Talk:British Isles/Archive 25

British Isles means "Island of Great Britain and Island of Ireland"
This debate is absurd.

The British Isles means the Island of Great Britain and Island of Ireland.

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 04:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Plus of course hundreds of smaller islands and, depending on the definition used, the Channel Islands. But yes you're right, that meaning has not changed - but as far as I'm aware nobody was arguing that it has... waggers (talk) 09:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Can we find a definition that excludes the Channel Islands? No.  The British Isles includes the Channel Islands.  If the Channel Islands are not included the correct description is Britain and Ireland, or Great Britain and Ireland, or Ireland and Great Britain, etc.    Great Britain includes Skye, Wight, etc. and Ireland includes Achill, Clear, etc. (btw, I use OED as my reference) Wotapalaver (talk) 13:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, again it depends on the definition you use. Strictly speaking Great Britain is an island, and Skye, Wight, etc. are separate islands from it, so "Great Britain" does not include those other islands - similarly for Ireland and Achill, Clear, etc.  But in any case, this discussion isn't relevant to any proposed changes to the article. waggers (talk) 15:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I use OED as the definition and by definition Great Britain includes Skye and Wight etc. Similarly, Ireland includes Achill, Clear, etc.  Please show me a serious definition that says anything like "Skye is not in Britain".  Wotapalaver (talk) 18:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

This is what I wrote here earlier today and a wikipedia editor who has this on his User Page was clearly offended. My oh my. My bad. So, here it is again:
 * Personally speaking (of course) I think the British should just give up the ghost, get over their loss of empire, and start living side-by-side with the Irish without feeling the need for such jingoistic terms like "British Isles". After Germany and France, Ireland remains Britain's third largest market in absolute terms, a quite surprising reality which is often overlooked. That's a lot of jobs in Britain depending on just being respectful neighbours to the Irish. Economic sanity, not to mention neighbourliness, is on the side of avoiding this term. 86.42.99.141 (talk) 13:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC).
 * British Isles is not a jingoistic term. MidnightBlue (Talk)  20:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It is, in its entirety, a jingoistic term. From its origin with John Dee onwards it is designed to lay a claim upon Ireland and recreate a new English world called Britain. It is a terminological construction central to the myths that underpin the modern British state and British identity. To deny this is as futile as denying that the people who use this term most in British society are the same people who are on every eurosceptic bandwagon going. When they use the term "British Isles" they are expressing an alternative British (or is it English?) world view that is in contrast to what the EU means to the same people. 86.42.99.141 (talk) 20:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I do not support the National front or the BNP. I removed ur comment because it was offensive and clearly aimed just to stir things up. Im sorry but we can not go around rewritting maps because of a few cry babies. The British Isles is a term widely used by many people, im sorry if you dont like the term but a debate on wikipedia is not going to change it. :) You had a silly and pathetic little rant on another talk page aswell, which talk pages are not designed for. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

No more of this kind of chat or WP:SOAPBOX messages, please. I have struck out comments that clearly violate WP:TALK and ask editors to not reply to any of them. The anonymous IP editor who made them (and using different IP addresses to make very similar comments in the past) has made the IP address temporarily unavailable for any other anonymous IP editors. DDStretch   (talk)  23:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, the references and evidence suggest that maps are indeed being widely re-written. The value judgement about "cry babies" is hardly pertinent.  Also, I've asked before - can we please have references to support the assertion that the term "British Isles" is still widely used by many people? Wotapalaver (talk) 16:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * To many the British Isles means; "The Islands belonging to the British". I'm afraid the IP has some good points to make, and that the concept arose in the 17th century, and during the rise of the British Empire. The problem with the term 'British Isles' is that it is ambiguous, that it has different meanings for different people. A British Unionist Nationalist would argue very strongly in favour of including Ireland in the British circle of things, whereas an Irish person wouldn't see themselves as being British, considering the sometimes horrid history of of Britain's occupation of Ireland. So it follows that most Irish people would not consider themselves British. The term is ambiguous, and has no single meaning, and the article should reflect those facts. Therefore a WP:IDONTLIKEIT stance with the reference is another pov in this instance. PurpleA (talk) 19:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I have summarised the issues for everyone in a way that pretty much anyone can understand
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:British_Isles&oldid=268474905

Now can we end three or four years of chatter? 129.234.4.1 (talk) 14:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I suppose we could, but your suggestion is simply wrong. It's that simple.  Wotapalaver (talk) 09:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Request for comment on references
How should the references be included in the article to fairly represent what they actualy say. The authors of the refs say Britain and Ireland is becoming the preferred term. Should we quote that directly or say that some commentators ie: the authors, prefer it? I include here both refs. &mdash;Titch Tucker (via posting script) 01:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

How can we iterpret the references as saying "Britain and Ireland is becoming the preferred term for some commentators"? The commentators/authors of those refs do not at any point say that they prefer that term. What they do say is that Britain and Ireland is becoming the preferred term, two entirely different things. If people are happy to use these refs then we must represent them properly, not include wording which does not exist. Titch Tucker (talk) 12:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * "It has been reported that Britain and Ireland is becoming the preferred term rather than British Isles by x, y, x (refs placed here)." ?  DDStretch    (talk)  17:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Or: "X, y, and z report that British Isles is becoming the preferred term instead of British Isles." ?  DDStretch    (talk)  17:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I would have no objection to either one. They are an accurate reflection on what the refs say. Titch Tucker (talk) 19:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem with Britain and Ireland is that there is no mention of Islands. That could be misleading to readers.--jeanne (talk) 20:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "Britain & Ireland" would cover all of the islands of both Britain and Ireland, or Great Britain if you like. We don't say "Iceland Isles" instead of Island. Or "America and its isles" for fear of the exclusion of Hawaii from America. Britain and Ireland is a very well used alternate term, and it's not for Wikipedia to finesse the term, otherwise it's OR. PurpleA (talk) 21:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Iceland is only one island, Britain and Ireland comprise two sovereign states on separate islands, so they cannot be compared. British and Irish Isles would solve the polemical problem, but that would be OR on my part.--jeanne (talk) 08:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone considered, merely pointing out Britain and Ireland as an alternative name, without mentioning it's being used more or used less then British Isles? GoodDay (talk) 21:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Looking at the archive, it has been pointed out before, and a "great debate" has almost always followed. "Britain & Ireland" is probably more used than 'British Isles', but merely saying that might cause another "great debate". PurpleA (talk) 22:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's not say it. Let's just say Britain and Ireland is an alternative name. GoodDay (talk) 23:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Is there any specific disagreement over the proposal put forward by DDstretch? Titch Tucker (talk) 23:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I would support including "X, y, and z report that Britain and Ireland is becoming..." - the problem with the "It has been reported that..." version is that someone will then use that as justification for a page move, and we end up with an edit war and page protection. Bastun BaStun not BaTsun 07:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I also think DDstretch's second option is best. --Snowded  TALK  08:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This is (as usual) madness. If we put this kind of nonsense verbiage in around these references, why not around every other reference on Wikipedia?  Can you imagine if every reference had to be included by name?  It's ludicrous!  A list of hundreds of names to support that fact that the EU has more than one member state.  Thousands of names to support the fact that London is in the South East of England.  Either references are good, which these are, or they are not.  If they are good, then unless there's verifiable reputable reference that somehow contradicts what they say (which there isn't) they can be used in Wikipedia as verifiable fact.   If you start down this road to placate loopers I can only wish you luck on every other article on Wikipedia.  Wotapalaver (talk) 09:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Example of where this loopiness goes. "Encyclopedia Britannica, The Times Atlas of the World, National Geographic [insert another thousand names of verifiable reputable sources} report that London is in the South East of England. "  Right, this is a BAD suggestion.  Wotapalaver (talk) 09:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I also support DDDstretch's second version, except that we don't need to name x, y and z. Their identities are clear from the references (the first reference is a poor one as I mentioned above and I suggest it is removed), so all that needs to be said is "Some commentators [authors of the reference(s)] report that ....". MidnightBlue (Talk)  13:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

This article will ultimately have to be sent to an arbitration committee in the next couple of years or so, when indeed Wikipedia becomes a more serious encyclopedia. In the meantime, it should be stated in the article, (as per editor GoodDay), that the islands are also know as Britain & Ireland, and that should be said. It may take some time for this debate to resolve, but it's surely on the horizon. PurpleA (talk) 00:31, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The suggestions from GoodDay and MidnightBlue make the most sense to me. waggers (talk) 09:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The suggestion from MidnightBlue would require that all referenced text in every article be so prefixed with the name of the sources. It's a lunatic suggestion driven by his IDONTLIKEIT response to what the references say. I note he has no such proposal for other references, but what happens when other editors do? Wotapalaver (talk) 09:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no requirement for a solution devised for a particular circumstance to be copied elsewhere. In this context given the controversy it works.  Now please stop using words like "lunatic" its not helpful.  --Snowded  TALK  12:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * There might be no "requirement", but how do you propose to separate references that do need to be so tagged from those that don't? There is no way.  WP requires that references be verifiable and reputable.  The references that MidnightBlue proposes to tag because he doesn't like them are reputable and verifiable.  It is therefore of no interest to WP whether he doesn't like them and his proposal does not represent any justifiable controversy, it represents IDONTLIKEIT. I could as well start a controversy over other references on the page and no-one would be able to argue that the other references should not also be tagged in this crazy manner.  Therefore, his suggestion does NOT work. Wotapalaver (talk) 13:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

After reading Siobhán Kilfeather's essay (currently reference #11) as far as Google Books allows, that is, I find it peppered with inaccuracies, misleading weasel worded statements and bias. If it was a WP article it would be NPOV tagged; it doesn't really provide confidence in it as a good source. - Bill Reid |  Talk ''' 19:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

CommentTo change the name of a distinct geographical region takes more than a couple of books. The British Isles has been known by that name for centuries. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Known by that term, it should be said, by the same British people who have, well, robbed, occupied, brutalised and oppressed the Irish people for centuries. The same people who also called the Irish barbarians, savages, and much more. And, furthermore, the British as they are commonly known today didn't even exist until, at best, the seventeenth century which coincidentally is when the term "British Isles" first entered the English language. This term is zealous jingoistic nomenclature if ever there was one, just another part of the myth-making exercises underpinning the creation of the British state. And there I was thinking the British were above such crass displays of nationalist tribalism! 86.42.99.141 (talk) 20:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Know by that term by just about everyone. Instead of ranting why don't you address the subject in hand, namely the efficacy of the references. Try to do so without bias. MidnightBlue (Talk)  20:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I have struck the comments as being in clear violation of WP:TALK and because they merely inflame the situation. See comments at end, as well.  DDStretch    (talk)  22:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

@BillReid. You might be right, but the reference is not a Wikipedia article. It's a reputable published work. In addition, just as a note, the author of that article was a highly regarded international scholar and a senior lecturer in Queen's University Belfast. I believe this is her Obituary in the Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/2007/apr/27/guardianobituaries.booksobituaries) and here is the note from Queen's (http://www.qub.ac.uk/schools/SchoolofEnglish/NewsandEvents/DrSiobhanKilfeather/). I look forward to seeing your credentials as a scholar in the area.

