Talk:British Isles

• Archive 1
• Archive 2

the following two archives contain information on the current debate

• Archive 3
• Archive 4

Note to all users

Note to all users - This is a talk page for the British Isles article. When using this page please remember Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. In paticular, a number of users have broken the following two guidelines on this page in the past; please make sure that you understand them:

• Talk pages are not for general chatter; please keep discussions on talk pages on the topic of how to improve the associated article.

• Talk pages are also not strictly a forum to argue different points of view about controversial issues. They are a forum to discuss how different points of view should be included in the article so that the end result is neutral

--Robdurbar 12:23, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Talk:British Isles/References

I've started this talk subpage, please add to it as you find relevant references.EricR 20:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Well done, Eric. Most informative and useful. I think the problem before was that neither side actually fully comprehended what the other's analysis was. Some British editors thought it was just a few extremist Nationalist cranks stirring up trouble, whereas some Irish editors thought some British editors were engaging in imperialist agenda-pushing. We weren't so much talking at each other as past each other. All sides now appear to grasp the genuineness of each other's analysis and for both sides, British and Irish alike, the editing experience here has been very much a learning experience.

At times it looked as though this was looking like Wikipedia at its worst. Instead it now looks at Wikipedia at its best, a genuine experience of cultures learning together about facts. There are times where Wikipedia leaves me wanting to pull out my (remaining) hair. On other times, Wikipedia strikes me as one of the greatest innovations I have ever had the pleasure of associating with. Seeing (as has happened on numerous other pages in my 4 years here) how Wikipedia has been the means for all of us to learn about each other and our perspectives on the issue British Isles, this is one of those many times where I am proud to say "I am a Wikipedian." FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

You have neglected us American editors who—though we misunderstand the issues completely—are still willing to tell you what to do to fix the problem 23:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, start now EricR, it's beyond redemption. Can a reader understand the article?????????-MelForbes 00:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Anglo-Celtic Isles

I have commented out the bits referring to the Anglo-Celtic isles. The reason for this is that the website seems to talk almost exclusively about Anglo-Celtic culture in England (and how that should replace the term "Anglo-Saxon" culture, and there are no verifiable sources for its use on this page or on Anglo-Celtic Isles. I am sure someone will come up with something and restore the commented bits. MAG1 23:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Someone will eventually need to find a source for this, as well as 'British and Irish Isles'. WP:NEO is pretty clear, we need a source which discusses the term, not one which uses the term. I don't doubt that something can be found—but right now both names are unverified.EricR 05:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The website linked said 'on the anglo-celtic isles' --82.63.152.130 06:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

If you are referring to the website www.anglo-celtic.org.uk then unfortunately that site actually only uses the term to refer to England. Not Wales, Scotland, Ireland or anywhere else, just England. Ben W Bell talk 06:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, but we now have a article which say anglo celtic isles in start but not in rest of article. I am confused? Is it used? --82.63.152.130 17:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I've taken out the bit at the beginning, it improves the sentance anyway (it was commented out, but reappeared with the technical problem). I am losing all confidence in the term- it does not appear to be used by anyone. I think it may be a neologism used by very few people, if anyone. (Dreadful, inaccurate, mishmash IMO anyway.) Some form of Britain and Ireland seems to be the only alternative term that really is used widely. MAG1 22:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

My view, to reiterate it again, is that the introduction is an executive summary and should have the alternative term 'Anglo-Celtic Isles' specified in it. The website discussed above is an inappropriate reference. It is certainly in use, though quite limited use (which will be fairly and properly made clear). It's the only true alternative collective term in use. 'Britain and Ireland' is really a shortening of 'the islands of...'. I'm donging 'Anglo-Celtic Isles' back in there. User: PConlon 19:05, 22 July 2006

I've reverted I am afraid. I am not trying to be confrontational, but at present there is no verifiable reference that it is a term used by anyone, and it is probably best to keep the verifiability, otherwise the article will be swamped by everyone's crackpot opinion, not least my own. Even if there are references, as it appears to be used very little, it is probably best kept in the main body of the article rather than the summary. I agree with you about Britain and Ireland, but despite the inaccuracy, it does appear to be the most common alternative (in book titles, for example).

P.S. Here is one reference[1]- a southern unionist song! Have to go now, otherwise I would be inclined to have put it in myself. MAG1 19:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to the British Isles

Somebody wanted (more?) evidence earlier that the expression "British Isles" is used to mean Britain and her islands and didn't include Ireland at all. Well, result No 2 (No 1 is this article) on a Google search of "British Isles" does just that: http://www.the-british-isles.com. British isles are those islands off Britain owned by Britain. Discussion over. Oíche mhaith agaibh go léir. El Gringo 00:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes. The problem with that page is that it, as has been mentioned before in this very discussion page, is that it obviously has been created by someone without proper knowledge of the meaning. If people get the meaning wrong we need to educate them as to its use, meaning and the implications, not simply change the terminology to suit. Unfortunately that website seems to be missing a contact email for us to get in touch with them about their errors. Ben W Bell talk 07:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

How come it is only those pages which disagree with your national narrative over in Britain which have "got it wrong"? What a very curious attitude for supposedly open-minded people to take. And let us never forget that British Isles reflects British political and cultural values. It is a product of your national myths and prejudices. It's easy to agree with yourselves. El Gringo 12:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

This has absolutely nothing to do with any national narrative of mine. If I were to bring my national and political predujuces (sp?) into this discussion then I wouldn't be maintaining a neutral point of view. And you have no idea what my political or national leanings or thoughts are, and you probably never will as they are irrelevant. I deal in evidence, and the evidence that I have seen, that I have researched and that I have come across shows overwhelmingly that British Isles as including Ireland is the most common usage in the world, and not just in English but in foreign languages as well. Yes there are some that have issues with the name, that has never been disputed. Yes there are some who outright find it offensive, still not disputed. However the fact remains that it is in very common usage and evidence has not as yet been presented to overrule that. There is evidence presented that there is confusion over usage of the term, there is evidence presented that some people plain don't like the term, none of these I have disagreed with and both of which I believe require some discussion and presentation on the article. However Wikipedia is based on verifiability of facts, not people's opinions. Oh and I don't believe I have ever edited or been involved in any way with the page Britain or Great Britain. It seems to me that by maintaining this accusatory tone against people that you are bringing your prejudices into this, not me or many of the other editors on this page who are trying to come up with an agreement on this page. Ben W Bell talk 13:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

This site also seems to use the term British Isles to mean England, Scotland and Wales, rather than Isles owned by Britain. Anyway Britain obviously owns Islands that are nowhere near and certainly not part of the British and Irish Isles. Alun 07:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that it is already established in the article using reliable sources that Brtish Isles has multiple meanings according to who is listening to the term, and don't need to resort to dodgily named websites. Declaring that your favourite definition is the only one does not help anyone. A scholar's life involves dealing with ambiguity and subtlety, not pushing single "truths". Perhaps you would like to contribute to the article- know anything about birds? At the moment in Wikipedia they (and most other wildlife) only seem to be present in Great Britain. MAG1 08:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

First, I would contend that if somebody created a website about the British Isles that included Ireland it would be infinitely more dodgy than one that merely included those islands off Britain which belong to Britain. Second, if I were to write about Irish wildlife I would naturally place it in the Ireland page, just as most if not all Irish people would do given the choice. That certain people expect an Irish person to place it in this article indicates that they themselves are not averse to pushing their own single "truth" (and, scarily, haven't heard a thing that the Irish posters have been saying). Third, if you read the Scholar's Life in question you'd quickly see he was what we would nowadays call a complete dosser. :-) El Gringo 12:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually you make a good point, the grography/geology/ecology info in this article is probably duplicated elsewhere, and would certainly fit into other articles. In one respect geographical regions are as artificial as political states. One could argue that the Ireland article is the more correct place for this sort of information as it is a discrete land mass. Alun 12:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Opening paragraph wrong (again)

Somewhere along the line the opening paragraph seems to have got screwed up again, probably by a well-meaning edit that made all the mistakes we had all moved away from, again.

Among the clangers were

• a statement that the that the name British Isles is most commonly used to refer to the archipelago (fact), followed by a falsehood, that some residents consider the name controversial. Firstly calling them residents implies residents of the British Isles and they reject that tag. So the use of the word residents is POV and loaded.
• It isn't simply that some people in Ireland consider the term "controversial". It is that they regard it as something that does not apply to them.
• Someone decided to shorten the names of the various UKs and in the process, as in the past, screwed them up. Ireland was never part of we mean when we now use the word United Kingdom. It was part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, a different entity with its own page on WP. So you have to give the actual name so the reader knows which of the United Kingdoms is being referred to. When talking about the two states, you have to use the name of the current United Kingdom to distinguish it from the other United Kingdom. Otherwise a reader would be confused and think that Ireland was part of the current United Kingdom, not its parent.

I've tweaked the opening to include accurate terminological usage and avoid any POV. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 10:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland was the same entity as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, save that there was a name change due to the former name having become inaccurate in 1922. Note that the older name continued to be used until 1927. Are you, then, saying that the UK became a new state in 1927? This seems like a ridiculous argument. The UK first lost territory, then changed its name because of said lost territory, but that does not make it a different state. john k 11:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

It is generally treated as a different state by political scientists and historians for complex constitutional, political and social reasons; from a different territory and the most radical change in the membership of parliament in one hundred and twenty years — disappearance of 100 Irish MPs from Westminster leading to greater Great Britishisation of parliament, etc) to a constitutional revolution in terms of the relationship between the UK and the dominions. (The 'new' UK in 1927 coincided with the change from 'dominions are subsets of the UK' concept to 'they are co-equal members of Commonwealth', a revolution in the relationship between the crown, dominion governments and HMG, and other complex changes. The new UK also coincidentially coincided with radical reforms in the party system (replacement of the Libs by Labour) and was not too far before the Wall Street Crash which impacted fundamentally on society. Just as historians see the end of the First World War as in effect the end of the nineteenth century (it reflected 19th century concepts of nationalism, empires, class, attitudes, etc, all of which died in the war and were replaced by 'nation states', 'self-determination', 'rule of the people', decline in the nobility, etc.) so they see the change in the UK's constitutional structures as being profound. And so they treat the 'new' UK and 'old UK' as separate (as they treat pre- and post-the Great Reform Act as different in a political sense) concepts. So it is normal to state which UK one is referring to, the pre-split UK, with its anglo-centric concept of the isles and the dominions, and its classical traditional party system and monarchy, and the post-split UK, with a different membership of parliament, commonwealth replacing empire, new party system, etc.

