Wikipedia talk:British Isles Terminology task force/Specific Examples/Archive 26

Nothofagus dombeyi
The above article uses a reference from the Wild Flower Society of the UK where it lists the "List of Accepted Plants of the British Isles 2007" (copied from the List of Vascular Plants of the British Isles) to support the sentence that the plant has been introduced as ornamental in the British Isles[1] and also in the North Pacific Coast of the United States[2]. The reference doesn't support this statement.

Discussion
It looks to me like editors are now trying tactics to introduce the term into articles even if it doesn't support the assertion being made. Can we draw a line under this practice please? And a reminder that we're trying to create guidelines, and flora is specifically one of those areas where distribution of plants is considered, from a scientific point of view, over the entire British Isles. --HighKing (talk) 20:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It suppports the fact that the plant is in the British Isles, and it's a good quality reference. Given that the plant is not a native species it has clearly been introduced. You don't need a degree in botany to work out that one. MidnightBlue   (Talk)  16:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The plant is not a native species? That reference does not support that assertion.  That is why using that reference is not a good reference for that statement.  If we can't find a reference, we should simply strike the sentence.  And as per WP:CIVIL, if you left off the sarcastic tone and comments about degrees in botany, we'd have a lot less friction here.  Absolutely no need to be quite so confrontational.  --HighKing (talk) 18:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think there is a stronger case for British Isles when we are talking about a species with a distribution over the area. Of course, Britain and Ireland would defacto be as good and less controversial.  If there was more of a spirit of compromise over political articles (which should be linked to the state), it might be easier to reach agreement in cases like this.  -- Snowded  TALK  23:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't get me wrong - I absolutely agree that there is a stronger case for distribution about a species over the British Isles because scientifically the islands are often used to describe a single distribution unit. If the article stated that as a fact (with reference), I'd say that's fine, no problem.  But this article is making an altogether different claim with the reference provided in that it is stating the plant was introduced as ornamental.  --HighKing (talk) 01:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

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)
 * How can we make sure this section doesn't get archived? Or can we just archive sections that have been closed?  --HighKing (talk) 19:20, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Article: Planned French Invasion of Britain (1759)
This article currently uses the term The invasion was one of several abandoned attempts during the eighteenth century to invade the British Isles.

Arguments against

 * The article is talking about Britain, and the topic is British. Should not use the term British Isles --HighKing (talk) 17:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Took place before the 1801 Act of Union, therefore 'British Isles' is not needed as Great Britan & Ireland were seperate Kingdoms. GoodDay (talk) 17:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Invasions are always either against political entities or specific geographic locations. In the context of this article whose topic is invasions against Britain, this sentence uses "British Isles" in a way that could be taken as a political term, meaning GB & I.  The term should never be used in ambiguous contexts. --HighKing (talk) 17:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That's the trickiness of those times, the Kingdom of Great Britain & the Kingdom of Ireland had the same monarch. GoodDay (talk) 17:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC) --HighKing (talk) 20:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * United Kingdom would do better, its a political entity and at that time it was UK of Britain and Ireland -- Snowded TALK  23:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Arguments for

