Talk:British Isles

This MedLibrary.org supplementary page on Talk:British Isles is provided directly from the open source Wikipedia as a service to our readers. Please see the note below on authorship of this content, as well as the Wikipedia usage guidelines. To search for other content from our encyclopedia supplement, please use the form below:

Related Sponsors

BM Pharmacy Generic pharmaceuticals at unbeatable prices. Insomnia, men's health, hair health, pain control. bmpharmacy.com
Online Pharmacy Carisoprodol, tadalafil, sildenafil, vardenafil and more... xlpharmacy.com
MedBasket.com Discreet. Inexpensive. Fast shipping. Great selection. What more can we say? medbasket.com
Frugalmed 2000 reasons to shop with us first. frugalmed.com
Ads by Tiva

It has been proposed below that British Isles be renamed and moved to Britain and Ireland.

The proposed move should have been noted at Wikipedia:Requested moves.
Discussion to support or oppose the move should be on this talk page, usually under the heading "Requested move". If, after a few days, a clear consensus for the page move is reached, please move the article and remove this notice, or request further assistance.

Maintenance use only: Add to WP:RM {{subst:RMlink|British Isles|Britain and Ireland|REASON|section={{{section}}}}}

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the British Isles article.
Article policies
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
Good article British Isles has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.


The term British Isles
The term British Isles is a contentious issue. In order to better facilitate discussion of this issue, without swamping other matters, there is a specific talk page for matters relating to the name of this article. Your cooperation with keeping name-related matters on that page would be appreciated by other editors. Please remember that article talk pages are provided only to facilitate improvements to the article. Editors uncertain about the use of talk pages should read WP:TALK and WP:NOT#FORUM.


This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
 
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
News This page has been cited as a source by a media organization. The citation is in:

Contents

Channel Isles

See John Cary's A New Map of the British Isles, from the Latest Authorities 1807. This is the earliest map that I can find that categorically excludes the Channel Islands. Is anyone aware of an earlier reference that includes the Channel Isles? Is anyone aware of an earlier map that refers to the British Isles? Lucian Sunday (talk) 08:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

A good place to look is Google Books. For example, this children's atlas from 1834 explicitly includes them. How do you mean that John Cary categorically excludes them? --89.101.103.144 (talk) 22:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
To use the book you mention to include Channel Isles as Part of BI would need some creativity - it is not the explicit reference I am looking for -and it lumps in Jersey & Guernsey as part of Hampshire! You can see John Cary's map on his wikipage; Shetland is off the map but is displayed via an inset; Alderny & part of Guernsy are not detailed like the BI and there is no inset of the Channel Islands. Lucian Sunday (talk) 07:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
"some creativity"?? See the table of contents for England and Wales, they are listed as Jersey and Guernsey (i.e. the Channel Islands). Maps are on page 312. That (like the OED definition) is an explicit reference. You are right that the Channel Islands do not appear in detail in the map shown on Cary's Wiki page, but that is an inference - and a long way off "categorically" excluding them.
I wouldn't be so surprised about the Channel Islands being included as part of Hampshire. They are still treated along with Hampshire for many sporting associations, for example athletics, golf and rugby. --89.101.103.144 (talk) 20:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I propose we merge this conversation with Talk:Terminology of the British Isles#Are the Channel Islands part of the British Isles? Lucian Sunday (talk) 15:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Attempt to vary agreed consensus on use of term

TharkunColl is attempting to modify the previously agreed consensus on the words in respect of the Irish Government's attitude the term British Isles. I have opened this section so he can bring the discussion to the talk page rather than initiating an edit war. --Snowded TALK 23:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The consensus reached, should be respected. GoodDay (talk) 23:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
What's there to discuss? That particular Irish government is no more. We have no idea what the current one thinks. ðarkuncoll 23:28, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Then you will have to go through every Government article on every country page modifying any statement for any prior administration. Government's have continuity of policy. At any rate TharkunColl that is not really the point. You know how long it took to get an agreement on the text, you know the change would be controversial, why not just raise it here first given the history and suggest the change? Why reject the request to take it to the talk page? That is normal practice on any issue which had this level of discussion. --Snowded TALK 23:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
So is it still British government policy to try and recover Normandy and other lost possessions of the crown in France? When was this centuries-long policy rescinded? ðarkuncoll 23:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Nice debating point, but I think the claim and any reversal precedes Hansard so its a bit difficult to check. Going back to the middle ages is an interesting tactic. Given that the statement is in the recent past I think my point stands. It is completely normal for a statement of this type to stand unless it is rebutted by the government. This seems like an attempt to reopen an issue which was put to bed in the fairly recent past rather than an attempt to improve the article. --Snowded TALK 23:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
It's just an attempt at truth, that's all. Not that that ever cuts much ice around here. ðarkuncoll 23:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
You do throw the words "truth" and "fact" around a lot you know. Either way I think my view above stands, lets see if anyone else wants to disrupt the previous consensus. --Snowded TALK 23:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) TharkunColl does have a point, but it should have been brought here first rather than edit-warred about given the previous history. It seems to me that the two versions of the phrase under dispute are these: (a) "the Irish government also discourages its usage." (b) "a previous Irish administration has also discouraged its usage.", with (a) being the one achieved by means of consensus. I suggest that a possible compromise might be to consider the wording (c) "an Irish administration also discouraged its usage." which would make it much more stable in terms of not having to be attended to if the administration changes, or its opinion changes (at which point, a suitable addition to the phrase could be appended, such as ", though the current one has a different opinion..." Of course, they need to be suitably sourced. It maintains the continuity idea, though suitably weakened in the light of the uncertainty brought by the change in administration.  DDStretch  (talk) 00:14, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I would not object to your "an" compromise per se, but the manner of the attempted change was at best insensitive to the history. However I think we should see what other people think. If there is no evidence of the current Irish Government using the term I don't see the need for a change. I also note that other editors on other pages have argued that the term is less likely to used now than in the past. They might want to provide some evidence along those lines. I suggest we leave it for other comments for a day or so and see. If no one feels strongly and Tharky wants to press the issue then your compromise would be a reasonable way forward. I do think that the continuity of government issue is key however. On Tharky's argument we would have to go through thousands of articles every time a government changed --Snowded TALK 00:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
I quite agree that a consensus is needed for any change given the history of the matter. My compromise was just one way of trying to reach some common ground to see if that might help a consensus emerge. It does need discussion, however.  DDStretch  (talk) 00:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I have to say the prior supposed "consensus" (ie 'eventual vote' - when did they become the same thing?) over this Irish gov line was a bloody circus, IMO. A total clumsy farce, in fact. I object to the maximum in it being alluded to as any kind of sensible consensus! A couple of new faces go involved, that's all, and one is currently not allowed to edit here. If if people give up in utter disgust it doesn't make outcomes of poll etc credible. In a true consensus, people like me would be happy - I couldn't be less happy with this line. It is simply a wind-up to call it "consensus" when it is so contentious. It's just gloating from a currently victorious side. Winning little 'votes' and consensus - why do people confuse them so much? They are not the same!

