Talk:British Empire/Archive 10

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

→

Interwar period map 1919

Shows the whole of Papua New Guinea as a protectorate. German New Guinea became a protectorate after WW1 but Papua was always a colony - it was British, then Australian before gaining independence. Tiddy (talk) 06:55, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Citations

I was just trying to check out the citations, and I noticed that among other things, it's quite confusing to have "Ferguson 2004" as a reference when both Colossus and Empire have publication dates of 2004. Can I be so bold as to suggest a complete overhaul to the Chicago format? I'd be willing to take it on myself. Then, instead of "Ferguson 2004," the citations would be either:

32. Ferguson, Empire, 238. or: 56. Ferguson, Colossus, 112.

With the first instances of these being full format; i.e.:

2. Niall Ferguson, Empire: The Rise and Demise of British World Order and Lessons for Global Power (New York: Perseus, 2004), 38.

Thoughts? --Grahamdubya (talk) 02:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see what the issue is, as if you click on any footnote it then jumps to and highlights the reference it refers to? Furthermore, "Ferguson 2004" is merely what the link embedded in the text says. We can rename it to whatever we like. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 09:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

"British Isles"

The term "British Isles" is a geographical one, and despite its contentious nature in Ireland, it is not contentious elsewhere. 40+ million hits on Google, 1+ million hits on Google books, 2000 hits in books with the title "British Empire"
Despite the policies of certain map makers and the Irish government (and whoever else), there is no policy at Wikipedia stating that any mention of "British Isles" should be erased.
"Outside the United Kingdom" is incorrect in this section, because the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands are not a part of the UK, yet the UK retains sovereignty over them.
Like all other word changes here, both Dunlavin Green and Snowded should take it to talk before making changes so consensus can be agreed upon.

The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 17:07, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Both British Isles and the United Kingdom are both wrong, hence my amendment to simply say that the UK (in this case correct) has 14 overseas dominions. Unless you are claiming that the IoM and Channel Islands also own those territories the phrase is accurate. I'm going to put it back in place as its a sensible amendment, it does not assert any political point and just tidies things up. The sort of edit you make all the time without discussion (and you are right to do so). --Snowded (talk) 18:59, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Not when it's a contentious change, I don't. If you look at the edit history, two editors have reverted this change (myself and GoodDay). Also, your version does not read better at all. "British", being the adjectival form for UK/Britain, is redundant in your sentence, "The UK retains sovereignty over British overseas territories". Plus you have not explained how the British Isles is the "wrong" term to use. (I have no response to your suggestion that the wording implied the IoM and CI also own these territories: the grammar does not imply that in the slightest). The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 19:10, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I can't see anyway in which it is contentious to remove BI and UK. They are officially called British Overseas Territories, there are 14 of them, the UK owns them. There is no reason to say "outside of" unless its some game of the BI term and I am fed up to the back teeth of both sides in that nonsensical debate. Its a Geographical term which should not be used in the modern age to describe a political entity. --Snowded (talk) 19:22, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Like your change RedHat, reads well and avoids contentious terms. --Snowded (talk) 19:36, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

No. It is not accurate and it does not read well. The UK retains sovereignty over 14 territories outside its waters, which since 2002 have been named the British Overseas Territories. First point: "since 2002" should come at the end of the sentence. It would "read well" then. Second point: "outside its waters" are weasel words and also illogical. If the UK retains sovereignty then the waters around those territories (up to two miles) are also under the sovereignty of the UK. Therefore the BOT are not "outside its waters". The alternative might be to say: The UK retains sovereignty over 14 other territories, which have been named the British Overseas Territories since 2002. However, this could cause confusion with the Crown Dependencies. Since the BOT are geographically outside of the British Isles - as well understood and frequently used geographical term - I see no reason not to use this to describe the location of a political entity. If we start pandering to the whims of the minority there is no reason to think they wouldn't start campaigning to rename this whole article to something that didn't offend their sensibilities. I can see it now, a nonsensical debate over "former territories of the large island off the NW coast of Europe" versus "territories formely owned by the largest country in the large island off the NW coast of Europe". Let's not go down that road. It should stay as it was. Wiki-Ed (talk) 09:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I recall there's an agreement that removal or addition of the term "British Isles" should not take place. This followed a concerted campaign to remove the term from as many articles as possible. The term should not have been changed here without prior discussion and agreement at the talk page. LemonMonday Talk 11:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I know of no agreement to actively remove it, which is reason enough not to, but if there is an actual agreement not to remove it then that settles it. Do you have the link to it? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 11:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it's now been archived. It stemmed from a long-running dispute between User:HighKing and User:TharkunColl. The best I can do is to find a diff [1] from HighKing's edit history. You may be able to get to the actual archive from this diff, but I don't know how to do that. LemonMonday Talk 11:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the change to say when they became BOTs, but i agree with Wiki that saying outside the UKs waters is incorrect. The British Isles is a geographical term, even wikipedia says this despite some people seeking to undermine it, theres no valid reason why we shouldnt say outside the British Isles in this case. It is clearly accurate and correct but i wouldnt object if a different way of mentioning them can be found, but the current wording seems problematic. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I much preferred the succinct original wording with "British Isles" and completely agree with Wiki-Ed about pandering to the minority. Whatever the minority says, the term is simply geographical. It is preposterous to think otherwise, both in its general usage in the English language, and here on this page, where the independence of Ireland was discussed further up and there is clearly no intent to suggest that the state of Ireland is still British. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 11:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Does silence mean that people are happy with the addition of the word "home" to "UK's waters"? I still vote for putting back "British Isles", given the highlighting of this prior attempt to erase B.I. from Wikipedia. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 22:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't know the in-article context of this dispute, but just to note it's not just Isle of Man and the Channel Islands which are not part of the UK within the British Isles; there are also lesser ones which are private fiefs to this day, i.e. not part of the UK as such; I think Lundy is one, but can't recall - they're accounted for in Sybil Leek's A Ring of Magic Islands book (her son did the photos, David I think), which explores the lesser "ring" of smaller islands around Britain...Skookum1 (talk) 23:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Not true - although these islands are owned by individuals, some of whom may claim sovereignty, those claims are not widely recognised - certainly not by the UK government - and islands like Lundy are certainly within the UK. Lundy is administered as part of Torridge District Council, for example. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Forgive me for my intrusion/stupidity but how about saying that the UK or Britain (take your choice) still has fourteen Overseas territories around the world. This gets round part of the argument abot location etc.Willski72 (talk) 08:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree, there is no reason to include "British Isles" in this at all, it adds nothing. The term is contentious, but I and others have argued the article on it should stay as it is a valid geographical term. Part of that argument has been that uses which are political, harking back to days where it was also a de facto political term are inappropriate. --Snowded (talk) 08:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

On what basis are you suggesting that its usage here was ever political? Are you seriously suggesting that it was used to suggest that the state of Ireland is still British? Are you suggesting that the British Isles article should be an orphan because all other mention of it in Wikipedia should be expunged? If so, where is the consensus at Wikipedia that this is the policy? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 09:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Lets make this simple (i) using "British Isles" here adds nothing and no arguments have been advanced to say that it does (ii) I have defended the continued use of British Isles as a term where appropriate, and the existence of the article so words like "expunge" and "orphan" might apply to some editors but its not my position. My view is that attempts to remove the term on political grounds are wrong, but equally attempts to use it to make the opposing political point are also wrong. There is far too much argument about it all together. So where it adds nothing (and could be misinterpreted) get rid of it, where it adds something use it. Here Willski72 has it dead right. --Snowded (talk) 09:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Please don't patronise me by using language such as "let's make this simple": that really does add nothing and is just condescending. To address both your points: (1) it is the only geographical term that covers the UK plus all of the surrounding crown dependencies and therefore what it adds is succinctness (2) again, you seem to be suggesting that the intent of its usage here is to make "the opposing political point", which is nonsense. You also appear to be dictating a policy to others here about the term, a term which has many millions of hits both on the web and in books, and which is even used in a 2008 House of Commons report on the BOTs [2] "Bermuda's bicameral Parliament, which first met in 1620, is the oldest legislature in the Commonwealth outside the British Isles". The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 23:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you thought it was patronising, that was not the intent, more a desire to get away from what seems an unnecessary debate. In the world of wiki there is a fight that I want no part of between a small number of editors who love to insert BI in articles and those who love to remove it and also get rid of the article that describes it use. The article has been the subject of multiple edit wars which are ongoing. In the context of this article the use of the term in the sentence concerned its use is unnecessary. The sentence needs to say that the UK still has 14 possessions. --Snowded ^TALK 04:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Both here and on Talk:British Isles, you, User:Snowded, express disinterest in anything related to this subject, yet have engaged in reverting to your preferred version. Either one way or the other, but this trollish preference to speak out of both sides of your mouth at once. Chance there may also be sockpuppets at work, with that kind of dedication? I see you are wiki-lawyering, but don't want to be taken to task for inaccurate application of the rules in return. See here for more personal attacks: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Catterick&diff=cur Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. (talk) 05:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey everyone why dont we just say that the UK has 14 overseas territories around the world OR the UK has 14 overseas territories, some of which are as far as x thousand miles away. Just my way round this argument that seems to be really heating up!Willski72 (talk) 08:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok with me --Snowded ^TALK 08:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that reads clumsiliy, and again, the current wording is much more succicnt. Also, "British Isles" was in the article for quite a while. Why is it suddenly such a problem? Because Dunlavin Green suddenly decided to remove it. But Snowded, you have been active at this article for a long time, so why is this such a big issue for you? I have to agree with the editor above that you are trying to appear neutral and yet are clearly partisan at the same time. (Though the sockpuppet and wikilawyering talk is nonsense). Either way, you don't have consensus for this change here at the talk page: four editors in total have now reverted the change. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 09:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to avoid needless conflict RedHat and you should have a look at the edit history of those who are reverting and you will see that you are being swept up in other conflicts without need. Willski72 has come up with a compromise and I'd suggest that is more succinct and also appropriate - maybe try and improve that? If we can't get agreement then we can layout some options and invite wider participation. --Snowded ^TALK 09:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

There is a campaign by certain editors to remove "British Isles" from the history books because they dont like it. There is no reason at all not to say British Isles except for an attempt to appease certain people. Its clearly used in a geographical sense in this sentence and not a political one. I oppose the suggested change to the sentence, the current wording is accurate and clear. It is also the wording that existed when this article was promoted to featured status. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

and (sigh) there is also a campaign by other editors to insert it even when it adds no value. I see the usual suspects are now assuming their usual positions ...--Snowded ^TALK 10:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no campaign by some editors, "British Isles" was added many months ago and clearly you didnt notice it before or have a problem with it either. People know what British Isles means, its a geographical term like Europe which gets used all the time.. i hear the BBC say it every day. This really isnt some kind of plot to say British Isles as many times as possible, its only mentioned ONCE in the article where it helps to explain that overseas territories are outside of the British Isles unlike the Crown dependencies. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh come on BW, Tharky's had a couple of blocks for edit warring over it and there are several others. The point is that the overseas territories are overseas, that's enough, the political context of an article on Empire alone argues for being more careful. --Snowded ^TALK 10:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

No im sorry Snowded but the British Isles appears to of been in this article for 2 years, it clearly wasnt added on its own as a political move by anyone. All of a sudden its a problem and must be changed, that comes at the same time as people start changing titles or attempting to change titles on other articles as well. Its clear which side is on some form of campaign, im not speaking about individuals but in this case the mention of British Isles clearly was an innocent and reasonable edit, not a political one. The political edits are those seeking to remove it from the article. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I haven't said it was added into this article as a political move BW, my point was that the delete/insert war has proponents on both sides over many articles and they have now landed here. Now it has been raised its a matter of deciding if its appropriate and it if could be misinterpreted. Looking at it I think it could me and there is a perfectly reasonable way of making the same point. --Snowded ^TALK 10:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

British Isles has been in the same sentence for two years in this article, i see no reason to change it all of a sudden and i have certainly yet to hear a better alternative. The Home waters bit was far more confusing than British Isles and clearly incorrect. I still have yet to hear the problem with using British Isles apart from some people dont like it.

This is just the same as saying something like outside of Europe or outside of North America. British Isles is a geographic term, almost every source for the British Isles in recent years is when talking about geography the same way wed talk about Europe and the sentence in this article clearly uses it in the same way. Theres no reason for change. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Please everyone calm down! Why dont we put "The overseas territories are outside not only the UK but also the British Isles and should therefore not be mistaken with the Crown Dependencies".Willski72 (talk) 10:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

In any case, using "home waters" is not only weasel-wording, it is also just plain wrong. The map here [3] makes it clear that neither the Channel Islands, nor even the Isle of Man, are part of the UK's territorial waters. ðarkun coll 11:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this weasel-wording obscures the whole implicit relationship between "British Isles" and "British Empire". Imagine the immense breadth of the Royal Navy's claims at one time, when "home waters" meant all about the British Isles, but this was the convention even before Henry II took Ireland. I think it would be more untrue or inflammatory, to state that imperial possessions around the world, were also "home waters", for that could only be honourary status. Anyways, "home waters" is something shared geographically in common, whether or not a country shares the same government. It is not about governmental possession, but as some countries share mountains, rivers, glaciers and deserts, they even also share pollution and climate. Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. (talk) 01:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I like the map but what about the Channel Islands? Are they within French Waters?Willski72 (talk) 11:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

They are no doubt surrounded by French waters, but have their own territorial waters. The Isle of Man also has its own waters, but in this case surrounded by UK waters. Since neither the Channel Islands nor the Isle of Man are part of the UK, their territorial waters are not included within the UK's. ðarkun coll 14:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Just for peoples reference, British isles was included in the first edit which added a legacy section to this article by the same editor who has contributed alot to the page, so clearly it wasnt added for political reasons by someone on a campaign to just mention BI everywhere. The edit took place on the 10th of March 2007, so well over two years ago but it has now only just become a problem for some people? Again there is no need for change.[4] BritishWatcher (talk) 12:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes that would make sense, thanks for putting my mind at rest!Willski72 (talk) 16:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Life moves on and there have been many changes to the article since 21st May 2007 and most of the editors involved in this discussion have been engaged on similar discussions elsewhere. In this article there is no need to make any reference geographical or otherwise when all that is needed is to say that Britain has overseas territories. Home Waters was never a good phrase (I think it came from Patrick). At the moment I think it best that this discussion is suspended while the lede of British Isles is sorted out. I think there then needs to a be a protocol about when the phrase is used and when it isn't to try and create some objectivity. This article can be one of the test cases for that. --Snowded ^TALK 05:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Sounds fair enough. If the community at Wikipedia decides that British Isles should no longer be in general usage, like National Geographic did, so be it. Until such time though.... ps it's not Patrick it's the The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 11:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

So in other words, you're trying to politicise it? The term British Isles, like any other term, should be used wherever it happens to be the best, clearest, and most succicnt way of conveying the information required. As here. ðarkun coll 07:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

