Talk:British Isles/Archive 38

Archive 35 Archive 36 Archive 37 Archive 38 Archive 39 Archive 40

History

With all this talk of the history in the lede I thought it might be a good idea to bring forth the fact that there is more paragraphical information in this article about the history of the British Isles than in the actual page History of the British Isles. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 21:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Wikipedia is not a forum. Let's keep discussion focused on the improving the article. --RA (talk) 17:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


Well, that article is yet another one which was unilaterally renamed to include the jingoistic term "British Isles", in this case it was renamed 'History of the British Isles' by a British nationalist, from its original name 'History of Britain'. There are other articles on Wikipedia which have been unilaterally renamed to include the term "British Isles" by these people, the same people on this article who claim Ireland is in their "British Isles" and wish to censor and marginalise all Irish objections to this latest British colonial claim upon Ireland and the Irish people. We've had centuries of you people. Propagating the term "British Isles" is now their raison d'être for being on Wikipedia. Dunlavin Green (talk) 14:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
I was shopping for tea the other day, in the foreign foods isle of the local grocery store, and before picking up my regular box of PG Tips, I something calling itself "Irish Blend". It was shelved in the British Isles section. I think that there is more to this than "jingoism". SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 14:17, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
There isn't, actually - particularly given Ireland's history at the hands of the British state over a period of centuries. The term does have an obviously jingoistic context which is clear to anybody with the balls to be honest about it. It has not suddenly become innocuous or apolitical. Life doesn't work like that. You would never, ever see such a section in an Irish store. Add to this the countless number of quotidian examples in Irish society where other names and terms suffice for the jingoistic term "British Isles" and there is a conscious avoidance of that term in one of the two countries which, in British eyes, apparently constitute their "British Isles". To write that avoidance (not to mention explicit rejection by the democratically-elected government of Ireland) off and claim a popularity for the term which is based on an incident in British culture, the offending culture, is plainly more about embracing that jingoistic culture and comforting oneself with the familiar than about dumping outdated ugly and offensive terminology which claims other peoples and other lands for one's own tribe. Dunlavin Green (talk) 15:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
You went rather quiet in the debate above about the paragraph mentioning the controversy. Did you realise you were wrong? How about an apology for your foul attack on certain editors in that mistake of yours? Every time you post on this page it is usually full of disgusting attacks on British editors and claiming some form of oppression of Irish people. It is utterly pathetic, offensive and after awhile becomes very boring too. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
1. When it comes to British claims to Ireland and the politics of this term, I am not wrong. Unlike you and your allies, I have an exceptional knowledge of Irish history and of British imperialism - and the Frog-hating, Paddy-hating, Britannia-rules-the-waves strand of British culture in particular from which you and your allies come. 2. There are decent Brits, and there is your sort. Only in the wildest Tory/BNP fantasy can you hope to equate "British editors" with an attack on rightwing British nationalist flag-waving europhobes such as you, User:Wiki-Ed, User:MidnightBlueMan and User:ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (to name four of you). You people are a minority, as much as it makes you all even more paranoid about EU intentions, immigration and all the usual nationalist causes. Oh, and considering it is your sort who are, like your psychopathic racist sectarian land-occupying, dispossessing Irish-hating British forefathers, claiming Ireland to be part of your "British Isles", the source of the offence and aggression is clearly neither me nor the Irish people. Now, please go away and evolve. Dunlavin Green (talk) 15:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello Dunlavin Green.
Uuum ... no. I won't "go-away". ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 15:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
lmao, i guess that was a no to an apology then. Does the Republic of Ireland claim ownership over the entire Irish sea? BritishWatcher (talk) 16:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Far from still laying claim to Ireland, the British have been trying to give it back to the Irish people since the Government of Ireland Bill 1886. Vested interests with privileges to lose have fought a rear-guard action for over a century, but they have never represented the opinion of the British population as a whole. AJRG (talk) 17:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Native names

Why is French listed in the infobox under "native name"? This might have been relevant when the Normans were in power, but not in the 21st century. Hayden120 (talk) 03:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The loyal toast in the Channel Islands is "La Reine, notre Duc" and they are held by the Queen under the residual Dukedom of Normandy, French was also the legal language of the British Isles for a substantial part of its history so overall it seems reasonable. --Snowded TALK 04:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
"French was also the legal language of the British Isles for a substantial part of its history". Mhm, so was dansk tunga. Hayden120 (talk) 08:25, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Dansk Tunga? Excellent idea ... http://ang.wikipedia.org/wiki/H%C4%93afods%C4%ABde
We should do just that ... Dansk Tunga ... I like it!!! ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 08:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Hm? Are you suggesting that an Old Norse Wikipedia should be created, similar to the Old English one you have linked? There is a small test wiki... or, alternatively, you could visit the Icelandic Wikipedia. It is remarkably similar. Hayden120 (talk) 08:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello Hayden120.
As far as I am concerned only the term British Isles (i.e., the English language version) should be up there (i.e., the far-and-away majority language is the English language). The other ones like Irish Gaelic are technically official in the Republic of Ireland but there again, the majority speaks the English language.
http://www.englishforums.com/English/BritishParliamentFrench/nrcqq/post.htm
Interesting link ... worth a gander!
ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 06:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
G'day ArmchairVexillologistDonLives. Thanks for the link, but I'm quite well aware of the history of the French language in England. However, it is exactly that: history. Yes, the influence of Norman French can still be seen in the modern English language, but it is no longer used for literary and administrative purposes as it once was in England. Hayden120 (talk) 08:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
There is a small hint in Dieu et mon droit: It is an official language in the Bailiwicks of Jersey and Guernsey. --RA (talk) 07:58, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
I think the motto is irrelevant in this discussion: it was adopted when Norman French was still the dominant language of the ruling class. It is currently 2010. I forgot to consider Jersey and Guernsey, though. That would be the only reason to keep French in the infobox. Hayden120 (talk) 08:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
I mentioned the UK motto only as an aside. The nub is that French is an official language in two of the jurisdictions of the isles. The info box lists the names of the isles in each of the official languages of the jurisdictions within the isles. --RA (talk) 08:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Mhm, and point taken. It was simply an oversight of mine not to consider the bailiwicks. Best regards, Hayden120 (talk) 08:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
No bother. It is a nice thing about this topic that no matter how familiar we are with it there is such diversity in it that is never ceases to surprise. --RA (talk) 08:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello Rannpháirtí anaithnid,
http://www.bl.uk/reshelp/findhelpregion/europe/uk/channisle/channelcol.html
Let us "run-with-this" ole Standard French really isn't the real deal here. The Norman-French later developed into ...
"Though English is now the dominant language on the Channel Islands, each island of Jersey, Guernsey and Sark has its own native local French dialect: respectively Jerriais, Guernesiais and Sercquiais. These traditional spoken vernaculars of the Islands are varieties of Norman French. The original Normans who came from Norway and Denmark spoke Norse and there are still a number of Norse elements in the Islands' dialects. Though standard French has never been an everyday spoken language in any of the islands it has served as an official language of legislation and debate in legislative assemblies."
so ... Jerriais, Guernesiais, Sercquais, and of course Old Norse eh!! ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 08:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
I think standard French shouldn't be used as the Norman languages of the Channel Islands and the Normandy region of France are not the exact same. However having previously done a bit of research into what term the Norman language would use for British Isles, it would seem to be the same as standard French. I just think that the language name should be changed to the actual family group the Channel Island languages belong to: Norman language as they are not the same as standard French.
You tell me how the Jerriais for England; Angliétèrre is the same to the standard French; Angleterre. And same again for the Irish Sea; la Mé Irlandaise (Jerriais) and mer d'Irlande (French). Northern Ireland; d'l'Irlande du Nord and Irlande du Nord. United Kingdom; lé Rouoyaume Unni compared to Royaume-Uni. Lots of spelling differences.
I think this would be a pretty uncontroversial change so i'm going to implement it. Mabuska (talk) 10:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
As a follow up - whilst we shouldn't use Wikipedia as a source i do think that the speakers and writers over at the Norman language Wikipedia (which is written largely in Jerriais) know what they are on about with spellings: Îles Britanniques. Also standard French isn't declared as a regional language of the UK, its the Channel Island dialects of Norman that are so its also misleading the way it was.Mabuska (talk) 10:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree. Qwerta369 (talk) 10:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Is the term "Native Names" necessary?

Is the term "Native Names" necessary? Is not British English the defacto official language (and Irish Gaelic in the Republic of Ireland)? Just who are the Natives (i.e., who are the Colonizers and who are the Colonized)?

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 16:22, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course it's not necessary. But then Wikipedia itself is not necessary. However, if we as a community, wish to create a fully-rounded online encyclopaedia, then surely that includes providing as much information to the reader as possible. This would obviously include the names for the British Isles as rendered in each language that is indigenous to these islands. To leave these out would amount to the intentional hiding of information from the reader. It is up to the reader at that point to decide what he/she decides is important or not and what he/she would like to take away from having read this article. If we fail to provide them with the information then they are not given that opportunity. Regarding the name "native names" - I do not think we are talking here about natives being oppressed, suppressed, colonised, colonising, etc. - rather we are simply talking about the names for these isles as they are to be found in languages that are indigenous to these isles. --MacTire02 (talk) 21:11, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Hardly "the intentional hiding of information from the reader"! When we must invent minority language terms for the "British" Isles where none exist in common parlance we are indulging in WP:OR. But that appears to be par for the course on this misnamed article about the islands of Ireland and Great Britain. Sarah777 (talk) 00:51, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Indigenous (Native) to the British Isles hmmm,... by that logic the Continent of Europe should have how many translations under the "Native Names" category?
English, Frisian, Dutch, German, Danish, Norwegian, Swedish, Faroese, Icelandic,...
Italian, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Romanian,...
Finnish, Estonian, Hungarian,...
Latvian, Lithuanian, Russian, Bielorussian, Ukrainian, Polish, Czech, Slovak, Serbian, Slovenian, Croatian, Bulgarian,...
Greek,...
Albanian,...
Turkish,...
Maltese,...
Irish Gaelic, Scottish Gaelic, Manx Gaelic, Welsh,...
ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 04:32, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
I would be in favour of excluding "invented" ones, but if they pre-exist in local languages they can be in. There isn't any particular reason why they shouldn't be in the infobox, but how much weight they are given goes to notability I suppose. Denial that the British Isles exists is not a valid reason for rejection however, as the name is widely used in sources, absolutely regardless of the POV of any individual editors here in Wikipedia. Given how wearying that particular battle is, if it wasn't for defending NPOV I would be happy to see it go, but if we give up NPOV on such widely used terms, we might as well close Wikipedia and people can go off and start their own local ones, one for each mindset. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 08:13, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
What you mean this isn't Anglophobapedia?? ;-) I think a footnote in the infobox might be better, with the main languages of English, Welsh, Scottish, and Irish kept in the "native names" main section. Mabuska (talk) 13:42, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
(i). English, (ii). Welsh, (iii). Scottish Gaelic, and (iv). Irish Gaelic,.... yep, I agree. ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 15:00, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
I would support that. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:04, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
I never argued about the names for Europe in the various languages of Europe. That section is not to be found in that article, and indeed would be far too long to include in that article. However in this article, if we are to not include certain languages in the native names section then that indeed would be hiding information, as that information is currently represented on the page, and is hardly of any major inconvenience. To suggest we only show 1 (English), 2 (English and Irish) or 4 (English, Irish, Scots Gaelic, Welsh) languages means we have to remove Cornish, Manx, and French (be it Standard as is official in the Channel Islands, or their local variants). That amounts to hiding information for no good purpose. Secondly, there are no "invented" languages represented on this page at the moment anyway. I assume James you are referring to Cornish here, in which case I would suggest you learn about the history of the language - the spelling systems in that language may be "invented" but the language is by no means invented. Revived and modernised yes, but not invented. Invented languages include Esperanto, Quenya, Sindarin, Klingon etc. And if we are to exclude Cornish because of certain editors' perceived lack of importance of it, why would we exclude Manx - this is NOT an invented language in any shape or form, it has official status in the Isle of Man, is spoken by a larger percentage of that jurisdiction's population (1.3%) than Scots Gaelic is within its own jurisdiction (1%), and is taught in most schools across the island. The Manx name for the British Isles is certainly not a term that has to be invented - indeed the Manx name for the isles "ny h-Ellanyn Goaldagh" has been around for centuries, although newly coined terms such as "Ellanyn yn Eear" and "Bretyn Vooar as Nerin" (meaning respectively "Islands of the West" and "(Great) Britain and Ireland") can be seen in print nowadays, albeit used by a small percentage of Manx-speakers. --MacTire02 (talk) 15:37, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
That's a helpful summary and survey of the issue MacTire02, thanks. I think it is fair to have these language versions in the infobox - I don't mind personally where in the infobox they go. As for "invention", sorry, I shouldn't have used that word about Cornish - I really meant "modern supposition where original evidence is lacking or disputed" - and yes, I was aware of the spelling issue with Cornish. I don't know how many modern speakers of Cornish there are - the Cornish language article suggests 2,000 fluent - quite a small language, but nevertheless indigenous and known, at least in various possible spelt forms. I wouldn't object to it being in, but I suppose you might get debates from others about the spelling, from what you say. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 16:01, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Some points

  1. We can argue all we want about minor-language names for the British Isles however we are missing out on one important thing with all this talk - sources. We aren't allowed to perform original research so if we construct a term out of a language by ourselves its not viable for inclusion as its original research pure and simple. Any Cornish (or other language) additions must be backed up by verifiable sources. I can back up the Norman for British Isles thanks to the Norman Wikipedians over at the Norman Wikipedia.
  2. Is there actually any need for the native languages anyways? The Caribbean islands don't have the different languages that exist there stated. North America just lists English, Spanish, and French in the articles lede and just plain English in the infobox - this covers only the main languages and ignores the many minor languages in North America including the native Americans.
  3. If one editor thinks its "hiding" by having an infobox footnote for the minor languages, why can't we just create a sub-section of the Etymology section or a new section that deals with the verified and sourced regional names for the British Isles rather than clutter up the infobox and keep it plain and simple in the primary language of both countries in the islands - English? I'd assume English is still the primary common used language in the RoI.

The entire native names bit looks like the inside of my UK passport with all those different names... Mabuska (talk) 16:12, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll deal with your three points here. 1) Obviously this wiki is about verifiability, so therefore we must have sources. But Manx has a source already indicated in the infobox. I can provide many more if you so wish. If there is no source to be found for Cornish, or any other language, then we can't include it, obviously. I agree with that policy. 2) Regarding the need for native languages..I think you're missing the point here. The fact is the names are here now. Why should we remove them if they are backed up by sources? If we do remove them altogether then we are indeed hiding, or deleting, information. 3) I never argued about the location of the native names. We can have them in the infobox, in a subsection under etymology or naming, or as a footnote at the end of the infobox or indeed at the end of the article. What I did not like was the intimation that they be removed entirely. --MacTire02 (talk) 16:26, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
I took it as read that it would be supported by sources but thanks for reminding us Mabuska. On the US infobox, I personally find it disappointing but predictable that Native American language names for the entity are not listed, although I suppose it would be a big list. Perhaps that has been debated at some point? As for the other languages in the British Isles, I do find it interesting - why is it such a problem to you to list them? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 16:27, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Is the problem here that the list would be too long and end up looking ungainly? If so, why not just list English at the top, and create a new section with a green header for other languages? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:31, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Who said i had such a problem or wanted their removal from the article? I was just raising and including a point already mentioned on native names by someone else. Find me a single statement where i said lets just get rid of them and don't mention them at all. I've proposed footnotes for the minor languages to tidy the infobox up and even a section dedicated to regional names - hardly the actions of a person who wants their removal. Mabuska (talk) 16:41, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
I have two concerns, first that it would be a very long list (if we did all the potential languages) which is not needed in the infobox and the second problem is the Cornish issue. The accuracy of the term in Cornish and if it should be in line with others when it is a term agreed by a few individuals in recent years as they revive (or yes invent) the language. The whole Cornish issue is troubling, Labours formal recognition of the language has created a lot of problems.
I would support us moving the whole list to a section, or to a note in the infobox or if possible one of those show/hide features in the infobox, so if people want to look at the other native names they can, without it taking up half the infobox for the rest of us. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:45, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Looking at it the inclusion of Cornish as an ethnic group there in this infobox is also deeply troubling. I do not know why we include that. Labour may have recognised the language as a minority language, they never recognised them as an ethnic group. Some people filled in Cornish as their ethnic group on the census 10 years ago and it got given a computer code. Lots of people filled in Jedi as a religion, it does not make it an official or recognised religion. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:49, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

If we are to remove the native names from the infobox, that's fine by me, as long as we include them somewhere else in the article. I'm not for or against the inclusion of these names from a nationalist/Celticist/whatever standpoint (though I do have my own feelings on those issues). What I am basically stating is that, as they are already there, we should continue to include them (location is not important to me) in an appropriate setting. Ideas surrounding tidyness or neatness are just plain silly. If someone decides to clean their car it does not mean they throw away the footmats. Are they necessary in the car - no, but they do add to it. Similarly the continued inclusion of verfiably sourced native names adds to the article but is not necessary. Simply find a method to make it tidy by using as mentioned hide/show features, or inputting them in a separate section/subsection/footnote. Regarding BW's point about Cornish/Jedi..That's a bit of a foolish comment. People who wrote Jedi in the census form simply did so as an act of juvenile rebellion against the authorities. Ask them face-to-face and I can guarantee they would simply state they have no religion, or are anti-religion. Considering oneself as Cornish from an ethnic point of view is something else entirely. These people, many of whom I have met, do not consider themselves British or English, and feel closer to Welsh, Irish, Bretons, etc. than they do to people in Bristol, Plymouth, Southampton, and London in particular. They look to their own history distinct from overall English history. They focus on local Cornish mythology, language, traditions, sports, cuisine, rather than on the English variations. Before you insult those who consider themselves Cornish rather than English or British, perhaps you could ask them why they do so, rather than simply equate them with those who insert rubbish about religion on census forms.--MacTire02 (talk) 17:38, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
In Brighton (the highest figures), the 2001 census recorded 6,480 people claiming to be Jedi - 2.6% of the population and more than the average total Sunday Anglican church attendance (about 5,000). Those I have met elsewhere were religious in an unconventional way. If people self-identify as something in sufficient numbers, be that Welsh or Jedi or Cornish, Wikipedia usually regards that as notable. AJRG (talk) 17:46, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
If we get into an argument about the existence or non-existence (no matter how well sourced) of Cornish, we will be here for some time! I think maybe we should agree to leave it out unless a good source is available with the correctly spelt name for British Isles in Cornish in it - that will probably be very difficult anyway - as for the others, it really doesn't matter where they appear, but it would worry me if there is some POV reason for moving them from their current position - such as a feeling that they in some way validate the historical existence of the BI in non-English cultures? They do, so let's call a shovel a shovel if that's what's bugging people. If not, then no worries. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:01, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Well if the list is to remain in the infobox (or if it is to be moved) i support the inclusion of Scots language and Ulster Scots, but i will always oppose the inclusion of Cornish which has very questionable status and will create more disruption that leaving it off would. If an original source is found (from before the language died and was revived) then there would be the potential problem that it may not match the newly agreed written form. And if the source is simply a modern written form agreed a couple of years ago, i think its wrong to label it under "Native names" in line with more recognised and accepted languages. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:30, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Well that is just blatantly ignorant of you BW. You will "always" oppose the inclusion of Cornish, even if sources are found and there is concensus found within their community regarding spelling? There is a language called Shelta here in Ireland. It is uncodified, with no spelling system. Yet the language has been around for hundreds of years. If they were to create a standard codified spelling system tomorrow, and create a spelling for the British Isles in their language, would you also be opposed? The Scots language is also not without challengers to its spelling systems, so you may also argue about its inclusion. And there is certainly argument about whether or not Ulster-Scots is a language at all, or rather just a dialect of Scots proper. To follow your criteria regarding Cornish, then logically we should also not include Scots or Ulster-Scots. After all Cornish is far more recognised and accepted as an independent language within the linguistic community than Scots or Ulster-Scots are. --MacTire02 (talk) 21:12, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
I stated the reason why i would oppose the inclusion of Cornish, there is potential for a difference between the former language which died and the revived language which a group of people in recent years have been making up as they go along. If no reliable sources for ulster scots or scots language can be found then clearly they can not be added to the list either, but as far as im aware Cornish is the only "revived" language, which makes its status questionable in my eyes, if other editors are comfortable with its inclusion and very accurate sources can be found on it then so be it. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:38, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