@Martin. You might be right too. The point is that the books report that the change is happening. You may agree or disagree that it should happen (which is irrelevant on WP) but unless you can provide reference you cannot really argue about whether it is happening.

@All. Again, these are typical credentials of references that some editors here are denying existed, are describing as a bad sources, etc. It's apparent that the sources are absolutely eminently reliable and reputable and that - therefore - something else is going on here. That something is IDONTLIKEIT, as always. Should I now change my position and insist that we describe the credentials of the sources in the text? Ooh, tempting. Wotapalaver (talk) 19:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes I had read her obituary previously. Her essay was not based on her academic fields of interest and it showed.  Throughout the essay, she wrote about what she knew in an Irish context and getting things rather wrong in the British context and that is what I based my comment on.  For example:

Inaccuracies:
 * In one passage (page 15) she wrote that support for the Second World War caused division in Scotland and Wales saying that some nationalists opposed  'England's imperialist war'  when as far as I know, it was Trotskyists who opposed the imperialist war, or maybe she was referring to the loopy Douglas Young, the chairman of the SNP's Aberdeen Branch, who believed that Britain was going to lose the war and that the Scots should negotiate for peace with Hitler.


 * She made the statement The United Kingdom is a name that attempts to encompass two kingdoms, Scotland and England; when of course the United in United Kingdom is not the union of Scotland and England but the union of the kingdom of Great Britain with the kingdom of Ireland.


 * She went on ... a principality, Wales; there is no principality of Wales only a titular Prince of Wales

Misleading weasel worded statements:
 *  Many of the Irish dislike the 'British' in 'British Isles' . The word many is unquantified and non-specific, that gives no idea of the scale of the issue.


 *  In response to these difficulties, 'Britain and Ireland' is becoming the preferred usage&mdash;''. Again a non-specific phrase  which is unquantified and not backed up by citation.


 * It is a common perception among Scottish, Welsh and Irish populations that they face personal discrimination in England, and that for much of the last fifty years they have been discriminated against en masse by the Westminster government. It is a common perception; this is another of those inprecise, unquantified and non-specific phrases that is without citation


 *  'while the Welsh and Scottish are not keen on 'Great Britain' .  Meally-mouthed are not keen on statement. I'm not keen on lots of things but it doesn't mean that a lot more are

No sources to back up any of the above, just pure POV.

Bias


 * Northern Irish Catholics, Ulster Unionists, Scottish and Welsh peoples may have very different and quite specific grievances against English dominance within the British Isles, but they have shared, for much of the post war period, the experience of being ruled by Westminster governments which have received little mandate from the non-English provinces of the United Kingdom. A strange, convoluted sentence in which she expressed her opinion that the Westminster governments did not receive mandates from the 'non-English' provinces. Well tell that to the 80% of Scottish voters and 80% of Welsh voters who consistently vote for unionist parties. - Bill Reid  |  Talk ''' 20:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * So Bill Reid (who?) disagrees with this published author and university academic. That's nice.  Excuse me if I, and WP, takes the academic and published author more seriously.  Bill Reid might well be right, but it's entirely beside the point.  His opinion (whether correct or not) is neither verifiable, reputable, nor published - and is therefore entirely irrelevant.   Wotapalaver (talk) 16:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Your replies to people always seem to be laced with invective. Please reply in a civil manner and people might take you more seriously.  I think I've shown that she got her history wrong and so the points she was trying to make became suddenly nonsensical; that she wrote in an entirely POV style regarding her description of the use of British Isles and that her interpretation of the Scottish and Welsh mandates that these two countries give/gave to Westminster governments was completely opposite to the truth.  She provided absolutely no sources to back up her views.  I'm pretty sure I could go back to her essay and find more errors but instead you should be arguing against what I've said and make editors (including me) accept that this book is suitable for a source for this article. - Bill Reid  |  Talk ''' 18:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no invective. There is simply the fact that your opinion is unimportant.  Verifiable reputable references are important.  The reference is verifiable and reputable, from an eminent (albeit now dead) academic.  That you disagree is entirely irrelevant, unimportant, and even fairly uninteresting.   Wotapalaver (talk) 09:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment on BBC style guide reference As someone previously uninvolved in this discussion, I have had a look at the BBC style guide, which is causing some contention. It is clear to me that the 'Confused already? Keep going.' comment is in reference to the previous two paragraphs which define various terms such as United Kingdom, Great Britain and British Isles. It is a fair enough comment that it is confusing. However, the article is currently wrong to state ''The BBC style guide's entry on the subject of the British Isles remarks, "Confused already? Keep going." ''. The BBC style guide entry is not on the subject of the British Isles, but on the matter of devolution. In addition, the comment quoted is in reference to the previous two paragraphs talking about both the British Isles and the UK, Great Britain etc. A more accurate statement might be: ''The BBC style guide's entry on the subject of devolution remarks, with respect to the British Isles, United Kingdom, Great Britain and crown dependancies, "Confused already? Keep going." '' I can see that that may be a bit wordy though!

I do not see how the quote fits in with the section headed "Alternative names and descriptions". The source actually defines what the British Isles refers to, and does the same for the UK etc. It does not offer any alternative description for the British Isles. The quote taken in context does not fit into where it is currently positioned in the article, and certainly needs a more adequate description than currently offered to explain what is being meant by "Confused already?". Quantpole (talk) 12:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * A good assessment of the reference, if I may say so. It is very clear that the BBC Style Guide is not offering alternative names for the British Isles, nor is it stating that there is confusion around the use of the term. In short, it's a bad reference, in fact, it's no reference at all. When article protection is lifted I intend to remove the offending sentence and its reference. Any objections to my doing so? MidnightBlue (Talk)  18:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Island of Great Britain and the Island of Ireland capitalisation of British Isles
There are two main standards of the English Language of concern here. One is British English, the second is American English. There former is governed by the Oxford Style Manual (2003), whereas the latter by the Chicago Manual of Style.

The Oxford Style Manual (2003) does not advocate the capitalisation of  island on its own. It advocates its capitalisation

Island of Great Britain ,

Island of Ireland ,

Channel Islands ,

Isle of Wight ,

Isle of Man ,

Isles of Scilly

of the word Island (and Isle(s)) within their long-form names  ( Island of Great Britain and Island of Ireland ).

I would prefer to use the Oxford Standard for the British Isles.

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 20:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sooo, what are you proposing for the article? GoodDay (talk) 21:17, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Howdy GoodDay.

I am proposing this

Archipelago

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/archipelago

How about this ...


 * "... The British Isles is an archipelago consisting chiefly of the Island of Great Britain and Island of Ireland and its adjacent islands. They are located north of the Continent (separated by the English Channel), and to the west of Scandinavia (separated by the North Sea) ..."

How is that folkes?

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 21:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC).
 * Great Britain and Ireland will do. GoodDay (talk) 22:39, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I respectfully disagree. The Island of Great Britain and Island of Ireland are neccesary.


 * ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 00:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

British = (English + Welsh + Scottish + Irish)
Ahem...

British = (English + Welsh + Scottish + Irish)

hence the term British Isles eh.

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 21:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

British = Irish? If we're going to make ridiculous claims then: Irish=Japanese British=Angolan Irish=Brazilian and British=Norwegian

That all about wraps up the educational importance of this ridiculous part of this talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.16.80.219 (talk) 21:42, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I sincerely hope you've got your nomex undies on, 'cause you're about to get flamed 'big time' for that one. Endrick Shellycoat  21:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello EndrickShellycoat.

Thank you very much for the "Heads-up" ... I appreciate it eh.

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 21:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Again, put as ya'll wish in the content of this article. Just leave the article-title alone. GoodDay (talk) 21:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Howdy, howdy, GoodDay.


 * I thought I'd mingle with the "Mother-Country" for a while, as most of my fellow Canadians can't stand me.


 * Nice to hear from yaa' bro.


 * ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 21:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC).


 * A famous Irishman, George Bernard Shaw, once wrote, "you can put all the historians in this world end to end, and never reach a conclusion". Well he seems pretty correct in his observations, and this talk-page almost proves Shaw's point. I'm a bit Welsh, and a bit English, but dunno about the British part though, that can be left to the debating society. PurpleA (talk) 21:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello PurpleA.

MY Great-GrandDad was from Dolgelley, Menionthshire, Wales.

Take care eh.

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 21:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Re-stated British = (English + Welsh + Scottish + Irish)
Ahem...

British = (English + Welsh + Scottish + Irish)

hence the term British Isles eh.

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 21:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

How about this folks?
Archipelago

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/archipelago

How about this ...


 * "... The British Isles is an archipelago consisting chiefly of the Island of Great Britain and Island of Ireland and its adjacent islands. They are located north of the Continent (separated by the English Channel), and to the west of Scandinavia (separated by the North Sea) ..."

How is that folkes?

