Wikipedia talk:British Isles Terminology task force/Specific Examples/Archive 25

Strict observation of WP:CIVIL etc
Because there is a likelyhood that discussions tend to get overheated on this topic, what do other editors feel about a strict implemtation of WP:CIVIL and no personal comments or ad-hominen attacks? We might end up making more progress if the discussion steered away from the usual problematic behaviour that tends to clog up discussion pages and slow progress. If enough editors agree to this suggestion, perhaps we could ask an admin to make decisions on how to deal with transgressions... --HighKing (talk) 17:10, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've no prob with that, the best way to go is the Spicoli way. Be cool & patient folks. GoodDay (talk) 17:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem with such rules if a neutral admin is to enforce them, perhaps User:Black Kite would? One thing that should be done is to inform certain editors about this page who may not notice it, but would take part. Clearly those who have reverted original attempts to remove British Isles from the page should be informed atleast. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:43, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Coal measure
This article currently statea:
 * The Coal Measures is a lithostratigraphical term used mainly in the British Isles for the coal-bearing part of the Upper Carboniferous System.

Arguments against

 * No reference. Current guidelines state that Unless the term 'British Isles' is being used in a purely technical context (such as geology, archaeology or natural history), reliable sources should be found to support its use. --HighKing (talk) 00:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a generic term, not specific at all to the "British Isles". The sentence should read The Coal Measures is a lithostratigraphical term for the coal-bearing part of the Upper Carboniferous System. --HighKing (talk) 20:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Arguments for

 * This book titled The stratigraphy of the British Isles By Dorothy Helen Rayner goes into detail about coal measures in Britain and Ireland. This is clear justification for the British Isles to remain. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's another ref . There's loads of stuff referring to coal measure in Ireland. This is a straight geological article so the current guidelines apply (not that I support those "guidelines" in any way. They were cobbled together in an attempt to curtail use of British Isles in Wikipedia). MidnightBlue   (Talk)  18:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * MDM, if you don't support the current guidelines, this is the opportunity to help "fix" them. --HighKing (talk) 20:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't believe we need guidelines. In most articles use of British Isles is incidental to the subject, and in nearly all cases you can argue for or against it; there's no right or wrong. Obviously there are a small number of exceptions where it's clear that the term should, or shouldn't be used, but they are very much the exception. None of the articles being discussed here fall into that bracket. If I come across one that does, I'll point it out. Over the last few weeks British Isles has been added to some articles and deleted, or de-linked, from others. In most cases this has been in the normal course of editing. I've noted a few where the term has been deleted for what one might call political reasons, but there have been no such additions of the term. MidnightBlue   (Talk)  20:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I too do not support or have any faith in previous guidelines developed on use of British Isles. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Please read the main page here, especially the section "Stonewalling is not acceptable". The purpose of this task force is to agree guidelines.  We've tried the approach involving diging the heels in and it's not productive.  Claiming any and all usage is good usage isn't much of an argument.  Trying to disavow the work to date without discussion isn't productive either.  I suggest you either work *with* this group to progress understanding and to develop guidelines, or get involved in another project...  So.  If you've a specific issue with the current guidelines, open a new section below and we can try to discuss and resolve. --HighKing (talk) 21:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not stonewalling. I am not going to take part in the task force. I reject the guidelines. We do not need them and they have no consensus (see my previous comments). I will, however, comment on your deletion proposals. Could you not go to another project? MidnightBlue   (Talk)  21:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, if you're not going to take part and contribute positively, this isn't the place for your comments. WP is not a battleground.  --HighKing (talk) 21:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * We are here to give feedback on your suggested removals of British Isles from different articles. We can all contribute to this without agreeing with or making alterations to the guidelines which clearly havnt prevented this problem from continuing over the years. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That isn't the purpose of the guidelines. If you're not, in good faith, willing to participate in agreeing guidelines, then you're wasting your time.  --HighKing (talk) 07:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Question: Is this article about geology or terminology? There are a number of articles on terminology that state that a term is popular or in use or common within the British Isles.  This appears to be a non-technical use, and considering that there are many dialects across the islands, is this strictly speaking correct?  Is there a better alternative such as "UK and Ireland" as recommended by current guidelines?
 * Question: Should we simply try to find references. If none exist, what is the best alternative term?
 * If there's no reference to be found, might aswell use the United Kingdom & Ireland. If the UK and Ireland are used seperately? put them as Ireland and United Kingdom (alphabetical order). GoodDay (talk) 14:48, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * GoodDay, while geology, as a subject, can encompass the "British Isles" as the entire island group has much in common, this article appears to be stating that this specific terminology is common to the British Isles - yet it's clear that the term is also used *outside* the British Isles. The article isn't entitled "Coal Measures in the British Isles"....  So what guidelines should exist for terminology?  --HighKing (talk) 20:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know. GoodDay (talk) 20:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Starting again
Looking at the above examples it seems to me as follows: - In respect of political articles of any nature the term Britain and Ireland is reasonable, as it applies to the pre 1922 period as much as that after. Britain and Ireland remained separate Kingdoms during all periods up to Irish independence - In respect of geography, British Isles is a valid and reasonable term In the above examples that would mean two (Philosopher & History) become B&I, one remains BI