We have someone trying to add the Wessex Language now. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:59, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, ... it is Irish Gaelic not Irish, it is Scottish Gaelic not Scottish, it is Manx Gaelic not Manx. The linguist terms of <blah> Gaelic is the standard reference terminology used by English language Linguists (not Irish, Scottish and Manx).
Secondly,... the Cornish language is extinct. The Celtic language branch has two sub-divisions,
(i). Goidelic Group
Irish Gaelic
Scottish Gaelic
Manx Gaelic (extinct 1973, recently being re-taught)
(ii). Brythonic Group
Cumbrian (extinct)
Welsh
Cornish (extinct c. 1800)
Breton (exists only in the Continent now)
Welsh is the only non-interrupted Brythonic language (and Breton is only spoken in the Peninsula of Brittany).
Thirdly, West-Saxon? Why not ... if the Celtic stuff gets splashed hither-and-yarn everywhere ... then why not Old Norse, Old English (West-Saxon, East-Anglian, Kentish)?
ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 02:01, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Firstly, Wikipedia generally uses standard ISO names for languages rather than specialist terminology, except in explicitly specialist contexts. So Irish and Manx, not Irish Gaelic and Manx Gaelic.
Secondly, Cornish is classed as a living language, not an extinct one.
Thirdly, any properly sourced collective name for the islands in extinct languages can of course be added to the appropriate section. AJRG (talk) 10:22, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
To AJRG,
http://www.helsinki.fi/~tasalmin/europe_report.html
Ahem, Irish Gaelic (not Irish), Manx Gaelic (not Manx),
Welsh (alive and well), .... Cornish (extinct) done-like-toast.
ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 12:45, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Compiled with a couple of weeks' notice in December, 1993. Wikipedia generally uses the ISO names - see Irish language and Manx language. ISO recognises Cornish as a living language because there are children who are native speakers. AJRG (talk) 13:14, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
To AJRG,
Firstly,
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=%22Irish+Gaelic%22+%22Manx+Gaelic%22+%22Scottish+Gaelic%22+Goidelic&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=
Secondly, Manx Gaelic narrowly ... I mean narrowly missed going into oblivion. It went extinct c. 1973 and was resurrected c. 2000. That is within one generation (i.e., c. 40 years). Thus the Manx Gaelic that the children on the Isle of Man today, is very likely that of c. 1973. Whereas, Cornish went extinct c. 1800. Are there any humans with a c. 240 year lifespan? ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 16:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for inserting here, but this needs to be said. Don you need to learn your facts before contributing inaccurate comments like that above. Manx "died" in 1974 with the death of Ned Madrell, however there were people speaking Manx before he died that continued to speak Manx long after he died. The ressurection, or revitalisation, of Manx started in the 1950s (and possible beforehand), not the year 2000 as you have asserted, and continued more sure-footedly in the 70s, 80s, with a slight dip in the 90s, before regaining a foothold in the 2000s. Likwise, Cornish does not have any speaker with a 240 year lifespan. No language does. But then using your logic would require that all speakers of all languages are newborn. Henry Jenner was speaking Cornish in the 1880s (although his Grammar was not published until 1904). Not counting anyone else that speaks or spoke the language, and considering the traditional date for the death of Cornish is held as being 1777, that leaves a 103 year gap, not 240. And bear in mind that there are referenced reports of native Cornish speakers surviving into the early 19th century and beyond. --MacTire02 (talk) 17:25, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia needs to be accessible to the non-specialist reader, so only uses technical jargon when necessary. The Manx that children speak today is not the same as that of the last speakers, but much closer to the form their grandparents spoke before the language degenerated. AJRG (talk) 17:01, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Anything added will have to have a convincing and verifiable source. The reality of Cornish is one of those debates that is hardly worth having - it's exponents will be committed to it existing whilst the sceptics see no basis. If it's verifiable it can be in, but seeing as even the exponents will be unable to come up with an agreed spelling, I suspect it will take a while. :-) As regards Old Wessex-ian, Ogham, Jutish and Elvish, I think we will leave all those to history. We're looking for continuously existing modern languages with verifiable sourcing. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:09, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree. How about two criteria for inclusion?
  • 1) A WP:RS can be found proving its common use in the British Isles (including channel islands)
  • 2) a WP:RS with its translation can be found
We dont need to source the common use on the article, maybe just on a hidden note for editors Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:15, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
agree --Snowded TALK 10:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
A black-and-white opinion of this, why not include them? Does it hurt the value of the article? --Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 21:06, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Agree on reliable sources, however what about their actual placement? There doesn't seem to be any disagreement about moving them all (except English as this is the English Wikipedia after all) into their own specific section or whatever as long as they remain in the article - and they are interesting and notable and deserve to remain. Moving them into their own section will allow a better explaination of the names as well as unclutter the infobox..
One other question though - why does the Irish Gaelic have three different versions listed? Why does it not simply follow the style of common name for the islands? For example Oileáin Iarthair Eorpa translating as "islands of western Europe" is hardly the Irish Gaelic for British Isles. If we follow that style then we must include all the different uncommonly used terms in English as well as no doubt others will want to add them in for the otehr languages if they can find sources for them. Such names provide further need for a seperate section for this all where they can be expanded upon. Mabuska (talk) 23:10, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
"It is "Irish Gaelic" not Irish. Bull. The common and widely used term for the language is Irish. It doesn't matter a twat on Wiki what some tiny sub-group of linguists call it. Common usage uber alles - that is the Wiki-rule. (Albeit common usage in England when it comes to Irish-related names). Sarah777 (talk) 02:27, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
It is Irish Gaelic, Scottish Gaelic, and Manx Gaelic for English language linguists. Those three terms are the norm. The term Goidelic was specifically coined the indicate this. As per me being a twat as you put it.... well I guess that means I am a twat .
Rude Britain (Gotta love the Home Islands, us Colonials just can't keep up).
ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 04:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Get real folks. "British" Isles is a political invention dating from circa 300 years ago; not surprising it doesn't exist in languages that were nearing extinction at the time. If we are going to use minority language terms for the "British" Isles where there is a "reliable source" then we must highlight the fact that no such term exists in most of those languages. It being a political term of recent coinage. Sarah777 (talk) 02:32, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
A bit earlier than that (see here and here). Gerard Mercator's 1578 edition of the (Greek) Geographia by Claudius Ptolemy (c. AD 90 – c. 168) has EVROPAE TABVLA.I. In qua Insulae Britannicae duae, Hibernia & Albion cum minoribus adiacentibus descri- buntur. - "Europe, Table 1, in which the two British Isles of Hibernia and Albion together with smaller adjacent {islands} are described." AJRG (talk) 09:11, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Just an FYI, there have been long debates in the past (and in some cases learned ones) as to whether Ptolemy use is the same. The sources say that the first use was in 1577 --Snowded TALK 09:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Ptolemy's Greek is here (p 64). βρετανικη still means British in Greek. AJRG (talk) 10:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes we all know that one, but have a look at the prior debate and also the etymological reference. --Snowded TALK 10:58, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm not trying to minimise the 1577 Dee reference - if anything, Mercator's 1578 atlas supports it. Dee published books in Latin, since this was an age when educated men spoke fluent Latin as well as their native tongue, and Brytish Iles is simply a translation of Insulae Britannicae. AJRG (talk) 12:08, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I will remove any WP:OR regarding the translation of the term "British" Isles into minority or dead languages with extreme prejudice. And I expect support from the Admin Community on this. Sarah777 (talk) 02:37, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
It is earlier than 300 years ago. As for "dead languages", that has already been agreed to be absurd. What do you mean by "minority" languages - Welsh for example? Are you really trying to claim that it's original research to include the phrase from Welsh? And that the "admin community" would support you in removing it? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I am struggling to believe you would ever do anything with "extreme prejudice" Sarah! :) BritishWatcher (talk) 09:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Just a warning BritishWatcher, I'd tone down everything if I was you. I can see the humour in your comments, but I'm sure others don't. Just a friendly notice from someone who understands where you are coming from!Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
This was also needless and provocative. Would be best struck --Snowded TALK 10:00, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Back to the issue at hand

Seeing as this has gone away from topic i'll reiterate what i said and asked above which everyone seems to have glossed over in attempts to war about what languages are called or exist, to quote myself:


Mabuska (talk) 10:22, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Here's my opinion on what reliable sources should be used.
  • 1) A WP:RS can be found proving its common use in the British Isles (including channel islands)
  • 2) a WP:RS with its translation can be found
As for Irish Gaelic, I'm unsure what the common one is, but agree only one is needed. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
That is because there is no proper translation for "British Isles" in Irish, other than "na hOileáin Bhriotanacha" which is seldom, if ever, used by native speakers. Irish speakers tend to prefer either "Oileáin Iarthair Eorpa" or more often "Éire agus an Bhreatain (Mhóir)". --MacTire02 (talk) 13:01, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Wow, that's politically provocative. Maybe "na hOileáin Bhriotanacha" should be used, with a note attached which contains the others and explains what you've just said. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:05, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Thats a pretty bold claim MacTire02 that there is no "proper" translation - of course there is, not all Irish speakers are anti-British nationalists. Article is called British Isles, so the Irish for British Isles should be used, so that means na hOileáin Bhriotanacha. The other two can be cited in a section dedicated to native names and other sourced versions - that way everything gets included and detailed and nothing gets left out. Mabuska (talk) 13:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
A differing view (in Irish) here. AJRG (talk) 13:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
The same page translated by Google (though grammer is a bit off in places): [1]. Hmm British Isles very commonly used on continental Europe to refer to the islands? Many Europeans see Ireland and Britain as being almost the same in character? Get the flame-retardent out i can see a firestorm coming! Mabuska (talk) 15:21, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Google translate did give a general gist of the argument, although a bit weird. It seemed to be just a complaint about how the continent viewed the Irish as almost the same people as the British. Notably it did not give a solution to the lack of a suitable replacement (as far as I could tell) Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
People on "The Continent" seeing British and the Irish people as very similiar? Same thing happens with English-Speaking Canadians and Americans. Get used to it! ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 16:21, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Lol. WP:OR anyone? --HighKing (talk) 16:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
It is not politically provocative, nor is it anti-British - unless of course you want it to be. The simple fact is it's a differing view on the world. The British, from Britain, look out on the world from the largest of a group of islands in North West Europe. They look left and see Ireland and look right and see Europe. The English language in Britain has evolved to include the use of the term "British Isles" as a result - perfectly natural. The Europeans see a large group of islands, and, having identified the largest of these islands as Britain, have named them, in their own vernaculars, as "British Isles" - again perfectly natural. The Irish however have a different view. There is no land to the left (west) - the only land is to the right (east). In Irish there were always three units identified - Ireland and the islands surrounding it, (Great) Britain and her islands, and the Continent. We never saw ourselves as being of the same unit as Britain, and it is for that reason there was no "proper term" used for the British Isles - in Irish that concept never existed until recently. Even to this day in English, we refer to Ireland as "home", the island of Britain as "Britain", and everywhere else as "foreign" - i.e. Britain is not foreign in Irish eyes - simply part one of the three units in the system that is part of the Irish viewpoint on this part of the world. Remember not every language has to agree like a dictionary with English. Take Manx as another example. Most countries in Europe have had large-scale ties with the continent at some stage and as a result have developed varying terms to describe the Atlantic - but all use words similar - An tAtlantach (Irish), L'Atlantique (French), Atlantic (English) to describe it. Manx didn't have that and retained the ancient term for it - The Western Sea/Ocean or "Y Keayn Sheear" - would you consider that anti-Atlantic?? Certainly not - it is simply an aspect of how that language developed. Personally speaking, I don't care how the islands are called in English - I personally do use the term British Isles, and I'm Irish. However in Irish Gaelic "na hOileáin Bhriotanacha" is seldom used. That link you provided AJRG is by a Czech author and only talks about the debate regarding terminology. From my own experiences in the Donegal Gaeltacht, in the Conamara gaeltacht and in the Meath Gaeltacht indicates that the common term is "Éire agus an Bhreatain Mhór". --MacTire02 (talk) 16:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Well its just a pity MacTire02 that the term "Éire agus an Bhreatain Mhór" translates essentially as Ireland and Great Britain - thats just the name of two of the many islands that compose the British Isles. Thus the name is inaccurate as it doesn't cover the entirety of the islands which is what this article is about. Mabuska (talk) 17:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
And don't forget all those claims of "seldom used" need verifiable sources to back them up. Wiki doesn't do original research. Mabuska (talk) 17:22, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
It is a pity, but that's how the language is spoken. However, to use the term "na hOileáin Bhriotanacha", in Irish, insinuates that the islands are British, along with everything associated with them, including peoples, languages, cultures, geography, history, economics, society, etc. This term is translated as "the British Islands", but British in this context is a descriptive word, not a geographic word, which is why it is not used in Irish. In a quick Google search of the term "na hOileáin Bhriotanacha", there are 1,560 results, including 6 machine translations in the first page alone (allowing for -maighdean as that yields results for the British Virgin Islands). A search on Éire agus an Bhreatain yields 19,400 results, although this may not be entirely accurate due to the fact that Wales is rendered as An Bhreatain Bheag in Irish, or Little Britain. This term is also the term favoured by the Irish Terminology Board at focal.ie. An "Oileáin Iarthair Eorpa" search yielded 1,810 results, and this term is preferred by Patrick Dineen in his authoritative dictionary on the Irish language. I understand that Google is not exactly the most accurate tool at analysing the usage, or lack, of words or terminology, but I feel that there may not be many sources out there to verify any Irish translation other than Dineen's or that of focal.ie (with the exception of possible the Collins Pocket Irish Dictionary) --MacTire02 (talk) 19:01, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I came across a most enlightening explanation here.
"Na hOileáin Bhriotanacha" would be the closest, but it's a non-starter as a term for your inclusive purposes: "Pretonic/Prythonic" was "Breatnach" in Irish, a word which now refers solely to the Welsh; "Briotanach" is a less ancient word which was needed to express the relatively modern political notion of Britishness (it's sometimes used in translating things like "British Virgin Islands", etc.
To an English speaker, the word British includes both the ancient sense of "Pretonic/Prythonic" and also the (controversial) modern political meaning. But to an Irish speaker the word only carries the modern meaning, because in Irish the older word has come to mean something different. Nevertheless, Na hOileáin Bhreatnacha is the intended sense, even if it now means Welsh Isles - a thought Snowded might enjoy... AJRG (talk) 20:07, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Not that we're known to be imperialists, but we'll be collecting all due taxes and tributes later :- D Daicaregos (talk) 20:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
AJRG do you have sources to verify that English speakers see the term "British" as a modern political term and not just a geological term they have grown up with and have adopted? I don't see it in any political sense but purely geographical as i'm sure many atlas' do as well.
I do like how people find the name British (and Briton) offensive and Anglocentric when it is true that the real Britons are the Welsh and Cornish forced west by the Saxons and i suppose the Bretons who migrated to Brittany.
At MacTire02;
Its very selective POV on who feels the term British insinuates a political meaning of domination and who feels it serves as a simple geographical name with no hint of domination. I believe only those prejudiced against the British state feel its a name of pure political meaning rather than geographical. Most Europeans know that Eire and the UK are both seperate states but as the article above shows - they don't seem to attach a political meaning with it, especially as the islands have been known as British Isles for centuries and various other similar forms before that.
Its funny how the first usage of the term "British Isles" (as in British rather than its older forms of Britannia etc.) was in Middle English (roughly), which used the Old English (Anglo-Saxon) translation of Brython (Briton); Brittisc, which itself is derived from Bryttas, which referred to the ancient Brythons as the name for the islands. Britannia derives from Pretannia (derived from Pretani). The suffix Pretani is a Greek/Latin form. In Old English that suffix would be isc, or in Middle/Modern English ish hence British. There is no difference in what the three terms (Brython, Pretani and British) actually meant just how they are seen to mean today. Suppose we shouldn't impose the name British Isles as that might insinuate domination by the modern-day Welsh and Cornish people.
But thats all original research so discount it and blame Wikitionary and Wikipedia for providing that information... Mabuska (talk) 00:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
I believe only those prejudiced against the British state feel its a name of pure political meaning rather than geographical. Most Europeans know that Eire and the UK are both seperate states... - I disagree, and as has been pointed out, in the Irish language, we have a word that translates as "possession of the British", Nothing to do with prejudice or politics, simply liguistics. But - shoe on the other foot - I believe that those British who call this state Eire and not use the correct name in English, Ireland, are prejudiced against the Irish state. --HighKing (talk) 12:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
The modern, colonial, sense of British (Irish Briotanach) can still be seen in British Antarctic Territory, British Indian Ocean Territory and British Virgin Islands, and was used historically in British Commonwealth, British Empire, British Central Africa, British East Africa, British Somaliland, British Guiana, British Honduras and British New Guinea. AJRG (talk) 08:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes the main problem is the as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland the country of the UK controlled the entire British Isles, and thus they were the British. Arguably this had begun before, when it was the Kingdom of Great Britain, but it became cemented once the isles were united and it was at this time that imperialism really took off. Thus territories conquered by the UK were conquered by the British, leaving the name. The problem is that no other denonym exists for people from the UK, leading to the issues today. Similar to American (word). Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
It's not really a problem for English speakers, because since the end of empire they don't see the term as expressing a claim to ownership. The issue is that Irish speakers understand British as Briotanach, which does exactly that. What is needed is not so much a new demonym in English, but a term in Irish that encompasses all the ancient inhabitants of the islands. AJRG (talk) 09:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
I hate it when politics and linguistics gets intertwined. I would like to note that most, almost all, people in Ireland speak English. The problem is not the word, but rather the connotations they attach to the word. That may well be because of what you said. Anyway, bringing it back to the article, if they do not have another term that encompasses the islands, we will have to use the 'offensive' one I guess. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Like any powerful nation-state-empire, Britain laid claim to it's territories via naming, just as the French, Germans, Americans and others did. These names are "modern" (eg, mostly 18th and 19th century inventions) imperial inventions. This is obvious in the examples AJRG raises above. It isn't nearly so clear-cut in the case of British Isles, since as is pretty regularly pointed out, that's a name with a much longer ancestry. British Isles is also a name in wide use. So the responsibility in Wikipedia is to explain, reference and describe this situation from all angles and in detail. It is not our job to delete stuff that exists in reality because it has a history we don't like for any reason. My POV in saying this is also irrelevant, as is all of ours. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Does this not backup my claims that we need to remove the information on "native names" from the infobox and into an actual section in the article where it can all be better described and detailed without cluttering the infobox. I don't think anyone has disagreed with the idea of a section. Mabuska (talk) 11:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Definitely a section on etymology would be very useful. Maybe just have English in the infobox, with a link to the language section in small text under it Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Why? What's the problem with the way it is? First you try to shoe-horn the incorrect Irish term into the infobox, and now when you have an explanation as to why it's not appropriate, you want to delete it? Is it as simple as that in terms of motivation, or am I missing something? There were no calls to delete it before now. --HighKing (talk) 12:14, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Only a few people here speak Irish, so most of us didn't understand that Briotanach carries very specific (and unwanted) colonial connotations that British only recently acquired and is in the process of losing again. People who are bilingual draw word boundaries in slightly different places from people who are monolingual (one of my friends got a PhD proving that for Welsh and English speakers in respect of colour names). So anyone bilingual in English and Irish will tend to blend the meaning of related words in the two languages, even before the dead weight of history is added to the mix. In this case the translation is etymologically too recent, because the older word Breatnach (in its original meaning) is the sense intended. AJRG (talk) 12:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
There already is a much debated section on etymology in the article --Snowded TALK 12:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Apologies, I meant addition to, although probably under a separate subtitle. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
HighKing who says anything about deleting it? Where does this keep coming from! Moving something from the infobox into a section where it can be better detailed is hardly deleting it from the article. No-one so far has disagreed with the idea of a section instead as long as the various names (all sourced) remain in the article. Do you have a problem with that HighKing? Either that or we just use the actual Irish for British Isles in the infobox as the other two currently there don't translate as British Isles and thus are redundant unless we give them a proper explaination which a section can do. Mabuska (talk) 12:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
The terms aren't there as "translations" in your sense of the word, but are there as the names used in Irish. I see no reason to remove them from the infobox and I welcome a more detailed explanation in a new section. --HighKing (talk) 15:47, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Since we've established that Na hOileáin Bhriotanacha implies a territorial claim, and that Éire agus an Bhreatain Mhór only refers to two of the six thousand islands, perhaps we could just leave Oileáin Iarthair Eorpa (which is solidly referenced from an Irish-English dictionary) in the Infobox? The others belong in a context where they can be adequately explained. AJRG (talk) 17:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Here is the essence of the problem,
The classical writer, Ptolemy, had also referred the island as Great Britain (Megale Britannia) and to Ireland as Little Britain (Mikra Brettania) in his work, Almagest (147–148 AD). In his later work, Geography (circa 150 AD), he gives these islands the names Albion, Iwernia and Mona (the Isle of Man), suggesting these may have been native names of the individual islands not known to him at the time of writing Almagest.[1]
During Ptolmey's day (i.e., c. 150 AD) the Island of Great Britain (Megale Britannia) and the Island of Little Britain (Mikra Brettania) would have been seen as the "Pair of Islands" off the coast of Europe.
Later on after the Union of the Crowns 1603 AD, a term was needed to apply to the "Pair of Islands" of the coast of Europe and Bob's-Your-Uncle the old Insulae Britanniae made a return engagement!,
Insulae Britanniae
http://www.raremapsandbooks.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=11327&zenid=c10ba31a1e3b448b648511d2c5e58951
Now what were the folkes on the ole Island of Ireland (Insula Mikra Britannia) up to in the interrim?
"Imperator Scottorum" or "Emperor of the Irish"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Empire
It would seem they were well on their way to embracing this Imperial Langauge business :::::.... would not you say eh?  :::::ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 16:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
What a warped interpretation of history. LoL. Made me laugh, thank you. --HighKing (talk) 19:51, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Armchair, I think you are getting mixed up. Little Britain is normally associated with Brittany and not Ireland.
BJ, that was later by at least half a millennium. We don't know what Claudius Ptolemy meant by Mikra Brettania because he only gives its latitude - the medieval cartographer Abraham Ortelius thought he was referring to Scotland. AJRG (talk) 21:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
So we are talking about the name given to these isles by a guy who wasn't quite sure where he was! :-) Bjmullan (talk) 21:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
That quote is from Ptolemy's early Almagest. His later Geography describes both iouernia (Hibernia) and alouiwnos (Albion) as a nesos bretanike - a British isle. AJRG (talk) 21:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
@ AJRG - Oileáin Iarthair Eorpa suffers a similar problem as Éire agus an Bhreatain Mhór - we know what islands its meant to refer to - the British Isles - however it also excludes the other islands of western Europe such as; Madeira, Iceland, the Azores, Faroe Islands... Mabuska (talk) 21:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
That's becoming OR. Oileáin Iarthair Eorpa is given as the equivalent to British Isles in a published Irish-English dictionary. AJRG (talk) 21:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
What a complete mess. Terms in other languages don't necessarily have to be literal, word for word translations of their equivalent in English. If Oileáin Iarthair Eorpa is the term used in Irish Gaelic then we should use that, even if it is not a literal translation. The French name for the Straits of Dover is the Pas de Calais, which obviously doesn't translate literally. The French name for the English Channel is "La Manche" - no mention of England, and "manche" doesn't mean channel except in the context of the English Channel. We don't make up our own literal translations of geographical terms; we have to use the terms that are actually used in that language. john k (talk) 00:28, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Insulae Britanniae means the British Isles.

Insula Megale Britannia means the Island of Great Britain.

Insula Mikra Britannia means the Island of Little Britain (i.e., Island of Ireland).

Paeninsula Mikra Britannia means the Peninsula of Little Britain (i.e., Peninsula of Brittany).

Google Search: "Mikra Britannia"

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=%22Mikra+Britannia%22&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

It is pretty clear ...

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 02:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

insula, paeninsula and britannia are Latin words. megale, mikra and brettania are Greek.
Richard Bradley (mixing up Latin and Greek) writes Ptolemy’s account distinguishes between Megale Britannia (Great Britain) which refers to the larger island, and Mikra Britannia (Little Britain) which describes Ireland. He doesn't say that Ptolemy is referring to Ireland, just that the description could fit. We don't know what Ptolemy actually meant, because in the Almagest he is explaining the variation of day length with latitude and doesn't give the longitude. The confusion arises because Ptolemy's Geography incorrectly places Hibernia at the same latitudes as Scotland. AJRG (talk) 06:18, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Please click this link below for a "picture" of the situation,
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1f/Ptolemy-british-isles.jpg/350px-Ptolemy-british-isles.jpg
A 1490 Italian reconstruction of the map of Ptolemy

.