All terms with the legacy of British Isles have political aspects Tharky and your playing the innocent brightened up an otherwise dull morning of report writing. Having to put up with edit wars between your form of extremism and that of the republic opposition is mind numbing at times. You resisted the mediated consensus on the article's lede as I remember it. There is a need for a protocol so the usual suspects don't turn up on multiple articles fighting the same battles disguised in different language. --Snowded ^TALK 07:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

If by "extremism" you mean a passionate belief in freedom of speech, and a desire to avoid politicising the language in order to assuage the views of a tiny, vocal minority, then I plead guilty. If not, please consider withdrawing the remark. ðarkun coll 08:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

No, and No Tharky --Snowded ^TALK 08:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Come on guys, take it elsewhere please. You are no longer discussing the British Empire article. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 10:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm ashamed to admit, this is entertaining stuff. GoodDay (talk) 14:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Wooden Spoon out again Goodday? --Snowded ^TALK 16:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

This is one occasion where the use of British Isles is incorrect. To say the UK retains sovereignty over 14 territories outside the British Isles implies the UK has sovereignty over the British Isles. Better to leave it out all together and reword something like: The UK retains sovereignty over 14 British Overseas Territories and 3 Crown Dependencies... --Bill Reid | (talk) 16:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

It implies no such thing. It would be just like saying "The UK retains sovereignty over 14 territories outside Europe" - which, if it were true, would be an equally valid equivalent. However, since it isn't true (i.e. Gibraltar), British Isles is the only correct way of putting it, and it neatly removes the need to mention the Crown Dependencies, which, being feudal in origin, were never colonies and predate the British Empire by centuries - and technically speaking it's the Crown itself that has sovereignty over these, not the UK (though the Crown delegates to the UK parliament powers to legislate for them in certain restricted areas). Because, however, the point is arguable, mentioning them in this context simply confuses the issue. ðarkun coll 17:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Bill, the use of "British Isles" is to establish a relative point of view, such as distinguishing local and distant areas in which the UK retains sovereignty. It is the same as has always been done. In some sense, the same convention was used in describing the difference between the Monarchy's rule over British islands and places like France, Holland or Hanover. Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. (talk) 17:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Well Bill read it the same way I did when it was highlighted. So at the very least the meaning is ambiguous. This is a minor sentence in the article and we have:

Current: The UK retains sovereignty over 14 territories outside the British Isles, which in 2002 were renamed the British Overseas Territories

Proposed: The UK retains sovereignty over 14 British Overseas Territories and then a note reference to the new name in 2002.

The trouble with that is that it takes no account of the Crown Dependencies. Specifying that these 14 Overseas Territories are outside the British Isles solves this problem neatly and precisely. ðarkun coll 23:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, because there is a vast difference between the Norman and Manx, with the rest of those islands held by the Crown, regardless of the fact that they are all under the same umbrella. There is much sense in them being categorised separately. It's not just a matter of near vs far. Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. (talk) 23:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Not the second is shorter, avoids ambiguity and misinterpretation. Aside from the British Isles issue, its a neater phrase anyway. --Snowded ^TALK 18:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Why, having proposed a sensible way forward given the lack of consensus here (resolve matters at the BI article, attempt to build a community decision regarding the term potentially using this page as one of the test cases) are you now regurgitating your proposal which you have already tried to insert into the article? There is no consensus to remove the term from the article which as BW pointed out has lived here happily for over two years and which was there during the FA review. It's odd that an editor who protests so much about how they are "fed up" with this whole debate is at the same time so persistent in their attempts to have an article changed in accordance with the wishes of the vocal minority! You can't have your cake and eat it you know. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 20:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Pat, this type of behaviour is in conjunction to claiming that it is the "evil British imperialists" shoving their own POV down Irish throats. In fact, there has been nobody here, whatsoever, going on about how the Irish should not be considered equal enough to be in partnership with the English and Scottish use of the term "British Isles". I sense more of the "union of hearts" proposal by Charles Lennox, 3rd Duke of Richmond, coming from "British" here, with respect to Ireland. It's as though an open hand is twisted by insinuation, into a fist, but the only fists in these articles are coming from the "Irish". These "Irish" make excuses for their own personal attacks, because of the Troubles and Famine, etc, etc. Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. (talk) 22:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I thought better of you RedHat. Catterick is up to his usual tricks of putting a phrase (evil British imperialists) in quotes when its not a phrase I have ever used, or would use. I am fed up of the debate because it is never held on the facts, but ends up as some editors wanting the phrase removed at all costs, and others insisting on its retention because they have some conspiracy theory about Irish nationalist editors. I may be fed up with it, but I am going to persist in trying to get a reasonable middle way approach in which the term is used properly, and removed when it is inappropriate or wrong. I had more or less given up but then Bill provided a neat summary of the reasons why it was inappropriate and I reinforced it. I thought you at least would engage with the argument not the people. Its also misleading to say there is a consensus, its actually 3:3 at the moment. I also don't think you can argue that something stays simply because it was there during the FA review, if so a lot of your subsequent edits should go to. We have found a minor issue, where there is a possibility of misinterpretation and a controversial phrase is not actually necessary. Now I don;t expect Catterick or Tharky to address content issues in this respect, they have a political position and will pursue it. I did however think, and still hope that after your initial reaction you would/will reflect on the facts and respond accordingly. --Snowded ^TALK 07:18, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Snowded. The use of British Isles in this context is inappropriate. This part of the article is about the here and now, the residue of Empire. To link in the mind of the uninformed reader that the British Isles (composed of 2 states independent of each other - one of which is not even in the Commonwealth) is somehow part of the left-overs of empire is wrong and should be avoided by re-wording. --Bill Reid | (talk) 07:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

You two, e.g. Bill and Snowded, are reading between the lines a propaganda that is not there. Ireland would be "British", whether or not England and Scotland united into "Britain" and for nothing but geography, for even though the name "UK of GB & IE" separates the two entities, the simple fact is that Albion and Erin are both British. Misuse of terminology by government and editors here is not at all surprising. If Snowded wants exact quotes of the flamebait vitriol with which "British" editors have been abused by "Irish" editors, thus eliciting angry and "ignorant, establishmentarian" responses, then he has but to examine these page histories and those of involved editors, which he will not do, glossing over those activists with whom he agrees, even as I have taken initiative to dissuade MidnightBlueMan and TharkunColl from making errors in either judgment, or historical accuracy. Of course, this is just trolling on Snowded's part, because I did not mention him, or answer his recent innuendos about "my stability", yet he is successful in drawing me out here for a response, albeit without the level of satisfaction he wishes, that is, to get me to lose my cool. Many editors here, whether "British" or "Irish", do have untrue political conceptions of the name, which do not align properly with history, but are popular and sensationalist misrepresentations, to further their agendas here. My only task, was to show how both are wrong and need to come to terms with it. Just because there are two types of definitions for the term "British", geographical and political, doesn't mean that we have to decide on one or another for Wikipedia on the whole, but only per specific and relevant articles, in proper context. Obviously, those who are just here for a fight, will remove and add all the stuff which translates as internet argument ammunition, called an edit war here on Wikipedia. Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. (talk) 07:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Both the wordings that I've seen here are ungrammatical. Currently:"The UK retains sovereignty over 14 territories outside the British Isles, which in 2002 were renamed the British Overseas Territories." The wording of that suggests that it was the British Isles which were renamed BOTs. Obvious nonsense, but poor wording. How about: ""The UK retains sovereignty over 14 territories in other parts of the world. In 2002 these were renamed the British Overseas Territories." Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Definite improvement, happy with that --Snowded ^TALK 07:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Me too. Bill Reid | (talk) 08:01, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree to it too.MITH 08:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree to it. The grammar and the usage or non-usage of the term "British Isles" are separate issues. A problem regarding the former can be fixed without removing the latter, and it's a bit sneaky to suggest otherwise. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 10:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, you don't agree but you are not addressing the issue, that the use of the term is misleading and there is a perfectly good alternative--Snowded ^TALK 10:18, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Red Hat, that you lot are the ones misleading on purpose. It's a "red herring", "wool over our eyes" intention to eliminate what their activist groupthink is telling them, through some tin foil cap. A poor choice of words by me, probably punned. Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. (talk) 10:21, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

"Other parts of the world" is just weasel-wording, and not specific enough - the Channel Islands, being closer to France than the UK, could easily be described as being in another part of the world. Also the point above about the phrase being ungrammatical is also incorrect. The 14 territories are mentioned first and are therefore the main clause in the sentence. British Isles is both precise and correct - those 14 territories are outside the British Isles, which is exactly the point being made. ðarkun coll 10:22, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

You know Tharky, that the CI are only a closer version of the British Isles in general, that being a European archipelago off of the French coast. Get used to it. Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. (talk) 10:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Get used to it? I'm not sure I follow your meaning. I'm perfectly well aware that the Channel Islands are a small group of islands off the French coast, and that the British Isles are a larger group of islands off the French coast. ðarkun coll 10:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Tharky, that's all right. Please forgive me if I claimed you were going on a tirade about the closeness of geography, but absolute social disparity with France. Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. (talk) 10:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Catterick: please stop posting irrelevant comments on this page and TharkunColl please don't encourage him by replying to them. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 10:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Relevant? Why not attend Snowded for dragging his arse from BI to here, solely to cause trouble with the naming convention? I have merely echoed sentiments. Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. (talk) 10:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

No-one has suggested any need for the words "British Isles" to be in that sentence, and I suggest that no such need exists. The term "other parts of the world" is not precise, but would be clear to the majority of readers worldwide - if anyone can suggest a better wording that would be more likely to achieve a broad consensus, please do so. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:35, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The term British Isles conveys precisely the meaning intended. ðarkun coll 10:41, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

..were it not for the fact that there is comprehensive and conclusive evidence, on this and other pages, that it does not convey the meaning intended. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:46, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Comprehensive evidence like Encarta and Britannica? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 10:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Gmyhrtle, if you are going to join in a debate, please do everyone else the service of reading their arguments first before making pronouncements about what they have or have not said. I have already stated multiple times that it is the only term which succinctly distinguishes the BOTs from the Crown Dependencies. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 10:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

And, as BW pointed out, if Gibraltar and the bases in Cyprus did not exist, we would be saying "outside Europe" and noone would even think of suggesting that we were claiming the UK had sovereignty over the whole of Europe. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 10:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Please, WP:CIVIL - and don't suggest which debates I should or should not contribute to. I'll be back the next time I think I can contribute something positive. But not before then. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:52, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

That's very big of you and so...ta. Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. (talk) 10:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

No valid reason has been given for changing the current wording which has existed for over two years, ever since a legacy section has been there. It is for those who seek British Isles to be removed that must justify its removal. Again, i strongly oppose this attempt by certain editors to remove the British Isles from wikipedia, it seems like some form of politically motivated campaign. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:28, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

As a very late entrant to this discourse, may I make some comments and hopefully bring a fresh perspective. The current version is:

The UK retains sovereignty over 14 territories outside the British Isles, which in 2002 were renamed the British Overseas Territories.

First of all, this suggests that it has one or more territories within the British Isles, which is not the case (unless one reads "territory" in its broadest possible sense and includes the Isle of Man and the CI). Hence, why is there any need to explicitly refer to the location of the territories it does have? The word "Overseas" in BOT does that work. Secondly, the history of the name of the group of territories is not something we need to get into here, so the 2002 date does not need to be mentioned. That leaves us with:

The UK retains sovereignty over 14 territories, known as the British Overseas Territories.

That succinctly tells readers that, wherever they are, they're "overseas". If some people think that the Channel Islands are "overseas" in relation to the UK, that's a nice literal reading of the term but the usual reading has the implication of very great distance, not merely separated by a body of water that could be arbitrarily small.

Btw, I've seen some comments above to the effect that a particular set of words had been unchanged since 2007, and an editor asked why there's suddenly a need to change them. As if the longer a set of words has remained unchanged, the more persuasive the argument for changing them needs to be. That type of argument should never be used on Wikipedia. People come along from all parts of the known universe, read articles that have been around for years, see opportunities for improvement, act on the Wiki-injunction to Be Bold, and change them. That's how this thing works. They generally neither know nor care how long a particular set of words has been there. People who've been around an article for a while can tend to get stale, see what they've always seen, and miss what they've always missed - whereas fresh faces bring fresh perspectives, something we can never have enough of. -- JackofOz (talk) 11:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Very well put. Thanks. Bill Reid | (talk) 11:43, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Fully agree - well said Jack. Let's move forward. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:44, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem with the above suggestion, of course, is that the Crown Dependencies could be argued to be UK territories, depending on context. Stating that the 14 are outside the British Isles neatly resolves this issue - which is no doubt why it was put there in the first place. ðarkun coll 11:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Strongly oppose the suggested changes to the sentence which has been in this article for over two years. Certain editors are on a campaign across wikipedia to remove "British Isles" for political reasons, others are sadly simply trying to appease these people. Its ashame. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Also strongly oppose. I also see no "fresh faces" here. I see the same crowd that has simply decamped from British Isles and moved here. It is not as though you are offering any new perspective. My personal view is that instead of "picking off" pages one by one, we should attempt a cross-page agreement on how and when British Isles should be used. Although I'd strongly oppose any policy to remove that term, if it's what the community decides then I'll abide by it. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 11:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Please comment on the content, not on the contributor - how long editors have contributed on any article, and also how long a particular form of words has existed, seem to me to be utterly irrelevant. Responding to TharkunColl, why not add words such as: "In addition, the Crown Dependencies may be argued to be UK territories, depending on context." Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:01, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

We would have to add all that and perhaps more if we went ahead with suggested changes. Saying British Isles takes away the need for expanding the section. Again no valid reason for removing British Isles from this article has been given. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:11, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. British Isles seems reasonable in the current context. I support its retention. On the wider issue of British Isles usage, it is presently getting very tiresome having to constantly fight against those with a political agenda who seek to remove all instances of the words "British Isles" from this encyclopedia. We've got it here, at the British Isles article itself, and most recently at Military history of the peoples of the British Isles (now inappropriately renamed) where a nationalist editor completely disregarded the need for consensus. MidnightBlue (Talk) 12:21, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow, such vitriol! @ The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick: I don't know who you think I am or represent, but I can assure you I represent nobody but myself. My suggested version has nothing to do with any in-principle objection to the use of the term "British Isles". All I'm saying is that it's unnecessary to use that expression in this particular case, for the reasons I outlined. Not only unnecessary, but it introduces a potential misreading of where the UK's territories are, unless the wording is carefully constructed. We're certainly not there yet. -- JackofOz (talk) 13:01, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

@ British Watcher: You clearly did not read my post. As Ghmyrtle has said, how long a particular form of words has existed is utterly irrelevant. Even on Featured Articles, editors are explicitly invited to improve articles in any way they can. There's nothing about "Please do not make any changes to sentences that have not been altered in the preceding 2 years". I made that very point above, and you've countered it by saying that ... these words have been here for 2 years. Can you see a problem here? Having made a non-argument, you then charge me with making an invalid argument. All you've said is that you oppose my change, but without saying why you oppose my change, other than that my argument was not valid. That's your own POV. You're entitled to it, but please don't impose it on me. As far as I'm concerned, my suggestion is just as "valid" as anyone else's. If it doesn't persuade you, that's something I can live with. The rest of your post was not something I'd bother responding to. -- JackofOz (talk) 13:01, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Thats fine JackofOz, there is no consensus for ur suggested change so the current wording should remain. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I take exception to Red Hat's categorisation of arguments that have been put forward are devious. I also deplore being described by BritishWatcher as an appeaser to the anti-British Isles brigade. Stop slinging mud around and concentrate on the arguments. You say no-one has argued a valid case for dropping the term. So I will try once again to explain, I hope, a perfectly rational reason for not using the "two words". We're talking about a section of the article that deals with the remnants of the former Empire as they stand in 2009. If there was a bit in the article referring to the situation as it was historically then the use of the British Isles would be correct. But to associate the British Overseas Territories directly with the British Isles as it is now constituted (ie two sovereign states) will confuse the uninitiated and will imply a British sovereignty over the British Isles when none exists. So in the interests of removing all possible misconceptions the sentence should be re-worded to reflect the reality. -- Bill Reid | (talk) 13:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry perhaps i should of worded my comment differently, i didnt mean that everyone who is saying we should remove British Isles is either part of the anti British isles brigade or an appeaser. I simply meant some are part of the brigade and some simply want to appease them (i didnt mean everyone).

