Talk:Names of the British Isles/Archive 2

"Useage" [sic]
In the original Times article, in the quote "We would discourage its useage", it is unclear whether the misspelling "useage" is an error by the Times or by the Irish embassy spokesman, as there is no "sic". Reading the requote in Wikipedia, it is not clear (until you click the original) whether the sic was added by Wikipedia or by the Times, as there are two levels of nested quotation. I have paraphrased the main body to remove the need for a "sic", which might be seen as snide (either "stupid Times" or "stupid embassy"). I have left the spelling in the full footnote quote, but tried to make clear the sic was added by Wikipedia, not The Times. jnestorius(talk) 04:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, this isn't just a spelling error. The correct sentence would be "We would discourage its use." The word "usage" refers to HOW something is used, not to the use itself. --Tkynerd 04:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm aware of the distinction; but "usage" is not impossible in the context. Unlikely, I admit, but it seemed pedantic to mention a possible second error in what was already a prolix account of a small change. jnestorius(talk) 07:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Does it matter? I'd rather stay faithful to the source. --Robdurbar 10:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Staying faithful to the source is paramount. My comment was nothing more than that: a comment. I just meant that there's more than one reason for the "[sic]" there. :-) --Tkynerd 15:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I was never very comfortable with repeating the mis-spelling in the quotation in WP and then using sic. After all, the spokesman said it, didn't write it, therefore the misspelling is by The Times....there doesn't seem to be a need to repeat that mis-spelling. Hughsheehy 08:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality
I must declare at the outset that I have no ideological axe to grind. I'm simply someone who has grown up in Ireland, frustrated at hearing this term used constantly to describe my country.

This article has failed to stick to the neutrality requirement so far. It is written as if the term "British Isles" is and was generally accepted but misunderstood. There are two sides to this naming dispute, and the term is and was only accepted by one side. The vast majority of the people on this island have never considered themselves British in any way at all. The name was imposed upon the region. The fact that it appears in published atlases and schoolbooks is simply the result of the publishers being either British, or taking their information from British sources.

When one declares that the term is misunderstood, one is making a category mistake. The correct way to explain the current impasse is to say that the term is misused, and the intention of those who use it is often misunderstood. The term itself is clear, it labels the island as the home and property of the British people. The place where British people are to be found. While this is true for the majority of people on the islands, it isn't true for the vast majority of people living on the island of Ireland, who don't consider, and have never considered themselves as British. The use of the term effectively extinguishes Irishness from the international view. Indeed, this was largely the purpose of the adoption of the term from the ancient writings. The mark of the success of this strategy is that modern heads of state have often committed the gaffe of stating that they had thought Ireland was British with the Queen as head of state. It is also the reason that many English people innocently and without any malicious intention presume that Ireland is British, that Irish artists like U2 are British, and that Irish sportsmen and women are British.

For Irish people who aren't of the Ulster Unionist stock this is excruciating. Not because there is something wrong with being British, because there obviously isn't, but simply because it slowly but surely is extinguishing Irish identity, and especially the perception of Ireland on the international stage. Let us be clear:

The phrase "British Isles" refers to that geographical area in which the British people/s are to be found, and that land which is owned by the British.

The fact that the person using the phrase may intend some other meaning is the misunderstanding, not the way the person listening's perception.

The dictionary definition used is not reliable. This is because the dictionary definition is derived from the culture that has created the phrase, and does not take account of the second culture involved. I suggest that these dictionaries (Random House, Princeton, and Wordnet have simply looked up the Oxford dictionary, or relied upon "common knowledge" to produce their definition. The problem with this is there is a vast difference in relative population between Ireland and Britain.  This means that unless the etymologists came to Ireland and took a sample of the population and asked them where the British Isles were, then their definition is biased.  A biased definition is not good evidence. What is required is a new definition, from first principles, but that is not the purpose of Wikipedia, or this page.

Therefore, we must agree a new text for the main page. Currently, the overall effect of the page is to give the impression that the phrase is correct, but that those who don't agree are either incorrect or don't understand. This means that the page is not neutral at all, but is solidly promoting the use of the phrase "British Isles" as a general geographical description of the United Kingdom and the island of Ireland.

At the very least, the introductory sentence should read:

The meaning term "British Isles" is contentious. It carries additional meanings; political, economic, cultural and geopolitical, reflecting historical divisions. Some accept that the term refers to "Great Britain and Ireland and adjacent islands", while others accept that the term does not include the island of Ireland.

