Talk:British Isles/Archive 7

6000 islands
Does anyone have a source for the comment about the british isles consisting of 6000+ island and islets, it seems a lot. I'm researching this subject and I'd love to find a source.
 * Don't have a source - but Clew Bay alone has 365, so although 6000 does seem high, it's also plausible. Bastun 23:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The drumlins in Clew Bay do not actually number 365. The "one for each day of the year" is a myth. -- Evertype·✆ 10:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * There are 117 by my count. See the article on Clew Bay for a chart. -- Evertype·✆ 14:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I've never found a definitive source on this. I think part of the problem is how you define an island. Do count every rock poking out of the water or does it have to be habitable or a minimum size and at what tide. Estimates seem to vary between 2000 and 6000. josh (talk) 11:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I too would love to know the answer to this. I think the simple definition of "A land mass, especially one smaller than a continent, entirely surrounded by water" is inadequate for this purpose until you describe the boundaries of the area (Faeroes? Sark? Irish Sea?) and the minimum land mass (? a hectare? an acre?) I can find no usefully defined number but I did find, on bbc.co.uk in a page about an Alan Titmarsh programme - British Isles, A natural history, this quote: "The UK coastline is nearly 32,000km long if you include the islands." I fear that's another unsupported comment.

DuncanGrey 14:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I've just found on the www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk site the claim that "The coastline length around mainland Great Britain is 11 072.76 miles." I calculate this to be 17 819.8799 kilometers - without islands.DuncanGrey 18:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Another source is the Rough Guide to Scottish Highlands and Islands 2006: "there are aproximately 790 islands, 130 of which are inhabited." DuncanGrey 11:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Request for minor change
The page is currently edit-protected. Would an admin please change "the Pale" in the section Vikings and Normans to "the Pale". The former page was just moved to the latter (after a consensus discussion). Pale is now an article on pales in general (there are several others, besides the famous one).--Srleffler 03:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Done, unprotected too anyway. Let's hope people can play nicely here now. --Robdurbar 19:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Unprotected (am I mad?)
OK, so I've unprotected this article. Now let's see if people can get back to editing it without personal attacks or incivility, eh? What is the general view on how this (and linked articles shcu as Britain and Ireland and British Isles (terminology)) should progess now? --Robdurbar 20:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

So, when does 'some' become 'many'?
'Rejected by "some" in Ireland' Just what, precisely, is the basis for this false representation of the reality in Ireland? As has been shown relentlessly here, the term is rarely used in Ireland. It's great to see so many experts on Ireland from, well, Britain. The Empire is finished, lads. Get over yourselves. From the fields of Mullaghbawn to the hills of Ard na Caithne to the mountains of Sliabh na mBan this country continues to resist incorporation into the myths of British nationalism, myths which the very term "British Isles" encapsulates so well. Your tribe is just that: your tribe. Only at the heart of the British tribe could you mistake the terminological constructions of the British state, of your institutionalised nationalism, as being representative of the mass of people in Ireland. New word for today: irredentism. El Gringo 20:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I have said it again and again and again, the term BI is rarely used in Ireland, so why do some editors go berserk over this truism? MelForbes 21:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * To answer your question, basis for that text is given by the provided citation: (Barber, Ellis 1995) "The very concept of 'the British Isles' is rejected by some Irish historians. In part this reflects the different nuances of the term within the two islands..." I took the liberty of extrapolating "Irish historians" to "some in Ireland" which would seem to be justified by the other available sources.
 * I take it you have no objections to the balance of the sentence, but simply wish to change some to many. If so, then provide a citation which supports such a change. Your assertion that something "has been shown relentlessly here" betrays a lack of understaning of Wikipedia's verifiability policy. Article text is supported by reference to reliable sources, these endless protestations and ancedotes count for nothing.
 * The remainder of your statement is simply trolling, please stop.EricR 22:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * El G and Mel - though I appreciate that most/many is probably the most accurate and truest respresentation of reality, we cannot say 'many' until we have some sort of unrejctable proof that this view is held by the majority; until then we can say 'some' only. --Robdurbar 07:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Google Fight
Interestingly, and considering the "British Isles" brigade's love for Google, Google has just fought "British Isles" out against "Britain and Ireland". Unfortunately for the British far right here, the results are:

http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=British+Isles&word2=Britain+and+Ireland

Translation: 87 million results for Britain and Ireland; a mere 19.6 million for British Isles. How ironic that the British far right here want the Britain and Ireland article to be deleted as soon as possible because it, in their unique world view, is "not in widespread use". This entire issue is an astounding reflection of British nationalism in 2006. El Gringo 22:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Two things:


 * 1) I resent being called far-right, and I think we'd all appreciate it if you took back that comment.
 * 2) I think you meant this, which avoid Google's use of the word 'and'
 * HawkerTyphoon 22:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Two things:


 * You, given your previous statements (and links), are quite clearly part of the aforementioned.
 * 1) I most certainly did not. There are many isles, and even Isles, on planet earth. Try again. El Gringo 22:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * See my note below. As for my comments, I admit it was a brutal outrage that I should never have let out of the back of my mind, and I apologise profusely for it. However, my girlfriend was attacked in Dublin by irish nationalists for her English accent, so I did have a slight reason for doing it. I apoloigise again, but see my comment below for reasoning on why Google fights don't count here! HawkerTyphoon 22:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

No, you meant this: http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=%22British+Isles%22&word2=%22Britain+and+Ireland%22 Jonto 22:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Aha, so I did. Sorry! HawkerTyphoon


 * Better still, . It's only 3 to 1.  Therefore a very sizable population for "Britain and Ireland" MelForbes 22:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The opposite is also true - it could be argued that 75% is a mighty big percentage, especially when you take into account the appearance of sentences such as "Britain and Ireland have signed a treaty" or "Representatives of Britain and Ireland met"... The term doesn't stand up to a google search. HawkerTyphoon 22:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * See this . 60% of the "British Isles" pages do not recoginise Ireland! MelForbes 22:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Again, it doesn't stand up to proof reading. Think about it! HawkerTyphoon 23:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * That's Google speaking, not me, sorry! MelForbes 23:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Think about it. British Isles -Ireland is going to come up with less earches by default, because you're excluding a term that isn't exluded in 'British Isles'... I could quote this at you, but it isn't really valid either! HawkerTyphoon 23:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * "British Isles and Ireland" is a non-runner, for it forgets about the islands off Ireland. Rarely used. Hardly worth a mouse-click! MelForbes 23:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Then you see my point - Google can't be used all the time, it can't conclusivley prove anything. We all need to stick to WP:RS for changes! HawkerTyphoon 23:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * But you were advocating Google above. Were you? MelForbes 23:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Only as a witty reparté. But yes, I was. Maybe we are both wrong. Knowing my track record, we probably are, my ineptness rubs off on people even over the internet:P HawkerTyphoon 23:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

hehe Jaysas, Mel. I'm buying you a pint if you ever end up in Dublin. Great spirit! El Gringo 22:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * How about Mulligans!MelForbes 23:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Crazy. Was just thinking of it when the sentence was being written. Weird. El Gringo 23:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Not crazy. I have often been accused of clairvoyance. MelForbes 23:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Jaysus, Mulligans, is it? Mother of divine Lord, wouldn't that now be a great place to go pinting! Could do a survey on "British Isles" &mdash; and then run before you get a glass over the head for mentioning that term! lol FearÉIREANN \(caint)  23:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree, they're not into flag-flaunting. A more down-to-earth kind of folk! Nice place! MelForbes 00:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Armagh and Derry are now in Britain, it appears
In a related article, Gsd2000 is still trying to claim here that the UK and Britain is the same. Intellectually breathtaking, I know. Somebody over there pointed out by way of example that on the Netherlands article it is made clear that Holland is incorrect usage, even if benighted types equate both. This simple flagging suggestion has resulted in apoplexy from the United Kingdom=Britain brigade. Time to end this silliness. El Gringo 01:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Odd, as all my friends in Northern Ireland call Northern Ireland part of Britain (I guess some catholics may not -- don't know). After all, nowadays Britain is just a short and convenenient way of saying United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in the same way that America is just a short and convenenient (but equally inaccurate) way of saying United States of America.