Now, there are two islands ...
(On the Left) the Small Island, the Mikra Nesos, the Minor Insula, ( the Mikra Britannia Insula)
(One the Right) the Big Island, the Megale Nesos, the Major Insula, (the Megale Britannia Insula)
Are you saying that Ptolemy (c. 90 AD -168 AD)
(Greek) Klaúdios Ptolemaîos [Greek-to-Latin Alphabet transliteration]
(Latin) Claudius Ptolemaeus [straight Latin Alphabet]
would not of used the term Mikra Britannia, and Megale Britannia and know what it was? Is this the arguement you are advancing? He invented the Modern-Day science of Cartography ... but alas he was sadly "too-dense" to discern spelling? ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 07:59, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
In the Almagest, Ptolemy doesn't describe either megale brettania or mikra brettania as an island. Since in Ptolemy's time the Roman province of Britannia had been variously divided as (Britannia Citerior / Britannia Ulterior) and (Britannia Superior / Britannia Inferior), we can't make assumptions about what he means by megale and mikra. AJRG (talk) 10:44, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Who gave that map the stamp of authenticity? Here's one from 1467. Here's another from 1482.
Anyway what's your point? Are you simply trying to insist, using a book that no longer exists, a term that been translated through 3 languages, using a map with Latin names, that another term was used to refer to an island? Where is this going exactly? And if it's going nowhere, take this discussion somewhere else. And please read WP:INDENT. --HighKing (talk) 08:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Its almost identical to material he has posted before High King, with the same disregard for guidelines on how to format comments. Best to ignore it and get on with agreeing how to move forward. Also worth reading this to get a sense of the issue--Snowded TALK 08:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Agree with Snowded. Best to ignore him. We are here discussing the names of the British Isles in the various indigenous languages and where best to insert them in the article, all while AVDL simply asserts the Latin and Greek names over and over and over again, without trying to help on the project at all. Getting back to the point regarding the languages: the names for the isles in Irish should be represented as "Oileáin Iarthair Eorpa" and "Éire agus an Bhreatain Mhór", and not "na hOileáin Bhriotanacha". This last term is a "translation", word for word, of the English term "British Isles", and as has been mentioned, would be analagous to the French wikipedia using "The Pass of Calais" as the English translation for "Pas de Calais" - quite accurate as a translation, but not what the English call that stretch of water. Likewise "na hOileáin Bhriotanacha" is an accurate translation in Irish of the "British Isles" but is not what they are called in Irish (no more mentions of Latin, Greek, or Ptolemy please as they are in no way related to how the isles are named in Irish). A slight minor detail regarding the infobox as well - it mentions that the languages represented there are the official languages in the 8 jurisdictions. However Norman is NOT an official language anywhere. The official languages of the Channel Islands are English and Standard French, with regional status afforded to the local variants of Norman, i.e. Jèrriais, Guernésiais, and Sercquiais.--MacTire02 (talk) 09:25, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Here we go again. "Na hOileáin Bhriotanacha" has a single reference on the entire internet - to a Collins dictionary. It is a neologism. The collective name in Irish given in Dineen's 1927 dictionary is Oileáin Iarthair Eorpa. Furthermore, this latter term occurs, as has been referenced here before, in the sixteenth-century Irish annals. User:Mabuska should familiarise himself with previous discussions and references before making his claims. Once more, as this reference has been removed by the usual British nationalist editors in this article, here is the sixteenth-century reference for Oileáin Iarthair Eorpa: 'M1584.2. Sir Niclas Maulbi gobernóir chóiccidh Connacht d'écc i n-Áth Luain fá initt, fer foglamtha i m-bérlaibh & i t-tengtoibh oilén Iarthair Eorpa [Oileáin Iarthair Eorpa] esidhe, fear crodha cath-bhuadhach seachnon Ereann, Alban, & na Fraingce'(Source: http://www.ucc.ie/celt/published/G100005E/index.html). Translation: 'M1584.2. Sir Nicholas Malby, Governor of the province of Connaught, died at Athlone, about Shrovetide. He was a man learned in the languages and tongues of the islands of the West of Europe, a brave and victorious man in battles fought throughout Ireland, Scotland, and France'(Source: http://www.ucc.ie/celt/online/T100005E/text009.html). End of "debate".Dunlavin Green (talk) 02:03, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Collins Pocket Irish Dictionary seems rather a weak source to use as the only support for a contentious translation. Unless a better source can be found, I propose that we remove "Na hOileáin Bhriotanacha". AJRG (talk) 14:56, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
British nationalists? where? GoodDay (talk) 16:00, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
I wish Dunlavin Green would stop accusing everyone who disagrees with him/he disagrees with a “British Nationalist”. It’s extremely counter-productive and in violation of Talk Page Rules. So to you sir, cut it out. As Good Day, says, I see none. --Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 22:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Anybody who claims that the term "British Isles" is not political (despite Ireland and the Irish people being under a brutal British colonial occupation for centuries) and is merely "geographical" is most assuredly a British nationalist. Look at the chief culprits - User:BritishWatcher, one of the more vociferous of the British editors here makes his British nationalism clear in his User Page;This guy explicitly believes that the Irish are British, politically and otherwise and should have no say in this article; User:MidnightBlueMan never made a secret about his British nationalist politics; User:Mabuska is dedicated to British unionist work in Wikipedia; while your own page merely says you're 'proud to be English' (we know where that often goes, don't we?). There is a clear, unmistakable British nationalist agenda in this article. So far, the objections of "many" Irish people have been removed (despite being well referenced), an enormous number of references supporting the Irish objections have been removed from this article by British nationalist editors, and now the first information about this term being 'controversial' is in the 19th line. What are you all trying to hide? In the first edition of this article in October 2001 the controversy was mentioned in the first paragraph and alluded to in the first sentence. Let me guess? You don't really know about Ireland and the Irish and just assume that the Irish are happy to be termed "British" and live in what you term the "British Isles"? Why do you think most of Ireland is free from British colonial rule and described as a republic? Could it have been because of a popularly supported War of Independence led by the Irish Republican Army? Play your British jingoism elsewhere. Your British state is rejected by the vast majority of the population of the island of Ireland, whether you like it or not. Your "British Isles" covering Ireland is a delusion, and a typically offensive one at that. But what else can the Irish people expect from the British, seeing what they have been doing to us for centuries. Dunlavin Green (talk) 17:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Feel better now? :) BritishWatcher (talk) 17:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
DG, I can't stress too strongly that the word British has two separate meanings. The meaning associated with colonial misrule of Ireland and subsequently with the British Empire is comparatively modern and no longer in fashion. The original meaning, which is still in use, refers to the tribes who inhabited Hibernia and Albion in Greek and Roman times, and this is the proper sense (used in various languages for two millennia) of the phrase British Isles. AJRG (talk) 19:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
A couple of issues there, AJRG. First, the term "British Isles" only appears in the English language when the modern concept of Britishness began to emerge, specifically to the work of the English imperialist John Dee in 1577 (interestingly, there were several references from academia describing John Dee and his writing as 'imperialist' but they, too, have been removed from this article). The term, therefore, is bound up with this modern imperialist sense and has nothing to do with the ancient 'P'/'B' Celts of Britain (the Irish were obviously not 'P'/British Celts but rather 'Q'/Goidelic Celts). Second, even if the term "British Isles" had some non-political geographical origin millenia ago to say that it still holds the same meaning after centuries of British rule in Ireland is simply untrue. Language use and meaning changes. To say the term "British Isles" means the same thing now as it would have a millenia ago is akin to saying that the Swastika is merely still a Hindu flag of peace. Dunlavin Green (talk) 12:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
DG, the Cruthin (Cruithne) in Ireland were apparently originally P-Celtic speakers. The term Brytish Iles appears as English begins to re-establish itself as a language of publication alongside Latin and is a direct translation of Insulae Britannicae. The Tudors didn't invent misrule in Ireland, though they did continue it, but as a new Welsh dynasty they felt the need to stress the antiquity of their claim to the islands. AJRG (talk) 17:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
This term may be less used than it once was but it is still used often and the idea it stopped being used or should have stopped being used after 1922 is nonsense. it is a geographical term used by many sources still today and that is all that matters :) BritishWatcher (talk) 12:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Irish name

Alright! Too much fluffing around. Reading everything, it seems Oileáin Iarthair Eorpa seems to be the best Irish translation, if not the most literal. Thoughts? (Vote?) Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. AJRG (talk) 18:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Well when you actually think about it - the section does state "native names", and well if that is proven native name in the Republic of Ireland for the British Isles then i suppose so - even if it leaves off many other islands of western Europe... however this is about language not what a state calls it. If it can be proven that Oileáin Iarthair Eorpa is common usage amongst Irish speakers (after all the state doesn't control the language) then by all means stick it in. Mabuska (talk) 18:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Oileáin Iarthair Eorpa = "British Isles". oileáin iarthar na hEorpa = western islands of Europe or western European islands in the context of any western European islands or island groupings. Is ionann Oileáin Iarthair Eorpa agus "British Isles" an Bhéarla, ach is é is brí le oileáin iarthar na hEorpa ná oileán nó oileáin ar bith atá suite amach ó chósta iarthar na hEorpa, Oileáin Iarthair Eorpa san iomlán. In otherwords, to speakers of Irish there is a difference between the two terms. The first term may be used for the British Isles exclusively, whereas the second term may be used for any island or island grouping in Western Europe. References have already been provided previously about usage. --MacTire02 (talk) 21:17, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
A bit late as a further reply to Mabuska, but in relation to what you describe as "what a state calls it": Official state term for the British Isles, and a term used as a collective name by native Irish speakers (albeit viewing the group as two groups of islands) = Éire agus an Bhreatain Mhór. Common term used by speakers of Irish when viewing the British Isles as a collective group = Oileáin Iarthair Eorpa. --MacTire02 (talk) 15:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

At any rate, that seems to be a consensus against Éire agus an Bhreatain Mhór Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:11, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Introduction needs fixing

Following a conversation on Republic of Ireland, one editor said [2]

"Britain and Ireland is one of the accepted forms for British Isles, like it or lump it its fact, take your protests to the people over on the British Isles article if you don't like it,and see if you can persuade them to change their minds."

Now i have raised this matter before stating exactly this potential problem. The current wording in the introduction states.

As a result, Britain and Ireland is becoming a preferred description,[10][13][14] and Atlantic Archipelago is increasingly favoured in academia,[15][16][17][18] although British Isles is still commonly employed.

This sentence makes people think that Britain and Ireland is an alternative name for the British Isles. This is totally incorrect, the point that sentence is meant to be making is "instead of talking about the British Isles people just talk of Britain and Ireland" which is not the same area. This matter clearly needs to be addressed to avoid confusion. Thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 13:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

FYI.The editor mentioned above was me, to understand the context in which I said that I suggest looking at the talk page BritishWatcher mentioned.Sheodred (talk) 13:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
The statement in the lead is supported explicitly by quoted references. It used to be supported by more references. Some of these were removed on the basis that the number of references being used to support it was excessive.
This page is to be used to discuss improvements to this article. It is not a venue to discuss exchanges between editors on other pages. Those kinds of discussions belong on the relevant editors' talk pages. --RA (talk) 13:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
This is directly about the introduction on this article. Sheodred has been misled by this introduction. He thinks that "Britain and Ireland" is an accepted way of talking about the area that is the British Isles. That is clearly incorrect. The sources are suggesting instead of talking about the British Isles, people just talk of Britain and Ireland instead. They are not saying the British Isles is also described as Britain and Ireland. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Just ignore him RA.You can't compromise with him, I tried, despite everything you do, you can't if he does not have his way.Sheodred (talk) 13:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I don't think he has been misled. I think that you are misled about what they say.
They do not say to "just talk of Britain and Ireland instead." They say, "In response to [difficulties with 'British Isles'], 'Britain and Ireland' is becoming preferred usage." And, "Nowadays, however, 'Britain and Ireland' is the more favoured expression [compare to 'British Isles']" That is what we say also.
In any event, we include relatively lengthy quotes so readers of all perspectives can see exactly that the sources say. --RA (talk) 13:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Write up the intro in anyway ya please folks. Just keep away from the article title (as it's atleast historic). GoodDay (talk) 13:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Does "Britain and Ireland" include the isle of man and Channel Islands? BritishWatcher (talk) 13:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree with GoodDay. Besides, I am reading William Shirer's Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, and he constantly uses the term British Isles. Britain and Ireland does leave out Isle of Man and the Channel Isles. I am not taking sides just trying to place things in their proper historical position.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Here's (yet) another ref equating "Britain and Ireland" with "British Isles":
  • Guelke, Adrian (2006), Global Disorder: Political Violence in the Contemporary World, London: I.B.Taurus, p. 238, ISBN 9781850438038, European integration has made it possible to consider the question of sovereignty in other than zero-sum terms, in which a grain for one community automatically constitutes a loss for the other. That is reflected in the Good Friday Agreement's promotion of both closer ties within the British Isles (or Britain and Ireland, in nationalist language) and between the two parts of Ireland.
So, yes, if the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands are included in "British Isles" then they are included in "Britain and Ireland". The two terms are interchangable. Choice of one over another is merely personal preference. --RA (talk) 14:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Is there a source that says Britain and Ireland = Great Britain, Ireland, Isle of Man and Channel Islands? That source does not clearly state Britain and Ireland means the same area as the British Isles. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
The source, as with the ones already on the page, equate the two terms. --RA (talk) 14:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Reading through this it seems that one thing is apparent. Britain and Ireland is a colloquial synonym for British Isles. This is irrespective of whether that is "correct" or not. Maybe the article can just be altered to say that? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Indeed. This is silly. The Isle of Man is an afterthought, and the Channel Islands aren't geographically part of the British Isles, anyway. john k (talk) 19:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Cornish language?

In the “Native Names” section Cornish is not there. Is there a name for the British Isles in Cornish? --Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 15:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Island is "ynys" so perhaps it's something close to the Welsh "Ynysoedd Prydain"? Perhaps one of our Cornish editors can help. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:07, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
"Enesow Bretenek", "Enesow Breten", or "Enesow Bretennek" would be the name in Cornish. Various names for islands have been used in the various orthographies of Cornish, including "ynysow" (sng. "ynys). However, with the new SWF, "enys" has been chosen as the "correct" way to spell the word, with its plural form rendered as "enesow". I'm not entirely sure how the SWF is now treating the adjective "Bretenek/Bretennek" - i.e. with a single or a double "n". --MacTire02 (talk) 21:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
This is useful - do you want to mention it at Talk:Cornish language as well MacTire02, as it sounds like maybe you could do with some discussion on it to clarify maybe? Thanks for your help with this. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:23, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
We should avoid using Cornish. A few individuals deciding how to describe things in recent years hardly really justifies being in a list of native names. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:24, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
If Manx and Norman French are in there, we can have Cornish BW - this isn't a matter of Wikipedia approving of something, it's just acknowledging the existence of a real-world and referencable phenomena as well as creating the depth of interest in the articles we all love when browsing something we know nothing about. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
But how can we be sure it is the "native name" if it is simply something agreed to by a group of people in the past few years as they have codified their revived language? Its questionable if all these other languages need to be there at all. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Why is Scots language not listed, there must be some other native languages too if we go far enough back. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:07, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Those are fair points BW - that's why I was suggesting further clarification. I also read that original Cornish forms are not known, as with Ogham, since no written form survived from earlier times, but perhaps I am wrong about that. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 22:11, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Looking at it Ulster Scots is also missing. I think we should restrict the list to the main languages.. Irish, English, Welsh, Manx, and (what ever is spoken in the channel islands today). BritishWatcher (talk) 22:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Channel Islanders speak English though a minority do speak Norman. I don't really see the point either - the whole thing can be put in a footnote or a section of its own in article. Mabuska (talk) 23:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
@James: Unfortunately I do not believe it could be discussed at the Cornish language talk page. Although a standard SWF spelling system was introduced, there remains considerable debate and anger over spelling issues. My level of Cornish is basic at best, and therefore I would not like to get bogged down in a debate over there, or indeed to create another flashpoint for that page. --MacTire02 (talk) 15:41, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

A while ago it was argued that Cornish could not be included because nobody could find a reference for "Enesow Bretennek". I have since found one: <ref>{{cite book |title=Gerlyver Sawsnek-Kernowek |last=Williams |first=Nicholas |authorlink=Nicholas Williams |publisher=Agan Tavas/Evertype |page=44 |year=2006 |isbn=978-1-904808-06-0}}</ref>, however it seems that the inclusion criteria have been changed, from languages of the British Isles to official languages of selected political divisions. So I'll just keep a note of it here for future reference. In response to some concerns here, regardless of whether or not the term "British Isles" was used in the 17th Century, the word "enesow" for islands is well attested in the traditional texts, and so is the adjective "bretennek" for British. That is the term it was/would have been then, and that is the term it is now. "Enesow Bretennek" is in the standard form used by the Council. --Joowwww (talk) 16:09, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not meaning to burst your bubble Joowwww, but the reference provided specifically states "[the] dictionary...utilizes Unified Cornish Revised orthography". That reference is fine for suggesting the translation as is the case in UCR, but not for suggesting the Council's preferred translation. The SWF may indeed use the translation as found in Williams dictionary, but we would need to back that up too. It might not be a bad idea to contact the Cornish Language Partnership itself and ask them if they have any references to it in any published material or online. --MacTire02 (talk) 16:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
But the reference isn't there to prove what the council uses, it's there to just prove what Cornish uses. The original issue was that nobody could find a reference for the Cornish for "British Isles". The current inclusion criteria (to which Cornish is not eligible) is official language, not official orthography. I doubt the CLP could help, since an SWF dictionary hasn't been published yet, and both the SWF glossary and the SWF specification don't have "British Isles" in them. --Joowwww (talk) 20:34, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
No but the reference doesn't show what "British Isles" is in Cornish either. For example, we know the Irish for "Isles" is "Oileáin" and the Irish for "British" is "Briotanach". Put them together and you get "Na hOileáin Bhriotanacha" (taking grammar into account). However that is not the Irish translation for the "British Isles". In other words, the reference must support the Cornish version of the "British Isles" - not the Cornish version of "British" and "Isles". Regarding CLP - I understand they have not produced an SWF dictionary or glossary, but surely they have produced some literature? What I am saying is maybe somewhere in that literature they have mentioned the British Isles by their Cornish name, in whole? --MacTire02 (talk) 13:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
The reference I gave does include an entry for "British Isles". --Joowwww (talk) 23:43, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Britain and Ireland

We clearly need to figure this matter out one way or another and ensure it is clear in the article and terminology article and in other places too perhaps.

Is Britain and Ireland a group of islands off the northwest coast of continental Europe that include the islands of Great Britain and Ireland and over six thousand smaller islands. Including the Channel Islands and Isle of Man?

Or

Is Britain and Ireland just a term to completely avoid use of British Isles. A term that either refers to Great Britain and Ireland or United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland. Both of which do not include the Isle of Man and Channel Islands.