The association of the term British with the United Kindgom,[2] as well as its association with the island of Great Britain cause the term to be regarded as objectionable to many people in Ireland when it is used to include Ireland.[3]

No branch of the government of the Republic of Ireland uses the term, [4] although it is on occasion used in a geographical sense in Irish parliamentary debates. A spokesman for the Irish Embassy in London has said use of the term would be discouraged.[5]

Ireland|Cormac | (Talk) 10:30, 1st February 2007 (UTC)


 * "The phrase "British Isles" refers to that geographical area in which the British people/s are to be found, and that land which is owned by the British." - if you find me a definition that describes the British Isles as meaning that, then I'll agree with you. I think that there's plenty of people who say that it "shouldn't" include Ireland, but few who claim it "doesn't". This viewpoint it delt with lower down - "Some believe that Ireland left the British Isles when it left the United Kingdom in 1922". It's possible that we could copy something to that end into the intro. --Robdurbar 13:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The issue is that one won't easily find a definition that disagrees with the dictionary definition, for reasons explained (although I'll search for one). Is the stated policy of the sovereign government of Ireland not good enough? The fact is that the population of Ireland right now is about 4.2 million in the South and close to 1.6 million in the North. The population of the United Kingdom is approximately 60 million. With the difference in population, it would be hard to find people who would agree that Ireland does not form part of the British Isles. The thing is, how many Irish people have you asked? The belief that Ireland left the UK in 1922 is not held by most people in the Republic, or by a large minority of those in the North, who would stoutly and indignantly declare that Ireland never was a British Isle in the first instance. What I don't understand is, given that the vast majority of people on the island of Ireland do not describe Ireland as part of the British Isles, and who would not subscribe to the argument that Ireland "left" the British Isles when it "left" the United Kingdom, why the view of these people is completely ignored.

Basically, the logic of this article at the moment could be applied to a scenario in which people decided to start calling France "Continental Britain", whether or not the French agreed, and then saying that although some disagree, most accept that this is the geographic description. Or vice versa, calling Britain "Atlantic France", and completely ignoring the attitude of the population, while using the French dictionary's definition as proof. The article as written is logically nonsensical at the moment.

At its most simplistic, the current article boils down to "I think I'll call your house "my house", and then I'll insist that everyone else calls your house "my house" too, insisting that they ignore my protests, which although somewhat understandable, are just plain wrong.

Finally, the point I'm making is that when the phrase is used by British people, or by those from further afield, they do assume Ireland is part of the British Isles. Irish people are just fed up of it. The vast majority of us are not British, and we mostly descend from families that were not and never were British, and therefore the island is not British. This is not to disenfranchise the British part of our culture and society, and it has nothing to do with religion, (I'm an atheist married to a protestant! :) ), it is simply that the description is inaccurate, and it causes international confusion about the policital status and relationship between these two islands.

One other thing I don't get is the huge reluctance to admitting that the commonly held understanding of the term "British Isles" could be wrong. Why are people so threatened by the idea that these islands are not correctly described as British? Why is it that even this article, which is supposed to be unbiased and neutral has taken a very definite stance in support of one side of the debate?

Ireland|Cormac | (Talk) 17:22, 1st February 2007 (UTC)

Oops, sorry about messing the formatting, I don't have a handle on it yet.

Ireland|Cormac | (Talk) 17:22, 1st February 2007 (UTC)

One thing I'd like to add. Here are some links to references that add to my side of the argument. They may add something to the debate:



http://debates.oireachtas.ie/DDebate.aspx?F=EDJ20051117.xml&Node=73

Deputy Hoctor: … I am interested to know what happens in the British Isles on this….

Oireachtas debate on healthcare and services for autistic people...



http://www.meath.ie/Tourism/TouristInformation/DownloadBrochures/File,3444,en.pdf

Local government publication containing references to “students from Ireland, the British Isles, France, …”



http://www.gov.ie/oireachtas/Committees-29th-D%E1il/jcmnr-debates/jcmnr120303.rtf

Dail debate on TV broadcasting licences. Question – Does TV3 broadcast in the British Isles, (meaning outside Ireland – my italics).



http://www.lawreform.ie/publications/data/lrc100/lrc_100.html

Reference to the British Isles as a legal territory



http://www.gov.ie/oireachtas/Committees-29th-D%E1il/jcaf-debates/JAF230903.rtf

Dail debate rejecting Ireland’s inclusion in the term “British Isles”.



