Talk:Terminology of the British Isles/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Some editing for you all to get stuck into

Following an edit war on the British Isles article, the consensus for a way forward was that the article be pruned back to focus on geography and history, and the material on the original and controversy surrounding the name "British Isles" be dealt with here at British Isles (terminology). Accordingly, I have merged a load of info from that article into this one. This will require through editing to properly assimilate it, and may require splitting into a separate article.


I've tried to merge it all in together as there was a lot of duplication. --Robdurbar 22:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)



Hi all. After a discussion elsewhere on the talk page about whether or not the term "The British Isles" could be sometimes offensive and where to mention this, I had a look around various media to see whether there was actually a universally accepted definition - taking usage and not dictionaries as the source of definition. I found that many major media use widely varying definitions of the term, or at least the way it is used implies varying and inconsistent definitions. I wondered whether an addition like the following would be useful in the section "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Isles_%28terminology%29#Geographical_distinctions".


Modern usage of the term "The British Isles" is often inconsistent and confusing. Even highly regarded major media sources like the BBC and The Times use the term "The British Isles" in widely varied ways. In some contexts the term is used as being identical to the UK, i.e. covering only a part of the island of Ireland. In other contexts the term is used as only covering Great Britain and the surrounding islands but excluding the island of Ireland entirely. In other contexts the term is used to cover the whole of Ireland and Great Britain as well as the surrounding islands, which is the traditional definition.
On a global basis, the traditional definition is almost certainly most common in contemporary usage.


Any thoughts or comments? Obviously, I believe that the additional text is verifiable as factual, although I´m a little unhappy about the words "almost certainly" in the last line. My problem is that I don´t know how to check/verify any more definite statement and my quick usage check (particularly on the BBC) doesn´t actually strongly support this assumption. Also, given the restructuring of the page that Robdurbar was trying to launch, I´m not sure that the info would be in the right place in the section I mentioned. --hughsheehy 15:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I think it's fairly clear that the sources you cite have got it wrong. Have yo some actual examples? Mucky Duck 15:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Just taking a few seconds for a quick look....and then only on the BBC. The Times has similar variation which is easy to find.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/gal_coast_11.shtml is a British Isles Coast Gallery. There is no single site outside the UK. The sequence (clockwise) includes Somerset, Anglesea, Antrim, Scotland, which rather ostentatiously leaves out the parts of Ireland that are not in the UK. Unless you believe that - for instance - the Cliffs of Moher or the Aran Islands do not deserve mention then it seems reasonable to assume that they have been left out on purpose. I appreciate that there is also no mention of - for instance - the Giant´s Causeway, but the given the proportion of the overall coastline that is represented by the non-UK coastline, the fact that not a single non-UK area is included is hardly likely to be a coincidence.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/animals/features/139whales.shtml shows the British Isles as being all of Britain and Ireland, as per the definition currently given on this page.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/animals/features/137index.shtml shows the same definition.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/britishisles/ shows the British Isles as being only the UK.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/music/worldmusic/britishislesandirelandrev1.shtml uses the term "The British Isles and Ireland", and that´s the way they mean it.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/voices/recordings/ shows only the UK on the map but describes it as the British Isles. (Note that this and most other pages do include the Channel Islands)
This list could continue for ages. I just did a quick sweep in response to Muck Duck´s question and only on the BBC. As to whether or not they are "wrong", I don´t know if that´s an appropriate discussion and would seem to be to be difficult to keep away from being pure POV. Besides, I´d personally hate to start a discussion asserting that the BBC and The Times are "wrong" in their use of English. These are not casual pages, but are editorial content and the fact is that the usage is clearly variable across several major British media companies. Meantime, what Mucky Duck "thinks" about whether this is "wrong" is just one POV and may not belong on WP. --hughsheehy 16:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
No, they have it wrong. You are trying to suggest that British Isles is an acceptable synonym for UK - it is not. The BBC are not the arbiters here and do not always get things right; as another example they produced a series called "A History of Britain" which was no such thing, it was a history of England. The fact that they did it does not mean that Britain is a synonym for England. Mucky Duck 09:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
OK, once again, I don't believe that I am trying to suggest anything of the sort. I hope that Mucky Duck will read what I wrote. I am saying that usage of the term "The British Isles" is varied and often confusing. That is demonstrably true. Also, I don't suggest that the BBC are arbiters of anything. I am saying that usage needs to be looked at - and it's not just the BBC that has varied definitions in their usage. Ultimately dictionaries take usage as the arbiter, so it needs to be looked at.--hughsheehy 09:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I have reinserted the above proposed text after GSD2000 removed it with the remark "rv nonsensical edit" - which is not exactly constructive criticism. Again, the inserted text is accurate and factual and reflects an important problem with the use of terms that is not reflected elsewhere in this article. Since this article is about terminology, usage is important.--hughsheehy 10:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
My apologies - I was attempting to revert just the clause '...or that Ireland is essentially not a "British Isle".', added by what I saw was an anon IP to a sentence about why the British Isles is offensive to some, which was indeed nonsensical. I included two kosher paragraphs too by mistake, which certainly aren't nonsensical. FYI - better to do these edits logged in - less benefit of the doubt is given to anon IPs than seasoned contributors. Gsd2000 11:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I broadly agree with the edits you made Hugh. However, it does need to be directly sourced into the article - I know you have some sources here, but if you could put a few of those in? Also, the second 'paragraph' is a bit wishy-washy. I know what you're trying to say, but I don't think it needs saying. So, I support it, but source it! --Robdurbar 18:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Rob & co, I have not had time to come back and insert the links/sources, but I will. Meantime, I am deleting the item about the Irish sea not being problematical. There are an infinite number of terms that are not problematical. This section is about problems with terms, not about non-problems with terms. I saw there was already a mention of the "North" sea not being problematical, which has already been deleted. Next we'll have entries on why it isn't Womanchester instead of Manchester. Let's keep it a bit serious, please. --hughsheehy 11:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
How do any of these support what you're saying? They none of them, unambiguously anyway, appear to use anything other than the dictionary definition. Naomhain 15:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
To elucidate my question. Your list:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/gal_coast_11.shtml is a British Isles Coast Gallery. There is no single site outside the UK. The sequence (clockwise) includes Somerset, Anglesea, Antrim, Scotland, which rather ostentatiously leaves out the parts of Ireland that are not in the UK. Unless you believe that - for instance - the Cliffs of Moher or the Aran Islands do not deserve mention then it seems reasonable to assume that they have been left out on purpose. I appreciate that there is also no mention of - for instance - the Giant´s Causeway, but the given the proportion of the overall coastline that is represented by the non-UK coastline, the fact that not a single non-UK area is included is hardly likely to be a coincidence.
Out of a whole twelve pictures. There are no pictures from Man, East Anglia or mainland Wales either, what do you read into that. Yes it is UK centric and one might wish that it was not but it is not enough as a basis for the case that they are not using the dictionary definition.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/animals/features/139whales.shtml shows the British Isles as being all of Britain and Ireland, as per the definition currently given on this page.
Unambiguously dictionary definition.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/animals/features/137index.shtml shows the same definition.
Unambiguously dictionary definition.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/britishisles/ shows the British Isles as being only the UK.
I cannot see how you come to that conclusion.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/music/worldmusic/britishislesandirelandrev1.shtml uses the term "The British Isles and Ireland", and that´s the way they mean it.
Where does it use this term? It appears unambiguously to to use the dictionary definition.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/voices/recordings/ shows only the UK on the map but describes it as the British Isles. (Note that this and most other pages do include the Channel Islands)
How do you arrive at that? It does not only show the UK and it does include entries from the republic. That makes it unambiguously dictionary definition to my mind. As above it is heavily UK centric and I for one would prefer that it included more entries outwith the UK. But this is not about the use of the term but about the bias of the BBC (which to be fair is a UK organisation).
Naomhain 09:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Further point of clarification: while the Coast series gallery may show only UK shots, the (second series) recently included the coast from Dublin northwards, which I discussed on the talk page here or at talk:British Isles. While the programme did discuss how British / non Irish much of Dublin's history was, last I heard it wasn't in the UK ;) ..dave souza, talk 11:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Euler diagram