It is (I hope we would agree) as foolish and as POV to insist on the use BI as it is to insist on its deletion. -- Snowded TALK  07:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. First off, we've a format above for trying to create and understand general guidelines that will help us to quickly skip past repetitive arguments when we look at articles.  I'm fine with "Starting again", but what format are we going to use?
 * I'm unhappy with the classification that I'm insisting on it's deletion (if that is being directed at me). This is a fallacy, which proves to me that when disruption occurs, all editors get tainted.  You probably understand that in the context of Rand articles... I'm absolutely not insisting on deletion and attempting to address this through the usage of guidelines.
 * And yes, geology (and geography) is one of those subjects that deals with the British Isles as a whole. But the article on Coal Measures above is dealing with terminology, not simply the geology.  Do we simply state that because it's related to geology, it should use the term?  How would we translate that into a generic guidelines?  --HighKing (talk) 08:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry i disagree, i do not support this idea that British isles should be replaced by Britain and Ireland where possible. Reliable sources can be found using British Isles in 2 of the 3 examples there for they should stay the same, and the one on the person should be removed (the whole sentence should) because its unsourced. The one on coal is talking about dealing with coal within a geographical location, the one on French invaders is talking about their attempts to invade a geographical location. Only the person one is valid for removal, however if a source or two were found using the term British Isles, then i would not support its removal.  BritishWatcher (talk) 09:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What has that to do with guidelines for future articles? --HighKing (talk) 10:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The point is when ever the British Isles is mentioned its always for geography. All 3 things in your list use the term in that way, talking about a geographical location, so if we agreed to something like Snowded is suggesting, there is no case for removing any of the examples you have mentioned above and i doubt there are others that should be removed. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:34, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The Coal Measures is a lithostratigraphical term used mainly in Europe
 * During his life, Bradley was one of the most respected philosophers in Europe
 * The invasion was one of several abandoned attempts during the eighteenth century to invade Europe