NORTH P.M. North, The Private International Law of Matrimonial Causes in the British Isles and the Republic of Ireland, (1977)

A text used as a reference in the Law Reform paper: REPORT ON RECOGNITION OF FOREIGN DIVORCES AND LEGAL SEPARATIONS IRELAND http://www.lawreform.ie/publications/data/volume4/lrc_29.html



http://www.gov.ie/oireachtas/Committees-29th-D%E1il/jcesb-debates/jesb10703.rtf

Dail debate on Insurance issues in which Ireland and British Isles are discussed as separate and distinct entities.

http://www.goldsmiths.ac.uk/departments/history/news-events/rediscovering-radicalism/

Rediscovering radicalism in the British Isles and Ireland, c.1550-c.1700: movements of people, texts and ideas

(A conference in Goldsmith’s University of London)

Ireland|Cormac | (Talk) 17:22, 1st February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not disagreeing with your point and I have noted that that viewpoint is a. already included and b. could be reinforced in the intro (feel free to do it yourself, btw: see WP:BOLD!). As much as I sympathise with your arguments vis a vis the dictionary definitions, I'm sure you'll also appreciate that we can't go round claiming dictionaries etc are somehow wrong - see our policy on original research. The job of an encyclopedia is to repeat the knowledge (i.e. what is recorded in books, dictionaries and what not) that is out there, not to correct it.
 * As for how people use it... I think you'd be surprised. The mjaority of British people don't think that Ireland is or should be part of the UK. To be frank, the majority probably don't think when they use such terms (see the quote from the BBC that examplifies this: "In a small country such as the British Isles"). On the other hand, there are those who are perfectly happy with the logical inconsistency that Ireland is part of the British Isles but isn't British.
 * But the idea of "Admitting that the commonly held view is wrong". It's not. It's the commonly held view; therefore, as far as an encylopedia is concerned, it has a certain legitimacy. We can - and do - report obejctions to it. But the fact still maintains that the majority use of "British Isles" is GB+IRE+IoM+ a few others. An encyclopedia is the place to report, not change, reality. --Robdurbar 20:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Robdurbar,

Thanks for responding. I do appreciate it.

My problem isn't in the overall article, it is in the introductory statement which declares a value judgement into an ongoing debate, and this fundamentally undermines the principle of neutrality of Wikipedia.

The article should simply state what the various positions are that are held by various people, and perhaps state that the most commonly held understanding is that Ireland is included in the British Isles. This would be a very different article, and would take all the heat out of things. It should not actively state that one side of the debate is the truth. The article itself has engaged in the debate rather than simply reporting that it is a live debate, by adopting a position.

Ireland|Cormac | (Talk) 21:06, 1st February 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, I'm in the UK regularly as I have both family and friends there. I worked for several years in Scotland. I love England, and Scotland, and while I've been to Wales on more than one occasion, it usually coincided with a rugby international, so while I'm sure its a lovely country, I don't remember too much other than excellent hospitality. I've met plenty of British people who would be very surprised that this is an ongoing debate. I've met those who decided on balance and consideration that actually Ireland shouldn't be considered part of the British Isles, and I've met several Irish people who believe that it should be considered part of the British Isles. I'm well aware of the breadth of opinion on the matter.

I don't expect wikipedia to "admit that the commonly held view is wrong", but I do expect it not to take one side in a live debate.

The thing is that the naming dispute is the result of a misunderstanding. Ireland was described as "British" long before Great Britain ever became a country in 1707, or even the Norman conquest. As the British Isles article describes, far from being from "British sources", it was the Romans and Greeks who named the British Isles, after the Pretani, a Celtic tribe that inhabited Great Britain and Ireland. Great Britain on its own was called Albion. The name "British Isles" is not derived from the term "Great Britain". It's the other way around: Great Britain is the largest (that is, greatest) island of Britain. Antiquarian sources like Ptolemy and Pliny the Elder corroborate this. The confusion, and thus controversy, arises from the incorrect description of the UK as "Britain" or as "Great Britain". Not all things British must be about the UK, just as not all things Irish must be about the Republic of Ireland. If anything, the term "Great Britain and Ireland" is worse than "British Isles", not simply because it ignores all the other thousands of islands of the archipelago but because "Ireland" is the official name of the Republic of Ireland. If "British Isles" implies the United Kingdom's control over Ireland if the definitions of "British" are confused, a similar confusion of the definitions of "Ireland" would imply that "Great Britain and Ireland" implies the Republic of Ireland's control over Northern Ireland (and all the other islands other than Great Britain), and that's clearly no better.


 * I go along with this too! I am astounded to discover that this is an issue in the Republic. I am British of (Southern) Irish descent, and proud of both facts, and I have always thought of "British Isles" as a neutral, purely geographical term. Looking at this dispute from another persepective, the  English speak of Ireland as a shorthand for the Republic and when speaking of the whole Island they say "The island of Ireland" or "Ireland as a whole" ... but nobody gets upitty 'cos people say say Ireland when they mean the Republic of Ireland, when the island actually includes ....oh dear, maybe I should shut up now. --Tom 21:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * And now I have just read thru some of those links posted earlier in this section and I have to say I don't see much in the way of support for the view that British Isles is widely regarded in Ireland as this article implies it is. Can anyone supply some meaningful evidence for the claim that "British Isles" is seen as a loaded political term in a significant percentage of the local population? I can see how it can be in the minds of people who still see "Britain" as "The Enemy", but I am inclined to think that this is actually a very small minority of the Irish. I have never lived in Ireland so have no direct way of knowing the truth of the matter, but it seems to me as preposterous as supposing that the term United States of America in some way implies that the US lays claim to Brazil or Canada, or that referring to Argentina as an American country implies it belongs to the US. I credit the Irish with more brains than this article seems to imply. --Tom 22:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