I think the reader and the editing disputes would both be well-served if the diagram distinguished between terms that are universally accepted and terms that are disputed or controversial. If a term can cause offense and isn't used by a significant fraction of the people involved, it shouldn't be drawn in a diagram with scientific precision just like all the other terms. I suggest changing the solid line around "British Isles" in this diagram to a dashed line. Flying Jazz 16:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. --Red King 16:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Whether you like the term or not, it reflects a definite geographical reality, and there's no commonly-understood and accepted term to replace it. If there was an alternative term, it would be placed alongside of (or would replace) the "British Isles" caption at the top center of the image -- it would not lead to the outermost circle being dashed... AnonMoos 17:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I live in Massachusetts, grew up in Pennsylvania and I have no ancestors from that part of the world. I'm trying to help create an NPOV article and don't have an axe to grind, so "whether you like the term or not" doesn't apply to me. I neither like nor dislike the term. But I'm aware that this is a subject that other people have strong feelings about. From reading this article and the British Isles article, it seems to me that the "British Isles" reflect a definite geographical reality to those who use the term and reflect someone-else's not-definite geographical outdated term to those who don't. If there is no commonly-understood and accepted term to replace it then the alternative is for there to be no term for a geographical entity that includes these islands. No term would mean no line and no name. A term that is accepted and used by all would be a solid line and a name. I see a dashed line and perhaps a grey font as an NPOV reflection of the reality that both of these views exist, one that accepts the term as a geographical reality and one that does not. Flying Jazz 21:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
That sounds a lot like postmodernist deconstructionist ultra-relativist "there is no such thing as objective truth" ideology taken to an extreme to me... To start again at the most basic level possible -- there is a grouping of masses of above-water earth in the ocean which is in fact a rather natural grouping of masses of above-water earth in the ocean. The existence of this rather natural grouping of masses of above-water earth in the ocean is a fact which is a lot more apolitical and culturally neutral than the existence of entities such as "Wales", "England", or "Northern Ireland". To question the existence of an objective reality because you don't like the terminology used to describe that objective reality is like trying to wage war by sticking a dagger into map. AnonMoos 21:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
And what is this grouping of masses called? "The British Isles" or "Great Britain, Ireland, and Isle of Man"? Living across the pond, I don't give a damn either way (so I'm assuming you weren't addressing me with all that you-don't-like-the-terminology-war-dagger business), but I'd like an NPOV article. I wonder what will you accuse me of liking or not liking next! The debate is not about objective reality. It is about terminology to describe objective reality. If folks in Ireland like to call them "Great Britain, Ireland, and Isle of Man" and most other folks call them "The British Isles" then the diagram should reflect both views in order to be an NPOV diagram. I like the part of the article that describes high-profile faux pas, but if it is a faux pas for me, as a tourist in the Republic of Ireland, to call Ireland one of the British Isles, I want the diagram to indicate it so I know it. That way, I'll know what I'm getting into when I say this intentionally to needle Irishmen during my travels and be a typically rude and insensitive American tourist. Flying Jazz 01:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Do folks in Ireland call them "Great Britain, Ireland, and Isle of Man", or is that something you just made up? AnonMoos 14:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
The statements in my last post were phrased as quetions or prefaced with the word "if" because I am coming from a place of relative ignorance and so don't even have the confidence to make something up. But I can see your point. Rather than writing: If folks in Ireland like to call them "Great Britain, Ireland, and Isle of Man" and most other folks call them "The British Isles" then the diagram should reflect both views, I should have written: If some folks call them "The British Isles" and some folks don't then the diagram should reflect both views. Flying Jazz 22:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
You tourists from the Americas are so annoying!  ;) The dashed line seems a good idea - if only because the term seems to be in common use without an official definition of what's in it. Some people get so upset about names, doesn't bother me if you say Scotch; just with water, please. ...dave souza, talk 08:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Lovely city, Edinburgh, and pleasant stuff, whisky. You know...only the best sort of people have fewer extraneous vowels in words. Flying Jazz 22:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Support Flyzing Jazz' suggestion here. --Robdurbar 15:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
"Great Britain, Ireland, and Isle of Man" could never be an alternative name for the British Isles as the former only names 3 islands of the 600-or-so covered by the latter. A more accurate term would be "The United Kingdom, Ireland and the Isle of Man" but this is clearly political, not geographic. The best alternative they could come up with for the Good Friday/Belfast Agreement was "Islands of the North Atlantic" (which, of course, could be taken to mean Iceland, Greenland, all those little islands west of the Canadian mainland, etc). Yorkshire Phoenix (talk • contribs) 15:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
You probably meant east of the Canadian mainland. The islands of the North Atlantic would also include the islands east of New England in the US. Azores too. Probably others. A name doesn't have to be replaced with a new name in order to stop being used. I'm not advocating replacing a name with anything else. It just seems that an article that says "This term can cause offence" shouldn't have a diagram that treats the term identically to 10 other terms that can't cause offense. Flying Jazz 22:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
You're right, I did. Yorkshire Phoenix (talk • contribs) 07:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

To prevent confusion of the two Ireland's, I think the Euler diagram should be adjusted, having the blue Ireland changed to "Republic of Ireland" --Adzer

"A name doesn't have to be replaced with a new name in order to stop being used."

That's exactly the problematic point here -- you're turning a more or less natural geographical grouping into a sniglet for ideological reasons. AnonMoos 23:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

heh. Me? Ideological reasons about the British Isles? Have you seen my user page or read my description of myself? You are not assuming good faith about me as an individual editor. My ancestry is Russian and German and I grew up near Philly in the US. If the term has stopped being used in official documents in the Republic of Ireland and it hasn't been replaced in official documents in the Republic of Ireland (again, I'm using "if" because I honestly don't know!) then it is a different sort of term than the other terms in the diagram. It is a more-or-less-natural-geographical grouping to you. If it were viewed as this in the Republic of Ireland, they'd still be using it. Flying Jazz 23:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm sure they view it as a more or less natural geographical grouping in the Republic of Ireland too -- they just don't like being terminologically subsumed under "Britain". The ideology I was accusing you of was "language creates reality", by the way -- not Irish nationalism. AnonMoos 00:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
You seem to be (yet again) attributing more to me than I intend. We might acually be in agreement about many things but it's tough to tell. From my perspective, this has been a debate about whether to turn a solid line and a red font into a dashed line and a faint-red or grey font. Nothing more. I'm actually proposing the exact same language in the diagram as is there currently, so your most recent accusation of my likes/dislikes/ideology involving language issues is actually making me giggle a little. I see it as a diagram-POV issue. You have seen it as me liking/not-liking a term, you've gone on about me being involved in daggers and wars and maps and language, and now you're accusing me of being a social constructivist. What would have happened if I'd suggested a dotted line or a wavy one? I am still trying to understand your position about the diagram without you accusing me of something. As editors, it should be possible for us to focus on details of the article instead of focusing on each other. Hopefully your future posts will be able to achieve this. If not, I won't take any action against you because I don't care enough about this issue. But I'll giggle at you again. By the way, I don't think you like the dashed line idea. Hmmm...care to say why not? Flying Jazz 00:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry if I've grown increasingly annoyed, but I really see absolutely no merit whatsoever to denying the reality of something because you don't like the term which is most frequently used to describe it. If there is some problem or controversy with the term "British Isles", then this could be handled in many ways (from the simple and minimal alteration of enclosing "British Isles" in parentheses, for example, all the way up to substituting an entirely different term in place of it, if a suitable alternative existed) -- but graying or dashing or dotting the coresponding enclosing circle seems to me to be very obviously completely wrong and extravagantly inappropriate on several distinct levels, from the semantic/philosophical to the purely practical. AnonMoos 06:27, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
How about instead of changing the colours, etc, you just put "/ Islands of the North Atlantic" or "(AKA Islands of the North Atlantic)" after the historic, internationally understood and widely accepted "British Isles"? Yorkshire Phoenix (talk • contribs) 09:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
It might actually help clarity if ALL the geographic groupings used dashed lines. That brings to mind the point that most definitions of the BI include the Channel Islands, so I'd suggest overlapping that circle a bit with the main one and wiping out the lines between them. As for Wales, it has its own devolved government, so why hasn't it a political line round it? It's not completely sovereign, but neither is Scotland. Perhaps dotted lines for these subdivisions? Given RI is more separate than the others from the UK, double lines for it? The nuances are endless, but the dashed line idea sees a good start. ..dave souza, talk 10:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
The problem is you're trying to show two completely different things (sets of political entites and sets of geographic ones) on the same diagram. I don't think it's ever going to work. Seperate diagrams might help. Mucky Duck 11:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
They are not at all "completely different things." Every political entity is also a geographic one. john k 17:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
AnonMoos's claim that a dashed circle "seems to me to be very obviously completely wrong" is telling. If something is "very obviously completely wrong" then it would not need to be prefaced with "seems to me" and it would not have agreement from multiple editors. Yorkshire Phoenix's suggestion would substitute a different term instead of recognizing the significant POV that the term under discussion shouldn't be used. Dave souza's suggestions about dashed lines everywhere would obfuscate this particular issue. Mucky Duck may have a point with multiple diagrams if one shows that the British Isles are used as a term and the other shows that they are not. Flying Jazz 21:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