 * But the term "Britain" is indeed very often used as a synonym for the UK, especially in informal speech or writing. To say that this is "wrong" is to misunderstand how language actually works. Linguistic prescriptivists may fulminate as much as they like against double negatives or split infinitives, for example, but it won't stop people using them. If you wish to talk about the island of Britain, I would recommend calling it "Great Britain", as this is much less often used as a synonym for the UK (except, for some reason, in international sporting contests such as the Olympics, or on vehicle license plates). TharkunColl 07:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * There was debate about whether the usage should be termed incorrect or inaccurate - I think the latter won out. But the usage should be flagged as such - resistance to this is, ahem, eccentric. Do my words betray my misunderstanding of how language works? I thought it usually worked to say what you mean.--Shtove 08:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, in answer to your question, yes and no. Of course "Britain" means the island also known as "Great Britain" - that is its "correct" meaning. But the fact remains that a lot of people, including members of the British government, have used the term "Britain" in an informal sense to mean the UK. Is this wrong? It really depends on whether you are a prescriptivist or a descriptivist in linguistic terms. But the usage is a fact. TharkunColl 10:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * But Britain originally meant British Isles before England, Ireland, Wales and Scotland even existed (well Britto). The use of Britain to mean Great Britain is incorrect, but more convenient in conversation. Equally, the use of Britain to mean United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is also incorrect, but more convenient in conversation, and the most widely used meaning in my experience. Rnt20 14:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I hadn't read that Britto article before. Pytheasis is said to have named the islands after the Pretaniki (apparently, according to local usage), but then that sentence only refers to Cornwall. Diodorus clearly refers to Ireland separately as Iris. This historical point has been raised before, and not addressed. Can someone quote and cite (eg. from Loeb) the exact passages in the ancient historians from which the term British Isles is said to derive? I suspect the actual words will lead to a different conclusion.--Shtove 17:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Shtove, I think the pretaniki is a bit of a supposition (after all, for a very long time "British" was supposed to derive from "Brutus of Troy"). However, you can find the most authoritative text of Ptolemy here, and Pliny is here (book 4, para 102 onwards), but in Latin only, which is not one of my languages I am afraid. You can actually find images of pre-17th century maps which use the equivalent of British Isles in Latin and French can be seen here. It's a relief to find a comment interested in sources. I think the article is reporting these sources correctly, but see what you think. MAG1 21:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, MAG1, for the links - will check them out. Brutus of Troy is interesting, because it's use in Tudor history writing and propaganda in relation to Ireland is one of the roots of the arguments on this talk page. There's been a fair amount of literary studies on Edmund Spenser, which analyse the use of the Brutus myth during the Tudor re-conquest of Ireland when English historians had ditched the myth in their general writings. Also, the political origins of the term British Isles (early Stuart) have been raised above (somewhere). It seems an attempt is made on this page to reduce the term to its geographical significance, whereas on Talk:United Kingdom the attempt is to treat the term Britain as largely political. People are choking on their cake from John O' Groats to Land's End.--Shtove 23:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Shtove, the whole use of "British" (as in "ancient") in early modern times is interesting as it specifically excludes the English. I managed to find a copy of Peter Heylyn's Microcosmus (1621) (first surviving use of British Isles in English) today in which, you may be interested to know, he takes great pains in demolishing the Brutus myth and the myth that the Irish were descended from Scythians after the Flood.  He then explicitly equates British Isles to the islands occupied by the ancient Britons.  I don't know how that ties in with what you know, but I think this actually may be at the heart of arguments.  In the UK, the historical meaning of British has persisted alongside the eventual growth of the modern political meaning, while in Ireland it had the very definite meaning of people from Great Britain in the here and now from the early 16th century (1641, earlest recorded usage) onwards.  MAG1 17:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * ElGringo, I doubt you're winning many friends and influencing editors of United Kingdom by using twisted logic (and multiple reverts) to insist that England == the UK. WP:POINT.  If the real issue you have is what you're outlining above, then why not include a footnote after 'Britain' pointing out that it's inaccurate, along the lines of what Shtove says, above.  Bastun 10:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, there are more British Wikipedians than Irish Wikipedians. That with POV, politics and sometimes British nationalism, it makes it an uphill fight to get this sort of pov corrected. As for me, I have lost some faith in Wikipedia ever getting these edits types corrected. MelForbes 13:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * There's nothing 'unfortunate' about there being more Wikipedians from one place than another. It's not a 'fight' where weight of numbers wins.  It shouldn't be a 'fight' at all.  We're supposed to be here to build an encyclopedia, after all.  Logical arguments backed by citeable sources and verifiability are what matters.  So yes - 'Britain' being used to describe 'TUKoGBaNI' is inaccurate. But editing the UK entry to then say 'England' is an alternative term for 'UK', because one objects to an inaccurate use of the word 'Britain' is achieving what, exactly?  Apart from annoying the people who have to do the reverts... Bastun 13:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The fact is that "England" is used by quite a lot of people as the name for the UK, and especially by Americans, and Wikipedia should reflect the fact. MelForbes 16:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

On what authority have you unilateraly decided that Britain = Great Britain and not the UK. Both the British and Irish governments and media use Britain to refer to the state and usually reserve Great Britain for the island (although the irish consolate used has a Great Britain embassy). josh (talk) 14:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

"Great Britain" is the island. "Britain" is a vague and informal term which can mean either the island or the state. john k 21:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe out in the eternally benighted 13 colonies it's a bit "vague"; indeed, so "vague" that calling Britain England is very commonplace in 2006. Strangely, I don't see anybody here rushing to support that sort of "vagueness". But that's another matter. At any rate, nothing vague about Britain here in Ireland. In fact, historical, political, cultural and intellectual discourse has been quite taken by the entire British thing for some time now. Precision is everything in such a context. Only an outsider would fail to appreciate the importance of this. And only a sloppy mind would attempt to imbue the ignorance of equating Britain with the UK with the legitimacy of precision. El Gringo 23:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * El Gringo: Britain is not a formal geographical term like "Great Britain" is. It is a term which can refer to either a) the Roman province of Britannia, and its area, up to the arrival of the Anglo-Saxons; b) the entire island of Great Britain; and c) the United Kingdom.  As to "England" the issue is that it is generally considered to be wrong to say that Edinburgh is in England (I think that has always been considered wrong) and since World War II or so, it has also been considered wrong to use expressions like "English government" or the general "England" to refer to the UK.  "Britain" on the other hand, is a term used frequently, including by British media.  It is, more or less, a back formation from "British" which is the official adjective to describe the UK.  It may not technically be right, but it is also pretty clearly not technically wrong in the way that "England" has become.  And note that England didn't used to be wrong.  It used to be perfectly acceptable to use "England" as a shorthand substitute for the UK.  Were people in the 19th century, say, "wrong" to do this, in spite of everyone doing it and there being no sense that it is wrong?


