Wikipedia talk:British Isles Terminology task force/Specific Examples/Closed

F. H. Bradley (Closed)

This article currently has been reverted to state:

• During his life, Bradley was one of the most respected philosophers on the British Isles

Arguments against

• No reference. Current guidelines state that Unless the term 'British Isles' is being used in a purely technical context (such as geology, archaeology or natural history), reliable sources should be found to support its use. --HighKing (talk) 00:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
• The existing external links and references do not describe him as such. --HighKing (talk) 00:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Arguments for

• As Bradley lived within the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland for most of his life, we should use British Isles. During 'most' of his lifetime, the whole of Ireland was a part of the UK. GoodDay (talk) 14:54, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you using "British Isles" in this context as an acceptable alternative for the UK? That goes against the existing guidelines that have already been drawn up.... Why isn't "UK" a better description in this case? --HighKing (talk) 18:22, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

It's a sugggestion; since during the 1801 to 1922 era, the UK covered both major islands. GoodDay (talk) 18:26, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Since subsituting British Isles for the UK (1801-1922) is against guidelines, I've switched to 'neutral'. GoodDay (talk) 14:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• During Bradley's lifetime the status of the countries within the British Isles changed - Irish independence and so on. British Isles is therefore acceptable here in that it is unambiguous. MidnightBlue (Talk) 18:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

• Question: Not related to this article, but if articles currently do not contain references to support the term "British Isles", is it OK to subsequently find a reference that includes the term to justify it's usage? What about if the reference appears to "borrow" from Wikipedia? What about if most sources don't use the term? --HighKing (talk) 00:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

In biographies, I'd opt for using 'British Isles', if the indivuals life occurs mostly between 1801 & 1922. GoodDay (talk) 14:56, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Can you elaborate on why you're thinking that please? What about nationality and citizenship - would readers not expect to see "UK" or "England", etc, instead? --HighKing (talk) 18:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Seeing as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland covers both major islands, I figured using 'British Isles' would be acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 18:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Leaving aside that the "British Isles" also covers territory larger than the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (meaning Channel Islands and Isle of Man, using it in this way isn't currently covered by the Guidelines as it is not strictly being used in a technical context. Saying someone is from the British Isles, or has been honoured in the British Isles, is using the term as a geopolitical unit, and this usage is actively discouraged. --HighKing (talk) 06:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Actively discouraged? Very well, don't use British Isles. GoodDay (talk) 14:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

If British Isles has been in the article for some time and its randomly removed, i see no reason why a reference backing up its use shouldnt be used to justify it remaining in the article. Ofcourse this source must in no way be possibly just copying from wikipedia, it would need to be a book from years ago for example. In the case above about the invasion of Britain, as there are atleast two sources using British Isles in such circumstances, its clearly justified. Will need to look into this one with more detail though, i dont like "on the British Isles" lol. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:29, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, being used for some time does not make it correct. And I didn't randomly remove it, I targeted this specific incorrect usage with a view to correcting the text and therefore the article. But I agree - I put great weight on references. If references unambiguously back up the article, it is best left as it is. What happens though if there are multiple references, and the article goes against the current Guidelines? Should we try to keep with the guidelines as much as possible, especially if references support guidelines? --HighKing (talk) 06:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I do not have strong feelings on this one, in truth a reference is needed to state "During his life, Bradley was one of the most respected philosophers" be that in Britain or the British Isles. If none can be found the whole sentence should be removed. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:24, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Bear in mind the bigger picture of what we're trying to do. We're trying to create guidelines that can be referred to in future articles/cases. So it seems we need to understand why "British Isles" seems OK to some editors in biographies, because that uses the term in a geo-political context, and people nearly always associate nationality or citizenship with where people live. --HighKing (talk) 18:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

In this case i dont really see the need to say British Isles, (unless there is a source clearly stating it), but the whole sentence should be removed anyway as its unsourced. It would be wrong just to replace it with Britain, unless theres a source. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:56, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Yep, let's remove all unsourced sentences from this article. Mister Flash (talk) 12:19, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

It would be great if editors could use articles like this as a way of developing guidelines for future articles too. What guidelines are you applying specific to this task force (if any)? --HighKing (talk) 06:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Eh? Mister Flash (talk) 17:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The purpose of this task force is to develop guidelines for usage. Are you arguing that everything should simply come down to references? Be aware, this hasn't exactly been workable in the past, so we're trying to establish guidelines for usage to help editors understand the topic better. --HighKing (talk) 20:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Conclusion

I think the conclusion for this example should be removal for the full sentence as its unsourced. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. As hinted at above, ALL the sentences are unsourced, so why pick on this one? Mister Flash (talk) 17:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Because the purpose of this task force is to look at usage of the term "British Isles". There's some guidelines already available at the main taskforce page. --HighKing (talk) 20:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• Remove the sentence. Unnecessary and unsourced anyway. And I've actioned this. There's simply no point arguing about a usage that doesn't need to be there. Black Kite 23:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed BritishWatcher (talk) 23:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

William Gillette (Closed, agreed as "England and Scotland")

Discussion

Currently we have Then, it toured through the British Isles, with two ancillary groups: North (with H.A. Saintsbury) and South (with Julian Royce). The issue here must be about which parts of the islands he toured. If it included any part of Ireland then I would contend that British Isles is correct. If he didn't set foot in Ireland then Britain would be better. In any event British Islands must be wrong. It has a narrowly-defined political meaning and I think its use is inappropriate in this type, and many other types, of article. So - where precisely did Gillette tour? MidnightBlue (Talk) 20:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

What exactly is wrong with a narrowly defined political meaning? It's no more narrowly defined politically as using the United Kingdom? In actual fact, it's a lot more "defined" than many terms, British Isles included... --HighKing (talk) 21:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Here's a reference: Plays by William Gillette, Rosemary Cullen, Don B. Wilmeth states The play ran in London until 11 April 1902, and then went on a six-week tour of England and Scotland. --HighKing (talk) 21:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Can we conclude that "Great Britain" or "United Kingdom of GB&I" is the correct term? --HighKing (talk) 21:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I can't find any evidence that he visited Ireland, so unless some is found I support "England and Scotland" (with the reference). If it turns out that his tour included Ireland then I suggest reverting to British Isles. MidnightBlue (Talk) 21:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

If he's visited Ireland, I'd suggest the correct term would have been the United Kingdom, or "Great Britain and Ireland" at a push (although we should avoid using geographical terminology when the tour would have been through various countries). Perhaps if the tour had visited the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands, we could have used "British Isles". --HighKing (talk) 22:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I reject completely the notion that before we can use British Isles the context must be inclusive of every element. If he'd visited Ireland then British Isles would be entirely acceptable and preferable, since it is unambiguous in its scope, unlike UK, which meant something different in 1902 from what it means now. MidnightBlue (Talk) 22:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Well we can disagree on some points, that's part of the process. And there is a perfectly acceptable link to United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland which would have been the better link to use. I agree that not every element needs to be included, but I would contend that if it's only GB&I, then we shouldn't use it. --HighKing (talk) 23:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Conclusion

Incorrect use of the British Isles, unsupported by reference. --HighKing (talk) 22:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

England and Scotland ? MidnightBlue (Talk) 22:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure, it's directly supported by reference. --HighKing (talk) 23:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. MidnightBlue (Talk) 20:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Puerto Ricans in World War II (Closed, resolved)

Resolved. See [1] MidnightBlue (Talk) 21:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

It's a rare example (I have seen them before in older books) where some editors use "British Islands" to refer to the Caribbean islands. --HighKing (talk) 21:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Conclusion

Incorrect substitution of the term "British Isles" for the original text of "British Islands". The author has now clarified. --HighKing (talk) 21:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Is that the right article to be pointing at? British overseas territories which only became a term a few years ago? wouldnt something like British West Indies or just say British territories in the Caribbean?

The modern term might make the article easier to understand, but if a precise historical term exists, then I would definitely use that instead. --HighKing (talk) 21:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Ive mentioned it on the authors talk page, will let them decide which is the most accurate for the use they want. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Coal measure (Closed)

This article currently statea:

• The Coal Measures is a lithostratigraphical term used mainly in the British Isles for the coal-bearing part of the Upper Carboniferous System.

Arguments against

• No reference. Current guidelines state that Unless the term 'British Isles' is being used in a purely technical context (such as geology, archaeology or natural history), reliable sources should be found to support its use. --HighKing (talk) 00:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
• It's a generic term, not specific at all to the "British Isles". The sentence should read The Coal Measures is a lithostratigraphical term for the coal-bearing part of the Upper Carboniferous System. --HighKing (talk) 20:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Arguments for

• This book titled The stratigraphy of the British Isles By Dorothy Helen Rayner [2] goes into detail about coal measures in Britain and Ireland. This is clear justification for the British Isles to remain. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
• Here's another ref [3]. There's loads of stuff referring to coal measure in Ireland. This is a straight geological article so the current guidelines apply (not that I support those "guidelines" in any way. They were cobbled together in an attempt to curtail use of British Isles in Wikipedia). MidnightBlue (Talk) 18:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

MDM, if you don't support the current guidelines, this is the opportunity to help "fix" them. --HighKing (talk) 20:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe we need guidelines. In most articles use of British Isles is incidental to the subject, and in nearly all cases you can argue for or against it; there's no right or wrong. Obviously there are a small number of exceptions where it's clear that the term should, or shouldn't be used, but they are very much the exception. None of the articles being discussed here fall into that bracket. If I come across one that does, I'll point it out. Over the last few weeks British Isles has been added to some articles and deleted, or de-linked, from others. In most cases this has been in the normal course of editing. I've noted a few where the term has been deleted for what one might call political reasons, but there have been no such additions of the term. MidnightBlue (Talk) 20:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I too do not support or have any faith in previous guidelines developed on use of British Isles. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Please read the main page here, especially the section "Stonewalling is not acceptable". The purpose of this task force is to agree guidelines. We've tried the approach involving diging the heels in and it's not productive. Claiming any and all usage is good usage isn't much of an argument. Trying to disavow the work to date without discussion isn't productive either. I suggest you either work *with* this group to progress understanding and to develop guidelines, or get involved in another project... So. If you've a specific issue with the current guidelines, open a new section below and we can try to discuss and resolve. --HighKing (talk) 21:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I am not stonewalling. I am not going to take part in the task force. I reject the guidelines. We do not need them and they have no consensus (see my previous comments). I will, however, comment on your deletion proposals. Could you not go to another project? MidnightBlue (Talk) 21:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, if you're not going to take part and contribute positively, this isn't the place for your comments. WP is not a battleground. --HighKing (talk) 21:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

We are here to give feedback on your suggested removals of British Isles from different articles. We can all contribute to this without agreeing with or making alterations to the guidelines which clearly havnt prevented this problem from continuing over the years. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

That isn't the purpose of the guidelines. If you're not, in good faith, willing to participate in agreeing guidelines, then you're wasting your time. --HighKing (talk) 07:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

• Question: Is this article about geology or terminology? There are a number of articles on terminology that state that a term is popular or in use or common within the British Isles. This appears to be a non-technical use, and considering that there are many dialects across the islands, is this strictly speaking correct? Is there a better alternative such as "UK and Ireland" as recommended by current guidelines?
• Question: Should we simply try to find references. If none exist, what is the best alternative term?

If there's no reference to be found, might aswell use the United Kingdom & Ireland. If the UK and Ireland are used seperately? put them as Ireland and United Kingdom (alphabetical order). GoodDay (talk) 14:48, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

GoodDay, while geology, as a subject, can encompass the "British Isles" as the entire island group has much in common, this article appears to be stating that this specific terminology is common to the British Isles - yet it's clear that the term is also used *outside* the British Isles. The article isn't entitled "Coal Measures in the British Isles".... So what guidelines should exist for terminology? --HighKing (talk) 20:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. GoodDay (talk) 20:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)Anyone have anything else to add to this discussion. I'm currently leaning towards concluding that technical terminology, like in this case, is shown to be worldwide, therefore shouldn't try to assert that it is specific to the British Isles. --HighKing (talk) 10:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Conclusion

• Britannica entry [4] uses "Great Britain". However the term is also used widely outside Britain [5] and so I'd suggest it would be better (and sourceable) to remove the reference completely. Actioned. Black Kite 21:54, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Article: Planned French Invasion of Britain (1759) (Closed)

This article currently uses the term The invasion was one of several abandoned attempts during the eighteenth century to invade the British Isles.

Arguments against

• The article is talking about Britain, and the topic is British. Should not use the term British Isles --HighKing (talk) 17:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
• Took place before the 1801 Act of Union, therefore 'British Isles' is not needed as Great Britan & Ireland were seperate Kingdoms. GoodDay (talk) 17:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
• Invasions are always either against political entities or specific geographic locations. In the context of this article whose topic is invasions against Britain, this sentence uses "British Isles" in a way that could be taken as a political term, meaning GB & I. The term should never be used in ambiguous contexts. --HighKing (talk) 17:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

That's the trickiness of those times, the Kingdom of Great Britain & the Kingdom of Ireland had the same monarch. GoodDay (talk) 17:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC) --HighKing (talk) 20:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

United Kingdom would do better, its a political entity and at that time it was UK of Britain and Ireland --Snowded ^TALK 23:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Arguments for

• As this took place before 1922, I'd opt for using British Isles. GoodDay (talk) 17:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
• The source provided mentions the British Isles. There is also a different book by a different author that mentions the French attempts to invade the British Isles [6] BritishWatcher (talk) 15:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

• Question: Why does pre-1922 make a difference? --HighKing (talk) 17:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

It's at about that time when the process of Irish independance from the United Kingdom began. Before 1922, Ireland & Great Britain were both a part of the UK. GoodDay (talk) 17:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, but the sentence in the article states specifically the 1700's, before Ireland was part of the UK. Then it was the Kingdom of Great Britain and the Kingdom of Ireland --HighKing (talk) 17:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Good point, seperate Kingdoms before 1801 (regardless of sharing the same monarch). GoodDay (talk) 17:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• Question: The current guidelines note that certain topics recognize "British Isles" as a valid term: physical geography, geology, natural history (including fauna but excluding flora) and archaeology. When used in a 'pure' technical sense the term is always acceptable. Should the term "British Isles" be specifically avoided when alternative terms exist within articles on history due to the history and original usage of the term and subsequent/modern-day objections. Without pandering to lunatic objections, but as a guideline to be reasonably upheld. --HighKing (talk) 17:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
• Observation: The sentence above, to avoid being mistaken used as a geo-political term, could have stated: The invasion was one of several abandoned attempts during the eighteenth century to invade strategic locations within the British Isles.

The sharing of a monarch by the two Kingdoms, makes the political side muddied. GoodDay (talk) 17:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

That's a point - it's why I ask the previous question regarding articles on history specifically. --HighKing (talk) 19:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I see no reason for the removal of British Isles in this case as different authors use the term British Isles when talking about French invaders. If you would prefer the wording you suggested i have no complaints about that being changed, but theres no need to remove British Isles. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:24, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. British Isles is sourced. I supprt the suggested sentence above. MidnightBlue (Talk) 18:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The invasion would have, in all likelihood, taken place on the south cost of England as it did in 1066, not Ireland, the Hebrides, or the Isle of Man, etc. as the French objective would have been to occupy the seat of the British government, namely London; therefore I rather think in this case, Britain should be used rather than British Isles.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Sources by different authors mention the British Isles when talking about French invasions. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

So again, stepping back to look at this issue "in general" for a moment, with the idea that we can develop some guidelines that we can use in the future for similar articles. It is clear that we have some references which state "British Isles". But equally we have other references which state "Britain", "Great Britain" and "England". What should we do?