Nothing at all is wrong with the above statements provided they are sourced. Europe is not used in a political way there, it is describing a location on this earth, there for its use is geography. I strongly oppose the idea that British Isles can only be used in certain topics / articles, thats very unreasonable, unless we are defining a small list of where it should be avoided. To try and restrict its use to just certain topics is unacceptable. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, your first example on "Coal Measures" appears to agree that it is a (technical) terminology issue, not a geology issue. As such, normal rules of references can be applied.  Current guidelines already state that comparitive sentences should avoid British Isles when the context is inherently Irish or inherently British.  Your point about using geographical locations referring to invasions needs more consideration - perferably not just talking about this specific article, but considering articles in general also.  --HighKing (talk) 13:47, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Britain and Ireland is an acceptable alternative usage IMHO (yeah, I know about the Isle of Man & Channel islands). GoodDay (talk) 13:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What guidelines? From what I can see "the guidelines" were merely an attempt to limit usage of British Isles due in the main to a dislike of the term on the part of a group of editors. You cannot assert that the guidelines are binding. They are not even advisory. We do not need guidelines for the incidental use of British Isles. MidnightBlue   (Talk)  17:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You're asking the wrong bloke. GoodDay (talk) 17:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The use of the term British Isles is controversial, hence the need for guidelines. It is as bad  to insist on its use as it is to remove it without cause.  What is clear is that it is a valid geographical term, it was (but not universally) used as a political reference during the days of Empire but it no longer has any political meaning or significance.  We do have two groups, one of who wants tio remove it from all articles and the other of whom really wish the Empire was still around and continue to insist on the use of that language.  We need to move away from both extreme positions and produce some guidelines to prevent edit wars etc. etc.   My outline suggest is the geography/political split.  If we could agree on that then we could work through examples. -- Snowded  TALK  20:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "and the other of whom really wish the Empire was still around and continue to insist on the use of that language." Well you can kiss goodbye to reasonable compromise here with that statement, so much for you being a neutral editor on this matter lmao.
 * I strongly oppose the removal of British Isles from the coal article and the invasion one. I still have no feelings on the one about the guy except the whole sentence should be deleted. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:07, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This is getting really tiresome (and 80% of your edits BW start with "I strongly oppose", its becoming a mantra). I stated the two extreme views which are present, its not just an agenda to remove BI from some editors, there is a movement on the other side as well.  I would hope BW that you were not a part of that ....  -- Snowded  TALK  20:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You started off neutral in ur paragraph Snowded, you mentioned both sides. You decided for some reason to asign an offensive motive for one of those groups yet you simply said the other group wants the complete removal of British Isles.. with no suggested motive, that is not neutral.
 * I too am getting rather tired of having to oppose things in the past 48 hours, it goes to show theres alot of nonsense across wikipedia doesnt it. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I stated that there were extremes on both sides and you overreacted. My comment was a balance one, the motivations of those who want to remove it have been repeated all to often.  As to your opposition I think you should note some of the wider comments about your interventions being made by editors who are normally close to your position, let alone those of us who are far away from it.  That aside, the idea of this page is to try and move things forward.  Acknowledge there are extremes on BOTH sides, this is not just a debate initiated and driven by Irish nationalists.  It therefore behoves editors of good will to try and resolve things (and I doubt if anyone is really neutral by the way).  -- Snowded  TALK  20:21, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Your statement clearly can not be balanced when you only state a reason for one side doing something. You could have said there are some who want British Isles removed from every article, and some who want it added to any article where possible. Not that theres much evidence that British Isles is actively being added to articles like we can obviously see happen when it comes to removal.
 * I have no problem with us getting guidelines of when British Isles should not be used, but this idea that it can be divided into political / geography just does not make sense to me. In every case listed above the British Isles is used as a location, making it geography just the way using Europe in each of the examples is, if we put Europe there its obvious we aint talking about political Europe, like the European Union. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * A geography/political split seems a workable solution. GoodDay (talk) 20:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * How are the 3 examples listed above not using the term British Isles in a geographical way? BritishWatcher (talk) 20:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I find it difficult to seperate geographic from political, when it comes to the usage/non-usage of British Isles. GoodDay (talk) 20:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * So perhaps it wouldn't be a workable solution, then? MidnightBlue   (Talk)  20:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What I find difficult, might be easy for others. As I've often mentioned, these things tend to be over my head. GoodDay (talk) 20:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Lol dont worry its not just over your head Goodday, this is the problem with the proposal. It doesnt state how exactly something is defined as political, for me all the cases listed above are not political they are using British Isles in a geographical sense. If we said "The British Isles declared war on Germany", then clearly theres a problem, thats political. A location doesnt declare war on somewhere else. But saying someone else is trying to invade a location is perfectly acceptable. Saying someone is well known in a location (if sourced) is perfectly acceptable. Saying certain measures are most widely known / used in a certain location is perfectly acceptable. Thats why with the exception of the unsourced one on the guy, i dont see anything wrong with the British Isles being used in such cases. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * F H Bradley - what is unsouced, the fact that he was a leading philosopher, or a leading philosopher in the British Isles? I think mention of BI may have been derived from the 1911 Britannica, but why pick on this element of the dialogue? There are no sources in the article at all, and there are much more important assertions being made than the one that just happens to mention the British Isles. Was he a leading philosopher of his age? Did he live in the British Isles? And please! Don't anyone tell me that's synthesis. MidnightBlue   (Talk)  21:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * (conflict)Yes, there are two groups. One group, as you say, would like to remove the term from all articles, but there is just one of their number who systematically tries to remove it, and has been doing so, on and off, for over two years. The other group seeks to maintain the usage and sees attempts to remove it as an assualt on "Britishness". It's nothing really to do with the former British Empire and I think you'd be hard pressed to find any editor who longs for the days of Empire. The key difference between the two groups is that one of them merely wishes to maintain the status quo; the other seeks to change the balance of usage, for what I take to be essentially political reasons. We all acknowledge that the term is purely geographic, but that fact should not preclude its use in the way that HighKing would like. My biggest complaint is that we have one editor who tirelessly campaigns against the use of British Isles and it causes a great deal of aggravation. It really isn't worth it, given that most of the usage is of an incidental nature. I've been monitoring usage of British Isles for a few weeks now and I've noted additions and deletions (the total number of instances, both linked and unlinked is slowly increasing), but in most cases this has been during normal editing activity. I've picked up a few "gratuitous" deletions, and in some cases I've wrongly labelled edits as such, but overall, the situation is stable. We really do not need an editor targetting British Isles usage in the way that HighKing does. As for the guidelines, they were drawn up in an attempt to control and limit usage of the term. They didn't receive any sort of consensus, so I can't accept them. MidnightBlue   (Talk)  20:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Some of us have been around to remember your days as an IP editor on this MidnightBlue. You can't say that one group is good, and the other guys are reasonable here.  Its more complex than that and we need to move forward.  -- Snowded  TALK  20:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, but consider this; if HighKing didn't bother about British Isles usage would we all not be a happier, more productive group of editors? The usage would be gradually corrected - if "corrected" is the right word - and guidelines would eventaully evolve, as they have done in many other areas. Improvement would be organic, which is better than heaping a certain type of fertiliser all over the place. MidnightBlue   (Talk)  20:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