It is pretty elementary stuff. It is the same as how the modern Italian Republic is sometimes called the Second Republic because constitutional and electoral changes, and the collapse of the traditional big parties, amounted to such a massive change in how Italy is governed, its political stability, etc. It is a standard approach. The modern version of French Fifth Republic is sometimes called the 6th Republic or the 5th Republic Mark 2 because of the change in the system cohabitation. Technically the early years of Hitler occurred in the Weimar Republic but people regard the periods before and during Hitler's period in power as separate. It is a standard approach all over in political science. It is so elementary it is mentioned in University lectures, with words like the "former United Kingdom" and the "current United Kingdom" used automatically. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 13:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I must say I agree with Jtdirl on this one. As a scholar of the 1920s I can tell you that a lot of changes did take place in the governance of the UK in 1927 with the creation of the Commonwealth, the alteration of the King's title, and massive parliamentary shake-ups and rebalancing. It is generally accepted that while there is continuity of government and governance in this period that the transition was more than just a paper exercise and losing most of the island of Ireland. Fundamental alterations were made to the government and it is accepted in many historical circles that it isn't just a name change but is still less than a change of state. Referring to them fully when describing times before and after is quite commonplace and is the general usage. Ben W Bell talk 13:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It offers clarity. That is why a page on the UK of GB and I was created separate from the UK of GB and NI page. Maybe I expressed it badly. They weren't separate states as such. But there was more of a discontinuity than a continuity. The changes were so revolutionary in practice, some of them linked to the Irish divorce, others happening independently but it the same timeframe, that most historians and political scientists I know automatically use the full name, and then former United Kingdom and present United Kingdom to describe them subsequently. It was by no means a simple case of a name change. It was in some ways a period of constitutional, institutional and political revolution, so dramatic were some of the changes. (The Irish Free State, which was affected by them, went from having a King in Ireland to a King of Ireland, a fundamental constitutional difference that equated a co-equal realm of the King's, not a subset of the UK.) FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 13:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I see that references are creeping back into the introduction. I thought that most participants in the discussions above had agreed that they were best kept to the detailed commentary for the relevant subtopic. Moreover, the reference I refer to — Though the Irish Free State left the United Kingdom on 6 December 1922 the name of the United Kingdom was not changed to reflect that until April 1927, when Northern Ireland was substituted for Ireland in its name. — is more appropriate to the United Kingdom article than this one. --Bazza 16:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I also see that some subtle rewording of the introduction has been going on, but in all the excitement the grammar's getting sloppy and some right words are being wrongly changed. For example, "referred to as the British Isles" has become "described as the British Isles". The former is correct as this is the reference being used to label the islands; they aren't being described. In addition, it says that a state objects to the usage — without saying which one — when others not in that state also object; not well-written at all.

\To return to some constistent accuracy and improved readibility, I'm following precedent and doing some tidying up now. --Bazza 16:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

- sigh - Here we go again.

• The reason that footnote is in there, and staying in there, is because otherwise it looks like there is a factual error, giving that the lazy guys in Westminster took 5 years to update the name of the UK to reflect the reality in 1922. As a result it has to be explained to the reader that there is no error on Wikipedia's behalf in on the one hand in one article saying that Ireland left the UK in 1922, and elsewhere saying that the name of the UK was changed in 1927. Otherwise, as happens all the time all over WP we will have visitors constantly "correcting" the "error". It is standard when these things happen to avoid that in advance to put in a footnote so the facts are explained to them before they start "fixing" non-existent errors. It is not a case of references creeping back into the introduction. It is a footnote to explain an apparently confusing context.
• As everyone else on the page now seems to realise and accept, one of the two states in the area being referred to the British Isles insists that it isn't covered by the term. A host of links here, provided by Irish users, English users, Scottish users and Welsh users have shown that academics and others are also unhappy about using that name in the context of the relationships on the archipelago. That was clearly spelt out in a way that avoided suggesting who was right or wrong, just indicating that one of the states mentioned in the paragraph as being in the BI disputes the statement. You, again, deleted that and rewrote the paragraph to state as fact that the British Isles is an archipelago with 2 sovereign states, something as all sides now realise here is disputed and cannot be stated that way. Either the paragraph doesn't mention what is supposed to be on the British Isles, or it does and explains that there are disagreements. Having a paragraph that mispresents reality and states as fact things that are disputed, is not an option.
• The statement "And if we refer to one of the post-1922 states as what is now known as the Republic of Ireland then we should also refer to what is now known as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland for it also did not have that name for some time after 1922." is just ridiculous and suggests you are simply looking to offend people. We cannot say Ireland because only part of Ireland, not all of Ireland, left the UK in 1922. The name has changed numerous times. So it is logical to state "what is now known as the Republic of Ireland". That is what is done all over Wikipedia. The UK stuff is simply bullshit. It was covered in the footnote which you tried to delete. It is ridiculous to complain about a footnote and delete it, and then complain separately about a problem which you created by removing the footnote. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 01:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

BTW Mel. It is technically right that the Act of Union in reality was a takeover of Ireland by Great Britain. That was the realpolitik of the situation. However constitutionally it was a merger of two kingdoms. So we have to state it that way. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 01:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I was referring to Ireland in the context as a whole, minus "Northern Ireland". We don't refer to Syria as "Eastern Syria" just because a part in the west is under the control of another country. I was trying to convey a takeover, wasn't trying to be povish, but on reflection maybe it appeared that way, cheers! MelForbes 01:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

You (Jtdirl) can be quite patronising, dictatorial and insulting sometimes. You act as though information you put in the article is your personal property and respond at great length and with unwarranted ferocity at anyone who might dare to change it. You speak on others' behalf and quote your opinions and wishes as if they were gospel — footnote is in there, and staying in there and everyone else on the page now seems to realise and accept being two examples. You accuse me of being ridiculous and looking to offend: this I find insulting and offensive, possibly more so that you may find the term British Isles inaccurate. You are an admin, so you ought to know about assuming good faith. You may find, going back through the archive, that I have at least once attempted to bring some calm and thought to the discussion so that the authors of the article can achieve their aims, and that I have tried to do so as neutrally as possible. My only interest in this article is to try and help keep the introduction to a level and length which readers of all ages and abilities can cope with. You will notice that I make few, if any, comments or changes to the detailed discussion. The reference I deleted, documented above rather than deleted with no notice, was to keep the introduction neat and tidy. And it wasn't a deletion — you will have seen that it was only commented out: I assumed (wrongly) that there might be sensible discussion about why it ought to stay in (rather than the tirade above). Other than a wish for verifiable accuracy and fact, I have no PoV interest, although many here do, Jtdirl included. On which:

- The archipelago does indeed now contain two sovereign states. This is not disputed by anyone.

- One is called the Republic of Ireland, the other the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. If people want to say which are now called the RoI and UKGB&NI to emphasise that these are their current names then that's fine.

- The name is of the archipelago is disputed: the introduction summarises this and the main body goes into the subtopic in great and good detail.

- Information about the history and naming of each state can be found on their respective pages which are linked to. This article is about a group of islands.

As is my right as a registered Wikipedia user, I will continue to contribute to this discussion and occasionally edit this article's introduction to ensure it keeps to its purpose. I hope that people appreciate this when they agree with what I write; in turn, I appreciate civil and polite discussion when they think I have got something wrong. --Bazza 09:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The Faroe Islands are geologically part of the same archipelago too, maybe they should get some sort of mention. Don't think it's sovereign though, belongs to Denmark. Ireland is the name of the state, Republic of Ireland is the description of the state, as opposed to a monarchy etc. That is if we want to be exact on everything. -MelForbes 14:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Where do you find that they are geologically part of the archipelago? The islands we're discussing are a very old landmass, formed by tectonic action. The Faroes were formed from much younger volcanic basalts.EricR 15:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

It's an interesting thought, though. There must be some shared history, rampaging Vikings and the like ;-) --Bazza 15:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

There are many other islands in the ocean to the north of Britain which can be reached from the northern islands of Britain in a direct voyage of two days and nights with sails filled with a continuously favourable wind. A devout priest told me that in two summer days and the intervening night he sailed in a two-benched boat and landed on one of them. Some of these islands are very small; nearly all are separated from one another by narrow stretches of water. On these islands hermits sailing from our country Scotia have lived for nearly a hundred years. But just as they were always deserted from the beginning of the world, so now because of the northmen pirates they are emptied of anchorites and filled with countless sheep and a great variety of sea-fowls.

Dicuil, De Mensura Orbis Terrae, about 825.

