Britannia and proto-nationalism is just a book, but they will do until I can get onto scholarly databases. The worst thing was trying to find anything like a definition of Britannia in Roman Britain because it is just accepted that a reader understands (so lots of 'obvious-what-they-mean-when-you're-reading-it', but nothing substantive to quote). --<span style="font-family:Zapfino, sans-serif">sony-youth talk 23:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * A wonderful update. Excellent. Well done SonyYouth.  It'll take me a while to dig through all the references, but in the meantime I'll only comment that I did actually find the term "insularum" in Bede but used in a context that is not 100% clear what is being described.  I put a question on the Bede reference last year... (see question in italics)
 * "First, as far as I can see, it is not at all clear that the reference to Bede is referring to the British Isles. The section quoted, where the text now indicates that the reference to "islands" means the British Isles reads "In his time the Arian heresy broke out, and although it was detected and condemned in the Council of Nice, yet it nevertheless infected not only all the churches of the continent, but even those of the islands, with its pestilent and fatal doctrines."
 * I think it was late Dec. That construct would be correct with the genitive.  In any case, it's not inconsistent with use of Oceanus Insulae.  Hughsheehy 11:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I've restored properly sourced information about Pytheas referring to the αι Βρεττανιαι, the Brittanic Isles. Snyder also gives various forms of Britannia replacing Albion when referring to Roman Britain: see British Isles (terminology) for the info I took from that, which you may find useful. .. dave souza, talk 17:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Dave souza has removed a chunk of text, citing repetition and weasel words. Explanation please, and - given the discussion above - it has to be point by point.--Shtove 19:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ooh, saucy! What I've done is reinstate information that some bright spark has moved out of sequence, then remove the moved portions that form a duplicate. I've removed the word "solely" which claims on the basis of a 1911 encyclopedia that Pytheas didn't refer to the British Isles as a whole, and reinstated the references showing that he did. If you don't have the books to hand, this link allows you to click through to page 1 where Donnchadh O Corrain, Professor of Irish History at University College Cork, states "Pytheas, writing in the late fourth century BC, refers to the British Isles as the 'Pretanic Islands' – and this term is certainly Celtic (it comes from Priteni, and gives Welsh Prydain 'Britain'). The name is likely to have reached Pytheas from the Gauls." I've changed "The term itself most likely referred to..." to "It has been claimed that the term itself referred to the way in which the people first encountered in the south of Great Britain used woad to decorate their bodies. According to Peter Heylyn, Britt meant paint..." – in my opinion that's less weasely and from memory Heylyn's assertion is rather doubted nowadays. Any questions? .. dave souza, talk 20:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Dave, have a look at your user page for some questions about those references you reinserted. I'm not 100% sure they're good references.  I've been wrong before (and will be again), but I cannot find the text mentioned in the Snyder text and the O Corrain text is odd for another reason.  Have a look.  Hughsheehy 21:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Specifically, the greek text quoted in the edit as meaning "the Britannic Isles" is from page 12 of the Snyder book and Pytheas is not given as the source...simply "Greek Writers".  Dave, I fear it may not be a solid reference.  Hughsheehy 21:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * And since the Pytheas text does not exist (no copies survive and according to the WP entry on Pytheas the two best places for extracts are Diodorus and Pliny), I don't quite understand how O Corrain quotes from it. In any case it's a secondary (and unsourced) reference to a  non extant book.  Hughsheehy 21:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