 * I'd add that to use "Britain" as being synonymous with the UK is different from saying that places in Northern Ireland are in Britain. The latter strikes me as on the borderline of incorrectness.  The former is perfectly appropriate.  "Britain, France, and Belgium were among the countries which joined the peacekeeping forces in Lower Kislavastan"  That would be a perfectly correct sentence, I think.  "Derry is a city in Britain" would be awkward. john k 16:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Indeed. "Baghdad is a city in the United States" would also be, shall we say, "awkward" El Gringo 23:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * So Britain is a term of political art? Has Damien Hirst had a go at this? Does anyone understand what JK is talking about?--Shtove 00:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Alright, let's go backwards for a moment. A century ago, "England" was the conventional short form for "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland."  This was used by English people, by people from outside the, er, British Isles, and, in fact, by many people from Ireland, Wales, and Scotland (although I will not venture to say that everyone used it.)  The way the term was used was generally not to say absurd things like "Dublin and Edinburgh are cities in England."  It was to talk about, for instance, "the English government" or "England" in a general sense as a political entity.  "England will not tolerate French interference in Egypt", "The Queen of England has done such and such" - that kind of thing.  "England" as a geographical entity meant the same thing it does today, but as a political entity it meant the entire United Kingdom.  There were other examples of this in the past.  For instance, "Piedmont" was frequently used as a political equivalent for the Kingdom of Sardinia, but one of course would not have said that Cagliari was in Piedmont.  Here's another example that you are perhaps aware of: "Ireland" geographically means "Republic of Ireland+Northern Ireland," but politically it means simply "Republic of Ireland."  The use of terms like "President of Ireland" does not imply that Mary McAleese is also president of Northern Ireland, does it?  Basically, political shorthand terms are often essentially synecdoches.  England was the most important part of the UK, so it was used as a shorthand for the whole country by people who knew very well that the full name of the country was "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland".  It was used in the same way that "London" can be used as shorthand for the government of the country.  This is clearly a common usage of "Britain."  Because of the usage of "Great Britain" for the island (or, more accurately for England+Scotland+Wales), usage of "Britain" for the UK is probably at least as common as for the perhaps strictly more accurate meaning of "Great Britain".  It is not for us to say that standard usage is incorrect. john k 12:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

History
I have had a go at taking up Red King's challenge and revising the history. It's not much shorter, I am afraid, but I have tried to focus it on things best done here rather on national pages. As well as a brief survey of the development of political structures, these include:
 * History before the national formation. Could be done elsewhere, but isn't.  Only drawback is that it is very complicated, so a bit of a sketch.
 * Middle Ages. National entities exist, but they are being run by an international elite.  I think a decent overall story emerges.
 * 17th century. I am a complete convert here: the history of this time can only be properly understood on the basis of the entire archipelago (and even then it is a bit insular).  There are some other decent articles around, such as that on the Wars of the Three Kingdoms, so I have avoided detail.
 * Population movements. Lots of this and very important:  it could be argued that this is one of the real motors of history.

I have tried to keep the section NPOV for obvious reasons, so no moral commentary. I have also tried to minimise any Whiggishness- any sense that the past is just a long march to the glorious present. MAG1 22:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I have also tried to add just a little social and economic history to go along with the politics. MAG1 23:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

History! A British Perspective - political tentacles
I notice that the history of the BI is being purely told through a British perspective. I thought that the name "British Isles" was a neutral term. Well the article seems to be growing political tentacles, and doesn't look too neutral. MelForbes 22:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Well of course it has been. It was written entirely by one user - User:dave souza. It was later trimmed by User:MAG1. No matter how hard they try - and I think dave has done so - a single user can never escape his or her own background entirely. He brought it to this talk page before adding it and no one has tried to remove it.


 * If you're unhappy, why not either:


 * Remove it?
 * Edit it?
 * Propose edits?
 * Bring up certain sections that are particularly single viewed.

Try as one might, there is little an editor can do to improve a situation in reaction to such general comments. --Robdurbar 22:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Well I tried very hard to avoid this (I have rewritten a sizable chunk). Please be explicit in your criticism and what you think should be done about it rather than throwing around wild accusations. MAG1 22:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Really, I am only trying to stop the situation deteriorating. MelForbes 22:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe we could get a Frenchman, or an American, or perhaps a Scandinavian or something to have a look at the article? HawkerTyphoon 22:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, maybe a chapter about the Gaels of Ireland, and of course another about Wales. Those cultures being the only 2 with direct links to B.C.  It will take a couple of days. MelForbes 23:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * B.C.? MF, are you saying those cultures are prehistoric? Typical insensitivity! Contributions from continental WP'ers are usually interesting - they get bored with the low level of traffic on their own-language WPs and cross over to English (often bringing better skills). But no one is going to touch this. The USA contingent are mostly puzzled at the English-British-Irish conundrums. So am I. This article insists that the term BI is essentially geographic, but over on Talk:United Kingdom the emphasis is on Britain as an undefined (it's not just an island, you know), but substantial, entity in a "political context" - the unwritten ("make it up as we go along") constitution is very helpful in this way. One tentacle gives, while the others take away. My preference (stated before) is to suck it up by replacing the history section with links to appropriate articles.--Shtove 23:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Dublin is 2000 years old, at least. Please read the Dublin page. MelForbes 00:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I must admit, I wouldn't mind removing the history section and replacing it with relevant links; that said, there is room for a section on the history of British-Irish relations and the history section of this page would be as good as anything for that; either way, its not a section that interests me greatly!

As for Mel's comments... I don't see how any of us can do this given that very few of the editors here know anything about Irish history. Perhaps we could ask those who have contributed to the History of Ireland page to have a look here? --Robdurbar 10:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, I barely changed any of the early history as I could not see how it could be improved. There is a bit on the Celts/Gaels/Britons/Brythons in the first para of the "Pretani, Romans and Anglo-Saxons" section.

As to the replace-with-a-list-of-articles idea, this was my starting point; however, there are aspects, as discussed above, which are not dealt elsewhere, and there are things which can only be dealt with on an all-archipelago basis (again, see above). Now, if people want to generate the articles elsewhere within Wikipedia, then that would be great, but until then this is probably the best place for the material. I have tried, and I think it is a good principle, not to reproduce substantial chunks from other articles. MAG1 11:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Just to note, a history of the "British Isles" ought not concern itself solely with "British-Irish relations," which at least implies, to my mind, the history of relations between Ireland and the present-day British state. It should, I think, be about the history of the islands as a unit. There's a ton of stuff that doesn't full under the rubrik of "British-Irish relations" - the effects of the Viking Invasions, for instance, make a great deal of sense to discuss in a broad view as to their effects on the British Isles as a whole. So does the spread of Norman-style feudalism, which occurred in different ways in England, Wales, Scotland, and Ireland. Relations between Scotland and Ireland (which are, I suppose, technically covered by the term "British-Irish relations," but which, in practice are likely to be ignored) are also worth discussing. A history section seems essential to me. If the current one is bad, improve it. john k 20:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * "History of the islands as a unit" - isn't this an example of Begging the question? If you're talking invasion by Vikings/Norsemen and by Normans, then the unit should include the territories of Scandinavia and France. The Norsemen had a trading empire defined by sea lanes that connected fortified ports (like the Spanish and Portuguese empires) right across northern Europe. The Normans kicked butt and intermarried from Sicily to Scotland - so eg. the rebel Earl of Desmond in 16thC Ireland was just as interested in talking up his connections with the city state of Milan in order to prove his credentials with Philip II of Spain as he was in bending the knee to Elizabeth I of England. Why cut it off at the channel/la manche? Why not see the islands from a europe-wide celtic POV? Why treat them as a unit, when the roman and germanic invasions were limited to the south of Britain? And the biggest influence of the lot - Christianity: what unit is appropriate there? The history section isn't bad - it's just hopeless, both restrictive and over-ambitious in its artificiality. Why do history editors want to treat the islands as a unit? Because the islands were united in one state at the height of the British empire, and the books we read are mostly the product of navel-gazing national historiography from that era. The state of play was different before the union, and it's different now.--Shtove 22:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * This is ridiculous. The British Isles form a distinct geographical unit, and also, in many ways, a distinct geopolitical one. Of course the Vikings and their Norman descendants had influence beyond the British Isles, but that doesn't mean that there's no sense in referring to the British Isles as a unit.  Sure there are aspects of history limited to one part of the islands, but there are others that are fairly universal.  It's also worth noting that the Kings of England were, from the 12th century onwards, the dominant political force in all four nations (they were Kings of England, their great vassals controlled most of Wales, they were Overlords of Ireland, and the King of Scots acknowledged himself intermittently as their vassal.  But even if we acknowledge that such a history is somewhat artificial (as, of course, any largely political history of a geographical unit which does not form a single state is bound to be), I'm not sure why that matters.   We have a section on the history of the Iberian Peninsula, which only comprised a single state during the Roman period, for a brief part of the Visigoth era, and between 1580 and 1640, we have a History of Italy article which dicusses the history of the area from ancient times.  Furthermore, the idea of trying to write the history of the Isles from a non-English perspective is a recent one which is quite strong - there's Norman Davies' The Isles, for instance, and the recent fad for discussion of the Wars of the Three Kingdoms.  What advantage,  precisely, is gained by removing the history section? john k 09:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Shtove's argument sounds like an argument against encyclopaedias: classifications never can be applied rigorously; therefore things should not be classified. Taken to its extreme, there should be just one article. There is, I believe, currently a live debate on how navel gazing were the Victorians and Edwardians; however, I do not think that it is really possible to stick the concept of the British Isles on the Victorians trying to make the world fit in with their ideas of what it should be like: it existed before the heyday of the Empire, and you would havve to be well into yopur fifties by now to have had an 'Our Island History' type of education. While there are always connections to the rest of Europe and the world, the British Isles have been seen as distinct from continental Europe: originally it was seen as being ethnically different (hence the name), and, then for better or worse, they remained out of European political structures from the Reformation until 1974, and the societies were developed by people from the British Isles or at least those who lived there. It would be difficult, for example, to describe any effect that Desmond had on Spain or Milan, or indeed the effects that Spain or Milan had on British society (with the exception of Philip's influence on Mary. During the Middle Ages, they were part of transnational feudal structures, but developed distinctively from the continent.  Christianity is a particularly interesting (and neglected) part of British Isles history with the assimulation of Celtic Christianity by the Roman sort, and again while obviously it has many outside influences, but this is an area where the British Isles is precisely the right scale.  Yes, it is different now and it may become even more different if Northern Ireland is ever sorted out, but that does not affect the past unless you are a fully paid-up post modernist.  That the world can be described using several different scales is not an argument for ignoring them, but trying to reflect them all. I think (as I have said consistently) is that a test for this section is that it should not merely parrot what can be found in other articles, but should be introducing new material or maiking connections between existing material that have not been made. MAG1 11:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