Possibly traumatic for the Irish monks, but i think that's pretty much the extent of the rampage and shared history.EricR 16:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Had a rethink on that. Yea, it's in the same archipelago alright, but it belongs to Denmark. Like, how would the Danes take to the suggestion that it's British, don't think they'd be too pleased. Worth a thought though. Interesting text by Dicuil. -MelForbes 19:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I think there is a wrong picture being painted here. If you look at the original meaning of British Isles and British, they refer to the ancient Britons (which, ironically enough excluded the English, the Vikings &tc). Even when first used in English (1621, and in a work of historical geography), there was no such political identity as Great Britain, though the (scottish) king was trying to engineer such an identity. It might be argued that prior to 1621, the term was known only in non-English languages and somehow these have nothing to do with the English use, but I don't think that really holds water: the end of the 16th and beginning of the 17th century was also a time when English was increasingly used for learned discourse rather than Latin, printing became widely available, and accurate maps possible. At any rate, such an assertion would require positive evidence. There may have been some use of British Isles that implies political ownership of the islands by the British state (no doubt in Northern Ireland), but I think that it would be difficult to argue that such a use became widespread in the UK (either of them), let alone dominant. It is reasonable to argue that subsequent political events have made the term unacceptable to a significant number of people because of its possible modern implications; it is not reasonable to argue that somehow (the southern part of ?) Ireland seceded from the British Isles: there was never a political entity entitled the British Isles. Notwithstanding sloppy usage, British Isles either covers the entire archipelago, or it is not usable at all.

In addition, large numbers of people use British Isles in its original geographical sense (which accounts for much of the sloppy use IMHO). You may not like this (it is possible, of course, that I may not like it), but it is the case, and the job of an encylopaedia is to reflect the world, not prescribe how it should be. The flip side of this is that the terminology discussion is fully justified.

I don't think the Faroe islands can be called part of the archipelago: as EricR pointed out, they are basalt, and so formed by an isolated geological event; the image is fuzzy [2], but I think they are off the part of the continental shelf the rest of the islands occupy; they have a different climate, flora, and fauna; they don't appear on the old maps of the British Isles. Ironically enough, I think there may be many Faroe islanders who would welcome anything that distanced themselves from Denmark. MAG1 22:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

To confirm: I just checked an atlas and there's a trench of between 500m and 1000m depth between the Faroes and the British Isles (as compared to less than 200m depth of the continental shelf around the British Isles, including the North Sea and English Channel) ColinBell 00:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Totally agree with, the job of an encyclopaedia is to reflect the world, and all parts implicitly, which you also cover. Terms and words do evolve in their meanings over the centuries, but the Fareo Island example is not a bad analogy. About the basalt, the Giants Causeway and the Mull of Kintyre are formed from basalt too. Also Ireland belonged to 2 different continents in the very very distant past, Britain probably did too. Looks promising though. Extremely debatable! -[3]!-MelForbes 00:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The point is that the Faroes were formed by an isolated event and their presence is not directly integrated to the geology of the UK and Ireland- there is not a sheet of basalt connecting the British Isles to the Faroe Islands. Volcanoes happen all over the place. WRT the geology of the British Isles then read the section and look at the map. In overall structual terms, Ireland and Britain share the same geology. MAG1 08:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Redirect Britain to Great Britain

If I may be so bold as to invoke User talk:Ben W Bell's words above, 'If people get the meaning wrong we need to educate them' and ask you all to go over to the Britain page and vote for the redirect to Great Britain. El Gringo 12:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Have to think on this one, but I must say on first glance I almost agree. A merge would be best as there is info on one page that is not on the other. Britain should be merged into Great Britain and a redirect put in place. I think anyway. Ben W Bell talk 13:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

This should be discussed on the Britain or Great Britain articles, not here. --Bazza 16:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

One state on the archipelago disputes its inclusion

Is this the actual position of any of the editors here, or has the very first sentence slipped into an equivocal usage of the article title? That the name is disputed is well documented, that there is alternate usage of the term is as well; but refusing to be included in the term is a much different matter than refusing to be included in the archipelago. The article should take care not to imply the latter extraordinary claim unless someone can find a strong source to support it.EricR 05:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

As you point out, the insertion of "(one state on the archipelago disputes its inclusion)", apparently to get the issue into the first sentence in case readers go no further, produces ambiguity as well as an ugly sentence. To clarify matters I've changed the sentence to read "which is commonly though not universally known as the British Isles, despite issues arising when the term is used in relation to Ireland." Others may be able to find a better form of words. ..dave souza, talk 10:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Seems good to me, but I've split the paragraph just before the "Historically.." bit to separate out what's being talked about from its history. That's still four paragraphs as per the guidelines. --Bazza 10:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The one state on the archipelago disputes its inclusion was simply badly phrased. It meant 'disputes its inclusion in the term British Isles, not 'disputes its inclusion on the archipelago'. As Irish users have explained, Many Irish users dispute the statement that the name of the archipelago is the British Isles. They do not dispute that there is such a thing as the British Isles nor that there is an archipelago, just the equation of some people that they are one and the same. That is the issue. And many people outside Ireland, as has been shown by the various references produced by users on all sides here, now think that the use of the term British Isles rather tactless and dated, being (mis)understood internationally as meaning "the islands run/owned/part of Britain", with Ireland's inclusion then being misinterpreted as part of Britain, a really sore point with Irish people who were told that if they were from Ireland, and Ireland was part of the British Isles, then Ireland must be British. Until the 1970s internationally many people equated England with the UK and used the terms interchangeably, producing such nonsensense as writing that "Scotland is part of England" (a sentence I remember from a civics book I saw in a library which dated from the 1960s.) Today it is unthinkable to use such a term in any accurate context. (But curiously, when I came here first, I and a few others who joined in with me had such a fight to get Wikipedians to stop calling Her Majesty the "Queen of England". It was a battle that took months to get people to use the actual names of each kingdom, whether the Kingdom of England, Kingdom of Great Britain or the two United Kingdoms. Now people look back at the early articles on WP four years ago and cringe, thinking "did we as a serious encyclopaedia really have that shit on here?" FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 22:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

But she is queen of England! England is a place that she reigns over. This fact is unaffected by whatever titles she happens to use. TharkunColl 11:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

No. She is Queen in England. "Queen of England" is a constitutional title which has not existed since the 1707 Act of Union. Similarly she is Queen in Scotland, but not Queen of Scotland, because that title has not existed since 1707. And between 1801 and the 1920s, the monarch was king or queen in Ireland, not of Ireland. The title King of Ireland was only resurrected in constitutional law in 1927 and abolished in 1949. One can only be monarch of a state. England and Scotland, while still nations and countries, ceased to be states when they merged in the Act of Union in 1707. Ireland as the Irish Free State only became a legal state in 1922. However the concept of dominionism at the time saw dominions as in effect subsets of the United Kingdom, hence the primacy of UK law, and the fact that the UK parliament could legislate for its 'dependent children', the dominions. In 1927 dominions via a Commonwealth conference the previous year were given recognised statehood, including a direct relationship with their as opposed to Britain's monarch. As a result, though different dominions asserted their equality via the crown at different speeds, from 1927 the King became king of them, and not merely in them. So your claim that she is "Queen of England" is constitutional bunkum. The last "Queen of England" was Queen Anne up to 1707. Since then there have only been monarchs in, not of England. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 19:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The current introduction seems quite clear and accurate, and not too lengthy despite being about as long as is preferable for the introduction. I guess it will prove difficult to maintain though. Nothing for it but to keep the good work up. zoney ♣ talk 12:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, just checked in and I must say that we've come a remarkably long way with this! Good work. I see a need for two changes in Para 2 - neither fundamental I think, but primarily necessary for clarity and conciseness. I firstly replaced 'several different countries: the kingdoms of Scotland, England and Ireland, and the principality of Wales' with 'four distinct regions: England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales' (this is more sensitive too, particularly for the Welsh). I secondly changed 'most' to '26 of the 32 counties'. Any major issues with this - you know where to find me!:) Best regards, User: PConlon 11:24, 22 July 2006

You have changed/added, "though to some inhabitants this term is considered controversial". I see that as maybe politicizing the paragraph again. Bit of a nuance here, do people claim to inhabit the British Isles , or claim to inhabit their respective countries? Referring to the inhabitants of the BI is akin to the BI being a sovereign state in itself. Some are saying it's a geological term, and some claiming otherwise. I think it's going to confuse again. Addition of the word most to commonly may distract the reader. -MelForbes 11:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Suggest just "though some consider this term controversial". But "most commonly" (or an equivalent) is needed to indicate that this is the clear majority usage. Commonly might just be 30%. ColinBell 12:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

A minor issue is the use of "regions" - it would be more appropriate to say either "countries" or "nations", both of which are historically correct. Agree that it's not worth getting into the kingdom vs. principality issue. ...dave souza, talk 13:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me if used with the historical qualifier, otherwise could could see problems arise concerning NI. v ROI. -MelForbes 15:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi MelForbes, if you get the nuance that 'to some inhabitants this term is considered controversial' may be politicizing the paragraph again, I would say that it is a rather political issue!:) I know what you mean though - it can I suppose be read as implying that the 'British Isles' is a state of some kind. I don't like this 'issues' word though - sounds a little like 'special' in the American sense, if you know what I mean! I like ColinBell's 'though some consider this term controversial' as it's really all that's needed - I would highlight that some Welsh and Scots also dislike the term (though in rather smaller numbers compared to us Irish). I also accept ColinBell's 'most commonly' point (even though obviously I wish it weren't so!!!). On the 'countries/nations' point I agree with MelForbes - it's fine with the historical qualifier. As I particularly like rugby, I'm going to insert 'nations'! Finally in regard to quibbling, I'm inspired from on high to change 'left the United Kingdom' to 'ceased to be part of...', as I'm getting images of bits of islands floating about! User:PConlon 18:35, 22 July 2006

I should have added above that I'm tremendously relieved that the separate 'British Isles (Terminology)' article has been removed by whomever - it clearly now isn't necessary. That did have a lot of historical text in it which I assume is being incorporated into this article's history page by the person who told us that a reworking is coming...Dave Souza if I remember correctly. This I'm looking forward to and hope it's coming along well. Can we now take away the following line from the top of the article?: 'The term 'British Isles' can be confusing and may be objectionable to some people. See the Terminology section below for details of the controversy.'? I don't think its necessary, as the Introduction now gets the same message across well. Also, can we now remove the 'article merger' discussion things? Oh, another question (they keep coming!), can we keep footnotes out of the introduction section? - I see there's one there and don't think it's necessary. User: PConlon 18:48, 22 July 2006