As I've noted on my talk page, it's a good point that any reference to Pytheas must relate to fragments of the writing from later texts, just as the non extant Massaliote Periplus is known from an even later writer. While O Corrain doesn't make that explicit, I'd still think him a pretty good source for the term being used in that way at least from the time of the earliest surviving fragment. No doubt scholars have debated whether these fragments accurately reflect Pytheas, or if he was the original source. The Snyder book was from the library and that's certainly where the Greek text came from – I'll have to check that out and read the context of the relevant pages. The Amazon search does show the words "Again, this is a geographic rather than a cultural or political designation, for at Bpettavtai, `the Brittanic Isles,' included Ireland." Snyder was the source I used for variations on the term subsequently replacing Albion as the name for Britain itself: I'll try to get it out of the library and clarify these points as far as the book goes. .. dave souza, talk 22:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * By the way, looking at the linked 1911 Britannica it says that Pytheas used Albion and Ierne, but says nothing about him not using other terms for the islands collectively. So the statement as amended is correct. .. dave souza, talk 23:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Correct. I was responsible for the "solely" and it was sloppy of me. Thanks, Dave.
 * Incidentlally, I found this in the archive of an older talkpage:
 * "Now I could prove the antiquity of this word Britannia by many, and indeed most reliable witnesses, if the matter were controversial; and that it was not corrupted by Caesar, but handed down from older times, and pure ..."
 * We're not the first and we won't be the last ... --<span style="font-family:Zapfino, sans-serif">sony-youth talk 23:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * On Snyder, the whole relevant text is visible online, so there's no need to get the book from the library. Nowhere - as far as I can see - does it say it was Pytheas who used that term.   It says "Greek writers".....which could have been anyone.
 * On O Corrain (sorry, too lazy for the fadas), we need to say it is him saying that Pytheas says it, not just assert in our edit that Pytheas says it, at least until we can establish the source. Otherwise we're turning a secondary source into a tertiary reference.  I have no reason to doubt him either, but it's not a good reference as currently written in the edit.  Hughsheehy 00:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Meantime here's a ref from Eric R from archive page 9 (one side of the debate only)

"Scholars agree that the name Pretani, which is thus implied as a general name for their inhabitants from at least the fourth century onwards, can hardly be identical with the name Britanni...It is a very probable conjecture that Caesar, finding himself at the outset of his expedition on the borders of a Belgic tribe called Britanni and knowing that the country he was about to invade had been lately colonized from Belgic Gaul, believed himself able to correct a widespread error by substituting the forms Britanni, Britannia, for Pretani and its Latinized correlative Pretania. Collingwood, R.G.; J.N.L. Myres (1990). Roman Britain and the English Settlements, p. 31."

All good fun. Hughsheehy 00:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Being fairly bold, I've tried to address these points by 1) adding a disclaimer at the start making it clear that both of these early texts come from later fragments or translations, 2) moved Pytheas references together to a new paragraph, and as suggested have made it clearer which statement each citation supports as well as trying to make it clear that it's O Corrain's statement, and 3) since the Ierne / Albion bit refers to modern usage, added a similar bit about Priteni. The Caesar point's interesting, and should be added: since he was after the earliest fragments of Pytheas, it seems to confirm Pretani as the normal name which he modified to Britannia etc, perhaps in error. One point: we don't seem to have a reference for the Ierne / Albion bit: the Snyder reference used at British Isles (terminology) puts things a bit differently. .. dave souza, talk 11:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * One other thought...which Greek writers would have used a "B" rather than a "P"....to come back to the phrase in Snyder? Hughsheehy 13:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I guess the O'Rahilly's historical model needs looking at.--Shtove 19:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Interesting point there about it meaning “to shape” or “create.” after their deity (“the Creator”) – can we put that in as an alternative to "painted"? Presumably the O'Rahilly book would be the source for that, if someone can check. As for the spelling, it would be good to find more sources. The Snyder spelling shows in the Amazon search, and that's how I transcribed it from the book. Unfortunately someone's got it out from the library, so will just have to be patient as far as checking it beyond what shows up on Amazon. .. dave souza, talk 20:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Interpretation Act 1889
Has anyone got access to the text of the Interpretation Act 1889 from the UK Parliament? I don't, but I've seen a reference saying that the term the British Isles was legally defined within that document as being the United Kingdom (at the time including all of Ireland), the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. This act was superseded in Ireland by the Interpretation Act 1923, and in the UK by a number of acts, up to and including the Interpretation Act of '78 that introduced the definition of British Islands. However, unless someone has access to the text, the question is moot. Hughsheehy 10:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Anyone? Someone must have access to a UK public Library! Hughsheehy 09:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I still don't have my hands on a copy of the interpretation act 1889, but meantime, here's some text from a 1970 report to Commons in Westminster on mutual recognition of divorce law and what seems to be a proposed text of a law on mutual recognition of divorce..