• References exist using "British Isles" - that's a positive weighting. If no references were to exist, the article should not use the term. We should also give due consideration to the quality of references. In this case, the refs meet all requirements and are good. Equally good references exist for "Britain" and "Great Britain", etc, though.
• I suggest that because this is a history article, it should have a negative weighting for use of British Isles. Why history? Because the term "British Isles" used have a historical connotation with ownership of the main islands, which is not current usage and not fully understood by readers.
• Where references exist that use alternative terms, we should apply context and meaning to the subject. Again, because it is a historical article dealing with invasions, Jeanne correctly points out the objective was against the British government. This would give a positive weighting towards using an alternative term.
• Finally, would any meaning be lost if we used an alternative term? In this case, we have to consider that invasion landings were also planned for Ireland. Would alternative term such as "UK and Ireland" adequately cover this? --HighKing (talk) 20:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Why should we use an alternative term? I see absolutely no reason to do so. And who made all these decisions about weighting, lack of references and so forth? I wholeheartedly reject them. MidnightBlue (Talk) 20:36, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

References exist for both "British Isles" but arguable there's a greater volume of references for alternative terms. The weightings above are to help evaluate the different facets of the discussion - it's my attempt to try to understand the complexity of some of the issues. If you're just going to reject any attempt to reach understanding, I suggest you read the section on "Stonewalling is not acceptable". --HighKing (talk) 21:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

It does not matter if there are alternatives, although its debatable which ones are more used. The use of British Isles in this case is clearly sourced with atleast 2 different authors using it in the same circumstances. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

British Watcher, British Isles is a geographic term; using it in this context implies a political term as well. Nobody says that the Japanese Islands were bombed in WWII or Pearl Harbor was an attack against a US territorial island. On the contrary historians use the terms Japan and the United States when describing the fore-mentioned events. France planned to invade Britain with the purpose of getting Britain out of the war; it was not an attack against the British Isles as such. Britain is the correct term to use here as we are describing a purely political event in history.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I do not accept this is just a political event. We are talking about an invasion of a geographical location. It is sourced by 2 different books by two different authors, used in exactly the same way in each. There for its totally acceptable for us to use it in this case and there is no justification for its removal. Does saying someone invaded Europe stop Europe from being a geographical term? BritishWatcher (talk) 10:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

If the article was about the hypothetical invasion of the British Isles by a swarm of killer bees, then I would agree with the usage of the term. If the article was about a natural event such as a hurricane, earthquake or snowstorm which had inflicted damage in the British Isles, then I would agree to it's usage; however the article we are currently discussing is not about a natural event, but a purely political one, hence I opine that Britain should be used rather than British Isles.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) We're certainly not gonna use England as an alternative, not with the year-in-question being 1759. GoodDay (talk) 13:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Britain is the accurate term here seeing as France was at war with Britain and not the British Isles.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Britain is acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 13:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd err on the side of "Britain" in this case, per Jeanne Boleyn. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 22:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

So why do two different authors of reliable different books use the term British Isles, describing the French invasion attempts. Its sourced and there for does not need to be changed. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

A couple of points:

Is BW trying to create a guideline that if there is just one book using the term "British Isles" in the context of French invasions, then it's OK to use the term in that context? For me, this is the root of the problem. There are far more references that discuss the French invasions in the context of "Britain", which is the context in which most references speak about the invasion. Also, have you posted links to the references BW? --HighKing (talk) 19:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Conclusion

• Britain is the obvious term to use here. Black Kite 23:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Further debate on this matter is below. It clearly states why Britain doesnt work for that sentence because they attempted to invade Ireland too. Two different books by different authors use British Isles in exactly the same way. What exactly is the justification for changing it? BritishWatcher (talk) 23:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

!!!!! APPEAL this verdict has all the conversations on this page been taken into account, it has been discuss at lenght in the general dicussions below the original examples. Reasons were given as to why "Britain" is not the term which is meant there. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

This is not a verdict. The statement is referenced and should stay. Black Kite is expressing an opinion. MidnightBlue (Talk) 13:40, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Thats what i thought but the title to this section says (Closed) BritishWatcher (talk) 13:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Re-opened

The following discussion has been moved here from another thread:

Thinking back over French invasions we have 1066, which is clearly England (possibly Britain given the speed with which they entered Glamorgan) not the British Isles. At the time of John the invasion by Philip (which reached as far as Devices) is England (possibly Britain depending on how you interpret the status of the Welsh Princes at the time). Thereafter we have attempted or aborted landings in Wales and Ireland and a planned invasion of Britain. I can't think of any case where the French invaded the British Isles, other that in the sense of Red Hat's statement "even though, technically they did invade a part of the geographical entity known as the British Isles". --Snowded ^TALK 21:09, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

two different sources use British Isles in books talking about the same thing, if it wasnt for that then i would agree it should just say Britain or Great Britain. But its clear why British Isles was used there and its well sourced.. there is no justification for its removal. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I've replied to this point previously. Still waiting for the refs. Still waiting for your response to my question. --HighKing (talk) 21:27, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Heres the two refs [7] , [8] BritishWatcher (talk) 21:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I posted one of the links in one of my first edits on this page in the arguments for section. THe other is the book mentioned as a ref on the article itself. The answer to your question is no, a single book doesnt justify putting the term in an article when other sources use something else. However two different books by different authors does justify NOT removing it from the article. Its clearly why British Isles was put into that sentence, its backed up by sources which means theres no justification for removal. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

So to test my understanding BW. You have one book which uses BI, if several other books used Britian, Britian and Ireland or Ireland would that cause you to change your mind? --Snowded ^TALK 21:48, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

No im saying there are 2 different authors with different books using British Isles in exactly the same way, there for there is no justification for removing British Isles from that article. If there were no books using the term, then yes there would be justification for removing it. ofcourse there are others just saying Great Britain, but the point is, the word British Isles is in that article for obvious reasons because those books have helped form the article, there for it wasnt politically added. Theres no reason to remove it, its accurate. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I think this needs some context. The French invaded or intended to invade the British Isles several times [9][10][[11] [12][13]. Ireland was often seen as a way in (for various reasons), but it was not always the target. Martello towers can be seen all around the Isles, indicating that British military authorities perceived a threat to the entire archipelago. Wiki-Ed (talk) 11:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

First off, every single article you've pointed to states that it's an invasion of Great Britain, or Britain, or England. We're also discussing the 1700s, while Martello towers were built much later, after the formation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. And it's for exactly these reasons why we should be precise about our language and terminology. Editors understand that invasions are political events, not natural disasters, and as such the targets are political entities, albeit involving strategic geographical locations. In that context, the British Isles was not a strategic geographical location. --HighKing (talk) 13:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I assume from this that you didn't actually bother to read any of the linked articles. The 1740 and 44 attempts were intended to strike at England. The plan in 59 initially involved landing in Ireland, but this was shelved before the French even got started (and failed). The 79 plan was to land on the Isle of Wight. In 98 they actually managed to land in Ireland, albeit briefly. In 1803 Napoleon's plan was to invade Ireland and England. It was his plan which encouraged the construction of coastal defences all around the British Isles. Note that it was the entire island chain that had to be defended, not any single island or the seat of political power. The point of citing the examples I've provided is to indicate that reliable sources generalise to indicate the potential threat to the geographic area. The actual landing zone - on whichever island - would not be known to contemporary generals. Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:18, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Your bad manners and lack of AGF aside, so you're admitting that there was really no invasion involving Ireland at all during that time? Like it crossed their mind, but they never actually did it. And that the French might have thought about invading Britain and Ireland, but never thought about invading all of the British Isles including the IoM and CI together? And in 1803 we had the UKoB&I, so that would be the largest unit to discuss. --HighKing (talk) 16:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Intersting that "maritime-related topics often relate to the British Isles", i suppose maritime invasions by foreign powers like the French perhaps are totally different. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree the invasion was a partly a maritime event, and likely used knowledge of tides and shipping lanes around the British Isles to plan their attack. But it was still an invasion against Britain. And I'd agree with a statement that various landing sites and attack points throughout the British Isles were considered, but it was still an invasion against Britain. --HighKing (talk) 13:59, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Whilst the article is about an invasion of Britain, the sentence is talking about previous attempts to invade the British Isles, as mentioned above they tried to land in Ireland too. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely correct. While the article is clearly about an attempt to invade Britain, the sentence in question explains that the attempt was one of several actual or proposed invasions of the British Isles. Remember that Britain is part of the British Isles. There should be no issue whatsoever with the disputed sentence. MidnightBlue (Talk) 14:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

We disagree. Clearly. The target was Britain. --HighKing (talk) 16:24, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

If there are sources saying they tried to land in Ireland, how can the target of been just Britain? BritishWatcher (talk) 17:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes in war, you cut off reinforcements and supplies. Standard tactics since Sun Tzu. The target was Britain. --HighKing (talk) 19:19, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Conclusion

Article changed to Britain. --HighKing (talk) 01:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Starting again

Looking at the above examples it seems to me as follows: - In respect of political articles of any nature the term Britain and Ireland is reasonable, as it applies to the pre 1922 period as much as that after. Britain and Ireland remained separate Kingdoms during all periods up to Irish independence - In respect of geography, British Isles is a valid and reasonable term In the above examples that would mean two (Philosopher & History) become B&I, one remains BI

It is (I hope we would agree) as foolish and as POV to insist on the use BI as it is to insist on its deletion. --Snowded ^TALK 07:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. First off, we've a format above for trying to create and understand general guidelines that will help us to quickly skip past repetitive arguments when we look at articles. I'm fine with "Starting again", but what format are we going to use?

I'm unhappy with the classification that I'm insisting on it's deletion (if that is being directed at me). This is a fallacy, which proves to me that when disruption occurs, all editors get tainted. You probably understand that in the context of Rand articles... I'm absolutely not insisting on deletion and attempting to address this through the usage of guidelines.

And yes, geology (and geography) is one of those subjects that deals with the British Isles as a whole. But the article on Coal Measures above is dealing with terminology, not simply the geology. Do we simply state that because it's related to geology, it should use the term? How would we translate that into a generic guidelines? --HighKing (talk) 08:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry i disagree, i do not support this idea that British isles should be replaced by Britain and Ireland where possible. Reliable sources can be found using British Isles in 2 of the 3 examples there for they should stay the same, and the one on the person should be removed (the whole sentence should) because its unsourced. The one on coal is talking about dealing with coal within a geographical location, the one on French invaders is talking about their attempts to invade a geographical location. Only the person one is valid for removal, however if a source or two were found using the term British Isles, then i would not support its removal. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

What has that to do with guidelines for future articles? --HighKing (talk) 10:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The point is when ever the British Isles is mentioned its always for geography. All 3 things in your list use the term in that way, talking about a geographical location, so if we agreed to something like Snowded is suggesting, there is no case for removing any of the examples you have mentioned above and i doubt there are others that should be removed. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:34, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

• The Coal Measures is a lithostratigraphical term used mainly in Europe
• During his life, Bradley was one of the most respected philosophers in Europe
• The invasion was one of several abandoned attempts during the eighteenth century to invade Europe

Nothing at all is wrong with the above statements provided they are sourced. Europe is not used in a political way there, it is describing a location on this earth, there for its use is geography. I strongly oppose the idea that British Isles can only be used in certain topics / articles, thats very unreasonable, unless we are defining a small list of where it should be avoided. To try and restrict its use to just certain topics is unacceptable. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, your first example on "Coal Measures" appears to agree that it is a (technical) terminology issue, not a geology issue. As such, normal rules of references can be applied. Current guidelines already state that comparitive sentences should avoid British Isles when the context is inherently Irish or inherently British. Your point about using geographical locations referring to invasions needs more consideration - perferably not just talking about this specific article, but considering articles in general also. --HighKing (talk) 13:47, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Britain and Ireland is an acceptable alternative usage IMHO (yeah, I know about the Isle of Man & Channel islands). GoodDay (talk) 13:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

What guidelines? From what I can see "the guidelines" were merely an attempt to limit usage of British Isles due in the main to a dislike of the term on the part of a group of editors. You cannot assert that the guidelines are binding. They are not even advisory. We do not need guidelines for the incidental use of British Isles. MidnightBlue (Talk) 17:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

You're asking the wrong bloke. GoodDay (talk) 17:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The use of the term British Isles is controversial, hence the need for guidelines. It is as bad to insist on its use as it is to remove it without cause. What is clear is that it is a valid geographical term, it was (but not universally) used as a political reference during the days of Empire but it no longer has any political meaning or significance. We do have two groups, one of who wants tio remove it from all articles and the other of whom really wish the Empire was still around and continue to insist on the use of that language. We need to move away from both extreme positions and produce some guidelines to prevent edit wars etc. etc. My outline suggest is the geography/political split. If we could agree on that then we could work through examples. --Snowded ^TALK 20:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

"and the other of whom really wish the Empire was still around and continue to insist on the use of that language." Well you can kiss goodbye to reasonable compromise here with that statement, so much for you being a neutral editor on this matter lmao.

I strongly oppose the removal of British Isles from the coal article and the invasion one. I still have no feelings on the one about the guy except the whole sentence should be deleted. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:07, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

This is getting really tiresome (and 80% of your edits BW start with "I strongly oppose", its becoming a mantra). I stated the two extreme views which are present, its not just an agenda to remove BI from some editors, there is a movement on the other side as well. I would hope BW that you were not a part of that .... --Snowded ^TALK 20:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

You started off neutral in ur paragraph Snowded, you mentioned both sides. You decided for some reason to asign an offensive motive for one of those groups yet you simply said the other group wants the complete removal of British Isles.. with no suggested motive, that is not neutral.

I too am getting rather tired of having to oppose things in the past 48 hours, it goes to show theres alot of nonsense across wikipedia doesnt it. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I stated that there were extremes on both sides and you overreacted. My comment was a balance one, the motivations of those who want to remove it have been repeated all to often. As to your opposition I think you should note some of the wider comments about your interventions being made by editors who are normally close to your position, let alone those of us who are far away from it. That aside, the idea of this page is to try and move things forward. Acknowledge there are extremes on BOTH sides, this is not just a debate initiated and driven by Irish nationalists. It therefore behoves editors of good will to try and resolve things (and I doubt if anyone is really neutral by the way). --Snowded ^TALK 20:21, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Your statement clearly can not be balanced when you only state a reason for one side doing something. You could have said there are some who want British Isles removed from every article, and some who want it added to any article where possible. Not that theres much evidence that British Isles is actively being added to articles like we can obviously see happen when it comes to removal.