I've revised the new guideline at WP:BRITISHISLES if anyone wants to look - and corrected the mistakes in it that were in there when I first put it up. --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Eleven editors were involved in the Souza proposal, with only one dissent to the final phrasing. That is kinda of how it works around here. Making everyone happy is not possible. Using phrases like "bloody circus" and "clumsy farce" is hardly assuming good faith in respect of those eleven editors. If something is to change, then it will change by discussion here. --Snowded TALK 01:06, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Come on, they just wanted it over - and there was only one option on table in the end. Souza himself supported my own proposal, as did Waggers and others, til I retired after the "Souza" nonsense took over. Having just jumped into the article, did you even realise the supposed "proposal" was only an insignificant single-word change to the article as it stood?? I ended up retiring as a direct consequence of this, albeit for just a month. What you Christened the "Souza proposal" (though you kept confusing what the actual words were at first!) was just little more than a question by him!!! He didn't even vote (having not "proposed " anything) - or even comment again after posing it!! I simply cringe when I hear the words 'Souza proposal'. People bow to the extremism in this article as it gets fought with by brandished claws - it's the fulcrum - the melting pot - the main article. And the Inro counts.
I had been working on this line in the Intro for a couple of months - and the way my initial proposal went from my choice of sensible options (which were being discussed and developed by people) to an insignificant one-word-change championed by you and the article-blocked Jack Forbes, was just typical of how people get quickly pissed off with things here. It was ultimately an acceptance of non-change - a finalisation to a pointless poll. Nobody was proposing anything for most of it! Sometimes lines in articles have to stabilise for a while for sake of sanity - it does NOT equal consensus. It just simply suits you personally, Snowded. Others - no. It is no consensus. --Matt Lewis (talk) 02:07, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Matt, when an agreement has been reached on things, then the general process is to discuss changes here before changing them again. That is all that anyone is saying here. If you want to attribute motives to people (including me) then feel free but you are addressing the person rather than the content. Whatever your frustration it might make sense for you to check out WP:NPA --Snowded TALK 02:21, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring

I have completely protected the article and urge those engaged in gaming the system by going up to the 3rr limit on edit warring without discussion that this is not good behaviour: it will lead to consequences if it is shown again. I completely protected the article as a preventative measure to try to minimize disruption and to ensure discussion takes place here without any editor getting a block for edit-warring.  DDStretch  (talk) 23:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

In agreement. GoodDay (talk) 23:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
He's the one, by the way, who gave me a two-week block for merely making a comment on a talk page. It seems that uncongenial opinions really aren't welcome around here. ðarkuncoll 23:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
No, it is edit warring up to the 3rr limit that aren't welcome, and you know it.  DDStretch  (talk) 23:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
And how about blocking for refusing to be told not to comment? ðarkuncoll 23:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Thark; you are going over old ground here. I supported you (as did others) and you were unblocked. I'm not a fan of invoking edit-war blocks before 3RR; way too much Admin discretion. As we Roman Catholics were taught; such power may become an Occasion of Sin. Sarah777 (talk) 22:51, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

May or Do?

This article says many people "may" find it offensive. Surely, even the citations support the replacement of "may" with "do". I am thinking in particular of the reference to that effect from the democratically-elected government of Ireland. But its removal from school atlases and many other references easily support that many "do" in fact find the term British Isles offensive rather than simply "may". 78.16.186.184 (talk) 19:58, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

As you well know, the well runs dry far far too quickly in term of real-life examples of any "offense" taken. Even the Folens atlas people said they had no parental complaints, and it was precautionary measure. There are not anything like the kind of contemporary examples you would expect - there are virtually none in fact, outside of academic works that have their own internal weight. The fact we are allowing people to appropriate the word 'many' into this article, and re-weight it to refer to mainly themselves(!) is a total blight on Wikipedia.
As a double compromise (over "many" and the spokesman quote), the line should be something like this: '''Although commonly used worldwide (especially in a 'technical' manner in sciences like geography, geology, archaeology, and natural history), the term British Isles has been controversial in relation to Ireland, where many people have found it objectionable.[r][r}[r] The term is not part of the legal terminology of the Irish government, and a spokesperson for the Irish Embassy has said "we would discourage its usage".[r]'''
All the extremely finite examples of the offense taken are built up over time: there is nothing to suggest it is commonly and notably in dispute as we speak, outside of people like yourself on (and often using) Wikipedia. The argument that the words "have found.." suggests the term is now fully accepted is just blatant stonewalling - it does nothing of the kind. It is only acceptable compromise IMO - really the word "many" should be removed, and a totally non-specific statement should be made. "many may" was a compromise but is just a doubly 'weasel-worded' expression.
Nobody in the Irish gov since 1947 has suggested that the term is discouraged, other than this 'spokesman' - so he should be quoted, if he is to be used at all. It was a quote - so why not quote it? Or we hiding an ambiguity here? He does not say in what capacity the term is discouraged - certainly is not legal terminology in the ROI. Maybe it is just in that capacity? We suggest they universally discourage it, with no evidence at all.
Compromises aside, the line should really just say that people have taken issue with the inherent ambiguity in the term, due to the Republic of Ireland not being part of Britain, and that though a number alternatives have been suggested, only 'Great Britain and Ireland' has really been used in its place. --Matt Lewis (talk) 20:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

"Although commonly used worldwide, especially as a 'technical' term in sciences like geography, geology, archaeology, and natural history, the term 'British Isles' has been criticised for having the political term "British" within it. This is controversial in relation to Ireland [r][r}[r], as the Republic of Ireland in the island of Ireland is not British, and the citizens of Northern Ireland can have Irish-only, British-only, or joint identities, and hold British, Irish or dual citizenships. The term is not part of the legal terminology of the Irish government, and a spokesperson for the Irish Embassy has said "we would discourage its usage".[r] A number of alternatives have been proposed throughout the history of the term, although many have been criticised themselves[r], and only variations of 'Great Britain and Ireland' have been widely used. There is evidence that a form of "Britain and Ireland" has being increasingly used in mapmaking over recent years.[citation needed]"