 * Explanatory note of Clause 1.4 ‘‘British Isles ” is defined in clause 9(2). The meaning is the same as that of “the British Islands ” as defined in the Interpretation Act 1889 (as amended). It has, however, been thought better not to use the latter expression as it is unfamiliar and is often assumed to include the whole of Ireland.


 * Clause 9
 * 9.-(1) This Act may be cited as the Recognition of Divorces andLegal Separations Act 1970.
 *   (2) In this Act "the British Isles " means the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man.


 * Interesting that (i) the definition of British Isles excludes the Republic of Ireland and (ii) they seem to have chosen to use British Isles rather than British Islands to ensure that no-one would think they wanted to include the whole of Ireland. This is a 1970 document.  Again, it might be interesting to find other legal definitions, or legal changes of definition of the British Isles.  Hughsheehy 21:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll see if I can have a look at the 1889 Act next week. Meanwhile, here's a free British and Irish legal research archive for modern legislation and cases.--Shtove 21:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Cool research site. Here's an interesting definition from the 1954 Northern Ireland Interpretation Act. I wonder whether this ever came up in the discussions on the 1998 Good Friday Agreement. "British Islands" shall mean the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man and the Republic of Ireland; It's a bit different than the later UK definition. I wonder which has overriding force? Hughsheehy 16:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Keeping intro succinct, but complete
Good evening, it's good to see healthy academic debate above! Just a note to highlight that into the introduction's first parargraph I've reinserted the following: 'The term is not generally used in the Republic of Ireland'. I feel that this is too important a point to pass without reference in the article's introduction - as important information for anyone visiting Ireland (given the associated sensitivities). I see from the discussion above that some of my Irish colleagues earlier suggested inserting an explicit reference to the political reasons behind this. I think that the 'considered objectionable' link allows anyone who wishes easy access to a full explanation of the reasons for objection/avoidance - inserting wording in the introductory paragraph around the 'political reasons' inflames passions unnecessarily in my view. Kind regards, Pconlon 19:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually I think it was mostly TharkunColl who wanted to insert the "political" reasons. I think his user page used to say he's from Mercia (it doesn't any more). Hughsheehy 19:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks Hughsheehy. I can well see his point, but putting 'political reasons' in without an explanation immediately following it has in my view an incomplete feeling about it - and, as we well know, a balanced explanation usually ends up being far too long for an introductory paragraph! I'm content for the objection that many of us have to be clearly referenced and the point concisely made about its usage (or lack of it) in Eire - with an easily accessible link provided for those who desire a further explanation. I've been impressed of late with the general fairness and goodwill with which users have tended this article. Best regards, Pconlon 22:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Ancient terms
I'm not happy with the 2nd para of this section - the use of "these isles"/"British isles" seems to beg the question. This article has benefited greatly from recent contributions, but the ould shpin is still having its way. As far as I can tell, the evidence is that the term British Isles was invented in the 16thC. For months I've been looking for confirmation of its ancient origins, and nobody - NOBODY - has come up with a result.--Shtove 02:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree, its very knotted up and weasely. From the Encyclopedia of the Celts:


 * "As late as the time of Julius Caesar, and probably much later, the main native population of Britain and Ireland was known to the Celts of Gaul by the name Pretani. From the Gallic Celts, Greek writers learned to call Britain and Ireland the Pretanic Islands. The name Pretani is represented in the earliest Irish documents by Cruithin, which is translated by the Latin Picti, and is the specific designation of the ethnic group now called the Picts."


 * (Should we also include that the Gauls saw us as an inferior civilization that practiced polyandry?)


 * If this was the Gaullish understanding of the time, the Romans had a different one. In the same entry, a further definition of Pretani is given:


 * "The name Picti is of Latin origin, based on the reported custom of dyeing the skin. In Latin writings of the time of Roman Britain, Picti has no specific ethnic application, but is said indiscriminately of all the inhabitants of Britain to the north of the Roman ''frontier."