British Isles is a well known and accepted term in geography, it is used every day by organisations like the BBC (they are very politically correct and dont see the need to stop using it). British Isles does not claim ownership of Ireland, that is simply certain peoples view and if they click the link to the British isles aricle they can see in the introduction which explains the situation well.

This article also explains in great detail that all of Ireland is not part of the United Kingdom anymore. The fact its been here two years is an important point, if this was really confusing people then it wouldnt of remained on the page so long. Had this debate been started by a confused person there would be more justification for change, but it wasnt.. it was someone who clearly knows the meaning. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:22, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

You know BW, you haven't advanced a single argument other than "I don't agree" and you keep trotting out meaningless statements. I am sure the BBC do use the word and legitimately so. This is not an argument about the legitimacy of the term in general but the appropriateness in the particular case of this article. --Snowded ^TALK 18:08, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Im waiting for a hundred year old man to come on this talk page who hasnt read the paper for 87 years who will wonder what everyones arguing about. Lets be honest, i doubt that there are many people out there who dont know that the Republic of Ireland is not part of the UK. There are likely to be more who dont know the difference between the British Overseas Territories and the Crown Dependencies though....Willski72 (talk) 14:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Two Words Causing So Much Trouble

To everyone who has descended here from other pages and who has been editing at Wikipedia for a long time: where were you when this article was a mess and required cleaning up, when it was missing large periods of the Empire's history, when it required references and reformatting? It always amazes me, the amount of time people spend over trivial matters when there is so much work to be done. Why don't you expend your energies trying to get the UK or BI articles to GA/FA status? That would be a much more constructive use of your time. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 10:58, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

In my case, I didn't think I could contribute much of substance to the article, so I didn't try. Personally I have minimal interest in articles getting to GA/FA status, but I respect the right of other editors to have that as a priority. My priority is in making articles useful to a wide range of readers, not in making them "excellent" and certainly not in pushing my own POV. Where I think I can help improve articles in ways in which I choose, I will continue to do so. WP:Users ;) Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, Its interesting that some people think changing this one sentence is going to make a huge improvement to the article, the mention of British Isles didnt prevent this from becoming a Featured Article. The more fighting over the sentence and possible edit wars puts that FA status at risk, so why bother?

Using British Isles in the sentence is accurate and simple to understand. Strongly oppose any change to the sentence and everyone should move on to other things. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:35, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh? Is this a case of WP:OWN? Aren't people like Ghmyrtle or myself or anyone else for that matter not entitled to have opinions regarding improvements to an already very fine article instead of being told to bugger off. Ain't going to happen! --Bill Reid | (talk) 11:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Hes not telling everyone to leave, hes simply saying peoples time could be better spent trying to improve this article or other articles and not fighting over a sentence just because some people have a problem with "British Isles" and seek its removal for political reasons from Wikipedia. Thats something else that aint going to happen. :) BritishWatcher (talk) 11:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

and this is a minor improvement that is getting out of hand. I still don't see the issue of accuracy of the term being addressed. I do see a lot of statements about other editors motivations. --Snowded ^TALK 11:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Snowded, we have addressed this matter in full. The British Isles is a location, please explain why its not accurate to say the 14 BOTs are outside the British Isles? All of the suggested wording to change this sentence to make an "improvement" have NOT been more accurate, they weaken it. The change doesnt seem to be to "improve" the article, someone has simply spotted British Isles and made a fuss because they hate the term. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:08, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

To say that the UK owns territories outside of something would normally imply that it owns the something. The point of this single sentence is to establish that the UK (not the British Isles) continue to have legal control over 14 overseas territories. We should aim to make things simple and clear not introduce ambiguity. The proposed wording by Ghmyrtle (with one addition outline above) is accurate (I see no one contest that) and is not ambiguous. --Snowded ^TALK 12:12, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Earlier on snowded you said in response to the suggested wording.. ": ""The UK retains sovereignty over 14 territories in other parts of the world. In 2002 these were renamed the British Overseas Territories." - "Definite improvement, happy with that " Please explain to me how this is more accurate and clear? You seem to be happy with any suggestion aslong as it removes British Isles.

As mentioned before, if we said the UK has 14 overseas territories outside "Europe" it doesnt mean we own Europe. British Isles is no different, both are locations and if people read the article and get down to the legacy section it explains very clearly about Ireland. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:21, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The use of British Isles should remain but it should be phrased in such a way that it is clear that not all of the British Isles is under UK sovereignty.MITH 12:16, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

A confusion which is not possible with "Europe" which is thus a false comparison. I am happy with any solution which states that the UK owns 14 territories overseas and does not create confusion and/or does not mislead people. It should not be necessary for someone to have to read up the history of Britain and Ireland to understand a simple sentence. So far the arguments for retention seem to be of the We suspect the motivations of people trying to remove it variety rather than addressing what should be a simple matter of content. It really is getting very very trivial, but if a resolution is not reached here then it may be time to post for additional opinions. --Snowded ^TALK 12:26, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be a flood of people coming and posting opinions, so they must be coming from somewhere but the more input the better. We have stated clearly that using British Isles in the sentence is accurate and clear, it avoids the need to expand and create confusion about the Crown dependencies. Those seeking change must justify it, so far no valid reason has been given and the suggested rewording simply make things worse. The article managed to get FA status, so clearly people didnt see a problem then. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree with "the more input the better", as long as new input does not get such objectionable responses as "Certain editors are on a campaign across wikipedia to remove "British Isles" for political reasons, others are sadly simply trying to appease these people. Its ashame." -- JackofOz (talk) 13:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Im not accusing everyone of such things. However it is clear there is a hardcore movement going around wikipedia trying to remove British isles from wikipedia, and its clear some people just seek to appease them. Everyone is welcome to come here and make suggestions, but at the moment no valid justification has been made to remove something thats been in the article two years, and i dont think the suggested alternatives make the article any more accurate or clear.. which is why i oppose your suggestion. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Seems to me it'd be better if you didn't accuse anyone of such things. Whatever people's motivations might be, outside of obvious and intentional vandalism they're entitled to prosecute their opinions and express their views. If you approach edits from the attitude of "I've got a fight on my hands here", that's exactly what you'll usually get, but not necessarily the fight you thought you were getting. Also, I'd be really happy if you stopped saying that anything you personally happen to disagree with is "invalid". Again, the only invalid edits around here are vandalism and erroneous edits made in good faith. Otherwise, everything is just as valid as everything else. It's just that not all valid edits gain consensus. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:23, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow this talk page has got a lot bigger in the last three days! Why dont you leave it as it is and just add ' these are not to be mistaken with the Crown Dependencies within the Isles'. Anyone who reads the article who doesnt know that Ireland isnt part of the UK is very old indeed and has not read a newspaper for a good 80 years....Willski72 (talk) 12:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

It's a devious argument to suggest that anyone would be left with the impression that the UK retains sovereignty over the whole British Isles.

(1) substitution with the word "Europe" does not give the impression that UK rules Europe, so that eliminates grammar as the underlying problem.

(2) the article discusses Irish independence further up.

(3) the "British Isles" word is linked to the article, so anyone who has been left in any doubt, despite (2), can click on it and read what is meant by the term.

It is devious because it really boils down to is the same "Irish" objection. You would only believe it to be misleading if you hold the same view that the "Irish objecters" do. It is no more "inaccurate" stating that Japan borders the Sea of Japan. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 13:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no danger of anyone thinking that the UK claims Europe, but here is a danger (as historically it was once the case) that the confusion will be there for British Isles. This debate is nothing to do with Irish Independence which as you say is covered elsewhere in the article. Its good practice to avoid the use of pipelinks. To call the argument devious is a breech of WP;GF and I think your WP:OWN problem is coming out again. At the moment we have lots of involved editors and its not clear what the position is. As far as I can see one group want to retain BI as a term, but do not seem to be saying that the alternative is inaccurate or misleading. The other group want to remove it on the basis that it can be misleading. I would have thought that made the decision obvious.

However we are not making any progress here, maybe its time to state the two options, state the arguments (as short bullets) then take a poll and invite third party comment. --Snowded ^TALK 18:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

That's an extremely disingenuous thing to say. The alternative is both inaccurate and misleading - and weasel-wording too. ðarkun coll 23:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The pro-change people need to make a case. That hasn't been done. Statements asserting that a reader might get confused by the current wording should be verified. At least there would then be some justification. Wiki-Ed (talk) 18:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the case has been made Wiki-Ed and its a strongercase because the alternative is uncontroversial, no one has actually objected to it other than some strange desire to keep BI in as a term Its time to recognise that we are getting locked into an increasingly polarised position. Best thing then is to summarise the position and invite some neutral editors in to look at it. Pity really we sorted out previous controversies here--Snowded ^TALK 18:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The onus is on those who wish to retain un-sourced material. Apart from that, agree with Snowded that its time for outside help here. --Bill Reid | (talk) 19:01, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

What's unsourced about it? MidnightBlue (Talk) 19:03, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing unsourced about it. Verifiable fact: the British Isles is an archipelago in the north-west corner of Europe (reference: Encarta and Britannica). Verifiable fact: the UK retains sovereignty of 14 areas of the world and are called the British Overseas Territories (reference: FCO website). Verifiable fact: the BOTs are outside of the aforementioned archipelago (reference: pick up an Atlas). Next? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 20:02, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Correct, and futhermore, stating that they are outside the British Isles is useful because it differentiates from those territories that are inside the British Isles; IoM, CI and NI (apologies if this obvious point has already been made). MidnightBlue (Talk) 20:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

This obvious point has already been made many time now, but given that it's been glossed over or simply ignored by many here you are right to raise it again. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 20:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Can the "Crown Dependencies" question be resolved first, before moving on to the "BI" question? There's a danger that the two issues will be confused. Otherwise I agree that we should clearly set out the alternatives proposed, and move to some resolution of the issue. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:26, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe that is the way forward. There are four Crown dependencies (the three Channel Islands and the Isle of Man) and fourteen overseas territories. Maybe it would be a lot easier just to say that, it is after all what is left of the empire. --Snowded ^TALK 20:23, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Nooooo. The Crown Dependencies are no more a legacy of the "Empire" than Sussex or Yorkshire. If you think otherwise, you can start by providing references that say they are. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 20:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Well it seemed that the arguments for British Isles wanted to exclude the Crown Dependencies to avoid confusion. My suggestion (and the punctuation is not good, sorry its late) was that if people were so concerned about that then their status should be mentioned. That way we do inform people. You might then say that the UK has 14 overseas dependencies and note that the Crown Decencies of the CI & IoM have a more complex history. --Snowded ^TALK 20:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The line of anti-BI went from disincluding the RoI by comparison to the CI and IoM, furthering their political objectives, all of which are worthless POV pushing, because it obviously ignores the generic usage of BI as geographic terminology. Most editors here know that the terms British Isles, do have two types of connotations, so why not describe both of them for the reader? Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. (talk) 06:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The current wording is accurate and clear, i strongly oppose removing British Isles to appease a couple of trouble makers. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Just because someone disagrees with you does not make them a trouble maker. The use of BI here is ambiguous, and several editors with good editing histories are saying that. You may disagree but at least respect WP:GF --Snowded ^TALK 10:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The use of the term is in no way ambiguous - those 14 territories are outside the British Isles. What's ambiguous about that? ðarkun coll 10:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

There are also unambiguously outside the historic Kingdom of Mercia Tharky. The ambiguity as has been pointed out by several editors is that BI includes Ireland which is not even a part of the commonwealth, and its inappropriate and unnecessary. --Snowded ^TALK 10:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

If they were all outside Europe, would you object to them being described as "outside Europe"? The sentence says nothing at all about the status of Ireland, not even by implication - it's sole purpose is to unambiguously exclude the Crown Dependencies. ðarkun coll 10:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

As far as I recall Europe was never a part of the British Empire. The Crown Dependencies can be excluded by a better phrasing - few if any people know what they are anyway, so assuming BI removes the ambiguity is probably a mistake. Personally I would simply state that there are 14 Overseas Dependencies and then in a foot note list them, and exclude Crown Dependancies. Simple really. --Snowded ^TALK 11:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Most of the British Isles were never part of the British Empire, either - the term applies to the overseas colonies, not the homeland. In fact, and ironically, the only part of the British Isles to be ever officially part of the British Empire was the Irish Free State, when it joined it as a dominion in 1922. ðarkun coll 11:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The current wording is simple and accurate, there is no reason for change. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Can you not just do both? Rephrase but include BI in that rephrasing.MITH 11:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I wouldnt oppose a rephrasing of the sentence that includes the British Isles if it removes peoples concerns about its inclusion and it makes sense but i do not think its needed, the current wording is accurate and clear. However its obvious some people here arguing for a change only care about its removal and not making the article more clear, so i doubt it would resolve anything. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Not so, BW. British Isles is used twice in the legacy section. Its second use is absolutely correct dealing as it does with people movements at a time when Ireland was in the Empire. Its first use is describing things in the present day so where is the logic of using a term that includes a country that has absolutely no connection with the remnants of Empire?