  • Line added: "and the citizens of Northern Ireland have a choice of British or Irish citizenship, or both." --Matt Lewis (talk) 14:21, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Revision added: "and the citizens of Northern Ireland can have Irish-only, British-only, or joint identities, and hold British, Irish or dual citizenships." Nothing is as good as explaining the situation. If progress here remains deliberately stonewalled, and this information continues to be censored I'll take it to Arbcom and fight it on the widest scale I can. Enough is enough. --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Added words: "a form of "Great Britain and Ireland". Some maps, like a National Geographic one, are using "Britain and Ireland".
  • Added clarity: "and only variations of 'Great Britain and Ireland' have been widely used. There is evidence that a form of "Britain and Ireland" has being increasingly used in mapmaking over recent years.[citation needed]"

I'm not fully sure about the last line, as "Great Britain and Ireland" has always been used in tandem with "British Isles" for maps. Is it really being used more now? We really need a quote that says this. You have always been able to get geographical and political ranges of maps and globes - they are each labelled differently. --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you find any British Isles atlases published in the last 2 or 3 years? AA was publishing them for a long time annually, but they seem to have stopped around 2002. While there are plenty of Britain and Ireland/Great Britain and Ireland atlases published in 2008, 2007, I haven't been able to locate any 'British Isles' titled ones, even though these clearly were being published previously. Are there any? What publishers?
On your latest wording: I know for your BI guideline you want to specify the ROI for specific consideration, but it simply isn't true here to confine the controversy about the term to the ROI. The sources don't back this up either. There is, as I assume you are aware, an international agreed treaty that makes British *identity* optional in Northern Ireland. *This* is a big part of what makes the term problematic on the island of Ireland. I'm not advocating anything in regards to the BI guideline, but we cannot insert language here that isn't accurate in describing the nature of the controversy. It is NOT just because of the ROI and to say so just isn't accurate. Where is the "throughout the term's history" claim coming from? I'm perfectly supportive of quoting the Irish embassy spokeman directly and attributing the quote to 'a spokesman for the Irish embassy to the UK". Nuclare (talk) 04:44, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
OK, I'll re-write it to include Northern Ireland! --Matt Lewis (talk) 14:07, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
I've simply added "and the citizens of Northern Ireland have a choice of British or Irish citizenship." Good idea - makes it much better. --Matt Lewis (talk) 14:21, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Some would dispute that wording. I don't think citizenship is the right word to use. The less debateable way of wording it would be in terms of identity. And I'm not sure adding more sentences on this issue to the intro. is the best solution. Nuclare (talk) 16:03, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
What is the "best solution" then? The sentences are notable, verifiable and relevant - they only haven't happened because certain editors have wanted the Intro kept short, sweet, and dispute-heavy. In Wikipedias terms that is 100% unacceptable. I'll put in 'identity' of you wish, though I can see what is coming: it will eventially be called "too long". But I know all the games. Progress will NOT be stopped forever. --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:17, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
The problem with maps is that I can always remember "Great Britain and Ireland" road maps being in existence. Without a decent quote, it's verging on Original Research - but I'm happy to help construct a highly plausible case, certainly. I noticed National Geographic has moved BI down to the small text - but still used BI in their website. I honestly think been happening naturally over the years - I'm not sure there has necessarily been a great 'move' recently. But I'm willing to wave my doubts if a case can be made.
The issue wouldn't be the presence of GB&I, it would be the absence of BI. I know that this could verge into OR, but I'm not so much interested in inserting language into the Wiki page concerning this, as simply knowing what sources are or are not out there using the term or not. As I said, I'm still searching for evidence of whether some of the companies that clearly were regularly publishing BI atlases (AA, Reader's Digest) still are. I can't find any, thus far. Can you be more specific about where the NG "moving...to the small text" is? Nuclare (talk) 16:03, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
This is the one. It says "British Isles" in the small text on the map (you can zoom in and see). It use to be the "British Isles" map. I'll look through the archives for my original link - I think the original webpage had the words "British Isles" in it too. Interesting that it is now "Britain and Ireland" - not "Great Britain and Ireland". It shows how NI is commonly seen as being in Britain, as well as being 'British'! --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:52, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Matt - I typed in the words "british isles offensive" into google and first up was "In Ireland, the term 'British Isles' has been considered as at least mildly offensive since the time of the struggles for Irish independence" [1] - in what, oddly, seems like a rival version of Wiki! Point is, there are innumerable references to the fact that the term is unpalatable, in varying degrees, to most Irish people. Constant denial of this fact is becoming irritating and is impeding any chance of progress here. Sarah777 (talk) 12:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
The "at least mildly offensive" example you have given (Citizendium is not a reliable source!), and your own concluding' words: "there are innumerable references to the fact that the term is unpalatable" simply do not combine. Who are you trying to kid? I'm going to construct a table that will force you to find 36 'reliable sources' past and 36 'reliable sources' present. I'll find them for usage of the word, and I'll start you off too. You will severely struggle for 'past', and as for 'present'? It will make you look foolish. I'll do the work involved as I'm tired of this shameless madness myself. All you have to do is withdraw just a little from a wildly untenable position - but you just simply won't budge. So I'll keep it up til you have no choice but to play fair, and the shrill screams of "no!" will finally be sent to bed. You have someone in me who is prepared to allow for your POV as much as possible. But your feet are just hooked to the floor.--Matt Lewis (talk) 14:07, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Pretty full of yourself I see Matt - nonetheless I had to chuckle at the idea that you could make me look foolish! Remember two things Matt re your 36 thingies: (1) I don't do tricks for the children (2) I don't play by your rules. Sarah777 (talk) 23:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Non-censored proposal for Introduction

I'm making this a proposal, as it appears the article is currently locked due to this matter! --Matt Lewis (talk) 17:23, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Current line:

The term British Isles is controversial in relation to Ireland,[ref group] where many people may find the term offensive or objectionable; the Irish government also discourages its usage.[ref group]

Proposed lines:

"Although the term is used worldwide in sciences like geography, geology, archaeology, and natural history, it is periodically criticised for the way the political term "British" suggests that Britain owns all the isles.[r][r}[r] This is controversial in relation to the dual-nationality island of Ireland, as the Republic of Ireland and its islands are not part of Britain, and the citizens of Northern Ireland can have Irish, British, or joint identities and citizenship. The term is not generally used by the Irish government, and a spokesperson for the Irish embassy in London has said "we would discourage its usage".[r] A number of alternatives have been proposed throughout the history of the term, although many have been criticised themselves[r][r][r], and only variations of 'Great Britain and Ireland' have been widely used. There is evidence that forms of "Britain and Ireland" have been increasingly used by cartographers over recent years.[citation needed]"