 * South of that border were the Roman Britons. Under the entry for Picts the following is given:


 * "As to the racial identity of the Picts, they were possibly Celtic and called Pretani in their own language, hence the name of Britain. The Irish called them Cruthin and applied this name also to people of the same race in Ireland. Picti (painted folk), was the name given them by the Romans."


 * Mixing an explanation of Pritani with a modern and post-Roman definitions of Britain and British is thus very misleading and, as Shtove writes above, begs the question by preempting the latter-day British Isles. --<span style="font-family:Zapfino, sans-serif">sony-youth talk 14:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Not sure I'd take the Encyclopedia of the Celts as an authoritative source, although the "begging the question" issue is still worth looking at.  Hughsheehy 16:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * For sure, at best its another encyclopedia, not an authority, but I don't know if I would fully write it off either. The full reference is "Knud Mariboe Bjarkesvej, The Encyclopaedia of the Celts, ISBN 87-985346-0-2, 1A DK3000 Helsingor, Denmark." Its linked to from the celtic departments and libraries of Aberdeen, Aberystwyth and Essex universities. The entry on the Essex site describes it as "... a very impressive work ... based on quotations from literature, myth, legend, fiction and history." Its also listed in the Intute catalogue. Pages belonging to a few American universities, including Stanford, link to it also. --<span style="font-family:Zapfino, sans-serif">sony-youth talk 17:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * One other thing. The edit is now inconsistent, with the section on Strabo contradicting the sections slighly above that.  I think you wrote most of the section, so it might be worth having a look at the whole thing again.  It seems that recent changes by others have caused the clash. Hughsheehy 17:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks fine to me, but I'm a bit bemused by this part:


 * "Priteni is the source of the Welsh language term Prydain, Britain, and has the same source as the Old Irish term Cruithne. The latter referred to a tribe of Brythonic speaking inhabitants in the north-east of Ireland, and to the inhabitants of Scotland (then Caledonia), and who the Romans called Picts or Caledonians."


 * What is it supposed to mean and why the reference to Welsh? Surely this is the source of Britain in all of our languages? Why is it talking about the Cruithne? I might be missing something but it sounds a bit like myth-building: finding the "British" in ancient Ireland and Scotland, and through the Welsh etymology, 'finding' them in Wales as well, thus "colonising" the Celtic fringe. Of course they were there! Its silly to try to 'find' them. But this "British" is different to "British" in the modern sense. --<span style="font-family:Zapfino, sans-serif">sony-youth talk 18:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

If you read above you'll see that the reference to Prydain comes from Donnchadh O Corrain, who would no doubt be surprised to find that he's "colonising the Celtic fringe". He uses it to establish Priteni as a "Celtic language" term, which also relates to other sources relating it to Cruithne. Your points of view are noted, but we have multiple sources indicating various terms related to Priteni being used for the inhabitants and as an early term for both islands. I'd like to see improved sources giving more detail, and several aspects need to be sorted out. The statement that "While, Britannia had remained the Latin name for Great Britain, after the fall of the Roman Empire it had lost most symbolic meaning until the rise of British influence" also appears in the Britannia article at present, but seems odd in the light of the 9th century Historia Britonum which the Lebor Gabála Érenn article says is the earliest extant account of early Irish history (or pseudohistory). The term also appears in the 12th century Historia Regum Britanniae which "became tremendously popular during the High Middle Ages, revolutionising views of British history before and during the Anglo-Saxon period" despite being largely fictional. These are all sources of later national myths, but while the terms gained new meanings and spellings, they had early origins. .. dave souza, talk 19:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * What I meant was that the point is not clearly made - apologies, the way I said it was unclear and incendiary. My POV is that at this time we were all British (or Priteni, or whatever) but that between that time and the 17th century what was signified by British had changed enormously - affected dramatically by the Roman conquest of Britain. Both Historia Britonum and Historia Regum Britanniae describe Britain (transliteration) as being equivalent in area to the Roman province: Historia Britonum is on "the history of Brythonnic inhabitants of Great Britain from earliest times, and this text has been used to write a history of both England and Wales" (from that article); Historia Regum Britanniae on the "ancestors of the Welsh, the Cornish and the Bretons" (from the List of legendary kings of Britain article).