I think the top line is necessary. Remember, here as elsewhere for every reader who reads the article, many more will have a 10 second glance and then shoot off somewhere else. That is the nature of encyclopaedias. British Isles is so controversial — a term practically of devotion to some, a term of detestation to others, to the majority either unoffensive (most British people) or annoying and creepy (most Irish people) — that you really do need at the very start to have something that says to people, before go apeshit and suddenly decide to stop at this page and totally change it, "look. we know this is a controversial topic. Before you start angrily ripping the guts out of the article, read the terminology section and give it a chance." That is what that line is. If it isn't there, people will jump in feet first editing at the begining not realising that the stuff they think is missing actually is already covered elsewhere outside the introduction. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 19:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, good point Jtdirl, fair enough. We've fought for the controversy to be highlighted already and don't need more of us barrelling in unnecessarily! I'm furious though at the lack of mention of 'Anglo-Celtic Isles'...there's some unfair censorship going on there which has to be corrected. The removal of the 'Anglo-Celtic Isles' page is totally unacceptable - I agree with the 'duplicating articles point' but a separate encyclopedic entry (i.e. article) is entirely appropriate, with link to 'British Isles' article. Let's get that back...do you agree with me here? User: PConlon 11:45, 23 July 2006

One more thing, someone keeps putting in 'In modern times' inplace of 'Historically'...please see MelForbes excellent point from above: 'Sounds good to me if used with the historical qualifier, otherwise could could see problems arise concerning NI. v ROI.' User:PConlon 11:59, 23 July 2006

Redirects from alternate names

I've redirected both British and Irish Isles and Anglo-Celtic Isles to this page. I think it is a misunderstanding of how Wikipedia is organized to think that we need three separate articles which discuss the same subject. A further problem is that neither term has so far met the verifiability requirements of WP:NEO.EricR 21:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Concur. Unless we can actually say something interesting about these terms individually (my guess is that with the possible exception of IONA, we can't), having these as seperate articles gives us inappropriate content forks at best and an opinionated, confusing morass of articles at worst. Shimgray | talk | 21:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, that didn't last very long. Maybe we could discuss here, rather than splitting the comments between the three articles—how can the inclusion of these articles be squared with the WP:NAME policy and WP:NEO guideline?EricR 21:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget Wikipedia:Content forking... Shimgray | talk | 21:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually unilaterally shutting down Wikipedia pages will not really achieve a purpose, whatever that purpose might be. Where have you guys been this last week, on Mars?, not see that there is a vote in progress? Relax, wait for the result! Then we will all abide, hopefully.:-) MelForbes 21:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

If you are waiting for some finally tally to occur, i don't think that's going to happen. The above is a discussion, not a vote. If you are of the opinion that five days is not long enough to settle the issue that's certainly a valid position, but those who wish to keep the articles need to engage in some discussion. A number of objections have been raised based on policy and guidelines, i think those opposed to the mergers ought to try and address those objection—not simply wait for more "votes".EricR 22:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Look, I'm a democrat, so no sweat. Honestly, I do not know what the normal timeframe for the voting is supposed to be, so if someone can enlighten, that would be just fine. Thanks!MelForbes 23:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

There isn't a strictly held timeframe, in my experience. "Five days or a couple of days after activity has died" is a good rule of thumb for closing discussions in general, though; in this case, discussion stalled on the 18th, following which there were four comments today all concurring on merging into here, which seems a reasonably good indicator of the discussion having stabilised in one direction Shimgray | talk | 23:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Just did a search for British and Irish Isles (BII) on the British Isles page and the result is negative. So that says to me that the term BII is not being addressed by Wikipedia. Looks bad for a world encyclopedia. This situation does require some thought though. -MelForbes 23:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

What on earth does the phrase "redirects from alternate names" mean? TharkunColl 07:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary.MAG1 08:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

EricR and Shimgray, I'm not at all happy at the lack of mention of 'Anglo-Celtic Isles' and object in the strongest possible terms...there's some unfair censorship going on here which has to be corrected. The removal of the 'Anglo-Celtic Isles' page is totally, completely unacceptable - I agree with the 'duplicating articles point' but a separate encyclopedic entry (i.e. article) is entirely appropriate, with a link to the 'British Isles' article. User: PConlon 11:49, 23 July 2006

If these terms can be verified to exist, then we certainly should have them in the "alternative terms" section in the same way we have IONA or "the West European Isles"... so go and find a citation and add them (I thought they were still there...) rather than fussing about "unfair censorship". Shimgray | talk | 11:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Yup, totally agree. If the terms are being used, which they surely are, then they should receive coverage and mention. But the reader has to be no.1 here, and neither should they be hidden away in some obscure and hard to find part of the encyclopedia. Remember, it's all about the reader. MelForbes 11:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Anglo-Celtic Isles is in there but commented out (presumably due to issues with the sources) - the cite given on the seperate page was

Harvey, David C.; Rhys Jones, Neil Mcinroy, Christine Milligan (2001). Celtic Geographies: Old Culture, New Times. New York: Routledge, p. 241.

I would advise checking that source and working on the comment currently in place; there's no equivalent for B&II, but then again there was no cited source on British and Irish Isles. Davies has a preface discussing his choice of name, and is a good accepted source - does he discuss other alternate names in there? My copy's not here just now... Shimgray | talk | 11:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

There's not much point to looking for further discussion in that particular source, the provided quote using "little-i-isles" is all there is. As for British and Irish Isles, we've got three published sources found so far using it as a proper name, one calling it a "geographic entitiy".EricR 15:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• Qu'est-ce que Voila_Anglo-Celtic Isles

Solomon's Cut

The article is well paced, up to the terminology section. Refer the terminology to a main article, and cut the political history section altogether (leaving links to comprehensive articles).--Shtove 01:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Very common Gaelic mistake

PConlon, you have stated that, "The majority population of Britain (i.e. most English people, who are by far the largest population group on the island) are of Anglo-Saxon/Norman rather than Celtic origin...very different cultural groups." However, recent research into this very subject apparently suggests that the majority of the English population was, and still is, Celtic in origin. When the Angles, Saxons, Jutes, et al, arrived they did so in relatively small numbers, and did not displace the population - they controlled it.

The Normans arrived later than that still. How much impact did the Romans have? Quite a lot.

What the Celts of several billion years ago(!) have to do with our generic and, in a very real sense, shared modern culture in 2006 anyway though, is anybody's guess! How much impact did the Romans have on the rest of the British Isles, including Ireland? Quite a lot. How much impact does modern American culture have in the British Isles today? Quite a lot.

You go on to say, "This majority population in Britain did unquestionably dominate the island group is every sense for centuries, during which time they (naturally I suppose) started using the English term 'British Isles' to describe the whole area they dominated - IT IS A PRIMARILY POLITICAL TERM."

However, it was not an "English term" to begin with. If anything, it was probably Celtic in origin.. certainly it was used by the Greeks and the Romans. The term was a description of the PEOPLE of the islands. It was a corruption (read: translation) of the name the people of these islands apparently used to refer to themselves. At that time there was no Protestantism, no Potato Famine, no Cromwell, no Home Rule Bills, no Bloody Sunday, no Darkley and no Omagh.

Your apples and oranges analogy is flawed. A more correct analogy would be that both apples and oranges are fruits.

The "norther-eastern corner" of Ireland does not need singles quotation marks around it - Northern Ireland is a reality - not a neologism. Nor are the problems in Northern Ireland merely some kind of "forced mixing" of "two very distinct cultures". Perhaps you weren't aware that Presbyterians spoke Gaelic. The problems were really started as a result of a culmination of religious wars throughout Europe, the fact that Ireland hadn't solidified as a single unified country, and the introduction of laws designed to prevent the possibility of further war breaking out in that particular region of Europe.

Now this is where you manage to confuse yourself: "I and most of my fellow Irish contributors are citizens of the Irish Republic and are in reality no more British than the Danes." Citizens of the Repubic of Ireland are Irish given that that is the national description, or nationality. Citizens of the United Kingdom are British given that that is the nationality of that country. You are confusing nationality with ethnicity.

Thank you for your genuine attempt to explain yourself, but you have only served to show that many, many Irish nationals (and nationalists), while not intentionally showing any hostility towards us Irish, totally misunderstand where we've come from, what we are and what we aspire to in the future.