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 15:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry but im confused. I didnt think the opening sentence was the problem. I thought the current dispute was around the issue of if it was accurate to talk about it being controversial or that "Britain and Ireland is becoming the preferred descrption" in the opening paragraph and if the sources back up such claims. Changing the opening sentence will not resolve that, but perhaps im missing something. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Can I go back to GoodDay's suggestion of 31 January? Do we actually need to raise the contentious question of whether one term is being increasingly used, or how many or who prefer one term or the other?  Would it not be simpler and clearer to revise the third sentence to state: "Britain and Ireland is an alternative term in use for the archipelago" ?  Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello BritishWatcher (talk), and Ghmyrtle (talk).

I apologise for being un-clear. That was not my intent.

I propose that we replace the whole first paragraph,


 * "... The British Isles are a group of islands off the northwest coast of continental Europe which comprise the island of Great Britain, the island of Ireland and a number of smaller islands.[7] The term British Isles is controversial in relation to Ireland,[8] where many people[9] find the term objectionable; the Irish government also discourages its usage.[10] As a result of these problems, "Britain and Ireland" is becoming a preferred description.[11][12] ... "

with this paragraph listed below,


 * "... The British Isles is an archipelago consisting chiefly of the Island of Great Britain and Island of Ireland and its adjacent islands. They are located north of the Continent (separated by the English Channel), and to the west of Scandinavia (separated by the North Sea) ..."

How is that folkes?

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 19:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, it seems reasonable to me. I've never believed that the disagreement over the term should feature so prominently in the lead. My only suggestion would be to leave out 'Island of ...' in each of the cases where it's used. Perhaps something like '... consists of Great Britiain, Ireland and ...MidnightBlue <font color="Blue">(Talk)  20:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * ahh i see, thanks for clarifying. Yes id support such a change that would remove the disuputed sentence about the other description from the main paragraph. It certainly deserves a mention worded accurately and well sourced but not in the lead paragraph. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Howdy, howdy.

In British English the Oxford Style Manual (2003) [Chapter 4] would have


 * "...the Island of Great Britain and Island of Ireland and its adjacent islands.  ..."

in American English the Chicago Maunal of Style would have


 * "...the island of Great Britain and island of Ireland and its adjacent islands.  ..."

Similarly, in British English the Oxford Style Manual (2003) [Chapter 4] would have


 * "...the Government of Great Britain and Government of Ireland ..."

in American English the Chicago Maunal of Style would have


 * "...the government of Great Britain and government of Ireland ..."

Since are discussing the British Isles ... I would personally prefer that one utilises the Oxford Standard (i.e, the ''Oxford Style Manual).

Just a thought, eh.

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 21:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)It's pretty good intentions, but I for one would like to continue to see the lede make it clear that the term is contentious. --HighKing (talk) 22:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that there should be a reference to the term's contentiousness, but placed after the term "British Isles" has been defined and explained. My proposal would be to reorder the sentences, so that a reworded version of the section on contentiousness comes as a third para rather than as part of the first para, as follows:-"The British Isles are a group of islands off the northwest coast of continental Europe. They comprise the island of Great Britain, the island of Ireland and a number of smaller islands.  There are two sovereign states located on the islands: the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and Ireland. The group also includes the Crown dependencies of the Isle of Man and, by tradition, the Channel Islands, although the latter are not physically a part of the archipelago. [I would propose deleting the next sentence: There are other common uncertainties surrounding the extent, names and geographical elements of the islands.]  The term British Isles is controversial in relation to Ireland, where many people find the term objectionable; the Irish government also discourages its usage. Britain and Ireland is an alternative term in use for the archipelago."  Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes mentioning its controversial in the 2nd or 3rd paragraph is better than in the first. Although i still dont like the use of this "alternative name". Could we not just talk about why its offensive / controversial in the 3rd paragraph instead of the current "alternative". Ive not looked through the sources for that alternative it just seems kind of stupid and obvious to me. When talking about the islands Britain and Ireland, shock horror some may say "Britain and Ireland". BritishWatcher (talk) 23:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * True, but they don't say "Atlantic Isles", "Celtic Isles", or whatever. The last sentence could perhaps be rewritten: "Of the alternative names for the archipelago, Britain and Ireland is the most commonly used."  Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That certainly sounds alot better worded that way yes. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello Ghmyrtle.

The sentence below in American English,


 * "They comprise the island of Great Britain, the island of Ireland , and a number of smaller islands",

How using British English below,


 * "They comprise the Island of Great Britain, the Island of Ireland and a number of smaller islands"

Eh?

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 23:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't see any valid reason to use capitals for the word "island". But that is a side issue. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello Ghmyrtle.


 * I am an English-Canadian (i.e., English-Speaking Canadian).


 * Ahem ... "English-Canadian English" is a mixture of British English and American English.


 * Now ... the Oxford Style Manual (2003),


 * http://www.amazon.co.uk/Oxford-Style-Manual-Robert-Ritter/dp/0198605641/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1233805640&sr=1-1


 * seems like "one vaild reason" to use the capitalisation of


 * "... Island of Great Britain, the Island of Ireland ..."


 * Take care eh, ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 03:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This seems an absurd suggestion. Why does that manual suggest that "island" should be capitalised?  Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello Ghymrtle.

The Oxford Style Manual (2003) does not advocate the capitalisation of  island on its own. It advocates its capitalisation

Island of Great Britain ,

Island of Ireland ,

Channel Islands ,

Isle of Wight ,

Isle of Man ,

Isles of Scilly

of the word Island (and Isle(s)) within their long-form names  ( Island of Great Britain and Island of Ireland ).

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 03:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, the use of "comprise" in the above suggestion is ungrammatical. In short: "all of the parts comprise the whole", whereas "the whole consists of all of the parts". Either swap the things round on either side of the "comprises", or use some form of "consists". In any case, "island" is probably unecessary for Great Britian, though more contentious for "Ireland".  DDStretch    (talk)  08:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Fair point, DDStretch. How about:-"The British Isles are a group of islands off the northwest coast of continental Europe, including Great Britain, the island of Ireland, and a number of smaller islands. There are two sovereign states located on the islands: the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and Ireland. The group also includes the Crown dependencies of the Isle of Man and, by tradition, the Channel Islands, although the latter are not physically a part of the archipelago. The term British Isles is controversial in relation to Ireland, where many people find the term objectionable; the Irish government also discourages its usage. Britain and Ireland is the most commonly used alternative name for the archipelago." Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Excellent, full support --<font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">Snowded  <font color="#708090" face="Baskerville">TALK  09:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Well-written and concise.--jeanne (talk) 09:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Disagreed. The British Isles is a group.  "Sovereign state" is not a good term.  Mississippi is a sovereign state.  Ireland and the UK are countries. The group does include the Channel Islands, by definition.  The Channel Islands are not part of the physical archipelago of Britain and Ireland, but they are physically part of the British Isles.  Other than that, the sources we have say (IIRC) that "Britain and Ireland" is becoming a preferred description (which actually means that the term "British Isles" is falling into disuse since Britain and Ireland and British Isles mean different things).  Unless someone has evidence of frequency of use (which I'm unaware of) we still have nothing to suggest that British Isles is more common than "Britain and Ireland".  The controversy needs to be mentioned in the top section of the article.  Wotapalaver (talk) 09:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I am sorry but it is just totally false to claim that "the term "British Isles" is falling into disuse". It may not be used in Ireland, but it is used regularly in Britain. I fully accept the term is controversial and this should be mentioned in the opening paragraphs although i dont think it deserves to be in the first paragraph. However this idea that the term British isles is rarely used now is just false and inaccurate and clearly pushing a biased point of view.