 * By my post above, I did not mean that the point should be removed, certainly it should not, just clarified. As it is, it seems to say that "British" people were present all over the British Isles at this time. The "problem" is that they were, but not as we understand British today. --<span style="font-family:Zapfino, sans-serif">sony-youth talk 00:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Another key point is that someone outside the islands may have called all the inhabitants of the islands Priteni, or whatever, but I haven't seen (or don't remember) seeing anything that says the inhabitants of the islands called themselves that and in any case, Preteni≠British. It may be a part of the origin of British, but it is NOT the same word or the same meaning.  Hughsheehy 10:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Tudor Britons

 * Firstly, thanks for a considerable improvement. Couple of points: "During the classical era, the terms Brythons, or ancient Britons, are referred to as the people who lived in the southern half of modern-day Great Britain" seems problematic to me: people from the Roman provinces were using terms such as Britto to refer to themselves, Brythons is a later term from a Welsh origin. I'll look for sources to clarify this as well as the earlier terms. The point of Tudor political use is significant: they apparently played up their Welsh ancestry and genealogies developed from Historia Regum Britanniae gave them claim to "Britain" – the John Dee info is fascinating, but a bit out of sequence as he's talking of a British Empire before Britain was in any way politically unified. That seems to relate to the Tudor claims, rather than the eventual personal union of the crowns under James VI and I. It's notable that James proclaimed himself as 'King of Great Brittaine, France and Ireland', a point I'll add now for clarification. .. dave souza, talk 22:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't understand how the Dee info is out of sequence. That's when he was doing it; using those terms and making those claims.  If I remember, at the time it was being claimed that Arthur had ruled all the area (Britain, Ireland, the seas around), so imperial claims were being made on that - and other - bases.  I also found (somewhere) a reference to how Scotland fitted into their/his thinking before James inherited the lot of it.  I'll try to dig it up again.  Hughsheehy 17:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * For late Tudor/early Stuart stuff: Essex in Ireland and Robert Cecil, 1st Earl of Salisbury.--Shtove 19:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The sequence problem comes from describing the death of Elizabeth and accession of James before hopping back to John Dee in 1577: unless you check the dates it gets a bit confusing. If that paragraph's moved into sequence it makes more sense. It would be more logical to start the section with the Historia Britonum introducing Brutus of Troy who is developed in Historia Regum Britanniae into part of the English political narrative along with Arthur. Snyder reports that in 1485 Henry Tudor became king and commissioned research into his ancestry, and a year later was given a history of his descent from Arthur and Brutus, a theme developed by later Tudors. So effectively the prestige of "British" ancestry developed through the middle ages, and became a political tool of the Tudors. Thus Dee's idea of a British empire follows on from the English claims to rule Scotland and the rough wooing of Henry VIII, and helps to create the English empire before the union. Oddly enough, from memory the claims of James VI and I to be king of Great Brittaine seem to have been pretty much ignored in England and Scotland where it was business as usual until the revolution and the Commonwealth of England, then the idea of Britishness is revived in the Hanoverian eighteenth century.. .dave souza, talk 20:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Some of it's described in WP, although I haven't used any of that as source and I didn't keep my refs properly because I didn't write it in. Again, from memory, James wanted to call all of Great Britain Britain, but there was resistance in England - if I remember rightly.  I also saw some reference (which I can't find right now and may not have been a reliable source anyway) that the term "British" included Wales and Ireland before it included Scotland - at least (or only) in the Tudor "propaganda" of the mid-late 16th century, which is also in line with the timeline of the Tudor expansion.