I have no problem with us getting guidelines of when British Isles should not be used, but this idea that it can be divided into political / geography just does not make sense to me. In every case listed above the British Isles is used as a location, making it geography just the way using Europe in each of the examples is, if we put Europe there its obvious we aint talking about political Europe, like the European Union. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

A geography/political split seems a workable solution. GoodDay (talk) 20:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

How are the 3 examples listed above not using the term British Isles in a geographical way? BritishWatcher (talk) 20:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I find it difficult to seperate geographic from political, when it comes to the usage/non-usage of British Isles. GoodDay (talk) 20:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

So perhaps it wouldn't be a workable solution, then? MidnightBlue (Talk) 20:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

What I find difficult, might be easy for others. As I've often mentioned, these things tend to be over my head. GoodDay (talk) 20:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Lol dont worry its not just over your head Goodday, this is the problem with the proposal. It doesnt state how exactly something is defined as political, for me all the cases listed above are not political they are using British Isles in a geographical sense. If we said "The British Isles declared war on Germany", then clearly theres a problem, thats political. A location doesnt declare war on somewhere else. But saying someone else is trying to invade a location is perfectly acceptable. Saying someone is well known in a location (if sourced) is perfectly acceptable. Saying certain measures are most widely known / used in a certain location is perfectly acceptable. Thats why with the exception of the unsourced one on the guy, i dont see anything wrong with the British Isles being used in such cases. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

F H Bradley - what is unsouced, the fact that he was a leading philosopher, or a leading philosopher in the British Isles? I think mention of BI may have been derived from the 1911 Britannica, but why pick on this element of the dialogue? There are no sources in the article at all, and there are much more important assertions being made than the one that just happens to mention the British Isles. Was he a leading philosopher of his age? Did he live in the British Isles? And please! Don't anyone tell me that's synthesis. MidnightBlue (Talk) 21:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

(conflict)Yes, there are two groups. One group, as you say, would like to remove the term from all articles, but there is just one of their number who systematically tries to remove it, and has been doing so, on and off, for over two years. The other group seeks to maintain the usage and sees attempts to remove it as an assualt on "Britishness". It's nothing really to do with the former British Empire and I think you'd be hard pressed to find any editor who longs for the days of Empire. The key difference between the two groups is that one of them merely wishes to maintain the status quo; the other seeks to change the balance of usage, for what I take to be essentially political reasons. We all acknowledge that the term is purely geographic, but that fact should not preclude its use in the way that HighKing would like. My biggest complaint is that we have one editor who tirelessly campaigns against the use of British Isles and it causes a great deal of aggravation. It really isn't worth it, given that most of the usage is of an incidental nature. I've been monitoring usage of British Isles for a few weeks now and I've noted additions and deletions (the total number of instances, both linked and unlinked is slowly increasing), but in most cases this has been during normal editing activity. I've picked up a few "gratuitous" deletions, and in some cases I've wrongly labelled edits as such, but overall, the situation is stable. We really do not need an editor targetting British Isles usage in the way that HighKing does. As for the guidelines, they were drawn up in an attempt to control and limit usage of the term. They didn't receive any sort of consensus, so I can't accept them. MidnightBlue (Talk) 20:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Some of us have been around to remember your days as an IP editor on this MidnightBlue. You can't say that one group is good, and the other guys are reasonable here. Its more complex than that and we need to move forward. --Snowded ^TALK 20:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but consider this; if HighKing didn't bother about British Isles usage would we all not be a happier, more productive group of editors? The usage would be gradually corrected - if "corrected" is the right word - and guidelines would eventaully evolve, as they have done in many other areas. Improvement would be organic, which is better than heaping a certain type of fertiliser all over the place. MidnightBlue (Talk) 20:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

This whole process is flawed because it is founded on two very false premises: (1) that a geographical term used in a "political" article or sentence suddenly transforms it from a geographical term to a political term and (2) that there is some meaning of "British Isles" in 2009 that is political. From these premises the following conclusion is drawn on which the proposed policy is based: that there are "OK" (geographic) and "not OK" (political) uses. This will doubtless elicit a response from Snowded that I'm just rehashing the same arguments and can we please move on, but that would be missing the point. The point is, it's putting the cart before the horse to ask people to agree to some proposed rules when it's the assumptions behind those rules that are contested. Until we can all agree that "British Isles" and "Britain and Ireland" are synonymous and therefore can be switched without any change in meaning, and that it's simply a matter of preference to choose one over the other, I don't see how any of this will work. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 22:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

So "without prejudice" if we assumed that are interchangeable would you, to avoid conflict, agree to using B&I on political articles? --Snowded ^TALK 20:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

(Did you read what I wrote?) What difference does it make whether the article is "political" or "geographical"? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 21:07, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Cool it AGF. I was testing an idea, you say it doesn't make a difference so why not agree something to reduce disputes. However I get the impression, not just from this one, that you are taking an absolutist position on this one - which is a pity. --Snowded ^TALK 21:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

For your information, I'm both cool and AGFing. My problem with your proposal - aside from its foundation upon an arbitrary rule invented by you which no reliable source supports - is that for the BI-naysayers, there is no usage which is OK. The best we can say is: on the whole, most British people (including their government) think nothing of it, many Irish people (including their government) find it objectionable. Folens deal with that by changing usage depending on where they publish their atlas. We can do the same by applying a British/Irish English rule per WP policies. This also means, where it's not clear, leave things as they are (equivalent to the agreement between HK and TC to not add/remove the term). It's the worst solution apart from all the others. I've suggested this before many times, and I don't think people have discussed it enough. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 21:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Not to get off topic but, what happened to the 'agreement' between HighKing & TharkunColl? GoodDay (talk) 22:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

What was the agreement? and has TharkunColl been invited to take part in this debate here? BritishWatcher (talk) 22:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

One agreed to not remove British Isles from articles & the other agreed to not add British Isles to articles. PS- I'm not sure if Tharky knows of this discussion. GoodDay (talk) 22:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

lol ahh i see, Highking should invite him if hes not been informed. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Totally agree with the 2 points mentioned, i just dont understand how any of the examples mentioned above are not using the term British isles in a geographical way. They dont seem to be political to me. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)Take a look above at how the discussion disintegrated into personal comments. Is started with general comments concerning motivation, and ended up naming editors. Can we learn to avoid exactly this type of argument in furture. It is totally unproductive, winds people up, and ultimately serves no useful purpose. Future comments of this sort should simply be struck out. --HighKing (talk) 07:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry folks, I didn't mean to cause any sparks. I was just being curious, nothing more. GoodDay (talk) 20:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I dont think he was blaming you. But can someone invite TharkunColl + others who have been involved in recent times with this issue to get further input to get us back on topic. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I've advised Tharky to follow my contributions to here. GoodDay (talk) 18:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

• There are clearly going to be some examples in which is it difficult to split the geographical term from the political one, and those are the ones where we need to be the most careful to avoid the sort of revert wars that we saw before. Hence the existence of this page. But there is absolutely no point in having this page exist if the discussions are just going to descend into, if not personal attacks, then certainly personal comments. This is effectively an extended talkpage for a number of articles, and NPA and CIVIL apply just as much here as they do elsewhere. If you can't make your point about the article issues without referring to other editors, then don't make the point. This should not be a difficult concept. Black Kite 09:47, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree as personal attacks and insults can have a debilitating effect on the recipient of the attack, resulting in collateral damage to the Wikipedia project on the whole.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

That's my mantra, too. GoodDay (talk) 17:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Er... If the mantra is "if you can't make your point without attacking other editors then don't make it", fine. But there is nothing wrong with mentioning or referring to other editors. Let's not twist NPA and CIVIL into something they are not. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 20:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

As long as the reference to a particular editor involves an event or comment made recently. There's no need to check the archives to uncover comments made three months (or years!) ago just to put the editor in a negative light.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

GoodDay Proposal

Would I be assuming right, that my 'Britain and Ireland' alternative usage is a no-go? GoodDay (talk) 20:08, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

which is, again..? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 20:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

We do this: A re-direct linkage - 'British Isles|Britain and Ireland' for predominantly Irish articles. GoodDay (talk) 20:15, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

As that reflects the British vs Irish English distinction I've been arguing for (rather than a conjured-up geographical vs political distinction which cannot be seen in reliable sources), I'm OK with that. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 22:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Umm i strongly oppose linking anything to the stupid article created at Britain and Ireland if that was part of the suggestion. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I think he means Britain and Ireland. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 09:32, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh if thats the case id have less disagreement with the proposal but im sure it would be just as opposed as putting British Isles without a pipelink would be by those who hate the term. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:11, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I oppose it. The suggestion implies that's there's something wrong with British Isles; there isn't. And I'm convinced that the majority of Irishmen don't have a problem with the term. It's just the opinionated minority, who are drawn to Wikipedia, that do. I agree with BW about Britain and Ireland. It's a thoroughly stupid article that should be deleted. MidnightBlue (Talk) 14:32, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Ahh come on MBM, take a risk. GoodDay (talk) 15:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that this is necessary at this point. I'm with MBM, although it's tiresome that he's still making points based on editors and motivations rather than content. It's not like it's a difficult concept to grasp. Anyway, I think the first thing to do is to agree guidelines on usage so that it makes it easy to grasp when the term is used geographically and when it is used politically or geopolitically. I'm not in agreement that the term should be banned from "Irish" articles (e.g. The Shannon is the longest river in the British Isles is fine with me). In fact, let's specifically avoid these types of discussions for now. --HighKing (talk) 17:06, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh well folks, it was an idea. GoodDay (talk) 17:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreement not to go around mass-deleting the term and agreement not to go around mass-adding the term (ie, preserve the status quo) seems like the best we can achieve. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 17:58, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

That's acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 18:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

What's acceptable exactly? To keep using the term incorrectly in many articles? --HighKing (talk) 19:03, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I reckon so, unless a compromise can be worked out. I plum out of ideas. GoodDay (talk) 19:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

HighKing - I'm yet to see an article where "British Isles" is used "politically", ie to mean that there is, or indeed was, a single political entity called "the British Isles". Can you point to one? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 19:25, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I would agree to no further changes (no more adding BI and no more removing it), the trouble with that is even if all of us follow that agreement we cant stop others adding the term, which is likely to happen from time to time and occasionally someone removing it for innocent reasons.

I too would also like to see some examples of political use, because some claim some of the examples above are using it in a "political way" which just is not the case.

"The British Isles declared war on France = Political and incorrect usage.

"The French tried to invade the British Isles = Geographical usage and accurate. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:30, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

In the context of the article named above. The sentence reads "The invasion was one of several abandoned attempts during the eighteenth century to invade the British Isles." Clearly this is being used in a political context. --HighKing (talk) 21:27, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I can tell you every time the term is added to an article and every time it is removed. Over the last few days there have been a small number of additions and a significant number of deletions or delinking. Of the additions, all were carried out during what might be called normal editing. Of the deletions, one was clearly politically motivated, others were carried out during normal editing, but the majority were not deletions but delinking by an automated process. That process is here [14] and I wonder what everyone might think of it. It delinked British Isles from List of the busiest airports in the British Isles - clearly a link in this article is valid, so I restored it. Other instances of delinking BI were okay since the term was not fundamental to the article in question. However, what about the principle of the automated procedure? If you look at the code you'll see it arbitrarily delinks a whole host of terms, many of which are countries, regions and nationalities. I noticed it had been used in some articles for mass delinking and had removed key links to countries in articles about a subject relevant to that country. Any thoughts - where might this be reported, if it needs reporting? MidnightBlue (Talk) 19:56, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) Agreed on your (BW) interpretation of correct/incorrect in those two examples, but the appropriateness of the second depends on the details of the event. (One would say that the Normans invaded England in 1066, not the British Isles, even though, technically they did invade a part of the geographical entity known as the British Isles). The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 19:57, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

MidnightBlue hmm thats strange. Perhaps speak with the user that did it User:Colonies Chris on their talk page asking about it. Im slightly confused because that Datascript page goes to User:Lightmouse monobook page, and yet on User:lightmouse page it says hes been banned by Arbcom and i see that Colonies Chris was involved and got a couple of blocks. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:47, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

The reason i support use of British Isles in that case is because we have got two different authors with books using British Isles in exactly the same sort of way when talking about French invasions, there for it seems reasonable as its fully sourced, and isnt really any need to remove it as far as im concerned. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:51, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

BW, thanks for pointing out the blocks to User:Colonies Chris and User:Lightmouse. I've followed this up at CC's talk page. He's already given me an explanation why he uses it (I disagree with some of what he says about wiki-links). There seems to be a major dispute in the use of this procedure; I'll look into it further. MidnightBlue (Talk) 21:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm seen the responses, i dont agree with that either. Perhaps as British Isles is very controversial because of the ongoing edit wars, it could be removed from the script somehow to prevetn further removals for that reason. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration

To be honest folks, I believe it's inevitable that the 'British Isles' usage debate is headed towards Arbitration. GoodDay (talk) 22:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The Ireland naming dispute has proved thats a waste of time. Arbcom doesnt have the guts to take up these sorts of issues, they simply will pass it back like a ticking time bomb. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

We must or the alternative will be editors getting blocked (and nobody wants that). GoodDay (talk) 22:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Editors will have to be careful. Im not prepared to support going to arbcom at this point, perhaps if nothing is sorted in the future, but the Ireland issue has shown it solves nothing. Whilst atleast in that case they can lock down the Ireland articles for 2 years, we cant lock down the use of British Isles across wikipedia, thats simply impossible. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's my issue as well. If this goes to ArbCom and gets accepted (which is unlikely IMO), you will get one (or more) of the following - (a) editors placed on restriction (b) editors blocked (c) major articles locked down. None of these is a real answer. Black Kite 22:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

We can lock down the adding & removing of the term. GoodDay (talk) 22:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes a firm hand is required. GoodDay (talk) 22:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

We could stop the editors involved in the current dispute adding or removing British Isles, we cant really stop non involved editors from adding it for innocent reasons. But just stopping some people would result in socking, i think this page is the best solution.. going through each proposed change first to reach agreement. Its sadly going to be a very long process though BritishWatcher (talk) 22:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course. GoodDay (talk) 22:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Stopping the editors involved in the current dispute from adding or deleting the term is sensible. I accept it, even if you think it includes me. MidnightBlue (Talk) 22:44, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Howabout a freeze on adding & removing BI, while things are being hammered out at this page? GoodDay (talk) 22:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that was the agreement. Then Tharky decided to go on a spree. But the agreement is only worthwhile if editors are working towards guidelines. This is not a forum for looking at each article one at a time - sure we can do that on the article Talk pages, and look where that got us. --HighKing (talk) 23:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, if everyone agreed on a freeze & agreed on an administrator to enforce that freeze, it might encourage a quick solution. GoodDay (talk) 23:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

⬅We can try for formal mediation --Snowded ^TALK 23:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Ya mean Mediation Cmt? -- GoodDay (talk) 23:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

David T. Ansted (closed)

Discussion

A request for a reference has been added. Why can't editors who place such tags go and look for a reference? It's also unclear precisely what BigDunc is wanting referencing, though I could hazard a guess. MidnightBlue (Talk) 20:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

And why can't editors who insert the term go look for a reference? Or we can take this as an example and try to understand what guidelines can we bring to this. I would suggest that since the sentence states he travelled all over the British Isles and Europe, it is not a good example of geological usage. Far better to either state the political entities travelled or just leave it as Europe (since, gosh golly, the British Isles are already in Europe!). Why Oh Why do article have the stupid "Britain and Europe" or "British Isles and Europe" - like they're not in Europe? --HighKing (talk) 20:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Conclusion

Changed. Last I checked the British Isles where in Europe, so it's pointless to separate them out. Would we say Europe and Scandanavia? Or Europe and France? --HighKing (talk) 01:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

St. Catherine's Point (closed)

An editor recently added the assertion that It is the second oldest lighthouse in the British Isles. Only the Roman-built lighthouse at Dover is older.