So.... What is the name of the archipelago, then?
After reading paragraph after paragraph disputing the "legality" of the term British Isles, not once have I seen an actual alternative name of the archipelago that includes the United Kingdom and Ireland. Keeping in mind the worldwide scope, without the legal pedantics, what is the name most widely used for the entire group of islands in this region of the world? 147.70.242.40 19:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * In Britain, probably "British Isles". In Ireland, probably "Ireland and Britain" or "Britain and Ireland" - though "British Isles" is used too. Bastun 19:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, British Isles in general. People being sensitive or not wanting to use the term will generally avoid it by saying 'These Isles' or Ireland/Britain. See the alternative terms for a list of things that have never really taken off. --Robdurbar 01:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't want to get involved in all the arguing below, but I thought I'd point out that I didn't mean to gloss over the fact that there are many people who dislike the term. The fact this article exists pays testament to that. --Robdurbar 17:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Why does there have to be a name for both together? It is not necessary at all. Robdurbar makes it sound as if there is a consensus. There is not a consensus. Not even in Britain, where this issue is still discussed from time to time, as evidenced by the references throughout the article. The reality is that as time goes forward, that term will appear more and more anachronistic, just like the term "British Lions" for the team now generally known as the "British and Irish Lions". Finally, the article as it stands is not in any sense neutral, as it should be by the standards required by Wikipedia.Cormac 11:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, some of the alternatives have "taken off". "Britain and Ireland", "Great Britain and Ireland", "the UK and Ireland", etc. are all quite widespread (e.g. try to find any Society of anything in the British Isles.  Almost none.  Look for the same for "Great Britain and Ireland";  LOTS).  The fact that "IONA" and the "Anglo-Celtic Isles" have not taken off is probably a good thing. In most contexts there is no need for the term, although I get the impression that part of the reason it's popular in the UK because "British" is easier and more used than any terminology around "United Kingdom", and since Northern Ireland confuses the issue with "British" it's easier to include the whole lot.  That's just an impression.   Hughsheehy 00:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Just ran these trough Google trends. What are the incidents of people searching for:
 * "British Isles"
 * "UK and Ireland"
 * "Ireland and UK"
 * "Ireland and the UK"
 * "Britain and Ireland"


 * (I left out "Ireland and Britain" and "Ireland and Great Britain" because their incidents were negligable and Google trends will only show results for five queries at a time.)


 * This is not a scientific method. For one thing people often search using terms they expect to find rather than terms they would normally say. They might also search once using one term to get one 'batch' or results, then search again using the other to get the 'remainder'.


 * However, that said, the results were about 2:1 in favour of "British Isles" for searched from within the UK and about 4:1 in favour of "UK and Ireland" (and its other permutations) from searches within Ireland.


 * There were no results for any cities from the Republic of Ireland, but Belfast was the top hit and came out 50:50 "British Isles" vs. "UK and Ireland" - quel surprise! Other UK cities were all unanimously "British Isles" with the exception of London, Sheffield and Thames Ditton(?).


 * Interestingly "UK and Ireland"-like searches only started at the end of 2004, whereafter it quickly plateaus but does not appear to bite into "British Isles" searches until the second quarter of 2006.


 * Internationally, "British Isles" appears to be used universally with the exception of Australia (if you look really closely at the tiny barchart!) which looks a bit like results from the UK.


 * (As a side note the barcharts are "normalized" so, rather than showing absolute values, the bars for each country reflect the proportion of incidence of searches for the terms from that country.) --sony-youth talk 09:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * This is not a scientific method. For one thing people often search using terms they expect to find rather than terms they would normally say. Absolutely, and that needs to be emphasised in any consideration of the results. Someone, say, from the U.S. looking for a holiday destination may well key in "British Isles" - but someone researching comparisons between the countries may well key in "Britain and Ireland" or "UK and Ireland". Bastun 11:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Results are filtered by region, so we can compare searches originating exclusively within Ireland to searches originating exclusively within in the UK, without them being blurred by "[s]omeone, say from the U.S." --sony-youth talk 15:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The British Isles is not the same thing as, for example, UK and Ireland. The British Isles is a geographic term for a group of islands. The UK and Ireland are two countries which happen to be located within that archipelago. What sort of information I was looking for would determine my choice of search. Mucky Duck 12:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Then the reversal in search interests between UK and Irish residents is surprising. Why would you suggest that UK residents search so much more often for "British Isles" compared to "UK and Ireland" and Irish residents search so much more often for "UK and Ireland" compared to "British Isles"? Why do people internationally only search for "British Isles" and not "UK and Ireland"? Oh wait, if you read this article it might give you a clue. --sony-youth talk 15:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Possibly because British Isles is disliked by some Irish. What's your point? Mucky Duck 15:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Nothing very much beyond just that. It wasn't my intention to make a point. just answer a question.