 * Apart from that, I like the timeline as a summary. Not sure I'd call it an etymology though.  Hughsheehy 21:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Another thing....really interesting to see that there was also a lot of thought given to a Tudor (I think it was the Tudors) takeover of Iceland, which was forestalled by a Danish move. http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-9931967_ITM.  The basis for this was perhaps largely the same as for the rest; prior fabled Arthurian conquest (or the other Welsh guy whose name I can't remember right now), rights over the whole British Ocean, etc.   Again, it's potentially consistent with inclusion of Thule (probably Iceland) in the original classical Britannias, although that is speculative.  Also, there was certainly an Irish presence in Iceland before the Viking arrival so once you claim Ireland as British it's not that much of a leap to claim Iceland too, whatever the classical authors meant by Thule.  Iceland might have become a "British Isle" in the modern sense if not for Danish annexation of the island. Hughsheehy 21:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Interesting link, so Dee was pushing Elizabeth's claim to Scotland, Iceland and Norway as well as France. An ambitious empire! Is it Brutus of Troy you were thinking of – how could you forget the first king and founder or Britain? .. ;) .. dave souza, talk 21:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Not Brutus. There was some Welsh guy who was supposed to have travelled everywhere.  Not Arthur either.  Can't find it right now.  Dude was supposed to have gotten to North America - kinda like Brendan the Navigator.  Hughsheehy 22:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It was Madoc. That was the name.  He supposedly sailed from Wales to Mobile Bay, Alamaba in 1170 or so....and returned.  Dee dredged up him and several others (including Brendan the Navigator) to support "British" claims to North America.  Hughsheehy 17:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Found this gem in the rough wooing article: " In 1547, just before the English invasion, An Exhortacion to the Scottes was published in London, saying that the Treaty of Greenwich had been rejected because of the influence of "Priests and Frogges". James Henderson, the author, appealed to an ancient sense of Britishness, describing the French as "auncient enemies rather than auncient frendes." He advocated that the two kingdoms be merged into one, and that the terms Scot and English should be abolished in favour of Briton."
 * Unfortunately the source is probably in the National Library in Edinburgh, which is beyond my reach: a google turned up a couple of interesting first pages which anyone with access to JSTOR etc. might find useful:
 * Making the Empire British: "By the second quarter of the eighteenth century, the Anglophone inhabitants of the Atlantic world began for the first time to describe their community as collectively British and structurally an empire."
 * SCOTLAND, ELIZABETHAN ENGLAND AND THE IDEA OF BRITAIN: "aspects of Anglo-Scottish relations in Elizabeth's reign with particular emphasis on the idea of dynastic union and the creation of a Protestant British kingdom. It begins by examining the legacy of pre-Elizabethan ideas of Britain and the extent to which Elizabeth and her government sought to realise the vision of a Protestant and imperial British kingdom first articulated in the late 1540s."
 * The search also popped up Scots, Indians and Empire 1519-1609 Anyway, the other two indicate a time frame.. dave souza, talk 21:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * There's a good discussion of English history writing in the Tudor period in this edition of Edmund Spenser's View of the Present State of Ireland . As far as I recall, when addressing Ireland the English went with the old Brutus/Arthur dynastic argument; at the same time, when addressing Rome/France/Spain/Netherlands, they went with a state-authority argument - modern, protestant. Whatever works.--Shtove 00:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Comments on timeline
This is probably a bad idea ... but ... I created a template of the timeline we currently have for the etymology of British Isles. I really don't see this being put on any page - for a start its way to big - but I was trying to get my head around the timeline as we have at the moment. Partly, this is because I feel the section lacks narrative (not that I would see one being put in any time soon).

Anyway, I would be grateful if people could look at it and see if it is agreeable to them. In some ways, this is just so I know if we are all on the same wavelength, in part, at least, because of my exchange with dave souza above.

The template itself is here but a more readable version may be here.