National formation
Dublin: "Baile Átha Cliath or simply Áth Cliath was founded in 988 nearby: the two towns eventually became one." Eblana was a separate settlement. As for the High King not being weak - read the article. Maybe the mythological High Kings weren't, but the 'modern' office was certainly so; figureheads, compromise candidates, etc., elected from the fine. Bastun 00:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Well if peacemakers are weak, then the High King was weak. The High Kings played more of a Kofi Annan type role, working out disputes etc between other lesser kingships. I would have thought of that as more of a strength than a weakness. MelForbes 12:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * A comparison of a medieval ruler to the head of a modern international organization seems deeply anachronistic to me. john k 14:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Given the complete lack of power (whatever about good intentions) exhibited by Kofi Annan and the UN in getting it's constituent members to agree anything, behave, and stop blowing each other up, I actually think it's a pretty apt analogy that serves to prove my own point rather well :-) Bastun 14:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Well it's a very apt anlogy, thanks. Also there are many things anachronistic on the BI page. Very off topic! Only for the UN a lot of folk may not be here today editing WP. MelForbes 16:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The Emperor has no clothes

 * So, let's get this straight. If somebody comes on to Talk:British Isles and says, without a username, that the term "British Isles" is a politically loaded invention of British nationalist claims to Ireland, the person in question must be, in Dave Souza's view, a "troll"? I wonder, I just wonder, are all the other "anonymous wikipedia editors" (a tautology in the great majority of cases) writing at this moment similarly classified by a writer who has done his best to inject-what was that phrase?- yes, political tentacles into this article?      At least we can thank him for that honesty. So much for the months, if not years, of (blatantly self-serving and historically antirational) protestations by British wikipedians that "British Isles is not a political phrase!!!" The Emperor (and indeed  the Empire) has no clothes. Amen. El Gringo 20:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

What's this "confusing" weasel word?
No confusion about it. The term is objectionable to me and any Irish person I know. That this discussion continues is testimony to how controversial the term is. And that some British people think it's an acceptable term (just as the British Empire was acceptable to their compatriots in former days) makes the term very controversial indeed. El Gringo 17:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Since when has Wikipedia been dictated by what El Gringo thinks. You may understand the term but that isn't surprising as you live here. Some editors seem to be playing a game of "how much can we condem the term within the lead". The banner already mentions that it is a controversy so why do need to hammer in yet another redundent word of condemnation. josh (talk) 18:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Hmm, we have: objectionable, rejected, avoided, and replaced all in the very opening of the article; and a pointer to the Terminology section where details of the controversy can be found. Is your contention that the name is never confusing or that we need more than five modifiers to let the reader know that it's disliked in Ireland? Just how redundant should the opening be?EricR 18:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Well that wording with confused in it was what was decided upon in the discussions on this talk page. Just because El Gringo isn't confused.com doesn't mean others aren't. Ben W Bell   talk  18:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * As I recall, the "confusion" term was introduced with reference to aspects such as whether or not the Channel Islands are included. These points are addressed in British Isles (terminology) which should be linked in the banner. ...dave souza, talk 18:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * "confusing" is a weasel word. "disputed" is better. British Isles is the most clear term of all (as indicated in the alternatives selection), however disputed and unpalatable. Other versions of that reality are original research and have no place in wikipedia. A discussion progressive terms from this outdated term is vital, but separate from the main definition. That is the only way forward, and is my proposal for this POV page. Widefox 17:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Objected to by "some" Irish? Mar dhea, boys. Pull the other one.
No better people for the euphemism than those claiming something they have no right to claim. And I'll leave my general observation at that. Anyway, a quick Google of that "British Isles" phrase on Google's Pages from Ireland function gives the following results: "British Isles"= 56,900 ; "Britain and Ireland"= 71,800 ;

"Ireland and Britain"= 40,800.

In other words, 112,600 hits for two of the most common alternatives for British Isles, and a mere 56,900 hits for "British Isles" on Irish webpages. (and I note that many of the latter involve a discussion on Politics.ie about the phrase). So, again, tell us what British historian is the basis for misrepresenting the reality by saying "some" instead of "most"? Only somebody who is not Irish would deny that the phrase is not used by the majority of people in Ireland. It is only British nationalist delusions, from over there, which is refusing to face the reality in Ireland and trying to falsely represent the reality in Ireland when it comes to this most British, and most colonial, of terms. The correct adjective in this article is 'most' not 'some'. Not being wanted is a consequence of being a colonial power. It is time for you all to grow up and accept yout rejection by us natives rather than being dishonest about it. You are, collectively, being profoundly immature on this issue. As a mural in the Short Strand puts it, Slán Abhaile. El Gringo 18:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Translation for all you British colonist-types:
 * Mar dhea: as if!
 * Slán abhaile: safe home (to ye)
 * Consider yourselves told off.--Shtove 20:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * El Gringo - really, lose the chip on your shoulder. Stop pushing your PoV.  The phrase is used, in Ireland, all the time, by many - including Irish people - as a geographical term, and your (original) research is hardly scientific or qualititative. Bastun 23:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment, Bastun, as one "Irish" Wikipedian to another "Irish" Wikipedian, I am really curious to know in which part of Ireland do you live????MelForbes 20:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Táim i mo chonaí i mBaile Áthat Cliath. Agus leat féin? Bastun 21:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Well you are really so out of touch in saying all the time. It's so totally wrong to say that.  It doesn't represent the truth. It's probably used once for every 20 times (this was edited as intended, after the follow up comment) the term Britain and Ireland is used.  I cannot see any reason for someone to be untruthful in this matter.  If people in Ireland want to call the islands Britain and Ireland, why should anyone take offense? The whole issue puzzles me. MelForbes 21:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Who's taking offense? Not me. I use the terms 'Ireland and Britain' and 'Britain and Ireland', when talking about politics, or the countries.  I also use the term 'British Isles', when talking about geography, or the weather.  Don't really think I'm out of touch, either - and El Gringo's 'research' would appear to bear that out.  Apparently 'British Isles' gets used once for every 1.2 times 'British Isles' gets used... which, to be honest, surprised me.  I thought it'd be less.  But then it's probably because my generation doesn't have an inferiority complex, still seeing "the Brits" as the Old Enemy (except, maybe, in sport) and everything from east of Dollymount as something to be vilified. Bastun 21:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Geogrpahy can't be the criterion - they're separate islands. If weather is the criterion, then draw a line running through Bristol and the Wash - everywhere north of that, the weather is shite; everywhere south, weather's okay - but I'd prefer to be in France.--Shtove 00:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC) (born in London, raised in Connemara, living in Bournemouth.)
 * I think that you have the complex, and the chip. What's the nonsense about the Brits being the Old Enemy. I have lived in Ireland for 11 years, born and raised in Britain, and I consider myself an honorary Irish Wikipedian. You are just so narrow-minded that you fail time and again to have a healthy discussion on subject, without alluding to some silly guff or other.  You certainly don't impress me, and I doubt you impress "British Wikipedians" either. MelForbes 22:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Really, lose the chip on your shoulder. When it becomes as big as yours is about child abuse, come back to me. Stop pushing your PoV. Ditto. The phrase is used, in Ireland, all the time.  Well, isn't that just a completely retarded thing to say. "All the time"- just how intellectually challenged is your understanding of the English language? Talk about having your own pov on your sleeve.  Your (original) research is hardly scientific or qualititative. It is far, far more of both than you have been to date. When you give evidence for this "all the time" usage, come back to us (again). In the meantime, play with fire and you will get burnt, "a wikipedian in Ireland". El Gringo 00:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * 1. Ok then. Assuming we accept that counting Google hits is scientific and qualitative, then far from my point being "retarded", El Gringo, your own post clearly demonstrates that the term "British Isles" is widely used - .   While that shows its used only 79% as often as "Britain and Ireland", that's hardly insignificant, and is certainly enough to justify the use of the word "many".
 * 2. Not responding to the ad hominem attacks except to ask if "play with fire and you will get burnt" is supposed to be a threat, and to wonser about your use of "a wikipedian in Ireland". Not that it's any of your business, but I'm Irish, I was born here, I've lived all my life here.
 * 3. Cease your personal attacks. Bastun 10:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * 1. In fact, it indicates that the term "British Isles" is rejected by most Irish people, not merely by some. This objection is shown in the far greater use of the above two alternative names for "these islands". This article says the term is only objected to by some in Ireland. Why, if this wikipedia article is true, is Google reflecting a minority (some) usage of the phrase "British Isles" in Ireland and an overwhelming majority (most) usage of two alternatives to that phrase?