  • Revision made: "specifically" for "especially" in first line.
  • Revision made: "The term is not generally used by the Irish government" for "The term is not part of the legal terminology of the Irish government"
  • Revision made: "Although the term is used worldwide in sciences like geography, geology, archaeology, and natural history, it is periodically criticised for having the political term "British" within it.[r][r}[r]" for "Although commonly used worldwide, especially as a 'technical' term in sciences like geography, geology, archaeology, and natural history, the term 'British Isles' has been criticised for having the political term "British" within it."
  • Revision made: "criticised for the way the political term "British" suggests that Britain owns all the isles." for "criticised for having the political term "British" within it." --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

For me the proposal is simply a standard unbiased Wikipedia style approach. It uses notability, verifiability and weight. --Matt Lewis (talk) 17:23, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I've no problem with this proposal. GoodDay (talk) 17:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
A much simpler approach for the lede, linking back to extensive and recent discussions would be : The term British Isles is controversial in relation to Ireland,[ref group] where many people may find the term offensive or objectionable; the Irish government has also discourages its usage.[ref group]. I have inserted "has" in deference as a compromise with Tharky's original proposal. Of course if additional citable material is available then then might change. The material on changing use of language in respect of atlases is I think a useful addition for the main body but not the lede (although I think National Geographic are using "Britain and Ireland" as a geographical not a political term by the way). The issue on citizenship and identity is inappropriate for a geography article (which has already got enough political issues). A variation of that, incorporating some of the above text would be: The term British Isles is controversial in relation to Ireland,[ref group] where many people may find the term offensive or objectionable; The term is not part of the legal terminology of the Irish government, and a spokesperson for the Irish Embassy has said "we would discourage its usage". I prefer the shorter version but the second version is also fine. There may also be an argument for a note containing some of the additional text in Matt's proposal. --Snowded TALK 17:41, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
I've no prob with this proposal, too. GoodDay (talk) 17:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Come on - the "extensive and recent discussions"? You know how long I've been at this, Snowded, as I've told you. Your word "recent" simply starts where you want it to! The real 'extensive discussions' (including thousands of words from myself) have gone back for much longer: You are rather casually ignoring all the work I and others have put in more much of the year! The words "many"/"many may" have never been a happy solution since long before you joined the discussion, I have to say. And what have we got now? Another locked article. "Many may" has to go - and we have to move forward. We can only do it by being open and honest about the situation: and the above is all relevant.
To answer your question on the map, "British and Ireland" is the new National Geographic "political" map. You should not go around Wikipedia telling people that things are inappropriate when they cross geographical/political lines, especially when it happens to suite your own politics (no less)! It's stonewalling progress to the max.--Matt Lewis (talk) 18:06, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Matt it went to mediation at one point, then was settled by 11 editors (you withdrew I think). I'm allowed to reference that and even to suggest it is left in place for a period. I have a different interpretation of the National Geographical site to the one you do. I also think we need a short sentence not an elaborate paragraph with material which is better handled elsewhere. None of that is stonewalling and you really need to stop making accusations, every intervention you make is becoming personal, please engage with the content not the person and remain calm. --Snowded TALK 18:14, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
You are the biggest wind-up merchant on Wikipedia. Nothing was settled by 11 editors but the 'status quo' after the initial proposals were left behind. It was a total shambles, and your part in it was simply embarrassing ("Souza proposal" indeed!). And you know damn well why I withdrew. You are totally full of it! I stuggle with AGF because I cannot stand dishonesty. You are a total bully against progress - you simply don't want to see any. --Matt Lewis (talk) 18:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
This diff speaks for itself Matt and to quote the mediator at the end of the process Case Closed. Great job coming to consensus without even needing the requested mediation. I'm trying to stay polite in face of the increasing vehemence of your attacks, if you want to interpret that as a wind up then so be it. --Snowded TALK 18:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Your constant provocations are the worst I've seen. You threw my last Proposal off track, I got distracted, and despite early support for my change, people in the end simply voted for no change - ie your inconsequential one-word difference!! It was a simple status quo job, and my proposal was usurped - it never even got to a vote! It was your farcical "Souza proposal" or nothing. How fair was that? That is ALL that happened before. Your edit-buddy Jack tried his hardest and succeeded to get me blocked (which he later admitted to) and I retired - you were as quiet as a lamb to me when that all happened. Not a peep. Neither event will happen again - I'm following this through to the end and no block nonsense is going to happen to stop me. --Matt Lewis (talk) 19:00, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Let's wait to see what others think; we've got time. GoodDay (talk) 18:12, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Agree --Snowded TALK 18:14, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Just popping in from my self imposed exile. I fear that Matt Lewis's and Snowded's attempts at squaring the circle are near impossible. But here am I with my input. I find it a wee bit incongruous to say many people may find the term offensive. If its a may, then you could say a small number of people may find the term offensive with equal validity. Better to say (verifiably) a number of people find the term offensive—the numbers of people are unquantifiable. AFAIK, the Irish government haven't legislated on the term BI so I don't think the term legal terminology of the Irish government could be valid here. So may I suggest a simplified section of the lede:

"Although commonly used worldwide in sciences like geography, geology, archaeology, and natural history, the term 'British Isles' has been criticised in Ireland for the use of the word British and has been discouraged from use by Irish goverment officials. Alternative terms have been proposed although none have found universal favour."

That's it, good luck, I'm off.-Bill Reid | Talk 19:29, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll look again at the "legal terminology" bit - I didn't mean it in the leading 'legal' sense - maybe it's too wordy. It's a shame you feel negative, and feel the need to stay in exile. Your simplified version (although a bit too curtailed re techincal use/common usage at the begining for me) is certinly a lot better than the one we currently have. --Matt Lewis (talk) 20:17, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

"The term is not part of the legal terminology of the Irish government" - Actually it is. [2] But not used again since 1928. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 20:01, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm looking at this part again. --Matt Lewis (talk) 20:17, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
"Is" - present tense Bastun. Sarah777 (talk) 23:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Why on earth is it relevant whether it's part of the "legal terminology" of the Irish government? Governments don't define language. The term is valid because it is used in English to refer to the islands that it names. ðarkuncoll 20:21, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

As I've said (twice) - I'm looking at this part again . Would you rather the article just suggested that the Irish gov discouraged the term's usage wholesale? As it currently does, in fact? It's a compromise - or rather an elucidation. The Irish gov is relevant in a line about the Irish gov. I could easily be stuck in a two-way shitstorm here, so you could be a little more helpful.--Matt Lewis (talk) 21:13, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