I have always believed it is the second and continue to. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Terminology of the British Isles looks like it requires an expansion on this term. It simply states that it is used as an alternative to British Isles. Information (even the source provided by HighKing) seems to point out that it is used by "nationalists". So it is, I suppose, a common alternative, if incorrect. Maybe just scrap the alternative from this article and link to the Terminology article? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
What source? Remind me please. BTW, I'm totally against using "Britain and Ireland" as a shorthand for "British Isles" and I agree with BW that it's not synonymous. --HighKing (talk) 17:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Since there is a traditional geographic term in Irish which translates roughly as Islands west of Europe, Britain and Ireland is a different term. It clearly excludes the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands, and arguably the Orkney and Shetland Islands as well. There are many contexts in which the term Britain and Ireland is entirely appropriate, but it is not a geographical equivalent for British Isles. AJRG (talk) 17:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
"Britain and Ireland" is really just shorthand for "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the Republic of Ireland". It's an easy way of linking two countries which are geographically adjacent and have much in common. That's how most people use it anyway. You might struggle to find a reference for this becuase it's really only on Wikipedia that anyone is that bothered about a precise definition. In fact, slowly but surely its definition is being created here! There's something not quite right with that. LevenBoy (talk) 18:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Fear not, Laven. One of the reference currently in this article testifies that "'Britain and Ireland' is becoming preferred usage" a year before Wikipedia was launched (2000). --RA (talk) 18:22, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
But does it define what "Britain and Ireland" actually is, notwithstanding its use as a synonym? I bet it doesn't. LevenBoy (talk) 18:28, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
The problem with using the term "Britain and Ireland" is geographical in that it does not include IOM or the Channel Islands. However the Irish government has decided that that is the term that should be preferred in its official terminology. My personal belief is that that is partially based on ignorance. Many in Ireland who do not know any better consider the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands as mere parts of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in a manner similar to the way Shetland and Orkney are parts of Britain (like how foreigners contend that Wales and Scotland are part of England). What is happening is the usurpation of a colloquial (Irish) term to offically label the British Isles as Britain and Ireland. So technically speaking IOM and Channel Islands are not part of Britain and Ireland, but colloquially speaking, and now politically speaking (in Ireland at least), they are included. --MacTire02 (talk) 18:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Up to a point, but note that the comparison between counting "Wales as part of England" as a foreigner's misaprehension is not the same as counting "Orkney/Shetland as part of Britain" - the latter is technically, constitutionally and legally correct, regardless of the views of Orkey and Shetland people or political opinion. The former is not. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 11:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, it's usage. Though I don't see evidence for it being merely a "colloquial" or "Irish" term. The references we use, for example, are UK-based and academic but you will find it in publications, including maps, of all sorts. It is not perfect a perfect term either. As we are aware, problems exist with "British" Isles also.
@Laven, I've never seen it defined except that it is an equivalent to British Isles. I have seen examples that came tantalisingly close to it, but never quite. There are also plenty of cryptic references such as National Geographic Style-guide: "The plate in the National Geographic Atlas of the World once titled 'British Isles' now reads 'Britain and Ireland'." It would appear, as the sources in the text support, to be part of a trend from one (inaccurate) term to another.
I think anyone would be mad to suggest, for example, that this page be moved to "Britain and Ireland" or to say that we should switch our prefered usage to it; but you would be on unsound footing to deny its existence or to say that it is not a common synonym for British Isles. Regardless of our opinion of it (inaccurate etc.), it evidently exists and is verifiably used as an synonym/equivalent/replacement for British Isles. --RA (talk) 18:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
That's a fair point. Yes, it does exist, and yes, "Britain and Ireland" is often used in some contexts instead of "British Isles". But it's not synonymous - i.e. to use "British Isles" when the subject matter is limited to UK&I or GB&I. --HighKing (talk) 18:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I just want to note that the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands aren't equivalent here. The Isle of Man is indisputably part of the British Isles; the Channel Islands are sometimes included, but are geographically distinct. john k (talk) 19:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Tectonically distinct but still considered part of the geographic region known as the British Isles? --HighKing (talk) 19:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Umm, didn't we have this conversation already? I distinctly remember arguing this point (about 'Britain and Ireland' not being synonymous with 'British Isles') in some detail to no effect and now you all come out and agree... sigh. Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

After several years of trying to improve Wikipedia in questions of Chemistry, History, and grammar, I have just done something I've never done before. I undid my four improvements to an article. After reading these pages of discussions, it became clear to me that this article is written in the POV of a larger population with only passing reference to the feelings of an unwilling minority. The accounting of the historical, natural, and political interactions between the British and Irish is really rather well done in the article and should stay. Now, find another name and respect neutrality. Speaking of which, did you notice that the English names for almost all Flemish cities were changed to the Flemish spellings? Even the Battle of the Dyle has become the Battle of the Dijle.Laburke (talk) 04:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Sorry to hear that Laburke. On the Flemish stuff, if its still commonly known as Dyle in English usage it should remain as Dyle rather than Dijle unless it is now the accepted version. Mabuska (talk) 11:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
In English, the ij vowel-semivowel combination was replaced by the letter y in the circa 15th century.Laburke (talk) 05:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
"Now, find another name and respect neutrality." - We do not change names of things simply because a few people have a problem with it. So no. The silly concerns about the term are addressed within the introduction, in the body of the article and there is a whole article on the naming dispute. This article is neutral. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Please, BW, the usual practice is to put quotations in italics, not boldface, which would connote a much more vehement tone than I took. So no, you say. Well, I say language evolves. There are many terms that are no longer used because they are painful reminders to a few people of their subjection, conquest, and in some cases slavery. There are some in my country who call the dropping of painful terms, Political Correctness. I call it common decency and respect for others. When a neutral name can be found, I would like to contribute towards correcting the grammatical, chronological, and historical inaccuracies that I found in it.Laburke (talk) 05:11, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Going back to BW's original question above, I don't think it's really as clear-cut as those two alternatives you put forwards, BW. As we can see from the subsequent discussion, the precise meaning of the phrase "Britain and Ireland" is unagreed, poorly defined and shifts in complex ways, depending on who uses is, where, etc. So we can't obtain a defitive meaning here in WP by discussion as there will continue to be conflicting sources and real-world usages. The best we can hope for is generalism. If this is part of an MoS discussion then, it won't get very far. Personally I think precision matters more in most articles. There are lots of places where BI or B&I are being used as shorthands for things that would be better explaining more exactly. Just saying "BI" or "B&I" when you actually mean "parts of western Ireland, northern Scotland, but not the CI or Cornwall" for example. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 11:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it is a simple yes / no issue though. Is the isle of man in "Great Britain and Ireland"? The answer to that question is no, there for it is impossible for Great Britain and Ireland to accurately mean the area that the British Isles refers to. It is a completely different alternative term, not another way of describing the British Isles. and the intro needs to make this clear, the whole reason this debate started up was because someone said otherwise citing this article. Going into more detail is fine in some cases, although there is no reason not to state something like "Within the British Isles, particularly Cornwall and Wales...." BritishWatcher (talk) 11:43, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
If Britain and Ireland has no clear definition should we really be using it? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Well as far as im aware there are just two meanings, which both cover the same area anyway. United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland or Great Britain and Ireland. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
The two wordings mentioned just then cover different areas. UK and ROI includes other islands such as the Shetlands and Orkneys. GB and I doesn't. Losing your touch on islands inclusion arguments BW? ;) {no offense intended} Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Although the term "Britain and Ireland" may appear to some to exclude the smaller islands, in my view that is not how the term is generally used. It is a convenient shorthand term used for the whole island group, including Orkney, Shetland, Hebrides and, in my view, the Isle of Man. Because those smaller islands are relatively small in terms of area and population, they are generally capable of being ignored by most users of the term. The fact that the term is not precisely accurate is not the only relevant factor - the encyclopedia clearly needs to explain that it is not accurate terminology, while also recognising that it is a widely used term. Most users of the term are not as careful with words as many WP editors on this page. So, I agree with Jamesinderbyshire. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
"Britain and Ireland" is, in fact, used as a synonym for "British Isles". That some here think this is not technically correct while claiming Ireland is a "British" isle is, quite frankly, laughable. 'Anything but the "British Isles"' is, in reality, abided by for by the majority of Ireland's population. Is anybody here, who lives in Ireland, claiming the term "British Isles" is commonly used in Ireland? 86.42.16.189 (talk) 17:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
I think it would be very hard to prove the negative that a particular usage of the term Britain and Ireland was meant to exclude any/all of Isle of Man/Channel Islands/Shetland/Hebrides/Isle of Wight, blah blah blah etc. I think its most common usage is a less offensive synonym than the British Isles. BTW can anyone tell me what the constitutional differences are between the Crown Dependency of the Isle of Man and the devolved Scotland. In my humble opinion, both are part of Britain. Fmph (talk) 12:14, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The intro [edit] Disambiguation Links [/edit] should to refer to the naming dispute [page]

1) The title for this page is appropriate I believe as "British Isles". As others have stated - the page is about defining the term as it is used. (Therefore I post here and not on the "specific talk page for matters relating to the name of this article")

2) On the other hand, I quote: The Government of Ireland does not use the term[11] and its embassy in London discourages its use.[12]

Currently: in the British Isles page the term "British Isles" is defined in the first paragraph. Then come two paragraphs busy with very ancient geology and ancient history, and then (and only then) comes comes a paragraph about objections to the term including Nr.2 above. The naming dispute page is linked to with no comment in the start of the Etymology section and there are a couple of sentences on the subject at the end of that section.

The reason the Irish government takes this stance (Nr.2 above) is because they are reflecting the general lack of use of the term amongst the Irish population, and they know it's a popular stance to take.

Now, if there is dissent with this term at that level - from a government whose land is included in the term - I believe this should be referred to (indirectly at least) in the intro, specifically by including a link to the naming dispute page British Isles naming dispute
Adding a reference to the naming dispute page would:
a) make the situation clear, and
b) be respectful to the people who do object to use of the term


Two proposed changes:

  • Intro (changes are in square brackets - I lifted the text from the intro to the naming dispute page):

This article is about the archipelago in north-western Europe. For the group of territories with constitutional links to the United Kingdom, see "British Islands". [For information about the disagreement and different views on using the term "British Isles", particularly in relation to Ireland, see "British Isles naming dispute"]

  • Paragraph four, (starting: The term British Isles is controversial in relation to Ireland...) would be moved up to become the second paragraph (i.e. after the defining of the term and before the Geological & Historical paragraphs)

Tomosullivan (talk) 21:09, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Disagree. This has been discussed before and there in no concensus for change to suit biased PoV's. The Wikipedia convention on ledes put controversies at the end of a list of what should be in a lede and the controversy is at the end of the lede in this article. This article is about the British Isles a world-wide commonly used term. The naming dispute is also linked too in the lede (all those four paragraphs is the lede) - but if you read and checked through the lede you'd have seen that. Also the "Etymology" section clearly links to the dispute articles. Your porposed changes add nothing and only will cause more crap to be stirred and sputed out again as if we haven;t heard it all before. Mabuska (talk) 21:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm learning the terminology on the fly here - what I described as the Intro above, should, I believe (from link below), be called the Disambiguation Links (correct me if I'm wrong?). I edited the title of this section to hopefully clarify.
Thanks for your responses. I'm replying to all here as I presume the others agree with Mabuska's reasons for disagreeing as they didnt give any other. Mabuska, You use the term POV and the word 'biased' - in my post above I have stuck clearly to the facts mentioned in the article. There is far too much crap as you say involved in the naming debate, which is why I don't want to get involved in it - but it exists. As it has it's own Wikipedia page, I dont understand why it should not be included in the Disambiguation Links ?? It's illogical that it is not included there. Being worried about more crap being stirred up is a very subjective reason against, and really is an irrelevant (if understandable) reason. Personally I think if this got the recognition it deserved (here) there might actually be less off-topic posts flying around on these dicussion pages...
If anyone can refer me to where this suggestion (of including the link to naming dispute page in the Disambiguation Links) is discussed here, I'd be happy to read it - I couldn't find it but may have used the wrong search terms.
RE the lede, I didn't know wikipedia's convention's re that. I found this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lead_section#Elements_of_the_lead and it does not confirm (that I could find) what you say about controversies coming at the end.
Tomosullivan (talk) 12:47, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Disagree with Tom. GoodDay (talk) 21:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Disagree. Although paragraphs two and three could be significantly shortened as they're not really summaries. --HighKing (talk) 00:54, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
I stopped reading after the first sentence. I am sure i oppose everything in your proposal thanks. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Be careful not to bite, everyone.
With regards to (1), I don't think it is worth discussing it any more, Tom. There's reams of discussion in the archives. The controversy piece has been up-down-and-everywhere in the introduction. Untimately, this article is about he islands and not the controversy. Although it is worth mentioning, it is not the numero uno thing about this topic: geography, history and habitation are central to the topic of the islands than a (relatively) minor spat about what to call them. IMHO, the lead is the best it has been in the years that I have been contributing to this article. Part of the reason for that is because the controversy is left to last so the real focus of this article is allowed to take centre stage.
With regards to (2), it's not a suggestion that hasn't got merit. I wouldn't altogether mind - strictly speaking though it is [edit]not[/edit] what dab links are for, so it might just stir up resentment among editors who already feel that the "controversy" is over-stated.
All that said though, none were altogether really bad ideas and don't let reaction here put you off suggesting more or from further contributing to the 'pedia. --RA (talk) 13:30, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Ehh, I used to get bitten alot at the Scotland article. GoodDay (talk) 14:01, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
The article already has an entire paragraph in the introduction about the subject, so it doesn't need to raise notability of the topic any further. A different, but related issue is the use of atlantic archipelago - this is certainly not notable enough to be in there, as it's an abstract, academic phrasing and not in wide usage. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 14:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Agreed about the Atlantic archipelago term. Im still concerned about the wording Britain and Ireland in that paragraph too. I still think it needs to be more clear it is a completely separate term, and not an alternative name for the exact area of the British Isles. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
The wording with respect to "Britain and Ireland" is almost verbatim what appears in the supporting sources. WRT "Atlantic Archipelago" ... meh! These are alternative terms. It does no great harm to give even a fairly off-beat one such as "Atlantic Archipelago" as an example. --RA (talk) 14:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
It's a bit misleading as to notability putting it in the intro. It deserves a mention, but lower down in the main text. I had literally never heard the phrase before glancing at this article and I've been about a bit in these sacred islands of ours. :) Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 15:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
@RA, so you are open to the idea of including the link to naming dispute page in the top of the page. I'm confused when you say: strictly speaking though it is what dab links are for. (Did you see/read my response to Mabuska above?). The terminology is not clearly defined (I've read conflicting definitions of terms) so I'm struggling a bit... I would be very happy to see a disambiguation page - is that what you mean?
I know what the article is about & I have no interest in changing that, but for many the term is very offensive. I find it offensive & I am in no way "nationalistic". I think this should be briefly acknowledged by a link either in a disambiguation page or with a link in the top part in italic before the lead. Tomosullivan (talk) 16:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the fact that some find a particular term offensive is insufficient for it to be removed from Wikipedia. Therefore various other strategies for "explaining" it, knocking it, etc, must be deployed. :) This is old ground though Tom, so you will find everyone has been here hundreds of times before and there is very little to be done about the debate; British Isles exists in the real world and is staying put as a Wikipedia article. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
James, what are you talking about?!! I didn't request that anything be removed!! And I dont know what you're trying to persuade me of when you say British Isles exists in the real world and is staying put as a Wikipedia article because I agree with that statement and have said similar a couple of times already above, including in the post you replied to.
In my response to Mabuska above I requested a link: If anyone can refer me to where this suggestion (of including the link to naming dispute page in the Disambiguation Links) is discussed here, I'd be happy to read it - I couldn't find it but may have used the wrong search terms.
Again, in my response to Mabuska above , I ask: As [the naming dispute page] has it's own Wikipedia page, I dont understand why it should not be included in the Disambiguation Links ?? It's illogical that it is not included there. Can you answer me either of those questions? Tomosullivan (talk) 19:39, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
If ya wanna put it there, no probs. GoodDay (talk) 19:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Disambiguation links are for when you reach an article you may not want to reach, say if two places have similar or identical names. Noone is looking for details about controversy over a term when they search for just that term. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 01:50, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
I was wondering about a disambiguation page. Disambiguation is required whenever, for a given word or phrase on which a reader might search, there is more than one existing Wikipedia article to which that word or phrase might be expected to lead. There are actually multiple articles about and related to the British Isles -this list taken from Wikipedia:British Isles Terminology task force page:
Main articles
British Isles Terminology
British Isles
Botanical Society of the British Isles
Great Britain and Ireland
List of the British Isles by area
List of the British Isles by population
British Isles naming dispute
- so this could be a good solution. Tomosullivan (talk) 07:46, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
That would be more like a list page or something similar. Disambig is for the same phrase or word, not phrases that happen to include the word or words. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 08:07, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it is for articles where the search term would be expected to lead. No-one would search "British Isles" and expect to get "British Isles terminology", "Botanical Society of the British Isles", "List of British Isles by area", "British Isles naming dispute", or "List of British Isles by population". "Great Britain and Ireland" is just a disambiguation page, and no-one would search "British Isles" and expect to get that page.
At any rate, going to all those would require a general disambiguation, rather than just a link to the dispute. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:23, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


@Tomosullivan - apologies, I left a vital "not" out of that post. Should have read: "...strictly speaking though it is notwhat dab links are for." --RA (talk) 10:22, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Replying here to Chipmunkdavis & Jamesinderbyshire as well (hope that okay). @RA, Yes, that was rather a vital "not" :-)
Re disambiguation links and pages: points taken. Another approach given on the dabs page is the "Rice" page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rice. I quote from the dabs page:
The page at Rice is about one usage, called the primary topic, and there is a hatnote guiding readers to Rice (disambiguation) to find the other uses. This would be more appropriate according to what Chipmunkdavis & Jamesinderbyshire say above as a search for British Isles would bring one directly to the British Isles page (as currently). It doesnt help me in terms of what I wanted, but I still think it would be a good idea in general.Tomosullivan (talk) 17:59, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Tom - you know, I know and all the Irish posters here and around the world know that this term is rejected in Ireland and that fact should have primacy in the article which is currently under this extremely controversial name. The fact that "many" Irish people object to it was removed, even though it was well referenced. The fact that John Dee, the first person credited with using the term (according to the Oxford English Dictionary), was referenced in many reputable places (including by Oxford's DNB) as an imperialist was also removed (they got really agitated about those references as it shows unequivocally the political origins of the term "British Isles"). Indeed, all objections to this title get further and further down this page, despite being in the first sentence of the first version of this article in 2001. Why? Because there is number of British nationalist posters here who have an agenda to remove all opposition to this name from this article. Look at the User Page of many of the people who oppose your idea - e.g. User:BritishWatcher - and you'll see a Union Jack; look at their edit history and you'll see their purpose on Wikipedia is to advance British nationalist articles like this one. The fact the the democratically-elected government of the state of Ireland rejects this term, that this term is avoided in *all* treaties and agreements between the government of Ireland and the United Kingdom, that maps from international publishers such as National Geographic have replaced the term "British Isles" with "British and Irish Isles" or the fact that, at the top of this page, we have a link to a wide variety of academics, Irish and British alike, attesting to the avoidance of this term by a huge number (at least) of Irish people is all neither here nor there. These references have been removed from this article numerous times. A more bigoted, anti-Irish group of editors you will not find in Wikipedia than those individuals who are trying to marginalise Irish objections to this title here on this article. Dunlavin Green (talk) 10:13, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Oh Dunlavin, i always enjoy reading your comments! :) lol. If i did not enjoy reading them id probably report you for your continued attacks on British editors, you are clearly breaking wikipedia rules. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:17, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Don't flatter yourself: attacks on British nationalist editors. You'd like to think all Brits are as anti-Irish and nationalistically "British" as you. I doubt any editor, other than a flag-waving John Bull one, would have sympathy for any claims you might make for "impartiality" given your User Page and edit history on Irish-related articles. Dunlavin Green (talk) 10:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
John Dee is directly quoted as the first user of the term a few paras down in the Etymology section - it is unlikely that he invented it, hence the feud over that particular point. It really doesn't help to raise these old issues - they have been very heavily discussed and I would always point people who are new to the debate to the archives as a starter for ten. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:23, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Nobody is saying he isn't quoted: what has been said, clearly, is that the fact that many reputable sources refer to him as an imperialist has been removed. It has been removed solely for political reasons: evidence that the earliest known user of the term was an English imperialist undermines the myth perpetrated here that the term is not political in its origin in the English language- and a very important point that is indeed. Dunlavin Green (talk) 10:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
If not, than adding that in here next to the fact he used British Isles would seem to be the WP:SYNTH that British Isles was invented as an imperialist term. Besides, back then imperialism was just nationalism, so I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:35, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
"John Dee (13 July 1527–1608 or 1609) was a noted mathematician,astronomer,astrologer, occultist, navigator, imperialist," Funny how you think it must say "imperialist" and not navigator for example which clearly has a connection. British Isles is not a political term, it is a geographical term. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:39, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
That's the problem with skimming a topic....take a look further down at the section on British Imperialist, and note the sentence that states He further argued that England exploit new lands through colonization and this vision could become reality through maritime supremacy. In making these arguments, Dee is credited with the earliest use in English of the terms Brytish Iles and Brytish Impire. --HighKing (talk) 10:47, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
That's text from a WP article, so not sourcable. The underlying sources in that section are (1) a National Maritine Museum blurb that does not mention the BI and (2) an OED reference which we can't easily check. That said, if there is good sourcing that says Dee invented the term BI as part of an imperialist view, I would be OK with that being included here. But from what I've read, it's not that clear-cut. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 11:48, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Getting back on the Disambiguation topic:
So far, no-one objected to this suggestion (my previous post has been edited into the 'Dee' section below so I repost here, yet again, so there's no confusion); GoodDay says: I've no probs with disambiguation links etc.. I presume more consensus than that would be needed??
Does no-one care about the idea? No offense, but is that because it doesn't further any agendas? - or because people think it's just a waste of time and will hardly be used? or something else? - too busy with the juicy details maybe :)
Repost:

Re disambiguation links and pages:
Another approach given on the dabs page is the "Rice" page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rice. I quote from the dabs page:
The page at Rice is about one usage, called the primary topic, and there is a hatnote guiding readers to Rice (disambiguation) to find the other uses. (my emphasis). This would be more appropriate according to what Chipmunkdavis & Jamesinderbyshire say above - as a search for British Isles would bring one directly to the British Isles page (as currently). This doesnt help me in terms of what I wanted, but I still think it would be a good idea in general. Logical inclusions would be all the pages with "British Isles" in the title - again shown here as listed in the Wikipedia:British Isles Terminology task force page:
British Isles Terminology
British Isles
Botanical Society of the British Isles
List of the British Isles by area
List of the British Isles by population
British Isles naming dispute
- [I see there is also a History of the British Isles page which wasnt listed on that page.]
Tomosullivan (talk) 08:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Dee and etymology

BW has given a partial part of the OED below, which to me seems to give a different message. Might not be 2008 version though. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:52, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Which is why I asked it as a question, now answered. Thank you. Nicely sourced too. So they were used in his arguments? I find that interesting, wish I had a copy of the OED around. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
"In making these arguments, Dee is credited..." Does the OED say that, or just wikipedia? BritishWatcher (talk) 11:03, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
All thats included in a cite on this page is.. " John Dee, 1577. 1577 J. Arte Navigation, p. 65 "The syncere Intent, and faythfull Aduise, of Georgius Gemistus Pletho, was, I could..frame and shape very much of Gemistus those his two Greek Orations..for our Brytish Iles, and in better and more allowable manner." From the OED, s.v. "British Isles"" BritishWatcher (talk) 11:07, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, there isn't any new sourcing on this - we are just rehearsing arguments that have already been heavily investigated in the archives. Let's move on. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:28, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)@James, that's not entirely correct (although partially true). I would say it's because the answer to such a precise query requires very in-depth knowledge of the subject (far beyond the scope of a Talk page). It's because the context of the phrase is within a period concerned with the rise of British imperialism - the causes, the people, the thinking at the time, trade competition, the rise of America, etc. He was well known as an scholar - but often in the guise of an imperialist scholar, able to construct arguments based on classical and legal texts to justify various positions on rights and claims to seas and lands. As one of the earliest geopolitical writers, he focused not on the centers of state power, but on the boundaries and limits, and laid claims for English sea sovereignty based on mare clausum and justified the use of force in its application. For scholars, the definition of a "British Isles" and "British Empire" within the context of Elizabethan imperialism and expansion is not disputed. While it's doubtful a source will explicitly state that "British Isles is a term invented to support Elizabethan imperialist claims", many books will state that the reason Dee fashioned these terms within the context of imperialism and for the reasons of addressing concerns about legitimacy and rights. --HighKing (talk) 13:37, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, as I said, if there's a good quality source from those books you mention that can be referenced NPOV-ishly, then we could have it in. Do you want to locate one and suggest it? Then we would have something concrete to discuss instead of vague assertions that the phrase is all an imperialist plot. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 13:54, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
OK - some bedside reading :-) For general background, take a look at The ideological origins of the British Empire By David Armitage, especially Chapter 4 dealing with maritime expansion. Then try John Dee: the politics of reading and writing in the English Renaissance By William Howard Sherman. Not an easy book to read in isolation (and not all available on Google Books, but you'll get the main gist). It sets the scene for what drove Dee, and the debates and arguments he constructed. Look at it along with Peter French's book (chapter on Antiquarianism especially). Oh - and bear in mind that Mary (then James VI) ruled Scotland, and the politics were very complex. More significantly, the Tudors weren't exactly "English" – they (re)invented British identity to reinforce their claim as descendants of Arthur to rule the island as a whole, and to form the basis of expansion. So into this situation, John Dee is advising Elizabeth on improving and expanding the economy, governing and defending, and uses the phrase "Brytish Iles" in "Arte Navigation" while putting forward an argument to exploit new lands from colonization through maritime supremacy. --HighKing (talk) 21:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with the Armitage book, but I've glanced through the Sherman book on Dee - is there someplace in that where Sherman says the BI phrase was part of a British imperialist claim? As the current article sentence implies? If not, it's still synth. As regards the Tudors, being Welsh and English by descent, I should think it natural that they would evolve a British sensibility, if only to justify their replacement of the Yorkists. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 22:40, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps I've missed something. I thought we are discussing firstly whether John Dee was an imperialist, and secondly if the context surrounding his first use of the phrase "British Isles" was in a geographical or political context. You appear to be asking if Sherman says the BI "phrase" was part of a British imperialist claim - that's a different question. Explicitly, I have seen no sources that deal with they etymology of the term "British Isles" in that context, and no sources that explicitly state John Dee coined the phrase as a political term. But then again, nor have I seen any WP articles making that claim either, so I'm not sure if I'm missing your point. You originally asked Was there a source relating his imperialism to the use of the term British Isles?. The sources I've provided shows this relationship. The OED quotation from "Arte Navigation" is The syncere Intent, and faythfull Aduise, of Georgius Gemistus Pletho, was, I could..frame and shape very much of Gemistus those his two Greek Orations..for our Brytish Iles, and in better and more allowable manner at this Day, for our People, than that his Plat (for Reformation of the State at those Dayes) could be found, for Peloponnesus avaylable. From Archive 19, User:Ras52 transcribed an interpretation (which I've replicated below) from Elizabeth as Astraea (page 47 of the journal), and the paragraph in question reads:

As is well-known, it was Gemistus Pletho who gave the impulse to those philosophical studies which, as devloped by Ficino and the Florentine Academy, had such a far-reaching influence on Renaissance thought. There was a political as well as a philosophical side to Gemistus Pletho. About the year 1415, he addressed two orations to the Emperor Manuel and to his son Theodore on the affairs of the Peloponnesus and on ways and means both of improving the economy of the Greek islands and of defending them.2 A Latin translation of these orations had recently been published,3 and Dee is of the opinion that they would be of use "for our Brytish Iles, and in better and more allowable manner, at this Day, for our People, than that his Plat (for Reformation of the State at those Dayes) could be found, for Peloponnesus avaylable."4 In spite of the difficulties of Dee's style and punctuation his meaning is clear, a meaning which he repeats on subsequent pages, namely the advice given to the Byzantine Emperor by Pletho is good advice for Elizabeth, Empress of Britain. He therefore reprints at the end of his work the greater part of the first oration, and the whole of the second, with curious marginal notes.