This whole process is flawed because it is founded on two very false premises: (1) that a geographical term used in a "political" article or sentence suddenly transforms it from a geographical term to a political term and (2) that there is some meaning of "British Isles" in 2009 that is political. From these premises the following conclusion is drawn on which the proposed policy is based: that there are "OK" (geographic) and "not OK" (political) uses. This will doubtless elicit a response from Snowded that I'm just rehashing the same arguments and can we please move on, but that would be missing the point. The point is, it's putting the cart before the horse to ask people to agree to some proposed rules when it's the assumptions behind those rules that are contested. Until we can all agree that "British Isles" and "Britain and Ireland" are synonymous and therefore can be switched without any change in meaning, and that it's simply a matter of preference to choose one over the other, I don't see how any of this will work. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 22:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * So "without prejudice" if we assumed that are interchangeable would you, to avoid conflict, agree to using B&I on political articles? -- Snowded  TALK  20:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * (Did you read what I wrote?) What difference does it make whether the article is "political" or "geographical"?   The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 21:07, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Cool it AGF.  I was testing an idea, you say it doesn't make a difference so why not agree something to reduce disputes.  However I get the impression, not just from this one, that you are taking an absolutist position on this one - which is a pity.  -- Snowded  TALK  21:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * For your information, I'm both cool and AGFing. My problem with your proposal - aside from its foundation upon an arbitrary rule invented by you which no reliable source supports - is that for the BI-naysayers, there is no usage which is OK.  The best we can say is: on the whole, most British people (including their government) think nothing of it, many Irish people (including their government) find it objectionable.  Folens deal with that by changing usage depending on where they publish their atlas.  We can do the same by applying a British/Irish English rule per WP policies.  This also means, where it's not clear, leave things as they are (equivalent to the agreement between HK and TC to not add/remove the term).  It's the worst solution apart from all the others.  I've suggested this before many times, and I don't think people have discussed it enough.   The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 21:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Not to get off topic but, what happened to the 'agreement' between HighKing & TharkunColl? GoodDay (talk) 22:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What was the agreement? and has TharkunColl been invited to take part in this debate here? BritishWatcher (talk) 22:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * One agreed to not remove British Isles from articles & the other agreed to not add British Isles to articles. PS- I'm not sure if Tharky knows of this discussion. GoodDay (talk) 22:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * lol ahh i see, Highking should invite him if hes not been informed. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Totally agree with the 2 points mentioned, i just dont understand how any of the examples mentioned above are not using the term British isles in a geographical way. They dont seem to be political to me. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)Take a look above at how the discussion disintegrated into personal comments. Is started with general comments concerning motivation, and ended up naming editors. Can we learn to avoid exactly this type of argument in furture. It is totally unproductive, winds people up, and ultimately serves no useful purpose. Future comments of this sort should simply be struck out. --HighKing (talk) 07:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry folks, I didn't mean to cause any sparks. I was just being curious, nothing more. GoodDay (talk) 20:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I dont think he was blaming you. But can someone invite TharkunColl + others who have been involved in recent times with this issue to get further input to get us back on topic. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've advised Tharky to follow my contributions to here. GoodDay (talk) 18:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * There are clearly going to be some examples in which is it difficult to split the geographical term from the political one, and those are the ones where we need to be the most careful to avoid the sort of revert wars that we saw before. Hence the existence of this page.  But there is absolutely no point in having this page exist if the discussions are just going to descend into, if not personal attacks, then certainly personal comments.  This is effectively an extended talkpage for a number of articles, and NPA and CIVIL apply just as much here as they do elsewhere.  If you can't make your point about the article issues without referring to other editors, then don't make the point.  This should not be a difficult concept. Black Kite 09:47, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree as personal attacks and insults can have a debilitating effect on the recipient of the attack, resulting in collateral damage to the Wikipedia project on the whole.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * That's my mantra, too. GoodDay (talk) 17:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Er... If the mantra is "if you can't make your point without attacking other editors then don't make it", fine. But there is nothing wrong with mentioning or referring to other editors. Let's not twist NPA and CIVIL into something they are not.  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 20:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * As long as the reference to a particular editor involves an event or comment made recently. There's no need to check the archives to uncover comments made three months (or years!) ago just to put the editor in a negative light.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

