Jump to content

Talk:British Isles/Archive 32

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25←Archive 30Archive 31Archive 32Archive 33Archive 34Archive 35

Edits

Wiki-ed - I could seemly have reverted your bold changes and asked you to discuss them. Instead I made a minor change to conform with the sources. The material (as the second sentence says) does not exist, it is therefore only reported as per my amendment. Its also not clear and still in dispute if translations of British Islands in Greek etc. really mean the same thing as the British Isles. Happy to accept there are roots, hence the moderate amendment.

Your call really, as its stands its not neutral and does not conform to the cited material. I'm happy to revert back to the prior position (before your edits) for discussion but I thought it better to give you a chance to accept a reasonable and minor change. --Snowded TALK 13:05, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

In response I'll point out that this matter has been discussed already above, although you didn't take part. As for the other points I see that as I type Highking has inaccurately (Avienus was 700 year later) reverted my revert (whoops BRD???), altered sourced text (replacing a reference with an opinion is not "neutral") and is engaged in plagiarising the sources (can't quote verbatim). However, while it's typed out you can see that Davies disagrees with your argument about translation - a fiction invented by Wikipedia editors to justify a POV. The contention that it is not neutral and does not conform to the cited material when each sentence is an abstract of the listed reference for that sentence is quite amusing, especially given your edit history on this article.
And please drop the condescending threats ("better to give you a chance" etc) - you know full well that if you reverted you'd get blocked. Talking of which Highking - you'll need to self-revert some of your recent edits. Wiki-Ed (talk) 14:14, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
The policy is Bold, revert, discuss. You were bold and I suggested an amendment which you then reverted. I am fully entitled to revert the whole of your edits under that policy. Its been discussed but not agreed. Also your wording is contradictory. It starts by saying this was the first use, then proceeds to say that the material does not exist but is only reported. I'm sorry if you took my attempting to get an agreement as condescending or threatening it wasn't intended as such. Your comment on my edit history I will treat with amusement. As I say its your call, but its not your way or the highway. I'll leave it for a bit to see and if nothing happens, then I will either attempt another amendment or revert to the position before your bold edit. --Snowded TALK 14:32, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
An "amendment" is either a revert or an insertion of material. You inserted some material (being "bold"); I reverted it. You could, as you say, have reverted my previous insertion, but I believe you have no (neutral or verifiable) grounds for doing so and Highking has now somewhat muddied the waters. As for the wording: the first sentence referred in the past tense to material which existed (we know because of the later writers quoting from it) but no longer does so - not unusual in history, not contradictory and not in disagreement with the 3rd - 7th sentences of the first paragraph of the cited source. However, if it would help the readability it could be amended to say The British Isles first appeared in the historical records in the writings of travellers from... without losing conformity with the references supporting it. Wiki-Ed (talk) 15:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Snowded on this one. @Wiki-Ed, I fail to see why I need to self-revert anything, please explain. Also, I do not understand your point about Avienus. As to my edits, I corrected your inaccuracies. Snyder's reference for the historical writings specifically deal with Britain and Ireland. Using "The British Isles first appeared" is wrong. They were there all the time, and there is no evidence that the area defined as "British Isles" has any correspondance to the current area, but that the references are to Britain and Ireland. I corrected the quotation from Davies, and I've placed the quotation in italics? And rather than get into a long discussion on the various theories as to usage of 'P' transforming into usage of 'B', I tried to state it as neutrally as possible, otherwise the etymology section would get cluttered up with each theory and there is no need for the detail here. And like Snowded, I'll treat your name-calling with amusement. --HighKing (talk) 15:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

This is getting rather surreal. But I'll humour you and deal with your points in order:

  • The article is supposedly under a Bold-Revert-Discuss rule whereby an admin declared he'd block anyone who reverts a revert (see above 22 June). However, he's seems to be otherwise engaged so perhaps you'll escape.
  • The Snyder reference supports the contention that the first historical record was from the ancient Greeks. It was not being used to support the use of the term "British Isles" which, I should point out, we are using to refer to both Britain and Ireland in this article. (Snyder describes the work of Avienus (4th century AD) and the names he used but does not mention how Pytheas (4th century BC) treated them.) If that's presuming too much from one source I can insert another, for example Foster page 1 sentence 6&7. Snyder would then support (a) the fact that the first records dated to the Greeks and Foster would support (b) Pytheas referring to the "British Isles" as the "Pretanic Isles". However, this change would probably provoke a syntheis tag from a certain editor.
  • Following the change you've made to the sentence quoting Norman Davies it does not read as well as it did. "Historians like Norman Davies..." do not say what Norman Davies said. He said that. He infers that they may debate the details but agree the general concept; without the first half of the sentence this is not clear - it should not have been cut.
  • You removed a sourced statement from the paragraph dealing with the Roman terminology. I don't see why you think your edit is more neutral although from previous discussions I would guess you were trying to remove the word "derived", even though the source used it and even though you quoted Davies in the paragraph above saying the same thing. The current sentence is not verified and does not appear to be precisely accurate.
  • Please point me to the name calling. I don't see it. Wiki-Ed (talk) 19:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree that your interpretation of WP:BRD is surreal. You are saying that if you make a change and someone tries to improve it, then the new default position is your amendment. In other words you are encouraging total reversion as a full response. The change was a simple matter of logic. You can't say that the first reference was from X, then say that X does not exist. Two out of your three comments above contain name-calling and I think you know it. As it is HighKing has improved matters, however if you are unhappy with people amending your additions then the only solution it to argue every change here before making it to the page. --Snowded TALK 20:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
If I knew about "name calling" I wouldn't be asking for anyone to point me to it. I assume you mean you don't like me querying the validity of your/Highking's edits - big difference between that and a personal attack.
As for BRD, I was reading this - in particular the bit that says "In future I will block any editor who reverts a revert on this article". As to what constitutes an "amendment" and what constitutes a "reversion" etc, that is entirely subjective. Needless to say I don't agree with your self-assessment of the value or reasoning of your edits, so we probably do need to discuss each sentence one by one.
Most of the points I've raised above are for Highking to answer, but you've addressed one: "You can't say that the first reference was from X, then say that X does not exist". Not me - the sources. Snyder says "Outsiders, literate and with broader geographic knowledge, left the first recorded names for Britain and its inhabitants. The earliest appear in a periplus ('circumnavigation'), or sailing manual, written by a mariner from Massilia (Marseilles) in the sixth century BC (A). Though we do not possess this manual (B), it was used (along with information from the Carthaginian admiral Himilco) by the Roman writer Avienus in his poem Ora Maritima ('The Maritime Shores') c. AD400 (C). (pg.12)
Earliest reference (A) has been lost (B) but was used by later author (C) so that we, today, know some of the content of the original. I don't see the problem - are you contesting what the sources say or contesting how we reflect it? I accept that "in the historical records" might confuse the issue, despite the sentence being in the past tense, hence my proposal above.
The other points still need to be addressed or some will need to be tagged as OR. Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Just curious: Why have ya styled your quoting of Snowded, to match his moniker style? GoodDay (talk) 22:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
You mean the colour? I thought it would make it clearer who I was quoting since I've used italics quite a lot. Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
" given your edit history on this article" is at best a slur and that's but one example, you are going to "humour" HighKing; please try and get more collegiate and realise that when people amend something you have written they are trying to work with you and avoid an edit war. The quotation you provide from Snyder makes exactly the point I was making, it reports use of material in a poem. There is an issue, as you well know, that spreads across several pages on the origin and legitimacy of "British Isles" and the citation position is far from clear otherwise it would have been resolved by now. Finding ways to deal with this requires collaboration not confrontation. --Snowded TALK 23:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
From my perspective I see you reverting or amending my edits within 20-30 minutes but without providing much of an explanation. An observation, not a slur. And if your intention was to be collegiate why did you not engage in the discussion (above) before I reworded the paragraph?
As for the substantive point: You originally said that there was some sort of fallacy in referring to material that no longer exists but is referenced in a later source which does exist; are you now saying that the extant source is unreliable because it is a poem? If so we've moved from verifiability to neutrality. If you do not think the source is accurate then you need to provide an alternative source which balances or counters it. In fact you might do well to provide more than one since Foster (pg.1) and Davies (pg.47) corroborate the existing statement. If you cannot provide sources to support your opinion then your amendment cannot stand. Wiki-Ed (talk) 13:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
In response to the points raised above:
If you argue that the Snyder reference was no being used to support the use of the term "British Isles", then why have you been so insistent to use the term? This article does not swap about "British Isles" and "Britain and Ireland" interchangeably. They are two separate and distinct concepts.
I've included the Norman Davies quote exactly. If you want to argue over the readability, take it up with Snyder. Arguing that it does not say what Norman Davies said is odd, given that I've quoted verbatim.
You're correct that I removed the word "derived" (even though a source used it), because we've also seen sources that use other words such as "substituted" and "transformed", and explanations such as "Caesar may have believed he was correcting a mistake", etc. I tried to pick a suitably neutral word that would deal with all theories, rather than make the section unnecessarily long by explaining each theory (thought I'd explained that already).
Like Snowded, I really don't believe a poem is a reliable source. At all. Ever. Poets are notorious with the facts. --HighKing (talk) 18:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Use poems as a substitute for history? Good heavens knows where it could end, Kubla Khan! Bad idea. Tfz 18:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
"British Isles term, is in dispute, the argument continues on. Much has been complained, causing lots of pain. Where did it all go wrong?". GoodDay (talk) 18:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Well James Joyce wasn't too impressed with the BIs when he called them the 'Brutish Isles', and that's over a 100 years ago. So they must have gone wrong before that. Tfz 18:49, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
(1) Highking, thank you for responding point by point. However, I don't think your doubt about the validity of a primary source used by a secondary source is relevant unless the secondary source is somehow discredited and proved to be unreliable. Snyder has picked Avienus and his quotes from the unnamed Greek traveller; Allen used Diodorus and his quotes from Pytheas; Harley picks Strabo's criticism of Pytheas in Geographica. They all support the same point and as I have said already, I was using Snyder to support a statement that it was outsiders who created the first records. Following on from this, as I suggested above, I could add Foster and/or Allen to support the use of the term "British Isles" in this context. However, I can see there might be some confusion arising from mixing secondary sources which use different primary sources, so, as a new proposal, the sentence I proposed should stand with Allen and Foster as references; Snyder would be removed.
(2) Yes, you have included the Norman Davies quote exactly, but you've cut the first part of my sentence which explained what he was talking about (an abstract of the two sentences above the one you have copied out) so I think it looks a bit out of place. The other point I was making was a (perhaps pedantic) grammatical point: "Historians like Norman Davies state that..." should read something like "The historian Norman Davies states that..." otherwise it infers they all said the same thing. The only caveat is that if we change it (as proposed) then we have to assume that the reader will understand that his use of the word “details” refers to the sentence above and hope that no-one sticks a ("which") tag on it.
(3) Understood your reasoning for removing "derived" and although I don't agree that the historiography is necessarily weighted that way, I think it seems sensible to keep it short and simple as you propose. One point I would suggest you look at again is whether "Pretani" corresponds directly to "Britannia" (I'd suggest "Pretannia" as per Snyder – 2nd para - who you could re-insert to support the new wording). Wiki-Ed (talk) 19:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Road altas sentences