 * "The term British Isles is controversial in relation to Ireland, where many people find the term objectionable; the Irish government also discourages its usage. Britain and Ireland is the most commonly used alternative name for the archipelago." seems far more reasonable and accurate although i still think its stating the obvious that the two islands are named individually instead of a single "Isles". BritishWatcher (talk) 11:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * For anyone who is confused by "Sovereign State" (I suspect none) we could say "Sovereign country. I would use Britain and Ireland rather than British Isles as would many others, but for the current state of play and citation the proposal is fine.  --<font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">Snowded  <font color="#708090" face="Baskerville">TALK  11:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * My suggested text - deliberately - does not suggest that one term is used more than the other, or refer in any way to any change in the degree one or the other is used, because that is controversial. I also suggest that "sovereign states" should link to this page, to get past the "country" issue which is also (probably even more) contentious. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * PS - but I do accept that the British Isles is (not are) a group. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Stick with sovereign state as it is accurate; Wotapalaver, Mississippi is not a sovereign state. It is just a state. --Pretty Green (talk) 13:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The United States is a federal union or republic of states with substantial, but not sovereign powers. It was in point of fact, the issue of states rights which was one of the major causes of the American Civil War, as the Southern states insisted on their Constitution-guaranteed rights to decide the laws in their own jurisdiction, with less federal interference and domination.--jeanne (talk) 13:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Would "nation states" be a suitable alternative? waggers (talk) 14:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Seriously, stick with sovereign. Is the UK a nation? Or England? What about Northern Ireland? Or the Isle of Man? Some Irish would tell you that the nation of Ireland is RoI + NIreland. Many Scottish would say Scotland is nation but the UK isn't. The thing that differentiates the UK and RoI from these other bodies is their sovereignty. Pretty Green (talk) 14:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Though this does seem to be an (interesting) side issue. The overall rewording of the intro seems pretty good to me. I don't think the article should take a stance on whether more people say British Isles or Britain and Ireland or whatever else they want to call it - it should present the common alternatives as such and the uncommon ones (eg North Atlantic Islands) as such. --Pretty Green (talk) 14:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Seriously, sovereign state is not the right term. California, Mississippi, etc are sovereign states.  It's easy to provide reference to this.  As for "falling into disuse" I accept that it's not a well chosen phrase on my part there's no reference I'm aware of that says anything like "fallen into disuse".  However, if another term is becoming preferred then there is a clear implication that something else is becoming less preferred....which means that "falling into disuse" is perhaps exaggerated, but not to be discarded.  Wotapalaver (talk) 17:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This tactic of saying something like "It's easy to provide reference to this" has been used by the same editor before on Talk:United Kingdom where the view was restated on 17:39 19 January 2009, in a debate about the use of "country":"'Yes, they are all easily verified and I will provide sources.'"But Wotapalaver never did supply the sources, even when reminded by a number of editors, including myself:"'You say that all your statements are easily verified, but you do seem to be having remarkable difficulty in verifying them when asked. To recap: the two claims you made which you claim are easily verified are: (i) 'plenty of sources do not describe them as countries', and (ii) 'the vast majority of the international sources (do not describe them as sources)'. Now, are you going to supply the verification, please? As I said above, reviewing WP:RS, WP:V and WP:CITE may help you see exactly what I am asking you to kindly supply. If you are interested in contributing to the improvement of this article, and of persuading others that your claims have merit, then you would surely satisfy this request, wouldn't you? Thanks.'"Instead, Wotapalaver seemed to abandon that article after a number of extra comments (none of which supplied the requested sources), and increased his contributions here in this general thread. Now we see edits from the same editor which make a very similar statement here. I think that unless the editor is prepared to come up with the goods of verified reliable sources, adequately referenced here to back up the claim about the relevant issues being "easy to provide reference" for (in a similar form for which I asked the same editor on Talk:United Kingdom), we might consider simply ignoring this opposition so that we could then proceed with a consensus view of all the other editors.  DDStretch    (talk)  17:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Nope, I didn't abandon the other articles. It's just that some reference denial started here, and I can only concentrate on one article at a time.  As for "sovereign state", I could refer you to the Mississippi state government website (http://www.mississippi.gov/flags.jsp), to Mississippi State constitutional document, (http://billstatus.ls.state.ms.us/documents/2000/pdf/HC/HC0019IN.pdf), to law cases involving the sovereign state of California (http://vlex.com/vid/36808151), to Article 1 of the Louisiana state constitution (http://senate.legis.state.la.us/documents/constitution/Article1.htm#%C2%A726.%20State%20Sovereignty), etc., etc., etc.  I appreciate that the "sovereign state" misapprehension is widespread.  That's hardly my fault.  I also appreciate that lots of Wikipedia editors have negotiated agreement between themselves without ever seeming to consider that consensus in contradiction of reference is worthless.  Not my fault either, nor my problem.  Wotapalaver (talk) 22:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * At last we have some purported references! Pity about the totally insulting message left on my talk page, where you attempted to blame me when, in fact, the burden of evidence is clearly upon yourself, since it was you who kept on making the claims. It was quite correct for myself and others to ask you to provide the references.  DDStretch    (talk)  23:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Well you did 'up the ante' a wee bit here. May I ask all editors to address the subject, and not comment on other editors. Maybe just refer to the "two countries", as it reads better. PurpleA (talk) 02:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Legitimately, given the editor's previous history of evading the responsibilities that the burden of evidence placed upon him/her. If he/she didn't like it, he/she should have responded appropriately to the reasonable requests. But that is the end of the matter. What do people think of the references that have been offered?  DDStretch    (talk)  02:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The show the use of"sovereign" in connection with "state" within the USA. The use in this context is not ambiguous, it is normal to reference both the UK and Ireland as sovereign states.  They could be called sovereign nations if someone has problems with this, but the rewording is otherwise unchanged. --<font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">Snowded  <font color="#708090" face="Baskerville">TALK  06:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * An American state governor does not have the power of the British Prime Minister or Irish Taoiseach.--jeanne (talk) 07:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I love it, "purported references", ha!! These "purported references" are state constitutions and legal documents showing that US states are self-described and legally accepted "sovereign states".  As for "sovereign nation", shall I pull up the descriptions of Indian tribes as "sovereign nations"?  The UK and Ireland are countries, plain and simple.  As for me having a "previous history of evading the responsibilities of the burden of evidence", the remark is ludicrous and shameful and DDstretch knows well that 30 seconds on Google would have found the same references I found.  Other than that, I don't make edits without reference.  When I didn't have time to address the errors on one article because of people trying to delete references on another, I chose a place to focus.  It does not in any way change that fact that what I am saying is supported by reference.  "Sovereign state" is not a good term for the purposes of this article.  Wotapalaver (talk) 09:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * They were "purported" because they needed examination to see if they were as good as they were claimed to be (and doubts about them have now been voiced): this cannot be contentious, since youir arguments have made the same point previously with other references. And, no matter how many times it is said, the obligation is on the people making the claims to supply the references. That is how wikipedia works, otherwise we could have any old claim made, and in response to evidence have responses like "you find the evidence" which is not on, as it would be tantamount to saying that we had to consider all claims made by others as being verified until we could show that they were not verified. This point has been made by more than just me to you on a number of occasions, and it is a major wikipedia policy described in WP:BURDEN, so it is not something you can evade by accusing myself as being "lazy" (on my talk page) for not doing your work for you. Your comment that the legitimate concerns raised as "ludicrous and shameful" just does not correspond with the facts or with the wikipedia guidelines.  DDStretch    (talk)  10:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec) There is no ambiguity in saying sovereign states. Most of the ledes of country lists use it. In this context I think state reads better than country. As far as I can see, with one exception there is agreement to that. Just to help you out here Oxford definition is below, and is here being used in respect of meaning 2. Your references link to meaning 4 and do not contradict the proposed use. state

• noun 1 the condition of someone or something at a particular time. 2 a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government. 3 a community or area forming part of a federal republic. 4 (the States) the United States of America. 5 the civil government of a country. 6 pomp and ceremony associated with monarchy or government. 7 (a state) informal an agitated, disorderly, or dirty condition.

--<font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">Snowded <font color="#708090" face="Baskerville">TALK  10:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * There is huge ambiguity in saying "sovereign state" since entities that are not countries can be, and are (as shown by unargued references), "sovereign states". As for DDstretch, when 30 seconds on Google produces results that demonstrate that what I'm saying is correct, his choice to engage in all sorts of accusations merits the assumption that he's not interested in the references. Wotapalaver (talk) 10:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I also think "state" might be the better choice here. I agree with wotapalaver that "sovereign state" would not be a good choice, but wonder whether "independent state" may be even better.  DDStretch    (talk)  10:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There are still a few minor problems with that - although nobody has recognised the likes of micronations like the Principality of Sealand, they claim to be a distinct sovereign state within the British Isles. So in the interests of WP:NPOV, something like "United Nations member states" would be clear, unambiguous and neutral. waggers (talk) 11:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Within the context of the page, and the meaning of the word State there is no significant ambiguity (to say huge is a nonsense). Independence I could live with but it is ambiguous; Scotland and Wales have after all some independence so you might have to say fully independent and it gets silly. Waggers suggestion is a good one though. lets go with that.  --<font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">Snowded  <font color="#708090" face="Baskerville">TALK  11:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * On reflection, you are right about the problem with "independence". The (small) problem I have with "sovereign state" is that some may argue that Ireland does not have a sovereign, even though sovereign doesn't include that notion, and so... Wagger's solution does look quite good, however.  DDStretch    (talk)  11:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, "United Nations member states" is unnecessarily cumbersome for a lead/lede, and "sovereign states" works fine as a commonly understood term (and can be referenced per Article 1 of the Montevideo Convention of 1933)- any confusion to readers (vanishingly unlikely, in my view) can be discussed later in the article if necessary. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There will never be a definition that suits everybody but List of sovereign states is the title of the article on wikipedia the covers "fully independent" "Sovereign" "countries" as mentioned by Ghymrtle so i think we should just use the term Sovereign state and link it to that list. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

(reduce) We should not point at that list nor use the term "sovereign state". The term "sovereign state" is all over WP and it's usually shown with a link to an article called "Sovereign State", even though that article has been deleted and the links all bounce on to another article on "sovereignty" or something. All the places that link exists will have to be re-written. The page "list of sovereign states" is a confused list of various things, but it isn't a full list of "sovereign states", and it caveats itself to death in the first paragraph. The commonly used and appropriate term is the simple term country. France is a country. Spain is a country. Germany is a country. The USA is a country. There are two countries in the British Isles; the UK and Ireland. Scotland and England are parts of the UK. They're historical countries, but for the purposes of a multi-country article the relevant country is the UK. It may be appropriate to have a technical discussion on the status of Scotland in the article on Scotland or in the article on the UK, but it's not appropriate in this article. Unless we start counting things like the Texas Hill Country or Kentucky Horse Country or the the Kentucky bluegrass country (also known as the Kentucky bluegrass region) as countries too, then - in any international discussion - the UK is one country. Its internal arrangements are entirely relevant within the UK, but not in an article like this. Wotapalaver (talk) 14:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That approach is clearly not acceptable on grounds of clarity, as evidenced by debates elsewhere which show that the word "country" has multiple definitions. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There definitely appears to be a consensus here for "sovereign state" with only one contributor opposing it. We've been through a number of alternative options without widespread support for any of them (the second best option appears to be the "United Nations member state" suggestion, which Wotapalaver hasn't commented on).  I suggest we cut the circular arguments and go with "sovereign state" - perhaps including the wikilink to the list so that the meaning is perfectly clear.  Failing that, are there any objections to "United Nations member state" other than Ghmyrtle's perfectly valid comment that it's a bit clumsy for an opening paragraph? waggers (talk) 15:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Go with sovereign state, it reads well is unambiguous in context and is the consensus solution --<font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">Snowded <font color="#708090" face="Baskerville">TALK  15:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok. I'm happy with either sovereign state or United Nations member states.  DDStretch    (talk)  17:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm happy with sovereign state. It's used extensively in WP and elsewhere. It is a concise term. <font color="DarkBlue">MidnightBlue <font color="Blue">(Talk)  18:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Sovereign state is entirely unacceptable because it's too vague and people (as shown here) think it means something it doesn't mean. (Oh, I love it that the Montevideo convention has been hauled up.  Go read the article on it.  It's as relevant as the League of Nations was.  Go on, read the article.) Some formula with country is still easiest and best. "two independent countries" could be simple, although "two countries" would be better.  Scotland, Wales, etc are not independent countries.  People understand what a country is.  International law commonly speaks of countries.  Wars are between countries.  France is not commonly described as a "United Nations Member State".  It's a country. The UK is a country.  Ireland is a country.   Wotapalaver (talk) 18:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Please don't bring the country argument into this current discussion? GoodDay (talk) 18:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds like we will not get unanimous agreement, but we do have consensus (all bar one) on sovereign state. I see no new argument in Wotapalaver's latest comment  --<font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">Snowded  <font color="#708090" face="Baskerville">TALK  18:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Neither do I. On that basis, let's close this discussion and go with "sovereign state."  Can someone remind me of the exact change we're supposed to be making, and I'll do it (as the page is protected) - unless of course another admin beats me to it. waggers (talk) 10:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