There is a difference between a term that is nuanced/debateable/misunderstood and a term that a national government policy says should not be used. When I go to http://www.britishirishcouncil.org/ and use their search function, "Islands of the North Atlantic" or "IONA" does not appear once, and "British Isles" only appears once in an address for a location in the Isle of Man. That multinational council seems to me to have a policy to use neither term. The islands are listed on its various pages and then refered to as "these islands" a dozen times or so. No other term is used. I am not advocating this point of view. I am just saying that this point of view exists, is significant, and the diagram should reflect both views in order to be an NPOV diagram. Flying Jazz 21:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Since when does wikipedia replicate the POV of the British-Irish Council? The meaning of the term British Isles is relatively clear, except possibly the question of whether or not the Channel Islands are included. That it is not in official use seems irrelevant - it is a very commonly used geographic term. john k 23:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
It's very strange how when I write "I am not advocating this POV," your reply is to ask "since when does wikipedia replicate this POV?" I think I must be even more explicit than I've been, and so I'll take your lead John. If Wikipedia were replicating the POV of the British-Irish Council, we would not have an article or a diagram that mentions the British Isles. That would be a huge POV mistake. However, if Wikipedia had a POV entirely the opposite of the British-Irish Council, we would have a diagram that shows "British Isles" as a geographic term just like any other. That would also be a huge POV mistake. And it is the POV mistake in the current diagram. A NPOV diagram would present both POVs to the reader in a neutral fashion by presenting both a relatively clear definition to the reader and also presenting to the reader the relatively clear fact that a significant minority do not use the term. Flying Jazz 01:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Image edited (July 15)

I further edited the image to put the words "British Isles" in parentheses, to reflect the fact that some dislike the term (while few deny the underlying geographic reality). Also, labels for the whole contents of each circle are now placed right up at the center top of the circle (to avoid potential problems of interpretation). I don't think that anything would really be served by trying to make the image much more complicated than it is now. AnonMoos 21:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Proposed SVG replacement

The proposed SVG replacement image Image:British Isles Venn Diagram en.svg is inferior in visual quality to the original PNG version Image:British Isles Venn Diagram.png at this time. The SVG has mysterious variations in font sizes, and differing widths of circle boundary lines, and the red "Ireland" caption is not at the top of its enclosing circle (as it should be for consistency). Putting the Channel Islands at lower right will increase the overall compactness of the image. AnonMoos 02:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


Why is England and Wales encircled?

Inside the Great Britain circle, why is there a circle around England and Wales? Is there a term that is used to identify that entity (England and Wales, but not Scotland)? Shouldn't it be in red at the top of this circle? --Serge 00:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I see now from the article that England and Wales share a legal system. Perhaps there should be a red label, England and Wales, at the top of the circle that encircles England and Wales? --Serge 00:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The explanation is at Image talk:British Isles Venn Diagram.png. There can't be a red label, because "England and Wales" is not a "natural" geographic entity (i.e. its area can't be defined in a manner independent of contingent political boundaries). AnonMoos 10:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Ok then, how about a label of some other color to denote this particular type of association? --Serge 19:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Confusion

Anyone noticed how often this article tells us that we should find something confusing? It suggests that some people are very easily confused. In any case it doesn't seem very encyclopaedic language. Mucky Duck 08:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Historical information in intro

Personally I'm not too keen on this; I think the intro should stay as straight forward and as uncomplicated as possible. --Robdurbar 18:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you, but it's useful information which I haven't spotted elsewhere in the article, and putting it in a separate historical list would mean duplication of the list's headings. Would there be value in making The terms with technical meanings a section, and moving "These various terms can be confusing not only in themselves (partly owing to the similarity between some of the actual words used), but also because they are often used loosely or inaccurately." to what would now be a short intro? ..dave souza, talk 20:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I think that's reasonable. After all, as a topic, it doesn't really need the length of introduction of a 'traditional' article. --Robdurbar 22:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Too long an intro

This has happened several times before, but the intro has become too long again. I originally started this article because there will be a lot of people like me who are confused by the various terms and want a simple answer. What follows after that is another matter and I've decided not to meddle in that anymore. But the intro is still my realm, so to say. So I have added another short intro. This has been done twice before and now the article has a structure of 'overview - more detail - still more detail - various even more detailed bits', which sounds a bit silly if you put it like that, but I don't suppose that will bother anyone. :) DirkvdM 06:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on this: it's still a pretty long intro, but including terms with technical meanings in the intro rather than making it a first section does keep it together. On another aspect, it might be worth mentioning in the Origin of the term British Isles section the claim which someone has added to British Isles#Terminology that the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle uses "British" as referring to the ancient Britons (specifically excluding the English): more a tribal identity than geographical, perhaps. dave souza, talk 17:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I've reverted it, as it duplicated info already available below, only in unformatted, unlinked and less comprehensive form... —Nightstallion (?) 11:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
The problem is that the intro is too comprehensive. There have to be many people like me who just want a quick answer to 'what's what'. There should be such an explanation somewhere on Wikipedia and the intro to this article is the most logical place. It is ironic that the article now lacks the very thing I wrote the article for in the first place.
This is a rather common (and understandable) problem on Wikipedia. Those who write an article are knowledgeable (or at least they should be), so it's hard for them to view things with the mindset of someone who is not so knowledgeable. But those people are the target of an encyclopedia article. As the article progresses, it may get more bogged down in details, but the intro should, as far as possible, answer the most obvious overall questions people might have. DirkvdM 08:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Just to make sure you understand my point: I'm not against making the lead shorter and more concise, but if you do this, you should also merge the section immediately following it (the "expanded" lead) into the new, shorter lead and the extremely-detailed latter part of the article; in you version, we had a short lead, a longer semi-lead, and then again the whole article in all its depth, duplicating a lot of info between those three sections, mostly unnecessarily. —Nightstallion (?) 16:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
You seem to misunderstand what I mean. I don't want to make the intro shorter, just add a short answer for those who are looking for that (as I was before I started this article). Of course that would duplicate info below it. But that's looking at it the wrong way around. First there was the short intro. Then that expanded into something less transparent, more fit for those who already know the basics. And then the original intro (the main purpose of the article) got deleted. So I put it back. Where the links go, I don't care much. It seems more logical to have them together in the following section. And what do you mean it was unformatted? It was, wasn't it? I'll put it back for now. Maybe alter it, but please leave a short intro for non-experts like me. DirkvdM 09:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I've tried restructuring it a bit. A lot of the confusion arises from mixing up the geographical and political terms which are often the same word for different concepts. How does this look? Mucky Duck 10:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