 * 2. You launch an ad hominem on me and my supposed "chip on shoulder" and then get in a hissy when I respond likewise. Talk about emotional immaturity. As I said, play with fire....


 * 3. Maybe before you launch a personal attack on me a second time you will think of how you feel when somebody responds similarly. You will not be treated with respect while you treat others with disrespect. Stop being a spoilt little brat, and grow up. El Gringo 17:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

"North America" gets 199,000 hits

"United States and Canada" gets 13,900,000 hits

"Canada and United States" gets 294,000 hits

So does this mean that North America is a controversial term. People obviously prefer "United States and Canada" as a term for the region. I suggest you come up with a stronger argument, with proper references, next time. josh (talk) 17:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you find a better definiton of North America first. You left out quite a few member countries. Not surprising really given your understanding of Irish geography. After that, I suggest you address the issue of the phrase British Isles being only used by some in Ireland, with an overwhelming majority using alternative phrases. This is the reality which is in contrast with the claim in this article. This line of inquiry would be more respectful than going off in some ridiculous sophism which does your comprehension skills no credit. El Gringo 18:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * This gets funnier. El Gringo, all that your figures "prove" is that the terms - all of them - are in wide use.  A ratio in use of 1:1.2 between "British Isles" and "Britain and Ireland" does not qualify as an "overwhelming majority" by any stretch of the imagination.  Nor does it "prove" that just because somebody used one term over the other that they have actively "rejected" the other term. Bastun 18:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * In fact, I used the word 'indicates'. Evidently unlike you, I use my words carefully. In contrast, there is no 'proof' whatever that only some in Ireland object to its use. The indications from Google, backed up by the views of the overwhelming majority of Irish people in this discussion, strongly support the idea that the term "British Isles" is a minority usage in Ireland. This article claims otherwise. That is the issue at hand. Now, if you are having difficulty sticking with this discussion, perhaps you should confine yourself to discussions which may hold your attention more easily. El Gringo 18:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with geography. My use of the two largest countries to describe the contienent isn't any different to the use of Britain and Ireland ignoring the Isle of Man (and the Channel Islands in some definitions). North America can sometimes be used to apply to the US and Canada only, with the others being counted as Central America. Slight descrepicies do not change the fact that if you use the main two counties as opposed to its geographic term you get more hits.


 * The terms "Britain and Ireland" and "Ireland and Britain" is a catch all for any document refering to relations between the two countries. The term "Britain and Ireland" will also add any reference to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, any reference that describes the British Isles as consitisting of Britain and Ireland.


 * Google hits prove (or indicate) absolutly nothing and your use of it only proves that your arguments are reaching desperation point. You should read Wikipedia's policies on reliable and verifitable sources before suggesting a removal of a referenced material to be replaced by the wisdom of El Gringo. josh (talk) 19:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Whilst wanting to ignore the many personal attacks from pretty much all of the users above (I exclude Josh and MelForbes from that criticism, though I haven't read the whole thing through), I'd like to say something about that first. Frankly, the conduct on this is embarassing at times, and I am quite serious that I will report any further personal attacks to the relvant admin noticeboards; this has really got to stop.

As for the issue here, it seems to me that we have a reality in which 'most Irish people' (paticularly in the indepdent part) never use British Isles, not through any political choice but through habit and a simple lack of contact with the term. However, I think that my experience on here and my discussions with friends indicate that the term is fairly common in Northern Ireland, and can be used there as a geographical term (Im not saying its never political - it has been historically and can be now).

However, my 'evidence' for all this only from my interactions and discussions with irish friends, or with Irish users on here. As a result, it is effectively useless for Wikipedia. Google searches, whilst often helpful, are not on their own a good enough source for using a term in Wikipedia.

So, whilst I would like to see us being able to change this to 'most' - I think it would reflect the reality of the situation - I do not see how we can do this until we can find some sort of newspaper survey, or a thick bank of newspaper/academic articles, which make the same claim. --Robdurbar 11:23, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Irish Times article concerning the term British Isles
This article got in mention in today's Irish Times (2 Oct 2006) - the article is available online here at eircom.net.

The interesting thing is an Irish schoolbook publisher got it wrong! The remark about the Irish embassy being urged to monitor British media is interesting.