How about: The UK retains sovereignty over 14 territories world-wide, which in 2002 were renamed the British Overseas. --Bill Reid | (talk) 11:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The Crown Dependencies are in the world, and the whole point is to unambiguously exclude them. ðarkun coll 11:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Why? --Bill Reid | (talk) 11:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Because its use is not to include the RoI, but to exclude the Crown Dependencies. ðarkun coll 11:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

But its use does include RoI unless of course the anti-BI brigade have finally managed to get their way and taken Ireland out of the BI. Why is it an imperative to remove the Crown Dependencies from the article? --Bill Reid | (talk) 15:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Bill Reid, can you please point me to where you obtained this demarcation between a correct and an incorrect usage? By your definition, the FCO and the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee have "incorrectly" used the term. Legislative/executive/governmental bodies are reliable sources, you are not - so unless you misunderstood what No Original Research means, can you please point me to where you got this "rule" from? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 11:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Please point out to me where I created a "rule" and I believe Snowded already replied to you regarding your other points. --Bill Reid | (talk) 11:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

According to you, the rule is that if British Isles is used to refer to a time when Ireland was part of the UK, it is OK. Otherwise it is not OK. Such a "rule" would be original research. There is no evidence of such a rule being enforced in reliable sources. There is either no policy regarding the term, or there is a policy not to use it at all. There is no half way house. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 12:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Red Hat, you need to stay calm and recognise that several of us have misgivings about the use of the term in the context in which it is given. Please AGF. The term is a geographic one. Within its limites are the Channel Islands, the I of M and the UK under the Crown. The other major constituent is a country that has absolutely no connection with present day bits of former empire and its use here has the possibility of mis-informing the reader. If you can't admit there is a genuine issue here then that's a pity.Bill Reid | (talk) 12:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I am calm. I'm not sure what wording suggests otherwise to you, and it is not in the slightest bit assuming bad faith to ask another editor to show that they are not engaging in original research. It is precisely because people don't do that enough that we have all these silly arguments at Wikipedia. The main issue here is that people are trying to right WP:GREATWRONGS by riding the crest of the wave in the move to expunge "British Isles" from common usage. I have already said that if there is a cross-page decision not to use it at Wikipedia, then I'll abide by that. What I am not prepared to accept is the removal of this term by stealth, page by page, from Wikipedia, when reliable sources such as the BBC and the British Gov still use it. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 12:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Bandying accusations of OR is laughable. Just engage in meaningful discussion and we could get somewhere. I do not see anybody in the recent discussion as against the use of BI in articles. People who have expressed issues with its use in that particular section of the article have done so in rational manner instead of IDONTLIKEIT so tough!Bill Reid | (talk) 15:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

You are defining the acceptability of the term. You (and Snowded) are saying when it's OK and when it's not OK. You are outlining rules when it is contentious or not contentious. If you think it is laughable to point out that this is original research, you obviously don't understand what original research is. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 16:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

You could get a verifyable list as long as you arm of organisations who use the term British Isles. I use it and haven't got a problem with it. But that is not, and never was, the point. I wouldn't want any-one who reads the article to run away with the idea that the British Isles has some sort of over-arching control/influence/call-it-what-you-like role in those left-overs of empire. From my part, and I suspect all of those who are presently contributing here, are not part of any conspiracy to have the term erased from the pages of en.Wikipedia just because there is a small number of editors who would like that. Keep things in perspective. --Bill Reid | (talk) 17:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

As Willski pointed out, it's a stretch to to imagine that anyone really thinks the UK has any sovereignty over the state of Ireland. Noone uses the term "British Isles" to suggest that (my challenges to others to provide sources which do went unanswered on the BI talk page). It would also be remarkable if, having already read the section dealing with Ireland's independence, if the reader had got this far, they still misunderstood the situation, and moreover was incapable of clicking on the British Isles link to read exactly what is meant by the term. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 18:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Willski72 was talking about onions when the rest of us were talkng about leeks (related - but not the same), now you also want to. Most people will know that Ireland and the UK are separate countries but there are many who don't, but that's not the argument. It is whether it is appropriate for this article to give the impression of UK sovereignty over the entire Britsh Isles and IMO that's what it does. Anyroad, I'm off out. Back tomorrow. --Bill Reid | (talk) 18:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Clearly, neither side is going to convince the other by reasoning alone, especially given that we are all now just rehashing the same arguments. Snowded, if you can't accept that there is no consensus for its removal you can take it to dispute resolution. Of course, if as you said to me, all along you really just wanted to avoid a silly dispute, you could just let it die and the dispute would thereby be avoided (you have, frankly, done most to keep the dispute going, from beginning it with two reverts to being the "last man standing" in the talk page fracass). The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 11:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Well at the moment its pretty much 50:50 as far as I can see. Also its absurd to say "if you think its petty then leave it alone and let my pettiness stand" which is effectively what you are saying RedHat. This could have been resolved quickly if it hadn't been for the knee jerk reaction of believing that every attempt to remove BI is part of some Irish conspiracy. You are however right in that I don't think you are going to move, and you and BI are increasingly focused on editors not content in nearly all your replies. I suggest we leave it for 24 hours and if people are not open to finding a way round this then the arguments are summarised and third parties invited to contribute. I've come up with several options, MIH has, so has Ghmrtle and Bill. All that has met with is intransigence. --Snowded ^TALK 11:28, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Snowded, at which point did you acknowledge the opposition's ideas? Oh, that's right; they're just blocking the warpath. Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. (talk) 07:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no consensus to remove or change wording that stood for over two years and passed through an FA review. Do what you need to do next. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 11:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

⬅The FA review did not address this particular point as you well know RedHat. 24 hour cooling off period makes sense - lets look at it then. --Snowded ^TALK 18:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

You are in academia, are you not, Snowded? When you are reviewing a student's paper, or indeed a colleague's, do you go through and mark every single sentence as being OK, on the assumption that if you do not mark it OK then it is not OK? Of course you do not. That would be ludicrous. Same goes for a peer/GA/FA review here. No one brought up "British Isles" during the review, but someone did bring up preferring to use the term "black people" instead of "blacks". Therefore, that means British Isles was not a problem for the reviewers, because they read the whole article and then mentioned the parts of it they had problems with. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 20:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

This point has been made before, but it apparently bears repeating. At the top of the page is a box that says:

"British Empire is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so."

What that means is that we're explicitly invited to improve the article in any ways we can, and to keep on doing so. Of course, that isn't a licence to change anything just for the sake of change. But equally, the fact that it's achieved FA status does not prevent any given word or set of words from being changed, if appropriate. The argument that this has been unchanged for 2 years and was approved by the reviewers at the time of the FA review, in itself, is a non-argument. It's the content and effect of any proposed changes that we need to focus on. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Jack the fact this managed to get FA status and the sentence has included British Isles for over two years is important. Certain people would like to make out British Isles only gets added to articles for political reasons, some fail to accept that for many people the term "British Isles" is just as understandable / accepted / known as Europe or North America. The fact that the British Isles was added when the legacy section was created and it has been there since without any neutral parties raising any concerns at all.

Everyone is entitled to seek to improve the article, sadly we can not be sure that its everyones intentions. Some editors agreed to a rewording that was incorrect or made little sense JUST because it managed to remove the word "British Isles". This isnt about making the sentence any more clear to the reader. If its only about making things more clear those seeking "British isles" removal (some of whom have a clear track record on this matter) should suggest an alternative that includes the term they seem to hate so much.

Ive yet to hear a perfect suggestion that would improve the sentence and make the article easier for people to understand. It is for those who seek change after so long to justify such change and suggest better alternatives. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree totally with your last sentence, except for "after so long". All changes, to any article, at any time, have to be properly justified. The "after so long" seems to assume that everyone who has ever had, or will ever have, any interest in this article, has been watching it ever since its inception. That is patently not the case. Some come along, read the article for the very first time in their lives (maybe they only joined WP last week; or maybe not - we have over 2 million articles, and I've been around for over 5 years, virtually full time for the past 2 years, and am still finding articles of great interest to me that I'd never seen before; hence my watchlist is massive), see something they think could be improved, and improve it. That applies to all articles, not just this one. As for editors' intentions, apart from obvious vandalism and wilful destruction, we can never really know what their intentions are, and I have always stuck firmly to the principle of commenting on contributions, not on editors personally. An admin once thought enough of my approach to write a wikiessay "What would Jack do?". An edit stands or falls entirely on its own merits or lack thereof; it has nothing whatever to do with what we think, suspect, feel, assume, surmise, believe or "know" what the editor's real motives are. I know many others consider this a naive approach (and have called me naive personally, on this talk page and elsewhere). They're entitled to their opinion, as long as they don't cross the line into personal abuse. All I know is, it works for me and it's the closest interpretation I know to the rules by which Wikipedia operates. -- JackofOz (talk) 05:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Members of Commonwealth

The article states "Most former British colonies (and one former Portuguese colony, Mozambique) are members of the Commonwealth". What about Cameroon? It was partly under British control, but is it included as a former British colony? MidnightBlue (Talk) 19:02, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Perphaps it should say "Most former colonies and Protectorates (and one former....", but for crying out loud lets not have another argument like the one above about it!Willski72 (talk) 19:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't want an argument, I was just enquiring as to the facts of the matter. MidnightBlue (Talk) 19:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, one argument at a time! :-) This whole BI thing reminds me of the Life of Brian from the crowds that suddenly amass and follow prophets around to the silly bickering of the people's front of judea (or was it the judean people's front?) The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 20:16, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, the BI disputes are tough enough on our pysches. GoodDay (talk) 22:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Ha! Something like "He's not the Messiah he's a very naughty boy!" or "What have the Romans ever done for us!"

"Well what about the roads"

"And the Aqueducts"

"Yeh and dont forgot the schools"

"Well alright, but apart from the roads, the aqueducts and the schools...."Willski72 (talk) 20:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

So, one group of editors is making cool, reasoned, rational, sensible and appropriate statements, but another group is engaging in "silly bickering"? Is that the way it is? That seems to be as wrong-headed as saying "anything I disagree with is invalid". All participants in the "silly bickering" above (if that's what it is, which I dispute) must take responsibility for their contributions to it, because it takes two to bicker. Let's leave the BI matter where it belongs, eh. This thread is about Mozambique and Cameroon. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:43, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Jack, you are trying to level the playing field through naivete. Read through the pages, instead of spouting prejudice without a proper frame of reference. Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. (talk) 06:30, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Extraordinary, simply extraordinary. -- JackofOz (talk) 13:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

What? I was joking about everyone (including my seemingly pathetic attempts at compromise) and trying to stem another argument here before it flowed down from the one above. My answer to the perfectly reasonable question by MidnightBlueMan would be to put 'former colonies and Protectorates' therefore encompassing all countries that were not classed as colonies but were partially under British rule. Mozambique, being a unique case, should be left as it is in the article. I wont pretend to be an expert on the case however and so bow out to leave it to the powers that be.Willski72 (talk) 23:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I think he means me. And my response is that the pathetic bickering at British Isles was very deliberately brought over here, by an editor who is probably now sitting back and gleefully watching the ensuing melee he has caused, another notch on the bedpost in the campaign by the vocal minority to have the term eradicated from Wikpedia. So, yes I stand by my comment. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 00:29, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

"Outside the British Isles" - a few usages in reliable sources

The phrase is currently used on the FCO website "the oldest legislature in the Commonwealth outside the British Isles" [5]

The same phrase is used in a 2008 House of Commons report. [6]

The BBC uses the term on a page about the BOTs and the Crown Dependencies [7] "Crown Dependencies are geographically part of the British Isles"

A Member of Parliament used the term during a debate about the BOTs and the CDs "There are also the five dependencies of the Crown—four in the English channel and one in the Irish sea—that have never been colonies, but enjoy a unique constitutional status as part of the British isles, but not the United Kingdom itself." [8]

It's not a problem for the Foreign Office, The House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee, ~~a Member of Parliament,~~ the BBC when discussing the BOTs, so why oh why is it a problem here at Wikipedia? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 01:33, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

ps I struck out one ref - notably that is written as "British isles" (lower case 'i'), so it's unclear what the intent is. The i/I disctinction was yet another argument which I've unfortunately probably now dragged here too. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 01:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The phrase used in the House of Commons Paper is "There are 14 UK Overseas Territories (formerly known as Dependent Territories)." That it citable, simple and appropriate, and the subsequent set of names and qualifications a useful footnote. The BBC statement seems legitimate, it says "Geographically a part of of). The Foreign Office quote is towards the end of description on Bermuda related to Bermuda and qualified by "in the commonwealth". You've found a good source that does the high level description well, now why not follow that? --Snowded ^TALK 07:25, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

"Why oh why is it a problem here at Wikipedia?" Probably because all those sources are... British. WP is international. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:30, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

As if Irish sources are not also "British"? Circular reasoning! Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. (talk) 07:54, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Huh? Perhaps it would help Catterick's case if he could write in terms which are understandable by the rest of us mere mortals. My point is that, internationally, it is unlikely that UK government sources would be universally accepted as unimpeachably neutral on this matter. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't feign ignorance, or in layman's terms, don't play stupid. You very well know that Ireland, like the Aran Islands, Isle of Bute, Isle of Man, the Calf, Isles of Scilly, etc. are all British inasmuch as Albion, for that is the original collective term in ancient history that you are so suave about damning to no memory. The Greeks did not single out Albion in particular as British. Nor did the Romans, who viewed all the Britons beyond the walls, as yet to be conquered. That is their perspective, but you would insist that "British" refers only to the unions of the past couple centuries. How shallow. Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. (talk) 09:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed I am a layman, as are most editors here and almost all readers - that is, our clients, to whom as editors we are responsible. Clearly you have strong views about right and wrong on this matter. Those views are of no interest to me, nor in my view are they of any relevance to this discussion. Nor are mine - I am "insisting" on nothing, merely urging others to reflect on the fact that their views on what is "neutral" terminology may, in fact, be viewed by others as partial. The simplest solution here is to avoid terminology which is seen as contentious, and which is unnecessary. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

What does this "avoidance" entail? Pretending that the British Isles have no relevance in an article about the British Empire? Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. (talk) 12:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Not pretending. Apparently "British" in the term "British Empire" implies sovereignty, but the same word in the term "British Isles" doesn't. And we expect readers around the world to understand that, without any explanation... ?!! It is surely not that difficult to see that avoiding the unnecessary use of the term would help improve this article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

@ Ghymurtle: I somehow doubt that people in China or Chile or Cameroon would have any opinion (or interest) on this topic. Should we seek sources from those countries in an effort to find a neutral opinion? Informed and relevant sources on this topic will be British or Irish. Wiki-Ed (talk) 09:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

"I somehow doubt that people in China or Chile or Cameroon would have any opinion (or interest) on this topic." - although they may well be confused by the fact that the word "British" when used in ..Isles and ..Empire is argued to have two different meanings, and we should assist them by using less confusing terminology. Neither UK nor Irish government sources can be assumed to be impeccably neutral. Where the two agree, they may be. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

@ Snowded: the phrase "There are 14 UK Overseas Territories (formerly known as Dependent Territories)" does not say where these territories are. If I remember correctly, a certain group of editors got quite upset recently over the word "overseas" and its non-application to islands in the same archipelago. Therefore, I think we really ought to make it quite clear, if only for that certain group of editors, that the BOT are some distance away from the UK. Wiki-Ed (talk) 09:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Well it does they they are "overseas" and I can't see any valid objection to the term here. ALso you might note I suggested the full FCO quotation as a note for people who want to know more. --Snowded ^TALK 10:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

@ Catterick, no offence, but please stop. You're not helping this debate at all. Wiki-Ed (talk) 09:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Wiki-Ed, you and Red Hat have tried to get the upper hand by shoving me aside, because I don't take the establishmentarian pov as literal truth, but made at their own hands. Perhaps you also see yourself as a magistrate. Got to love heavy-handedness. Why is it that non-English editors don't ever take eachother to task for promoting a single set of propagandas? Where is the dissent? Hey, if the "English cause" here is undermined by my outspoken elaboration on these issues, then to hell with both sides, as I've always felt. That's just the thing, because non-English editors have made it into an "us vs them" topic, framing it as though we all cannot be simply in a general area and have a general term of neutral origins describe us in common, however the political situation may be, even if there was a Gaelic king sitting in London and forcing the people to speak it or die. Even then, in an unlikely situation, Ireland would still be British and not for political reasons. Besides, all Britons in this political context, are members of the EU anyways, while EU doesn't exactly mean geographically European. Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. (talk) 09:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

@ Catterick: ditto. Not only are your posts unhelpful, they are impossible to understand and at times verging on paranoia.