 * The original poster asked, "What is the name most widely used for the entire group of islands in this region of the world?" Well, Google Trends is a measure of what terms people use when searching the internet. We do not know what they meant by these terms just that they used them. And, yes, of course UK and Ireland is not the same as British Isles, since it does not mention the Isle of Man (Channel Islands would not need to be included since many definitions leave them out), but it is a very close approximate being 99.8% of the surface area - accepting British Isles as a geographic term. The data does of course include misleading searches for both terms (in which case there is also a argument to be made that erroneous data on each side would cancel the other out), but there are some hints to believe that for the most part people are using terms broadly synonymously: the sudden switch in incidence of the terms when crossing the Irish sea, the 50:50 split in Belfast, the negligible incidence of "UK and Ireland" internationally. If the terms are not for the larger part being used synonymously then what are the reasons for these regional differences in proportionate incidence?


 * I know this is a very crude measure, that's why I marked it as such in my post, and I don't mean it in any way so as to make "a point" but only to answer the original question. If you crudely take these searches as being synonymous then residents of Ireland search for "UK and Ireland" by a margin of 4:1, UK residents for "British Isles" by a margin of 2:1, and internationally "British Isles" is searched for almost exclusively.


 * A clearer version of the results is here (with the permutation for "UK and Ireland" collapsed into one.) --sony-youth talk 17:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Google trends is looking over a very short timeline. Linguistic changes happen more slowly. For instance, as far as I know Michelin used to make maps of the British Isles. Now they make maps of Great Britain and Ireland. Collins (at least on Amazon.com) have maps of Great Britain and Ireland, not the British Isles. These changes are slow. Looking for a trend over two years is unlikely to tell you anything. The Lions changed name in 2001. That's very recent. Hughsheehy 14:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Besides, apart from what people are looking for, what are they finding? (we've been here before, so for lots of discussion go to the archive pages).  Look for number of results on the various terms and it tells you a lot.  Also, have a look at the first few pages of results for the various terms.  It's illuminating.  "british isles" brings up WP (and mirrors) and some sites that don't actually define the British Isles the way that they're "supposed to".  "Great Britain and Ireland" brings up societies...TONS of them, books, maps, and a few historical references to the King/Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.  "British Isles and Ireland" brings up a few hits, again mostly associations and maps and sailing events (funny that), plus a BBC webpage where the name stayed the same but the content changed recently (from using British Isles and Ireland to just British Isles).  It's interesting.
 * Note, Collins maps actually use "British Isles and Ireland". Above I said they used "Great Britain and Ireland".  My mistake.  Hughsheehy 14:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Collins maps do not use British Isles and Ireland. Amazon pages referring to them occasionally do, which is not the same thing at all.--86.31.237.222 11:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, the back of Collins Maps of Great Britain and Ireland refers to them being extracted from the Collins digital maps of Great Britain and Ireland. No mention of "British Isles".  83.33.183.87 19:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Great Britain and Ireland are the names of the two largest islands within the British Isles archeopelego. Using those terms means that its excluding the Isle of Wight, The Isle of Man, the Western Isles of Scotland, the Orkyneys, the Shetlands, the Isles of Scily. According to the wikipedia page on the British Isles - a total of 6'000 islands to be precise not just two big ones. It appears that Collins Maps of Great Britian and Ireland is using the names in a geo-political sense which doesn't exist. They are the names of islands not political entities. Mabuska 11:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * And "British" is the adjectival form of the United Kingdom and related entities. Puts us in a mess then doesn't it? Oh god! Now even National Geographic are getting in on this: "Britain and Ireland"? --sony-youth pléigh 12:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I suppose if you want to call Great Britain, Britain, in a short hand way its not too incorrect. However at least National Geographic on that link you supplied state the map of the British Isles Mabuska 21:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * In a schizoid way - the store calls it a "British Isles Political Map", the map itself is labelled "Britain and Ireland" - unless, of course, the terms are interchangable? (I'd have more to say about Great Britain vs. Britain al la the OED saying that Britain is the term for the island while Great Britain is term for the political union of that island, but anyway ...) --sony-youth pléigh 09:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Reference removed
I have removed a small section stating that BI is not a term used in the Interpretation Act, firstly because the reference is utterly inadequate: an obscure report of unclear status which only touches on the matter tangentially, and since the writing of which the Interpretation ACt has been amended, secondly because the reference is unclear and out of context in any case, and thirdly because the sentence implies an official disapproval of the term ('likewise' to the Irish disapproval mentioned above') when the reality is that the term British Isles is not mentioned in the Act because it is a geographic rather than a legal term, and that as large parts of it are not under British sovereignty inclusion of it in a British Act would be bizarre. --86.31.237.222 11:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Mediation request
Is this dispute still active or can it be closed? --Ideogram 01:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Closing. If you need it reopened leave a note on my talk page. --Ideogram 01:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Perspectives in Britain/Ireland
Given the context, is it appropriate to use the words Britain and Ireland (disambiguation) in the titles of the subsections? Perhaps it would be better to have three sections, for Perspectives in "Great Britain", "Northern Ireland" and "Republic of Ireland". jnestorius(talk) 20:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Problem with a reference
In the "Perspectives in Britain" section, the comment "many in Britain still misuse the term" is backed up by a reference (note 10 at the time of writing) to a BBC article. However, as the footnote text says, "[t]he page was changed in February 2007" and no longer uses the term "a small country such as the British Isles". That being so, surely it's no longer verifiable, therefore no longer an acceptable reference, and so the "many in Britain still misuse the term" text should either be backed up with a currently verifiable reference or removed altogether? (Actually, one example of that usage on its own isn't really enough for "many in Britain" anyway!) Loganberry (Talk) 01:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It also does not show that "many on Britain ... misuse the term". It shows that the BBC once did and then corrected themselves. --sony-youth pléigh 07:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I've taken it out now, for the reasons given above. Also the sentence following, which rather depended on the "many in Britain" bit and didn't make much sense on its own. I've closed up the text there instead. Loganberry (Talk) 14:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It was easily verifiable with the Wayback machine. Also, that reference was left in as ONE example of misuse.  MANY more examples had been given.  Dear Loganberry, please put the reference back.  83.33.183.87 19:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