 * As this took place before 1922, I'd opt for using British Isles. GoodDay (talk) 17:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The source provided mentions the British Isles. There is also a different book by a different author that mentions the French attempts to invade the British Isles BritishWatcher (talk) 15:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Question: Why does pre-1922 make a difference? --HighKing (talk) 17:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's at about that time when the process of Irish independance from the United Kingdom began. Before 1922, Ireland & Great Britain were both a part of the UK. GoodDay (talk) 17:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, but the sentence in the article states specifically the 1700's, before Ireland was part of the UK. Then it was the Kingdom of Great Britain and the Kingdom of Ireland  --HighKing (talk) 17:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Good point, seperate Kingdoms before 1801 (regardless of sharing the same monarch). GoodDay (talk) 17:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Question: The current guidelines note that certain topics recognize "British Isles" as a valid term:  physical geography, geology, natural history (including fauna but excluding flora) and archaeology. When used in a 'pure' technical sense the term is always acceptable.  Should the term "British Isles" be specifically avoided when alternative terms exist within articles on history due to the history and original usage of the term and subsequent/modern-day objections.  Without pandering to lunatic objections, but as a guideline to be reasonably upheld.  --HighKing (talk) 17:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Observation: The sentence above, to avoid being mistaken used as a geo-political term, could have stated: The invasion was one of several abandoned attempts during the eighteenth century to invade strategic locations within the British Isles.
 * The sharing of a monarch by the two Kingdoms, makes the political side muddied. GoodDay (talk) 17:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a point - it's why I ask the previous question regarding articles on history specifically. --HighKing (talk) 19:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I see no reason for the removal of British Isles in this case as different authors use the term British Isles when talking about French invaders. If you would prefer the wording you suggested i have no complaints about that being changed, but theres no need to remove British Isles. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:24, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. British Isles is sourced. I supprt the suggested sentence above. MidnightBlue   (Talk)  18:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The invasion would have, in all likelihood, taken place on the south cost of England as it did in 1066, not Ireland, the Hebrides, or the Isle of Man, etc. as the French objective would have been to occupy the seat of the British government, namely London; therefore I rather think in this case, Britain should be used rather than British Isles.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sources by different authors mention the British Isles when talking about French invasions. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * So again, stepping back to look at this issue "in general" for a moment, with the idea that we can develop some guidelines that we can use in the future for similar articles. It is clear that we have some references which state "British Isles".  But equally we have other references which state "Britain", "Great Britain" and "England".  What should we do?
 * References exist using "British Isles" - that's a positive weighting. If no references were to exist, the article should not use the term.  We should also give due consideration to the quality of references. In this case, the refs meet all requirements and are good.  Equally good references exist for "Britain" and "Great Britain", etc, though.
 * I suggest that because this is a history article, it should have a negative weighting for use of British Isles. Why history?  Because the term "British Isles" used have a historical connotation with ownership of the main islands, which is not current usage and not fully understood by readers.
 * Where references exist that use alternative terms, we should apply context and meaning to the subject. Again, because it is a historical article dealing with invasions, Jeanne correctly points out the objective was against the British government.  This would give a positive weighting towards using an alternative term.
 * Finally, would any meaning be lost if we used an alternative term? In this case, we have to consider that invasion landings were also planned for Ireland.  Would alternative term such as "UK and Ireland" adequately cover this?  --HighKing (talk) 20:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Why should we use an alternative term? I see absolutely no reason to do so. And who made all these decisions about weighting, lack of references and so forth? I wholeheartedly reject them. MidnightBlue   (Talk)  20:36, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * References exist for both "British Isles" but arguable there's a greater volume of references for alternative terms. The weightings above are to help evaluate the different facets of the discussion - it's my attempt to try to understand the complexity of some of the issues.  If you're just going to reject any attempt to reach understanding, I suggest you read the section on "Stonewalling is not acceptable".  --HighKing (talk) 21:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It does not matter if there are alternatives, although its debatable which ones are more used. The use of British Isles in this case is clearly sourced with atleast 2 different authors using it in the same circumstances. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * British Watcher, British Isles is a geographic term; using it in this context implies a political term as well. Nobody says that the Japanese Islands were bombed in WWII or Pearl Harbor was an attack against a US territorial island. On the contrary historians use the terms Japan and the United States when describing the fore-mentioned events. France planned to invade Britain with the purpose of getting Britain out of the war; it was not an attack against the British Isles as such. Britain is the correct term to use here as we are describing a purely political event in history.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I do not accept this is just a political event. We are talking about an invasion of a geographical location. It is sourced by 2 different books by two different authors, used in exactly the same way in each. There for its totally acceptable for us to use it in this case and there is no justification for its removal. Does saying someone invaded Europe stop Europe from being a geographical term? BritishWatcher (talk) 10:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If the article was about the hypothetical invasion of the British Isles by a swarm of killer bees, then I would agree with the usage of the term. If the article was about a natural event such as a hurricane, earthquake or snowstorm which had inflicted damage in the British Isles, then I would agree to it's usage; however the article we are currently discussing is not about a natural event, but a purely political one, hence I opine that Britain should be used rather than British Isles.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) We're certainly not gonna use England as an alternative, not with the year-in-question being 1759. GoodDay (talk) 13:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Britain is the accurate term here seeing as France was at war with Britain and not the British Isles.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Britain is acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 13:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd err on the side of "Britain" in this case, per Jeanne Boleyn. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 22:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