@ Wiki-Ed with "overseas" (I like this @ business BTW): how deliciously ironic! Yes, "overseas" includes Ireland, doesn't it? Because we had this same silly argument before, started by, hmmm, let me see, oh yes, Dunlavin Green. And then joined by, hmm, let me see, Snowded. What was the result? We pandered to the vocal minority and removed the term despite the fact that many many sources used it happily in the way we did. Now the same minority want another term removed and replaced with this same term they asked to have removed before? Apologies for the gloating tone, but I hope everyone can see how arbitrary this reasoning is now getting. To summarise for anyone that wasn't around last time: despite many mentions of Newfoundland being England's first "overseas" colony, it was deemed that Ireland is "overseas", but now, tbe suggestion is to use "overseas" instead of "British Isles" because BI might include Ireland. The ladies doth protest too much, methinks.The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 10:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Aha, the "paranoia brigade" does seem to be a claim of those English editors here, even if true at times. Just because I haven't boxed in my views of the overall situation, doesn't mean that I necessarilly disagree, with either side of the editorial entrenchment. No third opinions need apply; we must confine ourselves to a Cold War linear mind game of Pong. Now, I'm feeling more like a Scotsman in this discussion, with less incredulity about the English position, than the unnamed who have taken English to task over their embrace of BI. Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. (talk) 11:25, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

You'll have to give the dif for your gloating Red Hat, there are many "conversations" in this area and no single word is right or wrong absolutely, the context determines appropriateness. (you do however have my sympathy for some of your support) --Snowded ^TALK 10:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)--Snowded ^TALK 10:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Here it is, in all it's glory. Strap yourselves in, as I take you back to another one of these ridiculous fights that only Wikipedians get into [9] (I am a Wikipedian too, btw) The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 10:54, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I remember seeing that argument! Doesnt time fly when your having fun arguing!Willski72 (talk) 11:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes very similar, a position where (as I said in my edit of 12:04, 20 February 2009) some sensitivity on wording could have prevented a meaningless conflict. Same editors involved in the main, same intransigence leading to escalation of response over a minor issue. --Snowded ^TALK 11:30, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't try to pawn this off on other people. You yourself have been a prime mover of this debacle, long before I showed up at either article. Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. (talk) 4:43 am, Today (UTC−7)

I prefer replacing the British Isles with British and Irish Isles, but I suppose that would be 'original research'. GoodDay (talk) 13:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

So would it be, if more political perceptions were put into it, such as "Anglo-Scottish (forgetting Wales and Cornwall?), Irish (dear me, I didn't divide them), Manx and Channel Islands (or is that Jersey and Guernsey?)". You see how needlessly political the connotations are? Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. (talk) 06:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

British Isles ≠ British Empire

1) Inasmuch as the British Empire was global (Re: BOT) and not very neatly canvassing the Earth, so too does UK, Jersey, Guernsey and Manx political collectivity not encompass the majority of Ireland, nor the Faroe Islands of Denmark, or those Channel Islands under French jurisdiction, but they all remain under the umbrella "British" whether or not Albion is the largest island and only a modern appropriated namesake, by those such as Throckmorton or Dee. Yes, the identification of GB with Albion is in fact, politically charged and much more so than "British Isles" in general, because the term GB actually was invented not too long ago, with several meanings to distinguish from "Little Britain" in France, an obvious snub at the previous English rule there.

2) To compare: it is not proper to make it seem like using the term "British Empire" in "North America" is offensive, because some Yanks may make trouble by claiming it insinuates other things, looking for a fight. When people have historical grievances, they may feel compelled to make others suffer "corrective action", to rectify something with some people who are not the same as those who came before them. How much "affirmative action" does Wikipedia need to go through, to prove the point that Dublin's Ireland is not subject to London's control anymore, when Northern Ireland itself, has devolved powers? The article, in no way, shape or form, promotes or confuses this issue. There is no presentation which would, by extension, make it seem that simply because London dictates in Northern Ireland on a devolved level, that they have some claim of unseen power to deny Dublin its rightful place in "the rest of the island" (from NI perspective).

3) I am fully aware that most on the isle of Ireland see "the rest of Ireland" to mean Northern Ireland, if speaking geographically for the whole island and I don't mean that Dublin necessarily claims the part administered by Belfast, although some editors here would like this to happen (I myself AM one of them). It is local perspective and those who have a problem with "British", should really look more at the selfish appropriation of "Irish" by those living in the part of Ireland controlled by Dublin, even as travel brochures make less distinction of it. Those I address feel that those in the North are wrong for using "Irish" for themselves (being that they are considered "Scots in exile"), although Northerners and affiliated islanders never claim exclusive use; truthfully, only the church primate in the Province of Armagh has precedence throughout Ireland, despite Dublin's secular precedence. "Irishness" is the real issue, but it is occasioned by the fact that the name for the UK is GB & NI, while Eire claims to be Irish in general terms. Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. (talk) 08:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

"I have not really read Jack's edits on the talk page." Well, that helps explain things! Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

That means: "on this talk page" (Talk:British Empire). Now off you go; bring us another bone to pick that detracts from this discussion. I have no wish to argue with Jack on any topic, whether this one or the tangent you are bringing to everybody's attention. Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. (talk) 09:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

That is precisely what I meant. If you admit to not reading others' comments here, it suggests that you are not motivated to find a solution through consensus, contrary to WP policy. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Ghmyrtle, (and Red Hat, you too), no offense, but I agree with Red Hat and reiterate the lack of enthusiasm for Jack's lack of a proper frame of reference to this discussion. He has done nothing personal against me, even with regards to his own celebrity page. I have nothing for or against Jack on either a personal level, nor an editorial level. I am more concerned at more motivated edits and the meaning behind them here, which entails discussing them with those who made them. Jack has barely been involved. So now, in addition to Wikistalking, we have Wikilawyering from you, User:Ghmyrtle? Try to burn me in effigy. I'm a survivor. Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. (talk) 09:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Fwiw, I was going to make exactly the same point that Ghmyrtle made, when real life intervened. You have a lot to say here (nothing wrong with that), but by your own admission you give others' posts scant regard. Don't expect to be taken seriously if that's your approach.

Please do not refer to Wikipedia:What would Jack do? as my "own celebrity page". I did not write it, and when asked by its author if I would agree to it being created, I was very reluctant. Not because there was anything inappropriate about its content per se, but because I am not one who ever likes being in the limelight. But the circumstances that led up to it were incredibly poisonous and destructive, leading to an editor being permanently banned, among other things, and I finally agreed to the essay if it would help in some small way avoid such a monumental disaster recurring. That's what it's about, pure and simple, end of story.

Now, about this "lack of a proper frame of reference" that I supposedly possess about this page - can you explain what that's about? I have actually (unlike some) read all of the above discussions, and therefore claim to have made my posts here from an educated standpoint. My angle on discussions is sometimes a little unorthodox, but then I'm an unorthodox guy in many ways. A different perspective ≠ a lack of a proper frame of reference. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Your first words to me at Wikipedia began on this talk page "such vitriol!". Is that the "unorthodox" approach Jack takes? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 22:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I call a spade a spade. I made a contribution that was serious in purpose and was a genuine attempt to offer a solution where none had been forthcoming up till then. It deserved at least a respectful response, even if people weren't persuaded by my argument. But what I got was:

"Certain editors are on a campaign across wikipedia to remove "British Isles" for political reasons, others are sadly simply trying to appease these people. Its ashame" (British Watcher)
"I also see no "fresh faces" here. I see the same crowd that has simply decamped from British Isles and moved here. It is not as though you are offering any new perspective" (The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick), and
"it is presently getting very tiresome having to constantly fight against those with a political agenda" (Midnight Blue).

Talk about a slap in the face. Not one slap but three. And I'm the one who's supposed to belong to some "camp"? Hardly. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be taking things rather personally: you are simply one of many that decamped here. Perhaps we need a new essay. WP:JIABOADQ Jack Is A Bit Of A Drama Queen. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 23:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I have not "decamped" from anywhere, about anything, to anywhere. But again we have the personal comments directed at me, yet I'm not allowed to take them personally. How does that work? -- JackofOz (talk) 00:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I just saw your photo on your user page and for some reason feel a bit guilty now. Anyway, all I meant to really say was that there was a general decampment from the British Isles talk page to this page, everyone apparently only caring about two words and not reading the rest of the article, where there are far more legitimate issues that could be raised (with 400 years of history and spanning five continents, did we discuss all the important events/themes and to the right depth? e.g. Nigeria is not mentioned by name until decolonisation. Why?) Anyway, if I included you in that sweeping statement incorrectly, apologies. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 00:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Apology accepted. A few comments, though. If the use of the words "British Isles" wasn't a legitimate subject for discussion, why did you create a thread called "British Isles" in the first place? You can't now pretend it was a minor issue that we shouldn't really have been discussing, when you yourself initiated the discussion. By the time I turned up there, there had been no less than 80 (yes, 80, count them) posts by 13 other editors, including 16 by yourself, 18 by Snowded, 11 by Catterick, 9 by Tharkuncoll, 7 by British Watcher, and smaller numbers by the other 8 editors. It was obviously going nowhere, but getting bogged down in intransigence and various accusations of inappropriate behaviour. I hoped to break the impasse by injecting a new idea. I'm always prepared for others not to accept my ideas, but I think it's sad that the heat of the moment caused it to attract some unhelpful responses. I'm happy to put it to rest now, although the solution to the core issue stills seems as remote as ever. Time will tell. - JackofOz (talk) 01:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I created the thread because a mini edit war (notably involving individuals that were arguing at British Isles) had started in the article itself and noone had discussed anything on the talk page. Therefore, when I reverted, I posted my explanation for the revert. That is what should have been done by the people removing the term. Instead of continuing to remove it (see the article history) they should have taken it to talk after their change got reverted the first time. Bold, revert, discuss, is I believe the essay. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 02:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

No problem, but please recognise that many editors do not "decamp" from one article to another - in my case, also, this article happened to be one of many on my watchlist, and I chose to involve myself in the discussion more than previously on this page because, in my view, some contributors on the page needed some helpful advice. But I was not, and am not, following an "agenda". Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Look at how personal this has turned up. Nobody addressed the academic issues at hand. The Wikipedia process of BRD is such a waste of time, if the D part is left out of it. You're all about making this tit-for-tat and so very beside the scholastic points. Hey, following that line of thought, how about the anti-BI, Red Hat and Jack all gang up on me because I may be winning a debate about the factual inconsistencies, although you don't want to admit it? Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. (talk) 10:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

This argument now has at least four different camps, not only that but the argument seems to be winding along a very dangerous route. Unless you all intend mutual destruction (or the Wikipedia argument equivalent) why dont you just agree to something. Can we all agree that they're called the British Overseas territories for example? If so can we agree that the name implies who controls them? If so (and i highly doubt we'll get this far) can we not just write that these should not be mistaken with the Crown Dependencies?Willski72 (talk) 15:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem there is the term British Isles with the name implying control of an independent state when used in its present context. --Bill Reid | (talk) 15:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh for goodness sake, the British Isles is a location it doesnt imply ownership. If anyone is confused they can click the link and read the definition. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh for goodness sake, please re-read Willski's post! --Bill Reid | (talk) 15:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I was replying to your post, not WillskisBritishWatcher (talk) 15:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

My response was to his so you don't take on what's being said beforehand? You simply reply to the immediate post? Funny way to use a thread. He was saying that the name BOT implies British ownership. Same reasoning for BI, no?. --Bill Reid | (talk) 16:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

lol im avoding alot of the text because so much nonsense has been written on this talk page over the past few days. His reasoning is flawed as you point out, although its the word "territories" that imply British ownership. Territories are always owned by something or someone, unlike a sea for example. Whilst someone may think Japan owns the Sea of Japan and Ireland owns the Irish sea the name doesnt imply that. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

No sorry, BW, but it isn't the word territories that imply British ownership, its British. As for the rest of your statement, I don't of anyone who would link the Sea of Japan nor the Irish Sea to the ownership of Japan or Ireland. --Bill Reid | (talk) 16:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

But that is exactly the same principle. There is no difference between the Irish sea / Sea of Japan and the British Isles. All 3 mention a name but they do not imply ownership of those places by the Irish or Japan and you say you know nobody that makes that mistake. How can you say its the "British" that implys ownership in British Isles, but not think the same thing about the Irish sea? it is exactly the same wording. British Isles does not imply ownership, even if some feel it does just like in the case of the sea of Japan, where Koreans call it something else.

British Overseas Territories is very different though, Its not because the word British nor Ovverseas. Its the word territories as i mentioned before. A territory is owned by someone, there for "British territories" implies ownership as it would if you put anybodys name infront of the word. Its totally different to a sea or isles. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm really struggling to understand you're logic here. The control of the British Antarctic Territory is not defined by the word British but by the word Territory. Seriously?. The Maltese Islands do not imply ownership by Malta? What we've been saying from scratch is that the the term British Isles can imply ownership of the archepelogo and that the use of the term should be carefully used so as not to give a false impression. --Bill Reid | (talk) 20:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I think what BW is trying to say is that noone uses "British Isles" to imply that Britain owns all of Ireland, ie that it is "British". Equally, noone seriously infers that. Rather, because of British meddling in Ireland over the centuries, the term can be viewed as offensive. It's the same situation with the Sea of Japan, as BW points out. The difference between BOT and BI is that "British Overseas Territories" is the deliberately chosen legal name for a political jurisdiction. "British Isles" is a geographical name that we inherited from our ancestors from a time when it may not have meant the same thing. "British" in the former does not equate to the latter, and it is not meant to by the users of the term. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 22:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I thought what i said was very simple and i was agreeing with part of your comment Bill. You said " I don't (presume u meant to say "know" here)anyone who would link the Sea of Japan nor the Irish Sea to the ownership of Japan or Ireland. ". My point is if the Irish sea and Sea of Japan do not imply ownership why does British Isles? I accept some may misunderstand that, just as they can in the case of the sea of Japan / Irish sea but is it implied in the wording? That is very different to the case of the British overseas territories. Look up the definition of territory, it is owned by someone so obviously putting British infront of the word implies it.