'

Not bad. I've tided it up and merged the repitions so hopefully it will be better. You deal with the geographical bits well; the political section is a bit too vague. --Robdurbar 16:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Right. Don't get carried away, though: Remember the reasoning behind the "short intro". Mucky Duck 19:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
And I suspect it's already grown much too long again. This does not have to be a full pedantic explanation of the terms, discussion of any controversy etc; that belongs later in the article or in the indivdual referred articles. Mucky Duck 08:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
No; full, pedantic meanings discussing controversy are vital here, so that they don't fill the resepctive articles. That is the whole point of this page - to give overly-anal carfeully worded techincal discriptions. As far as I can see, the only bits that could be removed from the intro now are the England/Scotland/Wales/Northern Ireland/Isle of Man discriptions. --Robdurbar 14:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
That's fine, but not in the "short intro"
-for example: Ireland = a sovereign state covering 26 of the 32 counties of Ireland and Republic of Ireland = a "political description" of the sovereign state of Ireland are too complicated for the intro - important, but for the more technical sections later. Likewise "this term is problematic". For the intro KISS should be applied. Mucky Duck 20:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

My suggested intro by Neo

Hi, I haven't contributed to the debate yet, but can I offer the following as a suggestion; it basically streamlined descriptions and consolidated terms where appropriate. IMHO it *should* give people an idea of what each term means, and hopefuly lead them into the more comprehensive descriptions in the rest of the article. --Neo 21:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The various terms used to describe the different (and sometimes overlapping) geographical and political areas of the islands traditionally referred to collectively as the British Isles are often a source of confusion for people from other parts of the world, and even for the inhabitants of those islands themselves. The purpose of this article is to explain the meanings of and inter-relationships among those terms.
In brief , the main terms and their simple explanations are:
These various terms can be confusing not only in themselves (partly owing to the similarity between some of the actual words used), but also because they are often used loosely or inaccurately. --Neo 21:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Fine, except for the flame bait that I've crossed out and replaced with something less tempting. --Red King 23:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Ditto, and I correct your geography! --Robdurbar 19:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Why is Northern Ireland said to be a de facto constituent country? That qualification doesn't appear on the constituent countries page, and doesn't seem to be explained on this article. I'd strongly suggest deleting de facto, if not [citation needed]. ...dave souza, talk 19:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, that's my fault. I wasn't really thinking when I first introduced it to the article but it almost certainly falls foul of WP:OR. I used 'de facto' because I felt that it had taken the place of a 'real' country (Ireland) in the UK's set up, without actually being a country in itself. But you're right that it's both subjective and original research to say that... lazy editing on my behalf! --Robdurbar 22:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Although greatly improved, I' still not too happy about the intro. Any intro, but especially this one, should be for the clueless (mind you, that's 'clueless', not 'stupid'). There should preferably be an aha-erlebnis for as many people as possible. Any details for those with a clue can then follow. I'd rather see something like this, followed by a little mor4e detail, a short explanation of the controversies:

  • Britain = Great Britain = England + Wales + Scotland (politically) = the largest island (geographically)
  • The United Kingdom (political) = England + Wales + Scotland + Northern Ireland
  • The British Isles (geographical) = Great Britain (the island) + Ireland (the island) + many smaller surrounding islands

I picked this one from one of the earliest versions. (Damn, I missed the anniversary! This article is now just over one year old.) DirkvdM 11:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Britain does not = Great Britain. Britain can refer to either Great Britain or the United Kingdom as a whole. john k 21:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

And England, by the illogicality of that logic, can also refer to either England or Great Britain as a whole. El Gringo 19:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Not until the UK or GB are referred to as Enlgand on the UN's website or Tony Blair starts calling the UK or GB England in his speaches are these remotely comparable. --Robdurbar 21:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

'Not until the UK or GB are referred to as Enlgand on the UN's website or Tony Blair starts calling the UK or GB England in his speaches are these remotely comparable.'- So, out of millions of sources, wikipedia now has a precise selection policy where a name for Britain only has legitimacy when a British Prime Minister uses it? Care to cite the relevant policy? And, by this logic, the British Isles do not exist because the Irish Taoiseach never used the term to include Ireland? For that matter, numerous British nationalist posters over on the Talk:British Isles and Talk: Britain discussions have argued that Ireland is a British Isles and the North of Ireland is part of Britain solely because it is perceived as being thus- regardless of how technically incorrect it is. In other words, by the logic which British posters invoke in those articles, all we need do is show a widespread perception that England and Great Britain are the same in order for us to register that in those articles. And that, as you know, is an easy task. El Gringo 18:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
PS: A simple Google for "Ambassador to England" returned 50,100 results. England has not been a political state since 1707 and therefore people are really talking about something different, like Great Britain (until 1801) or the United Kingdom. By the same logic that you apply to the above Irish-related articles, this perception should be recorded in the relevant Wikipedia articles. El Gringo 18:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
My point was that whilst reputable and educated sources use the term Britiain to mean the UK, I feel that you would be hard pushed to find more than a handful of examples of such people calling it England. I used TB and the UN just as examples of such sources, rather than for themselves in particular. What I meant, really, is that there's a big difference between Joe Blogs saying that the country is England and Tony Blair, the UN, the Red Cross, the IOC or anyone else saying that the country is 'Britain'. The policy that I was using, by the way, is Wikipedia:Reliable sources, which notes that sources should be reputbale.
British Isles, I agree, is quite - though not exactly - comprarable. As you have noted, far fewere reputable and official sources use the term. However, you will find very few users on the page who state unequivocally that the Ireland is in the British Isles and that the page should say so, without any qualifications (though I accept that some - who I agree with you are either biased or blinkered - do say this).
Meaning is not controlled by some higher nature - if Britain grew from 'Great Britain' and then came to mean UK, then fine. I feel that the current intro is fine and explains the situation well; DirkvdM's attempts are a little to brief - for an article of the current page length, WP:LEAD recommends 3/4 paragraphs. --Robdurbar 19:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I didn't mean to replace the intro with this, but add it to it, as a first explanation. The way it is now, if I would have come here a year ago I would still be puzzled as to what's what. You can keep on expanding the intro with considerations and exceptions because there are so many here (and that has indeed happened several times already). So the most logical thing to do is to start with the basics and then slowly build it up from there. For example, Britain = Great Britain is roughly true ('great' distinguishes it from 'Little Britain' or Brittany. Any further considerations can then follow.
Let me restate: the primary purpose of the article has been lost. DirkvdM 09:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem, though, is that if we over simplify, we will be inundated with complaints such as User:El Gringo's above. If we state, unequivocally, that BI = great britain, Ireland and surrounding isles, then we will get sucked into repeated attempts to justify this and edit wars with users who think this is a non-neutral statement. I'm afraid that 'roughly true' probably isn't acceptable for an encylopedia anyway.