Thanks. --<span style="font-family:Zapfino, sans-serif">sony-youth talk 22:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks like a really good idea to me, the outline looks helpful. Some of the notes may be a bit misleading, and need a bit more detail to make the situations clear. I've a bit more information to hand now and am slowly getting to grips with it: would you prefer me to put my comments in list form here for discussion? ... dave souza, talk 20:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure! Here is good. Thanks. --<span style="font-family:Zapfino, sans-serif">sony-youth talk 21:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks good - thanks for taking the effort.--Shtove 00:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Channel Islands
One other question...which is based on a non-researched impression. Is it the case that British definitions of "the British Isles" always or almost always include the Channel Islands, whereas American/other definitions just say something like "other smaller neighbouring islands"? This is my impression. It speaks to whether the definition is geographical or geopolitical or more political. Hughsheehy 21:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I am sceptical of the concept of British definitions of the term. There is no British or American Academy to define what terms mean. Useage dictates meaning.  When a BBC weatherman says 'a cold front will be passing over the British Isles' there is no way for the viewer to tell whether or not he is including the Channel Islands.  Almost certainly the weatherman will not have given the matter any thought.  Why?  Because it doesn't matter.  In today's useage this is not a term that denotes any status.  It is just a convenient label, with grey edges.  Whether or not the Channel Islands, or Rockall, or the Goodwin Sands are in the British Isles is similar to the question of exactly where the north Atlantic turns into the Arctic Ocean: a matter of pedantry.--86.31.226.83 18:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Except the difference is that islands are bits of land. It's possible to select a specific island and say "this is in" and to select a different one and say "this is out".  It's less easy with sea;  there's no place to stick a flag.  Hughsheehy 08:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * You're missing the point, Hugh. It is possible in both cases to define them precisely, using maps (although of course there is no authority that has the right to define English language useage of either term).  Its just pointless to do so.--86.31.230.144 18:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, from what I can see there are British definitions (OED, BBC, Times, etc) that all specifically include the Channel Islands, making that definition of the British Isles a geopolitical definition and NOT a geographical definition. All the American definitions seem to say " and adjacent islands" (to Great Britain and Ireland), which can only include the Channel Islands if you have a flexible imagination, given that they're a stone's throw from France.  Hughsheehy 13:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * May be a case of simply not knowing they exist. Or as you say, that British definitions lean more towards being geopolitical. Certainly they don't fit into any definition of adjacent. It may be useful to note when saying that sometimes CI are included, sometimes not i.e. American definitions do not include them. One possibly exception is the New Oxford American Dictionary (by the American editors of the OED) which explicitly includes them: "a group of islands lying off the coast of northwestern Europe, from which they are seperated by the North Sea and the English Channel. They include Britain, Ireland, the isle of Man, the Isle of Wright, the Hebredes, the Orkney Islands, the Shetland Island, the Scilly Isles, and the Channel Islands."


 * (As a side note, editors here may be interested in soemthing that I came across in searching for this - certainly I wasn't aware of it - Britain is the island, Great Britain is the geopolitical unit [from the NOAD].) --<span style="font-family:Zapfino, sans-serif">sony-youth talk 17:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * That NOAD definition is self-contradictory. The Channel Islands are most certainly not separated from northwestern Europe by the English Channel (or by the North Sea).   Hughsheehy 10:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Whether the Channel Islands are included or not makes little difference to the type of term BI is. Europe, for example, has essentially arbitrary eastern borders, it is essentially defined as the area white people came from, and the southern border of Scandinavia is the German-Danish frontier.  Does this mean that neither is a geographical term?  Use of Channel Islands in this term is understandable, given the general confusion about the nomenclature for the archipelago, and the need sometimes to express the geographical area (which doesn't naturally include the Channel Islands), and sometimes the historical-cultural-linguistic region

(which does include the Channel Islands).--86.31.224.219 10:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Geographic not a very accurate term - but I think we're essentially all on the same wavelength, that BI refers to an area defined by political geography, as opposed to physical geography. --<span style="font-family:Zapfino, sans-serif">sony-youth talk 10:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Not quite - there is clearly a physical geographical area composed of the island group floating off north-west France, and the most commonly used name for it is the British Isles. Which can also be used for the geopolitical area of the offshore parts of NW Europe where English is the primary language.--86.31.224.219 11:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I meant whether to include CI or not. Without CI, they could be said to by a physical group, with CI its politics and history that ties them together, not oceans rifts and glacial movements.