I have removed these sentences. It is clear that noone has any sources which show this is not original research, and it's not simply a matter of removing the word "likewise" and "letting the reader make up their own mind". We can clearly see that these publishers do continue to use the term British Isles elsewhere and we do not know the decision process behind the naming of the atlas. There is an equal amount of evidence that they decided not to title it "British Isles" as there is for a decision not to title it "England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland And Ireland". The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 20:11, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Under what basis are you deleting referenced material, and under what paragraph here on talk. I notice you just opened a new heading here. Tfz 20:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Under that absolutely huge section entitled "references" to which you contributed. Don't play innocent. [1] The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 20:41, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
I have argued against you here and on the pov page, and that was it. That doesn't give you the right to remove other editor's hard work. Tfz 20:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
2 + 2 = 5? BritishWatcher (talk) 20:48, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Hard work? Please familiarise yourself ASAP with Wikipedia's policies. "Hard work" is not one of Wikipedia's policies, and is not a valid justification for retaining original research in articles. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 20:49, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Maybe change to something like this, as it is relevent information, and those companies "DID" change in recent years, and I know it's unpalatable for some to swallow. Anyway, here ---Likewise, publishers of road atlases such as Michelin,[39][40] SK Baker,[41] Hallwag,[42] Philip's,[43][44] Reader's Digest[45] and The Automobile Association (AA)[46][47] do not use the term 'British Isles' with Great Britain and Ireland or Britain and Ireland in their recent maps. Michelin[48], Philip's,[49][50] and the AA[51] refer to the term "British Isles" on their website and in print publications. In 2008, Folens, an Irish publisher of school text books, decided to abandon using the term in Ireland while continuing to use it in the United Kingdom.[52][53]--- Tfz 21:11, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
I see no difference between that proposal and what you have put back into the article. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 21:14, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Where I have now underlined it. Tfz 21:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
You are completely failing to understand the problem with this sentence if that is your proposal. Again, instead of rewording it, the answer to charges of original research is to provide a reference showing that it is not. This sentence is extrapolating from a finite number of instances (some of which incidentally contradict the statement made) to the general statement that they "do not use" the term. Have you checked every single publication? Even in the unlikely case that you have, and even unlikelier case that you can prove that you have, how do you know that these publishers do not have an atlas planned for publishing in 2010 entitled "British Isles"? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 21:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
I never claimed my rewording was the solution, although it is a step in the right direction. It is of interest, who uses and not-uses the term on their maps. I think this section could be expanded, and it can be easily reworded to satisfy all editors, but deletion is draconian. Tfz 21:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
And why on earth are we limiting this "interest" to maps, for goodness sake? What about these several hundred books published since the year 2000 with the term in the title? And this huge number of hits for books using the term? [2] This is just a silly line of reasoning. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 22:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
You are forgetting that the term is far more common in the United Kingdom, than in the rest of the world. That's why some of these problems arise. Tfz 23:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
The world/ the UK, are you really contending that there is a difference here on Britipedia? I'm afraid you're clearly delusional with that idea.86.44.47.236 (talk) 23:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Where is the fiery Sarah gone? She didn't take any of their nonsense here. 86.44.47.236 (talk) 23:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

"The Government of Ireland discourages its use"

This statement is not supported by the references.

Ref 12 A spokesman for the Irish Embassy in London said: “The British Isles has a dated ring to it, as if we are still part of the Empire. We are independent, we are not part of Britain, not even in geographical terms. We would discourage its useage.”

Ref 13 In his response, the Irish Minister for Foreign Affairs stated that "The British Isles is not an officially recognised term in any legal or inter-governmental sense. It is without any official status. The Government, including the Department of Foreign Affairs, does not use this term. Our officials in the Embassy of Ireland, London, continue to monitor the media in Britain for any abuse of the official terms as set out in the Constitution of Ireland and in legislation. These include the name of the State, the President, Taoiseach and others."

What we know from this is that the Irish Embassy in London discourages use of the term, and that the Irish Government simply doesn't use it. It is synthesis to therefore say that the Irish Government discourages it. ðarkuncoll 11:24, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I made a note the below reference should this issue resurface

Caoimhghin O Caolain asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Dermot Ahern, last year about the Government position on the term, and whether "its use by government agencies and the media in Britain was discouraged in any way by his department". Ahern replied: "The British Isles is not an officially recognised term in any legal or inter-governmental sense. It is without any official status. The government . . . does not use this term

Ref Irish Times Islands in the stream 15 July 2006 (ps the . . . is by the IT - not me). Þjóðólfr (talk) 12:03, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

How about The Irish government does not use the term and the Irish Embassy discourages its use. Þjóðólfr (talk) 12:07, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
  • This has been argued over of late, and by same editor. The Irish embassy is representative of the Irish government, that's their raison d'être. Who else would the Irish embassy be speaking for? Tfz 12:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
If that is the case then why does the government response to the same question not also state that they discourage its usage. 87.115.54.227 (talk) 21:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Because the Irish Government only has authority in Ireland (state). If it says it doesn't use it, that's it as far as Ireland is concerned (accepting that its citizens have free speech and can say what they like). But outside Ireland (in the UK in particular), the Embassies may seek to persuade the local media and government organisations of its view, which is that they wish to discourage its use. --Red King (talk) 00:01, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
That's your interpretation. Not using a term does not equate to being opposed to its usage. 87.114.132.166 (talk) 00:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
So how do you account for it? Non-use is just an accidental omission by the vast majority of Ireland's political, academic and media elite? Head. Sand. 86.44.47.236 (talk) 23:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't have to account for it. I'm not asserting anything other than its lack of use by the Irish government is for unknown reasons. It is up to you to provide the references to back up your conclusion. 87.114.146.85 (talk) 11:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:BRD still operates here

I don't agree with all of Hippo's edits, therefore I reverted some of them, and Hippo reverted back[3]. Some of this is still under discussion. 'Am asking SheffieldSteel to have a look at the reverts. Tfz 19:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Tfz has reinserted claims which are unreferenced. The claims reinstated are not made in secondary sources, so as several editors have clearly explained above and elsewhere, are clearly original research. If Tfz has a reliable source for the material s/he has reinserted, I'd love to see it.
As I understand it, WP:NOR and WP:V still operate here. --hippo43 (talk) 20:03, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Straw Poll: Road Atlas Publishers

All mention of the road atlas publishers for whom we have no statement from the publisher or secondary source regarding the publisher about decisions relating to the term "British Isles" should be removed, immediately, per WP:NOR, and especially so given that it has been confirmed that these same publishers do continue to use the term, sometimes even in the same publications. Any publisher for whom we have such a statement or reference (e.g. Folens) can continue to be mentioned. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 20:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Support The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 20:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - Clearly some people just jump to conclusions, such presumptions should not remain in wikipedia articles. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose. why is there this hurry to remove longstanding edits. Surely this can wait for some more discussion, and intent to edit is concluded. Tfz 20:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment The problem is it's OR. The mere fact that it has existed for X months is neither here nor there - there is no OR policy exemption for that. The solution to accusations of OR is to provide a reference showing it is not. Clearly, noone here is intending on doing that. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 20:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment If there was a table of atlas names from reputable publishers, over time, with no conclusions drawn that would not (I think) be OR. Using reported name changes as evidence of a shift is, unless (for example) a newspaper wrote and article on the shifts in names drawing such a conclusion. At that point it could be referenced. I'm not sure that a straw poll with the usual suspects lining up on both sides will help. I think the Atlas information is relevant to the subject, but as currently expressed, in wikipedia language, its OR as RedHat points out. I suggest reaching an agreement on how the material could be used and not violate OR rather than getting into yet another argument. --Snowded TALK 21:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't disagree with you, and your point about making changes to get any OR out of the sentence is germane. But I can't see why RedHat wants to remove all of the sentence, as it is of interest to the subject, on who uses the term, and who does not. Tfz 21:32, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
It is verifiable that four out of five of these publishers (AA, Michelin, Philips and SK Baker) continue to use the term. So why on earth are you even suggesting that they have stopped? The evidence that they have not stopped is there for anyone to see. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 21:48, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Use within the body of the atlas is relevant, but so is a change of the title. This is a messy subject, and the term is in transition so there are going to be no neat and tidy solutions. We need to find a way to incorporate relevant information that is factual so that readers can make their own minds up. --Snowded TALK 21:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
The obvious response to that is: who decides what material in what publications is relevant? (Answer: an independent verifiable secondary source as per Wikipedia:Notability#Notability_requires_verifiable_evidence) Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree, it is a messy subject. Maybe not rush with it at the moment, but examine over the next 7 days or so. Then some editors will have an opportunity to make their wishes known, rather than just baldly commenting. Tfz 22:42, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
What do you mean, baldly commenting? This was first raised (this time) on 19th, since when all the usual suspects have commented - including you - repeatedly. A comment is a comment, bald or otherwise. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 22:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Interpret baldly whichever way you want to. The bottom line is that you didn't get the go ahead to delete those sentences. Just introducing a subject, then commenting, and then discussing, doesn't give the go ahead to delete. There can be far better ways to edit articles than to demolish bits and pieces. I think that sentence does need some tweaking, but that section could also be expanded so as to give more information on the term's usage in current map-making, map-printing. Tfz 23:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
And neither did you get the go ahead to add it back, now did you? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 00:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC) (that is to say, there is no such thing as a "go ahead" at Wikipedia)
Where have you been? WP:BRD per SheffieldSteel[4]. You will have to ask Sheffield if you want any changes in the editing rule. Tfz 00:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
I've been right here, discussing it above. BRD does not mean "get unanimous agreement" or indeed "have his Lordship Tfz agree to it". We're never going to get 100% agreement here, but it's obvious we have a majority view this sentence should go. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 09:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Let's play "pin the IP on the editor". I wonder who we have here making comments that fly in the face of the evidence and attacking those who don't agree with their fringe theories? Wiki-Ed (talk) 09:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Considering that your edits on Wikipedia to-date have been largely related to narrow British nationalist topics like 'British Isles'. 'British Empire' and 'Britannia', I don't think anybody is going to question your expertise on "fringe theories", User:Wiki-Ed. Well done. 86.44.47.236 (talk) 00:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Reminder to Wiki-Ed of WP:AGF. Why is this so difficult to understand I wonder? --HighKing (talk) 14:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
The only thing that it is difficult to understand is why you think anyone should "assume good faith" when an IP is blatantly abusive.Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. Whatever aboout WP:NOR, the text as it stands certainly contravenes WP:SYN. --Red King (talk) 10:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose The text does not mention that the publisher made a decision for all publishers. Highly inappropriate POV wording for this poll, designed to skew the results, and this poll should be invalidated. Text factually states that maps that used to use the term "British Isles" now use a different term. Any inferences, etc, can be made by the reader. --HighKing (talk) 12:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Clarifying Note to counterbalance NPOV poll text: The text does not state that the publishers completely dropped the term, or changed policy - it simply states that maps that used to use the term, now don't. The present wording states a simple fact, but I can understand why some editors (and guess where their allegience is?) don't like it. --HighKing (talk) 14:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Cough cough. AGF??? Anyway, the statement is not factually accurate - it implies something that is not borne out by evidencee. This is synthesis. Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. Text factually states that maps that used to use the term "British Isles" now use a different term. As has been proven, that fact is incorrect and is not backed by the sources. Those same publishers continue to use the term "British Isles" in their maps, as was pointed out some months ago. The present wording is distorting reality in order to push a point of view, and needs to be changed. Where a publisher has clearly changed policy, as with Folens, that should remain. Skinsmoke (talk) 14:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. as per comment above.--LexCorp (talk) 00:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Support per WP policy statements ref'd by others above. In any case, this para - to the extent that it is ref'd - would be better placed at British Isles naming dispute rather than here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Result: 7 agree that the material should be removed immediately because it is original research, 3 disagree. This is not consensus, but consensus is impossible at this article. It does constitute a clear majority after much discussion. The article is protected so no changes can be made, but it happens to be the case that the protected version has the material removed already. Therefore, this straw poll indicates a majority view that the material should not be reinstated when the protection is lifted. (That's not to say we can't continue discussing the matter on the talk page). The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 00:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Weasel Term?