Discussion

This reference states that Britain's oldest medieval lighthouse. Not only is there no reference to support this being the 2nd oldest in the British Isles, the lighthouse at Hook Head in Ireland is older. From a guidelines point of view, they already recommend that comparisons (oldest, biggest, widest, etc) should not be done for the "British Isles". I believe this should be changed to Britain's oldest medieval lighthouse, and if a reference can be found for being the 2nd oldest in Britain, that can also be included. --HighKing (talk) 20:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the lighthouse at Hook Head is older, as this reference [15] asserts. Perhaps we could add this reference, together with the direct quote about the age of the lighthouse from the head of the reference, to Hook Head. I don't see how the age of Hook Head is in any way linked to that of St Catherine's Point. One seems to be the oldest, and the other the second oldest. MidnightBlue (Talk) 21:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Because the lighthouse in Dover is allegedly the oldest lighthouse in Britain. How then can St. Catherine's claim to be the 2nd oldest in the British Isles if we know of Dover and Hook Head? --HighKing (talk) 22:46, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Probably something about working versus non working lighthouses. How about the ref for Hook Head? MidnightBlue (Talk) 23:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no logic for British Isles here, Lighthouses area responsibility of national governments so its Britain (maybe UK). --Snowded ^TALK 23:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry? "The oldest lighthouse in Europe" would be a perfectly valid sentence, as would "the oldest lighthouse in the northern hemisphere" or indeed "the oldest lighthouse in the world". National governments have nothing to do with it. It is debatable whether British Isles deserves special mention over and above Britain (I have no opinion on that), but it's irrelevant that it's not a political entitity. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Well you and disagree on the relevance of politics here, but politics is at the heart of the various debates. The issues with the political use of the term (implied or otherwise) are where issues arise. This is a similar debate to the Shannon/Neigh issue which was satisfactorily resolved. the Lake, as it was in NI was the largest in the Isles, while the River is the largest in Ireland. I don't find your constant denial of the geography/politics split as either sustainable in the light of the various references, or helpful in terms of finding a resolution. --Snowded ^TALK 23:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no "political use" in the year 2009 of British Isles: you have wrongly got it fixated in your head that there is. The geographical term might have political connotations deriving from historical events, but that's all. The suggestion that we can't write of "the oldest lighthouse in the British Isles" because lighthouses are the responsibility of national governments is ludicrous. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 03:49, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that in the case of lighthouses, the term British Isles would not be out of place as we're talking about structures which really have nothing to do with politics--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC).

I really wish you would tone down your language Redhat, you may disagree with other ideas but that does not make them ludicrous. This is a question about what is the largest "unit" that should be referenced. It it was the largest lighthouse in Europe, then that would be notable and would not be controversial. There are political uses of the British Isles in 2009, if not then there would be no controversy and no citations of its use being discouraged. Political connotations deriving from historical events, means that use in some (but not all) contexts is political. In this case it is the largest lighthouse in Britain, not Europe so the unit it Britain. --Snowded ^TALK 13:47, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

In general, from a "guidelines" point of view, a number of maritime-related topics often relate to the British Isles. For example, submarines patrolling during the 2nd world war, or shipping lanes, or tides and currents, etc. I don't think there's any issue at all with these. OK, we have (slightly) ambiguous subjects too - stuff like the "Martello towers of the British Isles" springs to mind. Anyway, for this subject matter, lighthouses are a maritime object, and in general I'd expect sometimes to see British Isles being mentioned. No problems with that.

But for this specific article? There's two issues really. The first is references. The article is making a claim that it is the 2nd oldest in the British Isles. Factually, there is no reference, and factually it appears to be wrong since both Dover and Hook Head are older. The reference I found makes a different claim, that it's the oldest medieval lighthouse in Britain, and I cannot uncover a reference for the claim being made. (Be aware that the article, until recently, used to state the 2nd oldest in the British Islands, which is a different body altogether.) The second point is that the guidelines we've hashed out (with difficulty) to date discourages the use of comparisons (oldest, biggest, tallest, etc) over the British Isles as Snowded has pointed out above.

So I think we're agreeing. I'm just expanding the thoughts a little, hopefully to get more discussion and understanding. --HighKing (talk) 13:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)Intersting that "maritime-related topics often relate to the British Isles", i suppose maritime invasions by foreign powers like the French perhaps are totally different. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The lighthouse seems to be the third oldest in the British Isles - oldest is Dover, second is Hook, then comes the Pepperpot of this article. Hook is the oldest operational in the BI. Dover and the Pepperpot are no longer lighthouses as such. Let us clarify all of these points in the respective articles, including Hook, where there is an excellent reference, from the Commissioners of Irish Lights, no less, who state "The oldest operational lighthouse in Ireland and the British Isles is at Hook Head." MidnightBlue (Talk) 14:09, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)We are getting a bit mixed up here. This section is about the lighthouse. I'm shortly going to move parts of this section dealing with the invasion to the section further up - which, incidentally, I'm going to re-open. MidnightBlue (Talk) 14:14, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)Relevant paragraphs moved or copied to the Invasion section above. Please continue lighthouse discussion here. MidnightBlue (Talk) 14:21, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Theres some stuff in the GoodDay Proposal section on the French invasion that probably need to be moved up there or atleast copied up there aswell so its all in one place. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:24, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I've now moved that as well. MidnightBlue (Talk) 14:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Conclusion

Changed to agree with reference to read "Britain's oldest medieval lighthouse". --HighKing (talk) 01:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Would you care to put the reference about the oldest operational lighthouse in the British Isles in the article about Hook Lighthouse, or should I? MidnightBlue (Talk) 22:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Go for it! Seriously, I've no problem adding it either, and I'll support this type of well-referenced usage/fact every instance. --HighKing (talk) 00:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Tasmania (closed)

There's an interesting recent edit at Tasmania. A sourced statement at Tasmania#Demographics says that most residents are of British descent, with Britain pipelinked to British Isles. Now the issue here is that many of the residents will be of Irish descent from a time when Ireland was part of the UK (although some will obviously be from a later time), so does Irish qualify as British under these circumstances? The question is - should the link be used or should we go for British and Irish or some other construction? I'm a bit uneasy about how it stands at the moment (see, I'm not a BI adding fanatic); any thoughts? MidnightBlue (Talk) 17:51, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The quoted source (Britannica) says "British", so as it stands the pipelink is wrong. Probably the best route is to determine via other sources the Irish contribution, and relabel "British and Irish" if applicable. Pipelinking demonym to a geographical entity is bad anyway. The demonym should link to the demonym. "British" should link to British people not United Kingdom. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The full sourced sentence states "The majority of the residents are of British descent" so the pipelink is incorrect. I agree that it should link to British people. Interestingly, the Australian census of 2006 asked people to list their ancestry (which I assume this is where you'd go for the raw data) and has every imaginable variation from "British, nec (includes Falkland Islander)", "British, nfd", English, Irish, Scottish, Welsh, Channel Islander, and even Western European. Feel free to correct the link. --HighKing (talk) 10:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Conclusion

Bad piplink. Should be linked to British people to agree with reference. --HighKing (talk) 10:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Done. MidnightBlue (Talk) 16:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Risk (game) (closed)

An anon editor changed this link from Great Britain to [[British Isles|Great Britain]] which User:MidnightBlueMan then changed to simply British Isles. The game of Risk does not have a territory called "British Isles", but "Great Britain". Nor is "Great Britain" commonly referred to as "British Isles". I've reverted this change. --HighKing (talk) 18:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll take your word for it. If you're right it's a good call. MidnightBlue (Talk) 20:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Grooved ware (closed)

We've got another deletionist operating; carrying out edits which just happen to remove British Isles from the text. In this case there's a reference of sorts (not checked it yet), but the pipelink to United Kingdom is obviously wrong. 81.109.180.31 (talk) 21:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

That was me above (forgot to log in) MidnightBlue (Talk) 21:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The article does not mention finds in Ireland per se, if it has been then given the time period and the nature of the article British Isles would be valid, although Britain and Ireland is as good. Pipeline to the UK should not be there. --Snowded ^TALK 02:10, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

On a similar note to this subject, my reference of sorts states ... burials have been attributed to a unitary 'Arras Culture' ... the best known are a small series of vehicle burials, which may have occasional counterparts elsewhere in eastern and southern Britain Þjóðólfr (talk) 23:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Also I feel Roundhouse (dwelling) needs some editing.

Yes, try adding this to the article [16]. MidnightBlue (Talk) 23:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Iron Age#British Isles is really "Iron Age - Britain" Þjóðólfr (talk) 23:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Not so - "Hill forts that dotted the islands", e.g. Dún Aonghasa, (Ireland). You appear just to want to remove British Isles because you don't like it. MidnightBlue (Talk) 23:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

If I didn't like it I would have moved. I have never hidden my feelings for the term; and I will certainly include your references in any of my editing. Þjóðólfr (talk) 00:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Conclusion

Article corrected. --HighKing (talk) 01:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Isles of Scilly (closed)

The current lede states: The Isles of Scilly (Cornish: Ynysek Syllan) form an archipelago off the southwestern tip of the Cornish peninsula of the British Isles. This should state "Great Britain" as the largest relevant land mass. --HighKing (talk) 17:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree, that one is pretty clear especially as Ireland is further west ..... --Snowded ^TALK 02:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. British Isles is obviously wrong in this case - so wrong that we should correct it immediately (?) MidnightBlue (Talk) 20:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, done. --HighKing (talk) 15:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Conclusion

Changed as per discussion, and already proposed policy. --HighKing (talk) 15:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Trinity House (closed)

This article concerns itself with the official General Lighthouse Authority for England, Wales and other British territorial waters (with the exception of Scotland, the Isle of Man, Northern Ireland). The article goes on to state: The other General Lighthouse Authorities in other parts of the British Isles:

• Commissioners of Irish Lights – Ireland (Northern Ireland and Republic of Ireland)
• Northern Lighthouse Board (formerly known as Commissioners for Northern Lights) – Scotland and the Isle of Man

The article about British lighthouse authorities concerned with British territorial waters shouldn't be referring to a larger area, especially where there is a danger of the article misleading the reader into thinking that the "British Isles" falls totally within British territorial waters. --HighKing (talk) 17:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Completely disagree. The current wording is in no danger of confusing anyone. It is very clear. The additional information provided towards the end of the article is useful and relevant to the subject. In this case British Isles is absolutely correct. MidnightBlue (Talk) 20:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

As the article currently is written, it does not clarify how "British Isles" fits with "British territorial waters", and the unwary reader could be forgiven for assuming that the waters around the isles are what is being discussed. --HighKing (talk) 12:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Concur, confusion is possible and this has to link to the responsible authorities. --Snowded ^TALK 13:35, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

If you think confusion is possible then try re-writing it to make it more clear. This could be easily done without removing British Isles. MidnightBlue (Talk) 16:53, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree with MBM. "British Isles" is easier to understand as long as it's re-written to avoid confusion. Black Kite 18:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, needs clarificaton. GoodDay (talk) 17:42, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Conclusion

Nothing inherently incorrect with using the term as it is a common term in maritime articles, especially dealing with lighthouses and the fact that the UK and Ireland share a lighthouse authority on an all-Ireland basis. The article should simply clarify that British Territorial waters do not have a single lighthouse authority, and do not encompass the entire British Isles. --HighKing (talk) 00:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC) --HighKing (talk) 15:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

James Cook

The text currently states He then joined the frigate HMS Solebay as master under Captain Robert Craig. During this period he served in several minor actions in the vicinity of the British Isles. The included reference doesn't support use of "British Isles" or doesn't mention "several minor actions". The reference mentions places in Scotland, the Orkneys, and the Shetland islands only. I propose that the article simply lists the locations and drops "several minor actions". --HighKing (talk) 15:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I would be less fussed about that, British Isles would be normal for naval records at that time. --Snowded ^TALK 13:37, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree in general - there are a lot of maritime articles using British Isles that I don't bother with, even with no references, etc. But in this case (also no reference) he merely went from Scotland to the Orkneys to the Shetlands. I think in this case we'd be better to use something else. Scotland, or even North Sea.... --HighKing (talk) 17:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Keep British Isles in this case. GoodDay (talk) 17:39, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Black Kite 18:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Notwithstanding the lack of references that support the general statement, usage of British Isles within maritime article is generally acceptable. --HighKing (talk) 00:04, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Conclusion

Usage of British Isles is common and acceptable for Maritime articles. --HighKing (talk) 00:04, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Yorkshire

The current text states Yorkshire is a historic county of northern England and the largest in the British Isles. Obviously should use "United Kingdom". --HighKing (talk) 15:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that is obvious, it should be the UK as the only relevant political unity. --Snowded ^TALK 13:33, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Is there a bigger county in Ireland? No. Counties in the UK and Ireland have a common history. The statement is correct. MidnightBlue (Talk) 16:55, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

United Kingdom is acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 17:38, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Yorkshire is clearly irrelevant to Ireland. This should be United Kingdom. Black Kite 18:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

We are talking historic counties here, not current ones. As such, the counties in Ireland are as relevant as those elsewhere in the British Isles. Yorkshire IS the largest historic county in the British Isles. Hostorically the counties of Ireland were considered along with all the others. MidnightBlue (Talk) 22:38, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Um. "Historic county" means "it doesn't exist as a separate entity any more (having been split)". I don't see the link, to be honest. The statement is technically correct, but somewhat irrelevant, as Yorkshire is not part of Ireland. I'm pretty sure that you wouldn't say, for example, "London is the biggest city in the British Isles". You'd say England, the UK, or Great Britain. Black Kite 23:20, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Should be United Kingdom, or possibly England. Not really relevent to British Isles. In addition the reference used is Yorkshire: Britain's Largest County. Quantpole (talk) 16:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Conclusion

Usage of comparisons involving the British Isles should be avoided as irrelevant in most cases. --HighKing (talk) 00:05, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Not so folks! First off, historic county does not mean that it doesn't now exist. Yorkshire very much still exists, as an historic county and as the modern geographic, administrative units. Counties have existed long before the UK or any other modern political units and when it comes to talk of the true historic counties we often bring the 32 counties of Ireland into the equation. So its fine to say British Isles when talking of the historic counties and Yorkshire is the biggest county in the British Isles as well! I'd say the best solution is to make the point that it's the biggest in England (England not being a political unit here) and the biggest in the British Isles. The fact is relevant to all sorts of people such an genealogists and local historians. Go for it! Mister Flash (talk) 22:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

You say that when it comes to talk of the true historic counties, we often bring the 32 counties of Ireland into the equation. Can you provide some contexts and references for this? You also state that the fact is relevant to all sorts of people such an genealogists and local historians. Can you also provide some contexts and references for this too. --HighKing (talk) 23:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I could, but I ain't going to. Better things to do with my time. This is a dumb debate. The bleeding obvious is being stated (get a map out to see if there's a bigger county in Ireland) but you guys are just looking for excuses to junk British Isles. Mister Flash (talk) 23:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Changed to United Kingdom --HighKing (talk) 22:17, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Well this is something I do know a bit about. YOU ARE WRONG! Mister Flash (talk) 19:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Vic Oliver