"To my Irish colleagues specifically...we all have been doing and continue to do a tremendous job fighting to have our identity clearly and properly presented here." I don't know what that has to do with presenting facts in an encyclopedia. However, I suppose that there are indeed those - particularly amongst ourselves - who attempt to present point of view as fact. --Mal 10:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Beware, User Mal loves a good row. Just thought to let you know, sleep!!-86.42.158.200 11:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughts Mal. ;O) User: PConlon 13:19, 24 July 2006

I think all those points have already been rehearsed above. The weekend newspapers were full of this new research that the English are German (post World Cup wave of The Krauts aren't so bad after all) following 15 generations of apartheir policy following the 5thC invasions. But when you read them, the articles say that English genetic make-up is 54% Saxon origin. My understanding is that south of the Thames indigenous genes are dominant, with Saxon genes dominant to the north, as far as the Tweed. Why do we care? Auf wiedersen.--Shtove 16:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

You are quite right, and remember they are only measuring the male Y chromosome, if the Anglo-Saxons didn't bring many women with them (and so mainly had children with indigenous women), then the 54% figure is effectively cut in half (and the range is 24.4%-72.5% depending on the region of England, for some reason these figures are median figures rather than the arithmetic mean, the distribution is very heterogeneous for these markers and cannot distinguish between Anglo-Saxon and Danish-Viking Y chromosome markers, so it's likely that the estimate for Anglo-Saxon origin is an over estimate, some people must be descended from Guthrum's men!!). Beware journalists seeking a good story, it's false authority. Alun 18:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Four Nations in the present tense

On user talk:Red King, an IP left this cryptic message: Hey, you have unbalanced the paragraph in the British Isles page. Have you not being reading talk! The paragraph deals with the history, not 2006. -86.42.134.177 19:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC) Since he doesn't have a talk page, can he explain here since I certainly have been reading the talk page. --Red King 19:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC). Or is he thinking of Two Nations Theory (Ireland) perhaps? --Red King 19:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that there are only four nations in the British Isles. England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales. Northern Ireland is an artificial state that should never have happened. TharkunColl 23:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

All states are artifical. Saying Northern Ireland should never have happened doesn't erase the fact that it did and it is strictly a separate political entity within the UK. Whether it is a country or full state on it's own is definitely open to debate among the entire world, but it's still there and has to be accounted for whether it's wanted or not. Ben W Bell talk 07:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I guess, that's why the word historically was used.-MelForbes 12:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Not only that but you're opening a debate as to whether England, Scotland and Wales are separate nations or are part of one nation, the UK, which is a bit of a live issue at present. ColinBell 14:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Please understand the difference between a nation, a state and a country. A nation is a group of people, it is not a political entity, and it does not necessarily need to have a geographical boundary (it is a bit like an ethnic group, the Kurds are a nation, as are the Palestinians, these people are sometimes refered to as stateless nations, see List of active autonomist and secessionist movements). There are four nations in the British and Irish Isles, the English, the Irish, the Scots and the Welsh. There are two states in the archipelago, the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom. The word country is sometimes used to refer to a state, and sometimes used to refer to the geographical territory a nation lives in, so it means different things in different contexts, so the UK and the Republic of Ireland are countries, but so are England, Scotland and Wales. If Wales were to become independent at any point then it would be a nation-state. Northern Ireland is neither a country, nor do it's population identify as a single nation. States are legal entities and are therefore artificial. One could argue that nations are racial or ethnic entities, one could also argue on one level that these are artificial, though they do not feel artificial, people feel a real affinity for members of their own nation due to a shared sense of common identity that they do not feel for people outside of their nation. Alun 17:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Alun is correct. The word "nationality" doesn't help, since that relates to statehood. Lots of HMG documents refer to "the English Regions and the other UK nations". so it is a valid use. The NI case is a "statistical anomaly". --Red King 17:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm perfectly aware of the distinctions. But your "four nation" division is certainly not universally agreed. In England currently there's a real tension between thinking of ourselves as English and as British - this is hardly surprising given we've been politically united to the rest of the UK for centuries, and share considerable cultural heritage, history and blood. (Personally, although born and bred in England, my father's family are all Scottish, so I'm reluctant to identify myself as English as it would deny a chunk of my heritage.) In Scotland and Wales, the concensus is different, of course - but this is at least to some extent only a phenomenon of the last 30/50 years. And of course for the NI Unionists, their nation is definitely the UK. Given all this, I would be very wary of making any categorical statement of whether there are two nations or four. (I'm discounting the HMG documents as evidence given "Nation" presumably has a specific technical legal meaning.) ColinBell 23:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

There's a great Irish song that might help the English with this problem - A Nation Once Again. I prefer the European version.--Shtove 16:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The UK is not a nation, and can never be a nation, it is a state. Some people may describe themselves as British, which is perfectly acceptable, but people who describe themselves as British are also usually English or Welsh or Scots or Irish [4] (this is not always the case for people from ethnic minoroties). At best you might argue that there are five nations (including British), but I think it is more accurate to think of British as more of a supra - ethnic but closely related group rather than a nation. Ethnic identity is not an either/or situation, one can be British and Welsh, British and English etc. I think NI Unionists usually identify as British, English, Irish or Ulster Scots ethnically, but I think (and I may be wrong here) that people living in NI can have British and/or Republic of Ireland citizenship. British citizenship is really UK citizenship and is based on British nationality law and is not the same as ethnic/national identity. Alun 03:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I just stumbled upon your post in the Fresh Start (cont) section where you asked to be described as British (and not English or Welsh), and am struggling to reconcile it with what you have just said above, since it seems to me a strong argument that the UK (or Britain) can be treated as a nation. We also need to take into account historical trends: Scottish national feeling was not nearly as strong in (say) the first half of the 20th century as it is today, and through that period, I'd argue that treating the UK as their nation rather than Scotland would make more sense. (Leaving aside the complications of the Irish Question...) ColinBell 10:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I never asked to be called British, I said that I accept being British, I identify as British, but I am Welsh. One can have more than a single identity. In some ways British people can be considered a nation, I don't think there are any hard and fast rules, but I still contend that most people who identify as British also identify as Welsh or English or Scots or Irish (or even various combinations of these things), it's about how one identifies themselves and people are not always easily pigeonholed. So my argument is that four nations and two states is acceptable because I think it would be hard to argue that British people are not also at least one of the four. Alun 12:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

And please beware of the ethnic bit: while English may be an ethnic identity with incomers relegated to being "British", there are plenty of, say, Pakistani Scots who identify with this nation. Not to mention Scots Italians and Irish. ....dave souza, talk 11:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I never said that either, I said it's not always the case, not it's never the case. People are free to identify themselves as they wish. Alun 12:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Four nations is convenient, if only for rugby. There is also a "British nation", a term used today on BBC4, providing an overlapping identity that some are happy to use but which others reject. While many in NI identify themselves as British, the same people will often also consider themselves Irish. And, if memory serves me well, will come under that nation for rugby purposes. The Orcadians can be ambivalent about Scottish nationality, and it would be interesting to know what nation those inhabiting the Isle of Man identify with. Legally, British nationality law appears to have definitions that seem odd to us mere inhabitants. However such subtleties should not be gone into in the intro. ..dave souza, talk 00:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I would be interested in a view from the Isle of Man too. I remember being on a marine biology course there when another participant received a letter addressed to "Port Erin, Isle of Man, Lancashire, England". It was delivered! Rhion 11:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I cannot conceive of any English person who would object to being called British, and the English tend to use the terms "English" and "British" interchangeably - a tendency that has been criticised by the other nations of the UK, but in many contexts is perfectly accurate. For example, I could just as easily say "I am English" or "I am British", and both would be correct. For the English at least, we are clearly not talking about two distinct nationalities or ethnicities - we are not English and also British. Such would be an absurd view. All the British institutions - parliament, monarchy, state, law, culture also happen to be the English ones as well. The conclusion must be that when an English person uses the term, the two words - English and British - mean precisely the same thing. TharkunColl 16:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The two words English and British are not synonyms at all. I am British and also Welsh, I am definitely not English. parliament, monarchy, state, law are not English, the Parliament is of the UK, not of England (there are Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish MPs, or hadn't you noticed?), Law varies regionally, but is generally of the UK (I acknowledge the differences in Scotland, but the UK Parliament makes law there as well), the state is the UK not England (there is no English army, and there are no English Embasies), and the monarchy (though I detest their existence) is still a UK monarchy, why else are we a United Kingdom, if you were correct then the queen would not be queen of Wales or Scotland, which she obviously is. There are English people who do not identify with being British, just as there are Welsh and Scots and Northern Irish people, that is their prerogative, because you cannot conceive of any English person who would object to being called British does not make it true. In 2003 about 17% of the English population described themselves as English not British, nearly one in five. See the above citation in one of my posts. Alun 18:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

My point was not so much that the terms English and British are synonymous, because that is clearly not true, but rather that when the terms are used in normal conversation by most English people, they do not necessarily draw a distinction. For example, "my nationality is English" and "my nationality is British" are phrases that do not carry two distinct meanings when said by most English people. As for your other points, about their being no English army, embassies, law, parliament etc., the fact is that all of those institutions are staffed primarily by English people, so your contention is at best arguable and at worst simply false. The capital of England is the capital of the UK. The current UK parliament meets in the same place and is a direct continuation of the English parliament, as are all the great officers of state, plus the monarchy. The British state is a direct continuation of the English state. Whilst it is clear that for the inhabitants of Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland the term British refers to an entity that is higher and larger in administrative terms than their own countries, for the English this is not the case. TharkunColl 10:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

As for your other points, about their being no English army, embassies, law, parliament etc., the fact is that all of those institutions are staffed primarily by English people, so your contention is at best arguable and at worst simply false. What a lot of contrived nonsense. English people comprise the largest ethinic group in the UK, so their representation in state run institutions is obviously larger, how does this make the institution English? By your reasoning the UK is England, because it is mainly made up of English people. By your reasoning I am English, which I obviously am not. Oh, and by this reasoning the British Empire was really the Indian Empire, as there were certainly mor Indians in it than anyone else. You appear to be clutching at straws. Alun 14:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

If that's what you choose to believe... I've now removed the word "nation" from the article which seemed the simplest way to resolve this. ColinBell 13:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

"Historically the archipelago has contained four nations: England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales". I believe that the bold above, (from a previous edit), rather than the present "The archipelago contains England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales" is much more preferable. It recognizes that all of the different countries were/are nations, which should make it comfortable for a nationalist view too. It doesn't muddy any waters for the reader, and if interested will read further for more explanations. MelForbes 14:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, had I remembered that wording had been out there I'd have used it instead (before a more extensive rewrite proposed below) although I'm wary of using the term as it's something of an oversimplification. ColinBell 15:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

controversial in Ireland

No it's not, it is just not used... Owwmykneecap 00:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Exaclty. Avoiding its use or using it in alternative ways is a way of reacting to a term considred controversial. --Robdurbar 10:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

thats like saying English people who dont use the term "the glorious and sexy republic of ireland and Achill" are being controversial.....they are not, thats not a phrase used....Well anywhere.... Point is there is No Controversy in Ireland over the Phrase to sday there is is a misrepresentation Owwmykneecap 20:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Progress/Lack of Progress/Relevance of Talk

It seems that, yet again, this talk page is being allowed to fall into discussions of the relevance of various names and irrlevant discussion of self-identifying terms (it makes no difference whether an Englishperson calls him/herself European/British/English/Cumbrian/Barrowvian or Marshian - its not going to help us decide how to present any of the issues in this page.)