So why do two different authors of reliable different books use the term British Isles, describing the French invasion attempts. Its sourced and there for does not need to be changed. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * A couple of points:
 * Is BW trying to create a guideline that if there is just one book using the term "British Isles" in the context of French invasions, then it's OK to use the term in that context? For me, this is the root of the problem.  There are far more references that discuss the French invasions in the context of "Britain", which is the context in which most references speak about the invasion.  Also, have you posted links to the references BW?  --HighKing (talk) 19:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Conclusion

 * Britain is the obvious term to use here. Black Kite 23:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Further debate on this matter is below. It clearly states why Britain doesnt work for that sentence because they attempted to invade Ireland too. Two different books by different authors use British Isles in exactly the same way. What exactly is the justification for changing it? BritishWatcher (talk) 23:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

!!!!! APPEAL this verdict has all the conversations on this page been taken into account, it has been discuss at lenght in the general dicussions below the original examples. Reasons were given as to why "Britain" is not the term which is meant there. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * This is not a verdict. The statement is referenced and should stay. Black Kite is expressing an opinion. MidnightBlue   (Talk)  13:40, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thats what i thought but the title to this section says (Closed) BritishWatcher (talk) 13:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Re-opened
The following discussion has been moved here from another thread:

Thinking back over French invasions we have 1066, which is clearly England (possibly Britain given the speed with which they entered Glamorgan) not the British Isles. At the time of John the invasion by Philip (which reached as far as Devices) is England (possibly Britain depending on how you interpret the status of the Welsh Princes at the time). Thereafter we have attempted or aborted landings in Wales and Ireland and a planned invasion of Britain. I can't think of any case where the French invaded the British Isles, other that in the sense of Red Hat's statement "even though, technically they did invade a part of the geographical entity known as the British Isles". -- Snowded TALK  21:09, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * two different sources use British Isles in books talking about the same thing, if it wasnt for that then i would agree it should just say Britain or Great Britain. But its clear why British Isles was used there and its well sourced.. there is no justification for its removal. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've replied to this point previously. Still waiting for the refs.  Still waiting for your response to my question.  --HighKing (talk) 21:27, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Heres the two refs ,  BritishWatcher (talk) 21:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I posted one of the links in one of my first edits on this page in the arguments for section. THe other is the book mentioned as a ref on the article itself. The answer to your question is no, a single book doesnt justify putting the term in an article when other sources use something else. However two different books by different authors does justify NOT removing it from the article. Its clearly why British Isles was put into that sentence, its backed up by sources which means theres no justification for removal. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * So to test my understanding BW. You have one book which uses BI, if several other books used Britian, Britian and Ireland or Ireland would that cause you to change your mind?  -- Snowded  TALK  21:48, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No im saying there are 2 different authors with different books using British Isles in exactly the same way, there for there is no justification for removing British Isles from that article. If there were no books using the term, then yes there would be justification for removing it. ofcourse there are others just saying Great Britain, but the point is, the word British Isles is in that article for obvious reasons because those books have helped form the article, there for it wasnt politically added. Theres no reason to remove it, its accurate. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I think this needs some context. The French invaded or intended to invade the British Isles several times [ . Ireland was often seen as a way in (for various reasons), but it was not always the target. [[Martello tower]]s can be seen all around the Isles, indicating that British military authorities perceived a threat to the entire archipelago. Wiki-Ed (talk) 11:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * First off, every single article you've pointed to states that it's an invasion of Great Britain, or Britain, or England. We're also discussing the 1700s, while Martello towers were built much later, after the formation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. And it's for exactly these reasons why we should be precise about our language and terminology.  Editors understand that invasions are political events, not natural disasters, and as such the targets are political entities, albeit involving strategic geographical locations.  In that context, the British Isles was not a strategic geographical location. --HighKing (talk) 13:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I assume from this that you didn't actually bother to read any of the linked articles. The 1740 and 44 attempts were intended to strike at England. The plan in 59 initially involved landing in Ireland, but this was shelved before the French even got started (and failed). The 79 plan was to land on the Isle of Wight. In 98 they actually managed to land in Ireland, albeit briefly. In 1803 Napoleon's plan was to invade Ireland and England. It was his plan which encouraged the construction of coastal defences all around the British Isles. Note that it was the entire island chain that had to be defended, not any single island or the seat of political power. The point of citing the examples I've provided is to indicate that reliable sources generalise to indicate the potential threat to the geographic area. The actual landing zone - on whichever island - would not be known to contemporary generals. Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:18, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Your bad manners and lack of AGF aside, so you're admitting that there was really no invasion involving Ireland at all during that time? Like it crossed their mind, but they never actually did it.  And that the French might have thought about invading Britain and Ireland, but never thought about invading all of the British Isles including the IoM and CI together?  And in 1803 we had the UKoB&I, so that would be the largest unit to discuss.  --HighKing (talk) 16:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Intersting that "maritime-related topics often relate to the British Isles", i suppose maritime invasions by foreign powers like the French perhaps are totally different. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree the invasion was a partly a maritime event, and likely used knowledge of tides and shipping lanes around the British Isles to plan their attack. But it was still an invasion against Britain.  And I'd agree with a statement that various landing sites and attack points throughout the British Isles were considered, but it was still an invasion against Britain.  --HighKing (talk) 13:59, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Whilst the article is about an invasion of Britain, the sentence is talking about previous attempts to invade the British Isles, as mentioned above they tried to land in Ireland too. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Absolutely correct. While the article is clearly about an attempt to invade Britain, the sentence in question explains that the attempt was one of several actual or proposed invasions of the British Isles. Remember that Britain is part of the British Isles. There should be no issue whatsoever with the disputed sentence. MidnightBlue   (Talk)  14:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * We disagree. Clearly.  The target was Britain.  --HighKing (talk) 16:24, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If there are sources saying they tried to land in Ireland, how can the target of been just Britain? BritishWatcher (talk) 17:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sometimes in war, you cut off reinforcements and supplies. Standard tactics since Sun Tzu.  The target was Britain.  --HighKing (talk) 19:19, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Discussion
I propose British Isles is maintained in the text but the article is renamed to British and Irish poetry. MidnightBlue  (Talk)  22:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, suggest changing the lead to British and Irish poetry, whether from the British Isles or the British Empire, may include the following: MidnightBlue   (Talk)  22:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The article is specifically about British poetry. It has nothing to do with Irish poetry which has it's own article.  It's outside the scope of this discussion to start talking about how we can change articles in order to accommodate the term "British Isles".  --HighKing (talk) 22:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a disambig' page (inlcuding a link to Irish poetry) which originally used British Isles. See, so we aren't accommodating anything. MidnightBlue   (Talk)  22:18, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The link to Irish poetry was carefully placed there by Tharky as part of his spree. But you probably knew that....  --HighKing (talk) 23:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Im not going to get into debating this one tonight, although i find that entire page insulting when it should be an article, not simply a dab page. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Looking at the link I provided above (the first substantial edit of the article) it can be seen that Irish poetry was orginally in there, together with British Isles. A subsequent edit by an IP removed Irish poetry. A further subsequent edit by HK (2008) replaced British Isles with British Islands. Recently User:TharkunColl has restored Irish poetry and British Isles. I think it's OK as a dab page - it does what it's supposed to do, namely point to the individual articles of the poetry of the nations of the British Isles. MidnightBlue   (Talk)  20:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed, id just rather that was a property article with a little bit of information about poetry from each than just a dab page. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Its good enough as a dab page and doesn't insult anyone that I can see. Given the historical aspects I think including Irish is fine, while it is a dab page and it provides a useful link.  If it became an article then I think it would be more dubious.  -- Snowded  TALK  09:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Irish poetry should not be included as British poetry.  Poetry is either classified as Irish, or British, not both.  Also, the entire opening sentence is pretty lame - does British poetry include Indian poetry?  Or Australian poetry??  Claiming the poetry of the British empire as being British is wrong, with no references to back up this assertion.  Either this title becomes an article in it's own right, like British litrature or it should be deleted.  It should definitely not be a Dab making silly claims.  --HighKing (talk) 10:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Highking, if the title remains British poety Irish shouldnt be kept there, im also not sure about the bit mentioning the Empire and i dont like the original research about "British poetry" being a term rarely used.
 * I think it should become a stub page to be dealt with like British literature, if not then either Irish poetry is removed or a name change for the article to something like Poetry from the British Isles. I see no reason for the name British and Irish poetry. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * So how abot we rename it to Poetry from the British Isles (or Poetry of the British Isles), then remove the lead-in sentence, retain all the links, then it becomes a simple disambiguation page? MidnightBlue   (Talk)  17:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Or how about we don't. --HighKing (talk) 00:43, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * And your reasons for not wanting to do so? MidnightBlue   (Talk)  10:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Because this is your 3rd or 4th attempt to significantly rewrite or modify articles with the sole purpose of introducing the term. If you could just step back a little and take a look at the way they were currently used rather, and if the usage is correct or not, I believe we'd make a lot more progress.  --HighKing (talk) 19:16, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