It's hard to do better than "not generally used by the Irish government". It's true - they don't generally use it, but at times they have. We can't do any better than tell the truth. --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:09, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

If we keep to the word "generally" the line "and a spokesperson for the Irish embassy in London has said "we would discourage its usage".[r]" could probably be removed?--Matt Lewis (talk) 22:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Reading it through again, what I like about the new approach is that it manages to impart a feeling that the term is genuinely used partly for want of a better option. This, to a large degree, is very much true. I think what personally upsets me so much is the constant (though sometime subtle) drive or assumption placed in the text that the term is being actively used in the face of dissent, to make a political claim. It is simply being used by 99.9999999% percent of the people who use it, to describe the islands of Great Britain and Ireland, without any malice intended at all. The vast majority of those who use it simply do not stop to consider any eternally-arguable element of 'dissent'. This version gives more of a flavour of that reality. Currently the article is very much 'oppression-heavy', and I've always found that genuinely upsetting. I know some people will say "well I find the very term upsetting!" - but it's not comparable at all. The term simply exists, and Wikipedia exists only to describe things properly. We must do all the aspects of the term justice, and not fight like rats to push any one particular point of view. --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem here Matt is that the term is being actively used in the face of dissent, to make a political claim. The fact that some folk may use it apolitically is neither here nor there. Sarah777 (talk) 23:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes - your dissent. You'll have to play ball sooner or later, because when things get back to the edit tables, blocks will eventually be dished out. Sooner or later less-friendly admins will step in, and simply not accept having locked articles all the time. --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I take that as a threat Matt; and another example of the way British POV is nakedly imposed on Wiki through the blocking and banning of numerous Irish Editors. Please note that I am FAR from the only voice of dissent here - also note that you have several times now stepped over the bounds of WP:CIVIL in your remarks to me. A short while ago you were complaining that you were representing the British Nationalist pov here because they were not here to represent themselves. Not it appears I'm a lone voice. Make up your mind Matt. Sarah777 (talk) 23:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

checkpoint

Actually Matt I don't have any great objection to the paragraph as it is developing (assuming some tweaks) but it is just too long for the lede. Given this is a geography article a single sentence is needed there at most, with either a note or a subsidiary section. You could for example take the first sentence of your paragraph (I would remove worldwide as too wordy but otherwise fine) and substitute that for the current sentence, then have the rest in a note for those who want to read it. --Snowded TALK 03:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean here by "current sentence" - if the one here is fine (apart from "worldwide), why then substitute it? --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you ike parts of it, but I'm still not happy with your insistence that this article must be 'pigeon holed' as a "Geographical Article", and therefore 'political terms' are not suitable for the Intro. We must surely move out the reference to 'dissent', if that is true: is that what you are suggesting - I'm not sure? Although we are trying to build Wikipedia-specific usage guidelines at WP:BITASK, in the wider world the term is used in both a technical and a cultural/political sense, as you surely know. Why can't we accept that and build an introduction that accepts it too? There are far too many "notes" here as it stands. It's a 'cop out' (at best) in my eyes, and I am certain that things have to be done properly if this article is going to settle. According to WEIGHT, if the dispute can only be fairly represented via notes, then the dispute simply shouldn't be mentioned in the Lead - as we cannot misinform people. But I think we can cover it faily and concisely in the lead. Either that or we keep the 'dissent' issue to its own paragraph, which I know some people think should happen anyway (though I think it is Intro material myself).

Note on Introduction size: Leads (or ledes) can be up to four paragraphs long, according to Wikpedia's Manula of Style. We have a very short Intro here, and in my honest experience of Wikipedia introductions (and I've contributed to a number of them), the shorter they are, the more edit warring and general fighting occurs over the inclusion of relevant information that suits more than just the one point of view. Sometimes covering the all the wished-for relevant issues concisely is simply the best route:

Guide to intro building

1) The four-paragraphs max recommendation must be considered.

3) The info must be covered elsewhere in the article.

4) WP:VERIFY: VERIFIABLE information must be used.

5) WP:NOTABILITY must exist for both the article and the introduction too.

6) WP:WEIGHT in representation must be correct according to VERIFIABILITY and NOTABILITY.

7) WP:WEIGHT between any opposing points must be correct according to VERIFIABILITY and NOTABILITY.

In difficult Introductions like this one, this is the best way to go for everyone. There is certainly a 'technique' to making a good lead - but it can be done. Keeping it as short as possible is never going to make everyone happy – on the contrary, it makes life very unhappy, as this article has proved. --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Matt, you've hit the nail on the head with your comment that in the wider world the term is used in both a technical and a cultural/political sense. This is the point that I believe distills the argument.
Some will assert your statement is true. But others disagree. (As an aside, personally I wonder if a trend towards the cultural/political use of the term could be correlated with historical usage, or with cultures that are heavily influenced by the UK. We'll probably never know....)
But I believe that there is also widespread recognition that the statement is insensitive. In one respect, it's an evolution of language and the assertion of an Irish identity, and a respect for the sensitivities of people from the North and South of Ireland, etc.
But so what. The question we need to ask is, where is the term today? Since Wikipedia is there to inform, and not necessarily be politically-correct or sensitive, does the term still carry enough common usage to still qualify as a "cultural/political" term? This is the crux of the current argument that has split this editing community.
In my opinion, this question was already asked and answered in the recent past, and back then the response was that it was no longer a cultural/political term - although it is accepted that it was in the past, therefore in a historical context it can still be used in this way, but it is not acceptable any longer. It was accepted though as a valid Geographical term. More recently though, even that appears to be objectionable on Irish-heavy articles....
In summary, consensus can change. I believe the community can express some extreme views, but that it is also ready to acknowledge what the majority can agree on. Perhaps we should avoid any conceptions made in previous agreements and test consensus from this basic starting point? --HighKing (talk) 17:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree that we should start afresh from now, especially with the WP:BITASK taskforce under way. Currently the proposed Guideline at BITASK is explaining the term fully - ie addressing all the aspects of the term, and I think that is wisest. It is also focusing more towards 'physical geography' for it's use on Wikipedia. You are right - it doesn't matter so much what the sensitivities (etc) are, ar are not, outside of Wikipedia. This is a consensus-driven place, so the guidelines must suit us, and suit us all - and per the general guidelines on Wikipedia that already exit, of course.
I'm happy for Wikipedia to define a 'preferred use': it should be Geography-preferable with British Isles, and we should also go for it to ideally not include the Channel Islands too, imo. These are what guidelines are for - Wikipedia is entitled to choose an approach in these particular situations where ambiguity exists. To enforce anything though is to go against one of Wikipedia's strongest rules - no censorship. We can still make some very strong guidelines however.--Matt Lewis (talk) 21:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

response

There was considerable debate when this first came up and a group of editors (of which I was not one) wanted no mention at all of the controversy arguing that the article was geographical. It was finally agreed on the grounds of citation that the controversy should be mentioned. There was debate about that sentence which has been previously referenced.