Since 'British Isles' is a last remnant of a dead empire, and not all dictionaries include Ireland, my very 'tame' edit to reflect that fact was unceremoniously reverted by Wiki-Ed after one minute of existence[5]. How do you justify that revert, WE? Tfz 23:03, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

You are making an assertion that the cited source is inaccurate. Provide a source to support that assertion. Wiki-Ed (talk) 23:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Later today, I will. Tfz 23:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
I have reverted this edit. This is simply adding to the problems of OR in this article. The definition of "British Isles" does not "generally" include Ireland. It always includes Ireland. Per any dictionary. And it is not OK to add original research and then say "later today I'll add a source". No, provide the source up front. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Can't see what is wrong with "generally", and it's now obvious that some editors don't want to give way on the littlest of words, whilst the very same editors want whole paragraphs deleted. This line is more appropriate, [6]. Tfz 00:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm not surprised that you can't, because you don't seem to understand when something is original research and when it is not. If you provide a reference confirming that it "generally" includes Ireland, sure, you can add this to the article. That dictionary does not even come close to making the same claim that you inserted into the article. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 00:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
The reference says "sometimes", and does not say "generally". So the reference says that they are sometimes called the BI. It would follow that Ireland is sometimes named as a BI. Generally is stronger to suit your POV. It's sad you cannot see that. Tfz 00:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Let's look at what the reference actually states, instead of trying to put our own interpretations on it! It reads as follows :-
"British Isles: Name sometimes given to Great Britain, Ireland and the adjacent islands. Its divisions are, England, Wales, Scotland, Northern ireland, Irish Free State, Isle of Man and Channel Islands. They cover over 120,489 sq. m., and have a pop. estimated at 48,000,000."
There is nothing about it "generally" including Ireland.
There is nothing about it "sometimes" including Ireland.
The reference does refer to the "Irish Free State". The same page refers to "the Dominions" and "Glamorganshire". Just how old is it? If we are to try and explain a term being used in the 21st century, can we at least try to find contemporary references. Skinsmoke (talk) 01:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Tfz: your edits are getting more and more ridiculous. Firstly, if it's a question of saying "sometimes", a reference from 1937 is utterly inappropriate for a definition in 2009 (happy people were "sometimes" called "gay people" back then). Secondly, and more importantly, we are in this sentence defining the term. We are not defining the commonality of the usage of the term. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 01:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
And some ancient Greek from far away eastern Europe is a prime reference in your mind. That says it. Tfz 01:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
You what? I haven't stated any opinion about any of that. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 02:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Marseilles is in western Europe... Wiki-Ed (talk) 09:03, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Ireland may not be part of the British Kingdom (it never was--unless you believe the Arthurian legend, but it was "joined at the hip" in a way for some time), but it is part of the British Isles and always has been. It is a British Republic, the same as if Scotland, England or Wales or Northern Ireland declared themselves republics and separated from the Union, perhaps even joining in with the government of Dublin. Nobody disputes that Ireland isn't any longer in the Union, even though Northern Ireland is, unless of course, the person who is making allegations like this is an island expansionist to declare republicanism throughout the island of Erin. This is the only motivation for making any of these claims. Tendentious editing is against Wikipedia's rules. I know my own motives are questioned when writing it this way, but I am not opposed to the idea of the British Isles being ruled from Dublin, or "Celtic" people being monarchs of all the islands, instead of Germans. I simply have no political motivation here and that sets me apart. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 19:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Please, noone feed the WP:TROLL. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 19:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Please, observe WP:NPA and WP:AGF. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 19:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
British is a "thingy" conjured up about 1,600 AD to create a paradigm shift for new thinking on world conquest, empire, and all that. It has nothing to do with Ireland, only bloodbaths. Tfz 21:06, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Actually, "British" in the sense of the late 16th-early 17th centuries only pertains to the shaky claims of a Protestant Scottish king over his English (, French) and Irish dominions, inherited claims from his Catholic mother and father, after the failure of the Battle of Pinkie to secure Mary, Queen of Scots for Edward VI and for there to be an incorporation of Scotland into England as Leon was into Castile. "British" in the negative sense that you mingle it with, refers to propaganda of Irish Nationalism, beginning in the wake of the American Revolution and onward until the Troubles. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 22:08, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

That's not OR

Simply not WP:OR Publishers of road atlases such as Michelin,[1][2] SK Baker,[3] Hallwag,[4] Philip's,[5][6] Reader's Digest[7] and The Automobile Association (AA)[8][9] have replaced British Isles with Great Britain and Ireland or Britain and Ireland in recent maps.[dubious – discuss][original research?] Michelin[10], Philip's,[11][12] and the AA[13] continue to refer to the term "British Isles" on their website and in print publications.

Above boxed, is the wording that all this so called edit-warring is about, but maybe it's more about ego, because there is absolutely nothing in the sentence to offend anyone. It's a simple observation to back up the bit that the term BI is not universally used. Remember this should be about the reader, and not the editors. Tfz 13:47, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Who are you suggesting is "offended" by that wording? We have discussed it several times over now and explained over and over again. It is a matter of adhering to Wikipedia's policy of No Original Research, not "offence". We have also held a straw poll, where a clear majority was in favour of removing the wording, unless reliable sources can be found demonstrating that the publisher took a decision to deliberately and consciously stop using "British Isles" (like we have with Folens). The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 14:08, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm offended. It offends me that people try to shoehorn their own "research" into Wikipedia to present a POV which hasn't been published by a single reliable source. If a reliable secondary source notices some pattern of name changes and comments on it in relation to the subject of this article, great - we can include it in the article. If not, it is pure OR. "Simple observation" by wikipedia editors is original research. Is it so hard to understand? --hippo43 (talk) 14:21, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Here is more OR, from the BI page, within your definition, so please refrain from lecturing me about OR, as there is a vast amount of it at Wikipedia. You brought the subject up, now do something about it, and less of your waffling please. Tfz 15:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
  • "The British Isles have a long and complex shared history. While this tends to be presented in terms of national narratives, many events transcended modern political boundaries. In particular these borders have little relevance to early times and in that context can be misleading, though useful as an indication of location to the modern reader. Also, cultural shifts which historians have previously interpreted as evidence of invaders eliminating or displacing the previous populations are now, in the light of genetic evidence, perceived by a number of archaeologists and historians as being to a considerable extent changes in the culture of the existing population brought by groups of immigrants or invaders who at times became a new ruling elite."
What are you talking about? I haven't yet read every word on wikipedia, so haven't been able to remove all the original research yet. Without getting into the specifics of the passage you added above, my understanding of the policy is that if the material is an accurate summary of published material, it is not OR. Observing changes in book titles which are not reported in reliable sources is OR. Nobody would need to 'lecture' anyone about OR if editors would read the policy. --hippo43 (talk) 15:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
The paragraph you brought up isn't the subject of this discussion, but you're right - it looks like shit to me. I'm sure we can do a better job summarising the history than that. --hippo43 (talk) 15:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
That entire paragraph should go. Not a single reference in it. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 15:47, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
And for some of these reasons hit upon, and I stated this before, the article should be shorter and more succinct, for the longer it gets, the more subjective the prose becomes, and more prone to 'opinion'. Hope I'm getting my point across. Tfz 15:25, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
You've lost me a little. If you're saying that the article is bloated and the way to fix it is to add unsourced observations about road atlases, I disagree. If you're saying that the article is bogged down in crap about the significance of the name, etymology, alternative names and descriptions, and should instead focus on the group of islands, their history, geography, culture etc, then I completely agree. --hippo43 (talk) 15:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Ditto. We can all work together to clean up the article and remove the unreferenced or badly written crap. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 15:51, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Back up a bit. Do we know these atlases moved from covering all of the British Isles to just Britain and Ireland? May not be comparing apples to apples here. If they previously covered the Isle of Man, for example, and now only cover Britain and Ireland, then it's not the same thing. Canterbury Tail talk 15:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Agree, as I pointed out above. The editors 'observing' that atlases' titles have changed from BI to B & I are assuming that they are covering the same thing, and inferring that the different title is evidence of a particular motive. --hippo43 (talk) 15:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Easy to agree and talk about assuming and inferring (and yet to infer yourself that the text is evidence of a motive which it clearly doesn't say any such thing). But did you look? It really wasn't too difficult to search and find an example for Michelin. From this image and this one of an antique Michelin map, they only map Great Britain and Ireland. --HighKing (talk) 22:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
These maps do appear to map only GB and Ireland (though one includes the Isle of Wight, not part of GB). However, your illustration proves nothing. As well as obviously being original research, it is not exhaustive - do you have a verifiable list of every atlas released by this publisher? To verify that a publisher had specifically changed the title of the same publication from 'BI' to 'B&I' would need the publisher themself or a secondary source to say as much. --hippo43 (talk) 22:34, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Funny how touchy you get when I merely answered a question posed earlier. My illustration isn't meant to prove anything - unless to show how easy a task it was. And what's original research about my answer? Please point that out, because you keep going on about OR and it's unfounded. --HighKing (talk) 00:17, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Not touchy at all. Your answer was original research because you researched it, so it was 'research' and it was not previously published elsewhere, so it was 'original'. Do you disagree? --hippo43 (talk) 00:38, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Eh? So answering CT's question is now OR? Please behave. --HighKing (talk) 01:49, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
What's OR is this line of reasoning:
Verifiable statement 1: Publisher P published an atlas A1 under title "T1" in year Y1.
Verifiable statement 2: Publisher P published an atlas A2 under title "T2" in year Y2.
Conclusion: Publisher P changed the title from "T1" to "T2" in year Y2.
The conclusion does not necessarily follow (ie it is synthesis). It is not logically true (there are a multitude of explanations other than the conclusion), and it is not true in reality. You don't need to take my word about that: read what Michelin have to say [7]. Many decades - and a completely different title - went by between the "BI" and "GB&I" titles. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 00:41, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
So what about:
In the past, Publisher P published an atlas A1 under title "T1" which only mapped areas GB&I. This atlas is no longer available under this title. Today, Publisher P publishes an atlas A2 under title "T2" which maps the same area. --HighKing (talk) 01:49, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
You have introduced the unpublished facts "which only mapped areas GB&I", "This atlas is no longer available under this title" and "'T2' which maps the same area". If these points have not been published in a reliable source, then they are your own observations, and it's OR. --hippo43 (talk) 01:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Wrong. I'd point out the map I referred to earlier....which was published. Point out too, as fact, that a similar title doesn't exist today to map the same areas (from publishers website list of publications). Policy does not require that separate observations like these to have been previously published to appear together. Let the reader draw whatever conclusions they want... --HighKing (talk) 02:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