[2] The orations are reprinted in Migne, Patr. graec., CLX, pp 822 ff [3] The orations, with a Latin translation by Gulielmus Canterus, were printed in the volume containing the Ecolgues of John Stobaeus, published at Antwerp by Plantin in 1575. [4] Op. cit., p. 63.

Therefore the link or relationship between his imperialistic writings and the coining of the phrase "Brytish Iles" appears to be supported. BTW, this debate is old, and it quickly chews up space on this Talk page. Perhaps we should archive a "John Dee" section somewhere? Also, don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing for any changes, etc, just trying to (helpfully) share some info which I find fascinating. --HighKing (talk) 00:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
It is fascinating and that's an interesting quote, thanks. I personally wouldn't mind seeing a reference to Dee and something well-worded against his "invention" of the term (not that we know that for sure, but it is anyway the first mention of it) in the Lede, as it's relevant and notable. I don't know how much weight we should give to academic interpretations of Dee's musings - after all, he was in many ways mildly bonkers although bonkers with a lot of influence in high places(!) - but certainly there's room in the main article text for refs as good as that one. I do think there could be something in the article about Dee's imperial proposals to QEI and a possible link between that and the BI term. Whilst we don't know if Dee "invented" it, the available evidence does somewhat point in that direction. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 08:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
That entire section on "British Imperialist" in the John Dee article is rather out of place. Early Life, Later life, Final Years, Personal life, yet a year ago a now indef blocked editor decided to add an entire Imperialist section in between them. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:20, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, there is no discussion in the talk pages about that. And it was added after featured article was given. Also if what you said about the OED wording is correct that the sentence is synth, and should be deleted. Either way, that's for that article. Deal there? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:28, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Do you have access to the OED BW? Or were quoting from the article ref in Wikipedia? On the Dee article, we should discuss it there, but if it's not borne out by the sources it should come out. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 13:32, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Sadly i dont, that was just all the citation posted on this page mentions. No idea what the OED actually says. Ive placed a neutrality tag on the section and mentioned my concern about the section as a whole. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
I disagree - it should be discussed at the Dee Talk page surely? --HighKing (talk) 13:35, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Holy smokers, how'd this discussion's topic become John Dee? GoodDay (talk) 16:09, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

As no-one actually responded directly to my last disambiguation suggestion above, I take the liberty of reposting a slightly edited version of same here:
Re disambiguation links and pages:
Another approach given on the dabs page is the "Rice" page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rice. I quote from the dabs page:
The page at Rice is about one usage, called the primary topic, and there is a hatnote guiding readers to Rice (disambiguation) to find the other uses. (my emphasis). This would be more appropriate according to what Chipmunkdavis & Jamesinderbyshire say above - as a search for British Isles would bring one directly to the British Isles page (as currently). This doesnt help me in terms of what I wanted, but I still think it would be a good idea in general. Logical inclusions would be all the pages with "British Isles" in the title - again [edit] shown here [/edit] as listed in the Wikipedia:British Isles Terminology task force page:
British Isles Terminology
British Isles
Botanical Society of the British Isles
List of the British Isles by area
List of the British Isles by population
British Isles naming dispute
Tomosullivan (talk) 18:14, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
The content of this article, doesn't actually keep me awake at nights. I've no probs with disambiguation links etc. GoodDay (talk) 19:16, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
John Dee stuff should go to that page, its not about the insertion of removal of BI as a term. --Snowded TALK 10:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
FYI - the Dee cite in the OED originated from discussions on this page. A contributor here came across an earlier example of use than the date the OED previously had. (This does not by the way make it WP:OR.)
I don't think the quote above demonstrates that Dee "coined" the term - nor does the OED cite support that he "coined" it. I don't think either that it is evidence for the imperialistic origin of the term in the English language. --RA (talk) 11:14, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I recall reading somewhere (maybe in the Sherman book?) that it's common usage prior to Dee can be inferred from the way Dee talks about it, but it does remain the earliest surviving written usage. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 11:18, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I believe that was a comment on a Talk page at Archive 9. It's not mentioned in any source I've come across... --HighKing (talk) 11:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
That would seem reasonable. But how "prior"? Earlier that morning? The week before? A year prior? A decade? Decades? A century? All that we know is that the earliest known use in English is in 1577 in a work by John Dee. --RA (talk) 11:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
It is the earliest recorded usage, but that doesn't mean he said it as a way of establishing an imperialist claim for his country over the whole area. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
@RA, The quote above is a comment on the usage within Arte Navigation, the book written by John Dee which is attributed as the first time the term was written. In other places, Dee uses other terms. It may very well be the case that Dee didn't "coin" the term - we don't know. But it is fair to say that the term was first written in the English language by John Dee, in the context of constructing an argument for British expansion. --HighKing (talk) 11:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
", in the context of constructing an argument for British expansion" - But are there neutral reliable sources saying that? BritishWatcher (talk) 11:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
In fact, it isn't even clear that the (interesting) sources HK cites above say that. They say that Gemistus Pletho "addressed two orations to the Emperor Manuel and to his son Theodore on the affairs of the Peloponnesus and on ways and means both of improving the economy of the Greek islands and of defending them" and that Dee thought this was an example for the BI. As I understand it, Pletho's main concern was attempting to persuade the Byzantines to reconcile the East–West Schism, so I'm not sure it proves anything about British or English imperialism. Unless, as has already been pointed out, you attempt to synth Dee's admiration for an imperial programme for the Queen with this quote. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 11:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Hmmmm - this is the bit where I point out that I said there isn't a simple answer because it all has to be put into context with everything that was going on at the time. No matter, the previous page states very baldly These sympathies with the Greek empire were used in a most curious way in connection with the nascent maritime ambitions of Elizabethan England by John Dee, the queen's leaned astrologer. Dee's "General and rare memorials pertayning to the Perfect Arte of Navigation" was the only one published (in 1577, he wrote it in 1576) of a series of volumes which he planned should be an exposition of, and plea for, Elizabethan imperialism. (The idea of the work as a whole was that it should be a "Hexameron or Plat Politicall of the Brytish Monarchie."). It goes on to talk about impassioned pleas for the establishment of a strong navy both to defend the country and to aid expansion, and of bringing historical arguments to bear upon the theme of maintaining and increasing the "Royall Maiesty and Imperiall Dignity of our Souerayn Lady Elizabeth" and the lands and seas to which she can lay claim. The Roman Pompey and the Greek Pericles are quoted with approval for their views on the importance of sea sovereignty, as well as the aforementioned Gemistus Pletho. It states The practical moral is that Britain is to seize Occasion by the ofrelock and grow strong at sea to strengthen Elizabeth's "Imperiall Monarchy". Anyway, this topic, while fascinating, is really out of place at this Talk page, but the point is that there is a relationship between use of "British Isles", since it came about in the middle of his arguments for British expansion. RA raises an interesting point below about why the use of "British Isles" at this point - that I believe is related to Dee's arguments to claim the rights to the sea based on the shores of "Britain". --HighKing (talk) 13:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
"But it is fair to say that the term was first written in the English language by John Dee..." The earliest known written use in the English language is with Dee. There's a difference.
Maybe it is worthwhile mentioning the book by name but we need to be careful not to tread on a synthesis here. Arte Navigation may have set forward an imperial vision but that does not mean that every word that appears inside it does.
TBH - I'd be more concerned with the jump between use the term Brittania, etc. by the by the ancient Greeks and Romans to refer to a group of islands and use of Brytish Iles by Dee to refer to the (same or similar-ish) group. There's a good 1,000-1,5000 years in the difference during which a very important etymological jump took place: Britain ceased to refer to a archipelago and came to refer to just one of the islands in group (known before then as Albion). Thus for a millennium to a millennium-and-a-half, there were no "islands of Britain" (plural) but only an "island of Britain" (singular). Important too is to point out that the Greek and Roman use is genitive not adjective, so "islands of Britain" (or "Britain Isles") not "British Isles". That's is a crucial change in meaning, particularly after the "Britain" itself changed in meaning. --RA (talk) 12:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

cognates

The sentence In this sense, ancient Greek and Roman writers used cognates of Britain to refer to the archipelago as a whole, rather than to any one island in the group. is an awkward round-about way of saying that "Britain" is derived from "Britannia". I had to look up "cognates". It doesn't make sense in the middle of the first paragraph dealing with ancient Latin and Greek terms either, especially when the second paragraph largely makes the same point. --HighKing (talk) 16:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I find the wording a bit confusing as well. Is this what the sources say? Wiki-Ed (talk) 18:10, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
One should be careful here not to confuse "cognates" with "loanwords". --MacTire02 (talk) 18:26, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
It's all pretty complicated stuff and I suspect well above the level of the "average" visitor, but then, there is no harm in sometimes having more sophisticated material. I am reluctant to have it changed before understanding precisely what it means in context myself. :) I think it may be quite an important point to do with what the term meant in ancient times and so is that why you need it changing HK? I suspect if it's changed it waters down the argument that various ancient terms applied to all of the islands, is that it? Just asking. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Fantastic cutting remark - I'm not impressed. So you've decided that I'm trying to what? Water down an argument? What argument? --HighKing (talk) 00:45, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Going by HighKings edit history, i'm highly dubious of his intentions here and agree with the last point made by Jamesinderbyshire. Personally i think there is no need for change:
The second paragraph does not as KighKing claims, well as far as i see looking at it, make the same points as the first paragraph. The second paragraph concerns individual islands and not the collective group as the first paragraph does - so that arguement is flawed.
Also to me the sentence does make sense, cognate means words of common etymological origin, thats how Wikipedia even puts its meaning, and they do share a common origin. Mabuska (talk) 19:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Going by HighKings edit history? Please take a read of WP:AGF, and produce here what exactly you mean by "edit history" here. And what point exactly does the first paragraph make that isn't made in the second? --HighKing (talk) 00:45, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
When it comes to this article, I'd be far, far more concerned with your British loyalist "edit history", User:Mabuska. 86.41.3.13 (talk) 21:22, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
What "British loyalist" edit history? Check through my edit history and you'll see that definately isn't true, or was it meant to be sarcasm? Mabuska (talk) 08:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
I too would be concerned about potential changes, if wording is changed to make it easier to understand, the general point the sentences are making must not be lost. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:01, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
And those points are exactly? --HighKing (talk) 00:45, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
What exactly does the first paragraph say thats the same as the second paragraph HighKing? I see one paragraph on about the group of islands as a whole and the other paragraph about individual islands. On your edit-history, this appears like a spin-off from your attempts to remove the term BI from anything that might hint that Ireland is a part of it or the term covers it - that is why i believe your reasons for this whole topic is suspect - and rightly so. Mabuska (talk) 08:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
The first paragraph is chronologically tracing the history and terminology of the archipelago. The second paragraph introduces the names of the individual islands. Fine, we all accept that. So what point exactly is being made with the using cognates of Britain to refer to the archipelago? It's simply a complicated way of simply stating that today's term "Britain" is derived from the Latin "Brittania". And please explain exactly how this is related to removing the term BI since the sentence doesn't even contain the term. Not only are you are taking paranoia to new levels, but you're in danger of believing the lies spread by the many hardcore disruptive editors here. If you can point out anywhere that I've stated or even hinted that Ireland isn't part of the British Isles, please do so. And when you've failed in that exercise, perhaps you'll learn to think for yourself. --HighKing (talk) 13:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
That it was not the British who first grouped the islands together giving them a name connected to the name of the largest island. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:29, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Afterall if the term didn't stretch beyond the main island of Great Britain, there'd be no need for the "Great" bit to be in the term "Great Britain" at all. Mabuska (talk) 10:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Since RA introduced this sentence here (and reverted my revert here), and since people agree that it is largely unintelligible, as per BRD I've removed the sentence. I believe the point can be made in simple English. --HighKing (talk) 13:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

So what simple english are we replacing it with. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:06, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Let's discuss below. I'd also like to hear from RA as to what he was trying to say exactly... --HighKing (talk) 14:33, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


Discussion

Also of interest to this discussion is Britain (name). --HighKing (talk) 14:04, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Britain was a name for the archipelago???

I changed After this, Britain became the more common-place name for the island we call Great Britain rather than for the archipelago as a whole. to drop the "archipelago as a whole" since this is incorrect as was just added by RA, as per WP:BRD. "Britain" was never known as a name for all the islands. I was reverted with the comment The above paragraph discusses this. It works chronologically. No discussion was opened. It is not discussed in the previous paragraph, and it is factually incorrect. My understanding was that this article is under a "don't revert a revert" ruling, which has been breached. There was no consensus for RA's changes. If we're going to start playing silly buggers, lets simply revert all of RA's changes and revert to the old system of discussing each potential change made until consensus. --HighKing (talk) 01:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Apologies, I did not know that the edit you made was a revert. RA's addition [3] claims that it was there before, and was removed, and he replaced it, so I'm assuming that insertion by him was also a revert. Quoting from the previous paragraph in that section, " In this sense, ancient Greek and Roman writers used cognates of Britain to refer to the archipelago as a whole, rather than to any one island in the group...The shift from the "P" of Pretannia to the "B" of Britannia by the Romans occurred during the time of Julius Caesar", so it is discussed there. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 01:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
That isn't the piece you reverted - that edit is being discussed in above in the preceding section, and your assumption is incorrect. [This edit by RA (as an IP) inserted the text and I reverted one part of it. You're also incorrect stating that the previous sentence discusses it. It makes a strangely incomprehensible sentence structure to state that "Britain" shares a similar lineage or root with other words which were used to describe the archipelago. Or in other words, "Britain" is derived from "Britannia". It does not say that "Britain" was a common-place name for the archipelago. --HighKing (talk) 01:32, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
What proof do you have HighKing that the term "Britain" never covered the archipelago? Mabuska (talk) 09:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
I think it's the other way around. What proof is there that "Britain" ever covered the archipelago? I don't recall seeing this in the sources. We have to be careful how we explain this - I thought the existing text was fine. Wiki-Ed (talk) 09:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Im more confused with the text now than i was before. "In this sense, ancient Greek and Roman writers used cognates of Britain to refer to the archipelago as a whole, rather than to any one island in the group." is very very different to saying the archipelago was called Britain. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
This is some new special meaning of "name" that we are unfamiliar with is it BW? --Snowded TALK 09:33, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
I dont understand your comment either.. but i have just woken up lol. Ive not seen anything that says Britain was the name of the archipelago, the Greeks and Romans using cognates of Britain (if i understand the word correctly from the wiki article) is completely different. The sentence needs to be changed back. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
If people refer to a group of islands Pretannia/Britannia then surely that is a name? --Snowded TALK 09:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
I have to say I'm fairly lost now! I am going to lie down in a darkened room for a while. On my return, I will carefully deconstruct the various statements and attempt a logical analysis of what they mean in an attempt to see what's going on here. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes but my concern was it currently reads like "Britain" was used as a name for the archipelago, which ive not seen said before and is different from saying "used cognates of Britain ".. However i depend on wikipedia for my information so maybe it was. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
(ec)Re your edit summary, I hope you are not implying that BW is in any way a Class M-3 Model B9 entity or that suspended animation tubes should be used for some of the editors here? --Snowded TALK 09:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Glad I'm not the only one around here who likes tacky sci-fi. On that note, I have to go spend some time with my Sylvester McCoy DVDs now. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:07, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

God, it's all about British Isles today! I've got a few refs for this and the above. Mark what you think needs reffing with {{cn}}, HK, and I'll put them in this evening. --RA (talk) 13:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh - the first sentence does mean (or want meant to mean) that to the ancient Greeks and Romans, Britain (and it equivalent in other languages) referred to the archipelago. I've merged these two discussions since they are about the same thing. I'll add refs tonight. --RA (talk) 13:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Let's just start by trying to understand what point you're trying to make or what facts you're trying to get across. Once we know what you're trying to say, we can deal with references. --HighKing (talk) 14:33, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
The fact that was being brought across was that Britain (in its various languages) moved from a term for the whole archipelago (discussed in paragraph 1) to just the one island. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
I read the point as meaning - Greeks and Roman writers had grouped the islands together and called it a name connected with the name they used for the largest island. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:30, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


I'm not George Burns, but yes, BI has become an intense topic again. 'Tis gottta be a September thing. GoodDay (talk) 13:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, at least its a break from the long scrolling involved in BISE! Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
I read the use of cognate to mean words that derive from the same origin - not that they are the same in meaning. Mabuska (talk) 15:50, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Urgh. I motion to restore this article to the pre RA/HK edits and then figure out what the sources say before editing more. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Cognate vs. loanword