zoney &#09827; talk 09:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * How did the publisher get it wrong? BI is a geographical term for these islands.  Just because Folens changes their school atlas doesn't mean any other publisher in the rest of the world will be changing theirs.  It is interesting, though.  It's not too long ago at all since I wrote on this talk page that my daughter's Irish-published school atlas used the term 'British Isles' - and then suddenly this story appears - and quotes Wikipedia.  I wonder if this is an example of metaWikiness, where Wikipedia editors initiate events that can then be written about on Wikipedia? :-P Bastun 09:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Not at all - the issue is a long-standing one, and just as much as there are those who care about it, there are plenty of people who are oblivious to it (even if they might care if it was drawn to their attention). Folens were probably in this "oblivious" category - it doesn't mean the issue didn't exist. Certainly my geography books were good and traditionalist :) (unsurprisingly so for some of them which were in Irish!) zoney &#09827; talk 09:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for a good link, interesting story. The "recent complaint by a parent" contrasts with the hordes of enraged Irish parents we might have expected from discussions here, and the advice from Minister for Education passing the buck to the parent to take the matter up indicates less than active Irish government concern about the issue. Their monitoring of the British media also seems not to have resulted in any action. By the way, although "John O'Connor of Folens" suggests some Irish connection, Folens is apparently Dunstable based. ..dave souza, talk 10:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm. The Folens you list was only founded in 1986 and doesn't appear to have an Irish distributor/subsidiary. But there is a Folens.ie and I certainly used their books pre-'86.  Bit of a coincidence, though, to have two schoolbook publishers of the same name in adjacent countries without there being some sort of connection. Bastun 10:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Teaches me to just click the first link in a search. Looks like the UK one might be a spin-off, neither caring to point out the other's existence. ..dave souza, talk 17:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Some more coverage today in the Daily Telegraph, The Times (including an editorial which quotes this article ) and The Guardian. Demiurge 10:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Does this mean that until wikipedia got its mitts on this thing an Irish publisher was publishing atlases that had "British Isles" in them?  I like how we seem to be being cited as "evidence" that the term is controversial...if only mainstream media actually knew how to use wikipedia. john k 12:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Extraordinary. The Times editorial cites this article in inverted commas, but without acknowledgement. Then goes on to tell us that "The Times Atlas of the World identifies the principle city of what used to be called the Holy Land as...". Ouch. Well down to Grauniad standards. Then in their news item "A spokesman for the Irish Embassy in London said... 'We would discourage its useage'.” Would? If what? So, all in all, can The Times still be considered a reliable source? ... dave souza, talk 19:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * To john k; this is a fundamental flaw in Wikipedia (and indeed all encyclopedias). When you write about the world, you also help create the world; however, it is and will always be that way, we can't do much to change it. As for dave; I think its fairly frustrating to realise that newspapers are often our best source, even if they're frequently wrong, misguided and hyperbolic! --Robdurbar 08:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * john k is right, this flaw is addressed in the policy of What Wikipedia is not which unfortunately there's a tendency to breach in this article: zoney's comment that "there are plenty of people who are oblivious to it (even if they might care if it was drawn to their attention)" rings true, and it's not Wikipedia's place to try to make such people care. My comment was slightly jesting, but we know that Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Does an unreferenced second hand quote from Wikipedia become a reliable source when it's in a Times editorial? I'd hope not. ...dave souza, talk 14:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * If only nobody read wikipedia (or, even more importantly, mirrored it!). That would make writing it so much lovelier.  This does raise the horrifying possibility of wikipedia becoming a source for itself - a wikipedia article is used as the basis for an article in a mainstream publication, which can then be cited by wikipedia as a source for an assertion that originated in wikipedia itself.  How dreadful. john k 03:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The horror increases: I came across a peachy example of the madness of the Wiki-world  here. In one of his podcasts (after about 3 minutes), David Duke cites a WP article on Jewish law in order to set out his case on Jewish supremacism. Yet the cited article has a talk page full of debate about anti-Jewish bias in the article itself! This type of thing is going to happen more and more until ... somebody bombs WP (suicide or laser-guided optional).--Shtove 19:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * At the local library, the Irish Student's Atlas by Elenor Butler M.A., Educational Company of Ireland Limited, which was the major atlas  (60 pages of maps)   used by second level students in the 1960's and 1970's in Ireland, does not mention the term British Isles. On the relevant map page the caption is, Ireland, Great Britain and North Sea.  So Folens were out of step on the matter, are in fact coming back into step. So WP is still only reflecting the world, and not making it. ;)MelForbes 21:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Removed sentence in introduction
I have removed the following for the time being:


 * "The history of the islands tends to be considered on a national basis"

It is far too simplistic without an explanation. Quite often the histories are not treated separately, and what is meant by "national" is open to interpretation - certainly it is usually the case that the history of Ireland is dealt with on a national basis (i.e. across the whole island) prior to 1922 (and in the case of history *in* the south, across the whole island subsequently too - in fairness the southern *news* refers to the North most days!). Going further back, Scottish and English history can be regarded separately, but anytime in recent centuries it is invariably considered across the United Kingdom.

I think this sentence is just causing trouble - at best it is imprecise, at worst, just flat out wrong.

zoney &#09827; talk 09:53, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I certainly don't live on a British island. I live in Dublin. The "British Isles" was a geographical term invented when the islands dominated by the London Government. Persia was once inhabited by Persians. Names change to reflect demographic and political change. You can't get Peking Duck in Peking anymore, there is no such place as Siam. The entire Spanish speaking world knows "The Falklands" as the "Malvinas". There is no such thing as "politically neutral" geographic names.

I might also add that some of the "British" contributors here lend way too much authority to colonial British Law in supporting their definitions of Irish and British.

(Sarah777 22:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC))

"British Isles" actually predates London's dominance of the islands. Iran is still inhabited by Persians, and although there are other groups there as well (Azeri Turks, Kurds, various other Iranian peoples), they are still the dominant ethnicity. I'm also entirely unclear on what "colonial British law" has to do with anything. john k 13:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * "British Isles" predates London's dominance of the islands? We've had this before (see "Armagh and Derry ..." section above), but nobody cited precise use of the term prior to James I. All I can see is some tendentious tweaking of Greek use of the phrase Pretaniki - and that seems to refer to people in Cornwall (aka the Pasties).--Shtove 13:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm no historian and get thouroughly bored by these debates about when the word was first used (people talk about it as if it's original use matters; its almost irrlevant, current use is important), but I should point out that 'There is no such thing as "politically neutral" geographic names' is one of the main things that a geography undergraduate has hammered into them ('Middle East'? Only if you're speaking from the view of someone to the west). Those claiming that it is a neutral term 'because its geographic' are at best mislead.


 * I'd also like qualification of 'colonial British law'? As far as I see it, most British wikipedians are happy to accept taht the inclusion of Ireland in the term 'British Isles' need not make it 'a British isle'; I think there's a world of difference there. --Robdurbar 13:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I actually very much enjoy the historical debate provided it is historical rather than polemical. This is particularly interesting as an example of a false etymology, and they can matter. Shtove is not quite telling it as it is- here is my own quote from the section above in reply to his original point about the Pretaniki: I think the pretaniki is a bit of a supposition (after all, for a very long time "British" was supposed to derive from "Brutus of Troy"). However, you can find the most authoritative text of Ptolemy here, and Pliny is here (book 4, para 102 onwards), but in Latin only, which is not one of my languages I am afraid. You can actually find images of pre-17th century maps which use the equivalent of British Isles in Latin and French can be seen here. I have read the reference for the first quote in English, and explicitly it is a historical use- it has nothing to do with James I. Judging from the rest of the relevant sections Heylin would have had no hesitation in asserting a political rather than historical use should he wanted to have done so. In fact, I don't think British had much of a political charge at his time of writing, away from the Court anyway: Shakespeare used it without any gloss or qualification twenty years previously to describe ancient Britons. Incidentally, this is the earliest surviving reference, it is not necessarily the earliest usage. Anyway it is far from clear what the point of this conversation (again) is.

For the record, I agree with Zoney's action: the statement had truth in it, but it's complicated, and perhaps this is not the place for it unless anyone wishes to write a section or even an article on the changing historiography of the British Isles. MAG1 19:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Mention of the British and Irish Lions?
There really needs to be a mention of this famous rugby team, made of of players from the British Isles. They used to be called the British Lions, but the PC has brought in the Irish part. Worthy of a mention in this article.-- HamedogTalk|@ 02:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree (though it mightn't be famous for much longer). And the name isn't PC - it's just accurate.--Shtove 08:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