My view is simple on this, I like your first sentence and I think that is better than the sentence which was previously agreed (that is what I mean by current sentence). I think the rest should be a note not in the lede. If those who argued that should be no political reference are happy to something more lengthy then I would have no objection, but I think you will have problems. At the moment there is here (and on the task group) too little involvement. --Snowded TALK 18:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Which first debate are you alluding too? It sounds like it was quite a while ago. When I encountered you in here myself you pushed for no change: and at the moment the Intro is very political indeed! (in fact, it couldn't be more in my eyes - it's basically a form of propaganda as it stands, IMO.) We need to sort this now - the WP:BITASK taskforce is now, and it is all about now - especially as the article is locked over the issue.
RE editor involvement: when is this page due to be unlocked? I can't believe it's got locked over this again - It was so 'out of the blue' that I actually missed it happening. Looking at the edit history, it seems to be just you and Tharkuncoll 'edit warring' - I'm not sure at all that DDStretch should have moved in to lock it when he did, esp as he was very involved in the Taskforce at the time. No 3RR seemed to happen - you surely would have both just stopped, but it got locked instead. Why? You calling the line a "hard won consensus" in an edit note wasn't fair in my opinion as I have said - your "consensus" was a farcical single-option poll at the end of broken and hijacked debate! Whatever else it was, it was no true consensus however you go on about the eventual 'landslide' vote for the only option on the table: no change and it get's back to normal.
This article shouldn't be locked, and locking it hasn't helped proceedings at all. Actions like this just demoralise and entrench people. We need people to be positive.
I'm still not clear on what you want to keep in the Intro. Perhaps you could write your own version? Maybe then we can later have a fair poll that actually offers some choice, and offers something more than a single word-change too. --Matt Lewis (talk) 19:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Matt I really wish you would stop this confrontational style. Tharky modified the previous stable version and I asked him to take that change to the talk page. A position that was finally forced by locking the page. Your disagreement and comments on prior consensus are noted, it is however how things ended up; it is not wrong simply because you say it is wrong. My suggestion is to take your first sentence, use it to replace the existing sentence and then take your additional material and make it a note for those who want to know more. Whatever it needs more editors involved. --Snowded TALK 20:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Matt, I must agree that your rather petulant approach here is not helping. it's basically a form of propaganda as it stands, IMO - what is? Apart from the actual article title itself, where is the "propaganda"? Sarah777 (talk) 22:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
How am I not helping? I am spelling everything out clearly, when some around me are simply fudging. The irony is that you think I'm not helping your own concerns, but I actually am. You can "agree" with Snowded, but he formulates all his reactions to me in a tired "oh dear, yet again..." format, while very rarely saying anything. But it will all come out in the wash - because what exists exists, and Wikipedia (for all its faults) is strong about core realities: Censorship, verifiability and 'common names' - all these 'core policies' have cemented this whole place surrounding us. Wikipedia is build on a foundation of rules. No minority can forever break it down, for all the fiercely emotional, guilt-loaded, foot-plodded, cabal-achieved shenanigans of the past. Things will find their place - and it will happen fairly!.
What is the "propaganda"? The "propaganda" I refer to is in the immediate reverting of every honest and fair edit, it is in the scrolling dissent notes that run dry as the bold ink runs out. Where is the evidence today of people (real people) not wanting the term? Where is the ref? Even when compiled (over a number of months) from self-verifying accounts of the past, there is nothing to warrant the censorship that is demanded here! No evidence at all exists to warrant exerting the one-sided weight to the 'dissent' you demand. The "propaganda" is in the quickly-archived blast-out of every sensible talk page and poll. It is in this supposedly huge weight of 'dissent', that can only actually be 'proven' in terms of the small-but-vocal presence on WIkipedia itself. It is in the battle of attrition that makes so many neutral editors recoil in either despair, or the realisation that life is more important elsewhere. It is the 'whoopsadaisy' article-locks for no valid reason by people who should (and probably do) know better. It is in the inflammatory 'fork' pages that make people elsewhere think twice before 'offending'. It is in the single-minded hours of the extremist at night, personal contributions that show little or no other interest at all. It is in the oft-spoken desire to see the end Britain, and the tragically blind belief that what could exist directly equals what does. It is the crazy insistence that what is and what 'can be' can be effectively bargained against each other! It is in the lowering of the bar, the sleazy approach, the gut prodding force. Who really cares about the words within the term "British Isles", apart from the simple acceptance that it actually is used and exists?
Only Wikipedia's rules will ultimately have their way, however strong some of its contributors feel they can be. Those like yourself can meet reality in the middle, or you can make it is hard as you possibly can for others to represent you more-than-fairly (as they will). Either way you will win! Not the all-out Europa you want, but your POV will certainly win thorough, you can be absolutely assured of that. Wikipedia is consensus-driven, and you and Snowded are nothing but determined (and thus strong) forces in this place. It is simply because you are both committed and do not stop. It's the same with myself. Anyone who thinks Wikipedia represents the masses democratically is completely misguided: outside of hobbyists Wikipedia is effectively a finite amount of very committed people - and that is it. It is true, isn't it? Look around you. We are completely consensus-driven - but we do have those rules. And that 'policy' will come into play - and when the British Isles guidelines go through the proposal process, a far wider audience will get a very good look at this too. --Matt Lewis (talk) 01:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Matt you are seeing conspiracies where none exist, you are reacting by preaching. It has become impossible to collaborate with you on this page (which is now a largely solo effort). You persist in saying that anyone who disagrees with you wants to see the end of Britain (your talk page diatribe about nationalists made so many assumptions about other