off topic discussion

 * I would like to record my objection to describing the group of islands to which the sovereign state of Ireland belongs as "British". The term has fallen out of common usage and it's time Wiki caught up with common usage and removed the political POV. Sarah777 (talk) 00:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the most that can be said is that the term is now less common (though by no means unknown) in Hiberno-English. But all other dialects use it freely. ðarkun coll 00:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Have you a source for that claim, TharkunColl? As far as I can see the term "British Isles" has been dropped by most if not all British media organisations. It is very rare to hear it on BBC, or even the tabloid-style news reports of ITN and Sky News. It has also been removed by most if not all of the major atlas makers in the anglophone world - Phillips, Collins, and National Geographic spring immediately to mind. The term is expressly avoided by the British state itself which instead incorporates terms such as "these islands" and "Britain and Ireland" or the "United Kingdom and Ireland" into the international treaties it signs. As this article shows the term has even been removed from use by the main French language television station. In a nutshell, therefore, the evidence produced in this article overwhelmingly supports that the term "British Isles" is now far less common throughout the anglophone world, and avoidance of the term has seeped into other languages. The sources in this article are very clear about this development. 213.202.155.211 (talk) 00:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * BBC weather reports use it almost every day. As for the British state not using it in treaties etc., it'll be a sad day when governments can tell us what is, and what isn't, an acceptable term. And your mention of something in French is completely irrelevant - though it's interesting that you appear to accept that the term exists in other languages, presumably including Ancient Greek. ðarkun coll 11:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * We have been here several times before. Its a geographical term, it is no longer a political term.  The British Government could not use it Tharky and you know that.  So the article says its a term, notes that its political use is controversial.  --<font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">Snowded  <font color="#708090" face="Baskerville">TALK  12:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It was never a political term. It was invented by the Ancient Greeks, used by the Romans, and adopted from Latin in the 16th century at a time when many Latin phrases were rendered into English, and the word "British" meant Celtic. Even later, from 1801 to 1922, its use was non-political, because the Isle of Man was never part of the UK. In order to object to it, those that do object to it have first to redefine it - which rather defeats the object. ðarkun coll 00:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * And the Channel Islands are part of the British Isles why exactly? --HighKing (talk) 14:07, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Because that's what the reliable sources say. Our opinions and objections don't matter one iota. waggers (talk) 10:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * First of all, you are assuming that objections to the term are purely politcal, which they are not. And you are giving a rather narrow sense of what political is. The IoM doesn't have to be in the U.K. for there to be a politcal element to it's relationship with Britain. It is, after all, also one of the "British Islands," a term defined by political connectedness to the British state. And did British mean our sense of Celtic or did British mean British Celtic? Nuclare (talk) 13:58, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello HighKing.

After the Battle of Hastings (1066), William the Conquer ruled, the

Kingdom of England ,

Duchy of Normandy ,

so the Channel Islands are the last remants of the Duchy of Normandy, left in British-hands.

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 22:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ahem. It was a rhetorical question, but nevertheless it highlights the anti-point made by Tharky that the British Isles was obviously geo-political.  --HighKing (talk) 09:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

POV
As a result of these problems, "Britain and Ireland" is becoming a preferred description.

Why are these references considered so good as to go in the first paragraph? We could could cite any number of references - dictionaries, encyclopedias etc. - that don't say anything of the sort. In short, why does the article's first paragraph cherry-pick citations to give the "anti" view? ðarkun coll 00:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Why do you call it the "anti "view? Titch Tucker (talk) 01:15, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Becasue that's exactly what it is. The lead sentences, the section on alternative names, and other parts of the article are used to promote the anti-British Isles POV. <font color="DarkBlue">MidnightBlue <font color="Blue">(Talk)  10:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That is nonsense, its simply reporting reality. Deleting the whole article would be a POV --<font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">Snowded  <font color="#708090" face="Baskerville">TALK  12:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well all I can suggest is that you actaully read the article. Quite clearly you haven't, but if you maintain that you have, the only other thing I can think of is that you don't understand the core Wikipedia principle of NPOV. <font color="DarkBlue">MidnightBlue <font color="Blue">(Talk)  12:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well what a surprise, disagree with MidnightBlueMan and you have not read something or fail to understand it. Shame on me.  --<font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">Snowded  <font color="#708090" face="Baskerville">TALK  09:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The current introduction is clearly pushing a point of view. We have one sentence describing what the "British isles" are and then two sentences basically saying its controversial and not used much anymore. I agree that the fact the term is controversial should be mentioned in the intro but i dont think there are grounds for the bit about Ireland and Britain being the prefered description. There isnt enough sources to back that up. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Advice about contributions to this talk page
Editors are reminded of the behavioural guideline concerning appropriate messages on talk pages: WP:TALK. DDStretch   (talk)  22:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok. Let us all calm down. It is not the done thing to remove other editor's comments, unless they are clearly abusive, from talk pages, and the above exchanges, whilst sometimes violating WP:TALK are neither abusive, but neither can they be said to be they "trolling". To avoid tedious edit wars with information being deleted and then restored, I have taken the simple step of striking out this entire section as being mostly in violation of WP:TALK or of being worded inappropriately. Some messages are neither. Let's just walk away from this section, eh? The point could have been made in a less inflammatory way, and the response to it could have also been less aggressively worded.  DDStretch    (talk)  01:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah hah! AVD has been edit warring on this talk-page (while I was asleep). GoodDay (talk) 14:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

British = Celtic
The article needs to make it clear that when writers used the term British Isles in the 16th and 17th centuries, the word "British" meant what we today would call "Celtic" - and was therefore specifically not an English claim to hegemony. It was not until later - 1707 to be precise - that the British state appropriated the word "British" for itself. ðarkun coll 12:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Good point that, it was John Dee wasn't it who made the first claim? --<font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">Snowded  <font color="#708090" face="Baskerville">TALK  12:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Dee is regarded as the first to use the term in English, though the Latin term had already been revived by Continental geographers during the previous hundred years or so. ðarkun coll 12:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Tharky (and always respect your scholarship even when I disagree with its application!). Are you going to draft something? Its an important addition.  --<font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">Snowded  <font color="#708090" face="Baskerville">TALK  12:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd be surprised if any such addition were accepted, since it casts doubt on the idea that the introduction of the term into English was politically motivated. ðarkun coll 12:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well that depends on the wording. The use of "British" in the 16th Century related to national identity and an attempt to gain legitimacy by linking to Arthur etc.  I think the issue with its political use is mainly late 18th/19th when it gets linked to Irish and other issues.  Trying to impose 20th/21st century notions of nationalism and empire onto that period is a nonsense.  --<font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">Snowded  <font color="#708090" face="Baskerville">TALK  12:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It's interesting that the term British first appeared in the 16th century when the Welsh-descended Tudors sat upon the English throne. Henry VII had even named his eldest son Arthur as a tribute to his British, as opposed to English, heritage.--jeanne (talk) 07:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The term British didn't appear in the 16th century. It has existed in English since the Anglo-Saxon period, and referred to the Celts up until the 18th century. ðarkun coll 22:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The name Arthur almost certainly has its roots in Ireland, and first appeared in Irish literature. There is a strong case to be made that the Arthurian legends were appropriated from the Irish stories of Cormac McArt, as they had suddenly appeared in Britain. But that's another issue, and would create hot collars on the King Arthur page. PurpleA (talk) 23:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It was also used frequently in Brittany; in point of fact many medieval Dukes of Brittany were named Arthur. Brittany has not been brought up on this talk page. Bretons are clearly of Celtic origin.--jeanne (talk) 05:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The British Isles, Scandinavia, and The Continent
AS I promised  DDStretch    (talk)  on my userpage, I am not going to wade into this British Isles "thing", anymore.

Parting thoughts ... Europe has been historically described in the English Language as being composed of three regions, namely,

(1). the British Isles,

(2). Scandinavia,

(3). The Continent.

Nothing exists in a vacuum, so once you folkes finish butchering the British Isles, there are two more terms left to throttle.

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 21:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Errr, I guess so. I don't know. GoodDay (talk) 21:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This talk page reminds me of a hamster on his wheel.--jeanne (talk) 09:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Introduction - revised proposal
Having read and re-read the earlier contributions, would the following be an improvement for the introductory section?:"The British Isles is a group of islands off the northwest coast of continental Europe, including Great Britain, the island of Ireland, and a number of smaller adjacent islands. There are two sovereign states located on the islands: the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and Ireland. The group also includes the Crown Dependencies of the Isle of Man and, by tradition, the Channel Islands, although the latter are not physically a part of the archipelago. The term 'British Isles' is controversial in relation to Ireland, where many people find the term objectionable because the word 'British' is associated with the United Kingdom; the Irish government discourages its usage. 'Britain and Ireland' is a commonly used alternative name for the archipelago." Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks good to me. Here's the above with all the existing references added:


 * The British Isles are a group of islands off the northwest coast of continental Europe which comprise the island of Great Britain, the island of Ireland and a number of smaller islands. There are two sovereign states located on the islands: the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and Ireland. The group also includes the Crown Dependencies of the Isle of Man and, by tradition, the Channel Islands, although the latter are not physically a part of the archipelago.