nonsense
Public use of terms like 'These Islands', 'Western Islands' and even the 'Hibernian Archipelago' are common in Ireland

I have never once heard these terms used in Ireland, they might be used by the papers every now and again but to call them common is a plain lie. Plokt


 * Marked with dubious - really I'm only going to give it few hours before removing it. "Hibernian Archipelago"??? Its preposterous! --sony-youth pléigh 09:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Marcel Berlins link
I don't think "writing in The Guardian in 2006" is a good enough reference, especially as there's no mention in the actual footnote of the date it was published. I know it was there - I remember reading it - but as of now it's not fully verifiable, which is bad. Loganberry (Talk) 14:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Opinion (and way off the mark as well)
"... to most Irish people a person's nation can only be English, Scottish, Welsh or Cornish and 'Britishness' implies being from the island of Britain' - Who the hell wrote this and what asylum allowed them access to a computer? --sony-youth pléigh 09:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Britain ->British Isles
I've marked as dubious the sentence that "[people in Britain] point out that the term British Isles, referring to the archapelago, is historically older than the term "Britain", and that Great Britain takes its name from the archipelago." My reasons for this is weakly because it is uncited (although I actually believe that it is true that people claim this). However, picking up a dictionary will show that it is in fact the other way around.

The OED puts "British Isles" at 1621 and "Britain" at 1297. So its more the claim that is dubious rather that what is claimed that people in Britain would say it. This needs to be clarified. --sony-youth pléigh 09:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, but that's for the precise term "British Isles", which is a derivitive of an older term "Islands of Brittania" which dates back to Roman times. See .  I'm removing the dubious tag. JulesH 18:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Not precisely. The term in English was calqued from Latin in 1621, following an absence from use of a millennium and a half. The author attributed with coining it by the OED explained his invention of term (as he would have had to, since it would have been alien to his readership) on the basis that: 1. Ireland must have populated by people from Britain, as Britain was closer to the continent; 2. The Romans had said that the inhabitants of Ireland were not much unlike the inhabitants of Britain; 3. The Romans, up until after their invasion of the Britain, had called the islands by the term. Strangely, he didn't suggest that the island of Britain be renamed Albion, as it had been for the same Roman cartographers - maybe because that term was, at that time, more closely related to the Kingdom of Scotland, whereas Britain was most closely related to Kingdom of England. The author's geographic works are dismissed in modern times (as with most geographic from the time) as nationalist polemics that "demonstrated their authors' specific political identities by the languages and arguments they deployed."
 * I'll mark it again with {fact}. --sony-youth pléigh 19:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