Please explain to me how the Sea of Japan / Irish sea is different to British Isles and if they are all the same should we be trying to remove those seas from wikipedia as some seem to be trying to remove British Isles?

If people dont understand what British Isles is they can click the link, where better than to come across a term you dont understand than on an encyclopedia where you can press one mouse button and read all about it. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

That is all perfectly correct, but I hope you understand that editors are opposing the use of British Isles all because of those different meanings of "British" as you correctly pointed out. Editors just don't want to imply a specific meaning which is not correct, hence the desire to change the wording so that no reader is misled.MITH 22:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, no, let's be clear about this. The only real-world, observable, verifiable (ie outside Wikipedia) objection regarding the term is that it is offensive and/or outdated. Again, users of the term don't imply Ireland is British and listeners/readers don't infer that it is. Not one single reference has been put forward to contradict that. Indeed, we can verify what is meant by the term in other encyclopaedias: it is defined solely on a geographic basis. Therefore all this stuff about it being "misleading" or "confusing" is a total non-argument. It is no more "confusing" to talk of the Sea of Japan. We don't need to put in parentheses "but Japan doesn't claim it". The objection that it is offensive is a valid one (one with which I do not agree, but valid nevertheless). The "confusing" one is not. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 23:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

If we're to be clear why the reason its use is objected to is because it is viewed as a misleading name. People think it suggests something which is incorrect. The misleading aspect and the offense aspect of the name go hand in hand.MITH 23:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) The 'misleading aspect' of any name is relevent. However the 'offence aspect' is irreleveant. GoodDay (talk) 23:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Erm, have either of you read WP:V? Provide a reference which states it is "misleading". Here's some food for thought [10] "Although the British Isles is a geographical term, it is resented by some Irish people who believe that it is redolent of empire and colonial occupation." Note the word RESENTED. It does not say "misunderstood by some". It says resented. It is a matter of offence, not whether it is misleading. Also note the last paragraph. "Folens will retain the British Isles in its atlases produced for children in the United Kingdom, which includes Northern Ireland." If it was a matter of being misleading, it wouldn't be left in for the UK version, now would it? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 23:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

And one further thought: it is not for us to presume what the reader, or indeed the non-reader, might get confused about. This is not a GCSE textbook with "tips" about things not to get confused over for upcoming exams. Encyclopaedias explain and describe terms factually and succinctly. If the reader is confused by or simply does not understand terminology, they look it up. In this case, that means clicking on British Isles link where all is explained, geography and controversy both. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 23:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Patrick (i) your examples are all from people in the British Isles (ii) all of them relate to geographical use (iii) I don;t think anyone would use British Isles to delimit the UK in the way used in this article, so finding something that says it is misleading is (sic) a red herring.--Snowded ^TALK 05:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

(Pls get my name right) Snowded, you really are missing the point. The usage here is geographical too. Just because it resides within an article about a political entity, or indeed a sentence about political sovereignty, that does not change the inherent meaning of the term. This is the complete flaw in your argument and I'm frustrated that the penny is not dropping. Fact: there is no modern day usage of BI as a political term. Fact: it is a geographical term. Fact: the Irish find this geographical term objectionable because to them it carries political baggage. This is all verifiable, unlike your view of the situation. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 09:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

(Sorry redhat, I normally do). I think frustration with the lacked of dropped coinage is common to both parties here. You (to my mind) are failing to see that using a geographical term in an inappropriate way, but equally and as importantly an unnecessary way. You don't hold any monopoly on verifiability I'm afraid. Your two facts are of course verifiable but they don't support your position. I am in fact proposing a minor variation of the text on the FCO site itself (eminently verifiable and not requiring separate facts to be strung together) in defence of what seems to be nothing more than an anti-anti-BI position which is as foolish as the thing it opposes. --Snowded ^TALK 09:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm frustrated you cannot see this. There is no usage of British Isles which is political rather than geographical. There just is not. And that is because noone, but noone, thinks Britain has sovereignty over Ireland. The House of Commons do not mean this when they use the geographical term in a political document (see my reference above) any more than the BBC do when they run a weather report. And this is entirely verifiable. Look in any other encyclo. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 09:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Snowded, how is it "inappropriate" or "unnecessary"? Every argument you've put forward on this basis has been rebutted. Provide evidence for us to consider. Wiki-Ed (talk) 09:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Unnecessary because there are better ways of saying it (which are closer to the sources), and inappropriate for the reasons Bill states below. You keep asserting that the arguments have been rebutted but with no evidence to support the statement. --Snowded ^TALK 10:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

So we're reduced to "la la la I can't hear you" now? Read up.

And I see no suggestions for "better ways of saying it" - they've all been inaccurate. The only reason given for it being supposedly "inappropriate" is, as Bill states below, because you think so. Wiki-Ed (talk) 12:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Articles such as Flowers and fauna of the British Isles, List of rivers in the British Isles or Animals indigenous to the British Isles would be perfectly valid use of geography to describe a topic but outside of those sort of areas then geo-political issues develop. So to think of the BI in purely geographical terms is unsustainable. Even the British Isles article itself can't totally remove itself from political issues. IMO its a fallacy for places on Planet Earth to not have political overtones and its really time to look at the reality of the situation. So, when the term British Isles is used to describe political entities such as the BOT's then that immediately brings up the issue of the political composition of the BI with the issues that have been discussed ad nauseum here. --Bill Reid | (talk) 10:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

"IMO its a fallacy..." - Well, as you correctly say, that's your opinion. I disagree with your opinion. The current construct accurately states that x is located outside of y and has been called z since 2002. X is not contentious and can be proven by referring to any map; Z is not contentious and is sourced; Y is a blanket term for an area for which there is no better geographic alternative. If we replaced the current words with x,y and z would you still object? Wiki-Ed (talk) 12:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

@Red Hat and Wiki-Ed: The fact that an organisation says that it does not mean something, by using a particular term, does not necessarily mean that those hearing or seeing the term being used see it in the same way. They are not "wrong" to interpret it differently, they just have a different perception. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

True, but their perception will be overridden by the fact that they know that Ireland is not part of the UK.Willski72 (talk) 13:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

That can't be assumed - obviously I'm thinking of elsewhere in the world, not in Ireland. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

All I see above are arbitrary rules that Wikipedia editors are attempting to impose here. Arbitrary regarding when it's OK to use the term and when it's not. Arbitrary regarding when a reader might get confused and when they might not. Arbitrary, arbitrary, arbitrary. Fact: British Isles is a term in the English language. Anyone who doesn't understand what it means clicks on the link. That is how encyclopaedias work. Reading about the Government of France and wondering what is meant by the President having restricted "de jure" powers? Well, click on the link and now you know! The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 23:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

What is really arbitrary is the notion of a supposedly encompassing ' geographic area' when in fact 'the British Isles', by whatever definition, are no more than a collection of islands with no clearly defined territorial seas, and therefore no clearly defined area (other than that occupied by the various land masses). As a description of a single place it is meaningless.RashersTierney (talk) 23:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Meaningless? What, like, it has no meaning? Why do I find an entry for it in the dictionary then, along with a meaning. [11] The meaning it gives is "A group of islands off the northwest coast of Europe comprising Great Britain, Ireland, and adjacent smaller islands."

As for your dismissal of the term that it is a collection of islands with no clearly defined territorial seas. Same applies to Lesser Antilles and Polynesia. Both valid geographical terms. with a meaning. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 01:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that the British Isles extends to territorial waters (3 mile limit 50 miles, or some other), so making it a clearly defined geographical area, because that really would be an original thesis. RashersTierney (talk) 08:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm merely pointing out that what you wrote is a complete load of nonsense. There have been some pretty flawed arguments cropping up here, but yours takes the biscuit. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 08:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

What a succinct example of the Humpty Dumpty school of semiotics, where words have any meaning you intend them to have. RashersTierney (talk) 09:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion

In order to stop this arguement going on forever what do people think of this for the first sentence of the Legacy section?

Outside of the United Kingdom's Crown Dependencies in the British Isles, the country retains sovereignty over 14 territories which are known as the British Overseas Territories.

I think its much better than the current wording.MITH 10:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I would support a compromise with wording along those lines which may resolve the dispute even though i dont really see the need for change. That wording is certainly more clear and accurate than some of the previous proposals to just remove British Isles and replace it with anything. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I would support that also as it is factual but TharkunColl for some reason explicitly wishes no mention of Crown Dependecies but has failed to provide an answer despite 2 requests (see my post, above). --Bill Reid | (talk) 12:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I took it that TharkunColl is arguing that the Crown Dependencies were not part of the Empire because they "are possessions of The Crown in Right of the United Kingdom, as opposed to overseas territories or colonies of the United Kingdom." To quote TharkunColl earlier on this page: "..the Crown Dependencies.. being feudal in origin, were never colonies and predate the British Empire by centuries - and technically speaking it's the Crown itself that has sovereignty over these, not the UK (though the Crown delegates to the UK parliament powers to legislate for them in certain restricted areas). Because, however, the point is arguable, mentioning them in this context simply confuses the issue." If that is the case, they do not need to be mentioned at all in this sentence (although, better to overcome confusion, it might help if their status were to be explained, very briefly, somewhere in the article). The map at Crown Dependencies shows very clearly where they are located - assuming that they are peripheral to this article, their location does not need to be mentioned in this article at all. Any mention of either the CDs, or the BI, in this sentence is therefore unnecessary. As suggested some time ago by JackofOz, it could usefully and unambiguously read: "The UK retains sovereignty over 14 territories, known as the British Overseas Territories." Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Gh. I saw that but I couldn't see the logic. the CDs are held under the Crown just as the UK is so if the CDs were excluded for that reason then so would the UK and that would be daft. You're absolutely right and I agreed with Jack's statement at the time but I was trying to see a way round the impasse and saw an opportunity with MITH's wording --Bill Reid | (talk) 14:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

My alternative suggestion, therefore, is, firstly, to reword the existing sentence ("The UK retains sovereignty over 14 territories outside the British Isles, which in 2002 were renamed the British Overseas Territories."), either by deleting the unnecessary words "..outside the British Isles", or using the words "The UK retains sovereignty over 14 territories, known as the British Overseas Territories." In addition, after the second paragraph of the section (ending "Fifteen members of the Commonwealth continue to share their head of state with the UK, as Commonwealth realms."), add : "The Crown Dependencies of Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man, are possessions of The Crown in Right of the United Kingdom; their status predates the existence of the Empire." (Or, a similar form of words.) Again, the words BI are unnecessary and, in this case, unhelpful - readers would either know where Jersey, Guernsey and IoM are, or would click on the link to see a map at Crown Dependencies. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I prefer The UK retains sovereignty over 14 territories outside the British Isles, which were renamed the British Overseas Territories in 2002., Which is succinct, accurate and gramatically correct. Oh. It says that already? Let's leave it as it is then. There is no consensus for change. Stop agitating for something that isn't necessary. Wiki-Ed (talk) 14:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

It's news to me that the British Isles were renamed the British Overseas Territories in 2002. Your version is still grammatically incorrect - so I reverted it - and doesn't address either issue - the confusing and unnecessary ref to BI, and the need to address the Crown Dependencies (which are within the BIs but are not BOTs). Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Ghmyrtle, i think you need to read this again no one is saying the British Isles were re-named British Overseas Territories. --Rockybiggs (talk) 15:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

"...14 territories outside the British Isles, which were renamed the British Overseas Territories..." That's what it says - grammatically, the "which" appears to refer to "British Isles", not "..14 territories.." I know no-one means that, but we may as well get the grammar correct. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The grammar is correct. The comma determines what the second clause is referring to. You can test this by moving "outside the British Isles" to the beginning of the sentence. Would that confuse you? Wiki-Ed (talk) 19:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

"Outside the British Isles, the UK retains sovereignty over 14 territories, which were renamed the British Overseas Territories in 2002." In my view that would be better grammar than either of the most recent versions, but it still fails to address the underlying issues. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

No, Wiki-Ed, the status quo is not something that I support for the reasons I've given many times. Bill Reid | (talk) 15:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Although I am aware that you don't like it, the other reasons you've put forward (implied ownership and lack of sources) have been disproved. Wiki-Ed (talk) 19:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I like the suggestion if only because its a clear and succinct compromise, hopefully if it gains a sizeable majority we can put this whole argument behind us and argue about something else!Willski72 (talk) 16:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Which suggestion? Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry should of made myself clearer! I agree with MITHs initial suggestion and then with the second part of your suggestion that after the Commonwealth nations are mentioned the Crown Dependencies should be, (possessions of the crown, pre-dating the Empire etc).Willski72 (talk) 16:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I oppose MITH's wording - the references to the Crown Dependencies and "British Isles" in the sentence are unnecessary and confusing. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

That is why people like the current wording because it means we dont have to mention the Crown dependencies at all, thats only possible because we say outside of the British Isles. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's try this another way. The current wording ("The UK retains sovereignty over 14 territories outside the British Isles, which in 2002 were renamed the British Overseas Territories.") is ungrammatical because the word "which" (the "relative pronoun") appears to refer to "British Isles" not the "14 territories". To make it grammatically correct, it would need to say "The UK retains sovereignty over 14 territories, which in 2002 were renamed the British Overseas Territories, outside the British Isles." But that is an obvious tautology, because they are defined as "Overseas" and so the words "outside the British Isles" are not necessary. Deleting those words also has the happy side-effect of removing a term ("BI") which is itself confusing, because it uses the word "British" to mean something different to the meaning of the word in the term "British Empire", the title of the article, and is also, by the way, contentious. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

PS...and, for the benefit of Wiki-Ed, it doesn't matter whether the words "in 2002" go before or after "were renamed the British Overseas Territories" - both are equally ungrammatical. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

This is easily fixed by splitting the sentence into two. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 21:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

...or, equally easily, by removing the redundant and confusing four words. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The "which in 2002 were..." clause was not actually present before all this kicked off. Its original wording can be seen here [12]. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 22:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Not those words!! - I meant "outside the British Isles". Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Again i support MITHs original suggestion but strongly oppose the wording suggested by Ghmyrtle. MITHs wording was a reasonable compromise that should make both sides reasonably happy. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Unless we wish this argument to go on for many months and for a books worth of text to be argued on each side why dont we all just accept MITH's compromise. Its so much easier all round. The two extremes must understand that neither will give in, so its best to get part of what you want rather than nothing.Willski72 (talk) 20:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The fact that the compromise proposal says ".. in the British Isles" avoids confusion over any UK claim to said Isles. Ghmyrtle's proposal is more encyclopaedic. If the only argument for retaining BI is confusion over the Crown Dependencies then I doubt if any reader (aside from those embroiled in the various debates around BI) will appreciate the distinction anyway. A footnote or additional sentence would be better.