I think the best way of dealing with this would be to stick with the current intro. I think to state that it has lost its purpose is currently going a bit far. I wonder whether the Euler diagram could be replaced with some other form of simiplar graphic. --Robdurbar 12:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure of the British Isles terminology at all. Why do we need to clump these islands together with a name at all? The term 'British Isles' comes from when Britain controlled both islands. Now they do not - no more 'British Isles' right? As for the UK discussion I really wish they would stop including the Republic of Ireland with the UK. There are a few wikipedia articles of places and things in the Republic of Ireland that are said to be in the UK (see Castle Durrow eg). OisinT 13:52, 20 August 2006

Sorry to ruin your example but it couldn't be left as a UK-building-stub. --Red King 22:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Oisín, we need it because it is important to the national identity of very many British wikipedians that Ireland continues to be part of some greater geographical sense of Britishness, and contextualising Ireland within a 'British Isles' framework is apposite to this need. This neighbourly charm continues here in five archives (so far) El Gringo 00:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
The term "British Isles" did not, in fact, come from when "Britain controlled both islands". The term is much older than that Oisin. Read up about it. :) --Mal 14:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no move. -- tariqabjotu 22:38, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Page Move

Requested move

British Isles (terminology) → Britain and Ireland (terminology) – Some users find British Isles offensive or outdated. By moving to Britain and Ireland, we can avoid using this term with no great harm to ourselves. Also, it removes the misconception that some users get that this page will be about the term British Isles itself. Robdurbar 19:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

Oppose votes

  1. Oppose - Britain and Ireland is a badly defined term. Does it mean the two states (UK and Ireland) and ignore the Isle of Man or the two islands (Great Britain and Ireland) ignoring the multitude of smaller islands. British Isles is a well established term. We shouldn't give up clarity for the sake of bleeding hearts. josh (talk) 19:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose - as above. British Isles is a well established term: "Britain and Ireland" is problematic. Yorkshire Phoenix (talk) 09:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose - as above. Any offense can be noted in the article. Cleveland Indians is offensive to some but the title is not expunged to assuage the offended. "Britain and Ireland" does substitute for British Isles any more than "Norway, Sweden, and Denmark" would for Scandinavia. -  AjaxSmack  18:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose - delete the article British Isles (terminology) if necessary as British Isles#Terminology says it better, but to deny that this is the common term is close to the thinking process of those people in Belfast who think they live in Ulster rather than Ireland. --Henrygb 22:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
    and a comment:What terminology is this article about? that at British Isles or that at Britain and Ireland? --Henrygb 23:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose as per AjaxSmack above. --Mal 22:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  6. Oppose - Wikipedia is not here to prescribe language, but to describe it. British Isles remains the only universally known term. 'Britain and Ireland' simply refers to the states. TharkunColl 23:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
    Comment so merge it back into British Isles or delete it altogether? This article is someones personal project, someones drum, nothing more. Its a "disambiguation" page that is clearly not a disambiguation page, but an agenda. Djegan 23:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  7. Oppose - as per no. 12 above. Matthew 23:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  8. Oppose the move. There is already a Britain and Ireland article that discusses terminology. This issue is a hot potato at British Isles and has not yet resulted in a move of that. A first move here could destabilise the fragile consensus there. See Talk:British_Isles/Archive_3#One_term.2C_One_article.2C_One_thorough_explanation Finally, there are less offensive terms, and ones that would be less confusing in the present context of two states (and the IOM) occupying the islands, with the word British normally applying to just one of those states. However, the better terms are not widely (nor consistently) used outside Ireland, and so don't help the general reader. Since the islands are pieces of rock, they cannot self-identify, so Wikipedia should instead use the most widespread term for the article name. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 23:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC) .Vote withdrawn. Abstain After reflection and some persuasion from Robdurbar (see #Summary style below), I see that since the article is not really about the piece of geography usually called the British Isles, it is not such a hot potato, and Robdurbar's proposed article name is just as meaningful. Any move here may destabilise the fragile consensus at British Isles, but I hope people see the sense in the different purposes of the two article. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  9. Oppose. Regardless of my personal feelings about the term, British Isles is still the recognised term used in atlases and what all all over the world. Wikipedia isn't just for people in Ireland, Wales and Scotland; it's for people everywhere, and until the standard name changes, we are stuck with it. BTW, I saw someone suggest Dispute over the name of the British Isles over at Talk:Britain and Ireland: does anyone else think this sounds like a good idea? Vashti 04:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
    Actually, why not split the page and have Britain (terminology and Ireland (terminology)? Both islands have big sections on each other, and they could have pointers to each other at the top. Vashti 04:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  10. Oppose. The name of the archipelago is the British Isles. That that offends some people is not a reason to change the name of the article - state and explain the objection (and objections to the objection) by all means but no weasel wording. Mucky Duck 10:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
    By the way, I would support the third option (delete the article altogether). Mucky Duck 10:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  11. Oppose - as far as I'm aware it's the official term that is used, and as this is an encyclopedia we should be using the official term. -- Roleplayer 12:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  12. Oppose: article covers more islands than Britain and Ireland. C mon 13:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  13. Oppose "British Isles" is just a name, it doesn't mean they belong to Britain. What would happen if Koreans feel offended about the "Sea of Japan" that bathes the Korean Peninsula? Would we have to change the name of the sea? There's hundreds if not thousands of similar examples... They're just names. People feel offended just because they enjoy creating nuisances.--Húsönd 14:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  14. Oppose: British Isles is far and away the most common term used in the world for Great Britain and Ireland under any terms of searching. Ben W Bell talk 14:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  15. Oppose:Per all the above. Lancsalot 15:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  16. Oppose. Jeez, this is getting tiresome. john k 15:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  17. Oppose for now. As can be seen below there is still some disagreement over this article's scope and very existance. That all should be worked out before a rename. Also i'm unsure about the purpose of the move. The current intro defines the scope to be the terminology surrounding the "geographical and political areas" of the archipelago. Would the renamed article describe the terminology of the UK and ROI, a much wider scope? Or just the two islands? If so, maybe rework the intro—then propose a move?EricR 16:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  18. 'Oppose. "British Isles" is a well-known phrase; There is a clear difference between British Isles and "British Islands" (which is defined by the Interpretation Act 1978 to mean the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man only) Owain (talk) 17:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  19. Oppose, it is not for Wikipedia to invent terminology; "British Isles" suffices for the gross majority of the inhabitants thereof. James F. (talk) 18:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  20. Oppose. British Isles is clearly the most well known term. Stu ’Bout ye! 20:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  21. Oppose. Per above. It's the most common geographic term. --JW1805 (Talk) 20:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  22. Oppose. Wikipedia is supposed to describe the world as it is, not how people want it to be. In the world as it is "British Isles" is the term people use. When you succede in replacing that phrase, either by lobbying those in power to discourage its use, or by convincing people that it's politically incorrect, out of date, or whatever, Wikipedia will follow. Joe D (t) 20:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  23. Oppose. As for above, especially 3, 10, 13, 18, and most especially 16. MAG1 11:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  24. Oppose vide supra Alci12 14:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  25. Oppose Jonto 16:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Support votes