British vs. Irish
"In modern times it is more common to use "British" in relation to the United Kingdom or Great Britain and "Irish" in relation to the island of Ireland or to the Republic of Ireland" This is not just modern times (unless you are speaking specifically about RoI.) Irish people have been called Irish since they stopped being called Scots (i.e. a long long time). --sony-youth pléigh 10:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposed merger
I propose that the section on "Names of the islands through the ages" from the British Isles article be merged in here. The information there is more relevent to this article in terms of background/historical information. It's out of place (for such a long section) in the main British Isles article unless its current significance is understood. --sony-youth pléigh 10:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The length of the section is a good point, but it's about more than the relatively recent naming dispute. If it was made a separate article on its own, these articles and others could refer to it and incorporate brief summary style statements as needed. How about "Names of the British Isles through the ages" for a title? .. dave souza, talk 10:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yup. I supported that before and still do. (Wasn't that discussion were we came across that fantastic word toponym? Still great.) --sony-youth pléigh 10:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I must have missed out on that - that is a great word. Re the merger, I think it's a good plan and support the reasoning, but not the destination - wouldn't British Isles (terminology) be a be a better place? Waggers 11:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * (And regarding Dave's point - doesn't British Isles (terminology) already fit the bill?) Waggers 11:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Why merge historical fact into a dispute page? The historical names of the islands are not in dispute. Historical fact about the British Isles is relevant in the British Isles article, not in a naming dispute page. 83.33.183.87 19:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The section may need to be shortened as it seems to have a few bits that are too long, but it is one of the most interesting sections on the whole page. It's hardly something to put under a dispute page - since it isn't in dispute.  Similarly, hardly something to disguise as a terminology page, since it isn't an issue of semantics.  It's history.  What needs to be re-done on this page is the rest of the history section, which is *ehem* crap.  81.32.184.207 19:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Spot on. I've replied on the main BI page with more explanation, as I think you've got the wrong end of the stick with what I mean about the section there. 81.32.184.207 criticism of merging with the terminology section is correct, I believe. I also think it would just get lost. --sony-youth pléigh 20:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, let me try and summarise where we are so far...
 * 81.32.184.207 thinks the section should stay in British Isles. Sony and I disagree, mainly because it draws too much attention to the naming of the islands instead of the geography, culture(s), climate etc. of the islands themselves, which is what the BI article is supposed to be all about.
 * sony-youth thinks the section should be moved to British Isles naming dispute but 81.32.184.207 and I disagree with that because the section isn't really about a dispute but a history of the names given to the islands.
 * I think the section should be moved to British Isles (terminology) but Sony and 81.32.184.207 disagree as they feel the section would become swamped or lost within that article.
 * Sony's preferred option is, as dave souza also suggested, moving the section to an article of its own.
 * Given that the latter seems to have the most support of the four options, perhaps we should indeed be going for a separate article? I'm happy to support that approach too. Waggers 09:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It attracts too much attention to the naming of the islands instead of the geography (etc), which is what the article is supposed to be about? Again, highly puzzled!  Why is the article supposed to be about some things, but not about others? Is there an approved list somewhere of what the page should be about?  The section is too long and rambles somewhat, particularly in the section about Geoffrey of Monmouth and around the Elizabethans.  Also, detailed explanations of books like the Massilote are given on their own pages and don't need to be in the section    However, as a whole the section is highly interesting.  Better to shorten it, then see if a merger or move is still worth discussing.  If the problem is that it's too long then moving it before trying to shorten it would seem odd.  81.32.184.207 10:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * What I mean is that the British Isles article is about the British Isles, not the name of the British Isles - there's a danger of too much emphasis being placed on the terminology and naming dispute, both of which already have articles of their own.  The reason they have articles of their own is to (a) keep the balance of content right in the BI article and (b) to stop the BI article from becoming too long.  So with that in mind, shortening the section in question before considering the merge proposal may be a good idea.  I suggest that any changes are proposed on the BI talk page for discussion before actually being made though, to ensure that other editors have sufficient opportunity to contribute. Waggers 10:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, the British Isles article has seen quite some back-and-forth debate about just how much mention the article should make regarding the strong dislike that many Irish citizens (myself included) have of the term. The current arrangement - clearly and concisely mentioning that it is a controversial term and providing a link to a separate specific discussion - is the best compromise we could collectively work out (and a pretty nice one I think). If you want to see the alternative, I suggest you read through the 'British Isles' discussion history...and put a few DAYS aside for the job! I do warn you that the fierce editting war we had over a year ago could easily be reignited, so it's best to leave this as is. Kind regards, Pconlon 12:49, 12 June 2007 (GMT)