This article reeked of POV - I've removed some of it
In no less than four locations - including a banner and a whole section - was reference made to the view that some people in Ireland don't like the term British Isles. This article had become a vehicle for POV pushers who don't like the term. By all means make reference to it, but don't labour the point. I've removed some of the duplication and unnecessary references, but it's still highly POV. Please also, stop reverting to put this POV back. The term British Isles IS NOT confusing - it's just that some don't like it. To try and justify the term being confusing, one editor made reference in his reverting edit summary to a Texan who thought Edinburgh was in England. That's not confusion, that's stupidity! Arcturus 17:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I don't see any problems with the hidden notes; it indicates that users should think before editing this article, which they really should (it helps prevent an idignant wrath). Other than that; one removal of a reference to the problem is not a massive change, so I wouldn't argue massively against it --Robdurbar 17:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * As for the header - most articles on British/Irish geogrpahical features (England, Northern Ireland) have such notes. --Robdurbar 17:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, you're probably right - the hidden warning doesn't harm anyone. I just thought it was a bit patronising - maybe not, given the apparent controversy around this article. Maybe we have a banner more like those you allude to, without reference to the controversy? Arcturus 17:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Banner read; Quote "The term "British Isles" can be confusing and is objectionable to some people, particularly in Ireland. See the Terminology section below for details of the controversy." Unquote. This banner had been agreed upon, seemingly to skew the edit wars which may ensue, and which were a feature of the past. Prudent editors to this page should put fundamental changes to talk first, before proceeding with their view. MelForbes 19:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Personally I think the banner as quoted above by MelForbes is fine. It touches upon the fact that some do take issue with the term, and that there is indeed misunderstandings in the world at large as to just what the British Isles covers and means. I feel it's a good balance of the differing opinions and viewpoints on the matter, helps to get this across without being too intrusive or labouring the points at that point in time. Plus the wording of that was discussed by many members on these talk pages and that is the wording that was agreed upon. Ben W Bell   talk  20:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree entirely: the very existence of an article on the term British Isles reeks of centuries of British colonial pov regarding Ireland and the Irish people, and self-serving British state perceptions of Ireland's political position in the world. It's just that now, via medium like this, British people can hear those objections. I notice that the Wikipedia article entitled Niggers, a name given by a powerful group to those whom they controlled, also comes with appropriate warnings as to its usage in the introduction. Proper order, too. El Gringo 20:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Gringo, Your comment above is one of the most stupid and ill informed I've come across for some time. To liken a topic such as British Isles to that of Niggers just beggars belief. In any case, there is no such banner in that article. Maybe there used to be and editors thought better of it. Banners are generally used to direct readers to other related articles (disambig) or to clarify the subject matter. They are not there to make a weasel-worded political point as this one does. Incidentally, I couldn't find where the wording was agreed - I'm not saying it wasn't agreed, but if someone could point me to the appropriate archive of this page I'd be grateful. Arcturus 21:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm sure User:Robdurbar will inform on you for that ad hominem (albeit with a thinly veiled ad rem). Ahem? At any rate, the British rightwing won that debate and that you are fighting for yet more concessions is mighty in itself. More power to your elbow. I've never agreed with it for the simple reason (see above) that it is not a mere "some" in Ireland who object to Ireland's inclusion in this "British Isles" lark but the overwhelming majority of the Irish people, a people who reject most explicitly any attempts at forcing them into the British nation. You don't need a PhD in history to get the basics of Irish identity here, most especially the part where British occupation created Irish resistance and British repression fueled that same resistance. Sticking "British" on to a people with that sort of history can only be deliberate, or obtuse in the extreme. At best, at very, very best: insensitive. There are 6 archives (of utter shite, mind you, because this little term is so utterly colonial it ain't goin' to last much longer) here debating this non-entity product of British imperialist claims to Ireland. And tucked in there somewhere is plenty of argument about it. The term, like the precious British Empire, has been ditched by all respectable entities both in Ireland and Britain. No matter how often I listen to the weather on the BBC, ITN or Channel 4, they all share one thing in common: they no longer use the term "British Isles". Would that liberal, open-minded and decent Britain were more represented here in this discussion. As they say, the battlefield attracts the warriors. El Gringo 23:17, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The quote "the very existence of an article on the term British Isles" says a lot about El Gringo's attitude to this article. It is not an article about the term, or at least it shouldn't be. The fact that you believe it is causes the problems with the article becoming overwhelmingly bogged down in the fact that the term is disliked in Ireland. There is no-one here banging on about how the term must be promoted for the glory of the empire. In case you hadn't noticed, the empire is dead. Everyone else has moved on. You seem to be the only one who hasn't got over it. Its just left behind a language with a load of inaccurate terms that people just use without caring how they came about.

The only thing the banner does is say "Ignore the the article just read the controversy section". Banners are there for the benifit of readers, not editors. They point them in the correct direction if they end up at the wrong article so using it to promote the controversy section is an abuse of the technique. josh (talk) 00:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Exactly the point. I recommend this banner is re-worded or removed entirely. It is blatant misuse of editorial facilities. Here's what I tried to use, but it has been reverted - For an explanation of the term "British Isles", including the controversy surrounding its use, see British Isles (terminology). Arcturus 07:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The banner was initially a terminology one linking to the BI(t) page like those I pointed out before; it was changed I don't know when (oh, very poetic), but I do recall a general consensus over the change - at any rate, its been there a while and been unquestioned, which I always take as equivalent to a full consensus.


 * The comparison to Niggers is a little over the top, but given the anger that has been displayed here, isn't entirely inappropriate. To be honest, the best reason for there being a banner is that is prevents the fairly regular apperance of a user coming to this talk page and complaining about how biased Wikipedia is by claiming Irish is British. If it stops that confusion then its helpful to both readers and editors, and I'd fully support it.


 * Anyway, I think that the wordage of the banner is splitting hairs slightly. The terminology section of this article links to BI(t) anyway. It seems in general (with the exception of the some/most issue that ElG mentions, which I see more as a problem of source-lacking, rather than differing views) that we've reached an unesay consensus on the content and layout of the page. Robdurbar 07:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Rob, that's rubbish. There's no consensus, uneasy (whatever that might mean) or otherwise. If there was previously a consensus, please show me where. Arcturus 07:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The banner is making a political point, i.e. it is POV pushing. Enough said. Arcturus 07:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree; if twenty or thirty editors who use an aritcle and use a talk page repeatedly for a number of months don't argue about something, despite numerous other differences, then that's a consensus. --Robdurbar 08:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * But as I say; personally, I think it is a minor issue whether it is the same as the Eng/N Irleand linked examples, or whether it is a specific one. --Robdurbar 08:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Arcturus, where were you went we through all this before? It's a one-liner sentence, and the sentence is almost factual. People in Ireland would argue with the word some, and have the word most instead.  The term is avoided by the British Government, the Irish Government, the EU, the BBC, Sky TV, the USA government, and many more.  Let's get real on this issue, it would be POV of the most blatant nature not the mention the objectionable nature of the term.  When (on what date) did it change from being a political term to being a geographical term. MelForbes 16:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Reference No.1 is a duplicate. The same material appears twice in the article. Suggestions as to which item to remove please. Arcturus 17:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with using the same reference twice; that's why the 'ref name' syntax exists. As for the material appearing twice; I agree it does. The point of the intro/opening section is to repeat what its the main article, only succicntly. --Robdurbar 17:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

BTW Arcturus, I notice you're from Ulverston, and you started the Islands of Furness series; kudos to you for all that! --Robdurbar 17:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Channel Islands are part of British Isles!
I've edited towards the top of the page to include the fact that the Channel Islands like the Isle of Man are considered to be part of the British Isles. The fact they are closer to the European continent is irrelevant. They are still well within "territorial limits" of the British Isles to be included (there are islands further from the coasts of the two main islands that are still considered part of the British Isles) and have always been considerd to be part of the British Isles. I was surprised and puzzled to see they were excluded! YourPTR! 05:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I've also edited the section that starts: "The islands encompass an area south to north from..." to include the approx 76 square miles of the Channel Islands (including Chausey which is geographically part of the Channel Islands but claimed by France. I say claimed by France because I dispute their rightful ownership of those islands. Therefore sovereignty over them is in dispute). Obviously the most southerly part of the British Isles will have to be edited. Not sure what it is. A small reef south of Jersey I expect but I am not sure of it so have left it alone for now. YourPTR! 05:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Obviously other sections will also have to be edited later to correct the blatant error of the Channel Islands being originally excluded as being part of the British Isles such as this nonsense "The following islands are sometimes also included, though officially are not geographically part of the archipelago: Rockall and the Channel Islands." Since when? Both are part of the British Isles as legitimately as any other part. YourPTR! 05:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