St. Catherine's Point
An editor recently added the assertion that ''It is the second oldest lighthouse in the British Isles. Only the Roman-built lighthouse at Dover is older''.

Discussion
This reference states that Britain's oldest medieval lighthouse. Not only is there no reference to support this being the 2nd oldest in the British Isles, the lighthouse at Hook Head in Ireland is older. From a guidelines point of view, they already recommend that comparisons (oldest, biggest, widest, etc) should not be done for the "British Isles". I believe this should be changed to Britain's oldest medieval lighthouse, and if a reference can be found for being the 2nd oldest in Britain, that can also be included. --HighKing (talk) 20:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, the lighthouse at Hook Head is older, as this reference asserts. Perhaps we could add this reference, together with the direct quote about the age of the lighthouse from the head of the reference, to Hook Head. I don't see how the age of Hook Head is in any way linked to that of St Catherine's Point. One seems to be the oldest, and the other the second oldest.  MidnightBlue   (Talk)  21:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Because the lighthouse in Dover is allegedly the oldest lighthouse in Britain. How then can St. Catherine's claim to be the 2nd oldest in the British Isles if we know of Dover and Hook Head?   --HighKing (talk) 22:46, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Probably something about working versus non working lighthouses. How about the ref for Hook Head? MidnightBlue   (Talk)  23:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no logic for British Isles here, Lighthouses area responsibility of national governments so its Britain (maybe UK).  -- Snowded  TALK  23:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry? "The oldest lighthouse in Europe" would be a perfectly valid sentence, as would "the oldest lighthouse in the northern hemisphere" or indeed "the oldest lighthouse in the world".  National governments have nothing to do with it.  It is debatable whether British Isles deserves special mention over and above Britain (I have no opinion on that), but it's irrelevant that it's not a political entitity.   The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well you and disagree on the relevance of politics here, but politics is at the heart of the various debates. The issues with the political use of the term (implied or otherwise) are where issues arise. This is a similar debate to the Shannon/Neigh issue which was satisfactorily resolved.  the Lake, as it was in NI was the largest in the Isles, while the River is the largest in Ireland.  I don't find your constant denial of the geography/politics split as either sustainable in the light of the various references, or helpful in terms of finding a resolution.  -- Snowded  TALK  23:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no "political use" in the year 2009 of British Isles: you have wrongly got it fixated in your head that there is. The geographical term might have political connotations deriving from historical events, but that's all.  The suggestion that we can't write of "the oldest lighthouse in the British Isles" because lighthouses are the responsibility of national governments is ludicrous.   The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 03:49, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that in the case of lighthouses, the term British Isles would not be out of place as we're talking about structures which really have nothing to do with politics--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC).