Indeed, if we compare the two areas of controversy - the terminology and the intro sections from a while ago (chosing my version of July 11th, when the unverified tag was removed and the version of end 26th July), there is acutally little difference, other than in syntax and ordering [5]. The intro, for example, contains and contained 4 paragraphs (though in the July 11th version one had been briefly commented out, for some reason): one describing the archipalego, one detailing its geography/geology/climate, one on the sovereign states and dependencies in the isles and one on the use of 'British Isles', particulaarly focused on the use of the adjective British.

I would argue, then, that this represents a consensus. If we have been editing and re-editing with so much discussion for so long and baisically changed nothing, then I think that we should be looking to accpet that the intro now deals with the issue pretty much as well as it can. Of course we all have our own opinions, and own preferred syntax/rewording; but these are minor issues which we could debate for ever and never find a 'right answer'. Doing so just allows the few extremists who float around this page occaisionally to insert their own POV and inaccuracies into the article, confusing everything and leaving an aritcle that is regularly messy.

As for the terminology section; this has been more seriously overhauled. However, much of what is said is still the same. I would aruge that the only major additions are those bits which come just before the 'alternative terms' sub-section. If these are accepted by most editors, then I think we can see that a consensus is developing there too.

--Robdurbar 10:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I consent that we leave it as it is. The debate now has boiled down to very fine usages of detail that doesn't change the overall tone. It needs to be stressed though that this is a Wikipedia consensus as some users (not necessarily ones who have contributed to this page, though one has) has been seen to be removing usages of British Isles from articles where they don't personally agree with it. Ben W Bell talk 10:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Coining of IONA (inconsistency)

The page makes claims that both Dennis Canavan (in Attitudes in Ireland) and Sir John Biggs-Davison (in Alternative Terms) originated this phrase. ColinBell 13:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

AFAIK Biggs-Davison has always been credited with the term. I saw him interviewed on I think it was The Late Late Show explaining why he coined the term. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 20:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The UUP had long been interested in such an overarching Council of the British Isles and it had also been an idea that inspired British Conservatives like Sir John Biggs-Davison who had earlier coined the acronym IONA, Isles of the North Atlantic, for a similar vision.

Maybe there is some confusion over applying the acronym to the council versus applying the name to the archipelago? Or confusing Isles and Islands? Also, if things weren't unclear already, just found another usage of Iona by Charles Haughey: "a federation of the 'Islands of the North Atlantic', comprising the independent republics of England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland."EricR 21:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I've updated the references page with some sources for IONA. I was unable to access all the references listed on Islands of the North Atlantic, but what i found seems to conflict with the text of our articles. Do you know of any other sources available?EricR 16:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

"Nations"

The introduction now is deliberately unclear to avoid disputes or misunderstanding about the word "nation". This has caused two problems: it's current wording The archipelago contains England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales seems clumsy and is inaccurate — the archipelago doesn't really contain them, more it's politically divided into them, and it misses out IoM; and making an article deliberately "fuzzy" goes against the grain of an encyclopedia. The reference to the four entities is strange anyway as it mentions three constituent countries and one island. I'm stuck for a more precise and inclusive alternative, though — any suggestions? --Bazza 13:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, why not just mention the two sovereign states and leave constituent countries, crown dependencies, counties and partition to the geography and history sections?EricR 14:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I made that change and I agree it looks clumsy. The problem is that we want to refer to the politics without talking about them in depth. How would people like the following more radical change?

Reverse order of paragraphs 2 and 3 (to put the political together).

Paragraph 2 (old paragraph 3):

Remove last sentence. Not about physical geography, simplistic and potentially controversial.

Paragraph 3 (old paragraph 2) to:

At present the archipelago includes two sovereign states: the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland), along with the Isle of Man, a crown dependency of the United Kingdom. Both states are members of the European Union. The islands have had a complex political history (see History). As a result, terminology pertaining to the islands and its constituent parts can often be used in ways which are confusing, ambiguous or cause potential offense. (See British Isles (terminology) - possibly other relevant pages (Britain).)

Paragraph 4 to:

In particular, as the adjective "British" usually means "of the United Kingdom", the term "British Isles" can cause objection, particularly in Ireland, as the term is often interpreted to imply that the Republic of Ireland is part of the United Kingdom. Insert (The two were united as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland from 1801-1922.) ... and then rest of the paragraph as it stands.

This I think reflects the key issue (the relationship of Ireland and the UK), while pointing to places where more specific information can be had.

Possible problems:

1. "a complex political history". Perhaps "complex political histories" would be better, but that seems to imply one history per island. I think there's a better wording out there somewhere.

2. We are now referring to England, Scotland and Wales in para 2 but not "defining" them until para 3.

ColinBell 14:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Good of you to have put so much thoughto to this, but a glance upwards through this discussion page might dissuade you from making such a large change — there are some contributors who take this very seriously indeed and will challenge the slightest hint of a PoV. I'm tempted to agree with EricR's suggestion to remove the reference to I,S,W and E and leave it at two sovereign states — the main body of this article, and links to their own pages, describe their respective organisation. --Bazza 15:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

It's as NPOV as I can manage, and removes several items of dispute which aren't, I think, really necessary to have at all. I leave to the community to see if they consider it helpful. ColinBell 15:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I would just remove mention of them. Leave their discription for elsewhere. --Robdurbar 16:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

No one can argue that there are not two states, what is the constitutional status of Man? Alun 16:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

It is actually POV to name the state of Ireland by it's political description in the 1949 Act. United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland quite properly does get its proper legal title. MelForbes 17:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

IoM is a crown dependency; the name we give to Ireland/RoI/Eire/The 26 Counties should be the clearest term, and a well used one - given the many caveats already in the article, I think sticking to RoI is the best thing to do here. Indeed, Names of the Irish state tells us that 'The Republic of Ireland is generally used in any context in which it is necessary to distinguish between the state and the island of Ireland' --Robdurbar 17:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Calling the sovereign state of Ireland by the term the Republic of Ireland is more of a 'British' thing, that's to be honest and frank about it. May be wrong here in this example, but a bit like continually referring to Wales as the "Principality of Wales", not a lot of Welsh people would like that. I still believe it is very very povish, and very very British. MelForbes 18:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Personally I believe you have to mention the nations. They predate the modern states and have a strong lineage, sense of identity and nationalist pride. Simply referring to the modern-day states would be seen by many people in those states are marginalising them and potentially offensive. Millions of people on the island of Great Britain define themselves as much Welsh, Scottish or English as they do British. Indeed many feel a greater affinity with the nations than the states. The archipelago consists of three types of members: 2 states, 4 nations (plus Northern Ireland which falls between all the stools as it isn't a state, nor a nation, and has two communities who feel attachments or one or other states), and smaller islands which have a cultural existene but not a nationhood or statehood. IMHO it would be as unthinkable to leave England, Scotland and Wales out as it would be to leave Ireland or the United Kingdom out of the opening paragraph. Apart from anything else the four nations (England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland) have existed for far longer on the archipelago (arguably in some senses over a millennium or more) than either of the states, one of which is only two centuries old, and one only eighty years. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 20:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)\

My challenege then is how to do this without a. sounding clumsy and b. causing confusion for those who do not know the current situation. The lead should be clear and concise - so try telling people in a quick, one sentence, that there are four nations on the archipalego, plus the IoM, but two states, one of which has the same name but does not cover the same area as one of the nations. This is why there is a terminology page and this is why RoI is the best way to deal with it. I'm not against the mentioning of the four nations per se but disagree that they are anymore legitimate than the states and I'm not convinced that there is a concise and clear way of including them. --Robdurbar 21:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

By the way, this could possibly be solved by having a 'current political make up' section. This could also describe the policies of various parties and groups on what the political make up ought to be - from those groups who think that Northern Ireland should merge into Ireland to those who think that the two states should be merged together as one. Just a thought, would add a couple of paragrpahs to the article. --Robdurbar 21:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

"Historically the archipelago has contained four nations: England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales". I believe this to be one of the better edits for the opening second paragraph, as it would encompass all points of view. MelForbes 22:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I think there are two main problems with this sentance. The first is the use of the word nation, which in my dictionary (Concise OED) means A large number of people of mainly common descent, language, history, etc., usu. inhabiting a territory bounded by defined limits and forming a society under one government. You don't have to think very hard or to read many books to see the difficulties in applying these concepts to the British Isles. The second problem is that nationalism is a relatively young idea. The nation state is pretty much a 19th century concept (originally pushed by the British government, ironically enough) that really only became dominant after the First World War and the idea of political nationalism can be argued to have become important in early modern times. As the adjective British dates from the Roman occupation, these are not particularly historic ideas. My opinion is that it would be best to stick to current political realities (i.e. six bits including IoM), as this will not be open to interpretation. MAG1 23:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Good points there. But really, should we be letting some old Romans scribblings decide as to the modern interpretation of the British Isles. Or should we be deferring to 19th century thinking on the nationalism of the various parts. A nation would not necessarily need self government to be valid. Try telling the Welsh or the Scottish people that their countries are not nations, guess they wouldn't agree. MelForbes 23:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Interesting point. Modern terminology is always difficult, particularly as some people insist that Scotland is a nation, others a country, others a region, and each side is likely to delete the other's viewpoint.