GoodDay Proposal
Would I be assuming right, that my 'Britain and Ireland' alternative usage is a no-go? GoodDay (talk) 20:08, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * which is, again..? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 20:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * We do this: A re-direct linkage - 'British Isles|Britain and Ireland' for predominantly Irish articles. GoodDay (talk) 20:15, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * As that reflects the British vs Irish English distinction I've been arguing for (rather than a conjured-up geographical vs political distinction which cannot be seen in reliable sources), I'm OK with that. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 22:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Umm i strongly oppose linking anything to the stupid article created at Britain and Ireland if that was part of the suggestion. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think he means Britain and Ireland. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 09:32, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh if thats the case id have less disagreement with the proposal but im sure it would be just as opposed as putting British Isles without a pipelink would be by those who hate the term. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:11, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I oppose it. The suggestion implies that's there's something wrong with British Isles; there isn't. And I'm convinced that the majority of Irishmen don't have a problem with the term. It's just the opinionated minority, who are drawn to Wikipedia, that do. I agree with BW about Britain and Ireland. It's a thoroughly stupid article that should be deleted. MidnightBlue   (Talk)  14:32, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ahh come on MBM, take a risk. GoodDay (talk) 15:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree that this is necessary at this point. I'm with MBM, although it's tiresome that he's still making points based on editors and motivations rather than content.  It's not like it's a difficult concept to grasp.  Anyway, I think the first thing to do is to agree guidelines on usage so that it makes it easy to grasp when the term is used geographically and when it is used politically or geopolitically.  I'm not in agreement that the term should be banned from "Irish" articles (e.g. The Shannon is the longest river in the British Isles is fine with me).  In fact, let's specifically avoid these types of discussions for now.  --HighKing (talk) 17:06, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh well folks, it was an idea. GoodDay (talk) 17:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreement not to go around mass-deleting the term and agreement not to go around mass-adding the term (ie, preserve the status quo) seems like the best we can achieve. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 17:58, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That's acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 18:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What's acceptable exactly? To keep using the term incorrectly in many articles?  --HighKing (talk) 19:03, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I reckon so, unless a compromise can be worked out. I plum out of ideas. GoodDay (talk) 19:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * HighKing - I'm yet to see an article where "British Isles" is used "politically", ie to mean that there is, or indeed was, a single political entity called "the British Isles". Can you point to one?   The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 19:25, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I would agree to no further changes (no more adding BI and no more removing it), the trouble with that is even if all of us follow that agreement we cant stop others adding the term, which is likely to happen from time to time and occasionally someone removing it for innocent reasons.
 * I too would also like to see some examples of political use, because some claim some of the examples above are using it in a "political way" which just is not the case.
 * "The British Isles declared war on France = Political and incorrect usage.
 * "The French tried to invade the British Isles = Geographical usage and accurate. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:30, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * In the context of the article named above. The sentence reads "The invasion was one of several abandoned attempts during the eighteenth century to invade the British Isles."  Clearly this is being used in a political context.  --HighKing (talk) 21:27, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I can tell you every time the term is added to an article and every time it is removed. Over the last few days there have been a small number of additions and a significant number of deletions or delinking. Of the additions, all were carried out during what might be called normal editing. Of the deletions, one was clearly politically motivated, others were carried out during normal editing, but the majority were not deletions but delinking by an automated process. That process is here and I wonder what everyone might think of it. It delinked British Isles from List of the busiest airports in the British Isles - clearly a link in this article is valid, so I restored it. Other instances of delinking BI were okay since the term was not fundamental to the article in question. However, what about the principle of the automated procedure? If you look at the code you'll see it arbitrarily delinks a whole host of terms, many of which are countries, regions and nationalities. I noticed it had been used in some articles for mass delinking and had removed key links to countries in articles about a subject relevant to that country. Any thoughts - where might this be reported, if it needs reporting?  MidnightBlue   (Talk)  19:56, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * (e/c) Agreed on your (BW) interpretation of correct/incorrect in those two examples, but the appropriateness of the second depends on the details of the event. (One would say that the Normans invaded England in 1066, not the British Isles, even though, technically they did invade a part of the geographical entity known as the British Isles).   The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 19:57, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * MidnightBlue hmm thats strange. Perhaps speak with the user that did it User:Colonies Chris on their talk page asking about it. Im slightly confused because that Datascript page goes to User:Lightmouse monobook page, and yet on User:lightmouse page it says hes been banned by Arbcom and i see that Colonies Chris was involved and got a couple of blocks. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:47, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The reason i support use of British Isles in that case is because we have got two different authors with books using British Isles in exactly the same sort of way when talking about French invasions, there for it seems reasonable as its fully sourced, and isnt really any need to remove it as far as im concerned. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:51, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * BW, thanks for pointing out the blocks to User:Colonies Chris and User:Lightmouse. I've followed this up at CC's talk page. He's already given me an explanation why he uses it (I disagree with some of what he says about wiki-links). There seems to be a major dispute in the use of this procedure; I'll look into it further. MidnightBlue   (Talk)  21:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm seen the responses, i dont agree with that either. Perhaps as British Isles is very controversial because of the ongoing edit wars, it could be removed from the script somehow to prevetn further removals for that reason. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Puerto Ricans in World War II (Closed, resolved)
Resolved. See  MidnightBlue   (Talk)  21:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a rare example (I have seen them before in older books) where some editors use "British Islands" to refer to the Caribbean islands. --HighKing (talk) 21:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Conclusion
Incorrect substitution of the term "British Isles" for the original text of "British Islands". The author has now clarified. --HighKing (talk) 21:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Is that the right article to be pointing at? British overseas territories which only became a term a few years ago? wouldnt something like British West Indies or just say British territories in the Caribbean?
 * The modern term might make the article easier to understand, but if a precise historical term exists, then I would definitely use that instead. --HighKing (talk) 21:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ive mentioned it on the authors talk page, will let them decide which is the most accurate for the use they want. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration
To be honest folks, I believe it's inevitable that the 'British Isles' usage debate is headed towards Arbitration. GoodDay (talk) 22:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The Ireland naming dispute has proved thats a waste of time. Arbcom doesnt have the guts to take up these sorts of issues, they simply will pass it back like a ticking time bomb. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * We must or the alternative will be editors getting blocked (and nobody wants that). GoodDay (talk) 22:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Editors will have to be careful. Im not prepared to support going to arbcom at this point, perhaps if nothing is sorted in the future, but the Ireland issue has shown it solves nothing. Whilst atleast in that case they can lock down the Ireland articles for 2 years, we cant lock down the use of British Isles across wikipedia, thats simply impossible. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's my issue as well. If this goes to ArbCom and gets accepted (which is unlikely IMO), you will get one (or more) of the following - (a) editors placed on restriction (b) editors blocked (c) major articles locked down.  None of these is a real answer. Black Kite 22:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * We can lock down the adding & removing of the term. GoodDay (talk) 22:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sometimes a firm hand is required. GoodDay (talk) 22:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * We could stop the editors involved in the current dispute adding or removing British Isles, we cant really stop non involved editors from adding it for innocent reasons. But just stopping some people would result in socking, i think this page is the best solution.. going through each proposed change first to reach agreement. Its sadly going to be a very long process though BritishWatcher (talk) 22:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course. GoodDay (talk) 22:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Stopping the editors involved in the current dispute from adding or deleting the term is sensible. I accept it, even if you think it includes me. MidnightBlue   (Talk)  22:44, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Howabout a freeze on adding & removing BI, while things are being hammered out at this page? GoodDay (talk) 22:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, that was the agreement. Then Tharky decided to go on a spree.  But the agreement is only worthwhile if editors are working towards guidelines.  This is not a forum for looking at each article one at a time - sure we can do that on the article Talk pages, and look where that got us.  --HighKing (talk) 23:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, if everyone agreed on a freeze & agreed on an administrator to enforce that freeze, it might encourage a quick solution. GoodDay (talk) 23:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