How about listing the three options and having a quick poll to assess opinion? First and second choice votes. --Snowded ^TALK 20:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

MITH's proposed wording ("Outside of the United Kingdom's Crown Dependencies in the British Isles, the country retains sovereignty over 14 territories which are known as the British Overseas Territories.") is plain wrong. The Crown Dependencies are not "the UK's", they are the Crown's. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 21:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Red Hat on that point. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Then just remove United Kingdom from the sentence and the problem is solved, right?MITH 22:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

No. It would still be confusing and wrong in several respects - firstly because the "BI" term is itself confusing and unnecessary, secondly because any mention of the Crown Dependencies in this sentence is confusing, and thirdly because the syntax of the sentence still relates the "CDs" to the country "retaining sovereignty", which is just wrong. Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

⬅OK, we are going round in circles. How about we formulate the BI and non BI option then run a poll on this page (non-binding) to see where we are. If after that we can't agree them we move into dispute resolution. --Snowded ^TALK 07:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes please - but the options are more complicated than just "BI" or "not BI", because of the question of whether - and if so how - the "Crown Dependencies" question is addressed at the same time. What we don't want is to go round in more circles over the wording of the options. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, how about you and I work on that one, RedHat can improve the grammar of the present? I think it makes a lot of sense to not portray it as BI/nonBI and I apologise for that. Its not part of the wider BI dispute, its a matter of how to properly describe something here. --Snowded ^TALK 07:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I can't commit to anything over the next few days - I'm sure the debate will have moved on by the time I get back. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The fact is that this debate is about BI/non-BI. That is the crux of the issue. There would never have been this huge debate had British Isles not been there. Note everyone who came here has ben arguing at British Isles. Noone else at Wikipedia cares about this matter. And with or without "BI" there are many, many, may ways of phrasing this. So let's not hide the BI/non-BI debate behind a binary option choice. The binary option we need to resolve is whether British Isles is OK here or not. And for that, I think we need a cross-page decision. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 09:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I disagree - the crucial issue here is, in my view, not about the "BI" term itself - it is about whether using the term is necessary to the sense of one sentence, or whether it is confusing. No cross-page decision is required to address that. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

If i new how i would print off this whole argument, bind it, write "to be opened only in case of British Isles naming emergency" and then lock it away in a very thick safe.Willski72 (talk) 09:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Argument continued....

Why dont we put,

"The UK retains sovereignty over 14 territories which in 2002 were named 'the British Overseas Territories', while the Monarchy officially controls the Crown Dependencies."

It could then go on to explain each one independently and in more depth. In that way we get round the killer first sentence. You could mention the Crown Dependencies first and end on, "...these are located within the British Isles." You could then put "In contrast the 14 British Overseas Territories are....". This gets round peoples possible misunderstanding over Ireland but still retains the term 'British Isles'. Im trying to find a fair compromise.Willski72 (talk) 13:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Can I suggest the following variation on that:

"The UK retains sovereignty over 14 territories known collectively as 'the British Overseas Territories', while the Monarchy officially controls the Crown Dependencies."

My reason for not mentioning 2002 is that it's irrelevant when this term was created. All that's important here is that there is a group of territories, which has a name. -- JackofOz (talk) 14:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good, i'll agree. I only left 2002 in because it was there originally. Whether everyone else agrees is another matter.....!Willski72 (talk) 14:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

That is not too dissimilar to my suggestion up the page at 14:42, 26 May 2009, although any wording over "Crown Dependencies" would need to be made more correct ("The Monarchy officially controls..." is too loose). It's debatable whether any reference to the Crown Dependencies is needed here at all; if it is, it would be more logically placed at the end of the second para (after "Commonwealth realms"). However, the words "..these are located within the British Isles" seem to me to be unnecessary, and (obviously) would not end the debate over the use of the term. I don't mind whether 2002 is mentioned or not. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The reason i put " The Monarchy officially controls..." is because its suppossed to be loose and less contentious wording at that point, merely showing the difference between them and the British Overseas Territories. The plan was to go into more detail further down (sovereignty delegated to Parliaments etc). The words "these are located within the British Isles" are an attempt at an agreement with both sides (even if they are not necessary!), the point being to clear up confusion with Ireland etc while leaving the term in.Willski72 (talk) 14:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Definitely moving in the right direction and the nature of the crown dependency relationship can easily be in a foot note or a reference (each of them has an official web site with the relationship made clear. The only point here is to establish that there are 14 overseas dependencies, and to make sure there is no confusion with the Crown Dependencies. Adding in a geographical location adds nothing to that. --Snowded ^TALK 15:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be awkward here, but the monarchy doesn't control the Crown Dependencies. From the The Crown article The Crown is a corporation sole that represents the legal embodiment of Executive Government in the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms. It evolved naturally as a separation of the literal crown and property of the nation-state from the person and personal property of the monarch.]]

How about "The UK retains sovereignty over the Crown Dependencies and the territories known collectively as 'the British Overseas Territories' " --Bill Reid | (talk) 16:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Well if thats right im happy with it, and then it goes into more detail underneath with the Crown Dependencies being in the British Isles while in contrast BOT are... etc. Best to wait for the regulars to show up though!Willski72 (talk) 16:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

So lets be clear what were trying to get passed here, "The UK retains sovereignty over the Crown Dependencies and the 14 territories known collectively as 'the British Overseas Territories'." With a further statement underneath, not yet fully decided, that mentions that the Crown Dependencies are within the British Isles whereas the BOT are not. (Or something along those lines, am quite happy for this bit to be changed!) And then it continues as it was.Willski72 (talk) 16:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

It becomes informative if you say that the CD are geographically within the British Isles, but not a part of the UK (something a lot of people will not know so it helps). Not sure why it is necessary to say that the BOT are anything other than overseas (especially if we list them in a note) --Snowded ^TALK 17:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

As possessions of the crown, rather than being part of the UK or BOTs, is the statement "The UK retains sovereignty over the Crown Dependencies.." technically correct? It's surely not the UK that retains sovereignty, but the monarch in their own right. Not trying to be difficult, just unsure of the correct wording. And does it need to say "...the 14 territories known collectively as 'the British Overseas Territories'", or just "the 14 'British Overseas Territories'"? Occam's razor and all that. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I oppose the removal of the term British Isles from the sentence which has lasted two years, this change is politically motivated. Its a disgusting case of appeasement, and we see the endless efforts of this sort of thing over at British Isles where certain editors seek the complete removal of the article or its renamining. People accept that British isles is a term used every day by the media, and international organisations.. There is no justification for removing it. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Use of British Isles is appropriate because it is concise, understandable and accurate. I support the compromise offered by MITH thousands of words ago: Outside of the United Kingdom's Crown Dependencies in the British Isles, the country retains sovereignty over 14 territories which are known as the British Overseas Territories. MidnightBlue (Talk) 18:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't recall anyone making the point that that particular wording is, at best, unclear, because of the ambivalence of the phrase "Outside of the United Kingdom's Crown Dependencies in the British Isles". What does "outside of" mean - physically elsewhere, or "as well as"? It could mean either, and if it's interpreted as the latter, it seems to me that it's wrong, as the UK does not have "sovereignty over" the Crown Dependencies - they are "independently administered jurisdictions" under the sovereignty of the crown. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Just one question for everyone, if people manage to have British Isles removed after two years because a couple of editors dont like it.. Can we all be informed which article we will have to go on to next to start this process all over again? Who gets to choose and will this only end when nothing links to British Isles so the article simply becomes redundant? People have failed to delete or move that article, its clear this is the only other option open to people.

If a compromise is to be made, a rewording which includes British Isles but puts peoples concerns to rest about what it "implies" should be considered.. otherwise we are all going to be here a very long time. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

⬅Guys, calm down and please stop lashing out with silly accusations, all of the editors supporting a change have track records of supporting the BI article continuing, and the arguments here relate to its appropriate use. This is not some grand conspiracy, you are clearly in breech of WP:GF. Thisis an attempt to improve the article (where many things which have been in place for two years have been changed). --Snowded ^TALK 18:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I accept most people are here to simply try and improve the article, however the evidence is undeniable that certain people are going around trying to remove article titles or mention of the British Isles. If this is only about improving the article, im sure we could all agree to a compromise that makes both sides happy. Surely the sentence / sentences could be improved without the removal of British Isles which some people have a problem with? BritishWatcher (talk) 19:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Well that is more temperate at least. The arguments above are very clear and a form of words has been found which informs people that the Crown Dependencies are within the geographical area of BI. Certain people (but none of the active editors in this discussion) have tended to remove BI regardless of context, just as some editors here present have a track record of insisting it is used even when its inappropriate. Both extremes are unhelpful --Snowded ^TALK 19:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that going around adding British Isles just for the sake of it is wrong and ive certainly not done it and dont intend to. In this case i see no harm in the use of British Isles, its only mentioned once in the entire article and it was added over two years ago when the legacy section was created, clearly the person responsible for adding it wasnt up to no good. If this is only a problem because some people "may" be confused, then lets reword it but with British isles in the sentence so both sides are happy and we can all move on. Its clear from the original attempts and suggestions to reword this sentence, a clear and accurate sentence isnt what some people have wanted. Changes have been suggested or implemented which were confusing or wrong, but it seems were accepted only because British Isles was removed. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed that you are not one of the extremists! However several non-extreamist editors think BI is confusing and inappropriate as it is currently used. The argument for its inclusion (I am not taking seriously the its being there for two years argument, is to prevent confusion with the Crown Dependencies. The recent proposed changes do that, without requiring intimate knowledge of the British Constitution, they therefore improve the article --Snowded ^TALK 19:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

(e.c.) I agree that mentioning BI does no harm, and at the end of the day, if that's what the consensus is, I won't lose a wink of sleep over it. But just because doing something does no harm, is not necessarily an argument for doing it. To take an extreme case, saying that "Barack Obama breathes air" is an accurate statement, in no way misleading. But does it add any value? Well, not really. I can see that a contrast could be made between the 14 BOT, which are overseas, and the Crown Dependencies, which are perhaps more accurately described as being "offshore", but certainly within the same geographical area as the British Isles. But I think the contrast is implicit in the word "overseas" in "British Overseas Territories". If the CD happened to be located near Easter Island, then certainly it would be necessary to make the point they're just as much "overseas" as the BOT, but still treated differently and not included in the 14. But they're not near Easter Island. Anything that is not part of the BOT can be safely assumed not to be overseas, and therefore in close proximity to the UK, which is within the British Isles. It really isn't necessary to state the obvious. But, as I say, if that's what the majority want, fine by me.

Re having been there for over 2 years without objection: I've made the point before that we've long since moved on from that. Whatever was there before is the very subject of this heated and very protracted debate. It may be that the consensus is to to keep those particular words that have been around for a long time - but if so, the fact that they've been there for 2 years will not be the reason we keep them. -- JackofOz (talk) 19:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Im sure we could come up with proposed changes that remove the confusion without having to remove the British Isles. Why is it so important to remove it completly? Im still not convinced there is need for a change, which is why the fact its been in the article for over two years and was there when it obtained Featured Article status is important. If someone had wanted to change it from the begining to something more clear then it would of been a reasonable request, but this talk page clearly shows people attempted to change the sentence to something which was even less clear and in one case totally incorrect and the only reason i can see it got support was because British Isles had been removed from the sentence.

A rewording which still mentions British Isles seems like a reasonable way to resolve the ongoing argument, its clearly not just one person that has a problem with its removal. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I've never said it's "important to remove it completely". What I'm saying is it's unnecessary to retain it. Same outcome, but very different rationale. Any writer worth their salt removes all unnecessary words. That's the principle I'm using here. I accept that you feel these words are necessary; I just disagree, that's all, and I've seen no compelling argument to the contrary. ("They've been there for 2 years" is not a compelling argument, particularly in a place like Wikipedia.) But I see we've already moved on (below). -- JackofOz (talk) 22:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

⬅Lots of stuff which was in the article when it got FA status has been changed since by RedHat and others. I very much doubt if the presence of BI even crossed the mind of those doing the assessment. The fact that the Crown Dependencies are in the BI may be useful, but the Overseas ones, are well overseas --Snowded ^TALK 20:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

No it hasn't. The article has remained remarkably stable. There have been a number of attempted changes, but this is the most significant. And it's one sentence. Wiki-Ed (talk) 23:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

How about: "The UK retains sovereignty over the 14 British Overseas Territories." Then, after the text in which the BOTs have been summarised (and, in my view, best after the words "Commonwealth realms"), add: "The Crown Dependencies of Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man, located within the British Isles, are independently administered jurisdictions under the sovereignty of the crown." Again, I don't personally see the need for "BI" in that sentence, but would anyone accept something like that as a compromise? Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I like that --Snowded ^TALK 21:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Me too. Solves are the little issues.MITH 21:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Im happy with that, i think having the British Isles in would probably help to defuse the argument (if not completely get rid of it!) I agree with MITH that it solves most of the little issues.Willski72 (talk) 21:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The idea i had does have British Isles in but not in the first sentence. It says when talking about the Crown Dependencies " ...these are located within the British Isles. In contrast the British Overseas territories are..."(whatever you want) In this way there is no mix up over Ireland as there is no way it could imply that Ireland was controlled by the UK, but it does contain the term British Isles. So my suggestion does not remove British Isles, it just moves it further down to clear up confusion.Willski72 (talk) 20:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

It looks super duper, you should implament. GoodDay (talk) 21:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I fear tunnel vision is obscuring the bigger picture. Can I remind everyone of several things:

This is an article about the British Empire.
The association of the Crown Dependencies with what later became Britain predates the Empire by several centuries.
This is a section on the legacy of the British Empire.
Therefore, the Crown Dependencies are no more a legacy of the British Empire than are Kent or Pembrokeshire.
You don't see any mention of Crown Dependencies, Jersey, Guernsey, Isle of Man in Encarta or Britannica's articles on the British Empire.
You don't see any mention of the above in Ferguson's "Empire", James's "Rise and Fall of the British Empire", Dalziel's "Historical Atlas of the British Empire", Olson's "Historical Dictionary of the British Empire".
You don't see any mention in the Oxford History of the BE, in the 18th and 20th C volumes. All I could find was a fleeting mention of the Channel Islands in the 16th C volume about English "overseas possessions" in 1558 being in Ireland and the Channel Islands and in a footnote to a chapter in the 19th C volume over the idea of modelling Irish devolution on the Channel Islands.