  1. Support - Britain and Ireland is a precisely defined term: it means Britain and Ireland. The British Isles, in contrast, entirely lacks specifics at its most fundamental point and this point, depressingly, still needs to be spelt out: Ireland is not a British island. El Gringo 00:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support - I'd have to support Britain and Ireland because it's the purest and most honest term to use and it lacks any sense of jingoism. It personifies the calm in the middle of a storm of flag-waving. MelForbes 19:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support as nom and re Mel Forbes. Robdurbar 20:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support (even better would be a deletion, its nothing more than a pov fork) Djegan 20:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support per User:Djegan. As far as I can see this entire article is a breach of WP:Content forking. --Mais oui! 20:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support or delete as above. If somebody comes here to be enlightened they will leave utterly addled! Scolaire 21:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support Some peopele perfer the term "Atlantic Isles" as use by some historians for example Diarmaid MacCullough ant_ie 22:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support While Great Britain is an established term its meaning is different for different people and though some people's interpretation can be correct, it can also be partially-correct, slightly-wrong or really really wrong, and all points in between. Britain and Ireland has more clarity than Great Britain. ww2censor 22:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
    I think you've misunderstood the question: It's about "British Isles" terminology; not "Great Britain" terminology.
  9. Support Accurate and correct. Djegan is correct. The current article is nothing more than a pov fork, all the more so under a name that is in itself offensive to many. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 23:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support. Palmiro | Talk 00:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  11. Support. British Isles is an outdated and slightly offensive title to a number of people. While I semi-jokingly suggest the term "Western European Isles", I certainly oppose the use of the British Isles. Lochdale 03:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  12. cautiously Support - this article serves a useful purpose in explaining the ambiguities and different meanings of the terms for both main islands and both states, as well as the terms for the British Isles as a whole. The revised title probably makes that clearer to the uninitiated. ...dave souza, talk 13:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  13. Support. Laurel Bush 13:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC).
  14. Support. More descriptive (and accurate) term. E Asterion u talking to me? 02:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  15. Support only because it's more descriptive of what the article is about, and probably more helpful for the casual reader who may not know what the British Isles are. --Ryano 12:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  16. Support Thinking about it more, I think that an article free from the serious POV issues associated with 'British Isles' term is definitely best...'Britain and Ireland' is clean and descriptive...I strongly support this renaming. Pconlon 16:51, 25 August 2006 (PT)

Discussion

The sooner people in Britain stop deluding themselves about Irish self-definition the better both our peoples will get on. It is (long passed) time to curtail this imperialist terminology for other people's homes. Respect costs absolutely nothing. El Gringo 01:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Understanding of language costs nothing either. British Isles existed long before the British state. TharkunColl 23:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
So did smallpox. That doesn't make it a good idea. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 23:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
There once was a set of old isles
whose naming disputes ran on for miles.
With long history lessons
and longer bitching sessions
It produced much more groaning than smiles. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 23:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
And that you don't like it doesn't mean that smallpox doesn't exist. Mucky Duck 10:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems that since this article was created, much of the terminology material has re-emerged in the British Isles article. Is there a reason why that material is not moved here leaving only a summary at the parent article? I kind of like the guideline Wikipedia:Summary style and would hope that it would be followed here. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 23:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

That is a non-starter with Irish Wikipedians.
  • "British Isles" is a controversial and widely rubbished term in Ireland (and among people of Irish descent worldwide, as well as many Scottish and Welsh Nationalists). There is no chance whatsoever of having an article under the name "British Isles" that does not include a detailed discussion of the naming controversy. Even if it was tried, all that would happen is that everytime the BI article was edited, if it didn't have all that information, it would be added in by others. It is one of those things which simply cannot be pushed off to another article.
  • This article's title is widely seen as unacceptable. In its current format it implies that it is discussing terminology for the British Isles. To millions of people, there is no such thing as the "British Isles" – it is as dead as term as "Austria-Hungary". So this article's title is discredited for many users. There is a justifiable reason for deleting this article altogther (it is little more than a POV fork) but no justification whatsoever not to cover the naming issue in the article on the "British Isles". FearÉIREANN\(caint) 00:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Eh? Have I made a new enemy? I did not say don't cover it, I said summarise it. I did agree that the current name has come to sound jingoistic, but we can't use Wikipedia to campaign for changes to the English language. Britain and Ireland is indeed becoming much more widespread, and with one last push, it could become global normal usage. (I kind of prefer IONA, Ireland and Britain and British and Irish Isles but it seems they have lost the battle.) However, Wikipedia is not the place to make that last push. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 00:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. But there are articles on WP where you simply cannot send a large chunk to another article. The issue isn't that it isn't a good idea (it may well be). It is that unless you state it is detail in the main article it will get added in anyway, in a less than NPOV manner, by others. There are certain topics which by their nature cannot be daughtered off to other articles. The terminology dispute has to be covered in detail in the main article. Otherwise you just invite edit wars and POV additions on the hour. So a long section on terminology in the main article is unavoidable. (We face the same issues to do with aspects of George Bush, Hitler, various wars, etc. Summaries are not an option because they only generate people adding in what they think is "missing". And no, you haven't made a new enemy. Did I sound a bit techy? Sorry, I didn't mean to. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 00:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

When a disproportionate flood of material putting the "Irish" case against the term changed the balance in the British Isles article, attempts were made to move the detail here and keep a summary in that article. This was hotly opposed, as stated above. The remnants here should be severely pruned, and the section devoted to more accurate information on the origins of the various terms, not just the British Isles. ...dave souza, talk 13:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Jtdirl says: "That is a non-starter with Irish Wikipedians. "British Isles" is a controversial and widely rubbished term in Ireland (and among people of Irish descent worldwide, as well as many Scottish and Welsh Nationalists)."
Being an Irish Wikipedian, I object to this generalisation of us. On top of that, having lived in Ireland all my life, I have rarely, if ever, heard any objection to the term "British Isles" by a fellow Irish person - no matter what their religious or socio-political background.
Further to this, there are those people both in the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom who object to being described as European. However that does not change the fact that they are of the European continent. --Mal 17:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Calling the archipelago the "British" (sic) Isles is akin to calling Europe "Little Russia" or "West Asia". --Mais oui! 18:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Except it's not, because none of those is an established term for Europe. Matthew 21:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I just want to echo what Mal says - as an Irish Wikipedian I've never considered the term offensive, and outside of Internet discussions like this one I've never encountered an Irish person who finds it particularly offensive. As I've said elsewhere, I don't have a problem with the term as a purely geographical descriptor, along the same lines as the Irish Sea or the Indian Ocean. I do have a problem when people take the existence of the term to mean that Ireland and Irish people can accurately be described as "British" --Ryano 09:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I think describin this as a POV fork is highly offensive to the editors who have tried to develop this page into a description of the often confusing terminology in the isles. If you think they have failed, then edit it. But I am sure that the original editor's aim (I think he was Dutch) was an honest one and, quite frankly, to come here and call this a POV fork is highly disrepectful to Wikipedia's otehr volunteers. --Robdurbar 07:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

As I indicated earlier, this article has a use for clarification of terms which predated addition of a lump about the naming dispute, though it did mention it. The dispute is dealt with more fully at British Isles: British Isles naming dispute could contain full detail of that argument and link to both articles, if need be, but expect objections which others have expressed above. ..dave souza, talk 17:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't think Fear Éireann said that "British Isles" is a non-starter for Irish Wikipedians, merely that 'summary style' is a non-starter for Irish Wikipedians. While he is still generalising about us, he is only generalising about our style of encyclopedia editing. State your own opinion, and the reason you hold it, and let that stand for itself. See below for my response. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 18:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
My opinion is that both this article and British Isles should contain a concise summary of the dispute, with a further article being created for the detail of the dispute along the lines being discussed at Talk:British Isles#Idea. ..dave souza, talk 19:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Summary style

Fear Éireann says that extensive duplication of this material in British Isles#Terminology is inevitable, if I understand him correctly. I may not have been around long enough, but it seems to me that since British Isles (terminology) keeps surviving votes for deletion, there is some kind of obligation on Wikipedia volunteers to make Wikipedia:Summary style work. Otherwise, by default, it becomes a content fork - with the inevitable result the same facts are treated in a different way in each article - and becomes confusing to readers.

Perhaps the most neutral manner for summary style to work here is for the British Isles#Terminology to be an exact mirror of the current state of the lead section of British Isles#Terminology To survive, that lead section would need to reflect the naming dispute better than it does now.

However, the current state of affairs or any other will require constant vigilance and merciless reverts to the consensus wordings.