⬅We can try for formal mediation -- Snowded TALK  23:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ya mean Mediation Cmt? -- GoodDay (talk) 23:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

F. H. Bradley (Closed)
This article currently has been reverted to state:
 * During his life, Bradley was one of the most respected philosophers on the British Isles

Arguments against

 * No reference. Current guidelines state that Unless the term 'British Isles' is being used in a purely technical context (such as geology, archaeology or natural history), reliable sources should be found to support its use. --HighKing (talk) 00:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The existing external links and references do not describe him as such. --HighKing (talk) 00:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Arguments for

 * As Bradley lived within the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland for most of his life, we should use British Isles. During 'most' of his lifetime, the whole of Ireland was a part of the UK. GoodDay (talk) 14:54, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you using "British Isles" in this context as an acceptable alternative for the UK? That goes against the existing guidelines that have already been drawn up....  Why isn't "UK" a better description in this case?  --HighKing (talk) 18:22, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a sugggestion; since during the 1801 to 1922 era, the UK covered both major islands. GoodDay (talk) 18:26, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Since subsituting British Isles for the UK (1801-1922) is against guidelines, I've switched to 'neutral'. GoodDay (talk) 14:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * During Bradley's lifetime the status of the countries within the British Isles changed - Irish independence and so on. British Isles is therefore acceptable here in that it is unambiguous. MidnightBlue   (Talk)  18:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Question: Not related to this article, but if articles currently do not contain references to support the term "British Isles", is it OK to subsequently find a reference that includes the term to justify it's usage? What about if the reference appears to "borrow" from Wikipedia?  What about if most sources don't use the term?  --HighKing (talk) 00:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * In biographies, I'd opt for using 'British Isles', if the indivuals life occurs mostly between 1801 & 1922. GoodDay (talk) 14:56, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you elaborate on why you're thinking that please? What about nationality and citizenship - would readers not expect to see "UK" or "England", etc, instead? --HighKing (talk) 18:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Seeing as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland covers both major islands, I figured using 'British Isles' would be acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 18:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Leaving aside that the "British Isles" also covers territory larger than the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (meaning Channel Islands and Isle of Man, using it in this way isn't currently covered by the Guidelines as it is not strictly being used in a technical context. Saying someone is from the British Isles, or has been honoured in the British Isles, is using the term as a geopolitical unit, and this usage is actively discouraged.  --HighKing (talk) 06:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Actively discouraged? Very well, don't use British Isles. GoodDay (talk) 14:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If British Isles has been in the article for some time and its randomly removed, i see no reason why a reference backing up its use shouldnt be used to justify it remaining in the article. Ofcourse this source must in no way be possibly just copying from wikipedia, it would need to be a book from years ago for example. In the case above about the invasion of Britain, as there are atleast two sources using British Isles in such circumstances, its clearly justified. Will need to look into this one with more detail though, i dont like "on the British Isles" lol. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:29, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, being used for some time does not make it correct. And I didn't randomly remove it, I targeted this specific incorrect usage with a view to correcting the text and therefore the article.  But I agree - I put great weight on references.  If references unambiguously back up the article, it is best left as it is.  What happens though if there are multiple references, and the article goes against the current Guidelines?  Should we try to keep with the guidelines as much as possible, especially if references support guidelines?  --HighKing (talk) 06:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not have strong feelings on this one, in truth a reference is needed to state "During his life, Bradley was one of the most respected philosophers" be that in Britain or the British Isles. If none can be found the whole sentence should be removed. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:24, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Bear in mind the bigger picture of what we're trying to do. We're trying to create guidelines that can be referred to in future articles/cases.  So it seems we need to understand why "British Isles" seems OK to some editors in biographies, because that uses the term in a geo-political context, and people nearly always associate nationality or citizenship with where people live.  --HighKing (talk) 18:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * In this case i dont really see the need to say British Isles, (unless there is a source clearly stating it), but the whole sentence should be removed anyway as its unsourced. It would be wrong just to replace it with Britain, unless theres a source. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:56, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, let's remove all unsourced sentences from this article. Mister Flash (talk) 12:19, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It would be great if editors could use articles like this as a way of developing guidelines for future articles too. What guidelines are you applying specific to this task force (if any)?  --HighKing (talk) 06:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Eh? Mister Flash (talk) 17:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The purpose of this task force is to develop guidelines for usage. Are you arguing that everything should simply come down to references?  Be aware, this hasn't exactly been workable in the past, so we're trying to establish guidelines for usage to help editors understand the topic better.  --HighKing (talk) 20:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Conclusion