Please be careful when using "cognates" vs. "loanwords". In this article we see Britain, Britannia, Pretania being mentioned as cognates. Britain, Britannia, Pretania, etc. are not cognates. They are loanwords taken from a single source and adapted to fit their new host language, be it English, Latin, Greek, etc. English "four" and Russian "четыре" (chetyre) are examples of cognates, having evolved separately from each other but ultimately having a single root deep in the linguistic past. Another difference is that loanwords can only be borrowed from one language into another, whereas cognates can exist in the same language: for example English leach, leak and lake are all cognates with a common root in the PIE *leg'-. --MacTire02 (talk) 07:44, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The essence of what I want to get across is that, in the eariest records, words related to "Britain" (what I am calling cognates) referred to the archipelago. Later, around 325 BC when fresh contact was made with the inhabitants of these islands, words related to "Britain" came to refer to the larger island (which was previously been known by words related to "Albion"). However (rightly or wrongly), it remained the habit of classical writers to refer to the entire archipelago by words similar to "Britannic" or the "Britannias" even after this fact. I think it is worth noting too that over time the word "Britain" would shift in meaning again. During the Roman occupation it would take on imperialist tones and later again it would refer to the Kingdom of Great Britain and the United Kingdom, which again is not the same shape as either either the island previously known as Albion or the archipelago.
Going through these not only shows how these islands came to be called "Britannic" but shows the complexity of the word "Britain".
The sentences, I added (last night) were:
In the earliest known uses, ancient Greek and Roman writers used cognates of Britain to refer to the archipelago as a whole, rather than to any one island in the group.
List of refs 1
  • Lillie Craik, George (1846), The Pictorial History of England: Being a History of the People as well as a History of the Kingdom, vol. Volume 2, London: Charles Knight and Co., p. 21, Albin, or Albion, appears to have been anciently the name of the whole island of Great Britain, and that by which it was first known to the Greeks and Romans. The writer of the geographic treatise ascribed to Aristotle, to which we have referred in a former page, says that the two British islands were called Albion and Ierne. Pliny intimates that, the whole group of islands being called Britannia, the former name of that then called Britannia was Albion. {{citation}}: |volume= has extra text (help)
  • Milner, Thomas (1853), The History of England: From the Invasions of Julius Caesar to the Year AD 1852, London: The Religious Tract Society, p. 5, The most ancient name of the largest island, Albion, is interpreted to mean in Celtic the "fair or white island", alluding to the appearance of the chalk cliffs, which from the coast where the nearest approach is made to the continent; and Ierne, the name applied to the sister island, is supposed to be a relative designation, meaning the "western isle." The Romans dominated Albion Britannia, and included Ireland, the Monas, and every part of the archipelago, under the term, the Britannias. This name was no doubt derived from a word in use among the natives, but its origin and meaning are quite uncertain.
  • Hughes, William; Maunder, Samuel (1860), The Treasury of Geography, Physical, Historical, Descriptive, and Political; Containing a Succinct Account of Every Country in the World, London: Longman, Green, Longman, and Roberts, p. 137, The first name by which the island was known to the Romans was Albion, a term which can be explained from the Gaelic, and which is still the only native name by which the island is known to the Gael of Scotland. The name by which the whole group of British Islands was known to the Romans was Britannia, which is also doubtless a Celtic term; afterwards Britannia was used as the name of the island now called Great Britain, of which Caledonia was the northern part.
  • Samuel, Raphael (1998), Island stories: Unravelling Britain, London: Verso, p. 45, ISBN 1-85984-965-2, To the classical geographers, as to Ptolemy in his AD 168 map, Britannia (sometimes rendered as Albion) was a portmanteau term for the archipelago of off-shore islands at the northernmost edge of Europe's trade routes. The Romans used it as a generic term for the provinces which they divided (around AD 197) into Britannia Superior and Britannia Inferior, later into Britannia Prima and Britannia Secunda. Roman Britain occasionally included parts of Scotland, but it never extended to the lands beyond the northern Firths. ... For Bede, Ireland was a completely separate country. His conception of Britain, writes Hunter Blaire, was a geographical one, of two large islands, Britannia and Hibernia, not four distinct counties, England, Wales and Scotland, Ireland.</ref>
The name Albion appears to have fallen out of use among classical writers beginning around 325 BC, after which Britannia became the more common-place name for the island called Great Britain, rather than the archipelago as a whole. This was probably due as a result of contact between Greek travellers and natives of the island However, "it continued to be in the habit of writers, even long after this time, to treat Britain simply as one of a number of islands, to all of which they applied the adjective Britannic, or, according to their more accurate spelling, Bretannic." ... Great Britain and Britain would later come synonymous with the Kingdom of Great Britain and the United Kingdom.
List of refs 2
  • Koch, John, Celtic culture: a Historical Encyclopedia, Santa Barbara, California, p. 38, ISBN 1-85109-440-7, Albion is the earliest attested name for the island of Britain. It is of Celtic derivation and was probably first learned by the Greeks c. 500 BC. According to Pliny's Natural History (4.16), written in the first century AD, Albion was already obsolete by that time. Britain is called insula Albionum (island of the Albiones) in the Ora Maritima of Avienus (112). The Ora Maritima is a relatively late Roman text, dating to the 4th century AD, but is likely to be based on a Greek itinerary of the western seaways 'Massaliote Periplus' ('The coastal itinerary of Massalia', modern Marseille) of the 6th or 5th century BC. … New terms for Britain based on the stem Prettan-/Brettan- began to replace the older name Albion at an early date, probably by c.325 BC, which is when Pythaes of Massalia is said to have sailed to and around Britain, according to the Greek historian Strabo (2.4.1, 2.5.8, &c.). Therefore, it has been concluded that Pytheas, during his voyage, heard the newer name that was to become Welsh Prydain, Latin Britannia, and Modern English Britain. … Albion survived as an archaic usage throughout classical literature (e.g. Pseudo-Aristotle, De Mundo 3). Albion is given as the former name of Britain in the Historia Ecclesiastica of Beda (I.I), a text of AD 731. {{citation}}: Text "ABC-CLIO" ignored (help)
  • Rhys, John (1904), Celtic Britain, p. 200—203, The most ancient name known to have been given this island is that of Albion. It occurs in a treatise respecting the word, which used to be ascribed to Aristotle, but is now regarded as the work of a man who lived later. We then meet it after a long interval in the "Natural History" written by Pliny, who died in the year 79; and he only remarks that Albion was the name given this country when all the islands of our group were called Britanniae; but it continued to be in the habit of writers, even long after this time, to treat Britain simply as one of a number of islands, to all of which they applied the adjective Britannic, or, according to their more accurate spelling, Bretannic. … Even in the time of Pliny, Albion, as the name of the island, had fallen out of use with Latin authors; but not so with the Greeks, or with the Celts themselves, at any rate those of the Goidelic branch; for they are probably right who suppose that we have but the same word in Irish and Scotch Gaelic Alba, genitive Alban, the kingdom of Alban or Scotland beyond the Forth.
  • Rhys, John (1904), Celtic Britain, p. 200—203, The most ancient name known to have been given this island is that of Albion. It occurs in a treatise respecting the word, which used to be ascribed to Aristotle, but is now regarded as the work of a man who lived later. We then meet it after a long interval in the "Natural History" written by Pliny, who died in the year 79; and he only remarks that Albion was the name given this country when all the islands of our group were called Britanniae; but continued to be in the habit of writers, even long after this time, to treat Britain simply as one of a number of islands, to all of which they applied the adjective Britannic, or, according to their more accurate spelling, Britannic. … Even in the time of Pliny, Albion, as the name of the island, had fallen out of use with Latin authors; but not so with the Greeks, or with the Celts themselves, at any rate those of the Goidelic branch; for they are probably right who suppose that we have but the same word in Irish and Scotch Gaelic Alba, genitive Alban, the kingdom of Alban or Scotland beyond the Forth.
--RA (talk) 09:13, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for providing the sources. However, while I'm not overly familiar with the historiography of this period, are some of the sources a bit dated now? Also they're saying "Albion" is the most ancient term, but only one of them (Koch) says it dates back as far as the Massaliote Periplus (6th century), which is where "Priteni" came from (apparently). I still think we need to be quite careful about being too specific here - the sources are speculative and, bearing in mind what Mactire said, we're talking about a word being loaned around quite a lot (from Celtic to Greek to Roman to English), with the meaning changing at various points in time. Are the sources reliable enough to chart the derivations and developments this accurately? Wiki-Ed (talk) 11:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
That's all fine RA but the fact remains the word cognate should not be used in this sense. It is inaccurate and misleading. To use the word cognate suggests the word "Pretannic" or some variation thereof existed in Greek or Latin or whatever prior to those societies ever knowing about the British Isles. Instead they adopted/borrowed the word (probably from the local inhabitants) and adapted it to suit their own linguistic structure. I am not arguing about who named what or how long "Britannic" or whatever variation has been in existence or by whom. I am simply stating that the word "cognate" needs to be changed to a word that accurately reflects what we are trying to say instead of misleading the reader. --MacTire02 (talk) 11:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Why not simply trace the term through history? It's far easier to understand...
Πρεττανικη (Prettanike) (Greek) <- Prettania (Latin) <- Brettania (Roman) Prettanic Isles (Greek) <- ???? <- Brytish Iles -> British Isles
There's probably a discussion or two around what is contained in the ???? section. --HighKing (talk) 11:38, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Or am I missing the point - and that the term can't be "derived" from one language to another (which is the point about "loanwords"? --HighKing (talk) 11:39, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
HighKing's proposal is interesting, and may prove a better way to write the section. I have another ???? though, which is the term for the largest island in the group.
Albion -> ???? ->Britain/Great Britain
When did the term for the isles move to the term for the island. Of course, the etymology for that doesn't need to go into long detail on this page, more for the Great Britain page. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
@Wiki-Ed - I don't know if the age of the sources is too great of a problem. Even "newer" would probably be based on older sources anyway. I also disagree that the sources are speculative. I don't see where they speculate too greatly (and they say when they do). You are right though in that we're talking about a word that is being bounced around between different languages and people. That needs to be cleared up. And that certainly would affect "precision" since we are talking about different people, in different places, at different times.
@MacTire - Sure. That was down to a misunderstanding of the word cognate on my part. I thought it meant having a common ancestry regardless of whether that was through a load word or how ever. It is "'Britannic' or whatever variation" that I want to say.
The main point, which is consistent between sources, is that this word (in various languages) drifts in meaning in classical writing from being an archipelago to being an island (and then changes again). But even after changing in meaning to referring to only one island, it remained a "habit" of classical writers to use it to refer to the archipelago in one sense or another. --RA (talk) 12:13, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
HighKing the ???? is answered easily. British is a word derived from Anglo-Saxon for Briton. Briton and Britannia are related in origin are they not? -ish which derives from -isc is an Anglo-Saxon suffix, just -annia is a Roman suffix. Mabuska (talk) 23:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Not sure if "Briton" fits in here - was that a term for the people, and not the island or archipelago? Did the archipelago get called anything between the time the Romans left, and John Dee? Do we also want to include other names for the archipelago? For example, Oceani Insulae (Saint Columba) and Insularum (Bede)? That would make the timeline look like:
Πρεττανικη (Prettanike) (Greek) <- Prettania (Latin) <- Brettania (Roman) Prettanic Isles (Greek) - (Oceani Insulae) - (Insularum) - Brytish Iles -> British Isles
I believe this is an easier way to highlight the derivation. --HighKing (talk) 18:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
It depends on what we are trying to say. Are we talking about the history of the names for these islands, or are we talking about the derivation of the words British Isles? If we use your timeline above then we are talking about the history of the names for these islands. If we want to talk about the derivation of the name British Isles then the above timeline doesn't work, as neither Oceani Insulae nor Insularum are part of that derivation. --MacTire02 (talk) 18:32, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Be careful HighKing those examples you gave back up claims that the ancients had one name for all the islands that we now know as the British Isles. The words Prettanike/Prettania/Bretannia/Pretannic/Briton/Britain/Brython/Brytisc/Breton/British are all terms that derive from a common ancestor - just some belong to different languages. There is no point in trying to form a timeline as various terms where no doubt used at the same time, especially as Latin was still used for a long time. Mabuska (talk) 22:14, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
But I'm certainly not arguing that there wasn't one term used at various periods in time for a group of islands including Great Britain and Ireland. I've also no doubt that various terms stemming from "Prettania - Brittania - etc" were at some point used as a collective noun. Although I doubt if the Channel Islands were included back in those days. I'm also not trying to somehow remove this from the article - I'm simply trying to explain it without having to refer to a dictionary to understand what point is being made, and since we've started tracing the various names used, I believe it's actually very useful especially in a timeline. I'm not sure the relevance of "different languages". I think it's relevant - I'm just not sure how relevant. For example, since the Greeks were the first to describe the islands, followed by the Romans, and since Latin was the language of scholars, I don't think we're straying to far to include those. Some scholars say the original "Prettania" term was derived from an older Celtic term, but I don't see any reference as to what that might be. There does appear to be a period of time where an overlap occurs, and there are a number of terms in different languages - not sure how to represent those properly or in context. Ideas welcome. --HighKing (talk) 00:11, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Highking - Priteni is the Celtic origin word referred to in this article. There's quite an amusing passage in Davies' The Isles where he suggests that the Greek explorers must have met with P-Celtic speakers: Q-Celtic would have provided a different name and subsequent transpositions could have led to "Cruts" instead of "Brits". :-) Wiki-Ed (talk) 15:51, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Cognate is hardly that obscure a word that its difficult to guess what it means. If a reader mightn't understand a term wikilink it to its Wikipedia article or Wikitonary article would do. The Channel Islands where probably not seeing as they where off the coast of Gaul, however looking at old Greek and Roman maps - you can never be sure where anywhere was at or what was included with what. Mabuska (talk) 10:35, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Cognate is certainly not an obscure word. But it is, however, one that is too often used in the wrong context. By using the word "cognate" in the original statement above we were misleading the reader. Not everyone who reads this article will click on every blue link to find the accurate meaning behind every word. Therefore we should try and reduce confusion as much as is possible. By leaving the word "cognate" in, as was originally proposed, would also lead those who do know what the word means (but who have no knowledge of the British Isles or its etymology) to conclude there was some original word in PIE from which the various other "translations" stemmed independently, which is not the case here. Whatever the original word was (which is not known for certainty), the Greek and Roman writers of the time simply translated or borrowed the word into their own vernaculars. This is a totally different linguistic phenomenon. To use an analogy, it would be like saying English "beef" and French "boeuf" are cognates - this is not the case, as the English word "beef" was directly borrowed from Norman French - there was no independent development of some root-word in the distant linguistic past that developed into English "beef", while at the same time developed into French "boeuf". --MacTire02 (talk) 11:52, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
What do you think might be a better phrasing, or a good way to represent the information? --HighKing (talk) 14:01, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes. Since we don't really seem to be arguing over the meat of the change, what is the right word that I was looking for? --RA (talk) 16:54, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
True, the information is good. What do you think of a timeline approach? I like that idea myself. --HighKing (talk) 17:56, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm not anti it. The problem I see is that trying to get precise dates (if they even exist). Then there's the issue that different languages would likely have been using different terms at different times. I don't think it's possible and the ??? in your sketch is probably going to be very contentious, if the last time it was discussed (about three years ago) is anything to go by. --RA (talk) 18:09, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
I think we have to generalise in the same way as the sources - the authors are confident that there is a timeline, but they are vague about the when and the why of it. (Also, to some extent as shown by the variety of alternative forms, they're not 100% sure about the exact names.) Wiki-Ed (talk) 23:48, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
It'd be impossible to prove when the first spoken instance of a term occurred. It'd be next to impossible to prove when the first written instance of a term occurred as not all literature and documents survive the passage of time. We may have the earliest references, but that doesn't mean that the term started with them. Mabuska (talk) 13:12, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

British Isles Meitheal

I posted the following to a handful of Wikiprojects. If anyone can think of more places to advertise it then please let that place know.

Obviously, much kudos to anyone already here that is willing to help out.

A while back the British Isles article underwent a peer review. Most of the suggestions coming out of it have been implemented and IMO the article is approaching GA standard. This is an article that had been dogged by POV issues and in-fighting amongst its editors so the achievement of getting it to the standard it is in admirable for all involved. However, one major sticking point is referencing, which are appallingly sparse. There is no way the article could achieve GA as it stands on account of the state of referencing.

The task of fixing it up isn't impossible. There are about 30 paragraphs that need referencing. With enough editors, we would only need to take two or thee paragraphs each to get the job done. To that end, I've set up a "meitheal" page. The idea is for anyone who is willing to help out to take a paragraph at a time and to references just that paragraph. If you can do more than one then great. Just come back and take another one.

The meitheal page is here: Talk:British Isles/Meitheal. If you're willing to help out, just dig in.

--RA (talk) 17:38, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Ya may wanna make BI/M a sandbox. As an article, it'll get speedy deleted. GoodDay (talk) 17:48, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Doh! Just got word of a speedy. Talkifying... --RA (talk) 17:51, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Irish translation of "British Isles"

I just used an online gaelic translator which gave me Na hOileáin bhriontanacha for British Isles. This isn't listed in the info-box, where the only translations would seem to relate British Isles to "Islands of Europe" or "Ireland and Britain". Can someone who speaks gaelic please advise on this matter. LevenBoy (talk) 11:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

This has been discussed, the term used is not a direct translation, rather it is the actual term that the isles are known by. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:02, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
See Talk:British Isles/Archive 38. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:04, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I missed the debate. Having now skimmed it, it seems the current "translations" are nothing short of blatant lies. They do not reflect an actual translation but push the POV that Irish people use Britain and Ireland and not British Isles. LevenBoy (talk) 12:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
They're not translations. They're the names used in other languages. For example, the English Channel is not called the English Channel in French, but "La Manche". Similarly in Gaelic the islands are usually called one of the two options given. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:23, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
La Manche is a direct translation of English Channel, and vice versa (try it with something like BabelFish), but you're right, they are not translations; I gave the translation above. I bet the versions in Welsh, Scottish etc are translations though, so why isn't the Irish one? Anyone reading that info box would assume "translation", but POV is dictating that in the case of Irish gaelic they're getting something different - misinformation. LevenBoy (talk) 12:38, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
BabelFish is smart; Google not so much. Google offers "chaîne anglaise", the direct translation. TFOWR 12:43, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Heh! French to English is "Quixotic" (sorry!): La Mancha. TFOWR 12:45, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
OK, a proposal - we include the actual translation instead of the others. LevenBoy (talk) 12:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
I think it would be more appropriate to use the "native name" field of the infobox for native names. I believe it's more useful for the reader to learn what the British Isles are really called in various languages, rather than what a literal translation might be. TFOWR 12:57, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
La Manche (say I with my limited French knowledge ;) ) basically means the sleeve, so that's not really a translation of english channel. We don't want translations in that box, we want native names. Unless you want to start calling China "Middle Country" and other such things... Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:18, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
It is not POV by Irish speakers not to name these islands as na hOileáin Bhriotanacha. This term was coined by non-Irish speakers to "translate" the term "British Isles", where there already existed a perfectly good Irish translation. Remember, not every concept in English exists in every other language, and likewise, there are concepts in other languages that are not represented in English. I am from Ireland, and unlike most of the other Irish contributors on this page, I do use the term British Isles in English (just to qualify that sentence - I am constantly surrounded by other Irish people - one of the perks of living in Ireland I guess, and contrary to what you all may have been led to believe, not everyone in Ireland has abandoned the use of the term British Isles - in fact, not one of those I converse with uses any other term when speaking in English. When speaking in Irish, however, the situation changes, and all who can converse in Irish use the term Oileáin Iarthair Eorpa. But to emphasise, this is my own experience and not necessarily that of others). However, when I speak Irish I use the term Oileáin Iarthair Eorpa. This term is less confusing to speakers of Irish, as the term na hOileáin Bhriotanacha can be used to describe any British Isle. Hypothetically speaking, we could take an Irish speaker living in the Virgin Islands. This speaker could describe the British Virgin Islands, without referring to the Virgin part as that would already be implied, as na hOileáin Bhriotanacha in opposition to na hOileáin Mheiriceánacha (U.S. Virgin Islands). It was also noted above that the other "translations" do indeed translate the British Isles using their translations of "British" and "Isles" - not so I'm afraid. As a speaker of Manx I can assure you that the Manx term is not a direct translation. The Manx term ny h-Ellanyn Goaldagh (the hyphen is optional, but increasingly preferred in cases like this) actually translates as The Foreign/Gallic Isles, using the root word Goal (akin to Irish Gall c.f. Gaillimh, Dún na nGall, Galltacht, etc. and taken from the same root that gives us Gaul). The Manx word Goaldagh is now the preferred term for "British", but this has only occurred since the term ny h-Ellanyn Goaldagh came into being. The former word for British was Bretynagh or Bretnagh, with the former having since gone out of use, and the latter now used to mean "Welsh" exclusively. --MacTire02 (talk) 15:33, 22 September 2010(UTC)
I don't know about gaelic speakers, so maybe if there's no references, or even if there is, in the interest of fairness and NPOV those "translations" should be removed. LevenBoy (talk) 18:29, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Here's some interesting stuff (not rigorous I know, but interesting): Google counts come up with 6510 for "na hOileáin Bhriotanacha", 7616 for "Oileáin Iarthair Eorpa" and 7270 for "Éire agus an Bhreatain Mhór" of which the latter two will have far more Wikipedia sites and mirrors than the first. Maybe we should get rid of all of them - what thinks ye? LevenBoy (talk) 18:35, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Those translations should not be removed. To do so is do remove information. Those translations provide the reader with more information. Or are we going to strip down the entire Wikipedia of anything that may be construed as POV? Do we remove the Repubic of China article? Do we remove the Ulster article (after all there are those that consider that 9 counties in the north of the island of Ireland are Ulster, while there are those that consider Ulster as contiguous to, and including only, Northern Ireland). Do we remove translations in all articles? At the end of the day consensus was reached on the inclusion of the translations in the infobox, but restricted to those languages with official status (which is why we do not see Jèrriais, Guernésiais, Sercquiais, Shelta, and Cornish are not represented). References have also been supplied regarding the translations (except for the French and Welsh translations). Regarding Google searches - I would be very wary of those. A search of "na hOileáin Bhriotanacha" also includes links to "Oileáin Bhriotanacha na Maighdean", otherwise known as the British Virgin Islands in English. "Oileáin Bhriotanacha" shows 6,570 results on my last check (21:29) whereas "oileáin bhriotanacha -maighdean" shows only 2,210 results (21:30). These results also appear to change daily, and may or may not include mirror sites, or blogs where the terms may be discussed on several pages, thereby yielding more results.--MacTire02 (talk) 20:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Isn't it funny that LB only concentrates on the Irish translation and not the French/Scots/etc...? I have no problems with any of the language names for the islands. If these languages use a direct translation then we use that otherwise we use the name the language uses.
Quite. It appears the language in question does use the direct translation, but it's just not listed here. So a compromise; we list the direct translation as well as the other three - unless someone can come up with evidence to invalidate it, and I've not seen anything yet. LevenBoy (talk) 21:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

But the "direct translation" does not mean "these" British Isles exclusively. It means ANY British Isles as long as they are under the control of Britain, including islands in the Indian Ocean, the Atlantic Ocean, as well as our islands here in Europe. Putting that in the infobox is misleading as native speakers do not use it, it has NO official status, and is very disambiguous at best. We can not simply ignore aspects of other cultures simply to satisfy another culture. That is blatantly wrong (and in my mind smacks of "we will do it our way because we are superior to you"). If we are going to go down this route are we going to insert under the French heading "Les Isles de Grande-Bretagne"? How about "Les Isles de Grande-Bretagne et d'Irlande", or "Les Isles de la Royaume-Uni et de République d'Irlande"? How can we know for certain they are not used? The fact is that "na hOileáin Bhriotanacha" is the translation for "the British Isles", but not as a toponym which is what that section is reserved for. --MacTire02 (talk) 21:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Not this again... whilst i prefer a direct translation, the infobox states "native names". If a native name is not a direct translation of British Isles then so be it. Mabuska (talk) 21:57, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
So we have two "native names" but the third, direct translation isn't a native name, but according to MacTire it means ANY islands owned by Britain. lol! All the points he raises above seem to be carefully crafted to ensure there's no reference to "British" in the terms used - like NO official status, for example. LevenBoy (talk) 22:29, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
The direct translation is not a native name. It's a direct translation. MacTire is probably correct (I can't personally verify), and there is really no point continuing this. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 23:38, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
LevenBoy, I think it might be best if you leave this particular conversation. My points are not "carefully crafted to ensure no reference to British". You obviously have no interest in, or knowledge of, the Irish language, and your opinion on it should therefore be ignored. You obviously have not read what I have written before on this topic. Yes I am from the Republic of Ireland, but I do NOT describe myself as an Irish nationalist. I am a great admirer of the United Kingdom and I have a great interest in the Scots language of both Scotland and Ulster, as well as the various unionist traditions and customs. I am also interested in the other minority languages of the British Isles, having been raised through Irish. When speaking English, I ALWAYS use the term "British Isles". When speaking Irish I always use the term "Oileáin Iarthair Eorpa" or "Éire agus an Bhreatain Mhór", depending on context, but never "na hOileáin Bhriotanacha". Using an incorrect translation is just wrong. Plain and simple. There's nothing political in that. Or maybe you perceive every linguistic difference as political? Do you view the French naming of the English Channel as La Manche as an affront to your British identity? Perhaps you also view the Latin Mare Germanicum as insulting - after all there's nothing purely German about the North Sea - Britain, Denmark and Norway also share that large body of water. Perhaps some people would be insulted by the Manx name for the Atlantic Ocean (y Keayn Sheear or the "Western Ocean") - what's Western about it? It's south of Greenland, east of Canada and the USA, south of Nigeria, north of Guyana, etc. Yet the Manx still call it the "Western Ocean" in their vernacular. Each language has its own peculiarities. In the case of Irish, the lack of a direct translation being used for the British Isles as a native name just so happens to be one of them, the reasons for which I have already discussed on the talk pages to this article - perhaps you should check out those reasons. Again I will say this: I couldn't care less about politics. --MacTire02 (talk) 08:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Just as an addition. The term "Oileáin Iarthair Eorpa" is attested as a translation for the British Isles in Irish in the following historical sources:
  • Foras Feasa ar Éirinn (University College Cork (UCC)) (c.1634 AD) ...bhronn Constantinus impir iar ngabháil bhaiste dhó oiléin iarthair Eorpa do Shilbhester Pápa... (note. oiléin in this instance is in the nominative plural)
  • Foras Feasa ar Éirinn (An Sean-Ghinealeach) (c.1634) ...táinig ar teitheadh go hoiléanaibh iarthair Eorpa... (note. oiléanaibh in this instance is in the dative plural case).
  • Foras Feasa ar Éirinn (UCC) (c.1634) ...óir do bhí cur ar oiléanaibh iarthair Eorpa aige...
  • Annals of the Four Masters (1584 AD) ...fer foglamtha i m-bérlaibh & i t-tengtoibh oilén Iarthair Eorpa esidhe... (note. oilén in this instance is in the genitive plural)

--MacTire02 (talk) 17:37, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, Dineen's authoratative Irish-English dictionary (1927: p.812) gives Oileain [sic] Iarthair Eorpa (Dineen's dictionary online) --MacTire02 (talk) 17:48, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Oileáin Iarthair Eorpa literally means Western Europe Islands, dosen't really cut it does it. Try Oileáin na Breataine which does mean British Isles. --80.229.120.30 (talk) 09:52, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Have you read any of the above? Any of it? It is beyond question that Oileáin Iarthair Eorpa is the authentic, historically-verified name in Irish for what British nationalists term the "British Isles". The references supporting this range from a sixteenth-century manuscript to a 1927 dictionary. 'Oileáin na Breataine' is a neologism created by you, unless you are referring to the Irish name for the British Virgin Islands (a quick Google would have saved this embarrassment) 86.42.19.155 (talk) 07:34, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Of course it cuts it. It's a different language. Perhaps you should open your eyes and realise that not everything has to have an exact identical English language translation, and that English is not the centre of the Universe. Different languages have different means and methods for viewing the world, and it is this difference which shapes vocabulary. "na hOileáin Bhriotanacha", used to identify the British Isles, literally means everything about the islands in question is British, including people, languages, cultures, politics, etc. which is why it's not used. It is also unambiguous in nature and can refer to any island group in the world with a British connection. "Oileáin na Breataine" literally means Islands of Britain, and not British Isles. This is a valid term but excludes all of Ireland, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. --MacTire02 (talk) 13:04, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Anglo-Celtic Isles

I live in Ireland since a couple of years. The Irish people don't like being called part of the "British Isles", because of they patriotism and history. Instead of "British Isles", here in Dublin they are called the "Anglo-Celtic Isles".