Right now, British Isles is 50% Geography and History, and 50% Terminology. That is unbalanced, and shows that the consensus that Robdurbar mentioned on 5 July is not working yet. There are enough Wikipedians with good knowledge of Ireland, Britain and the IOM, and good writing skills, that British Isles ought to become a featured article one day. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 18:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, I've removed that article from my watchlist - I had enough of the personal attacks on the page. However, I should point out that one of my reasons for requesting a move on this page was to clarify that this is not just a discussion of the term 'British Isles' (and its alternatives) it/themself/ves, but of all the geographical terminology about places within the British Isles e.g. this is a clarification page about a number of issues - British Isles#Terminology is intended as a discussion about the phrase British Isles and its alternatives. If anything, all the info on this page about that debate could be removed, with a link to the relevant part of that article.
As for consensus on the British Isles page - well though its not entirely relevant here - my conclusion was based on how little the page has changed, despite all the talk. It seems/seemed to me that the vast majority of debate on the article was nitpicking over senetences/single words, rather than the content as a whole.
This article has never, by the way, been nominated for deletion. Indeed, some users have found it so helpful that they have decided to copy it (if not in form, then at least in principal) at Americas (terminology). Ironically, I think that article is probably now better than this one! --Robdurbar 18:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying the history, and sorry for the false statement. Please explain this a bit more:
Following an edit war on the British Isles article, the consensus for a way forward was that the article be pruned back to focus on geography and history, and the material on the original and controversy surrounding the name "British Isles" be dealt with here at British Isles (terminology).
That was one of the reasons I sound like a stuck record on 'Summary style', and why I feel sad that the material at British Isles#Terminology diverges so much from that at British Isles (terminology). I think both articles should be even-handed about all the useful terminology, and aim to educate and inform first. Neither should go on at endless detail about the naming dispute. Explaining the naming dispute is encyclopedic, but endless analysis of the citations by both sides doesn't seem to be to me, and I admire you for trying to hold the line against such.
I know that is very easy for me to say until I try to put it into practice, but if no-one else feels the same way, it won't be possible (or useful) to do alone. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 12:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, that. Yeah, that's bad editing on my behalf, I went way ahead in presuming that there was a conesnsus, and then havn't really tidied it up here. As for your concern - you can always create your vision of the article on a sub-page of this talk, for people to see and for you to try; you can always list for speedy when you're done. --Robdurbar 21:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

To avoid the situation where this article has essentially an outdated duplication of the section at British Isles, I've trimmed it back to a brief summary with a reference to the other as a main article. I've also pointed out that the term Ireland is itself a sensitive matter. Trust that helps to tidy this up. ...dave souza, talk 19:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

British Islands

It might be worth updating the diagram to add one more circle, "British Islands" that includes everything, including the Channel Islands. It would be unified, somehow :) Also, anyone know if the Channel Islansd were ever considered part of the "British Isles" (especially during WWII)? I might have a dispute over a trivia quiz...:) Stevage 11:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Such a circle would not include everything: to be accurate it would obviously have to exclude the Republic of Ireland, but include the Channel Islands. I'm not sure where Northern Ireland sits in relation to this term since it is not an island. Yorkshire Phoenix {{{alias}}} {{{alias}}} 11:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Agree with Yorkshire Phoenix. British Islands definitely does not include the territory of the Republic of Ireland. The term seems to be rarely used outside diplomatic circles, and it would make the diagram messy. As regards your trivia quiz question, read the articles — the answer is buried in there somewhere. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 18:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, I did read the articles, but the answer seemed to only be hinted at - hence my request for confirmation. Stevage 08:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Why didn't you say you had read them? As I recall, they say that sometimes the Channel Islands are included in the British Isles. That is the best I can do. Please don't write pub quiz questions about it. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 21:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I think a figure that included a circle for the British Islands as a political entity without the Republic of Ireland would be very useful to readers in order to indicate just how uncontrollably murky and ambiguous this topic is and how the passions it evokes are so ludicrous. A messy reality calls for a messy diagram. Flying Jazz 23:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree that inclusion of British Islands would add value to the Euler diagram. Yorkshire Phoenix United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland God's own county 09:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
How could the "British Islands" include Northern Island but not the rest of Ireland? Northern Island isn't an island. Therefore it's not part of the "British Islands." 128.211.183.231 (talk) 21:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Irish language

According to the article, in the Irish language, Éire refers both to the Political Entity of the Republic of Ireland, and also to the Geographical Entity, the island of Ireland. Firstly, I'd like to know if this is accurate, and, furthermore, if it is accurate, perhaps there could be a note to explain this difference between the two languages. I wonder if the Éire entry at the Irish-language Wikipedia could help here, if there are any Irish speakers contributing to this article? Liam Plested 22:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The name Ireland is simply the English language version of Éire: Ireland is the English name for Éire. Consequently, Derry, Ireland, is simply the English for Doire, Éire. This logic is something which would be too much for your average British person. But it stands. As for the 26 counties, its official name is Ireland, when speaking the English language. When speaking Irish, its official name is, naturally enough, Éire. This is contained in the 1937 Constitution, which reasserted, in the form of Articles Two and Three, the native Irish right to the entire country. That is the context of the legislation. In other words, those who admit Belfast is in Ireland, but wouldn't say Belfast is in "Éire" are simply twisting things to suit their (unionist) politics. I have yet to hear any Irish speaker use Éire in the partitionist sense British people use it. See: www.rnag.ie; www.tg4.ie, for instance. El Gringo 23:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