I think the conclusion for this example should be removal for the full sentence as its unsourced. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. As hinted at above, ALL the sentences are unsourced, so why pick on this one? Mister Flash (talk) 17:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Because the purpose of this task force is to look at usage of the term "British Isles". There's some guidelines already available at the main taskforce page.  --HighKing (talk) 20:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Remove the sentence. Unnecessary and unsourced anyway.  And I've actioned this.  There's simply no point arguing about a usage that doesn't need to be there. Black Kite 23:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed BritishWatcher (talk) 23:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Discussion
Currently we have Then, it toured through the British Isles, with two ancillary groups: North (with H.A. Saintsbury) and South (with Julian Royce). The issue here must be about which parts of the islands he toured. If it included any part of Ireland then I would contend that British Isles is correct. If he didn't set foot in Ireland then Britain would be better. In any event British Islands must be wrong. It has a narrowly-defined political meaning and I think its use is inappropriate in this type, and many other types, of article. So - where precisely did Gillette tour? MidnightBlue  (Talk)  20:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What exactly is wrong with a narrowly defined political meaning? It's no more narrowly defined politically as using the United Kingdom?  In actual fact, it's a lot more "defined" than many terms, British Isles included...  --HighKing (talk) 21:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's a reference: Plays by William Gillette, Rosemary Cullen, Don B. Wilmeth states The play ran in London until 11 April 1902, and then went on a six-week tour of England and Scotland. --HighKing (talk) 21:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Can we conclude that "Great Britain" or "United Kingdom of GB&I" is the correct term? --HighKing (talk) 21:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't find any evidence that he visited Ireland, so unless some is found I support "England and Scotland" (with the reference). If it turns out that his tour included Ireland then I suggest reverting to British Isles. MidnightBlue   (Talk)  21:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If he's visited Ireland, I'd suggest the correct term would have been the United Kingdom, or "Great Britain and Ireland" at a push (although we should avoid using geographical terminology when the tour would have been through various countries). Perhaps if the tour had visited the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands, we could have used "British Isles".  --HighKing (talk) 22:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I reject completely the notion that before we can use British Isles the context must be inclusive of every element. If he'd visited Ireland then British Isles would be entirely acceptable and preferable, since it is unambiguous in its scope, unlike UK, which meant something different in 1902 from what it means now. MidnightBlue   (Talk)  22:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well we can disagree on some points, that's part of the process. And there is a perfectly acceptable link to United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland which would have been the better link to use.  I agree that not every element needs to be included, but I would contend that if it's only GB&I, then we shouldn't use it.  --HighKing (talk) 23:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Conclusion
Incorrect use of the British Isles, unsupported by reference. --HighKing (talk) 22:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * England and Scotland ? MidnightBlue   (Talk)  22:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, it's directly supported by reference. --HighKing (talk) 23:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. MidnightBlue   (Talk)  20:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Discussion
A request for a reference has been added. Why can't editors who place such tags go and look for a reference? It's also unclear precisely what BigDunc is wanting referencing, though I could hazard a guess. MidnightBlue  (Talk)  20:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And why can't editors who insert the term go look for a reference? Or we can take this as an example and try to understand what guidelines can we bring to this.  I would suggest that since the sentence states he travelled all over the British Isles and Europe, it is not a good example of geological usage.  Far better to either state the political entities travelled or just leave it as Europe (since, gosh golly, the British Isles are already in Europe!).  Why Oh Why do article have the stupid "Britain and Europe" or "British Isles and Europe" - like they're not in Europe?  --HighKing (talk) 20:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Coal measure
This article currently statea:
 * The Coal Measures is a lithostratigraphical term used mainly in the British Isles for the coal-bearing part of the Upper Carboniferous System.