"though one includes the Isle of Wight, not part of GB" (hippo43) -- Perhaps you meant the Isle of Man. The Isle of Wight is not only part of GB, it's part of England. Alarics (talk) 09:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

AFAIK the Isle of Wight is politically part of England, and part of the UK, but it's not geographically part of GB - it's a separate island. --hippo43 (talk) 20:16, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Isle of Wight is part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland? Even though it's not technically Great Britain, it still is goes with the much much bigger island by convention. Tfz 21:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
The article is about the group of islands, not the states - ie geography. Great Britain is an island, not a country. The Isle of Wight is not part of GB, but a separate island. --hippo43 (talk) 00:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Even though it's not on the island of Great Britain, it's still part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. quote "These maps do appear to map only GB and Ireland (though one includes the Isle of Wight, not part of GB). " unquote. Splitting hairs again to bolster a jaded argument. When we talk about maps of GB, the IoW is almost always included. Tfz 00:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Problems with the article

Here are a few problems that I can see with the article - what do others think?

  • First paragraph: we begin with a very good and succinct description of the term, then we suddenly, and inexplicably, say "The earliest citation of the phrase 'British Isles' in the Oxford English Dictionary is dated 1577 in a work by John Dee". What a bizarre jump! And then we find the sentence repeated in the etymology section. Proposal: move that sentence to etymology, where it belongs.
  • Second paragraph: "Although still used as a geographic term, the controversy means that alternative names such as '"Britain and Ireland"' are increasingly used." Two references are given, the first p9 actually says "'Britain and Ireland' is becoming a preferred usage" (preferred is not the same as more frequent). The second [8] says "'Britain and Ireland' is the more favoured expression". Proposal: change "increasingly used" to "increasingly preferred" so it is in line with the cited references.
  • Political co-operation within the islands paragraph: "despite independence of most of Ireland" is a very odd way of phrasing it. Proposal: change to "despite the fact that Britain and Ireland are separate states" (or words to that effect).
  • History: It's completely unsourced. Proposal: junk that entire paragraph.
  • Language: Again, badly in need of sources.
  • Language: "During the last 60 years there has been a great deal of immigration into Great Britain (less into Ireland)." Indigenous languages of the British Isles which predated modern political boundaires - fine - but talking about the languages of recent immigrants just seems odd - the immigrants are coming to Britain or Ireland, they aren't migrating to an entity called the "British Isles". Proposal: ditch this paragraph.

The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 17:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree with almost all of this. I would combine the Etymology and Alternative Names sections, or move them to a less prominent spot. Do we really need the first two sections to cover the name/s?
Agree re 'increasingly preferred.'
Political cooperation - I'd go with 'Although Britain and Ireland are now separate states'
History - agree. Bin the paragraph. Add a short summary of the main article.
Languages - I'd keep info on recent migration and languages. The article is about the islands and the people who live there so should include recent migration as well as historic migration. It should essentially reflect the content of Languages of Ireland and Languages of the United Kingdom. I would use less specific wording than "the last 60 years", however.
Good proposal all round.
--hippo43 (talk) 21:00, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
It might have been better if you'd numbered your proposals?
For some, the John Dee first usage is very notable and belongs in the lede. For me, I'd support the move to Etymology. Also, whereas you emphasise "preferred", I believe the word "becoming" is more relevant to support the "increasingly used" bit. But your proposed text is more in line with the references and I support it. --HighKing (talk) 21:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I'd also support the broad approach proposed by RedHat as modified by Hippo - and I'd add that the part of the Demography section dealing with the major cities looks out of place in an article that is not about a political entity, though the part about the changing % of the BI population that is in Ireland could stay. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I'd keep the info on major settlements - this is about a geographic area, so where people live is relevant. I would, however, move the Languages stuff to follow the Demography section. --hippo43 (talk) 22:25, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
1. "British Isles" is only one of many terms for "this archipelago", so the first sentence of this article is at once attempting to claim BI as the sole "name" rather than accurately reporting it as one of many terms. 2. The John Dee reference is directly related to the politics which refuses to allow the word 'term' to be reinstated in the first sentence of this article; by pointing out that the term "British Isles" can only be dated to 1577, when it was used by an imperialist, the reader is aware that "British Isles" has a political origin as well as a controversial present, both of which are inextricably linked unless you want to brush all rejection of the term out of the article except for a finely tuned and well-censored obscure little footnote in the article. Of course nobody here would want to do that, or would they? 86.44.47.236 (talk) 00:41, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
First paragraph - Dee is definitely out of place in the intro and the etymology section proves why. Though I would broadly agree that etymology ought to sit lower down, given the likelihood of future editors coming along and sticking random "facts" in the intro it might be better to keep it in a more prominent place.
Second paragraph - agreed, although "used" on its own might be more balanced. The first source appears to be talking about the Scottish, Welsh and Irish when it says it is becoming a "preferred usage". The second source contradicts himself a few times, saying "regarded by some as increasingly less stable" in the paragraph above the one Redhat quotes from, and admitting to using the terms interchangeably later in the same paragraph. In both cases, therefore, the sources are qualifying what they mean, whereas the current wording on this article does not.
Political - agreed.
(Shared) history - this subject is usually handled by nation rather than by geographical area. I would suggest that is why it is unsourced. Remove.
Language - this is geographical info and I can see the case for keeping it in and finding the sources.
The references could do with tidying up a bit too. Wiki-Ed (talk) 16:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest that anyone who is really interested with Problems with the article, address these issues first. Þjóðólfr (talk) 16:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

How about engaging with the rest of us instead of writing snidey little comments like that? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 17:26, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Sir, I believe Here is the correct place for such exchanges between you and me. Þjóðólfr (talk) 17:29, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm concerned about of Ferrick lack of 'good faith' as per example [9], and also about Canterbury, who is playing "Admin" here, but who is also in the middle of the debate at times. Tfz 18:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Support all the proposals, except the third: Britain and Ireland are not separate states: they are separate islands: part of Ireland (i.e. Northern Ireland) is united with Britain in the UK. Mooretwin (talk) 19:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Support the proposed changes although i agree with Mooretwins concerns about saying "Britain and Ireland", it must be clear we are talking about the sovereign states not the islands so shouldnt use Britain. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Britain and the UK are synonymous. [10] "Britain, UK: These terms are synonymous: Britain is the official short form of United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Used as adjectives, therefore, British and UK mean the same." The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 19:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Britain and the UK are synonymous if you are British and are trying to rewrite history and geography to suit the current geographical extent of the extended British state that is currently named the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. How revealing that a part of Ireland suddenly becomes part of "Britain" in order to suit this British nationalist agenda. Pathetically jingoistic, as usual. 86.44.47.236 (talk) 21:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
The United Kingdom is often refered to as "Britain", your pathetic accusations and attacks on editors here are not wanted. The trouble is not that "Britain" isnt used when talking about the United Kingdom.. its that it also is thought of by some as talking about the island. Also ofcourse in the current introduction because of Irish nationalists we have the silly claim that "Britain and Ireland" is becoming an alternative name for the British Isles.. which is a complete joke. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:05, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
It can still lead to confusion when saying "Britain and Ireland" Saying United Kingdom and Ireland, is easiest way to avoid that although i would prefer ofcourse United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland, which is even clearer. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:53, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Just correcting Mooretwin's misunderstanding of the distinction between "Great Britain" and "Britain", which I guess proves your point about people getting confused... The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 19:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
'Britain' is also used as a synonym for 'Great Britain', viz. recent advertising in Northern Ireland for HSS ferries "to Britain" from Belfast. Regardless, use of "Ireland" is also confusing as it is an island as well as a state. Mooretwin (talk) 20:10, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Sure - people incorrectly use those terms synonymously, as you have done here. But that doesn't make it so. Details at Terminology of the British Isles. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 20:16, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Regardless of whether it is correct or incorrect, the term "Britain" is used sometimes as a synonym for "Great Britain", and hence its use here may be ambiguous for many readers. Best to use UK and ROI for absolute clarity: especially as this article is about geography, and "Ireland" and "Britain" may be confused for geographic terms. Mooretwin (talk) 21:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
We could split hairs here. Does the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland include the Isle of Wight, or even Skye? "Britain and Ireland" is perfectly adequate and is used to include UK, IoM and CI too. Tfz 21:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Well that comment just proves the problem. "Britain and Ireland" is perfectly adequate and is used to include UK, IoM and CI too" The IOM and CI are not part of the United Kingdom, so how can just saying Britain be talking about them all? Especially when currently in the introduction we have the stupid and misleading statement that "Britain and Ireland" is becoming an alternative for the group. This is why it is safer to say United Kingdom and Ireland, in a perfect world we would say United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland :) BritishWatcher (talk) 21:53, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
"British isles" is problematic too, because it literally means "islands belonging to Britain", yet some editors have no gripe with that. Hair splitting is what causes disputes on pages like these, and they never end. The whole object is to have a 'neutral article' that everyone is happy with. And indeed this can be done. Tfz 22:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
What rubbish you talk. Does the Sea of Japan belong to Japan? Does the Irish Sea belong to Ireland? It is from YOUR point of view that British Isles some how claims ownership over Ireland. Ofcourse we should have a neutral article, but its impossosible to have one everyone is happy about because certain editors refuse to even accept the term British Isles is a perfectly reasonable geographical term, to such an extent that certain editors who shall remain nameless have tried to have this article moved and remove "British Isles" from wikipedia. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:10, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
British Isles does not mean that all the Islands belong to Britain. All of us here know that. On the other hand, there will be people around the world who don't know that and will presume it does. That's not an argument to change the title, just a statememt. Jack forbes (talk) 22:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Totally agree that some people may think it, but thats a bit different to it meaning "Islands belonging to Britain". The same argument can be made for use of "Ireland" in the text of articles.. people thinking its about the Island instead of the country, yet we are forced to just say "Ireland". BritishWatcher (talk) 22:30, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, making assumptions about what the reader will or will not get confused about is a very slippery slope, given the range of ages, education and English language skills of its readership. Wikipedia should explain things clearly and succinctly as they are, and if the reader is confused, they can use other articles in the encyclopaedia to clear up their confusion. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 22:35, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
But we currently have the intro saying "Although still used as a geographic term, the controversy means that alternative names such as"Britain and Ireland"[dubious – discuss] are increasingly used." There for it seems sensible to avoid saying "Britain and Ireland" further down in the text if we are talking about the sovereign states. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:39, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Edit Warring - Protection