This article states As a Jew, his name was listed on a Nazi blacklist of people to be arrested (and killed) immediately after a successful invasion of the British Isles. There is no reference for this, notwithstanding that it should state "Britain" or "Great Britain" or even "United Kingdom". I propose that this sentence is changed to "Britain". --HighKing (talk) 00:15, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree as Germany was at war with Britain not the British Isles.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:53, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I would actually suggest England (Operation Sealion). As MBM will no doubt make this point, we should remember, that the Nazis had already invaded the British Isles on 30 June 1940. Þjóðólfr (talk) 08:36, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Diagree. There were plans to invade all of the British Isles. MidnightBlue (Talk) 11:20, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

So you are stating Mr Oliver would have been safe until the Swastika was flying over Athlone? Holocaust denial is going a little far to make a point. Þjóðólfr (talk) 11:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The suggestion that the Germans had plans to invade ""all of the British Isles" seems a little fanciful. 'England' would be accurate. However, 'Britain' would be the most suitable and the least contentious for this article. Daicaregos (talk) 14:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

This one is clearly Britain or UK. Ireland was neutral and its worth remembering that Swedish Neutrality was respected as was Swiss. The character in question was also resident in Britain. Midnight, can we please take a more balanced view? --Snowded ^TALK 14:40, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. See comment above. Ireland's netrality has nothing to do with it. There were plans to invade the British Isles, a fact that has already been debated elsewhere in this tiresome campaign to rid Wikipedia of British Isles. MidnightBlue (Talk) 17:00, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

and an equally tiresome campaign to keep it regardless of its applicability. Please provide a link to the previous debate. --Snowded ^TALK 17:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

United Kingdom is acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 17:36, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:53, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Conclusion

Article changed. (although the general claim in the article is still not referenced either...) --HighKing (talk) 01:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The Village (The Prisoner)

The article states Finally, in the series finale episode, "Fall Out", Number Six and other characters are able to drive from the Village (or at least the Degree Absolute interrogation facility which may or may not be attached to The Village) to central London, indicating a location in the British Isles.. Clearly, leaving aside the WP:OR, this should read "Great Britain". --HighKing (talk) 00:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Concur --Snowded ^TALK 13:33, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

It's bloody fiction! And the statement is correct! MidnightBlue (Talk) 17:01, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually its not correct, as far as I know you can't drive across the Irish Sea. Midnight, you would be a lot more credible if you took a balanced view on this. You seem to just want to keep BI if there is the least excuse. --Snowded ^TALK 17:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

United Kingdom is acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 17:38, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

"mainland Britain" would be far more accurate. You clearly can't drive to London from parts of the British Isles, but neither can you from certain parts of the UK or Britain. Black Kite 18:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

That too, is acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 18:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

What about Great Britain as it refers to just the island as opposed to the UK? --HighKing (talk) 00:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Also acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 23:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Conclusion

Changed to Great Britain --HighKing (talk) 01:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Easegill System

The text states The Ease Gill Cave System is the longest cave system in the British Isles but the is no reference for this statement. The only reference that makes a similar statement states that The Caves under and around Ease Gill on the Cumbria/Lancashire of border of the UK form the longest and most complex system in Britain. and the UK Caves database states A very complex system with more entrances than any other British cave system (28 I think but there may be more) and later states It holds the dubious honor of having had more deaths than any other cave in UK or Ireland in modern caving. The text should just state Britain. --HighKing (talk) 00:24, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Without a reference it should change to Britain, with a reference it might be OK. --Snowded ^TALK 13:38, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

No references appear to be forthcoming - I agree with Snowded to change to "Britain". --HighKing (talk) 21:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Not so fast... MidnightBlue (Talk) 21:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

[17] And don't say it's not a good reference. It's on a par with one you (HK) presented in relation to Derry or Lough Neagh or some other such place. MidnightBlue (Talk) 21:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I think, by your comment, you already know it's not a good reference. Who is Bill Pybus? --HighKing (talk) 00:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

MBM has attempted to re-add this disputed reference again. I have reverted. The reference he has added in attributed to Bill Pybus. Does anyone know? Seems to me he's a local potholer? Not a reliable source. --HighKing (talk) 01:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Conclusion

No reference can be found - article text should agree with the reference. --HighKing (talk) 00:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Article changed, reference added. --HighKing (talk) 01:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

You are joking arent't you? Yes, you must be! On that basis I'm reverting your edits. Just in case you are serious, allow me to point out that the two "references" you provide are from the same website - a website that groups Republic of Ireland caves under the banner of United Kingdom and seems to afford that country the same status as England, Wales etc. Hardly a reliable "reference" you would have to agree.

I've reverted your removal of references. The references are from two difference websites. Please do not remove the references again. If you wish to reopen this topic, please do so by creating a "Reopening" section below. --HighKing (talk) 14:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

On the general point of references it's very clear that nothing is ever good enough for you. No matter what quality others may afford a reference you'll always find a problem with it if it doesn't support your anti British Isles POV (see discussion concerning the Walls of Londonderry). If, on the other hand, it does support your POV, you'll present the most ludicrous references that can be found. LevenBoy (talk) 12:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Please read the notice at the top of this page regarding civility and personal comments. I have also asked BlackKite to drop you a note to outline the rules he is enforcing on this topic. --HighKing (talk) 14:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Your references are crap. And you've no agreement for this change. Mister Flash (talk) 16:38, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• Doing Google searches for variations on "Ease Gill Cave System" + "British Isles" return practically nothing relevant except Wikipedia mirrors [18] [19] [20]. For "Britain", I also found this and this. On this basis, I have to conclude that using "British Isles" here is original research. Also, the references cited by HighKing may not be fantastic, but they're certainly relevant. This should clearly be "Britain". Black Kite 22:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
  • ...and frankly, some of these arguments are farcical. We have editors saying that changes need to be referenced, and when references are found, they're "not good enough". (And this goes for both sides of this dispute). I have so far held back on using admin tools here, but next time I see one of the regulars here revert a well sourced reference to BI/Britain/UK etc without any sort of justification, I will block them for disruption. Black Kite 22:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

(conflict):No, the reference I noted above is from the local tourist board. It's as good as any that have been presented. As for it being OR - well if someone had been down to measure the extent of the caves themselves and then quoted it here, then that would be OR. Attempts to claim OR in cases like this come close to gaming the system. In fact, the current approach being adopted by HK is even closer to gaming the system. MidnightBlue (Talk) 22:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Black Kite, I don't wish to appear offensive but we can do without your shouting bold text and threats. Try dealing with the problem instead of the symptoms. MidnightBlue (Talk) 22:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Hence why I said "practically" no references. There are far more to "Britain" than there are to "British Isles", so we go with the majority. Clearly, if you can find a lot more reliable sources then we can look at it again. My comment/threat/whatever above, by the way, was mainly aimed at the two editors who reverted on this article and took the references out. That's just disruptive whichever way you look at it, and I will block for it in future. Black Kite 22:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok you're out of order here! You've put a bolded threat above and then gone and broken your own revert of revert rules to try and impose your favoured version, and no doubt you'll soon be protecting it. I suggest you revert your recent change. You are very close to abusing your powers as an admin. MidnightBlue (Talk) 22:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, let's assume good faith, shall we? That wasn't a revert, because I added references. And what me being an admin has got to do with it I've got no clue, because I didn't use my admin tools whilst making that edit. I think you know well enough now that I don't take sides on this issue (look at the archived discussions). Black Kite 22:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, so you're not going to use your admin powers abusively. I accept that. However, I have added another reference to the article, and I suggest one or two of yours are removed. There's just too many now for that one point. I urge you yet again - address the problem, not the symptoms. MidnightBlue (Talk) 22:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

If you believe that some of the references are spurious, then remove them - just don't restore BI without a good reason. I (and I'm sure any other admin) don't have a problem when people revert with (a) a good rationale, and (b) suitable sources. However, I have to say that I am rapidly losing patience with this whole situation. In many other situations of this type, mass topic bans have been handed out to editors who can't follow these simple rules and just blindly revert. I am rapidly wondering whether we are approaching the point where this might have to be actioned here. Black Kite 23:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the reference added by MBM who reinserted BI without discussing here. The reference inserted was discussed above and rejected since the source of the information (Bill Pybus) is unknown. --HighKing (talk) 01:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Let me reword your statement so that it's factually correct; "The reference inserted was discussed above and rejected by me since the source of the information (Bill Pybus) is unknown to me". You've deleted referenced material. I'm putting it back - in due course. Mister Flash (talk) 19:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Conclusion

Unsupported by reliable references, other references simply use Britain. Changed to referencable "Britain". --HighKing (talk) 16:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

North Channel (Great Britain and Ireland)

This article should be renamed. It clearly relates to the geographical entity of the British Isles, so North Channel (British Isles) would be the normal description. MidnightBlue (Talk) 18:36, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Current title is acceptable, as it's between 2 seperate islands. GoodDay (talk) 18:42, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

if anything Ireland and Scotland would be more accurate, but this one is not worth any change --Snowded ^TALK 18:43, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Scotland isn't an island, though. GoodDay (talk) 18:51, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

So? The channel is between Scotland and Ireland --Snowded ^TALK 18:53, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

It's gotta be between islands or between countries. GoodDay (talk) 18:54, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

'North Channel (Northern Ireland and Scotland)' would be acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 18:53, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The channel is between Great Britain and Ireland, the two major islands in the British Isles group. It is obvious that BI should be used here. In fact, it previously was used without a problem, until HK changed it a while ago. MidnightBlue (Talk) 19:52, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Howabout 'North Channel (between Great Britain and Ireland)' or 'North Channel (Great Britain, Ireland)'? GoodDay (talk) 20:02, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

How about British Isles? Is there a particular objection to use of that geographic term to describe a channel within it? MidnightBlue (Talk) 20:11, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I prefer 'North Channel (Great Britain, Ireland), no room for political PoV charges there. GoodDay (talk) 20:21, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

British Entomology

The lead states; Described as British Entomology, being illustrations and descriptions of the genera of insects found in Great Britain and Ireland; This is ambiguous as it is unclear whether any outlying islands are included. On the assumption that some outlying islands will have populations, a more accurate usage would be British Isles rather than Great Britain and Ireland. MidnightBlue (Talk) 18:52, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Getting really silly now. That is a book, and the words are taken from the book. --Snowded ^TALK 18:55, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

No need to replace with British Isles. Merely wik-link as Great Britain and Ireland. -- GoodDay (talk) 19:35, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying pipelink GB&I to BI? MidnightBlue (Talk) 19:51, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Nope, keep the islands of Great Britain and Ireland seperate. GoodDay (talk) 19:53, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

But see my original comment; Great Britain is ambiguous. We don't know if it includes other islands. MidnightBlue (Talk) 19:54, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

It's best not to mesh GB & I together. GoodDay (talk) 19:59, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm thinking pipelinking GB&I and I to BI is the solution here. Although it's a direct quote it would help to clarify the matter. MidnightBlue (Talk) 20:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

That's too garbled. GoodDay (talk) 20:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)First, the above is a direct quotation from the book cover. It is not ambiguous in the slightest. It is pure WP:OR to suggest that "British Isles" is what the author intended. --HighKing (talk) 21:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC) Current quotation is correct. --HighKing (talk) 21:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Conclusion

It's a quotation from a book. Leave as it is. --HighKing (talk) 14:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Agreed. Mister Flash (talk) 15:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Archiving

I have moved "closed" items to Wikipedia talk:British Isles Terminology task force/Specific Examples/Closed to keep the length of this page down. Black Kite 21:57, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Albert Square, Manchester

The article states The coloured sett paving which was laid around the Memorial in 1987 depicts floral representations of the Four Home Nations of Great Britain and Ireland. and wikilinks [British Isles | Great Britain and Ireland]. This article should not wikilink in this way and the link to British Isles should be removed. --HighKing (talk) 18:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeh that's a weird one. Should be changed to The coloured sett paving which was laid around the Memorial in 1987 depicts floral representations of the Four Home Nations of the United Kingdom., unless there really is a floral representation of the whole of Ireland, in which case the wording should be changed. Quantpole (talk) 10:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a picture of that part of the pavement, but I suspect it's a Rose, Thistle, Leek, Shamrock pattern, in which case the text should read as "representations of England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales". It would be great if someone could confirm... --HighKing (talk) 19:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I did have a look myself but couldn't find anything. What you've suggested sounds like the most likely scenario and I agree with the wording if it is the case. Quantpole (talk) 23:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Anybody get a piccie of this yet, or happen to be walking past and can check? --HighKing (talk) 01:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Conclusion

I've changed the Wikilink. --HighKing (talk) 22:32, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Eric Williams

The article text reads Despite his extraordinary academic success at Oxford, Williams was denied any opportunity to pursue a career in the British Isles.. This text should read as "United Kingdom". --HighKing (talk) 19:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree, no case for BI --Snowded ^TALK 00:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Conclusion

Change to United Kingdom. --HighKing (talk) 01:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Lake District

The article states Seathwaite in Borrowdale is the wettest inhabited place in the British Isles with an average of 3,300 millimetres (130 in) of rain a year. The reference points to the UK Met office, which does not state anything about it being the wettest. The article on Seathwaite has an extra reference which states it is the wettest inhabited place in England. This article should state it is the wettest in England. --HighKing (talk) 20:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, England is preferable; however, seeing as British Isles is a geographical term and they are discussing rainfall, British Isles could be used but only if there is a source that says Seathwaite is indeed the wettest inhabited place in the entire archipelago. It appears that they are just discussing England though.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:32, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

No probs with that at all. --HighKing (talk) 01:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Conclusion

Changed to England to agree with reference --HighKing (talk) 01:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

There are refeences that state otherwise. Changed back. LevenBoy (talk) 12:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Please reopen this topic and discuss your links here before changing back. That is the process. I've reverted your change, and you have been warned about disruptive behaviour already.