 * The term "British Isles" is controversial in relation to Ireland, where many people find the term objectionable because the word "British" is associated with the United Kingdom; the Irish government discourages its usage. "Britain and Ireland" is a commonly used alternative name for the archipelago.


 * I've removed the "adjacent" from the first sentence as not all of the British Isles are adjacent to one another - the Channel Islands being of course a prime example. waggers (talk) 11:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Archipelago has an association with a scattering of small islands, and doesn't do the islands justice. Yes the Hebrides are an archipelago, but not the 7th, and the 20th biggest islands in the world. For example, we never hear of the "New Zealand archipelago". Consistency should be considered. PurpleA (talk) 11:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, that gives us something like this:


 * The British Isles are a group of islands off the northwest coast of continental Europe which comprise the island of Great Britain, the island of Ireland and a number of smaller islands. There are two sovereign states located on the islands: the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and Ireland. The British Isles also includes the Crown Dependencies of the Isle of Man and, by tradition, the Channel Islands, although the latter are not physically a part of the island group.


 * The term "British Isles" is controversial in relation to Ireland, where many people find the term objectionable because the word "British" is associated with the United Kingdom; the Irish government discourages its usage. "Britain and Ireland" is a commonly used alternative name for the group.
 * waggers (talk) 11:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It sounds good to me.--jeanne (talk) 12:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't like the word many, because it is not quantifiable, however the word some is not a good word either and at that point I run out of ideas. Other than that it looks good to me. <font color="Blue">Canterbury Tail <font color="Blue">talk  12:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This may be a situation where the passive mood is required. Using it, together with other grammatical changes then required recasts the text thus:"The term 'British Isles' is controversial in relation to Ireland, where objections have been raised because the word 'British' is associated with the United Kingdom, leading the Irish government to discourage its usage. 'Britain and Ireland' is a commonly used alternative name for the group."Would this be better? It is a bit more clumsy, but removes the adjectives that seem to be the problem.  DDStretch    (talk)  13:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This looks good. However, I'm still concerned about the poor quality references used to assert that Britain and Ireland is a common alternative. I'm not saying this point should be left out, but just that we should get better references (see debate above - User:Bill Reid etc.). And do we really need three references about the Irish government discouraging its use? <font color="DarkBlue">MidnightBlue <font color="Blue">(Talk)  13:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The British Isles are a group of islands off the northwest coast of continental Europe which comprise the island of Great Britain, the island of Ireland and a number of smaller islands. There are two sovereign states located on the islands: the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and Ireland. The British Isles also includes the Crown Dependencies of the Isle of Man and, by tradition, the Channel Islands, although the latter are not physically a part of the island group.


 * The term "British Isles" is controversial in relation to Ireland, where objections have been raised because the word "British" is associated with the United Kingdom, leading the Irish government to discourage its usage. "Britain and Ireland" is a commonly used alternative name for the group.
 * Would this be an improvement? I have bolded Britain & Ireland. PurpleA (talk) 13:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I like that one, it removes the adjectives and the need to quantify the unquantifiable. <font color="Blue">Canterbury Tail <font color="Blue">talk  13:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I now think "comprises" should be changed to "consists of", as otherwise, it is arguably ungrammatical. (It's at the top of the big quoted bit.)  DDStretch    (talk)  13:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree with anything so far. Keep going, team!  Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Fully support the above suggested rewording of the introduction. "Commonly used alternative" is so much better than "becoming a preferred description" which was inaccurate and it makes much more sense for the controversial issues to be covered in the second paragraph after an actual description of the British Isles in the first. I hope nobody has a problem with the current suggestion (dont mind slight rewording) but the layout and the content seems alot better to me. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Looking back over earlier versions of this page, one approach circa 2003/04 was for the first sentence to read something like: "The British Isles is a traditional term used to identify the group of islands off the northwest coast of Europe..." Would the use of the word "traditional" help? - for example, if the opening sentence were to read: "The British Isles is a term traditionally used for a group of islands off the northwest coast of continental Europe which comprise include the island of Great Britain, the island of Ireland and a number of smaller islands..."  Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * PS ...or, "...traditionally and still widely used..." ?? This would give:"The British Isles is a traditional and still widely used term for a group of islands off the northwest coast of continental Europe which include the island of Great Britain, the island of Ireland and a number of smaller islands. There are two sovereign states located on the islands: the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and Ireland. The British Isles also includes the Crown Dependencies of the Isle of Man and, by tradition, the Channel Islands, although the latter are not physically a part of the island group. The term 'British Isles' is controversial in relation to Ireland, where objections have been raised because the word 'British' is associated with the United Kingdom, leading the Irish government to discourage its usage.  'Britain and Ireland' is a commonly used alternative name for the group."  Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah - this comes down to a discussion we've had before; the question is, is the article about the group of islands or is it about the term British Isles? And the answer is, it's about the island group, not the term. So per MOS:BEGIN, the first sentence should begin "The British Isles are a group of islands..." not "British Isles is a term...". waggers (talk) 22:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I can understand that position. Just trying to find a way through.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * We seem fairly settled on PurpleA's suggestion - I'll wait and see if there are any further amendments - if not, I'll make the change tomorrow. waggers (talk) 22:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with waggers, "is a term" should not be used in the opening paragraph and as most seem to be in favour of the current proposal please do make the change tomorrow. Whilst there may be further debate about the wording in the future, i dont know how anyone can claim the current version is better than the proposed one. It seems far more accurate to me whilst still including all the same points as is currently mentioned. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Here I'll have to disagree. "British Isles" is a name, or term, used to describe the islands off western Europe that were once controlled by the British Crown and Empire. It started its life as a political expression of things belonging to Britain, and thus Ireland, being subjected to Britain, was included in the term from circa 1603 to 1922. After 1922 usage of the term gets somewhat cloudy. Old maps weren't updated, and that has happened slowly, and now Britain & Ireland is becoming the preferred term/name by many governments and organisations throughout the world. When I hit on many of the user-pages deeply involved on the British Isles page I see many Union Jacks, and I wonder are the issues on this talk page being driven by a nationalism of sorts. Earlier we saw a piece from an Irish IP being deleted for no particular good reason whatsoever, and it could appear that a form of censorship is also being used to wipe away traces of input on the page that some users might not like. Being a non-believer in censorship I find that a tad disconcerting. All we need is an article that explains what the name means, its history, and its usage, and free from pov, and I'm afraid that's not what is happening. PurpleA (talk) 00:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * No, it has existed since the time of the Ancient Greeks. The notion that it was a political term created by the British is the most important big lie that needs to be scotched, before this article can have its POV removed and be cleanly, honestly rewritten. In order to object to the term British Isles, those that do object to it must first redefine it as relating to the British state. But in fact, it never did. ðarkun coll 00:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The term "British Isles" has not existed since the time of the Ancient Greeks, and this is something that has been discussed in the past.  Rather the terms used were the Pretanic Islands and later Brittanic Isles.  Different terms with different meanings and different islands.  It wasn't until the concept of "British Isles" was invented by geographer and occultist John Dee (who also coined the phrase "British Empire") as a purely political concept around 1577 that the term was first brought to light.  This is already documented in the article with citations and references, so I fail to see why you continue to beat this drum.  --HighKing (talk) 01:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It wasn't invented by him, he merely rendered into English a revival of the Latin term that had taken place amongst Continental geographers since about 1500. Furthermore, in Dee's time no Englishman would have called himself "British" - the term was precisely equivalent in meaning to our modern term "Celtic". To claim it was a political introduction truly is the big lie that some have chosen to believe, and which we must avoid in this article. I doubt we shall though. ðarkun coll 01:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * We seem to be going backwards after being close to reaching consensus. The proposed change (with Britain and Ireland being bolded) and mentioned as a "commonly used alternative" as well as the fact use of the British isles is controversial and a mention of the Ireland government all in the second paragraph seemed to include everything that both sides in this matter want. The first paragraph explains what the British isles is and the second explains why using it is a problem. Strongly support changing the opening paragraphs as soon as possible so we do not get bogged down in all this nonsense again. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * How is changing it asap going to keep the objections from coming? If this is the version we are talking about -- "The term "British Isles" is controversial in relation to Ireland, where objections have been raised because the word "British" is associated with the United Kingdom, leading the Irish government to discourage its usage. "Britain and Ireland" is a commonly used alternative name for the group." -- I object to a few things: 1) Where is this phrase "because the word "British" is associated with the UK" coming from, and why is it being so directly stated as 'leading' to the Irish govt objections? None of the Irish govt statements even mention the U.K. And the Irish embassy statement says the objection extends to Ireland not being British "even in geographical terms," which implies their objections are not exclusively about the terms U.K. associations 2) I disagree with the removal of 'many people' but, even if it does go, I object to the passive minimalist "where objections have been raised"; that sounds like it could be two guys in the past. I think "many people" should be returned, but at the very least "where there are objections" would be more accurate. I support the final "commonly used alternative" sentence. Nuclare (talk) 05:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * We're surely not talking about getting a "perfect article" right now - it doesn't exist. What we're doing is improving the existing article, and the current proposal does that.  Let it change for the better now, and future debates will hopefully be increasingly focused on resolving increasingly specific points of difference.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with Ghmyrtle, making improvements is always the better option, I believe we have a consensus to at least move forward. The particular usage term still remains contentious though, and the name has various subjective interpretations. PurpleA (talk) 11:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Setting aside the 'objections have been raised' issue for a moment, how is misrepresenting the Irish govt sources an improvement? Nuclare (talk) 13:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That indeed would not be an improvement. Could that be fine tuned using some of the new wording? I think the consensus is to move forward, so it's best get that ref right. PurpleA (talk) 13:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * To avoid controversy, get rid of that which is controversial...
 * The British Isles are a group of islands off the northwest coast of continental Europe which comprise the island of Great Britain, the island of Ireland and a number of smaller islands. There are two sovereign states located on the islands: the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and Ireland. The British Isles also includes the Crown Dependencies of the Isle of Man and, by tradition, the Channel Islands, although the latter are not physically a part of the island group. The term Britain and Ireland is a commonly used alternative name for the group.
 * Thoughts... <font face="american uncial" color="red">Endrick <font face="american uncial" color="red">Shellycoat  10:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This suggestion is as proposed, except to exclude the sentence "The term "British Isles" is controversial in relation to Ireland, where objections have been raised because the word "British" is associated with the United Kingdom, leading the Irish government to discourage its usage." I think it is important to keep that sentence - or something like it - in, and to link it with the article on British Isles naming dispute.  It is indisputable (surely not controversial) that the term "BI" itself is controversial, and I think it is important that a reference to the controversy be included in the introduction together with a very brief explanation of why it is controversial (ie. the different interpretations of the word "British"). So, I support PurpleA's proposal.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