Okay, I've protected this article, yet again, for constant edit warring. Two weeks unless some agreements can be made over this latest edit war. Canterbury Tail talk 20:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd recommend a month. But 2-weeks should suffice. GoodDay (talk) 20:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Up holding wp:brd. Canterbury, I see you have kept Hippo's edits intact, sheesh! Tfz 20:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I'm thinking of recommending it be added to the list of the perma-protected. Canterbury Tail talk 20:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
That would be understandable. GoodDay (talk) 20:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
(conflict) - and I just protected the last version. Protected version is not an endorsement of the article at the time of protection, just what it happened to be when the protection was applied. Canterbury Tail talk 20:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Upholding NOR. Nice work CT. --hippo43 (talk) 20:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Birds of a feather? Nice one H. --Tfz 20:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Um are you trying to imply something here Tfz, or am I just misreading an innocent remark? Canterbury Tail talk 20:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I do still have a sense of humour in all of this;), and actually think you are a good admin, although I don't always agree with you. Tfz 20:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Not everyone does, but I appreciate your comment. I'm used to being called a protestant bigot and a republican sympathiser all on the same day. Today I think it's just been the republican terrorist supporter, but hey the day is still young :). Canterbury Tail talk 20:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
A man for all seasons, eh! But still, you should be upholding user:SheffieldSteel and wp:brd. Tfz 20:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Why uphold WP:BRD when the material is so clearly OR? Besides, surely the original insertion of this crap is the B of BRD, and removing it is the R, no? In that case, until there is consensus (D) for including it, it should be left out? --hippo43 (talk) 21:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
We also conducted a straw poll, and while Wikipedia is not a democracy, there was a clear majority in favour of removing this original research about the naming of maps. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 21:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

A consensus of sorts was acheived above, so one could say that agreement has already been achieved (in line with WP:VER, WP:NOR etc). The issue now is that some editors will never accept consensus and will never accept Wikipedia's three core policies. Once the protected status has been relaxed we can expect them to revert again. Therefore I think the Administrative community need to consider ways of enforcing those core policies, perhaps by more direct action against those who flout them.Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

A consensus of sorts is not a consensus. I think it is very unfair and incorrect to protect the article in a way that removes the very material that the straw poll, while still running btw, was discussing. CT, this is a bad move. I've seen occasions where material has been reverted in the past before protecting. Makes we wonder (or not) why this didn't occur in this case.... I agree with protecting the article, but it should be protected in the state *before* edit warring, otherwise it looks like you are officially endorsing the changes and for two weeks! Also, this article was under a strict 1RR policy, and no reverting of reverts. I see no action has been taken. --HighKing (talk) 01:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Guidelines are not to revert to a particular version when protecting an article, as that presumes endorsement one way or another, and involves the admin to a greater level than should be (unless it's to revert vandalism which is different.) When protecting for a content dispute the current version should be protected at the time of the protection. See WP:PREFER. The version of an article at the time of protection during an edit war or conflict is not an endorsement, and unless there are exceptional circumstances the protecting admin should not be reverting it to one version or another as that can be seen as putting forward a preference and then protecting so no one can change it from their preference. Canterbury Tail talk 02:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I understand, and under normal circumstances, that policy makes sense. But what happened to the 1RR restriction on this article? That should have been an automatic ban for hippo and reversion as the first admin action. Failure on this point is why I have brought this up. --HighKing (talk) 21:31, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
please lock the current version for a month. BritishWatcher (talk) 02:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I've locked it for two weeks, that should be plenty for some kind of consensus to be reached. Also if people don't like the current version you are quite welcome to request an edit to the article here, and if it has consensus it will be done. Canterbury Tail talk 02:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
HighKing, surely the pre-edit warring version is the one without the contentious material? Reverting the insertion of original research is not edit warring, just the R of BRD - the war only starts when the material is reinserted, surely? Moreover, why would the version from before an edit war automatically be the preferred version, in favour of the non-OR version? If the OR version were protected, it would seem that an admin was endorsing the OR. --hippo43 (talk) 02:20, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Lets not go down this route and discuss the merits of which version should be protected or not, it won't end well. Lets just concentrate on getting a community consensus for the article to avoid further edit warring. Canterbury Tail talk 02:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough - probably good advice. --hippo43 (talk) 02:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)Perhaps my question was missed (twice) above, but I'm still waiting for a response to what happened to the previous 1RR on this article, which was serving us so well? And which has now resulted in zero editors getting blocked despite a breach of this rule, and an article being locked down in such a way that it favours the editor edit-warring in breach of 1RR. Does this mean that the 1RR restriction has been lifted? --HighKing (talk) 13:16, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I see no evidence on this page that the 1RR is still in force, and no comments from Sheffield Steel on the matter. And the article was locked down not in favour with anyone, but the way it was at the time it was protected. Canterbury Tail talk 14:18, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Quite obviously SheffieldSteel is away since 17th of July, and you must know since you have undermined his adminship on this page. The article was locked down in favour of Hippo's aggressive editing, and his/er flouting SheffieldSteel's good adminship & good jurisprudence here. Tfz 19:05, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
To quote CT: "Lets just concentrate on getting a community consensus for the article to avoid further edit warring." In order to achieve consensus for the reinstating of that material, you will have to convince the majority of editors here that it does not constitute original research. And we've explained what is required for that (sources which discuss the changing pattern of usage, rather than data collection conducted by Wikipedia editors). The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 13:41, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)@CT, are you now declaring that SheffieldSteel's "no revert of a revert" (WP:BRD) policy is no longer in operation? After all, he did post it as a ruling on the Admin noticeboard. Also SheffieldSteel had no problem reverting text to the pre-edit warring state which makes sense. --HighKing (talk) 11:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

No I'm not saying it is no longer in operation. I guess I could just unprotect the page, and block Hippo and Tfz, but I'd rather not block anyone. As for reverting it to pre-edit warring, sorry I'm not doing that unless there is consensus to do so. Now lets call an end to this should it be protected or should it not talk, and actually discuss building a consensus to the article so we can stop all this edit warring and have an open to editing article again. If there is consensus to put it back to pre-edit war then I shall do so, if such consensus can be obtained before the protection expires. Canterbury Tail talk 12:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
@CT, OK, so what you're now saying is that it needs consensus to put it back to the pre-edit war version .... but it doesn't need consensus for the current version which you will enforce by protecting the article? And to be clear, I've no problem with it being protected, but I am very concerned that it is protected at a version which has no consensus, which goes against a ruling by another admin which you were aware of, and where you appear unwilling to review your actions and perhaps make good something which is clearly against consensus and policy. The appropriate action would have been to block both editors, but they didn't even get a warning... So as a theoretical question: When this protection period has been lifted, and if I revert the article to the pre-protected-non-consensual-editwarred-version, are we just right back to where we should have been all along, or if someone reverts my revert will you merely protect the "wrong" version again? It could be the start of a trend. I know that you do not participate in discussions here but I can see how more unscupulous admins could use this tactic to ensure that their preferred version is "protected" at all times. --HighKing (talk) 11:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
@CT, btw since you pointed it out WP:PREFER has this to say: "Since protecting the most current version sometimes rewards edit warring by establishing a contentious revision, administrators may also revert to an old version of the page predating the edit war if such a clear point exists." Are you saying that no "clear point" existed or just that because the policy says "may also revert" instead of "should also revert", you elected to not bother to revert even though a clear point existed? --HighKing (talk) 12:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I will make no more comments on the version that is protected. Discussion is better off with energies directed at obtaining a consensus on what should or should not be included in the article rather than trying to pick apart policies and guidelines. It has been five days since the article was protected and there has been very little discussion, and no consensus on what should or should not be included. If an edit war breaks out again after the article is unprotected then it may well be protected again. Whatever version it is protected on will be the version it is protected on. If you really want it reverted back to the version before the edit warring started, then show me a consensus. However on this page there is no clear consensus either way therefore I'm not picking a consensus for the community, the community has to pick the consensus. Do note however that edit warring once protection is removed will not be condoned, and if people persist on it when protected is lifted then warnings and blocks may well be handed out as necessary, just like any other edit warring, however I feel protecting generates more consensus than blocking editors. Canterbury Tail talk 10:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
HighKing - we have had a straw poll, and we have had a discussion. It is clear that the majority do not feel this information is in line with Wikipedia's policies. The fact that the article is protected one way or the other is neither here nor there. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 22:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I think its a good idea to have this article protected all the time, aslong as if consensus is reached to make changes those changes are made. Consensus being majority support for a certain change, we cant just not make changes because one or two trouble makers. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I've lost count of the number of times you've been reminded of policy regarding WP:AGF and personal attacks - people who disagree with you are not "trouble makers". People who constantly disregard policy, on the other hand, might fairly be labelled so. Perhaps if there's an admin around, they might warn you (again) appropriately. I'd also remind you that on Wikipedia, consensus has nothing to do with "majority support". --HighKing (talk) 11:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
wow, thanks for threatening me HighKing. perhaps you should WP:AGF aswell instead of making threats to editors and encouraging people to get warned. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Please behave. I did not threaten you. I did not even threaten to threaten you. But you've been warned on more than one occasion in the past about your behaviour and language, and it appears that regular warnings are needed to remind you to moderate your name-calling and to pay attention to policy. And hopefully, since I doubt you'll pay attention to what I say, a passing admin might point out to you what you are doing that needs attention. --HighKing (talk) 11:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Maybe they should take a look at your actions because you seem to keep telling different people to behave and getting into arguments with different people. WP:AGF says "Making accusations of bad faith can be inflammatory and hence these accusations may be unhelpful in a dispute" , I did not call a single person a trouble maker, it is a general comment about people who at every stage attempt to disrupt this articles status and that would include all sides in the dispute. Is use of the phrase "trouble maker" banned from talk pages? BritishWatcher (talk) 12:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
@Canterbury & BritishWatcher, I was upholding BRD, and Hippo was flouting it. But to be fair to Hippo, he admitted that he didn't know at the time it was under BRD, so I have no real gripe there. And @BW, WP:BRD is the closest thing to protection without actually fully protecting the page. BRD is of no value unless it is rigorously implemented. Tfz 12:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Protection is the best bet it takes us weeks to agree to make the smallest of changes anyway, its just a case of one of the admins making a change when there is majority support. There seems to be support for many of the proposed changes so those should happen once the final points are agreed even if a couple of editors disagree with them.. they all seem like reasonable changes to me. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Defining the "British Isles"