This is part of the reason that many Irish people object to this misnomer. "Territorial limits" would lead me to believe that you think of the archipelago as a political construct. This term is not purely geogrphical as is delineated by the comments by YourPTR!. Iolar Iontach 08:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * YourPTR! you are confusing the term British Isles with British Islands. The former is an ancient geographical term existing in many languages and dating back to Classical Antiquity, that predates the formation of the British state (which stole its name) by literally hundreds or even thousands of years. The latter is a purely artificial and legalistic term concocted in the 1950s and which, as far as I can gather, is never actually used in normal conversation. TharkunColl 09:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, according to my old encyclopedia, which was incidentally published in Great Britain, the Channel Islands are part of the British Isles.  It would be interesting to know when they left the BI. Hey, who's making the rules here as to who's in and who's out? MelForbes 13:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Does your old encyclopedia also state that Ireland is in the British Isles? If so, you can't in all fairness use it to back up your claim that the Channel Islands are included, but reject its assertions as regards to Ireland. And in any case, what about the Faroes? TharkunColl 13:31, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It was printed in 1908 and it does, which was the case then. And the Faroes lie on the same continental shelf as does Ireland and Great Britain. The whole definition of the BI is a complete and utter total incorrigible mess. It just goes to prove the the term is a political statement that's fraught with PC, POV and innuendo. Back to the drawing-board! MelForbes 15:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree that Ireland was part of the British Isles in 1908, and in the absense of some titanic convulsion of nature in the intervening 98 years it still is. The term is only political for those who chose to make it so. For most people it is devoid of political meaning. TharkunColl 15:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I would of thought that politically correct is the last thing the term is. Every term that is not strictly defined by a central authority tends to get frayed around the edges. The Caribbean has the same problem with the Bahamas. A reference including the Channel Islands has been supplied and no doubt one that doesn't include them wouldn't be that hard to find so the statement that the Channel Islands are sometimes included is the most accurate. josh (talk) 15:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, what about the the Faroe Islands. What is their present status??? Ireland is sometimes included would be more accurate too. MelForbes 15:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The point about the Channel Islands, and any other debatables such as Rockall is that they are tiny. Great Britain and Ireland are by far the only two major islands in the group. These two form the core of what the ancients called the British Isles - as for outlying peripherals, it really doesn't matter that much. Is Andorra part of the Iberian Peninsula? I have no idea. TharkunColl 15:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It's intriguing to observe the logic bending and changing to fit every occasion. Firstly the claim is that it is a unified archipelago, but on closer investigation it's all just a point of view. The dreaded Faroe Islands are not addressed, and are conveniently ignored because Denmark holds sovereignty. Not very British after all. Rockall is on a different sea shelf, so it doesn't count in the equation. It's a political term from about 1600. The British Isles still does exist, but it does not include Ireland, having since departed in 1922. MelForbes 17:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It's those political tentacles again - or am I thinking of Talk:United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland? What, you mean it doesn't link?--Shtove 18:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to include the Faroes, but I don't really care as they are tiny and insignificant. Same with the Channel Islands. How can the term possibly be a political one from about 1600, when it existed in both Greek and Latin? The late 16th century saw a flowering of Classical scholarship which is all we really need to account for the term gaining ground in English at that time - as for political motivation, you will really need to cite reputable sources for that I'm afraid. To the Ancients, the term described both Great Britain and Ireland, plus the surrounding much smaller islands. Whether we choose to include this or that tiny outcrop of rock is supremely irrelevant to the overall meaning. TharkunColl 18:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll request this again: has anyone got an actual citation of the ancient use of the term British Isles? I went to Talk:Pytheas looking for same, but no luck. Next stop, the sybil at Cumae.--Shtove 18:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Fine, I respect your opinion. In your analysis the archipelago argument is out the window. That would mean that the article as it stands now on the BI, would need correcting. MelForbes 19:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

How the Ancient Greeks or Romans ever used the term "British Isles" is beyond me; as they didn't speak English, in fact the language didn't exist at that time! The banner at the top of the article should read "this article is jingoistic nonsense and a relic of British imperialism." Iolar Iontach 20:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC) Actually to say that the term is merely objectionable to some is a gross understatement; since we can't say many (which is more accurate) repugnant would be more appropriate adjective. Iolar Iontach 20:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry if my point wasn't clear. It is claimed that Britain and Ireland, with all their bits and pieces, have been known collectively as the British Isles since they were first described in writing ie. by the ancient Greeks - namely by Pytheas, who supposedly coined the term in Greek. I have sought a citation for this several times, but none appears, even though the geographical nature of the term depends on the claim. My view is that the term is purely political, invented by the Stuart dynasty in the early 17thC to help vindicate its authority under the Union of the Crowns.--Shtove 22:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * My remark was not aimed at you Shtove but at TharkunColl and his/her assertion that the term British Isles dates from Classical Antiquity. Since TharkunColl puts so much faith in the geographical knowledge of the Greeks and Romans I wonder why they do not request that France be reffered to as Gaul, since that is what the Ancients called it, and while we're at let's wipe the Americas and Oceania off the map. The Greeks and Romans never referred to them so they mustn't really exist, afterall our modern understanding of geography and demographics is insignificant compared to that of the Ancients. Iolar Iontach 23:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Ignorance is not a virtue, and I hesitate to even respond to your statement. For your information, Gaul (or Gallia, in Latin), designated an area considerably larger than modern France. To the Greeks and Romans, the British Isles comprised the two major islands of Great Britain and Ireland, plus their surrounding much smaller islands. This usage has remained stable to the present day. Please bear in mind that during the 17th century the English hated the idea of calling themselves "British", because to them the term meant what we today would call "Celtic" (or rather, insular Celtic). The term "British" was associated with the ambitions of the Stuart dynasty (Scottish, be it noted, and definitely not English), and was specifically rejected by such English leaders as Oliver Cromwell. I find it almost risibly ironic that certain modern Irish nationalists on Wikipedia should reject a term that, as Celts, they have far more historical right to than the English. TharkunColl 00:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Fine, but where's the citation that shows ancient use of the term British Isles in Greek or Latin? I've had to ask for it so many times that I suspect it doesn't exist.--Shtove 15:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Ignorance is not a virtue ROFL. Perhaps you should have that phrase tattooed on your forehead. I like the way you speak for an entire UK region: The English "hated" the idea of calling themselves "British."As I have explained to you before (in very simple English) I am certainly not an Irish nationalist. Your logic in assuming my political allegiances is rather simplistic, which I suppose befits you. Iolar Iontach 00:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you should have said: The adjective "British" was objected to by some, especially English people. The fact that you cannnot accept that the term British Isles is objectionble to many people used to baffle me, but having seen your jingoistic, xenophobic, little-Englander edits on other articles I now just pity you. I would hate to live in such an insular world as you. Iolar Iontach 00:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * "I like the way you speak for an entire UK region: The English "hated" the idea of calling themselves "British.""
 * I am referring to, amongst other things, the English parliament rejecting union with Scotland in 1604.
 * "Your logic in assuming my political allegiances is rather simplistic, which I suppose befits you."
 * I'd be very interested to know just where, precisely, I called you an Irish nationalist. And nor, incidentally, have I descended to personal attacks. TharkunColl 08:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Shtove, sorry you've had such difficulty finding a reference. This example may assist: Donnchadh O Corrain, Professor of Irish History at University College Cork, writing in The Oxford History of Ireland. Oxford University Press. ISBN 019280202X. As for the Stuarts, the map to the right is from Tudor times. ...dave souza, talk 19:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry! Well, how on earth does Pretanic Islands become British Isles. The only related word is islands to isles, and they even got it wrong there. MelForbes 20:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * British Isles (terminology) may help a bit, the medieval period needs more clarification. ..dave souza, talk 20:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The difference between "isles" and "islands" probably doesn't exist in most other languages, and is a result of the polyglot sources for modern English (I believe they are Norse and Old English respectively, but I could be wrong and haven't checked). Words go in fashions, and "isles" has a very slightly archaic feel to it today. So the English rendering of the Greek and Latin terms could indeed have been either "isles" or "islands", but obviously one was preferred above the other and stuck - to the extent that the other one, "islands", would now be considered wrong and was able to be used by the government for something different. TharkunColl 22:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)