people based on so little evidence I gave up counting). Calling people's approach sleazy, making the sort of accusations you make above and elsewhere is against every principles of the WIkipedia. If someone dates challenge you you "take it mediation" trying to get others to back you up. They don't, then a mediator arrives and you run away closing the request (I suppose an honest reaction as your behaviour would not stand up to independent scrutiny) I see from your talk page that you have take offence elsewhere and threatened to take someone else to mediation demanding apologies over what seems a storm in the proverbial tea cup. Can't you see a pattern here? All we have above is a diatribe of personal abuse which does you little or no credit and is becoming increasingly tiresome. Just complete your set of guidelines, base on your assumptions and put them out for public comment. Then it may be worth reengaging. For the moment this is Matt's personal page, Matt's personal project and Matt has some real ownership issues. --Snowded TALK 01:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
The guy at MEDCAB asked me if I still needed the mediation, and I said "no" simply because nobody had commented on the page for a while (a clear dead end), and the whole issue is clearly about Policy to me now. He said I can re-open the mediation at any point - and I'm sorely tempted to do it now after your comment, but to argue with you Snowded, is a complete and utter waste of time. I stand by every comment I made in MEDMOS, but I'm going to push on with the taskforce and this article (which your like-minded email buddy DDStretech shamelessly locked to save you from 3RR I might add - I have no problem with saying that - it is as clear as a bloody bell, and if I could I'd support-edit the revision right now. Bloody scandalous - only you two were around and it gets locked after 30 mins just at that 'key moment'. I can't tell you how bad it looks - bloody appalling). --Matt Lewis (talk) 02:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Seeing more conspiracies Matt? I've never been blocked or exceeded 3RR and don't plan to be. We had an editor (with a history of edit warring) who refused to discuss a controversial change on the edit page - that got it blocked. Your accusations against DDStretch are becoming seriously out of line by the way and I strongly recommend you cross that one out and apologise. Re-open MEDCAB, you could do with someone taking an objective look at your contributions to this. --Snowded TALK 02:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I would agree that it is serious, yes. I can't prove anything, but it fits in with a wider pattern I've seen, and what would it look like to you? Seriously - take a step back and ask yourself that. Why did you take it to 3RR? And why can't any of us edit it the page now? because it is locked. I'm entitled to be unhappy. You talk to me about "ownership issues" - you did it to defend your cynical "Souza proposal". To 3RR? No way should the page be locked because of this. And it's negatively effected the British Isles Taskforce as it has just pissed needed people off - as both you and DDStretch were fully aware of, I'm absolutely certain. --Matt Lewis (talk) 02:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) this is getting sad Matt. I made three attempts to get Tharky to discuss his change rather than edit warring on what he knew would be a controversial and provocative. I'm unhappy that its locked and I dislike any editor who refused to discuss changes and just reverses, but that is the behaviour. Any admin would have done what DDStretch did, its basic Wiki process. Your Souza proposal red herring is a nonsense you know. When the mediator asked us to try and resolve it I went back over weeks of exchanges and the solution which had the most support was the Souza one (not mine, not my ideal solution but it had support), so I re-proposed it and 10 out of 11 editors agreed. If you check above you will see that I have been more than happy to change the sentence, even suggested one of yours, I just don't think a paragraph is necessary. Please calm down, look at the content not your conspiracy theories about other editors, apologise to DDStretch who does not deserve you accusation and get someone to look at the MEDCAB and related material and give an objective response. Refusing mediation, but continuing to throw out accusations is not good behaviour. --Snowded TALK 03:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll re-open the MEDCAB case - I'm not having you saying I'm "refusing mediation", it's a bare-faced lie as you know damn well I have refused nothing. Don't think it will be big 'high five' for you or any other usual suspect who will pop in to support you - you know how badly I think of how you have behaved on the whole matter, and I'll pull no punches with anyone if it's a proper mediation case. I may be pissed off right now but I had enough of your provocative approach and little digs. Souza's initial suggestion was based on my own proposal - it immediately got all confused (mostly down to yourself completely mistaking the "page as it stands" for a proposal by myself - you weren't following things properly) during which Dave Souza simply left the debate altogether! There was no 'proposal' by him all - it was something you took up and ran with when I was not around. I've seen you do nothing but game, game and game on nationality issue ever since, and wherever you have gone.
How you can you say any editor would have "done the same" as DDStretch and locked this article is beyond me. Half of Wikipedia would be shut down if all admin "did the same" as DDStretch and simply supported their favoured edit and editor on 2RR by locking an article. Neither of you would have 3RR'd - you know that damn well. And if it wasn't locked we wouldn’t be having this conversation - it is pure frustration, and all brought about by an admin and an editor sharing a single-minded pursuit. As for apologising to him - he knows where I am and can speak for himself. His lock was at once another stupid play against Tharkuncoll (all of which I would say has got none of us anywhere), another move to support yourself (and as an admin he has absolutely no right at all to take sides) and a clear move to prejudice the guideline towards his own clear 'use-limit and dispute-heavy' POV. To prejudice the building of a Wikipedia guideline is a serious matter. It doesn't get much more serious than that in here, surely. And I can do without your constantly personal edit notes too. So you are tired of me? I am tired of you. I don't care what tracks you leave - you don't have a leg to stand on. I'll see you back at MEDCAB - at least it will keep this crap out of here. --Matt Lewis (talk) 07:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Pleased to see the intent of opening the MEDCAB Matt, look forward to the reality. I'll ignore the chain of insults that follow. --Snowded TALK 11:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
The MEDCAB that I originally opened all about you has now been requested to be re-opened. You must think people are as daft as brushes. --Matt Lewis (talk) 13:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Unprotection