Is the name "Anglo-Celtic Isles" worth being mentioned in the wikipedia? --Abacos (talk) 16:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd love to know what part of Dublin you are in because I can assure you that the term "Anglo-Celtic Isles" is not popular, either in Ireland or in the United Kingdom. Regarding its inclusion - the term has already been mentioned in the British Isles naming dispute page. Such a rare term does not deserve inclusion here, in my opinion. Although I do stand to be corrected. --MacTire02 (talk) 16:23, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
What you don't like and what is actual are two different things Abacos. The Irish people may not like being part of the British Isles but unfortunately it is part of their heritage, like it or hate it. You cannot rewrite history just because some people don't like it!! I could think of a few names we in the real Ireland call those in Dublin but that's another argument. --80.229.120.30 (talk) 09:39, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Good points by the IP, like it or lump it from the looks of it. Though "Anglo-Celtic Isles"? Never heard of it ever. It'd be a silly neologism as well seeing as the islands are more non Anglo-Celtic than they would have been 500 years ago or so. Mabuska (talk) 10:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Slightly off-topic, but it is not such a neologism. For example from 1914:
The United Anglo-Celtic Isles
Will e'er be blessed by Freedoms smiles
No tyrant can our homes subdue
While Britons to the Celts are true.
The false may clamour to betray
The brave will still uphold our sway
The triple-sacred flag as yet
Supreme, its sun shall never set
- Southern Unionist Ballad (Ennis Unionist, 1914)
More off-topic, is 19th century use of "Anglo-Celtic" as a term that encompasses the folk of these islands, akin to "British". For example:
"Even the English are rather Anglo-Celts than Anglo-Saxons; and still more certainly is Anglo-Celtic a more accurate term than Anglo-Saxon, not only for that British nationality that includes the Scots, the Irish, and the Welsh; but also for that Britannic race, chief elements in the formation of which have been Welsh, Scottish, and Irish immigrants." - Arthurian Localities, John S. Stuart-Glennie, 1869
And of course, there the The Anglo-Celt, up near your neck of the woods, Mabuska. Founded in 1846.
About Anglo-Celtic Isles, it's not entirely unheard of. It does no harm to mention it in the etymology section. --RA (talk) 20:27, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

--RA (talk) 20:27, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Bolding of terms

Regarding, this edit, the naming convention is to bold common alternatives. Normally these occur in the first lines but that is not always the case:

"It is Wikipedia convention to emphasize alternate names at first use, normally in the first line. It is customary to bold the article title name, and its frequently used English-language synonyms, and to italicize foreign or historic names represented in Roman script. ... If this produces a garish first paragraph, consider moving the discussion of names to a separate section, or deemphasizing some of them."

Compare with Zion National Park, for example, which is an FA.

Regarding, undue weight, one of these terms (at least) is what RS describe as "becoming preferred usage" or "is the more favoured expression". Thus (one at least) deserves highlighting as a common alternative. --RA (talk) 22:36, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Extra bolding never hurt anyone. GoodDay (talk) 22:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
The use of italics in the 4th para is clearly wrong, and the two alternative names referenced there should be bolded - but I don't think there's any need to move them to the first para (don't know if that was being suggested). Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:02, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Disagree with both the bold and that either of them are "becoming preferred usage" or "is the more favoured expression" outside a very small group, namely the government of ROI and people wishing to remain politically correct - if asked, the vast majority English speaking population of the planet outside the British Isles would not have a clue what either term was referencing. Codf1977 (talk) 17:30, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
the vast majority English speaking population of the planet outside the British Isles don't even know what the British Isles actually are, and regularly mix up UK, Britain, Great Britian, British Isles, etc. So that's probably a better known term, but equally proportionally misunderstood. --HighKing (talk) 11:16, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
While this is true, the sources do not add this caveat and are being treated as factual. Personally I view this as wrong, but since some editors refuse to recognise this I added the second alternative in order to illustrate the absurdity of the first. Wiki-Ed (talk) 18:53, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Re-inhabited?

The introduction says when the isles were re-inhabited but doesn't mention when they were first inhabited. Any info on this? Kernow (talk) 06:09, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but it's a bit complex so the introduction does not cover it in detail. When an informed person who knows a bit about early Pleistocene history checks in here they can update the article to factor in recent discoveries [4]. Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:50, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Defining the use of the terms "British Isles" and "Britain and Ireland"

If the term "British Isles" is replaced with an alternative such as "Britain and Ireland", simply because a reference has been found that uses this as an alternative, it either leaves the status of the Isle of Man, Channel Islands and other smaller islands within the group unclear or ignores them entirely.

I would like views on the suggestions that:

the term "Britain and Ireland" does not equal British Isles.
the term "Great Britain and Ireland" does not equal British Isles.
the term "United Kingdom and Ireland" does not equal British Isles.

Further more, I suggest that

References using "Britain and Ireland" should not in themselves be sufficient reason to replace the term "British Isles".

And that we move towards establishing a manual or style or policy relating to this which can be used to resolve any disputes that arise in the future.

The common abbreviations used in this discussion are:

B = Britain
B+I = Britain and Ireland
BI = British Isles
CI = Channel Islands
IoM = Isle of Man islands
NI = Northern Ireland

Notes:

Legally, the Isle of Man, Channel Islands are not part of either Britain or Ireland
The terms Britain and Ireland are used to refer to a number of different historical and geographical entities.

Original proposer: LemonMonday Talk 11:49, 7 November 2010 (UTC).

Refined and clarified after discussion: --LevenBoy (talk) 14:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

...between LevenBoy and LemonMonday, other editors were not involved in the change --Snowded TALK 22:15, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

=> Comment: Far, far more than "a reference" has been found for "Britain and Ireland": a quick google reveals no less than 8,460,000 pages results for "Britain and Ireland". Your beloved "British Isles" receives a mere 3,050,000 results. Talk about your political preferences getting in the way of a rational evaluation of these inconvenient facts. The current name on this article is screaming British nationalist pov. It's a complete joke. Dunlavin Green (talk) 13:06, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The only joke is that some editors fail to understand why the word "and" makes a Google search utterly irrelevant. Wiki-Ed (talk) 10:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Imho, Britain and Ireland doesn't equate British Isles. If there are sources/references that contradict my opinon? my hands are tied. GoodDay (talk) 13:34, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
It cannot because it omits the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Not when I, and many others, use it! Fmph (talk) 18:11, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
As discussed here previously. Although the term "Britain and Ireland" may appear to exclude the smaller islands, that is not how the term is often used. In practice, it is a convenient shorthand term used for the whole island group, including Orkney, Shetland, Hebrides, and the Isle of Man. (The question of whether "Britain and Ireland", as the term is used, includes the Channel Islands is just as debatable - and no more so - as whether the term "British Isles" includes those islands.) Because those smaller islands are relatively small in terms of area and population, they are generally capable of being ignored by most users of the term. Many sources are not as precise as many WP editors. The fact that the term is not precisely accurate is not the only relevant factor - we should go with what the sources say. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:46, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Ghmyrtle is, once again, on the money. "Britain and Ireland" is "a convenient shorthand term for the whole group". This is obvious to anybody who has lived in Ireland and noted the deliberate avoidance of the politically-charged term "British Isles". This avoidance is clear to anybody - I repeat: anybody - just as are the eyes being raised on the rare occasion that the term is used in educated company. At any rate, it is deeply ironic that somebody above says "Britain and Ireland" is not "accurate" but calling Ireland a "British" isle is accurate. Jesus wept.Dunlavin Green (talk) 13:06, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
I have argued elsewhere along the same lines as Ghmyrtle, that the references establish that Britain and Ireland is an equivalent to British Isles (while Great Britain and Ireland excludes the IoM etc). Dunlavin Green, you really should retract those remarks they are unhelpful, unreasonable and generally foolish. --Snowded TALK 14:06, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I just noted the sudden concern among the British Isles brigade for the supposed absence of the Channel Islands from "Britain and Ireland". Given that the current title on this article concedes that the Channel Islands are not even part of this "British Isles" delusion, except by British nationalist tradition, are they taking the piss? Fierce nonsense. Dunlavin Green (talk)
It seems we're all in agreement (except for maybe LemonMonday), that Britain and Ireland can be mentioned in this article as alternative to the term British Isles. GoodDay (talk) 14:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Sounds like a line from the chorus of an Opera Buffa, ...except for Lemon Monday --Snowded TALK 14:34, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Giggle, giggle. GoodDay (talk) 14:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
I must repeat to Dunlavin Green that when I lived in Dublin nobody (educated or otherwise) was ever bothered the slightest whenever I happened to use British Isles in a geographical sense (never political, mind). You seem to imply that the Irish are keeping constant watch on anybody or anything that connects them to Britain.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Jeanne, what's the betting that whenever you said "British Isles" in the company of Irish people there was this sudden uneasiness, sigh, moving back and then a fake smile to your face? People in company generally are polite, and Irish people are polite in an "ara the poor ignorant Yank, let's overlook that and look for the positives in this lady's company". That's the way it works. Even I wouldn't take you to task in public but I'd give enough body language signals to people around me to get them laughing/make my feelings clear. Being quirky with all your royalist nonsense is fine online. It is sheer politeness, however, which ensures you don't receive true opinions in the company of ordinary Irish people. Dunlavin Green (talk) 20:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
I would have to disagree with you there Dunlavin. As an Irishman through and through, I can vouch for Jeanne's experiences. Although I can only speak for myself and those I know (some of whom, including within my own family, would be very staunch nationalists), Jeanne's experiences certainly resonate with me. In fact, when I was in Primary school we were always taught that Ireland was part of the British Isles (even though it was emphasized that this was geographical and not political). Our text books and teachers in Secondary School (and I went to a Diocesan school, not a state school) always mentioned British Isles and no other combination. In University it was always British Isles that was used, though admitedly I did not attend any Geography course there. In the pubs I frequented (including my local GAA club), again it was always British Isles that was used when comparing ourselves with the rest of Europe or the World - and these chats were certainly not along the academic line. It seems to me that it really depends on who you are discussing the topic with. So, while you and your friends and acquaintances may never use the British Isles as a term for these islands, I would prefer if you didn't lump everyone in Ireland into your category as you suggested above. I am not saying you are wrong in your opinion regarding terminology - it doesn't really bother me at all - but I guess it depends on your environment, even here in Ireland, what term you use. --MacTire02 (talk) 20:48, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Dunlavin, let me give you a specific example of a time I used the term British Isles in Ireland. This was back in the 1980s, and I was having a chat with two male friends of mine (both Dubliners-one from East Wall, the other from Clontarf). We were discussing the boot boy culture of the early 1970s, and I vividly recall saying that it was a "phenomenon in the British Isles, and basically nowhere else". Guess what happened, Dunlavin? There weren't any nudges, sighings, uneasiness, nor fake wee smiles; in fact, they both agreed with me!!!!!! As for my royalist quirkiness; my first husband (named Anto-what else?!), who was a relative of this guy here, bought me a book on the British Royal Family, which he obtained at the biggest bookshop on O'Connell Street. I dare not mention its name, lest I be accussed of spamming. I should add that Anto is an ordinary Irish person.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:12, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Same when I was younger, although I do have a fuzzy memory about one particular primary school teacher that was very ... republican I suppose ... and taught us history where the British were pointedly made out to be the bad guys. And one other Christian Brother later on. In fairness, we were clueless. It never stopped me or most others using "British Isles" in conversations, and we could still look at an atlas without getting offended. I suppose because of the heightened focus on the term here, I do mentally pause when I use the term in conversation these days (or hear the term), mentally checking the context. I would probably not use it in the context of Boot Boys or other cultural phenomenon (but that's just me) because political borders can have an impact on these matters. But there's a whole lot of stuff like flight paths of birds and planes, submarine patrols, spreading of diseases, etc, where it is the *correct* term to use. --HighKing (talk) 16:24, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I think we're getting sidetracked. The compound term is not used as an alternative to BI in the UK (apart from in the Guardian and a very small number of sources), although the two main islands may be referred to next to one another as "Britain" and "Ireland" and thus confuse certain people. The compound term may be used in Ireland and, although it is hard to verify, we include it as a compromise which has kept the article relatively stable for some months. I see no reason to keep discussing this - it just stirs up the old arguments - if the majority of editors accept the current wording then let's keep it as it is. Wiki-Ed (talk) 10:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

And that's about the size of it. The majority of editors have accepted this usage, we should move on. --HighKing (talk) 16:24, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
I disagree completely. "Britain and Ireland" cannot be mentioned as alternative to the term "British Isles". I am sorry HighKing but in reality the "majority of editors" are just not interested at all. Many are just tired of the campaigning, blocked or intimidated away. Only a tiny minority of editors, literally 3 or 4 out of 10,000s are motivated to go about renaming the British Isles.
Britain and Ireland means Britain and Ireland. We are all agreed with that. We are also all agreed that Britain and Ireland does not legally include the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. There is no room for "opinion". That is a fact. This is not a conversation in a bar. We are writing an encyclopedia. If some Irish feel it is an insult to be included in the term British Isles, then those of Manx and the Channel Islands have every right to be offended at being erased by those Irish. If we cannot "insult" the Irish, then we cannot insult the Manx and the Channel Islanders. It is as simple as that.
As it has been said before, companies and individuals may have well use the term Britain and Ireland to include the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands but so what? Uniformed people make mistakes all the time. Countless sources use the term England to mean Britain. That does not make it right. It is also wrong. The problem then arises of what does the Wikipedia do when the references are wrong? What is the Wikipedia policy and where is such a problem addressed?
Yes, there is a long standing political campaign in the real world to stop or attack the use of the non-political use of the term British Isles and it has found its way onto the Wikipedia but that is a problem to be dealt with in the real world. At present, until there is a real world international agreement, we cannot use the term Britain and Ireland as a substitute for British Isles nor to include the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands. I can only encourage those that feel strongly about the issue to contact their members of parliament etc to argue their case for them legally but it is not something we can fix or accept on the Wikipedia.
HighKing, in all of this I have never seen you argue positive once for the equal rights of the Isle of Man and Channel Islands I am becoming shocked by you peoples' disregard for them. I only wish you could get it into your heads that the use of the term British in British Isles really has nothing to do with British as in "Brits out of Ireland". It happens a lot in English; one word, two different meanings. --LevenBoy (talk) 23:17, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
That's 2 against, now. GoodDay (talk) 23:28, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm, I'll just weigh in and say irrespective of whether it is accurate or not, it is used sometimes and therefore deserves a mention in articles like Terminology at the very least. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 23:30, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
The numbers aren't really the issue. It is a question of what is legally correct, not WP:IDONTLIKEIT or WP:HOWMANYMATESCANIFINDTOAGREEWITHME. Having spent some time catching up on discussions, I see Dunlavin Green makes exactly the type of mistake I was talking about, confusing the alleged "English Imperialism" of Dee with British Isles. By the way, why is John Dee listed as English when he was as Welsh as Snowded is? Shouldn't he be British? --LevenBoy (talk) 23:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Though I use IoM & CI as part of whether I accept/object BI usage elswhere? I've chosen to accpet Britain and Ireland mentioned on this article as an alternate term. I've no choice but to accept, as there's sources for it. GoodDay (talk) 23:59, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Can you or anyone show us one reference that specifically report a factual or legal opinion that "the Isle of Man and Channel Islands are part of Britain"? You cannot because it is not true. The only response to that would be that "facts or legalities are not important on the Wikipedia".
That is why I ask, what is Wikipedia policy when sources are wrong? Where do we go to get a final decision?
It is impossible for us to know what or why an individual (real world published) author used a specific term with doing WP:OR. It could be laziness, it could be stupidness, it could be chauvinism, it could just be fashion or habit but the facts remain. It is the fact we should be dealing with. --LevenBoy (talk) 00:14, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
As I understand it, IoM & CI are 'somehow' included under Britain and Ireland. You'll have to ask others for more concrete evidence. GoodDay (talk) 00:20, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Tendentiousness LevinBoy, there are references on the main article which show that B&I is used an alternative to BI. There is no requirement for IoM of the Channel Islands to be a part of Britain for that to be the case. Its simply common use --Snowded TALK 03:15, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
No, Snowded. With all respect, it is a question of accuracy versus semantics. You are ignoring my question. What do we do when we know the sources are wrong (or outdated)?
As we have discussed, English is widely used for what is clearly British and is also wrong. There are no sources that state CI + IoM 'is' part of the UK/B because they are not. That is what we are discussing.
Mystical, magical 'somehows' do not an encyclopedia make. There are a lot more concrete 'some why not at alls'.
I gave you the reasons why up above. GoodDay. There are more, e.g. in the magazine we covered 442 it was merely because they shared the same distribution networks. That does not make them part of the UK.
One of the few incidents where you could argue that the terms B+I is used, is if you were to use the common Irish Gaelic rendition (although some older dictionaries use a more literal translation) so the question we would have to ask of those Irish (real world published) sources, as we need to ask the Irish editors here, is why they neglect or ignore the status of the IoM and the CI. But, this is the English language Wikipedia and so English language terms should be used.
The fact remains, it is still wrong. We all know that. --LevenBoy (talk) 03:46, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
(please sign your comments) Meaning and language change over time, which is why we rely on references. Those clearly show that B&I is used as an alternative to BI. IoM and CI just get caught up in that I am afraid. You can have all the technical discussions you want but when it comes down to it, common use and references are what count. --Snowded TALK 03:55, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
The problem with that logic is that we are not dealing with a change over time in this instances. (I did sign the comment).
The problem we are faced with resolving is what to do when we discover references we know to be inaccurate.
We all know and agree that CI and IoM are not part of the United Kingdom nor Ireland.
Therefore, we cannot accept references that apparently suggest they are. Geography is a science. It should be accurate. I can think of 100s of cases where "common terms" would not be acceptable and are not used.
You avoid providing any reference which suggest B&I "is" an accurate alternative to BI. You admit that it "is used" inaccurately. Two different matters. I am afraid I cannot accept inaccuracies being knowing inserted into the Wikipedia on a case by case basis. --LevenBoy (talk) 12:19, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Tedious LevinBoy, I did not avoid providing references I pointed you to those which exist in the main article. It is not inaccurate its is common use and established as such. --Snowded TALK 12:37, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Would you accept Levenboy, that it's another name for the same area that is covered by the British Isles, if not a direct alternate wording for British Isles? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:30, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
LevenBoy, ya mentioned that people from IoM and/or CI, would be upset with the term Britain and Ireland. Wouldn't they also be upset with the term British Isles? as both terms cover those islands over. GoodDay (talk) 15:33, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
What Constitutes the British Isles? Very good question LevenBoy. Why the hell is the Channel Islands included? It is not part of the archipelago but by tradition it is included. What tradition, who's tradition? Maybe we could say by tradition when you see the term "Britian and Ireland" that it also includes IoM, CI and all the other islands. Bjmullan (talk) 16:54, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
I am not being insulting here Bjmullan but your comment really only identifies what you, personally, do not know or understand and this is part of the problem here. Moreso with some other editors who come on making what are basically racist insults. If you knew, you would understand.
I am perfectly willing to accept people make honest mistakes based on what they do not know or understand and be patient but I am not sure what responsibility we or the Wikipedia has to educating people or how far that responsibility goes. (Educating goes much further than present facts).
A question like "Why the hell is the Channel Islands included?" only betrays a vast lack of knowledge or historical understanding. For example, one of the bigger problems we have around these topics are individuals lack of understanding about the term Britishness or British culture, both of which the Irish have contributed to hugely.
It has often been said here, if the Irish care so much about their rights and being "equal" or not included in British Isles, why do they not care for the rights of the Manx and Channel Islanders? Please answer this directly. --LevenBoy (talk) 23:46, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
My assumption is the British Isles is made of Great Britain, Ireland, Isle of Man & Channel Islands. GoodDay (talk) 23:50, 14 November 2010 (UTC)