I think it is vital to mention Scotland, Wales and England up front. The reason is simple. From 4 years experience I have a reasonably good nose for issues likely to provoke edit wars. Mentioning the UK and the ROI but not Scotland, Wales and England would infuriate nationalists in those countries/nations/regions. Whether tomorrow, next week or next month, a massive edit war is likely to erupt on the issue.

From experience I've found that the way to avoid controversy over modern terms is to use historically agreed terms. Yet it does mean the opening is a bit longer than normal, but then openings of controversial articles by necessity often are longer at the start to allow careful language to diffuse 'dangerous' topics. That is why I deliberately wrote about how the archipelago consists of 2 states, the ROI and the UK, the latter formed though a series of mergers of the Kingdoms of England, Scotland and the Principality of Wales. Yet it was longer that way, but it dodged the issue of what do we call those places now. It is a trick I've learnt in my four years here. The mention of the places (see, I'm avoiding saying what they actually are! lol) gets in, so the Scots, the Welsh and the English see their places mentioned. But it is in a form that there is no dispute over, as they were the formal names and descriptions. Plus doing it that way disarms (if you'll pardon the expression in the circumstances) the Northern Irish. They could claim to be a region. Some even claim to be a nation. But they can hardly demand inclusion in a list of singular kingdoms and principalities. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

A cunning plan. I think I preferred your plan A rather than historical nations- nation is an abused word nowadays that is rapidly losing meaning. The alternative would be a bald description of current political geography, that is six legal entities (England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland Republic of Ireland, Isle of Man). MAG1 18:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Well someone try it in the article - the worst that can happen is it would be reverted; the best is that it might make it more informative. --Robdurbar 15:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Terminology

As part of the work needed on the Terminology section, a citation is still requested for the assertion that "In Northern Ireland its use can be seen as sectarian": for convenience I've copied the comment below from the archives: presumably this could be developed into a suitable reference? ..dave souza, talk 18:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I just ran across a possibly useful reference while looking for a cite for the Nancy Reagan gaffe:

"A further and much more effective unionist tactic in countering the nationalist insistence on the territorial integrity of the island of Ireland was to change the geographical frame of reference to that of the whole archipelago of the British Isles."

"...nationalist opinion remains sensitive to the potential of the British Isles map image, and that is reflected in nationalist rejection of the very description 'British Isles'. Nationalists use the awkward and ambiguous description 'these islands' as an alternative. However, outside the British Isles, or these islands, if preferred, the term British Isles remains quite commonly used."

"...a satellite television station broadcasting to Ireland was prevailed on to drop the description British Isles from its weather forecasts."

Guelke, Adrian (2001). "Northern Ireland and Island Status". In John Mcgarry ed. (ed.). Northern Ireland and the Divided World: The Northern Ireland Conflict and the Good Friday Agreement in Comparative Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. p. 231. {{cite book}}: |editor= has generic name (help); |pages= has extra text (help)

The author is quite clear as to the term refering to an archipelago, and goes so far as to discuss secession and perceptions of legitimacy re: contiental, island and archipelago states. The reference identifies the controversy yet places the dispute between nationalists and unionists. As this is so far the only reference documenting the extent of the dispute, should this be reflected in the article text?EricR 19:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The author uses nationalist and unionist throughout, i think we would be going out on a limb a bit to infer sectarian.EricR 21:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Good point: it's a bit easy to automatically infer such things in a national context where pretending to play the flute is all across the newspapers as "sectarian". It would make more sense to change the sentence to read ""In Northern Ireland nationalists reject the description British Isles, whereas unionists, when countering nationalist insistence on the territorial integrity of the island of Ireland, change the geographical frame of reference to that of the whole archipelago of the British Isles." The terms nationalists and unionists to be linked to the appropriate pages. This would get over the point of different use in the NI communities without getting into whether or not it was sectarian. ...dave souza, talk 22:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I am afraid I put that in in deference to Jtdirl, who I thought firmly asserted it at some point; I could have been wrong, in which case he is the man to approach to deny it (then please take it out), or alternatively he may be able to provide a decent reference. MAG1 23:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

It's a point that needs to be covered and made clear throughout that section: later on "Ireland" is used to mean the RoI, when evidence presented earlier shows that the term isn't avoided as much in NI and this confusing usage muddles the issue. ..dave souza, talk 00:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Meaning of British

It is my belief that the first couple of sentences of the the bit in the intro that disucsses the meaning of British has been incorrectly changed of late. The issue is that British means 'of the United Kingdom', not that it means 'of Great Britain'. Furhtermore, the historical meanings and developmetn of it e.g the anglo-saxon chronicles bit, is irrelevant to the intro. The 'of the United Kingdom' part has been the intro right through this debate, pretty much. I recently noted above that this appeared to be consensus and no users objected. I will not revert this however, if other users think that I'm wrong. --Robdurbar 14:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Agree, and I've modified it to be more neutral and make more sense of the rest of the sentence. Dunno what the main OED says, but my concise version gives different OE spellings and points to earlier sources. When it applied to Ireland is a bit complex, but my investigations so far indicate that it has been used for that at times. As for meanings of Britishness in Ireland, this link is interesting. ..dave souza, talk 21:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted it again. The point of the terminology debate is that in Great Britain, the term British Isles is geographic and non-political while it Ireland it is political and imperial. The reason for this is because of two of the meanings of British. The first is the name given to the pre-Roman inhabitants of Britain (at least) from either the Latin and/or the Old Celtic, which was first used in Englishin the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, used in the first maps (in Latin and French), used by Shakespeare, and still used in this way (in The Sunday Times this week, for example). With this meaning, the term British Isles is politically neutral (at least in modern times), which is why it has no charge in the UK. This is definition 1 in the OED.

Meaning 2 of British is "Of belonging to Great Britain, or its inhabitants. In the earlier instances only a geographical term adopted from Latin; from the time of Henry VIII frequently used to include English and Scotch; in general use in this sense from the accession of James I, and in 17th c., often opposed to Irish; legally adopted at the Union in 1707. Now chiefly used in political or imperial connexion [...]; also in scientific and commercial use [...].". This is most definitely not politically neutral, especially in Ireland, whence the controversy.

You are serving no one by not explaining the origins of the dispute. In my opinion, it is quite satisfying all round to find:

(a) the origins are non-political (in modern terms); (b) the objection in Ireland is deep seated (see the bit after James I in the second definition), not a modern sensitivity.

The definitions are from the big-boys' version of the OED. This is about as authoritative as you can get unless there has been recent scholarship adding new information. I would love to know the basis on which you think it is incorrect. Incidentally, the other meanings of British are: of or belonging to Brittany, elliptical plural noun, and in combination with other words. Regular spelling is a relatively modern invention. MAG1 22:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

You big rich boys haven't cited meaning 1 in the full OED: the sentence you favour rules out the "at least" and indicates that it originally excludes Ireland, thus making the "however" part of the sentence completely puzzling. The anglo-saxon spellings appear to be a source rather than the same word, and at that time it apparently meant "some of the inhabitants" rather than "the inhabitants". Please clarify. ..dave souza, talk 22:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't know who you are calling rich- you should try using a library. If you want the full monty on definition 1 (I just thought definition 2 was full of interesting stuff):

1.a. Of or pertaining to the ancient Britons. Now chiefly in ethnological and archaeological use. b. Of or pertaining to the Celtic (Brthyonic) language of the ancient Britons; later, = Welsh, occas. Cornish. Also as noun.

It is not clear whether it includes the Irish or not- the relations between the Romans and the inhabitants of Ireland then are generally obscure- but Ptolemy in his geography apparently included both Hibernia (Ireland) and Albion (Great Britain) within Britannia. [6] It does not really matter: meaning 1 (from which the term British Isles seems to originate) does not imply political overlordship (unless you are a believer in Welsh imperialism), but is an ancient ethnological term; meaning 2 does; hence the difficulty.

There is no official start date for the English language. The OED traces words back to its root. In this case the modern British can be traced back directly with the same meaning to the same root. Regular spelling only came in with printing, and even the Victorians could be irregular as amatter of course (arguably we still are). The fact that a word has different spellings is not here or there, it is the root and meaning that is important. Determining this is obviously hard, and it is this that makes the OED such a formidible scholarly achievement. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle used the term ethnographically (e.g Her sind on ɐis iʒlande fif ʒeɐeode. Englisc and Brittisc and Wilsc, and Scyttisc and Pyhtisc and Boc Leden). Some dodgy transliteration of Old English letters there, and I have no idea who the Boc Leden were. This was nearly a 1000 years after the Roman invasion though, when perhaps it was less complicated. It is not clear whether the English word came direct from the Old Celtic and influenced by the Latin, or from the Latin directly. MAG1 23:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for these clarifications for us folks who don't have ready access to a library with the OED. As I hope you'll understand, the simplified paragraph in the introduction could be rather misleading as it misses out nuances in the OED definition. While it seems to me to be rather much detail for the intro, I've tried to clarify the paragraph to bring it into line with the OED. I've not commented on the spellings, but it may be noted that sometimes spellings carry particular sub meanings. Your point about Ptolemy is of particular interest as it contradicts what seems to be original research in the terminology section: I'll correct that accordingly. The cite you give from the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle ties in with this translation of Bede "the tongues of five nations, namely the Angles, the Britons, the Scots, the Picts, and the Latins.", though it seems to add in the Welsh. Note that these are language "nations" and what presumably is "book latin" is not necessarily ethnographic: both ethnography and its usage of terms like Brythonic and Goidelic appear to date from the early 17th centuty. ..dave souza, talk 09:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I still think that having all this stuff about the etymology of British fudges the issue. The important thing in the deabte is that British means 'of the United Kingdom' (e.g. 'I am a British citizen'; 'Belfast is a British city'). When someone here's the term 'British Isles', they would then, quite reasonably, presume that the isles being reffered to are all in the United Kingdom. This is why people in the Republic of Ireland object to being included in the term (I guess a Northern Irish Republican would reject the term's assertions but accept its poilitical reality if reffering to Northern Ireland). At the moment, the intro does not mention this meaning of 'British' at all, whilst referring to how the term was used a thousand years ago; it jsut seems to confuse things. --Robdurbar 19:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Alternate names (once again)

From WP:NEO:

Generally speaking, neologisms should be avoided in articles because they may not be well understood, may not be clearly definable, and may even have different meanings to different people. Determining which meaning is the true meaning is original research — we don't do that here at Wikipedia. Articles that use neologisms should be edited to ensure they conform with the core Wikipedia policies: no original research and verifiability.