 * I really wish you would tone down your language Redhat, you may disagree with other ideas but that does not make them ludicrous.   This is a question about what is the largest "unit" that should be referenced.   It it was the largest lighthouse in Europe, then that would be notable and would not be controversial.  There are political uses of the British Isles in 2009, if not then there would be no controversy and no citations of its use being discouraged.  Political connotations deriving from historical events, means that use in some (but not all) contexts is political.   In this case it is the largest lighthouse in Britain, not Europe so the unit it Britain.  -- Snowded  TALK  13:47, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * In general, from a "guidelines" point of view, a number of maritime-related topics often relate to the British Isles. For example, submarines patrolling during the 2nd world war, or shipping lanes, or tides and currents, etc.  I don't think there's any issue at all with these.  OK, we have (slightly) ambiguous subjects too - stuff like the "Martello towers of the British Isles" springs to mind.  Anyway, for this subject matter, lighthouses are a maritime object, and in general I'd expect sometimes to see British Isles being mentioned.  No problems with that.
 * But for this specific article? There's two issues really.  The first is references.  The article is making a claim that it is the 2nd oldest in the British Isles.  Factually, there is no reference, and factually it appears to be wrong since both Dover and Hook Head are older.  The reference I found makes a different claim, that it's the oldest medieval lighthouse in Britain, and I cannot uncover a reference for the claim being made.  (Be aware that the article, until recently, used to state the 2nd oldest in the British Islands, which is a different body altogether.)  The second point is that the guidelines we've hashed out (with difficulty) to date discourages the use of comparisons (oldest, biggest, tallest, etc) over the British Isles as Snowded has pointed out above.
 * So I think we're agreeing. I'm just expanding the thoughts a little, hopefully to get more discussion and understanding.  --HighKing (talk) 13:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)Intersting that "maritime-related topics often relate to the British Isles", i suppose maritime invasions by foreign powers like the French perhaps are totally different. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The lighthouse seems to be the third oldest in the British Isles - oldest is Dover, second is Hook, then comes the Pepperpot of this article. Hook is the oldest operational in the BI. Dover and the Pepperpot are no longer lighthouses as such. Let us clarify all of these points in the respective articles, including Hook, where there is an excellent reference, from the Commissioners of Irish Lights, no less, who state "The oldest operational lighthouse in Ireland and the British Isles is at Hook Head." MidnightBlue   (Talk)  14:09, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)We are getting a bit mixed up here. This section is about the lighthouse. I'm shortly going to move parts of this section dealing with the invasion to the section further up - which, incidentally, I'm going to re-open. MidnightBlue  (Talk)  14:14, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)Relevant paragraphs moved or copied to the Invasion section above. Please continue lighthouse discussion here. MidnightBlue  (Talk)  14:21, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Theres some stuff in the GoodDay Proposal section on the French invasion that probably need to be moved up there or atleast copied up there aswell so its all in one place. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:24, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I've now moved that as well. MidnightBlue   (Talk)  14:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)