⬅ Agree with Ghmyrtle, we went through a long process on this and it is a controversial term so the sentence is key - otherwise we will end up with another edit war. The link is also important. --<font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">Snowded <font color="#708090" face="Baskerville">TALK  16:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, 'get rid of that which is controversial"- like this ridiculously archaic, jingoistic term from the glory days of the British Empire? No, of course not: the controversy is not the term but the fact that the Irish object to it. British solution to an Irish problem: censor the Irish. Ah yes, that 'simple sword of truth and the trusty shield of British fair play' strikes again. This article is a magnate for all those British eurosceptics who want to make Wikipedia Britipedia (and who lose every wikipedia battle with the Yanks and consequently restore their national self-esteem by pushing the Paddies around). Censorship of us Irish will not work, I can assure all of you. We are not British, and our country is not in your "British Isles". 86.42.117.220 (talk) 13:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The true censorship is coming from that tiny, vocal and politicised minority who wish to remove the term from the language. ðarkun coll 13:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Away from the controversial stuff and concentrating only tighter wording:
 * The British Isles is a group of islands off the northwest coast of continental Europe which comprises the islands of Great Britain and Ireland, and a number of smaller islands. Bazza (talk) 15:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Please, please please, can we get rid of the "comprises" and use "consists of", or else keep it but swap things around so that, for example, the above sentence would have to read "The islands of Great Britain and Ireland, and a number of smaller islands comprise the British Isles, which is a group of islands off the northwest coast of continental Europe." Now, it is clear to me that the grammatically correct use of "comprises" leads to a poor sentence, whilst substituting "consists of" for "comprise" and not swapping the bits round is far better. So, can we please just drop the use of "comprises". If we want to go for GA or FA status, this will be flagged up.  DDStretch    (talk)  16:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This is, I think, one of the less crucial points in this discussion, but can you explain your view that "comprises" is not an acceptable alternative to "consists of"? My quick google suggests that "comprises" in that sense is not generally considered to be grammatically incorrect, and it is shorter and (IMHO) neater. Alternatively we could say "includes".  Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I went and checked. I've used my own knowledge as given to me by my English teacher back in the middle 1960s, and my (professional) proofreader friend who read over my PhD thesis in the late 1970s and early 1980s was also of this opinion. But the view is supplemented by my copy of Fowler's Modern English Usage (the 1978 edition), and so I may well be out of date here. However Fowler does state in the entries for "comprise" as well as "include, comprise" that there are fine distinctions that need to be made. If we can be sure that we have described everything that makes up the British Isles, then comprise can be used. I suspect that the new style is to use "the parts comprise the whole" as well as the (newer) use: "the whole comprises the parts", though I think it is very ugly, and from my point of view, it still seems ungrammatical, and I doubt I would be the only one would think this. We could change it to "consist of", but my reading in detail of "include, comprise" from Fowler makes me now think that replacing "comprises" with "includes" would be much more acceptable. That's all.  DDStretch    (talk)  11:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Introduction - revised proposal (Arbitrary section break)

 * I think that we are ignoring the proverbial "elephant in the room" here. Back a few years ago the article stated that the "British Isles" is a term used to describe the islands. The article is taking a leap too far by describing the term as the islands, the islands and the term are two quite separate ideas. It's totally ignoring the geo-political aspect of the name, and that geo-political aspect certainly does exist, per this talk page. For clarity, the sentence should read, "The British Isles is a term, (or a name), for the island group west of Europe consisting of Great Britain, Ireland, etc etc". PurpleA (talk) 17:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Very many things could be described as a term rather than the object. Do we say "The Iberian Peninsula is a term used to describe the land hanging off France", of course not. As has been pointed out many times above, this article is about the objects called the British Isles and not about the words themselves. Do we have a consensus to go with the last suggestion of DDStretch. <font color="DarkBlue">MidnightBlue <font color="Blue">(Talk)  17:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hispania was the name used by the Romans, which would be politically unacceptable now, therefore the more neutral Iberian Peninsula gained common application. British Isles, like Hispania is a politically charged term. It was political when cradled by Dee back 400 years ago, and some, if not all that original meaning would persist 'til this day. The word "name" would read better than "term", and more neutral. PurpleA (talk) 19:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The second paragraph has a slightly cluncky feel about it. Is this any better:
 * The term "British Isles" is controversial in relation to Ireland, where there are objections to the use of the word "British" due to its association with the United Kingdom, leading the Irish government to discourage its usage. "Britain and Ireland" is a commonly used alternative name for the group. Bill Reid  |  Talk ''' 18:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused about which wording we are now discussing. Personally, I accept some of the points that have been made, but not others. If it is accepted that the second paragraph should discuss the controversy over terminology, I can accept as a compromise that the word "term" is not needed in the first paragraph. I also think that there needs to be some explanation of the controversy in relation to Ireland, and a brief reference to the use of the word "British" as being seen to apply to the country/state of the UK (as well as to the geographical island of Great Britain) seems to me the best way to summarise this. But this may not have directly led to the Irish government position. So: "The British Isles is a group of islands off the northwest coast of continental Europe which includes the island of Great Britain, the island of Ireland and a number of smaller islands. There are two sovereign states located on the islands: the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and Ireland. The British Isles also includes the Crown Dependencies of the Isle of Man and, by tradition, the Channel Islands, although the latter are not physically a part of the island group. The term 'British Isles' is controversial in relation to Ireland, where there are objections because the word 'British' is associated with the modern association of the word 'British' is with the United Kingdom; the Irish government discourages its use. 'Britain and Ireland' is a commonly used alternative name for the group." Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I still say, mention Britain and Ireland is the alternative name & leave it at that. GoodDay (talk) 18:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sure it is the most frequently used alternative name, but it is not the only one. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * How about something like "...where there are objections because the word "British" is most often today associated with the United Kingdom." ðarkun coll 18:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you mean "....because the modern association of the word "British" is with the "United Kingdom"" instead --HighKing (talk)


 * Yes that's fine. Flows better as well. ðarkun coll 18:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * OK for me - I've amended my last draft above. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:10, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I dont have a problem with this proposed wording, its certainly so much better than the current opening paragraph. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't mean to be the No-Crowd here. But I get a vibe of OR about this. This wording implies that the Irish liked or would like the non-modern association of "British" with Ireland. Do we know that? Do we know anything about the Irish attitude to BI before it's "modern association"s? If the answer is yes, then can the sources be posted? Just because the British for a period meant it to mean our 'Celtic' (assuming that's the whole truth) doesn't necessarily mean the Irish embraced or would have embraced it. And what period is being defined as "modern" anyways? The term "British" meaning the British state and the island of Britain is quite old. And, again, where is this claim that it is because of specifically "U.K." associations that many Irish object coming from in first place? None of the sources here or at the BI references page say it that way. I think the more fully accurate way of saying it would have to be something like "...because they object to the use of the term "British" in relation to Ireland." Whether that comes in the form of the U.K., some past or future state that calls itself British or the island of Great Britain, is there reason to think that the objectors would embrace the "British" part of 'British Isles'? Nuclare (talk) 12:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not sure where this is going, but the current wording suggests that Ireland was originally included in "British" which is dubious. Its also starting to make this a political term rather than a geographical term.  I suggest going back to an earlier version which states the objection without trying to explain why.  The current one does not work.  I think Nuclare is saying something similar.  --<font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">Snowded  <font color="#708090" face="Baskerville">TALK  12:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

So if we change:
 * "The term 'British Isles' is controversial in relation to Ireland, where there are objections because the word 'British' is associated with the modern association of the word 'British' is with the United Kingdom; the Irish government discourages its use."

to:
 * "The term 'British Isles' is controversial in relation to Ireland, where there are objections to the use of the phrase in relation to the Irish state; the Irish government discourages its use."

Does that suffice? waggers (talk) 13:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Works for me --<font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">Snowded <font color="#708090" face="Baskerville">TALK  13:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed BritishWatcher (talk) 13:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * My preference would be to lose the words "in relation to the Irish state", which seem to me to raise yet more questions. So, "'The term 'British Isles' is controversial in relation to Ireland, where there are objections to the use of the phrase; the Irish government discourages its use.'"  Although I think it is something of a shame to lose any mention of why it is controversial in this sentence, any other wording seems problematic, and interested readers would surely seek a fuller explanation either in the article itself or (more likely) at the "naming dispute" page.   Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

My earlier comment suggesting a tighter wording got lost in the fuss about "comprises" (which I had no view on but simply copied and pasted), so I'll restate it here in a simpler fashion: "...the island of Great Britain, the island of Ireland and a number of smaller islands." would be better worded "...the islands of Great Britain and Ireland, and many other smaller ones." Bazza (talk) 13:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree so long as Ireland in this sentence is linked to the right page. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

An Irishman's Diary Myers, Kevin; The Irish Times (subscription needed) 09/03/2000, Accessed July 2006 'millions of people from these islands — 'oh how angry we get when people call them the British Isles'
 * The British Isles are a group of islands off the northwest coast of continental Europe which comprise the island of Great Britain, the island of Ireland and a number of smaller islands. The term British Isles is controversial in relation to Ireland, "Geographical terms also cause problems and we know that some will find certain of our terms offensive. Many Irish object to the term the 'British Isles';..." The Dynamics of Conflict in Northern Ireland: Power, Conflict and emancipation. Joseph Ruane and Jennifer Todd. Cambridge University Press. 1996

Diarmaid MacCulloch, The Reformation: Europe's House Divided 1490-1700. (London: Penguin/Allen Lane, 2003): “the collection of islands which embraces England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales has commonly been known as the British Isles. This title no longer pleases all the inhabitants of the islands, and a more neutral description is ‘the Atlantic Isles’” (p. xxvi)

On 18 July 2004 The Sunday Business Post questioned the use of British Isles as a purely geographic expression, noting: "[The] 'Last Post has redoubled its efforts to re-educate those labouring under the misconception that Ireland is really just British. When British Retail Week magazine last week reported that a retailer was to make its British Isles debut in Dublin, we were puzzled. Is not Dublin the capital of the Republic of Ireland?. When Last Post suggested the magazine might see its way clear to correcting the error, an educative e-mail to the publication...:"Retrieved 17 July 2006

"...I have called the Atlantic archipelago – since the term ‘British Isles’ is one which Irishmen reject and Englishmen decline to take quite seriously." Pocock, J.G.A. [1974] (2005). "British History: A plea for a new subject". The Discovery of Islands. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 29. .