Support for article contents, including the use and meaning of neologisms, must come from reliable sources. Wikipedia is a tertiary source that includes material on the basis of verifiability, not truth. To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term — not books and papers that use the term.

I realize this will most likely be contentious, but our presentation of alternative names for British Isles is currently original research. I do not doubt that some of these names are in use, but we have failed to provide adequate citations to clearly define the terms.

WP:NEO is merely a guideline, and some may feel that the word neologism should not apply to these alternative names, but WP:V and WP:NOR are policy and i think there is good reason to provide references to reliable secondary sources which clearly establish the meaning of these terms.

To that end, i propose that we:

1. redirect Anglo-Celtic Isles to this page
2. merge Islands of the North Atlantic with British-Irish Council
3. require a reliable source which establishes the meaning of an alternate name before including it in this article.

EricR 18:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

West European Isles

The citation provided for this name having usage in English was to a mailing list, and did not discuss usage of the term. What the isles are called in other languages spoken within the isles i think has a place in the article, but i'm unsure about mentioning Icelandic names.EricR 21:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

British Isles and Ireland

This paragraph provided no support for "in recent years become widespread in a wide variety of areas" and only provided examples of use.EricR 21:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

If you spent a few minutes looking at usage you'd see that whereas other terms tend to be specific and limited, British Isles and Ireland is widespread and exists in an extraordinary range of areas. (I was astonished just how widespread it had become.) I've reverted a bizarre edit. For a start to demand sources and then revert sources as original research is garbage. Original research is not the same as sourcing. Original research is where one refers to one's own work or produces work specifically for use on Wikipedia. Linking to sources in articles is not original research. If it was then 95% of the stuff on Wikipedia is original research. Linking to recent media reports would be original research. Finding books as references would be original research. It is nonsense. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:NEO states that we should provide sources discuss the term, not sources which use the term. Please see my quotes from the guideline above.EricR 00:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

In an article like this we have to put in citations which use the term to show its usage. Otherwise certain individuals will insist that a term is not used. Have some cop-on. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 00:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

That's a cop out.EricR 01:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

You obviously aren't a political scientist. If you were, you'd know that except in states, where nomenclature is formally enacted, nomenclature of entities such as the British Isles evolves over a long period of time. It is not discussed in advance. It is retrospectively analysed by historians to understand how a certain nomenclature appeared. Current usage shows a set of evolving alternative nomenclature for the British Isles. No-one sat down and discussed or debated them. They just developed. It will be decades before historians analyse where they came from and why they appeared. By then, some may well have disappeared, while others will have caught on. IONA was generally seen at the start as a clever wordplay (the island of Iona links Scotland and Ireland through St Columkille) so Sir John Biggs-Davison's proposal was seen as novel. But few of us at the time believed that it would ever catch on. To our surprise it has and has grown in usage and 'developed legs', as they say, being used by academics delivering papers to the Royal Irish Academy, in the Dáil, the Seanad, the House of Commons, and internationally.

More recently British Isles and Ireland has developed and become a widely used term in academia, broadcasting, law and elsewhere.

As is normal in political science, these terms are not discussed but just evolve. So demanding evidence of debate is preposterous. That is not how nomenclature in political science works. It is like asking for a photograph of a nail growing. If this was a science page, then one could expect formal discussion from day 1 about changes in nomenclature. But political science does not work that way. It will be up to historians, probably in a generation or to, to analyse why from the 1980s on a series of alternative titles for the archipelago developed. And it will be decades before they analyse in detail why some, like IONA and "British Isles and Ireland" took off, while others, like the "Northwest European Archipelago" which are occasionally used in history books, don't seem to have. Even Norman Davies, who has written more than most about what he simply calls "the isles", has said it is far too soon to analyse why some terms came about and from where. The meanings of the vast majority of them are patiently obvious. All right now we can do is say what terms currently exist: what ones seem to be restricted to one or two areas, and what ones, like British Isles and Ireland, seem to be developing a wide usage across a broad list of sources. This article, as is normal, lists what does exist now, and the degree of usage. Most of the terms only turn up in narrow areas. British Isles and Ireland turns up in an incredibly broad range of areas, far broader than I originally realised. Right now, it appears to be the alternative term, whereas IONA seems likely to have a long shelf-life but to be restricted to politics and history. The sort of analysis you are demanding has not been done, and will not be done, for decades. That is how political science and history operates. Get used to it.

I am removing the silly template, given that it is seeking information that in political science does not exist yet, and won't for decades. The article simply gives the evidence of usage, which right now is all the information that is available, and will be available for the forseeable future. You can complain in twenty years time if the analysis then available is not in the article. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 01:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:NEO addresses the points you have raised. Do you feel this article is a special case, that the guideline does not apply to geographic entities, that the provided references have met the burdens outlined, or that WP:NEO is just plain wrong?EricR 02:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Irrelevant. Terminology used in national parliaments, academic publications and by major broadcasters exist. Therefore they have to be covered. So NEO is irrelevant. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 03:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Anglo-Celtic Isles

This name also is only supported by citation of authors using the term, not discussing the terms meaning.EricR 22:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Islands of the North Atlantic (IONA)

This is one that i thought was well supported with references, but after looking for references as to who coined the term i found that this is not the case. None of the references found so far can be used to support the name as an alternative to British Isles. Biggs-Davison and others used Islands of the North Atlantic to explain the acronym IONA; meant to apply to a council or confederation of governments.EricR 22:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

He actually spent a decade on talk shows explaining that he was not talking about governments (there is no such thing as a "confederation of governments" BTW. Government can neither be federal nor confederal. States can operate constitutional systems that are federal or confederal). He made it repeatedly clear, as anyone who ever heard him knows, that he was talking about the cultural, political, geographic and other relationships between what is called the British Isles. He told Gay Byrne twice on the Late Late Show, and told university students often (I was at some of the debates) that he recognised the sensitivity in Anglo-Irish relations of a term like "British Isles" and while he would like to see a new relationship established based on constitutional links, even based on current links the current term was problematic and offensive to many. He advocated IONA as a term that could replace British Isles in all its various meanings. IONA, meaning "British Isles" has been used by among others the Ancient Order of Hibernians (a nationalist organisation), Sinn Féin and the Taoiseach, Bertie Ahern, who said

The Government are, of course, conscious of the emphasis that is laid on the East-West dimension by Unionists, and we are, ourselves, very mindful of the unique relationships that exist within these islands - islands of the North Atlantic or IONA as some have termed them.Statement by the Taoiseach and Leader of Fianna Fail, Mr Bertie Ahern, TD on "Northern Ireland:Political Situation and Developments" at the Forty-Second Plenary Session of the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation, Dublin Castle,Friday, 5 December, 1997.

It is widely used now in blogs by Nationalists (for example here). It has been used repeatedly in Dáil Éireann. For example in October 2001 the blacks of a Dáil Debate quote Green Party leader Trevor Sargent as saying

This is a major step towards what will be a truly historic day in the story of these islands of the North Atlantic, as they are often called, when we will finally say that violence has been replaced by democratic politics.source

Quite simply, while Sir John originally had the idea of IONA as being indicative of links between states, it evolved into an alternative term to British Isles, something he was OK about because he believed an alternative term was needed anyhow. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 00:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately the Late Late Show transcripts only go as far back as around 2000 online—it's not like i simply deleted from the article out of the blue, i've spent a bit of time looking around (and not just google searches). If the term has evolved and Biggs-Davison has discussed this, then we ought to be able to find such in a reliable secondary source. Right now we've got a bunch of references to people using the term, and some references to secondary sources which raise some issues of ambiguity.

I used confederation of goverments because that was how i remembered one of the references characterizing the term, but it was actually: "The new confederation of "Islands of the North Atlantic" or IONA for short..."EricR 01:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Atlantic archipelago

This is a name for which we have references concerning origin, meaning, and extent of usage. Should it be included in the article?EricR 22:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[Great] Britain and Ireland

This can be parsed as two proper names and a conjunction, use as a single proper names needs a supporting cite which discusses it as a term.EricR 22:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Cassiterides

This was a term that may have been applied to the British Isles in ancient times from c. 300 BC, though the Wikipedia article on it - Cassiterides - appears to unduly emphasise that it possibly only referred to the Scilly Isles, or perhaps some mythicial islands off Spain. The term comes from Greek and means "Tin Islands", as the British Isles were the major source of tin in the ancient world. The tin mines, needless to say, are on mainland Cornwall, not the Scillies, which speaks against the identification of Cassiterides with the Scillies alone.

In any case, my point is this. Neologisms such as IONA (even ignoring the absurd exclusion of Iceland, Newfoundland, etc. from that phrase) may indeed be deliberately employed by a tiny minority in order to make a political statement, but what about when we are discussing historical or even prehistoric periods?

• The British Isles were separated from mainland Europe about 6000 BC.
• Stone circles were built across the whole of the British Isles during the Neolithic and Bronze Ages.

Anglo-Celtic Isles is clearly wrong for such periods, and IONA is just ridiculous - and smacks very much of the NI peace process. What other term is there except British Isles?TharkunColl 08:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)