On the subject of your reference, it isn't a good reference. The website fails WP:EL and is entirely to promote businesses in the area. --HighKing (talk) 15:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

"It isn't a good reference"! What! Another reference that you don't like. Well there's a surprise. It's at least as good a reference as the type you put forward, but then we know what your motives are, good reference or otherwise. LevenBoy (talk) 18:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

LevenBoy, this is your final reminder that this topic and page are under strict civility rules. If you want to call other editors names or assign motives, don't do it here or you'll just end up with a block. A better discussion would be for you to understand why the reference isn't good, and perhaps for you to try to find an acceptable reference (according to policy). The reference you chose is a promotional website by a commercial organization. --HighKing (talk) 18:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't fall into the trap of thinking this is an argument about use of the term British Isles. Seathwaite is considered to be the wettest place in England, but it isn't even the wettest place in Great Britain and Northern Ireland, never mind the British Isles; that is usually considered to be Eskdalemuir in Scotland. Skinsmoke (talk) 17:03, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Ha, ha! You might be right there boy. Then again, Seathwaite did get over a foot (yes, a bloody foot, can you believe) of rain in 31 hours a couple of days ago. If that doesn't make it the wettest palce in the British Isles I'll eat me sporran. Mister Flash (talk) 20:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey! [21] Looks like it could soon be time to put the BI back into Seathwaite. I'll be watching. Mister Flash (talk) 20:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Tooting Bec and Tooting Bec Lido

These articles claim that Tooting Bec Lido is the largest swimming pool in the British Isles. The reference given from Wandsworth (the brighter borough) is that it is the largest in England. The text should use "England". --HighKing (talk) 01:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's the biggest in England - the point being? MidnightBlue (Talk) 22:22, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

According to this from 2006 it's Europe's largest outdoor swimming pool, might be a more informative alternative/addition. Guest9999 (talk) 07:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

This one doesn't work. MidnightBlue (Talk) 22:13, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The link worked for me. The second sentence of the second paragraph says "This year sees the centenary of Tooting Bec Lido, Europe's largest outdoor swimming pool, which opened in 1906.". Hope this helps. Daicaregos (talk) 22:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

According to this it's only the 2nd largest. --HighKing (talk) 13:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

This one - well, not worth commenting on really, other than to say it's worthless. MidnightBlue (Talk) 22:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

In this instance I'd go with UK.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd stick with British Isles. LevenBoy (talk) 12:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

A reference has been added to the article by LevenBoy from Saint George's University of London. The reference lists some "Fast facts" without attributions to sources, including "Tooting Lido is the largest open air pool in the British Isles". Given that the more official source from Wandsworth borough states otherwise, and that other good quality sources state "England" such as South London Swimming Club who use it as their home, and a recent article published by the Times. Although this article published by the BBC uses UK, I'd still go with "England" as best. --HighKing (talk) 14:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Again, the one from The Times doesn't work and the other is somewhat inferior to the one from the University. MidnightBlue (Talk) 22:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree the British Isles source doesn't meet the required standards but why not UK, since it's more impressive, more informative and reliably sourced? Guest9999 (talk) 21:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Somewhere in the British Isles there's a lido that's the biggest in the islands. If you can determine that it isn't at Tooting then fine, but let's then put the reference you obtain into the article about the lido that is the biggest. And by the way, if it's the biggest in Europe then it's also the biggest in the British Isles. MidnightBlue (Talk) 22:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no value in British Isles here. A Lido for God sake, UK is the most appropriate. --Snowded ^TALK 00:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Tooting Bec Lido is the largest rectangular outdoor pool in the UK, the Jubilee Pool in Penzance (triangular) is larger, so I have amended the TBL article. See Extreme lidos - a Lidos FAQ access date=2009-11-10. Andy Hoines, who wrote this webpage, is a friend of mine. For other lidos projects see my To do page.--Lidos (talk) 10:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if it's the second largest swimming pool in the British Isles, as I don't know about outdoor pools in Ireland. The largest in Europe is actually Freibad Brentano - 220 metres long and 60 metres wide, with a surface area of 11,000 square metres - in Frankfurt am Main, Germany, also from above webpage.--Lidos (talk) 10:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Much of the above discussion seems to be about which Sources are reliable and which are not. National newspapers and local authorities, eg Wandsworth, often make mistakes. One wouldn't really expect a university specialising in medicine, eg St George's, to be knowlegeable about lidos. You would however expect the South London Swimming Club to have it right, as they more or less run Tooting Bec Lido.--Lidos (talk) 10:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Conclusion

Changed to agree with the South London Swimming Club reference --HighKing (talk) 01:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Next time you make a change, please put something on the Talk page for each article first.--Lidos (talk) 09:28, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Crowbar (tool) and Spud bar and Shit

The article states A crowbar, pry bar, or prybar, or sometimes (in British/Commonwealth usage) a prise bar or prisebar more informally a jimmy, jimmy bar[citation needed], jemmy (British Isles)[citation needed] or gooseneck is a tool consisting of a metal bar with a single curved end and flattened points, often with a small fissure on one or both ends for removing nails. In the British Isles and Australia, "crowbar" may occasionally be used loosely for this tool, but is more commonly used to mean a larger straight tool (see spud bar). The article should use UK instead. --HighKing (talk) 01:16, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Surprise, surprise. You want British Isles out of this one as well. Have you ever found an article where it would be better to put British Isles in? LevenBoy (talk) 12:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

In Ireland this is called a jemmy or a crowbar. In fact the description is exactly right for Ireland. A jemmy is a short bar, curved at the end with a flat hook, whereas a crowbar is a large heavy iron bar. Now do we need to ask someone from the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man what the tools are called there, or can we just assume that they don't have different name for them? LevenBoy (talk) 13:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The article is stating that it's called a "jemmy" in the British Isles, and uses the term "British Isles" in the same context as it is using the term "Australia". The article should refer to the country in these cases, not a geographic area, since the subject is dealing with people and language use. --HighKing (talk) 14:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

How about British Isles and Australasia? --Snowded ^TALK 23:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Leaving aside the fact that the first usage, I would dispute since AFAIK people in RoI use "crowbar". As a general rule of thumb going forward, are you proposing/suggesting that where modern language terminology/usage (or perhaps other cultural aspects also) is discussed, it's OK to group the England, RoI, NI, Scotland and Wales together? For example, could we say that "jaysus" is commonly used over the British Isles? --HighKing (talk) 01:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I was maybe being a bit flippant there, its late at night and I am stranded in a broken down bus between New York and Boston. In practice this might be better just to get rid of the sentence, Its actually wrong anyway --Snowded ^TALK 03:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Might I also be flippant by saying that you lead a very exciting life, Snowded.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

@Snowded, I hope you managed to get to wherever you were going safely Snowded. I drove from NYC to Boston a couple of years ago, late one night, and some of the areas are pretty out of the way and ... well ... spooky... Anyway, I've also now added Spud bar and Shit to this same section as they're dealing with pretty much the same issue. What's your opinion on using "British Isles" in these contexts? Me? I believe we should use country names. --HighKing (talk) 01:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I think this is a case for "British" instead of "British/Commonwealth" and then list the other names without reference to origin.--Snowded ^TALK 13:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Conclusion

Changed --HighKing (talk) 01:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Niccolò Paganini

The text states: His fame spread across Europe with a concert tour that started in Vienna in August, 1828, stopping in every major European city in Germany, Poland, and Bohemia until February, 1831 in Strasburg. This was followed by tours in Paris and the British Isles. The text should use "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland]]. --HighKing (talk) 18:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Assuming he stop 'only' in London, we should use London. GoodDay (talk) 18:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes well we know HighKing doesn't like British Isles. I guess that's why he wants to change this article, and all the others he seeks to change. LevenBoy (talk) 18:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

If he's been to other British cities? then United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, is acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 18:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

[22]

[23]

[24]

[25] —Preceding unsigned comment added by LevenBoy (talk • contribs) 19:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Let's see. An anonymous blog, a commercial website, what looks like a white witchcraft website, and a strange Russian site I've no idea about. None of which are a valid reference. --HighKing (talk00:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

You really are very amusing when it comes references. Did I hear something about stonewalling somewhere? LevenBoy (talk) 13:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The first reference uses Great Britain, the second provides the quote used in the article, the third uses British Isles as does the fourth. Now the sources are not very good and certainty don't justify your comment LevenBoy. However in the description of the tour it seems to be valid, and this is pre 1920. --Snowded ^TALK 13:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The first reference states at one point in the text "Paganini toured Scotland and Ireland, and had dozens of exceptionally well-paid performances around the British Isles." The point here though, is that whatever reference you offer to HighKing he always rejects it. There's always some reason why it's not up to scratch. He, on the other hand, will often provide references of a similar quality to those I've given here, or in many cases that are not as good. LevenBoy (talk) 14:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes he is right, sometimes wrong and I wait to see an example of you taking a position that BI is not appropriate. In the meantime I would keep off the personal comments and keep to the facts. --Snowded ^TALK 14:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I daresay I could find one or two if I had the strange inclination to scour the text looking for British Isles. I come across its use as a result of HighKing picking it out. That said, on this page I'd go with The Village (The Prisoner) as an article where use was incorrect. LevenBoy (talk) 14:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

If you can't abide by the strict policy of civility for this page, you will be blocked or restricted from contributing here. You have received adequate warning. --HighKing (talk) 16:18, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)I've found a number of references in Google Books that discuss Paganini in Ireland, England, British Isles, Paris, etc.

• Nicolo Paganini: His Life and Work
• The Dublin University magazine: a literary and political journal, Volume 37
• Crescendo of the virtuoso: spectacle, skill, and self-promotion in Paris
• Article on Paganini in Museum of foreign literature, science and art, Volume 19 (up to 1928)
• The Edinburgh literary journal Dec 1830
• Memoirs of Mrs. Hemans
• Old Billboard Ad

Putting the whole in context, there appears to be general confusion over dates because sometimes a reference quotes 1830 and another reference will state 1829 for the same event. There is one reference which uses the term "British Isles" and states "After London, he made an extensive tour of the British Isles, including more than a hundred concerts, and returned to Paris for the spring of 1832". None others do - piecing everything together, the sequence appears to be:

• 1829 - Warsaw, left in July
• Nov 1829, Munich, 3 concerts
• End of 1830, Farewell concert in Frankfort (Edi lit journal, given as 1829 in "Life and Work")
• Arrived in Strasbourg, gave 2 concerts
• End Feb onwards 1831, he gave 12 concerts in Paris
• Early in May 1831, left Paris for London (life and work) Headed for Great Britain. Gave several concerts in Northern France on the way (Cresendo of the virtuoso)
• Announced a concert in Kings Theatre in London for May 21st 1831, but was postponed for June 3rd
• 2nd concert played on 10th June, same venue. 13th June, 3rd concert, same venue. 16th June, 4th concert, same venue. 22nd June, 5th (final) concert, same venue
• Final concerts were announced - one was played on July 4th 1831
• Gave two concerts at the London Tavern in July
• Two concerts at Cheltenham in July
• July 9th, Concert at Lord Mayor's banquet in Mansion House
• August - concerts in London
• August - 3 concerts in Norwich
• End of August - set out for Dublin
• Was in Dublin for the music festival (Aug 30th - Sept 3rd 1831) He gave 3 concerts. (Ref: Life and Work)(ref: Memorials of Mrs. Hemans)(Ref:Billboard ad) There is some descrepencies here, since some references state the music festival was in 1830 (ref: Dublin Uni Magazine).
• Gave 3 evening concerts in the Theatre Royal
• Returned to London
• Note states: "On tour in the provinces and Scotland" - no idea what is meant by "in the provinces?"
• October 1831 Tait's Edinburgh magazine mentions he played in Edinburgh in 1831, also mentions a private party he played in Edinburgh.
• Dec 1831 - Concert announce in Bristol
• Early 1832 - Concert in Leeds
• Feb 1832 - Concert in Birmingham
• Early 1832, concert in Brighton
• March 1832 - Left London for Paris

Based on these references, concerts were held in England, Scotland and Ireland. The term "British Isles" is used in one reference - a book by Paul Metzner which is described as a book of Trivia on the men he calls virtuosos, but does not appear in any other reference. Usage of the term "British Isles" could be construed to be used as a reference to "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland", which is one of the uses that the guidelines (so far) recommend is avoided. --HighKing (talk) 16:18, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

HK, why not put all this information into the article as opposed to here? Þjóðólfr (talk) 16:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I will once the discussions have concluded. I just don't want to edit the article until a consensus has been reached here about how to deal with various articles, etc. I don't want to be seen to be hastily adding/deleting stuff until people have had a chance to have their say, as this might lead to reverts and disrupting the stability of articles. --HighKing (talk) 16:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you should go for it - I really don't know what the defintion of disruption is but anyone who tries to overide that amount of research and input would stick out to most neutral observers, and if it proves not the case the case, then it time for some other attempt at dispute resolution. Þjóðólfr (talk) 17:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Wowsers!!! As our friend from Prince Edward Island would say. HighKing, where did you find the time to do all that? What an effort! Tell you what, as a reward for all your hard work we'll let you take out British Isles, even though its use is perfectly acceptable. Go on! Have this one on us! Just this one, mind! Don't get any big ideas here. Mister Flash (talk) 20:40, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

With the greatest of respect to Mister Flash, AGF and all that, you have not (just yet) qualified as one of Us - another 10 mins vandal fighting would do the trick. Þjóðólfr (talk) 21:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, ha, ha, ha, ha, ah, ah, haha, jikes, I've just pissed myself. At least I've got a name you can pronounce, and that probably counts for more than does number of edits. (A wise old man recently told me that when someone uses the phrase "with the greatest of respect" what they actually mean is "you f****g a****e t***t of a b****d, why don't you f**k off" - so, same to you. There are quite a few users here who use that phrase). Mister Flash (talk) 23:36, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

AGF and all that, do you have a problem with people who do not share your cultural background? Þjóðólfr (talk) 23:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Conclusion

Change it to United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. -- GoodDay (talk) 15:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. --HighKing (talk) 22:27, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Changed --HighKing (talk) 15:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

November 2009 Great Britain and Ireland floods

Just to alert members of the task force that there is discussion currently taking place on the naming of that article and the reference to it on the WP:main page, both at Talk:November 2009 Great Britain and Ireland floods and at Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors#Flooding in Great Britain and Ireland. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Jersey

Discuss Þjóðólfr (talk) 18:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Battle of Jersey#British soil? Þjóðólfr (talk) 18:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

As the battle occured in 1781, I've no probs with the usage of British Isles. GoodDay (talk) 18:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

The point here GD is your when in doubt... maxim. Consensus was achieved at Talk:Battle of Jersey by an "unpolitical" discussion - possibly because the only reference refers to "British Soil". Using BI ignores, possibly the most important event to stop the British Isles being wiped from history (yes even more important than you MBM!), namely the Battle of Britain. Þjóðólfr (talk) 18:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Is Jersey considered a part of the island of Great Britain 'or' the island of Ireland? If the answer is 'no'? Then exclude British Isles. GoodDay (talk) 18:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

The battles (also involving the French) during the 1798 Rebellion took place place after. We could also add the battles (or "battle"?) that took place during the Anglo-Irish war almost a century an a half later on "British soil". "British Isles" or not, the sentence is incorrect. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

But so far as it goes, British Isles is correct, so leave it be. LevenBoy (talk) 13:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Is BI correct? I bet it is. Someone find a ref that says it isn't and we could change it, otherwise I vote BI stays (or gets put back at the first opportunity). Mister Flash (talk) 19:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Eh? I just pointed you to later battles. Example: Battle of Ballinamuck. Another from the same conflict: Races of Castlebar. Both of these examples were even larger scale battle. "British Isles" or not, the statement is simply incorrect. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 23:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

So that's fine. British Isles is apparently incorrect in the Jersey article, let's take it out, but not put in British Islands, with its limited meaning. It would be helpful if someone knowledgeable in the area could identify the actual last land battle to take place in the British Isles, then we can add that useful piece of information to the appropriate article. LevenBoy (talk) 12:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The last land battle which occurred on British soil was the Battle of Culloden in 1746.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The ones mentioned above occurred later, it seems. LevenBoy (talk) 13:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The Battle of Culloden was the last land battle to take place in Great Britain would be more correct than saying British soil which could be misunderstood.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Brown Bear

This article states Brown bear remains from the Pleistocene period are common in the British Isles, where it is thought they outcompeted cave bears. A lot of this discussion to date is taken up with articles that highlight where the term is used (debatably) incorrectly. This article is a good example of where the term is used correctly, in a non-political non-cultural geographic context. I believe we can all agree on this? --HighKing (talk) 22:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Since the bears don't seem to mind, keep British Isles. GoodDay (talk) 22:27, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

It would be great if your reasons were based on usage of the term...helping to form guidelines. It's probably not clear enough to state that we'll use the term whenever the bears don't mind. :-) --HighKing (talk) 22:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

The term is used non-politically & non-culturally, thus no probs with its usage in that article. GoodDay (talk) 22:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

The term British Isles is fine for this article as the brown bears are part of the fauna of the islands.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Conclusion

When discussing distribution of fauna, the British Isles is often referred to as a single geographical distribution unit. In this case, using "British Isles" is correct. --HighKing (talk) 14:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

On yes, Silly me. You want to keep one of em. Who am I to object. Mister Flash (talk) 19:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Count palatine

The article states The term count palatine was not used on the British Isles. Just as Count always remained reserved for continental territories, even though the equivalence of earl became clear by rendering it in Latin also as Comes, earl palatine was the exclusively British title for the incumbent of a British county palatine. Since it's a political title, the article should use "United Kingdom" instead. --HighKing (talk) 01:35, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I definitely agree with you on this one.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. British Isles is completely accurate here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LevenBoy (talk • contribs) 13:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Stonewalling isn't tolerated. Either give reasons why you disagree, or don't comment. --HighKing (talk) 14:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The Irish system of monarchy was completely different to that of the UK and continental Europe, therefore UK should be used.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks like BI may be wrong here. I mean really wrong, but like most of us here, I'm no expert. I abstain. Mister Flash (talk) 19:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Conclusion

Corrected. --HighKing (talk) 14:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

1960 in rail transport

This article states:

• June 18 – The Middleton Railway, at Leeds in England, becomes the first standard gauge line in the British Isles to be operated by volunteers as a preserved railway, initial services being worked by a diesel locomotive.