"...what used to be called the "British Isles," although that is now a politically incorrect term." Finnegan, Richard B.; Edward T. McCarron (2000). Ireland: Historical Echoes, Contemporary Politics. Boulder: Westview Press, p. 358.

"In an attempt to coin a term that avoided the 'British Isles' - a term often offensive to Irish sensibilities - Pocock suggested a neutral geographical term for the collection of islands located in northwest Europe which included Britain and Ireland: the Atlantic archipelago..." Lambert, Peter; Phillipp Schofield (2004). Making History: An Introduction to the History and Practices of a Discipline. New York: Routledge, p. 217.

"..the term is increasingly unacceptable to Irish historians in particular, for whom the Irish sea is or ought to be a separating rather than a linking element. Sensitive to such susceptibilities, proponents of the idea of a genuine British history, a theme which has come to the fore during the last couple of decades, are plumping for a more neutral term to label the scattered islands peripheral to the two major ones of Great Britain and Ireland." Roots, Ivan (1997). "Union or Devolution in Cromwell's Britain". History Review.

The British Isles, A History of Four Nations, Second edition, Cambridge University Press, July 2006, Preface, Hugh Kearney. "The title of this book is ‘The British Isles’, not ‘Britain’, in order to emphasise the multi-ethnic character of our intertwined histories. Almost inevitably many within the Irish Republic find it objectionable, much as Basques or Catalans resent the use of the term ‘Spain’. As Seamus Heaney put it when he objected to being included in an anthology of British Poetry: 'Don’t be surprised If I demur, for, be advised My passport’s green. No glass of ours was ever raised To toast the Queen. (Open Letter, Field day Pamphlet no.2 1983)"

(Note: sections bolded for emphasis do not appear bold in original publications) where many people find the term objectionable; the Irish government also discourages its usage. As a result of these problems, "Britain and Ireland" is becoming a preferred description. The only problematic piece that I presently see with the opening paragraph is that which I have underlined. It doesn't necessarily follow that "Britain & Ireland" is becoming the preferred term because of the objections of Ireland being called British. My understanding is that "Britain & Ireland" is a preferred term among many people, governments, and organisations throughout the world. The article should read, " As a result of these problems, "Britain and Ireland" is alternative description. " PurpleA (talk) 00:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * (sigh) No no no - let's not go back over this again. Until this comment, there seemed to be general acceptance of the final sentence:- "Britain and Ireland" is a commonly used alternative name for the group."  This deliberately refrains from explicitly linking that statement to the previous statement on its contentiousness in relation to Ireland, and deliberately does not claim that "B&I" is becoming "preferred" or "increasingly used".  It may well be, but that view is itself contentious, and is not necessary to the flow of the introduction.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed, let's try not to go back on things that we've already agreed upon, otherwise we'll get nowhere. waggers (talk) 11:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Introduction - revised proposal (Arbitrary section break 2)
I think we're now looking at something like this:

The British Isles is a group of islands off the northwest coast of continental Europe which includes the islands of Great Britain, Ireland and numerous smaller islands. There are two sovereign states located on the islands: the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and Ireland. The British Isles also includes the Crown Dependencies of the Isle of Man and, by tradition, the Channel Islands, although the latter are not physically a part of the island group.

The term "British Isles" is controversial in relation to Ireland, where there are objections to the use of the phrase and the Irish government discourages its use. "Britain and Ireland" is a frequently used alternative name for the group. Howzat? waggers (talk) 11:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * "...which includes the islands of Great Britain and Ireland, and numerous smaller islands." etc. Otherwise it's like saying "islands of numerous smaller islands." Bazza (talk) 13:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Bazza - otherwise fine by me. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Support the above wording with the suggested alteration by Bazza. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks all right (with Bazza's amendment).  DDStretch    (talk)  14:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed --<font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">Snowded <font color="#708090" face="Baskerville">TALK  16:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's acceptable. Whatever ya'll decide on, is fine with me. GoodDay (talk) 16:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

✅ - Ok, the wording has been changed as agreed. May I suggest we look at the references in a separate thread in order to prevent this one from becoming even longer than it is? waggers (talk) 08:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for making the change and i agree start a new thread to talk about the sources, and perhaps someone could archive most of the stuff on this page up until the last debate as its rather long at the moment. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Seeing as I'm the only Irish person who is now bothered with contributing to this decidedly WASP article, I will reiterate what has been said numerous times since the first day this article was created, and which you are all trying to downplay with these changes (instigated after months of peace by one User:TharkunColl): 1. It is offensive to Irish people. 2. It is a term, a term, it is not the sole term or even the dominant one - never mind 'the name'. 3. As an abundance of references in this article confirm it has been removed from international publications as diverse as National Geographic, Phillips, Collins, and much more: its use is declining across the anglophone world. Nevertheless, how long before this post is also censored so that all the British can agree with each other about how to define Ireland and us Irish. Pathetic. 86.42.117.220 (talk) 16:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * So you seem to be saying that all Irish people find it offensive then. Is that correct? As there are numerous examples on forums of Irish people who don't find it offensive, and on here. Plus I've never found it offensive, as I know what it means. Just like the British don't find the Irish Sea offensive. And it is verifiably the dominant term.<font color="Blue">Canterbury Tail <font color="Blue">talk  16:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * People do not find the Irish sea offensive because Britain was not pillaged by the Irish, it was the other way round. I find British Isles extremely offensive. The term should not be used. Even the BBC rarely use it now and they're a load of twats.--Theosony (talk) 21:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * That is incorrect. Britain was pillaged by the Irish from the fourth century to the sixth, and they set up colonies all along its western coast. So severe did Irish pillaging become that the British authorities under Vortigern, no longer able to rely on Roman support, hired the Anglo-Saxons as mercenaries, but then found themselves unable to pay them. One of the particularly disgraceful things that the Irish did in this period was to raid the British coast in order to kidnap people as slaves. One of these was St Patrick. ðarkun coll 22:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Some versions of history, people would rather change. The fact of that matter is, as an Irish person from the north of the country, I would rather die than be classified British. That seems harsh, and most of my friends are unionists (depending on where I'm at), but in all honesty, not a single British person I have talked to has awknowledged the historical massacres, slaughters and torture of the Irish people. To most British people, it's the Irish fault, and that provokes bitterness, which doesn't make me a bad person - just an angry person. And such is the dedication to Northern Ireland during WWII that Churchill was willing to give the north back to the south. Britain tortured the Irish for 800 years. The British Isles to describe Ireland is sectarian and racist. You read the history books, and whatever you say Ireland has done to the British, it is nothing compared to what the British have done here, and the collusion of the acts they have, and do, carry out.--Theosony (talk) 23:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * If you're from Northern Ireland, you are British, whether you like it or not. So your assertion that you'd rather die than be classed as British is perhaps a little exaggerated. As I said before, the Irish were a thorn in the side of the British and remained so until the Pope authorised the French King of England, Henry II, to invade. And since it was the Ancient Greeks who invented the term British Isles, were they sectarian and racist? ðarkun coll 23:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Ever heard of dual nationality? I am not British. I have an Irish passport.--Theosony (talk) 23:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * So what's the "dual" part with, then? ðarkun coll 23:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The history of the British in Ireland is scary to say the least. The Irish might have pillaged Great Britain and led to the founding of the Scottish nation by the Scotti, but they don't claim that Great Britain is part of the Irish Isles, a non-argument entirely. Neither do I think that the Irish ever committed genocide in Great Britain, which no doubt was done to the Irish by the British! PurpleA (talk) 23:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * At no point have the British committed genocide against the Irish. And the term British Isles was neutral, because it meant "Celtic" Isles. ðarkun coll 23:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid that you're living in cloud cuckoo land. PurpleA (talk) 23:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I find your comments extremely offensive and you are wrong to claim the BBC rarely use it, they say it every day. Its clear the consensus is for the suggested change to the wording, will someone please implement it tomorrow and then it will be time to find some better sources before one person with a clear bias towards this issue causes more disagreement and fighting thanks. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I find your ideology of 'The British Isles' extremely offensive and wrong. What I have said is fact and history, what you and most people on this page support is racism and denial.--Theosony (talk) 23:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * PS, the BBC and RTÉ both prefer to use these islands as opposed to British Isles. And please to not call me bias, as you are also bias, along with most people who have posted on this talk page. I believe I have a right to be bias given the factual history of the British-Irish issue. The fact is, it's an offensive term to Irish people all around the world.--Theosony (talk) 23:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This has nothing to do with my ideology or Irish RepublicanTerrorism. This is an English wikipedia article about the British Isles which even with the change will clearly point out the term is offensive to some. I am sorry but just because someone is offended by something it does not mean it cant be included on wikipedia, racist words are described i dont see the big problem with the regularly used British Isles having one. I just looked at a map, it quite clearly says British Isles and the BBC weatherman uses the term British isles all the time sorry. We can not rewrite history, but i am glad you accept you are biased on this matter. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)