"This logic is something which would be too much for your average British person." (El Gringo). Then again, perhaps it's the Irish who are having trouble understanding the concept that you cannot legislate for language. I don't care what the Irish constitution of 1937 might say - the fact is that when used in English, for the vast majority of people in the British Isles, "Eire" means the Irish republic (whereas "Ireland" almost always means the whole island, and not just that part of it that has appropriated the name for itself). Perhaps this is because "Eire" always appeared on coins from the republic, which had a nasty habit of turning up in handfulls of change and then proving impossible to spend, except in slot machines - quite literally like the proverbial bad penny.
And on the subject of legislating for language, what on earth is wrong with the traditional term "Irish Gaelic"? Just calling it "Irish" is open to all sorts of misinterpretation. TharkunColl 08:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Absolute and total nonsense from beginning to end. So no change there then. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 12:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
hehe, Fear Éireann. ;-) El Gringo 20:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Are you denying that when used in England, for example, the term "Eire" means the Republic of Ireland (and not the whole island)? TharkunColl 13:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Why am I not surprised that you are preoccupied with how terms are understood in England? Obviously Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland and indeed the island of Ireland don't matter. All that matters is what England thinks. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 14:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I believe that in legislation of the Republic (perhaps the constitution of the Republic) both Ireland and Eire have been defined as names for the Republic. Also, however, I imagine these definitions date from when the Republic had "constitutional" claims to the whole of Ireland/Eire. (Ireland is quite obviously and Anglicisation of Eire + land. Laurel Bush 14:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC).
When de Valera began working on his new constitution in 1935 he initially planned to keep the name Saorstát Éireann. Later on, in 1936 and particularly 1937 drafts, he dropped the term, using instead Ireland and Éire. His constitution defined two entities: a twenty-six county "state" and a thirty-two county "national territory". He never defined what name meant which. So when referred politically, the twenty-six country state is variously referred to as "Ireland", "Éire-Ireland" (in the EU), "Éire" and "The Republic of Ireland". When the island is referred to culturally or geopolitically, it is referred to as "Éire" or "Ireland". "Éire" can mean either the 26 or 32 counties, depending on context. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 14:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, that's where we differ in our use of the words. When used in England (which I simply cited as an example before), or indeed in most other areas of the British Isles, the term "Eire" refers to the Republic, and "Ireland" almost always means the whole country - not just that part of it that is no longer in the UK. I even suggested a reason for this - namely, that "Eire" became associated with the Republic, in British people's minds, primarily though the medium of Irish Republic coins, which turned up here regularly. There's no other particular reason for us to have adopted a loan-word from Gaelic in this fashion, and I imagine that we pronounce it "wrongly" as well - just like many other loan-words from foreign languages. In short, whatever the word might mean in Gaelic, to most English-speakers who know it, it means the Republic of Ireland. As I stated before, anyone who tries to legislate the meaning of words is a fool. TharkunColl 14:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually, its dictionary meaning is clearcut. Éire (genitive case: Éireann) means Ireland. It is just that there are two Irelands; the island of Ireland and the state of Ireland. Both have the official name Ireland. As a result, in Irish both are Éire. It is simply that in the UK when people of Ireland they think of the state. So it is natural in that context to think Éire = The Republic. But it simply is one meaning. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 15:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes indeed, I fully understand that "Eire" is the Irish Gaelic word for Ireland. But in general contemporary English, when the loan-word "Eire" is used, it means the Republic. I don't, incidentally, think it's true that when people use the term "Ireland" they are thinking primarily of just the Republic (though it depends on context). In most cases, however, "Ireland" means the whole island. So in other words, there was a linguistic gap in English usage and saying "Republic of Ireland" or even "Irish Republic" all the time was a bit of a mouthful - language abhors both a vacuum and needless long-windedness - and "Eire" fitted the bill nicely (usually pronounced something like "air-a" or even "air", i.e. how people saw it written on coins). Were it not for this combination of factors, I doubt that the word would ever have been adopted into general English at all. TharkunColl 15:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes indeed, I fully understand that "Eire" is the Irish Gaelic word for Ireland. Indeed, it most certainly is not. Obviously, Ireland is the English Anglo-Saxon word for Éire. Get the historical sequence correct. Unionist revisionism is so, like, eighties, like. El Gringo 20:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
You seem to be a little confused as to what I actually said. I said that "Eire" is the Irish Gaelic word for "Ireland". I made no suggestion as to which of those two terms came first. Can you not understand plain written English?
And whilst we're at it, I must take exception to your suggestion that I'm a "unionist". In my opinion the artificial division of Ireland was a terrible crime, forced on a weakened British government by German-sponsored Irish terrorism during the First World War. Both Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic are gerrymander states, that should never have been torn assunder in the first place. TharkunColl 23:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
by German-sponsored Irish terrorism during the First World War. This coming from a supporter of the murdering British state savages who took the great, noble and honourable James Connolly over to Kilmainham Gaol during this time, strapped him to a chair, and murdered him in cold blood just reflects how fucked up and utterly fanatic some of you British can still be about the natives. And how nice of you to do it all "for the rights of small nations to self-determination". You blinkered, xenophobic jingoists. The only terrorists in Ireland are the ones who believe Britain has a right to rule lands beyond Britain. Masterrace nutcases. The free Irish are a very peaceful people; the only part of the country that is not at peace is where the British have settled in large numbers. Term it the British military tradition, or the British cultural affinity with violence- it means the same thing. But I don't expect any of you to honestly face this aspect of your national values. In other words, the "Irish Problem" is, clearly, the British state's presence here. El Gringo 22:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
"The only terrorists in Ireland are the ones who believe Britain has a right to rule lands beyond Britain." Then I take it that you do not regard the IRA as terrorists? In that case, Mr Gringo, I accuse you of being a fellow traveller with repugnant murderous bastards. You are beneath my contempt. I shall not respond to any further statement that you make, as in my opinion you have forfeited the right to be heard. TharkunColl 23:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Woah, woah, woah, let's bring this back a little. We're meant to be discussing words and terms here, not bringing any of this heated nationalist/loyalist stuff up. There's a whole Internet full of forums for that sort of stuff. In English, one can refer to "The Republic of Ireland", or "The Island of Ireland", and each is a separate entity. The article implies, however, that Irish Gaelic has only one term (Éire) for the two. Doing a little research, I've found "Poblacht na hÉireann" as being a translation for the name of the RoI, and there also being a term for NI. I'll be quite honest here, and state that I find the whole thing confusing, and I'd be glad if someone could clear it up without bringing their axe to the grindstone. If it's a matter that can't be cleared up, perhaps this should be stated in the article. Liam Plested 23:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I find ElGringo's comments about Brits being unable to understand logic and having "a cultural affinity with violence" (presumably you'd like to explain the difference between those comments and saying that Black people have a cultural affinity with crack dealing for example or that Jews have a cultural affinity for being mean with money and world domination) to be about as racist and despicable as you can get and to have no place on Wikipedia - oh and I'm not a unionist, far from it, before I'm tarred with that brush. I'm sorry but as well as breaking Wikipedia guidelines on civility it also reduces the credibility of your arguments since it makes you comments on the alleged imperialist nature of the term "British Isles" seem to just be another outgrowth of your prejuidice. Frankly if I had bigoted views on other nations I'd at least be ashamed of it enough not to broadcast them in public. While there are certainly many British people who's attitude to Ireland could be summed up by the terms "xenophobic" or "jingoistic" unfortunately you have demonstrated how much in common with them. The sad fact is that there are so many people in this world who would be exactly what they currently despise if they were only born a few miles down the road since at heart they think in exactly the same way. Disgraceful. Truly disgraceful. 82.12.232.172 20:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


Congratulations on making a post that contributes nothing to the discussion on the article. Your opinion is valid, but this isn't the place for it, so take it elsewhere. Liam Plested 11:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
That might perhaps have been more useful if you had suggested where to take it! I'm not new to Wikipedia but would have no idea myself where an appropriate place would be for such things. Matthew 12:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

To go back to Liam's original question. Yes Éire refers to both the island of Ireland and to the irish state in the irish language. The official position of the Irish goverment is that this also applies in the English language as per the Irish Constitution ie. Island = Ireland, state = Ireland. There is a term "Poblacht na hÉireann" in irish which is basically a direct translation of the term "Republic of Ireland". However this is not the official name of the state per the constituion which is "Éire/Ireland" (Depending on language used and as oppose to "Poblacht na hÉireann/Republic of Ireland"). The term for "Northern Ireland" is "Tuaisceart Éireann" which is a direct translation into irish. Likewise one could say "Iarthair na hÉireann" as a translation for "west of ireland" etc. The confusion is to do with the fact that use of english language is different between Ireland and Britian. Here (i'm irish) Ireland is name of both the state and the island, whereas in Britian you will more likely find usage of "Republic of Ireland"/"Irish Republic"/"Southern Ireland"/"Éire" for the state and the usage of "Ireland" purely for geopgraphic island. Hope that helps. -Paul

Brittany

Have changed a bit here. I'm tired of seeing this same line that Brittany was peopled by the Cornish! Some facts: Brittany and that region of France had a culture and language similar with that of southern Britain; the Anglo-Saxons didn't kick the 'Celts' out of England; migrants from Britain to Brittany would not have just come from Cornwall (that one always makes me scratch my head); the population of Brittany would have existed prior to British migration and would have enveloped it. Enzedbrit 09:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Interesting subject: according to Snyder Armorica was Brittonic speaking with longstanding trade and religious links to Britain, and was less Romanised than the east of Gaul. Unrest from the third century led to a series of revolts, and though Britons had travelled through Gaul throughout the Roman period, there's no indication of large groups of Britons until the mid 5th century, with the term Brittania being first applied to the area by Procopius and becoming a standard term for Armorica by the late 6th century. He mentions linguistic similarities between Cornish and Breton leading some to argue for migration from south Wales and southwest Britain from the late 5th century, and since this predated Saxon expansion into these areas have suggested they were fleeing from Irish raiders, but Snyder considers ecclesiastical and commercial links suffice to explain the language links. ...dave souza, talk 15:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Terminology_of_the_British_Isles/Archive_4&oldid=1137223868"