I am unprotecting the article now. I hope that discussions will lead to an absence of edit warring, which was the motivation for imposing the protection. I have not had this article on my watchlist since about a day after the protection, as I no longer wish to engage in any over-heated discussion on any of this. All I will say is that if the protection was viewed as being inappropriate, one could easily have gone privately to any other individual administrator and asked for them to review it. I have not had a chance to read through any of the long discussions, above, but I believe that it would be unhelpful to do so, since matters are getting out of hand. I suggest that people step back, and particularly stop making unwarranted assumptions about motivations here, which are expressly to be avoided in all discussions. If the MEDCAB matter is re-opened, I will not contribute other than to announce my withdrawal from the issues and to describe the extent of my non-involvement from a few days ago. The decisions and protections that I made to various articles can easily be reviewed by approaching other individual administrators if required, and this is all part of normal wikipedia functioning. As for myself, I am washing my hands of this whole controversy, because I am not convinced that accusations made against me can ever make any of my views on the matter have any perceived positive contribution any longer. I have much more pressing real-life matters to concentrate on for the next weeks.  DDStretch  (talk) 09:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Moving on

Why don't we take the suggestion from Bill Reid for the lede as follows: Although commonly used worldwide in sciences like geography, geology, archaeology, and natural history, the term 'British Isles' has been criticised in Ireland for the use of the word British and has been discouraged from use by Irish goverment officials. Alternative terms have been proposed although none have found universal favour. Additional data in Matt's paragraph than then be put in a note as supporting material? --Snowded TALK 11:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Because it does nothing that WP:LEAD requires. It focuses on the name controversy and nothing else; it doesn't describe what the British Isles are or summarise the article. The naming controversy is not a major attribute of the British Isles, it's a minor aside. It hardly needs to appear in the lead section at all. Waggers (talk) 11:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Having a single sentence was a means of avoiding a renaming dispute as I recall, one sentence to acknowledge the controversy in several paragraphs seems reasonable. The current version does this and was stable until recently. --Snowded TALK 11:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm very happy with the current version; I don't see any need to change it or expand it. In particular, I dislike the "Although commonly used" thing as it suggests it shouldn't be commonly used, and that's not neutral. Waggers (talk) 11:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I was trying to accommodate Matt but the current version is fine by me if we can avoid edit wars. --Snowded TALK 11:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Well I trust that we do not wish to "Move on" from my proposal in the sense of it being a thing of the past! I've only recently proposed it, and the article has only this morning become unlocked. Waggers - if you are happy with the Intro as it is, why did you propose a variant of my proposal a couple of months back? Surely you will accept change here? An issue I have with a good few people here is they clearly - to me at least - want to have the smallest Intro as possible, so it doesn't 'rock the boat' - and each person seems to offer their own caveat on this. I find this both anti-Wikipipedia, and completely adverse to its intended effect. That admin seem to wish it too is not a good sight for me - the negativity all around is not good in general.
Surely the only way through this is simply by having an honest and open introduction? It is difficult to cover both "sides" fairly and keep it as tight as we possibly can (not that we've exactly tried to be fair). When the squeeze happens, one 'side' usually bulges through - and it is completely obvious when reading this Intro which side it is here! And the bias has been allowed to prevail too, and has been protected like nothing else I've seen on Wikipedia. I cringe over the Intro as it stands - it simply deceives the readers rather than informing them. It makes it look like the 'dissent' is running strong in the world outside of Wikipedia (without any real-world evidence at all) and it makes it look like the Irish gov actively discourages its people from using it (also without any evidence at all). The extended notes with all the bold text is a shocker too (who else has this on Wikiepdia??).
And why would people take "offense" at British Isles, anyway? People might object to the inaccuracy, yes - by why offense? Queue all the anti-British rhetoric. This article is just another stab at Britain isn't it? I am British and I certainly object to that. I understand the dispute - but the "offensive" thing has no evidence and is stirring up a kind of nationalism that I object to in the extreme. We have to cover this term reasonably and fairly - it is simply all I want to do. - --Matt Lewis (talk) 14:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Matt, I'd suspect you are trolling here were it not for my assumption of WP:AGF. It would appear from that remark that you are monumentally ignorant of the history of these islands and that you have not read the numerous times your question has been answered in the archives of this very talkpage. Perhaps it might be an idea to actually read the full discussion before displaying extreme British nationalism? Sarah777 (talk) 09:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
"Extreme British nationalism"? Me? I missed this before - you really ought to be more careful Sarah. If I was ripped off by an Irish gypsy (to pick what can be a negative example of the Irish that exists today) would I have the right to take it out on you? No. To resent the very word "Irish" for it? Most people are bigger than this. The word British exists. Britain exists. I am British, and am proud to be British - I've told you many times before not to make the term British into an automatically negative thing, because of whatever has happened in the past. I consider it to be nothing less than a form of racism, and I'm just getting tired of it, as I can see it in so many places now. I don't believe for a moment that you see youself as being bigotted in this way - but maybe you should give it a little thought? You seem so intent on re-igniting British/Irish history that you appear to are blind to what you are doing (and who you are offending) to achieve it.
You may take offense over the word "British", but clearly the majority of people either find the term a potentially misleading anachronism, or are not bothered by it at all. We simply don't have the stats, as so few references exist on the matter. The "many take offense" idea is truly gross. I've never met anyone so intent on digging up the past as you: in a climate of such long-awaited peace I cannot understand it at all. Honestly - what will you gain? You won't remove the term, only time will do that. All you and Wotapalava are doing is 'hate mongering' by using the word "offense" in this way, and in applying the word "many" in a present tense you are bending a very finite clutch of references way past breaking point. --Matt Lewis (talk) 17:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I've no objection to the introduction being longer - but if the controversy bit is made longer and the other bits aren't, then it would become disproportionate. The rule of thumb in an introduction is that the first sentence should define the subject, and then there should be a paragraph for each section in the article. What I don't want to see is undue weight being applied to the naming issue. Perhaps if the "offensive" is the problem we could remove it (as we already have the word "objectionable" there and "offensive" is a subset of "objectionable")? Waggers (talk) 15:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I've change the intro per this suggestion: "offense" in this present tense is an unreferenced progression of the word "objectionable". --Matt Lewis (talk) 17:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The intro is fine as it is (in relation to the "dispute"). It concisely, clearly and honestly mentions the dispute then moves on. In particular, I dislike the proposed rewrite that, "Although commonly used worldwide in sciences like geography, geology, archaeology, and natural history" as it begs a question and attribute greater weight and rationality to one point of view by associating it with science and learning. (In fact, it could equally be said that the term is not commonly used worldwide in sciences like geography, geology, archaeology, natural history, etc. Exactly what proportion of scientific publications use the term? I suspect that it is not commonly used term at all. What proportion use the term in favour of an alternative phraseology for the same meaning? Unknown, I imagine.)

"And why would people take "offense" at British Isles, anyway? People might object to the inaccuracy, yes - by why offense?" These are indeed good questions, and answers to them would make fantastic substance for this article the article on the dispute itself. Unfortunately, I suspect you mean them rhetorically and are unlikely to research the answers to them as they appear in the literature on the subject. --89.101.103.185 (talk) 20:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Get yourself a name and I'll answer you. --Matt Lewis (talk) 17:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Hey guys, have you ever thought of getting a neutral point of view? It appears this argument is being discussed by people who have their own politics to push. Do you all think people in the real world spend their time arguing over the term British Isles? If you want a neutral point of view, just ask, I may even tell you. Skipper 360 (talk) 22:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to tell you anyway. The term British Isles will die out eventually, which is not a bad thing, but while it is commonly used it cannot be ignored. It has to be used, many people will not be happy with this, but they must take consolation in the fact it will one day be a redundant term. There you go, a neutral point of view. PS: If a neutral point of view is not welcome here, I apologise for interfering in your discussion/argument. Skipper 360 (talk) 23:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
You've done nothing wrong Skipper 360. There's just to much politics & possible censurships issues around these topics. GoodDay (