Much of the above surmises that the definition of "British Isles" is agreed upon, which in reality is far from the truth. Indeed one of the many contradictions about the claim that the name is geographical and not political concerns the Channel Islands which geographically are not part of the British Isles but because they are subject to the British crown they are included in it by some people. Furthermore, the principal online website covering the British Isles - http://www.the-british-isles.com/ - explicitly excludes both the Channel Islands and Ireland from its definition of the British Isles. Moreover, there are many thousands of sources referring to the "British Isles and Ireland", a usage which clearly excludes Ireland from the definition of "British Isles" advanced by some posters above. These range from historical studies, geographical studies and political studies which have been written by academics across the world. 212.2.179.60 (talk) 10:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

In reality, the term 'British Isles' means nothing more than a shrunken 'British Empire', or a relic from the past. Some people say it is the name for 'the archipelago', but when the Faroe Islands are mentioned that argument is turned on its head. BI is a subjective term and means different things to different people. To some, the Channel Islands are included, to others Ireland is not included, and to many more it is a defunct term that has no modern meaning at all. Tfz 12:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Just because some site has the web address The-British-Isles.com means nothing at all. Plenty of sources state the British isles includes the channel Islands and we mention they are not physically part of the group in the introduction. I dont think we could be any more clear on this matter, so i see no need for change. Thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 11:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
"For more information on Wales visit 'Welcome to Chester'"....!! Demonstrates that site's reliability, I think (not). Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Well at least we know the version used in Ireland includes Ireland in the definition otherwise there wouldn't be these discussions. Plus that's the version used by RTE and various government agencies such as Tourism Ireland and others. So lets just stick to the facts, we're not here to make definitions but to report. Canterbury Tail talk 12:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
British Isles Until 1949 a collective title for Great Britain, Ireland, and the numerous islands surrounding the two larger islands, including the Isle of Man. In 1949 the Republic of Ireland left the British Commonwealth and so could no longer be included in the title. Ref "British Isles" Concise Dictionary of World Place-Names. John Everett-Heath. Oxford University Press 2005./Ref This is an alternative definition from a cast Iron WP:RS. The reason for the vast sway of alternatives name (of which I confess that British Isles and Ireland is my current favourite, is precisely because, as JGA Pocock, stated "the term ‘British Isles’ is one which Irishmen reject and Englishmen decline to take quite seriously" Þjóðólfr (talk) 12:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Interesting find there, Þjóðólfr. Despite his definition though, he uses the term not once but twice in his introduction. "The majority of the place-names in the British Isles are of Old English and Old Scandinavian origin." and "The British Isles have experienced five major invasions by foreigners who spoke a different language." And, he has written this "general note" about the "British Isles" after the Preface:
British Isles: from 1536 these have included the following states:
... ommitted a few lines ....
1801-1922: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland
1922- : Irish Free Sate (later Eire (1937) and the Republic of Ireland (1949))
1922- : United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
So I don't see how he squares that general note where he dates the inclusion of Ireland from 1922 to the present, and his usage of the term in the intro, with his definition. You can see all this on Amazon's search inside feature. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I didn't finish quoting all of the sentence. It continues on the next page "...and from the Celtic group of languages (Brithonic, Irish and Scottish Gaelic etc)". So if you are suggesting the author is excluding Ireland from his definition of British Isles in that case, you are mistaken. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 01:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Why do the British want Ireland so much:). I was really only pointing out that most names in Ireland come from Old Irish, and can I also point out that Scottish Gaelic came from Old Irish through Middle Irish, and not a lota people know that! Cain,). Tfz 01:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
"British Isles" is still used far more than " British Isles and Ireland" lol BritishWatcher (talk) 12:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
The British population far outnumbers the Irish population. --HighKing (talk) 13:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Well that does mean far more English speakers know the term British Isles than the "British Isles and Ireland". Also ofcourse its not only British people that use it, Irish people do, Irish map publishers still print the term in their books, people from some other countries know it BritishWatcher (talk) 13:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Ah .. But proportionately... --HighKing (talk) 10:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

A good point was raised by User talk:212.2.179.60, in that the article should reflect all aspects of the term BI, both the term's usage and its non-usage. Dare I say it, the article 'British Isles' has become a haven for nationalism, particularly of a British bent. As long as that strangle-hold is maintained we will never get a truly neutral article that 'tells it as it is'. Sooner or later the powers at Wikipedia will have to get a handle on this situation if the encyclopedia is ever to be considered mainstream. Tfz 16:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Consensus

Can people please discuss the contentious points that caused the edit war that resulted in the article being protected. I've seen people promising to revert upon protection lifting, and others promising to revert that revert. If this is all that is going to happen, I shall just extend the protection to prevent further disruption to the article, or impose blocks on the editors concerned for deliberate disruption. I would like all the interested parties to reopen the discussions on the section of the maps and references and attempt to come to some kind of consensus. Having the article blocked is not good for anyone or the project, having editors blocked for edit warring and disruption isn't either and edit restriction sanctions on the article is also not a good idea. Please discuss these points rationally, calmly, without commenting on other editors and their perceived POVs and come to some kind of consensus. If a consensus is reached before the protection is lifted, then I will happily lift the protection earlier in order for editing to recommence. Canterbury Tail talk 02:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

How can we ever reach a consensus on this? We have explained why it is original research. We have even shown that four out of five of the publishers who supposedly stopped using the term continue to do so in the very same publication. We have had a straw poll, showing a clear majority in favour of removing the wording. We have stated that cases where there is clearly no OR (Folens) can stay. Yet, HighKing refuses to back down, and will continue to play the "no consensus" card. So now what? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 02:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
That's rich. @CT - this is another fine mess you've got us into. @TRHOPF, majority isn't consensus, and if you check my comments on this issue, I'm not sticking my heels in over this issue and I believed we were making progress right up until the protextion. I had dropped the "Likewise" from the text, and provided references that were requested. I could likewise accuse you and other editors of not accepting that the text does not make any inferences but states bald facts, which are relevant, and leaves any interpretation up to the reader. TBH, I'm more conserned with the issue of the sudden dropping of the "no reverting a revert" rule, which worked and guaranteed collaboration...cos all we have now is a situation that CT won't explain despite questions I've asked, and now he's threatening to block anyone who reverts to the pre-protection state, I suppose on the assumption that the current text has consensus??? Who knows? He's not answering or explaining anything? So I'd say to CT, go ahead and perma-block the article cos you're is the only one that has a clue as to what is going on. Sad.... --HighKing (talk) 09:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Would a flagged revision system be appropriate? It would need an active admin to simulate the system proposed on the project page (at least until the tools are active on WP) and a reviewer (or a group of them) to consider whether proposed revisions were accurate, neutral and verified. If we want to make progress we cannot maintain a system that is reliant on achieving consensus when the votes of opinionated IP/sockpuppets are counted and where some editors pay no heed to Wikipedia's core policies to reject whatever they don't like.
Highking - hitting out at CT won't get you anywhere. He was quite correct to stop the farcical situation which allowed verified neutral revisions to be reverted by opinionated IPs without recourse. Wiki-Ed (talk) 10:09, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
There was no farcical situation in the case of the current lockdown. There was a clear policy in place, posted on the admins noticeboard, which CT was aware of. CT didn't like it, as evidenced by his comments, and as soon as SheffieldSteel goes on holidays, CT decides to implement his own version without notifying any of us that this was going to be the case, protecting a version in dispute while a clear pre-dispute version existed, and we're all still left in the dark as to what exactly the current situation is. I've been threatened with being blocked if I revert when the protection expires. Fine. His threat has been successful. I'm withdrawing from this article until this mess has been cleared up and the exact situation clarified as per the questions I've patiently posted have been answered - let majority rule implemented by majority British contributers have it's way, and damn consensus. --HighKing (talk) 11:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I have my reservations about that yes but I never decided to implement my own version. Personally I'd forgotten about SS's 1RR and saw no evidence that it was still in place (I don't read every single page on Wikipedia constantly to know what temporary rules are still in force and what aren't), but the article had managed to get far beyond that state anyway and into a point where it was full edit warring, 3RR violations the lot. If people wish to revert it after the protection is lifted then fine, that's editing. If people are just promising to continue reverting back and forth both ways that's edit warring and is a different issue. Since everyone seems to want the 1RR to still be in force then fine, if that is what the community wants then lets continue to enforce it afterwards. However it was obvious it didn't work in this case with the number of reverts and passes and back and forth, and such a solution is no replacement for a proper consensus. And the other points still stand, people need to stop wasting time making comments about other editors, and picking apart fine points of guidelines and policies and try focusing their energies on finding some stable consensus for this article. You don't like the version it was protected on, I get it, however neither version has consensus one way or another currently.
And also for everyone, HighKing is quite correct, majority isn't the same as consensus. Wikipedia is not a democracy, and consensus isn't determined by voting, see WP:WHATISCONSENSUS. Maybe we should take the current point of contention to RfC or Mediation. Canterbury Tail talk 11:51, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Majority rule is fine with me. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
That may well be, but it's not fine with Wikipedia. It's not how things work here. Canterbury Tail talk 11:51, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
But what exactly are we meant to do? We can not go to RFC every time we want to simply change a word/sentence or remove a source from the article. Polls on specific issues seem like a reasonable solution and when there is a clear majority those changes should be implemented. Otherwise nothing can ever get done. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Get a consensus. A poll is one way or working towards a consensus, but consensus is made by discussion not voting, and a majority vote isn't consensus usually consensus (though in some cases it can be, but that's on a case by case basis.) For the points in question, from what I can see of the discussions above there was no clear consensus to remove the info, yet no clear consensus to keep it either. Canterbury Tail talk 14:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
no clear consensus to remove it, no clear consensus to keep it, a clear majority vote in favour of removing it. yet it would have to remain in the article? BritishWatcher (talk) 15:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
No, consensus is not unanimity. If the dissenting party cannot provide a legitimate reason for dissenting then their opinion can be ignored. However, to decide whether legitimate objections have been raised requires a neutral arbiter. This takes us back to my suggestion above about the flagged revisions project. Wiki-Ed (talk) 16:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I would like to see the article remain locked, and changes implemented by the admins when there is consensus for certain changes. Above there is clear consensus to remove certain OR claims, but if one editor disagrees we cant just keep OR in the article. If we want any change it should be put to a poll, if a clear majority support something it should be implemented. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

A majority vote of course does not itself show consensus. It can, however, help bring about consensus if, for example, everyone agrees to abide by the results of a majority vote. john k (talk) 18:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, there is little point in taking off the protection. A consensus will never be reached. The same edit wars have been going on here on this article at this stage longer than the First World War and will continue as long as this page can be edited. For years it has been protected to stop edit wars, unprotected, seen more edit wars, protected, unprotected, seen more edit wars, protected . . . and so it continues. The moment the protection is removed it will start off all over again. (Yawn!) FearÉIREANN\(caint) 18:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

When protection is lifted...