Arguments against

 * No reference. Current guidelines state that Unless the term 'British Isles' is being used in a purely technical context (such as geology, archaeology or natural history), reliable sources should be found to support its use. --HighKing (talk) 00:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a generic term, not specific at all to the "British Isles". The sentence should read The Coal Measures is a lithostratigraphical term for the coal-bearing part of the Upper Carboniferous System. --HighKing (talk) 20:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Arguments for

 * This book titled The stratigraphy of the British Isles By Dorothy Helen Rayner goes into detail about coal measures in Britain and Ireland. This is clear justification for the British Isles to remain. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's another ref . There's loads of stuff referring to coal measure in Ireland. This is a straight geological article so the current guidelines apply (not that I support those "guidelines" in any way. They were cobbled together in an attempt to curtail use of British Isles in Wikipedia). MidnightBlue   (Talk)  18:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * MDM, if you don't support the current guidelines, this is the opportunity to help "fix" them. --HighKing (talk) 20:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't believe we need guidelines. In most articles use of British Isles is incidental to the subject, and in nearly all cases you can argue for or against it; there's no right or wrong. Obviously there are a small number of exceptions where it's clear that the term should, or shouldn't be used, but they are very much the exception. None of the articles being discussed here fall into that bracket. If I come across one that does, I'll point it out. Over the last few weeks British Isles has been added to some articles and deleted, or de-linked, from others. In most cases this has been in the normal course of editing. I've noted a few where the term has been deleted for what one might call political reasons, but there have been no such additions of the term. MidnightBlue   (Talk)  20:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I too do not support or have any faith in previous guidelines developed on use of British Isles. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Please read the main page here, especially the section "Stonewalling is not acceptable". The purpose of this task force is to agree guidelines.  We've tried the approach involving diging the heels in and it's not productive.  Claiming any and all usage is good usage isn't much of an argument.  Trying to disavow the work to date without discussion isn't productive either.  I suggest you either work *with* this group to progress understanding and to develop guidelines, or get involved in another project...  So.  If you've a specific issue with the current guidelines, open a new section below and we can try to discuss and resolve. --HighKing (talk) 21:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not stonewalling. I am not going to take part in the task force. I reject the guidelines. We do not need them and they have no consensus (see my previous comments). I will, however, comment on your deletion proposals. Could you not go to another project? MidnightBlue   (Talk)  21:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, if you're not going to take part and contribute positively, this isn't the place for your comments. WP is not a battleground.  --HighKing (talk) 21:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * We are here to give feedback on your suggested removals of British Isles from different articles. We can all contribute to this without agreeing with or making alterations to the guidelines which clearly havnt prevented this problem from continuing over the years. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That isn't the purpose of the guidelines. If you're not, in good faith, willing to participate in agreeing guidelines, then you're wasting your time.  --HighKing (talk) 07:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Question: Is this article about geology or terminology? There are a number of articles on terminology that state that a term is popular or in use or common within the British Isles.  This appears to be a non-technical use, and considering that there are many dialects across the islands, is this strictly speaking correct?  Is there a better alternative such as "UK and Ireland" as recommended by current guidelines?
 * Question: Should we simply try to find references. If none exist, what is the best alternative term?
 * If there's no reference to be found, might aswell use the United Kingdom & Ireland. If the UK and Ireland are used seperately? put them as Ireland and United Kingdom (alphabetical order). GoodDay (talk) 14:48, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * GoodDay, while geology, as a subject, can encompass the "British Isles" as the entire island group has much in common, this article appears to be stating that this specific terminology is common to the British Isles - yet it's clear that the term is also used *outside* the British Isles. The article isn't entitled "Coal Measures in the British Isles"....  So what guidelines should exist for terminology?  --HighKing (talk) 20:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know. GoodDay (talk) 20:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)Anyone have anything else to add to this discussion. I'm currently leaning towards concluding that technical terminology, like in this case, is shown to be worldwide, therefore shouldn't try to assert that it is specific to the British Isles. --HighKing (talk) 10:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)