 * If we were just drawing circles around things, it would be possible to argue that the Falklands are physically a part of Africa, so long as you ignore their proximinty to the Americas :) --<span style="font-family:Zapfino, sans-serif">sony-youth talk 17:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I meant whether or not to include CI too. Inclusion of CI makes it geo-political, exclusion makes it purely geographic - but as in most cases of its use we don't know which definition people are using, this doesn't get us very far...--86.31.224.219 18:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Surely the obvious way is to state that they are sometimes included and sometimes aren't, and possibly delve into the implications of this vis à vis the geopolitical/geographical sense of the term. There's no need to pass comment and say whether this is "right" or "wrong". Robdurbar 19:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

It isn't a question of "right" or "wrong", but just a case of potentially a geographic unit and not really a geographic unit. Hughsheehy 20:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Big Brother Is Watching You
Or, at least, the BBC appear to be anyway! Robdurbar 13:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * What? Is there a link to some BBC talk about this article?--Shtove 17:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Lol, no I'm afraid its nothing that exciting. The repeatedly cited BBC weather article has recently been changed from "a small country such as the British Isles" to "a small area such as the British Isles". Of course, I am being a little presumptive - it could just be run-of-the-mill copydediting, but this is a page that had been left unchanged for a couple of years... --Robdurbar 22:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Also the music page and a couple of others that had been previously referenced where the BBC used the term in various ways....all suddenly changed.  One does wonder.  Maybe we could ask the BBC why these pages were changed after being static for a long time and then suddenly, once ref'd on WP, being changed.  The webmaster would know.   Hughsheehy 07:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Other maps and atlases
The references supplied to "other maps and atlases use the term 'Great Britain and Ireland instead" in Modern Usage are all road and rail maps. These would naturally use this since British Isles is a geographic term and hence not altogether appropriate. This need to be made clear because the current wording makes it look as though these maps are deliberately avoiding the use. In my previous edit I said that such maps "generally" use the political term because I can't demonstrate that they always do. I would be quite surprised to find one that does not. Naomhain 10:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * You may well be correct in your feeling. It's just that unless there is substantiation it's not really valid to assert it in the edit. However, if there is even one that does not, would that invalidate "generally"?  I haven't looked for one, but I suspect you could easily find one.  Also, I'm not sure why on earth road maps are not "geographic".  A road is not political, at least not "generally".  Besides, at least a few of the publishers just call the books "Atlas" and they include far more than just roads. Hughsheehy 19:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Fascinating topic actually. I know that the discussion of atlases etc., only started recently when someone (I think Mucky Duck) asserted that not only dictionaries defined the British Isles as they are normally defined, thus kicking off a bit of a ref war.  I was looking at Amazon.co.uk last night and noticed that older atlases (e.g. AA, Reader's Digest, etc., typically before 2000 or so) refer to the British Isles, whereas they seem to refer to Great Britain and Ireland or Britain and Ireland in the more recent editions.  I wondered if anyone else had noticed the same thing in any other context.  It's possibly in line with the discussion above on Google trending, but may indicate a tendency for the British Isles to fall out of use.  Very speculative for now. Hughsheehy 11:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Entertaining speculation, though all this listing is pushing towards original research. For what it's worth, the road atlases in my house refer to Great Britain and don't have maps of Ireland, so it's also possible that the Ireland section was seen as an addition to the GB road maps. On an earlier point, my small Philips Essential Atlas of the world doesn't include the Channel Islands on the British Isles pages, though it has Orkney and Shetland in inset boxes and could have done the same with the CI. .... dave souza, talk 11:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed, for now it's pure speculation on my part...maybe not even mature enough to rank as speculation, more an open ended question - and one that I have no idea whether it's true. As for the listings, the "I've got more on my side than you have on yours" is tedious but historically this article has been host to lots of denial of the facts.  References seem to be a way of "trumping" denial.  Hughsheehy 14:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * "Demonstrated" more than "asserted", I think you'll find. With verifiable,  reliable sources. Mucky Duck 17:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed, and noone seems to be denying that. However, the issue of atlases NOT using the term had previously been restricted to poor Folens.  It seems to be a wider subject and one that goes beyond the original turf.  Hughsheehy 21:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)