In spite of the straw poll, in spite of the 2:1 majority of editors believing it goes against OR, HighKing *will* revert as soon as protection is lifted. [11] The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 01:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I wonder what you were hoping to achieve by that post? --HighKing (talk) 09:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
The Admins seeing that a clear majority want certain parts of the article changed and that it should not be reverted. If this no revert of revert rule applies, it is impossible to make any change because one person can just undo it and we are stuck. The Admins should make the change that has been agreed above to remove original research. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
But the term BI is original research, for every time it's mentioned there are dozens of times it's not mentioned. It's a peculiarly British thing, and most of the world ignore the term altogether. We will never get an encyclopedic article written about the term at Wikipedia I'm afraid. Six years of archives proves that. 1RR, lock-down, BRD, you name it, means zilch to the non-quality of the piece. Tfz 04:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
And indeed the very first edit and comment on this article concerned the legitimacy of the term "British Isles" on this article. Actually the first version of this article, on 13 October 2001, was more accurate and inclusive than what now exists. It was: 'The British Isles is a term sometimes used to describe the geographic area consisting of the islands of Britain, Ireland and other related islands. Many people in Ireland do not like the term "British Isles" because it implies that Ireland is British. They prefer "Britain and Ireland".'(Here). In the current version, the "British Isles" is no longer just "a term" which is "sometimes used"; it is put forward as the term, and the latest manifestation of this politicisation is the attempt to remove all Irish objections from a prominent position in this article. Lastly, here is the first discussion archive, with the title issue dominating every discussion. Dunlavin Green (talk) 10:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
The frequency of usage of a term is not part of its definition, which is what the opening sentence should do. Think of any words which are synonymous - e.g. buy and purchase. Because you can only use one of those in a clause, that means English speakers are "sometimes" using the word "purchase" to refer to the act of exchanging money for goods. But that doesn't make the definition of purchase "a term 'sometimes' used to refer to the act of exchanging money for goods'. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 11:19, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
That example belongs to a dictionary, and not to an encyclopedia. We have been listening to these two faced arguments for a long time, the archives are full of it. Argue point A when it suits your "Cause", argue point B when it suits the "Cause". Very often British Unionism is the motive for this display of British ultra-nationalism. Tfz 12:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
More attacks on British Editors. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
A bit laughable from the editor who coined the sometimes used term, "anti-British Isles Brigade". I might be more 'British' than you, if truth be known, and why would I attack a section. I'm only talking about nationalists "with a cause", and no-one else. Tfz 13:19, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Ya'll should consider creating another article called Britain and Ireland. Within that 'new' article, have it explained that it's a term being increasingly used in place of 'British Isles'. GoodDay (talk) 13:35, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
See Great Britain and Ireland. Jack forbes (talk) 13:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
I see (citations are needed there, though). Perhaps there's a way to write into this article, that 'British Isles' is being used gradually less? GoodDay (talk) 13:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Jack for that link, i did not have that on my watchlist until now. What an awful article that should not even exist. That should be a dab page with United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, British–Irish relations and yes the British Isles.BritishWatcher (talk) 13:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Umm GoodDay that would already be in the intro .. "Although still used as a geographic term, the controversy means that alternative names such as "Britain and Ireland" are increasingly used." BritishWatcher (talk) 13:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Forgive my laziness, but why the latest disputing? GoodDay (talk) 13:49, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Editors are unable to remove Original Research from the article despite a clear majority in favour of certain changes. Consensus here appears impossible to reach. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) Would you show me the 'original research' in question? Perhaps, my opinon on it might help things (as I'm quite neutral about the article's content). GoodDay (talk) 14:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'm catching on. The crux of the latest dispute is basically: 'Let's not over-kill, on the fact the 'British Isles' has alternate names used. GoodDay (talk) 14:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Easy consensus - be encyclopedic

I have been following the (epic) discussion above and some comments made are very disheartening to read from contributors to an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is no place for a popularity contest on a given subject; it should impartially present all the subject’s significant attributes. If a valid and properly-referenced perspective is held by a not-insignificant body of contributors, then without question it should be included accurately. The term in question here covers two separate entities (islands in this case) and to me it is little surprise that a large proportion of those living on the smaller one hold the term as being highly objectionable. I do not believe that it is without reason that the forum created to facilitate cooperation between the different governmental administrations on the islands is titled the ‘British-Irish Council’, or that the only sports (rugby) team with membership drawn from across both islands is officially titled ‘The British and Irish Lions’. To try and censor appropriate inclusion of a valid encyclopedic entry on any sensitive point can only have one effect – an endless editing struggle that can only be detrimental to the cause for which Wikipedia stands. Kind regards, Pconlon 21:17, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

We have an entire article about how Irish people don't like the term "British Isles." And it is mentioned in the introduction to this article. This is a total strawman. john k (talk) 23:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
With all due respect, it is far from a strawman to Irish people. The term does hold immense value to a very nationalistic group of British editors - look at some of their User Pages, for example - who are determined to assert it over Ireland and the Irish people in an attempt to create an alternative political entity which is distinct from that great threat to the modern concept of Britishness (i.e. Englishness dressed up to give the Scots and Welsh the impression that they were not conquered by England): the European Union. Open-minded English people avoid the term. Dunlavin Green (talk) 00:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Having just come off a block for personal attacks [12], the first thing you do is attack another editor rather than their contributions? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 01:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Ahem! It's not a competition - you certainly shouldn't feel the need to practice on my talk page. I'm sure you've nothing to fear though. --HighKing (talk) 01:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
TRHoPF has been warned for his comments towards yourself. Canterbury Tail talk 11:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Actually, User:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick, pointing out that the editor in question's contribution to his own User Page is to place a massive Union Jack with the words 'Long live the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland! God save the Queen!' on it is merely a matter of fact about the nature of his contributions. An embarrassing contribution certainly for those of you who are trying desperately to claim that "British Isles" is a harmless apolitical term with no connection to centuries of British misrule over Ireland and against the Irish people. Still, nice try at attempting to divert attention from the nature of the contributions from such editors. While I'm at it I note, for instance, your own contributions are overwhelmingly favourable ones to articles about British imperialism. Hmmmm could there be a general pattern in these contributions (that word, again) from the advocates of the term "British Isles"? Dunlavin Green (talk) 01:51, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
You don't even know the first thing about me, or my beliefs, so I suggest you stop being so judgmental about me. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 02:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
I know from your contributions that you have a keen and conspicuous interest in British imperialism, and you aren't looking at it from the perspective of the natives. In fairness to you, your contributions sometimes make you seem like an altar boy when compared to those of that English-English editor, User:Wiki-Ed. Dunlavin Green (talk) 11:02, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
British people are not the only people who dislike and fear the European Union. I personally know plenty of Italians, Czechs, as well as Irish people who absolutely detest the EU and everything it stands for.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Oddly enough Jeanne, I don't doubt you. With a population of almost 500 million and containing 27 states it would be extraordinarily unusual to have everybody agreeing. Euroscepticism in Britain, on the other hand, is exceptional in its intensity and its nationalist motivations. It is particularly unusual in the extent of media hostility to it, while a spring 2008 poll showed more people in the UK viewed membership of the EU as negative than positive. Then again no nation in Europe or indeed the world has lost as much as Britain has lost in the past 80 years: there must be a scapegoat for the wounded pride. Dunlavin Green (talk) 11:02, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Please stick to discussing the article. This is not a general forum for discussion. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 11:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Umm, i think its rather misleading the way my userpage is used in an attempt to damage other editors, that is very unfair as i have not seen any of their userpages like mine. This article has just as many Irish nationalists pushing their own point of view. Now my userpage is very clear, i declare my two loyalties for all to see which i think is a good idea. I would rather know exactly where every person stands to know if they are coming at something from a certain point of view, than those users who hide their true feelings.

My userpage is really no different to someone using those babel boxes saying "This user supports the monarchy", "this user was born in the United Kingdom" "This user is proud to be British".. and i have seen Admins with such boxes, are they all biased and unable to contribute fairly to wikipedia?

Considering other editors are being given warnings for things, why has nobody told Dunlavin Green to stop his attacks on editors and to focus on the matter at hand, not rant about the English and go completly off topic by mentioning the European Union. Despite my userpage, i support the European Union and i think Dunlavin should remember the most pro European countries such as France and Ireland have voted no in referendums about a further transfer of power to Brussels. Your attacks on Britain and British people for being concerned about such things are unfair. Also your comments about Wales and Scotland were deeply offensive and in the case of Scotland they do not even fit in with history.. Try reading some articles about it sometime. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