The article should use "United Kingdom". Current guidelines recommend not comparing "oldest", "first", etc, over the British Isles for man-made object, etc. --HighKing (talk) 01:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

No. the article states a fact. It is valid to use British Isles. LevenBoy (talk) 13:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

United Kingdom should be used, what's in the UK is irrelevant to the republic of Ireland. What's in England, is irrelevant to Northern Ireland. GoodDay (talk) 14:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

GoodDay, you are missing a point here. England and Ireland (including NI) have a closely related railway history, so it's fine to say "first whatever in the BI" - if that's a fact, and to prove it isn't, then you need to go and find one elsewhere in the British Isles that came first. As for the guidelines -- who wrote them? Mister Flash (talk) 18:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Unless Middleton Railway crosses over into the island of Ireland, I'm not convinced by the argument. GoodDay (talk) 19:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't. Existing guidelines have been developed my a number of editors over time - that is the purpose of this page btw. --HighKing (talk) 19:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Conclusion

Corrected to use "United Kingdom" --HighKing (talk) 13:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I've corrected it to use British Isles. Mister Flash (talk) 17:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

It's been corrected to simply remove the text it seems. --HighKing (talk) 16:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Cork College of Commerce

The article states: As well as equipping students with immediately useful and recognised skills, the College has instituted a wide array of further education links, steering students onto degree level and professional qualifications in Ireland, and around the British Isles. It should use UK instead. --HighKing (talk) 02:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. UK does sound better.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. British Isles sounds a lot better, and is accurate. LevenBoy (talk) 13:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Ireland and the British Isles makes no sense to me, if we're going by sovereign states? use Ireland & the United Kingdom. If were going by islands? use Ireland & Great Britain. GoodDay (talk) 14:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes but it just needs a minor word change "qualifications in Ireland, and elsewhere in the British Isles". See, you don't have to junk BI at every opportunity. A bit of lateral thinking sometimes does the trick. Mister Flash (talk) 18:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

It's still unnecessary an incorrect, not to mind unreferenced. If you can come up with a good reason that makes sense to keep it, let's hear it. But "lateral thinking" isn't one. --HighKing (talk)

19:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Please prove that it's incorrect. Mister Flash (talk) 19:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The entire piece "Ireland, and around the British Isles" should be removed. It's just waffle. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 23:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Conclusion

Removed. --HighKing (talk) 13:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Afro-Eurasia

Can someone please look at this article. It is a purely geographic article that rightly and correctly uses (or used) the term British Isles to describe a group of islands off the coast of the landmass. Unfortunately it has been plagued by an arrogant editor who remorselessly removes the term, engages in continuing edit wars and doesn't enter edit summaries other than to make totally unfounded accusations (User:Þjóðólfr). I will reinstate British Isles in this article unless extremely good reasons are given here as to why I shouldn't - and I don't mean reasons such as "because it's controversial". MidnightBlue (Talk) 19:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm concerned about pjooolfr's edit summary there. GoodDay (talk) 19:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

From a syntax point of view, I'd prefer if the article stated (excluding the British Isles, Japan, Madagascar and the Malay Archipelago), and dropped "excluding island(s)". Other than that wee quibble, the original text was fine. Perhaps Þjóðólfr could enlighten us here as to why he removed the term. I'm also troubled by the edit summary where he calls you a sockmaster, but you've made many unfounded accusations in the past using edit summaries too, so excuse me while I remain unsympathatic in this case. --HighKing (talk) 19:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Alright. I acknowledge that. Anyhow, I take it you haven't a problem if BI is restored? MidnightBlue (Talk) 20:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Great Britain and Ireland would be more neutral. Either way, I'm not gonna edit war over it. GoodDay (talk) 20:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

(1) MBM changed the article without refering here (2) It originally said Britain (3) That Sentence is referenced people (read the reference!!) - It refers to Britain not BI - as does the original author. (4)By Inserting BI we are a ascribing a level of Ignorance to the author that he might not possess. Þjóðólfr (talk) 20:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I restored BI after an Irish editor removed it. The term was introduced here, way back in February 2006. As for the reference, it's a reference to the name. It does mention "Britain" but in a different context. In any case, what does "Britain" mean? We know exactly what "British Isles" means. MidnightBlue (Talk) 21:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

It means one of several smaller islands including Britain, Japan, North America, South America and Australia. The author is reinterpreting the world - it is called original thought. Þjóðólfr (talk) 22:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Having [United Kingdom|Britain] isn't workable, as the UK isn't an island. GoodDay (talk) 21:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)I given this a fuller and more detailed review, and here's what I think. The term "British Isles" has been used in this article for years, since 2006. Recently, the term was removed without proper explanation, and MBM restored the original text. I've no problem with restoring to an original version in this manner, and the term should remain while we are discussing here. There is no reference for using "British Isles" though, so I've read the articles to try to understand the subject in more detail. From reading the "Democratic Ideals and Reality" he explores the idea that controlling certain parts of the world enables states to exert enormous influence. In the introduction to his book "Democratic Ideals and Reality", it states:

At the time the physical geography being taught was geology, and the teaching of political geography required little more that recitation of demographic facts. While the creation of the discipline of geography in England cannot be credited entirely to Mackinder, his controversial presentation to the Royal Geographic Society and the subsequent discussion of it did have an impact and led to the creation of geography readerships at both Oxford and Cambridge with support from the Society. In 1904 Mackinder presented a paper to the Society entitled, "The Geographical Pivot of History. In this paper he first offered the theory of the "Pivot Area," a designation for the core area of Eurasia, which was protected from the maritime powers of the day. He reasoned that the development of the potential power of this area could enable the continental power that controlled it to dominate the world. Expanding upon this concept, and with the recent experience of World War I to draw upon, he broadened the scope of his concept of the "Pivot Area," renamed it the "Heartland," and published Democratic ideals and Reality in 1919. Comparing his concept to the whispered warning by a slave, "You are mortal," to the returning victorious Roman Legionnaire, Mackinder issued his oft-quoted cautionary dictum: Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland: Who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island: Who rules the World-Island commands the World:

Mackinder later defines the area encompassed by the "World Island" as follows (and does not mention Britain or British Isles):

Let us consider for a moment the proportions and relations of this newly realized Great Island. t It is set as it were on the shoulder of the earth with reference to the North Pole. Measuring from Pole to Pole along the central meridian of Asia, we have first a thousand miles of ice-clad sea as far as the northern shore of Siberia, then five thousand miles of land to the southern point of India, and then seven thousand miles of sea to the Antarctic cap of ice-clad land. But measured along the meridian of the Bay of Bengal or of the Arabian Sea, Asia is only some three thousand five hundred miles across. From Paris to Vladivostok is six thousand miles, and from Paris to the Cape of Good Hope is a similar distance; but these measurements are on a globe twenty-six thousand miles round. Were it not for the ice impediments to its circumnavigation, practical seamen would long ago have spoken of the Great Island by some such name, for it is only a little more than one-fifth as large as their ocean. The World-Island ends in points northeastward and southeastward.

While discussing the theory, Mackinder states (in reference to the first world war):

Picture upon the map of the world this war as it has been fought in the year 1918. It has been a war between Islanders and Continentals, there can be no doubt of that. It has been fought on the Continent, chiefly across the landward front of peninsular France; and ranged on the one side have been Britain, Canada, the United States, Brazil, Australia, New Zealand, and Japarv--all insular. France and Italy are peninsular, but even with that advantage they would not have been in the war to the end had it not been for the support of the Islanders. India and China so far as China has been in the war on the Manchurian front----may be regarded as advanced guards of British, American, and Japanese sea-power. Dutch Java is the only island of large population which is not in the Western Alliance, and even Java is not on the side of the Continentals. There can be no mistaking the significance of this unanimity of the islanders. The collapse of Russia has cleared our view of the realities, as the Russian Revolution purified the ideals for which we have been fighting. The facts appear in the same perspective if we consider the population of the globe. More than fourteen-sixteenths of all humanity live on the Great Continent, and nearly one-sixteenth more on the closely offset islands of Britain and Japan. Even to-day, after four centuries of emigration, only about one-sixteenth live in the lesser continents.

It is clear from reading this material that Mackinder, therefore, is describing a geopolitical view of the world and tries to identify strategic areas. He states Thus far we have been thinking of the rivalry of empires from the point of view of strategical opportunities, and we have come to the conclusion that the World-Island and the Heartland are the final geographical realities in regard to sea-power and land-power, and that East Europe is essentially a part of the Heartland. Throughout the book, he constantly refers to "Britain" as a political power, as in the "political economy of Britain" or "war time Britain", or describes warring factions as "France and Britain, and also Britain and Russia", etc. It's not as if he doesn't ever use the term "British Isles" - in the chapter "The Freedom of Nations" he states "Is not the chief difficulty in the way of devolution within the British Isles, even if Irishmen would agree among themselves, the predominance of England?". In light of the above, unless we can find a reference that backs up usage of "British Isles", I agree that substituting "British Isles" for "Britain" is WP:OR and most importantly, not the intended meaning! The text should therefore agree with the reference and continue to use "Britain". --HighKing (talk) 16:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Wowzers (word of the moment) again! Sterling work there HK. What an effort! Reward? ...... Go on then boy! Take it out!

You've worked for this one so we can't deny you a moment of pleasure. Make a pig of yourself and junk BI from Afro-Eurasia as well! Mind though - I'm backing out a couple of yours cos you haven't brought em here first. Mister Flash (talk) 20:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

MacKinder does just exclude "Britain". He would I would guess (despite the political nature of his design) exclude Ireland too, but he doesn't specify it. Are we sure that he doesn't/does include Ireland in Britain (ie it is before 1922) - I'm hazy on that. And of course, did he have a political/inclusive view of the Channel Islands re BI? Are the CI's are part of his mainland? Reading it again - I don't understand why 'World Island' is given in bold (and without a hyphen), and to be honest, I dont think the excluded entities are actually even needed in this article, as the first line makes the 'mainland'-only aspect clear. That kind of detail for MacKinder's The Geographical Pivot of History, which also excludes the 'British Isles' btw. The exclusions might have been on this article since 2006, but so have millions of other unknown bumf on articles few places if any link to. Surely we can delete the exclusions here, and move on to the other article. Matt Lewis (talk) 22:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree - the exclusions add nothing to the article, and none of us know what he meant with the term "Britain". I'll delete them. --HighKing (talk) 13:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

(wowsers! an edit conflict)Yes. HK must be really chomping at the bit now. Let him loose on it. Mister Flash (talk) 22:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Conclusion

As for the article-in-question? I believe using Great Britain and Ireland, is the best choice. GoodDay (talk) 20:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Well sorry but I can't agree. That just means two islands. It is very clear that were talking about the whole group. What is the problem with British Isles? MidnightBlue (Talk) 20:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm more interested it stopping the bickering. I've no true preference about where BI should/shoudn't be used. GoodDay (talk) 20:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

GoodDay, please assess the case for and against, and give us your view on the matter. MidnightBlue (Talk) 20:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

It appears the term being described is from a source that re-imagine Afro-Eurasia as the mainland island for the entire world. (Þjóðólfr linked to it on Matt Lewis' page.) The current wording doesn't do a very good of explaining that IMHO.

Regardless of how it is rewritten I don't think a comparison between an "island" and an archipelago is correct. Should we not compare apples with other apples; not with crates (even ones containing apples).

(Just saw Matt's rewrite - it's much better.) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

If it'll stop the bickering between the inclusionist & the exclusionist? no prob. GoodDay (talk) 22:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Exclusions deleted. --HighKing (talk) 13:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen timeline

British Isles Terminology task force: This Edit and This Edit prompted This Edit and This Edit Þjóðólfr (talk) 23:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment on Talk page Þjóðólfr (talk) 06:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I had already checked the source material before editing, and the edits are 100% accurate with the strip. I've reverted. This discussion page isn't required for discussion about a book or art piece, where the actual text is being incorrectly interpreted. --HighKing (talk) 12:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Cardinal protector of England

I've changed this article to agree with the actual source used. The text originally stated the cardinal protectors of England, Scotland, and Ireland were generally chosen exclusively by the pope and often had no prior relationship with the British Isles. which didn't agree with the reference. I've changed the text to read in line with the reference and it now states The cardinal was "imposed from above, rather than chosen" and often had no direct relationship with the governements of these countries.. I've also added a reference to Google Books for this source. --HighKing (talk) 12:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

That sounds fine, HighKing. You were right to change it as historically-speaking, the term British Isles was not in use during the period (pre-Reformation) the article in question covers.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Jeanne, although the reason it was changed was to agree with the reference that was being quoted and used. Substituting ones own words can result in inaccuracies or can be a form of WP:OR, especially when the meaning is changed as it was in this case. --HighKing (talk) 21:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Elaphrus uliginosus

This article, and many others like it, incorrectly interpret the "Flora Europaea". The region "Britain I." does *not* refer to the British Isles - it is the island of Great Britain Incl. Shetlands, Orkneys, Hebrides and Man Is., and this should have been clear since it separately lists as regions "Ireland", "Northern Ireland", and the "Channel Is" Incl. Jersey, Guernsey, and Alderney. I've corrected this article. --HighKing (talk) 12:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Henry A. Tuckett

I've corrected this article according to the sources which state he went on a mission to Great Britain and not British Isles. I've added the reference inline with the text. --HighKing (talk) 12:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Brazen (TV series)

Article stated it was a TV series 'that was filmed on location around the entire British Isles. The website for the series states Come out with us into Britain’s nightclubs and pick on unsuspecting punters, watch us play with toys we had as kids in a twisted new way, stand in the streets and do stoopid surveys, take pot shots at reality TV - then participate in it. The episode list has places like Huddersfield, Lincoln, Swansea, Harrogate, Mansfield, Boston, Hull, Oldham, and Newbury. The compilation is called UK uncovered. Looks to me like it was only England and Wales. I've changed the article to read "United Kingdom". --HighKing (talk) 21:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Mop wedding

The article stated Mop weddings, or mop marriages, were once a traditional marriage method in parts of the British Isles. Since Mop weddings were a traditional part of a Mop Fair, which are described in the article as follows: Mop Fairs (also "The Mop" singular and "Mops" plural) are a feature of many English towns and are traditionally held on or around "Old Michaelmas Day". They originated as a Hiring fair and their history dates back some 600 to 700 years. It goes on to state The following towns have a history of holding Mops and still hold one each year on or around Michaelmas Day. A theme common to these towns is that they were, several hundred years ago, medium-sized thriving market towns surrounded by a large number of smaller villages, hence their obvious choice as the location for the Mop.