 * Thanks, Pconlon, fully agree. Regarding the query raised by 81.32.184.207, when articles grow too long, longer sections should be spun off into their own articles and a several paragraph summary should be left in its place. See Summary style for the guideline on this. ... dave souza, talk 12:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Valid point Dave. As an alternative, could we remove the rest of the History section as there is already a main page for the History of the British Isles, and the content on this page is *ehem* crap.  Then, by shortening the section on names to a more reasonable length we'd have a shorter page with highly interesting content which could be appraised anew.  Hughsheehy 16:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Double support - but what about "my" timeline?? throw it out (with the bath water?)? --<span style="font-family:Zapfino, sans-serif">sony-youth pléigh 18:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Guys (or ladies if you are!), you really need to listen to Dave Souza, 81.32.184.207 and myself here - all of us well-intentioned Wikipedia contributors. There needs to be a dedicated 'British Isles Naming Dispute' article...one that in a direct and concise way addresses the issue - any comprehensive encyclopedic coverage of the subject should include it. (Hughsheehy, I see your 'crap' comment above - shame on you!!). If you remove this article (by deletion or merger) you will I believe be doing Wikipedia a disservice...leaving the door open to yet another, inevitable editting war...you can guarantee that someone will insert into the introduction something like: The term is officially rejected by the government of the Republic of Ireland due to the mistaken implication it gives of British control over...etc You may as well say: 'Go on, light the blue touch paper!!' Btw, sorry I've been a way for a bit - I recently got engaged...it's all been happening here!:O) Kind regards, Pconlon 00:50, 19 June 2007 (GMT)


 * I don't think anyone is suggesting to remove this article. What is being suggested is the merge this "Origins of the term"-like section from the main BI page in here, or to spin it out as a seperate article, or to merge it with the terminology page. I believe the "crap" comment was in relation to the History of the British Isles page, which, admittedly, is *ehem* crap, and the suggestion was to merge the history section from the main BI page in there. --<span style="font-family:Zapfino, sans-serif">sony-youth pléigh 11:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, I missed that 'History of the British Isles' discussion - yes, that idea certainly is one with an unattractive brown colour and a foul odour!! Thanks Sony-youth for the clarification...very well said Hughsheehy!


 * I see where you are coming from on the merger suggestion, however the thing is that the dispute/controversy over the 'BI' term is such a heated issue that it rather needs to be kept separate - both so that it can be accessed directly and that the topic won't explode elsewhere. To merge it with an 'Origins of the Term' article would bury it and probably result in the ruination of that article! Several of us started fighting a long time ago to have the controversial nature of the term alluded to in the introduction of the main BI article. This we happily now have - with its place protected by being a link to this separate article directly addressing the issue.


 * Whatever the origin of the BI term - however many references to Roman map makers or what have you - the present day implication in the adjective 'British' of ownership by Britain and her government means that BI is a term that simply cannot be acceptable to anyone who truly values the independence we won at such huge cost. Wherever it may have come from is irrelevant to this fact! Best regards, Pconlon 20:47, 23 June 2007 (GMT)


 * Hi Guys, can we now lay to rest this debate on merging this article with anything else? Sony-youth, you proposed a merger - might you now be convinced that we do need a distinct 'British Isles naming dispute' article? Best regards, Pconlon 12:49, 27 June 2007 (GMT)
 * Sony-youth did not propose a merger of this article into another article. He proposed a merger from a section of another article into this article. Waggers 12:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

As one of the people involved in much of the content in what's now the "names through the ages" section (along with Sony) I'm working on a heavily shortened version. It'll take a while. I'll point people at my Sandbox once it's ready for review. Again, that's for the main BI page. Hughsheehy 20:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Scholarly opinion
I'd like to begin a section on scholarly opinion, as that is an area where they appears to be a lot of discussion about the name issue. For that end I've created a subpage (like on the main BI page) for references. I've only just done this so, there's only one at the moment. Please add more as you find them. Thank. --<span style="font-family:Zapfino, sans-serif">sony-youth pléigh 15:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Didn´t Eric have a page full of references? It would be worth it to either put your material on his page or copy  his material onto your page.  Hughsheehy 09:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:British_Isles/References for lots of references. Perhaps best not to have multiple separate pages? Perhaps the ones here could be a separate category?  84.146.140.29 23:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Lough Neagh
There's been an edit dispute over at Lough Neagh regarding the description of the British Isles. I'm trying to get a little discussion going, and would be interested in getting people's thoughts over at Talk:Lough Neagh. Thanks, Mark Chovain 23:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the upshot consensus is that THIS article must be renamed "British and Irish Islands naming dispute" instead. --feline1 15:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I've removed Great Brtian and Ireland from Lough Neagh and kept out British Isles. So far, nobody has objected and the dispute seems to have ended. GoodDay 22:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Only because the heads of the various protagonists literally exploded. (Actually, that's not true- one died of a ruptured gall bladder)--feline1 09:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Flags issue again
I can understand (though do not agree with) not using the Union flag in the representation of Northern Ireland at the bottom of the article - but why is the Ulster banner not part of the Historic states section ?? --Dionysus99 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dionysus99 (talk • contribs) 05:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)