1) Your politics, and that of the other contributors to this article, are absolutely germane to the heart and soul of this article. You wear your politics on your sleeve/User Page, and then arrive here and expect that your views and edits to a page entitled "British Isles" be treated as a product of mere intellectual curiosity. It is entirely apposite that somebody here point out the evidence for the politics of the pro-British Isles editors. It has everything - every single thing - to do with why this article is in existence. In absolute fairness to you, it can be argued that your fault is that you are more open about your British nationalism. Nevertheless, the fact remains that many people here, while having a national sentiment to varying degrees, are not nationalist/tribal. Accordingly and taking that into account, while your honesty is admirable as nationalists go, your nationalism is not admirable as human beings go.
2) The European Union has everything to do with the current disposition of British nationalists - everything - and thus with the agenda behind the name "British Isles" today. Whether it's human rights legislation or the metric system, anti-EU sentiment is the rallying point for nationalists across Britain. The EU is the new "enemy" designed to create cohesion among those who advocate that Britain return to her "former glory". And therein lies the "British Isles" connection. Outshone by the power of the EU, British nationalists look around and see how they can reassert that ubiquitous "former glory" - hey presto, let's get insular once again and advocate the idea of a "British Isles" over the Irish; at least then the "bullying" of the EU wont feel so bad as long as we can tell the Irish what they are and where they live. We can still be dominant over some people. Ergo, "former glory" need satisfied. Dunlavin Green (talk) 15:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
An amusing insight into how certain editors think, but it really belongs in this category. Article talk pages are not forums. Wiki-Ed (talk) 09:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
I do not think the points i have made about what should or shoud not be in this article are unfair or biased, certainly isnt pushing an ultra-nationalist POV. I have supported the need to say the term is controversial in Ireland and that there are alternatives in the intro. I really honestly do not think this has anything at all to do with the European Union. What British people do not like is certain editors trying to undermine and remove from history a phrase that is used every day in Britain without ill intent. If it was so offensive and unacceptable why do Folens the Irish publishers who have stopped using it in Ireland continue to print it for British books?
I dont know if the people here support any far right British party like the British National Party, i know i dont and if you think we are bad, uve yet to encounter some of their radical supporters. The dislike for the European Union is not about trying to restore some "former glory", many simply do not trust certain European countries to act in Britains interest which is understandable when you look at current policy and European history, its also alot easier for a country to be Pro EU when they are not making the 2nd biggest net contribution to the EU budget every year which sees alot of money get wasted. If billions of euros was pumping into Britain every year to help improve roads and create jobs im sure people would look at the EU more favourably. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
We have strayed somewhat here. Personally I could talk about the EU for hours (to contribute my two cents, I support closer European co-operation in principle, however am concerned at how in practice the professionalism of the present institutions seems to significantly lag behind the powers granted to them). Anyway, the key point to come back to here is that entries in the encyclopedia to which we are contributing should be built on useful facts, rather than attribute popularity. An individual accessing the entry for a term should be able to take away from the concisely-worded introduction the key points of information relevant to it. There may be a fuller body of text on any aspect either in the main body of the article or in a separate one, but this is additional to the crucially important text in the introduction. Contributors such as johnk are missing this point. Those who strongly oppose appropriate inclusion of Irish dislike and non-recognition of the term in question must admit to being themselves motivated by nationalist sentiments (unless they really are radical geographic purists!) and cannot fairly claim that the term is apolitical. I am Irish myself (clearly) and, while respecting our nearest sovereign neighbour, have a profound aversion to the term 'British Isles' and the way to implies that the isle of Ireland is entirely owned by, or dependent on, Britain. I - and unquestionably most other moderate citizens of the Republic - would like any Wikipedia user looking up the term to be clearly informed of this. Kind regards, Pconlon 13:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
And that's not a problem, as long we use reliable sources to show there is dislike out there, rather than allowing editors to inject their own spin on matters, the worst of which is the view that this article title should not exist at all. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 12:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
I had a reliable source to state that the term BI 'sometimes' includes Ireland, and it was reverted in 5 minutes flat. I'm too busy in RL to be engaging here too much, so I let it pass to the more ever-present editors. Tfz 13:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Pconlon is wrong - neutrality does not mean expressing every single point of view on an equal basis. Articles on Wikipedia are weighted in proportion to the prominence of of each significant view point. It is verifiable that a certain number of people do not like the term "British Isles" - and this should be mentioned. However, the proportion (of the ~64m people living in the geographical area) is small (6-7%) and therefore it would be wrong to give the minority POV greater coverage than the majority. In particular the assertion that the UK does or desires political ownership of Ireland is a strawman. Wiki-Ed (talk) 13:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
The amount of international map-makers using the term is almost zero. The Empire has shrunk to GB, now "let's pretend we have an overseas colony called 'Ireland'", that's about it. Tfz 16:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Please, stop it with this pathetic nonsense suggesting anyone is here to claim the entirety of Ireland is still British. We are here to edit an encyclopaedia, not make political points. Anyone who isn't should cease editing here now. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 16:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
[←outdent] The situation claiming that BI is "the common term" is the "pathetic nonsense" that fuels this talk page. 18:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
The article does not say that. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 18:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
The article, by its introduction would "seemingly" imply something close to that. The title was invented around 1600 when England dominated "Great Britain an Ireland". That's no longer the case, and the meaning has changed too. Tfz 18:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure you believe that, but the sources disagree, hence the section on etymology dating the term to 400BC. Wiki-Ed (talk) 19:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
A noted American historian observed "false historical beliefs are so essential to our culture that if they did not exist.... they would have to be invented." That's where the farce begins, translating 'chosen' far flung terms from ancient eastern Europe into modern English to prop up a political term. Tfz 19:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Interesting quote - a false historical belief has been invented here - by you; Marseilles is in western Europe; the derivation of the name is being used to support the case for the geographical use of the term - you are the one trying to turn it into something political. All in all, a rather poor attempt. Try again. Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Sure you didn't mean Mars Isles? Try again, Greeks are eastern Europe. Tfz 20:49, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
No they aren't. See Western Europe. LevenBoy (talk) 17:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
The term "BI" was invented a few hundred years ago by an English nationalist. Attempts to justify it from earlier sources are pure WP:OR. Sarah777 (talk) 19:34, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure you believe that, but the sources disagree (deja vu - I'm sure I've said that before). Your claim, however, is original research - NO source has been provided to sustain that POV. Perhaps you should try and find one. Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Wiki-Ed, you have misread/misunderstood what I said. Wherever did you get the ‘equal basis’ or ‘UK desires’ ideas from? You have also taken up the ‘majority says’ arguement which goes against what an inclusive encyclopedic reference is all about. As a representative of Britain you are doing it few favours with the line of arguement you present here, especially in a Europe (indeed a world) where the British themselves often constitute only a small minority on an issue important to them – in these circumstances are British views any less valid or worthy of mention because they are backed with a population ‘weighting’ of only 57 million? To give another example, should an article on the European settlement of North America skip only lightly over the disgraceful treatment of the Native American tribes because the latter only scores low on the population weighting scale? It cannot be said either that political points are irrelevent to this discussion, rather they go to the very heart of the controversy over this term. No one is going to win consensus on this argument or any other like it here (if Wikipedia has that power, someone should let the UN know!). We simply need to present a balanced and inclusive article that concisely includes, with all the other good stuff, both the What and the Why of the controversy that is inseperable from this term. Kind regards, Pconlon 20:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Dare I enter the subject area of etymology but, for the sake of balanced discussion, the Romans did indeed refer to what are today known as Britain and Ireland as 'British Islands' ('Islands of the Britons'). However it should also be pointed out that the Romans were incorrect in doing so. Their trading contact (and hence knowledge) of the islands was solely with the Briton inhabitants on the southern coast and they could not have known that to the north a rather different people lived - the Picts. The Romans are noted for their ability to distinguish between very distinct ethnic/cultural groups, however here they were not afforded the opportunity at that time. It is with the Picts in this period that the inhabitants of Ireland closely share its lineage. Thus the classical scholars who attributed the term to the island group as a whole simply did so in error. To come back to the present, it is different modern interpretations of the term - whether expressed with a certain point of view or innocently misunderstood from its grammatical implication - that brings us the controversy we have today. Kind regards, Pconlon 21:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Please read the policy: WP:WEIGHT. I used the population as an indicator of the balance between the sources, which naturally weight more heavily in favour of a British POV because of the discrepancy in populations. That's not to say an important (minority) perspective should be dismissed - no-one is saying that - but it does mean that it should not dominate the article
The etymology section explains that it was Greeks, not Romans who first came up with the term. Whether they were right or wrong to develop the name they did, it is what has been passed down to us. The sources are quite unequivocal about the derivation. That is being encyclopedic - questioning the reasons is not. Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
The term was invented circa 1600 by imperialists to keep Scotland and Wales in the empire/union, so as to get a constant supply of foot-soldiers to build an even bigger empire. Don't put it past these Machiavellians, and astonishingly, they are still fooling some people long after they have died. Tfz 21:30, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

"Islands of the Britons" (c 100AD) = "British Isles" (c 2000AD) is pure, 24 carat, 100% WP:OR. Trust me. I was sanctioned by no less than Arbcom for much much less of a stretch. Sarah777 (talk) 20:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Sadly (for you) there are lots of sources which disagree with your POV [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18]. Take it up with them if you don't like it, but don't claim it's OR when every statement is referenced. Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Sadly (for you) there is nothing in those refs to support your contention to say the term "British Isles" was used in ancient times. Thus, this is WP:OR. However much you may not like it. Sarah777 (talk) 16:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Tfz I hope you are joking because that sounds like utter tosh; otherwise; if the term had been invented for such a thing why then we soon have a Scottish family on the throne of all three states? ~40 years after the coining of the term why would both King and Parliment find it so hard to raise troops from Scotland? Why did Scotland not come running to the rescue of either side and instead look after their own best intrests i.e. their own relgious reformation. On a slightly different note why following the civil wars did Ireland and Scotland accept the Charles son after the parliment victory?
Sarah, i have just had a look round several articles. How would you translate "Insulae Britannicae"? Also what about the island group termed "Brettaniai" by the Greeks?
According to this source: Foster (editor), R F; Donnchadh O Corrain, Professor of Irish History at University College Cork: (Chapter 1: Prehistoric and Early Christian Ireland) (1 November 2001). The Oxford History of Ireland. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-280202-X; "Priteni is the source of the Welsh language term Prydain, Britain, which has the same source as the Goidelic term Cruithne used to refer to the early Brythonic-speaking inhabitants of Ireland and the north of Scotland."
Doesnt seem too much OR to see a bit of a common linking--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
"Isles of the Britons"? And if you think Isles of the Britons = British Isles you ain't had Arbcoms take on WP:OR. If the term didn't exist then (it couldn't, English didn't exist), then to use it today is WP:OR. Per Arbcom. Not per me. Sarah777 (talk) 16:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
So there is basically a common name that has been used through various moments in time however it is OR to notice this, even if it is cited ... intresting.
But i suppose using the term British Isles now is OR considering "English" didn't exist then, it was coined in Early Modern English. :)--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
It wasn't my ruling - it was Arbcom. I thought it was daft at the time but I'm beginning to see some merit in it :) Sarah777 (talk) 17:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Link please? And Enigma - you're quite right, but you'll find some editors here like to make a convenient distinction in language evolution and describe early modern English as modern English, spelling differences et al. Wiki-Ed (talk) 19:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Because now we have a term no one should be using, regardless of all the above for and agaisnt comments, as it wasnt coined in modern English? I suppose on that we should start wiping the articles on the Anglo-Saxons, Beowulf etc from the wiki :)--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
@EnigmaMcmxc. I dunno, stercus accidit, I guess.> Who can foretell the future? Tfz 19:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Changes

I made some changes that were discussed above [19]. Although I took a little liberty with the last change (we didn't seem to agree on a final wording) these changes were as consensual as this page gets, so I hope there is no problem. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 13:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC) ps also, lest anyone think I hid this in with the above changes, I also made an undiscussed change to the rugby wording, because the text I removed ("another example of the change in usage") was not supported by any reference.

No problem with the changes made. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
  1. ^ Michelin Tyre
  2. ^ Amazon.com: Michelin Great Britain Ireland (Michelin Maps): Books: Michelin Travel Publications
  3. ^ Amazon.co.uk: Rail Atlas Great Britain and Ireland: Books: S.K. Baker
  4. ^ Hallwag Kümmerley und Frey
  5. ^ Octopus Publishing Group
  6. ^ Octopus Publishing Group
  7. ^ Complete Driver's Atlas of Great Britain & Ireland | |Readers Digest UK
  8. ^ Amazon.com Inc
  9. ^ The Automobile Association
  10. ^ http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=z0D&as_q=&as_epq=british+isles&as_oq=&as_eq=&num=10&lr=&as_filetype=&ft=i&as_sitesearch=viamichelin.com&as_qdr=all&as_rights=&as_occt=any&cr=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&safe=images
  11. ^ http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=JDZ&as_q=&as_epq=british+isles&as_oq=&as_eq=&num=10&lr=&as_filetype=&ft=i&as_sitesearch=www.octopusbooks.co.uk%2F&as_qdr=all&as_rights=&as_occt=any&cr=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&safe=images
  12. ^ http://www.octopusbooks.co.uk/uploads/publications/23.pdf
  13. ^ http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=x9s&as_q=&as_epq=british+isles&as_oq=&as_eq=&num=10&lr=&as_filetype=&ft=i&as_sitesearch=theaa.com&as_qdr=all&as_rights=&as_occt=any&cr=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&safe=images
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:British_Isles/Archive_32&oldid=1136301468"