It is more than your assumption. In 'The British Isles: a history of four nations', Hugh Kearney defines all of this problem when he wrote that to concentrate upon a 'nationalist point of view history ... "is to run the risk of being imprisoned within a cage of partial assumptions which lead to the perpetuation of ethnocentric myths and ideologies. Typically, the book in Kearney's Wikipedia article went from "acclaimed for adopting a multi-nation 'Britannic approach'" to being "controversial" on the basis of an anonymous and referenceless edit from an Irish IP. Is this someone here editing while logged out or part of the same range as the recent trolling? Presumably this same editor 84.44.44.148. I'll wait for Bjmullan's response to my question above. --LevenBoy (talk) 00:44, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Defining the use of the terms "British Isles" and "Britain and Ireland" (Clarified)

**Please note that the original question was changed at this point by LevinBoy, comments above were made before that change ** --Snowded TALK 22:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


LevenBoy I have noticed that on a number of occasions you have used the term "legal" with respect to the status of the term British Isles. Perhaps you could direct us all to the specific piece of international legislation that states this.... Bjmullan (talk) 23:15, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
And I'm still waiting for the answer to my question LevenBoy.... Bjmullan (talk) 14:41, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


the term "Britain and Ireland" does not equal British Isles.
the term "Great Britain and Ireland" does not equal British Isles.
the term "United Kingdom and Ireland" does not equal British Isles.
None equal British Isles as they ignore other islands that make up the island group that aren't part of either state. This essentially revolves around anti-British attitudes and removing anything that ties Ireland to anything with Britain/British mentioned. Mabuska (talk) 21:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Pity about the sources which say Britain and Ireland is used as an equivalent phrase --Snowded TALK 22:12, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


Are there lots of reliable sources clearly stating Britain and Ireland is an archipelago in north west Europe? The answer to that question is no. Britain = an island called Great Britain or is a short name for the United Kingdom. Ireland = an island or the country. None of these include the Isle of Man or the Channel islands there for the area that is the British Isles is not Britain and Ireland. Whilst some may use the term instead of talking about the archipelago, it does not make Britain and Ireland an archipelago. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:52, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Fully agree that you would not say the Britain and Ireland Archipelago. However people do use Britain and Ireland rather than British Isles. --Snowded TALK 01:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Bjmullan, I have never stated that British Isles is legally defined. The component parts clearly all are. No argument.
Snowded, again, it is question of whether 'is it an equivalent' not whether 'it is used as an equivalent'. Other publications have varying standards of accuracy and their own editorial slants. You are intelligent enough to know the difference.
How many publication state "Britain and Ireland is used as an equivalent phrase" and how many 'use' Britain and Ireland as an equivalent phrase erroneously?
I would be interested to know but I do not receive any direct references in Google Scholar for that exact phrase. "Fuck" and "shag" are commonly used, with plenty of reliable sources, for sexual intercourse but we use sexual intercourse on the Wikipedia.
However, it really does not matter because we are working to define the Wikipedia's editorial position. Therefore, can we move on?--LevenBoy (talk) 01:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
I am also "intelligent enough" (careful LevenBoy that is borderline incivility) to read and understand Wikipedia rules. If a reliable sources says that B&I is increasingly used instead of BI then that is the case. Your opinion (or mine) as to whether it is accurate or not has no relevance whatsoever to determining common use. --Snowded TALK 01:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
"Intelligent" is genuine praise. Some people do not get and use the subtlety of language. I believe that you do and are using it knowingly.
There are two issues here. We have a conflict between real world opinions/sources and facts; and we deciding on our manual of style. It may be true that "Britain & Ireland is increasingly used instead of British Isle" but "increasingly used" does not mean it is anywhere near a majority position. 3% from 1% is an increase but it does not create a consensus nor a majority position. There are far stronger arguments for the use of British Isles.
It is too early for us to tell if the real world Irish nationalism that sought to rename the British Isles was a passing fad or will stick as a standard or whether something else will. But that is for some real world authority to decide. My guess is that they just did not consider the IoM and CI problem. Yes, I agree. If the sources say so we can discuss changes in use over time and place and their political aspects in the terminology topics but we also have to decide on our manual of style for general use, topic titles etc.
The term "Britain & Ireland" is fraught with confusion and misunderstanding. British Isles is clearly understood and defined, even if certain people don't like it (WP:IDONTLIKEIT). It is not right to use the Wikipedia to push a nationalist political agenda. --LevenBoy (talk) 02:22, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
As the various debates show British Isles is not without its own confusion. Wikipedia reflects common use, and in that context Britain and Ireland is increasingly used. Its not exclusively used so I for one am nor proposing that it should be universally substituted, but it is a valid use based on the references. Fully agree that its not right to use Wikipedia to push a nationalist agenda (including British Nationalism) or a Unionist one for that matter. I hope you are not suggesting that is the case in this argument. --Snowded TALK 13:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Legal fact, the government of the United Kingdom in Westminster (Britain) has no legal duty or responsibility with respect to the administration or running of Channel Islands and Isle of Man islands except where agreed by international treaty. They are independent of Britain and Ireland. --LevenBoy (talk) 02:34, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Thats not the way I read it. "External relations and defence are the responsibility of the British Crown which retains ultimate responsibility for overseeing ‘good governance’ in the Island". Now, you may see a subtle difference between "the British Crown" and "the government of the United Kingdom in Westminster", but the rest of the world doesn't. WP:WORLDVIEW Fmph (talk) 09:00, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
If Her Majesty's Government says the Isle of Man and Channel Islands are not part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, then they simply are not part of it. That is the world view. We do not treat Crown dependencies or British overseas territories as part of the United Kingdom, as far as im aware the United Kingdom does not border Spain. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:03, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Just to show this is not just a British point of view. CIA world Fact Book
Isle of Man is a British crown dependency but is not part of the UK or of the European Union. However, the UK Government remains constitutionally responsible for its defense and international representation.
There is a big difference between having the UK responsible for its defence and international representation like other British overseas territories and being part of the United Kingdom. The CIA world factbook recognises this, which is why you do not find England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland in their factbook list but you do find the IOM/CI and British overseas territories. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:10, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
A list of non-countries that the CIA Fact Book also 'recognises'.
Fmph (talk) 13:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Snowded.. I agree people use Britain and Ireland rather than British Isles. In the same way people may just say Europe rather than saying the European Union. The two things definitions remain very different though. The problem at the moment in my opinion (and has been for some time) is the way the introduction words this matter. It simply says... "As a result, Britain and Ireland is becoming a preferred description" That makes it sound like B+I is a preferred description OF the British Isles. It should be more clear that it is a preferred description to avoid mentioning the archipelago known as the British Isles. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:03, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
How about: "As a result, the term Britain and Ireland is increasingly preferred to describe the archipelago." Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
I like the use of the word "describe" there. Doesn't state its totally equivalent. The only quibble I see is the "increasingly preferred". Should it state preferred in Ireland? Or somewhere else? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
But "preferred to describe the archipelago" makes it sound even more like we are saying Britain and Ireland is an archipelago in north west europe which is not backed up by sources. It should say something like the term Britain and Ireland is increasingly preferred to avoid use of the archipelago known as the British Isles, although "Atlantic Archipelago" is increasingly favoured in academia," How notable ""Atlantic Archipelago" is though is another matter, i dont know if its used enough to make it notable for the introduction. It was not even mentioned on the British Isles naming dispute page until recently i seem to recall. I also agree with the increasingly preferred bit perhaps needing clarification. But my primary concern is the fact the introduction makes people think Britain and Ireland is a valid name for an archipelago in north west europe.. which simply is not the case. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
How do you "use" an archipelago? "Britain and Ireland" is a term used to avoid use of the term "British Isles," not to avoid use of the archipelago, which doesn't make any sense. john k (talk) 15:26, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
What is your definition of 'valid' in this context? Is it whatever you decide? Or something else? Given that I use it rather a lot, you some to be saying that my usage is somehow 'invalid' ... which is simply not the case. Fmph (talk) 11:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
...or, "As a result, Britain and Ireland is an increasingly preferred term." Which is true, and avoids any question of precisely what is being described - which is often unclear and unstated. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:15, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
LevenBoy you may not have directly said that BI is a legal term but you certainly have implied it by saying the B+I is not legal and you seem to like using the word without providing any RS. See your edits here, here, here and here. Next time you suggest the B+I is not a legal term (whatever that might be) I suggest you back up your claim with a RS. Bjmullan (talk) 12:54, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
And a small point. It's odd to use a "legal" argument (as is happening above), but to have the same people dismiss "British Islands" as a term on the grounds that its a legal term. --HighKing (talk) 13:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
I do enjoy reading Dunlavin (aka 86.44). His invective never fails to brighten a dull day, but I digress. I've read above and elsewhere about use of British Isles in general conversation (Jeanne Boleyn and others). Well, I've been around a bit you know, and I'm reasonably well travelled, well educated and I mix in good circles. I'm also well versed in the art of conversation (as you can see). I've also visited Ireland many times and know many Irish people, but guess what? Never yet, in all the countless thousands of conversations I've ever had, have I ever heard the term British Isles used, nor for that matter have I ever heard any of the alternatives used, nor have I ever had to use the terms myself. It just isn't something that crops up in normal conversation. And yet ... apparently there's "dispute and disagreement" about the term. Bullshit! LemonMonday Talk 21:03, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Your reported experiences and views as your conversational ability have no place here. The references show that it is in use and that are disputes. --Snowded TALK 00:30, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

The questions then are, "is used for what?" and "is used accurately or inaccurately?" Where there is confusion or dispute, we have to accept accuracy, not an immeasurable "common use". When we say "is used increasingly", increasingly in comparison to when or what?

Linux is being "used increasingly". It has experience huge increase in use for PCs thanks to its evangelists. But it is still has less than 2% of the market. "PC" is a term used commonly for a Windows OS computer. There are countless references for "Mac and PC" (despite Apple have the better claim for championing the term "Personal Computer"). It does not make it right. In fact, it is wrong.

When real world authors write "Britain and Ireland" what do they mean? "The United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland" or "Great Britain and Ireland (Islands)", "British Islands and "Irish Islands" or "British Isles"? We don't know. They are inaccurate and confusing. How can we say or use them to include the Isle of Man and Channel Islands? We can't. They don't. The only term which reliably does include the Isle of Man and Channel Islands is British Isles. You may not like that for whatever reason you wish but you can see the logic of it. To continue on the metaphor, British Isles remains the Windows OS amongst the terms, and the only one that is inclusive.

Just so others can appreciate the significance of this. The Isle of Man and Channel Islands are independent of Britain and the United Kingdom, and Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. The only areas they cooperate are areas defined by international treaty, e.g. defence for which they pay a fee not taxes. International mean inter-nations.

We have to decide what we mean here and use it consistently for the sakes of our readers. I am against the use of the term "Britain and Ireland" because it is chauvinist, confusing and inaccurate. Its use is fraught with problems and will cause us no end of problems. At the point in history when the real world finally decides, we can accept that decision but at present British Isles is still the only term we can use accurately and consistently. When we use "Britain and Ireland", it should mean only Britain and Ireland, that is, excluding the other island groups. --LevenBoy (talk) 09:22, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

The references say otherwise LevinBoy and I doubt if most people using "British Isles" are fully aware of its convoluted history and meaning. Technically if it is used as geographical name it should exclude the Channel Islands by the way, but in practice and common use it doesn't some of the time. The same is true of Britain and Ireland. Regardless of its minority status it is still a valid term. --Snowded TALK 11:37, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
We have had this discussion before. The problem is that some editors have found a small number of sources which state explicitly that "Britain and Ireland" is an "incresingly preferred" alternative to "British Isles" (the sentence in question is paraphrasing one of those sources). Regardless of whether it is confusing / inaccurate it satisfies the criteria for verifiability. The question is whether it is neutral and proportionately reflects the views held by reliable sources. We've seen flawed research from Google and heard some personal perspectives from well travelled editors, but this does not provide a solution. Therefore we came to a compromise whereby we mention the 'controversy' and alternative term in the intro (which follows the MOS) and we also include another alternative term which meets WP:VER, but quite blatantly doesn't carry much weight. The discerning reader will realise that "Britain and Ireland" is not increasingly preferred at all and that editors have been gaming the verifiability rules. Wiki-Ed (talk) 11:43, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
I think I have made it very clear that there is no case to mass substitute Britain and Ireland for British Isles, but it does not follow from that that the use of Britain and Ireland is invalid. Aside from the reference (if it is verifiable it is hardly gaming) the most common example are the atlases that use Britain and Ireland. We will have to see what happens over time as language is mutable. For the moment arguments to eliminate "Britain and Ireland" are as invalid as arguments to replace "British Isles" with "Britain and Ireland". In wikipedia we work from sources not arguments about what should or should not be considered accurate. --Snowded TALK 11:49, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
The question of accuracy is dealt with all the time on the Wikipedia, e.g. DOBs etc. We have two sources with conflicting facts, we find more and work out which one is the most accurate or correct. New historical information emerges, old topics are reviewed etc. We also have MOSes and other forms of deciding where there are conflicting opinions, and policies evolve. If an Encyclopedia is not accurate, there is no point it. If what you say is true, it is a question of WP:WEIGHT then and there is certainly not sufficient weight to warrant the waste of time and energy on it we do.
Atlas of Britain and Ireland generally have a bigger area of France on the same page than the combined areas of the Crown Dependencies. Atlas are not saying "it is the term for". They say Britain and Ireland and yet they have the North Sea and Atlantic in them, Would you argue that the North Sea and Atlantic are part of Britain and Ireland. Atlases of Italy have San Marino and the Vatican City in them, Atlases of France have Monaco and so on. That is a non-argument.
Mostly, I realise I am portrayed as a campaigner for British Isles. That is not true. I am a campaigner for accuracy and the term Britain and Ireland to include IoM and CI too inaccurate and then there is the aspect of consistency. An encyclopedia should be consistent. Real ones are.
Snowded, I have to ask you the question again, a valid name by Wikipedian standards for what and when (i.e. context)? You have still not given me one reference that say it 'is' a replacement term, only that it 'is used as'.--LevenBoy (talk) 13:53, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
And I will tell you again - look at the references in the main article and stop wasting time here with spurious requests, not to mention convoluted arguments and protestations as to your motives. Its very very simple here, if its referenced its valid. B&I is a valid alternative term to BI per references and common use. It does not mean that BI should be replaced with B&I as a standard. You also completely miss the atlas point. The relevant fact is taht Atlases used to be called "An Atlas of the British Isles" and are now called "An Atlas of Britain and Ireland" --Snowded TALK 20:46, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
LB's request is, I think quite valid. Do we have a reference which states B&I is a possible "replacement" for BI? For me the issue is one of accuracy and the need to remove ambiguity. British Isles is accurate and unambiguous whereas B&I is a wishy-washy term that reeks of ambiguity. For these reasons it should be avoided whenever possible. LemonMonday Talk 21:14, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, we do have references that say exactly that - the source is even quoted (ref 11). However, Snowded is incorrect to assert that "if its referenced its valid"; it is not that simple because referenced material has to be weighted correctly. That's a more tricky problem, but I believe the current wording achieves the correct balance. The fact that the article reached a stable position and the talk page quietened down after years of arguing should speak volumes. Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:18, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Of course weight comes into it, and the majority of cases we will see British Isles in the supporting references and it can be properly used. However if Britain and Ireland is used then the same applies, it is simply not valid to exclude it on the basis you don't like it. --Snowded TALK 23:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
I thought this was talked through a long time ago and it was decided to follow the reference. That is, if it uses Britain and Ireland then we use it. If not, then we don't. Am I mistaken? Jack forbes (talk) 23:24, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
You have it right but LemonBoy or LevinMonday (deliberate this time ....) are seeking to change that --Snowded TALK 23:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
When we use references for articles and the authors are using the term Britain and Ireland it's not because they don't know that an alternative term is British Isles. If the`author uses it, we use it. Jack forbes (talk) 23:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Is there a (another) consensus that we should stick to this policy? Jack forbes (talk) 00:13, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any consensus forming in favour of deleting or modifing the entry of Britain and Ireland in this article. Is there a time-table for this Rfc? GoodDay (talk) 07:52, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the quote is misspelt and I raise questions about its credibility, least of all because it sounds like a sociologist and we are talking geography. I doubt its credibility because I have never heard, read ir seen any references to "the archipelago" as a trend ever. I will read over it later. The question remains, used for what? --LevenBoy (talk) 06:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I took the time to read reference 11 over. In the first place, it is talking about English literature, specifically from the Scottish, Irish and Welsh point of view. Siobhán Kilfeather was a forthright champion of Irish women writers who was notable for her interest in fist-fucking in the 18th century. She should really have a page in the Wikipedia.

The full context is, "I place emphasis on the tension, awkwardness and embarrassment that Irish, Scottish and Welsh peple experience with the English language ... It is difficult to find neutral descriptions even of territory. Many of the Irish dislike the 'British' in 'British Isles', while the Welsh and Scottish are not keen on 'Great Britain' ... In response to these difficulties, 'Britain and Ireland' is becoming preferred usage although there is a growing trend amounts some critics to refer to Britain and Ireland as 'the archipelago'." She is talking about writers and their critics, with a strong POV baked by The Troubles it says. They could only use the term in a piece literature after it was already defined. The book also use British Isles 2 more times, including Siobhán herself, to mean British Isles WP:WEIGHTWP:BIASWP:NPOVetc

The problem with atlases is that the name of an atlas does not define its geography. An Atlas of Italy includes the Vatican City and San Marino. An Atlas of France included Monaco, Pantelleria is 100 km southwest of Sicily and 70 km east of the Tunisia but is Italy and so on. Just because the name is "Atlas of ..." means nothing. I don't see you arguing Monaco is France or the Most Serene Republic of San Marino is Italy, just because your RAC road map says so, Snowded. I don't see you arguing Pantelleria should be Tunisian.

No references say "Britain and Ireland" is a term for "Britain, Ireland, and the independent Channel Islands and Isle of Man". Britain and Ireland means Britain and Ireland. --LevenBoy (talk) 12:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

When I use it, it means the same as what you mean when you say "British Isles". Fmph (talk) 18:24, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Congratulations but you know that carries no weight on the Wikipedia. Just out of interest, where do you consider the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands fit? In Britain or Ireland? Or do you think they have no rights?
I suppose we could standardise to Britain and Ireland (Islands) and Britain and Ireland (States) where topics relate to only the Britain and Ireland but that still leaves out Isle of Man and the Channel Islands. Unfortunately, there is only one term to date that has found common use to include the whole.--LevenBoy (talk) 06:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Where does one consider the IoM & CI fit in 'British Isles', for that matter? since neither of those are British, just like neither of those are British and Irish. GoodDay (talk) 13:23, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Then why do people from IOM and CI have British passports? Fmph (talk) 14:03, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Wowsers, I didn't know that. Would they happen to have Irish passports too? GoodDay (talk) 14:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
People from the IOM and CI have British passports as they are Crown dependancies. Difference being they are not part of the United Kingdom and can't be easily brushed into that category just to exert nationalistic desires to get rid of the term British Isles. Mabuska (talk) 14:23, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
I reckon I'll stick to my criteria for adding/deleting British Isles. If both IoM & CI are excluded? then avoid BI usage. GoodDay (talk) 14:27, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
I'd agree that they shouldn't be brushed into the category for that reason, but they could be for the simple reason of WP:COMMON. Fmph (talk) 15:36, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

As far as defining the terms goes, the British Isles refers to the archipelago of islands to the northwest of Europe (ie, the Great British island, the Irish island, and various other islands within the archipelago). Obviously, Britain and Ireland refers to the country of Britain (the United Kingdom, in other words), and the Republic of Ireland. Those are the facts, at least, and on an encyclopedic basis, that's how they should be presented. --JeevanJones (talk) 09:44, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it's not obvious at all. For instance when I - and many other sources - use the term Britain and Ireland, we don't use it in the sense that you feel is obvious. Whilst I recognise your usage as valid and legitimate, you need to accept that there are other valid and legitimate usages out there. Fmph (talk) 17:47, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Nice Freudian slip there, Fmph. Thank you. The problem is, you are not a "source" as defined by the Wikipedia. Yours is only a POV. Your POV is neither valid nor legitimate as a source. The gentleman is, of course, correct. --LevenBoy (talk) 15:46, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

  • British Isles. There's a lot of text here and frankly I didn't read it, but responding to the original RfC: British Isles is the preferred term without a doubt, as this is the common terminology used in the English-speaking world, period. Why is this even in contention? (On the other hand, "Britain and Ireland" can surely be taken as shorthand for "Britain and Ireland and the various small islands, shoals, and pinnacles etc. lying close by and traditionally associated with them", so the contention that these are not included in "Britain and Ireland" is not at all a cogent objection to using "Britain and Ireland". But that "Britain and Ireland" is nonstandard is.) Herostratus (talk) 01:49, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Next time, you'd be better served by reading the text (and the fact that there's a lot should be an indicator that there are opposing views, but perhaps each view has some merit) rather than simply voicing your own opinion. Just a thought... --HighKing (talk) 15:29, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Include lesser used names in lede This is often done where articles have multiple possible titles: you co≤uld put like British Isles (also known as Britain and Ireland or Atlantic Archipelago). Munci (talk) 10:34, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

propose close

The normal arguments are being recycled by the normal editors. There is not going to be a resolution around the original proposal. We come back to the existing text, use of terms in reliable sources and the task force when there is a dispute. --Snowded TALK 20:45, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

In agreement. Also, the editor who opened this Rfc, seems to have lost interest in it. GoodDay (talk) 21:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Oppose. If you are not interest Snowded, just move along and get back to editing elsewhere. --LevenBoy (talk) 15:46, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Agree, please close. --HighKing (talk) 21:56, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
  1. ^ Freeman, Philip (2001). Ireland and the classical world. Austin, Texas: University of Texas Press. p. 65. ISBN 0-292-72518-3.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:British_Isles/Archive_38&oldid=1146387882"