• Alcester
• Banbury
• Chipping Norton
• Chipping Sodbury
• Cirencester
• Daventry
• Evesham
• Kings Norton
• Marlborough
• Moreton in Marsh
• Stratford upon Avon
• Tewkesbury
• Warwick

I've changed the article to state "England" instead of "British Isles". --HighKing (talk) 21:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted User:LevenBoy who wants to retain "British Isles" and asks that I get a reference. Seeing as how there's no reference to "British Isles", and that the article on Mop Fair clearly only discusses "England", I believe it's sensible to change this article to "England" and to ask (as per BKs rules too) that you resist from reverting unless you have a reference. --HighKing (talk) 13:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Seeing as this is about an English custom, it would be quite misleading to use British Isles in this case as that would imply the custom was used in other places besides England. You were absolutely right to change it.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Clearly a case of "England". If a the "parts of the British Isles" that a thing occurred in can be isolated to one of the traditional or modern countries then say that country, otherwise you might as well say "parts of the northern Europe". --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 00:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Conclusion

Changed to England. --HighKing (talk) 03:14, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Rose Dugdale

You've put a tag on a sentence that already has two references. Have you checked them? What do they say? Mister Flash (talk) 18:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The first reference deals with the art thefts, the second with the Herrema kidnapping. I wanted to ask for a reference first because there's a chance that it's a referenced statement although none of the current references make that claim. --HighKing (talk) 21:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

So you never read them then. Just assumed they didn't. Seems like one of em did. Mister Flash (talk) 22:30, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Why do you say I never read them? Neither of the references states it was the first helicopter attack in the British Isles. Did you read them? --HighKing (talk) 02:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Nope, never read em. Did you? BigDunc did, so I'll take his word for it. You, not me, is the one claiming something of the references, so you go and read them. Mister Flash (talk) 11:07, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Difficult to give any credence to your arguments in light of your admission that you don't even bother to read the references.... --HighKing (talk) 11:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't take too kindly to be accused three times of lying about a reference I added. Are you saying the book doesn't deal with the helicopter bombing at all Bardcom? Think very carefully before answering, lest it becomes difficult to give any credence to your arguments. Assuming you want to revise your earlier claim and admit the book does deal with the helicopter bombing, perhaps you'd like to tell Mister Flash exactly what the book does say about the helicopter bombing? Again, think very carefully before answering because I know what the book says remember. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:14, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Who accused you of lying? Or are you now lying about being accused? --HighKing (talk) 14:29, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't seem appropriate in this context. I might be true but what the point in saying it? What is it's relationship to the context?

".. the first helicopter bombing raid in the history of the British Isles."? Has there been others since? Beyond the context of the troubles? Was this a phenomenon that spread from continental Europe? Or elsewhere in the English-speaking world? Or is a phenomenon that is quintessentially of the British Isles, but may have since spread beyond these shores? It is common place in the British Isles today? Should I worry about milk churns with bombs falling from the skies when I leave the house? Should I avoid visiting the British Isles as a tourist owing to the endemic problem of milk-churn-bombs being dropped from helicopters, the first instance of which was this raid involving Rose Dugdale? What is the purpose of telling me this "fact"? What should I draw from it??

The same problems would apply if the article said it was, "the first helicopter bombing raid in the history of the United Kingdom" or "...Ireland" or "...or Northern Ireland." I suggest that part of the sentence be deleted or changed to be something more meaningful to the article: e.g. "...the first of only a few times that a helicopter was used by paramilitaries during the Troubles." --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 11:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll reply to that once Bardcom has attempted to extricate him/herself from the very deep hole he/she's managed to dig for him/herself. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:36, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

It would have been easier if ONIH simply quoted the text to refute my statement (and what's with using my old handle?). As it turns out, the search function I was using to search through the electronic copy of this book simply doesn't work properly. It returned no hits for "British Isles". But when I read page 72 myself, the text *does* actually state the following: With these "wild boys" she planned and executed the first ever helicopter bombing raid in the British Isles, with four improvised milk-churn bombs. But, like so many other things Rose Dugdale tackled, this turned into a fiasco. One bomb came dangerously near to blowing the gang and the helicopter to pieces, the other three failed to explode. After this raid every police station in Britain and Eire joined the hunt for Rose Dugdale.....

The reason for placing a "citation required" tag was to enter a discussion about the claim of "first helcopter bombing" in the "British Isles", and it was based on searching the references for the claim (which is more than one editor who objected did). The reaction - editors stating they've been accused of lying, editors challenging other editors to extricate themselves, is inappropriate. --HighKing (talk) 14:29, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Why are you addressing HighKing by his former username? Things are confusing enough, around here. GoodDay (talk) 16:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

A clumsy attempt to needle me. LOL --HighKing (talk) 17:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Conclusion

Article correctly quotes the reference, nothing to see here, move along. --HighKing (talk) 14:29, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

British Royal Train

This article (referring to the 1800s) states By the end of the century, each of the major railway companies operating in the British Isles had their own carriages dedicated for use by the Royal Family or other dignitaries.. The included reference http://www.nrm.org.uk/collections/carriages.asp(now gone, but accessible on archive.org) lists the Royal carraiges and the companies, and not the statement that "each of the major railway...". In light of the lack of references to back up the claim, especially in relation to railway companies outside of the UK, I've changed the article to list the railway companies instead (referenced). --HighKing (talk) 21:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Victoria travelled in Ireland in a royal train. Reverted your half assed attempt to get rid of BI. Mister Flash (talk) 22:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

So what? It doesn't corroborate the statement that each of the major railway companies operating in the British Isles had their own carriages.

United Kingdom would be better as it is referring to an object relating to the state. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 00:12, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't know who owned the royal trains, maybe the railway companies did. UK would be confusing here and would need to be clarified that it included Ireland. On the whole BI seems clearer. Mister Flash (talk) 00:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

If a reference corroborated the fact that each of the major railway companies operating in the British Isles had their own carraiges, fair enough. But there's no reference for that. And what exactly is the list of the major railway companies anyway? How does one qualify to be "major"? How many would that be? Far better to rewrite the article to be factual and referenced - everything else is WP:OR --HighKing (talk) 02:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The change to list the companies is much better. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 11:32, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Conclusion

The entire sentence has been deleted as "Rubbish". The article already has a full list of carraiges and locomotives used, and the unreferenced text was adding nothing and simply removed. --HighKing (talk) 15:05, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Edit Warring

The 1960 in rail transport article was discussed above, and a decision was made to change it to "United Kingdom". Since that time, Mister Flash has constantly reverted edits and reinserted "British Isles" into the article. Coupled with WP:BAIT comments on my Talk page. On my last revert, I inserted a reference which states:

This was the first regular revenue-earning use of steam traction, as distinct from experimental operation, in the world. More recently it became the first standard gauge railway to be taken over by a preservation society in 1960.

This was reverted with "Restore previous version. Reference requested was for somthing else". Yet this reference addresses the statement perfectly. One my talk page he states And it was a crap reference anyway, from a third party, promotional website yet the organization is a not-for-profit online publisher working across the arts, heritage, education and tourism sectors, and is endorsed and supported by the Arts Council of England, the Museums Libraries Archives council and the Dept. for Children, Schools and Families. Despite BK having retired, his ruling was pretty strict on inserting "British Isles" into articles without references - it should result in a block. Similarly, personal comments (especially on the editors Talk pages) and baiting are all breaches of civility, and should result in a warning at the very least on the first transgression, and blocks for subsequent breaches. But all of that pales into insignificance when we have to put up with an intransigent editor who behaves in this way. I won't revert since I can see how I've been sucked into this edit war and have allowed Mister Flashes escalation to affect my behaviour. But. This behaviour from Mister Flash is deliberately disruptive and offensive, yet nothing is being done. Both "sides" of this discussion should take a dim view of this behaviour and condemn it. If we're serious about making progress, it starts with mutual respect and civility. --HighKing (talk) 16:00, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

It's time for a report to the Wikipedia: Administrators notice board. This is becoming tiresome. GoodDay (talk) 16:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Well this sums it up, doesn't it? "A decision was made to change it to United Kingdom". Look at the section above - who made the decision, you did! You and GD were in favour of UK, Me and LB were agin. That'd be 2:2 then. No matter, you concluded that it should be changed, and went ahead to cause yet another edit war. What are you after boy? An entry in the Guiness Book of Records for the Wiki editor who's caused most edit wars? Seems like it! Mister Flash (talk) 16:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Given that LB's stated reason was No. the article states a fact. It is valid to use British Isles. and yours was it's fine to say "first whatever in the BI" - if that's a fact, and to prove it isn't, then you need to go and find one elsewhere in the British Isles that came first. As for the guidelines -- who wrote them?, no evidenced reasons were given, therefore your contributions had little bearing on the decision.

But it doesn't excuse your subsequent edit warring - why not continue the discussion on the SE page? It doesn't excuse your barrage of personal insults and name calling. It doesn't excuse baiting on my Talk page or on the SE page. Your behaviour is not in line with this project, and I believe this project would be better off without editors who behave as you do. --HighKing (talk) 16:28, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Standard Gauge is used in Great Britain Irish Gauge is used in Ireland, North & South. Þjóðólfr (talk) 16:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Is that relevant? Mister Flash (talk) 16:13, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Re-read it. See what you mean. Difficult, difficult. BI could still be valid, but under the cicumstances it might make sense to use another term. BUT, HIGHKING SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED NEAR IT, HE'S FAR TOO BIASED. Suggest it gets put to a non-involved train spotter. Mister Flash (talk) 16:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Although I find that I sometimes agree with HighKing's decisions above, Mister Flash has a point about HighKing making conclusions based on discussions that have not been satisfactorily completed - something more official is needed, preferably by someone without such a partisan stance on this issue. --Jackyd101 (talk) 16:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The discussion was opened on 30th November, and there were no objections based on references or logic. The last two comments were by GoodDay any myself on 30th November. There was ample opportunity to continue discussion before I posted a conclusion on 11th December. Mister Flash reverted and has made no effort to present and references or logic on this page as to why it is correct to use "British Isles", and seems content to simply stonewall. I believe in this case, ample opportunity was given. All that said, I note you don't comment on Mister Flashes behaviour at all - very telling. --HighKing (talk) 16:38, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't make assumptions about me, perhaps you need to be reminded of WP:AGF? Mister Flash's behaviour can be disruptive no doubt, but yours can be quite troublesome as well - your edit warring on Mediterranean campaign of 1798 yesterday is a case in point. This is the problem here - when you close one of these in favour of your point of view it is bound to upset those who oppose you. They should only be closed by someone not closely involved in the discussion, particularly when it just trailed off rather than reaching a clear conclusion as in this case. I have no opinion on the outcome, I only note that this problem could be avoided by a neutral presence overseeing things.--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Didn't mean it to sound like an assumption - given that this topic was opened to highlight Master Flashes behaviour and to solicit agreement/consensus on what is acceptable behaviour for this page, I was disappointed that you appeared to condone his behaviour through omission and support. You can see below that he is positively delighting in taunting me, and I would like to see some support from all editors that this behaviour is not acceptable. If we can't agree the basics, I see nothing to indicate we'll make progress on the bigger issue. I'm not asking that editors agree with my suggestions on content changes, just that we agree on basic behaviour.

Your point on Mediterranean campaign of 1798 is unfair, given that I reverted twice and you yourself had 3 reversions, and Master Flash had 4.

Your point on a neutral observer was originally the role I hoped Black Kite would perform, but on reflection I believe an admin should focus on civility and behaviour. Comments such as Master Flashes below should result in a warning/block, and allows us to focus on content related discussions. I agree that if agreement can't be reached, no edits should take place, and some content may have to be referred to a neutral party. --HighKing (talk) 17:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

How ever this section started, a general discussion on edit warring here is clearly long overdue. I'm sorry if you felt that what I said was unfair, however I do consider your revert after being asked not to do so an example of the endemic edit warring that has to be discouraged. That said, you are not the only or the worst offender. This task force must find a neutral admin willing to patrol both the outcome of discussions and general civility soon or it will collapse in chaos. --Jackyd101 (talk) 01:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I'd love it if a neutral admin would step up to this task as I am of the firm belief that just about all of the disruption on this page, and related pages, can be put down to a very small number of disruptive editors. It seems that Mister Flash managed to push me closer to the limits than I had realised. Let's see how we get on over the next week or so, hopefully in a collaborative open and AGF atmosphere (one can hope). --HighKing (talk) 01:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Laugh! I can't stop! Just been over to Talk:1960 in rail transport to put up a request for an uninvolved editor to referee the current dispute, and what do I find - a 2008 vintage contribution: The text states that the Middleton Railway becomes the first standard gauge line in the British Isles to be operated by volunteers as a preserved railway. The text should use the term United Kingdom, as this is the area in which it operated - using cross-country jurisdiction comparisons is confusing and unnecessary. It implies that a "British" railway in the "British" isles is a natural region of operation and a single jurisdiction - which is incorrect (in 1960), and is the reason why on Wikipedia, the consensus is that the term should only be used in a geographical context. Why use a geographical term for a cultural/industrial article anyway? It is more appropriate to use a geopolitical term - so chose from either "United Kingdom", "Britain", or "British Islands". --Bardcom (talk) 12:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC) For the uninitiated User:Bardcom is User:HighKing as was. He's tenacious, I'lll give him that! Think I'll let someone else put up a request to deal with this very minor issue. I'm still rolling around on the floor. Mister Flash (talk) 17:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Why are you making this a Mister Flash -vs- HighKing thing? This constant 'putting down' of HK & assuption of bad faith, makes this page an un-friendly place to be. GoodDay (talk) 21:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

• Further archive at Wikipedia talk:British Isles Terminology task force/Specific Examples/Closed2. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)