Bottom line: there is absolutely no need to mention the Crown Dependencies in a section on the legacy of the British Empire, whatever is decided about British Isles. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 22:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The CD only came up because a previous proposal was shown to be inaccurate. This version only reinforces the fact that the current wording is the most succinct and clear way of expressing the information. Introducing new/irrelevant elements to the article to justify a change is nuts. Wiki-Ed (talk) 23:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I also agree. Way back in the mists of time, on 23 May, on my very first entry into this debate, I said precisely the same thing that you're proposing now and I offered a form of words that made no reference to either the British Isles or the Crown Dependencies, but it was "strongly opposed". I'm glad to see that sanity has raised its head. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

What exactly are you agreeing with, Jack? Wiki-Ed is agreeing with not mentioning the CDs, but does not agree with removing BI. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 00:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The article states that the UK exercises sovereignty over 14 territories outside 'the British Isles', wherever that may be. It might be construed to imply that it exercises sovereignty over the areas described as 'the British Isles'. Could we re-word this ambiguous statement please. There is no single place called the British Isles, by any reasonable description, just an archipelago of near-situated islands. RashersTierney (talk) 00:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, if it isn't the gentleman who started all of this off. You are simply repeating arguments that have been stated many times above. You will also find responses to those arguments above. No point repeating them a hundredth time. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 00:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I see no extremism in his comments RedHat, unlike some of the other protagonists. The whole argument for the use of BI (if we ignore the nonsense of "its been there for two years" is to find a way to exclude the Crown Dependencies. Now knowledge of their status re the geographical area of BI is esoteric knowledge, and its also true that the phrase UK does not include them and is more accurate in respect of ownership anyway. The obvious way forward (as it has been throughout if it wasn't for Pavlovian reactions) is to take the phrase "The UK retains sovereignty over the 14 British Overseas Territories." as proposed above, reference the FCO site and have a footnote which names them plus the statement about the Crown Dependencies. Purely as a matter of interest, do all the encyclopaedias use BI to explain Overseas Territories? --Snowded ^TALK 05:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I accept the point made by Red Hat and JackofOz that there is no need for a reference to the Crown Dependencies in this section - and, indeed, that it is inaccurate as they predate the Empire. If the CDs need to be mentioned in the article at all, it seems to me that a reference would be best placed in the section near the start of the article, Origins (1497–1583), where Ireland is also referenced. For example, "Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man, located within the British Isles, were, and remain, independently administered jurisdictions under the sovereignty of the crown." If they do not need to be mentioned in this article, and if it is confusing to do so, the sentence mentioning them should not be included at all. The introductory sentence of the Legacy section should then simply be "The UK retains sovereignty over the 14 British Overseas Territories." Are we approaching a consensus that that simple sentence should be included; and that the question remaining to be resolved is over how the Crown Dependencies are treated? Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:59, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Do we need to mention the Crown Dependencies? Who thinks the UK controls Ireland? Who wont accept a compromise? Whose willing to allow British Isles to stay in as long as it cant be confused with thinking Irelands part of the UK? (Which is what the argument was originally about!) These questions need clearing up everybody!Willski72 (talk) 08:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

No, we don't need to mention the Crown Dependencies at all. And Snowded, the "whole argument" for "British Isles" is that it succinctly describes that the BOTs are not within the immediate geographical vicinity of the UK. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 09:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

...Which is particularly important since the article suggests that Ireland is "overseas" and one would not want the reader to think the British Overseas Territories are similarly close. It needs to be made clear, hence the use of "outside the British Isles". Wiki-Ed (talk) 10:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

It does just makes sense to have the one sentence saying the UK retains sovereignty over 14 BOTs outside of the British Isles so we do not have to mention Crown dependencies at all. Clearly it worked well because CDs havnt been mentioned until we had to defend the use of the British Isles in that sentence. This one term "British Isles" fits into the sentence well and stops the need for a second or third sentence talking about Crown dependencies which have nothing to do with the British Empire.

That being said, i would accept a compromise where we say something along the lines of what Ghmyrtle said about the crown dependencies located within the British Isles, but im not sure how or where it would fit in without having to go into more detail about what the CDs are and why they are not considered part of the Empire / its legacy. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

RedHat, the chance that anyone reading this article will think that the Overseas territories are within the British Isles is non-existent and if you list them (full citation) in a note any danger goes away. A Ghmyrtle says, its very simple "The UK retains sovereignty over the 14 British Overseas Territories." --Snowded ^TALK 21:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm extremely uncomfortable with the appeasement this entails, as BW correctly labeled it, of the hardcore faction of great wrong-righters. The appeasement here is being hidden behind the facade of "confusion" and "compromise" over the term. But ultimately it's because of the wishes of the "extremists" that the "moderates" are continuing to press for the removal of the term. I'm not trying to wikilawyer here, but it would kind of set a precedent if it were removed. Because: having achieved their wish here, RashersTierny and DunlavinGreen will move onto the next article which they don't like mentioning "British Isles". The same "moderate" characters descend on the talk page and after much blustering from both sides, it gets removed there too. Several pages later: Wikipedia has cleansed itself of all mentions of the term (aside from the article itself) and has in the process "ridden the crest of the wave". Wikipedia should not be deliberately trying to erase words from the English language ahead of the rest of the world. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 22:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I am getting really fed up with this conspiracy theory and your constantly addressing the motivations of editors rather than content issues. It is undoubtedly the case that some terms (including BI) are not used properly as is the case in this article. There are cases where it is correctly used (I remember defending its use for Loch Neigh for example). The secret of defending the legitimate use of a term is not to blindly support its illegitimate use, and certainly not to keep making specious accusations.--Snowded ^TALK 22:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

If you are fed up, stop editing Wikipedia. You are not going to get your way by proclaiming "I'm getting really fed up". You have been helping with this article for many months now. Why was this not a problem with you before? And, this is not a "conspiracy" theory, it is simply adhering to Wikipedia's policies of reflecting the external-to-wikipedia state of affairs rather than controlling them. This is even more of an issue when editors (like you) are attempting to define "illegitimate uses" of terms which no other reliable source concurs with. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 22:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Please calm down Redhat, someone spotted an incorrect use of the word that had been missed, it should have been a minor correction (as I suggested to you at the time on your talk page in the hope that this would not escalate). The proposed wording conforms to the cited authorities. You are doing nothing but attack or impute the motives of other editors, you are not addressing content issues. Its a clear breech of WP:GF. There is no reliable source which uses the term in this context. I also not you have not replied to my question on what the other encyclopaedias do. Do any of them feel the need to say that the Overseas territories are outside of the British Isles? If I want to say I am fed up with something I will especially at this time of night after a long day, its a mild expression of frustration with no implication that I should be told to stop editing in consequence! Have a glass of Whysky (I have a good bottle of Penderyn here which I would willingly gift you a glass, gets a nights sleep and come back to this. Its a minor correction and one that will improve the article, lets get it back to that status. --Snowded ^TALK 22:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

You have been helping with this article for many months now. Why was this not a problem with you before? - That's no more a valid argument than "it's been in place for 2 years without objection". There are many articles that I've been involved with for up to 5 years, where I've been happy enough with a certain version, then later I see a way it could be made even better. No article ever goes from stub to perfection in one go, it's a process of gradual evolution. Along the way, editors become more educated, their views change (sometimes quite radically), and that's a good thing. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, we can forget about that now and all the huff and puff that has been given on this talk page for removing the term, because we are now on new ground, given the uncovering of the reliable source posted below which uses the phrase in exactly the same way we are doing. I now predict a slew of arguments based on original research and attempted rubbishing of the uncovered reliable source, but that is the sign of someone losing a Wikipedia argument. So, who's first up on their fast-disintegrating soapbox? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 23:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Reliable source using "outside the British Isles" to describe the location of the British Overseas Territories

I can't believe I didn't check this before. How silly of me. Encarta's dictionary. British Overseas Territory "one of 14 territories outside the British Isles that have a degree of self-government under British jurisdiction." That pretty much blows out of the water every single argument on this page. Except for one (bizarrely, I was the only person to raise it here): that it is a term which is resented by some in Ireland, and which some organisations have stopped using, a policy which Wikipedia should follow. While I strongly disagree with that argument, it is the only valid one. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 22:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I was surprised you hadn't checked, you are normally good on sources hence my earlier question. Ok the same form of wording is used in the Encarta Dictionary, its not used in the FCO source which is more authoritative. A search on BOT + BI really only gathers material on Crown Dependencies, so its hardly a source that blows all the other arguments out of the water, but well done for finding one. What about the others you listed above? Or Encarta itself (the encyclopaedia) How do they deal with it? (and just for the record you view of what is or is not the only valid argument is not accepted). Of course its also interesting to see how it is treated in this article: British overseas territories. At least now there is the semblance of a content debate which shows hope --Snowded ^TALK 23:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Very good find, the case for change to the sentence in question is now even weaker than it was before. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Encarta (main): Britain’s dependent territories are scattered throughout the world and are the remains of the former British Empire. They are generally small in area and without many resources. Once considered colonies, they have opted to remain under British control for a variety of reasons. --Snowded ^TALK 23:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

"scattered throughout the world" is less clear than saying outside the British Isles. "scattered throughout the world" would include the Crown Dependencies which we want to try and avoid. The fact remains a source has been found which uses the British Isles in exactly the same way as this article does. It goes to show its not just a couple of editors here that are making it up. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

@ Snowded, I predicted above that the next move would be an attempt to discredit the source. You are now heading down the road of claiming that the FCO "trumps" Encarta. Even though the FCO does actually use the phrase "outside the British Isles" to talk about political matters - legislative bodies in the Commonwealth, which Ireland is not a member of [13]). And even if it didn't use the phrase, I'm sure you can see that it is a rather silly argument to say that a reliable source which does not say something would trump another reliable source which does. We can only go on what is written, not what is not written: there are an infinite amount of things that published books do not say. So I would like to recap some of the arguments made on this page, in the light of this reference:

Snowded: "There is no reason to say "outside of" unless its some game of the BI term"
Snowded: "Its a Geographical term which should not be used in the modern age to describe a political entity"
BillReid: "This is one occasion where the use of British Isles is incorrect."
BillReid: "The use of British Isles in this context is inappropriate."
Snowded: "I don't think anyone would use British Isles to delimit the UK in the way used in this article"

The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 23:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually RedHat I was rather hoping that we could now have a proper discussion about a content issue by looking at different sources and seeing how things are treated and come to a sensible decision. Assessing the weight of sources is a part of that. I could by the way list a set of statements from you which are opinions (mainly about other editors rather than the content as it happens). I'm happy to stand by the above statements by the way. Either way, now we have some sources, how about continuing in this vein, cutting down your speculation on other editors and focusing on looking at the content issues. --Snowded ^TALK 23:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't deny you your right to stand by your statements, Snowded. You can launch a protest outside Microsoft if you like to show your displeasure at the usage, but we all know that at Wikipedia, verifiability and reliable sources are what we base content on, not the personal views of editors. Given that, are you still proposing that the term is removed? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 23:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I'm not sure I'm following this argument, so could someone please assist my poor antipodean brain? Nobody here has ever disputed that the territories in question are outside the British Isles, because they patently are outside the British Isles, and we don't need any external reference to tell us that. What's at issue is the need to say that they're outside the British Isles. We need external refs for the content of our articles, but we're not supposed to copy them word for word; rather, we paraphrase them. I'm not sure that the use of any particular expression, word, phrase, whatever, in an external source necessarily means that's it's appropriate for us to use it in one of our articles. Our articles are written by a different set of people than those who write external refs, and according to our own protocols and rules. For the record, I'm not arguing for or against any of the above posts in this thread - not yet anyway - just wanting to get the principle clear first. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec but well said Jack)) Redhat you are an experienced Wikipedia editor and you know better than that. You have now got one (weak) source which uses the same form of words (at least until October 31st). Good news, it means you are not just advocating something without any backup. However there are other sources and ways to describe this issue. Just because one person finds one source that supports their preferred words does not mean that they now have an absolute right to insist that is used. If it was the case I could simply take the FCO words and insist on the same. Lets do this properly shall we - look at how a range of sources deal with this and come to a sensible decision. I do think BI is misleading for the reasons stated so I am uncomfortable with it when there are simpler and better ways to say the same thing. Given that some of you like the term, we should take a balanced view and look at a range of sources. If at the end of that there is no agreement then it goes to dispute resolution. However at least lets try. You are still failing to observe WP:GF by the way. --Snowded ^TALK 23:59, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

When politics trumps language, we are in big trouble. This might already have happened in certain parts of Ireland, but that's no reason why we should import Irish sectarianism to Wikipedia. British Isles carries no political connotation (except to those who gratuitously misinterpret it in order to get offended by it), and in this article its use is absolutely precise and justified - and backed up by sources. Do we really need to waste any more time debating this? ðarkun coll 23:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree, Tharky. This has gone on long enough. Encarta is admittedly a tertiary rather than a secondary source, but it is nevertheless a reliable one, and no other reliable source has been put forward confirming Snowded or BillReid's reasons for removing it. Besides, we already have two reliable secondary sources (FCO, HoCommons FAC) that use the term to geographically locate a BOT within a political grouping that Ireland is not a member of (the Commonwealth). The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 00:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, there is no reason for any change to the wording and now there is actually a source which matches the use of our wording in the article i dont see any reason to try for a compromise which clearly some people were never going to be happy with anyway. The wording which has remained in the article for over two years should not be removed, Lets all move on BritishWatcher (talk) 00:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that really is the most blatant example of the pot calling the kettle black I've seen in a long time, BW. It's been pointed out time and again that how long a set of words has been around is utterly and totally irrelevant. There may be very good reasons for not changing something, but its longevity per se is never going to be one of those reasons. Yet you seem oblivious to this and keep on trotting out what has been very well described as a Pavlovian response. And in the same breath you say that others are never going to be willing to compromise. I mean, really! -- JackofOz (talk) 03:54, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Lol, i like reminding people just how long British Isles has been in that sentence that for some reason certain editors all of a sudden have a huge problem with. The case for keeping the words has been made over and over again this past week and a reliable source has now been found doing exactly the same thing. So far people have failed to convince people here that a change is needed. I see no reason for change, the fact certain editors were prepared to accept an awful incorrect sentence before simply because British Isles was removed goes to show making it more understandable for the reader isnt everyones intentions they just want rid of British Isles. Then when we look at editors involvement on other British Isles matters, we can see some have pushed for its removal elsewhere. im sure thats totally unrelated lol. :\ BritishWatcher (talk) 08:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

And as I've said before, some editors in this debate may have come to this article very recently. As far as they're concerned, they come to the article completely fresh, with no knowledge of what has gone before. They don't know whether any particular set of words has been there for 2 years or 2 minutes, and couldn't care less, and neither should they be required to. The question they ask themselves is "Is this the best article we can get on this subject?". If the answer is "No", then they're entitled to make whatever beneficial changes they consider appropriate, consistent with WP rules. Or to raise issues here on the talk page. You've made your point (whatever your point was) about the 2 year thing, more times than I can count. So how about giving it a rest, eh? Now, has anyone given any thought to the question of principle I raised above? -- JackofOz (talk) 09:42, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I will remind people that the British Isles in that sentence has been there for two years as many times as i want, its not against the rules to point out such things. Ofcourse people are entitled to come here and seek to change the article, but there are clearly a number of editors against any of your proposed changes to that sentence and i cant see that changing in the near future. Especially as there is now a source which uses the term in exactly the same way this article does. As for your principle, we did not copy it from the source, the important point is somewhere else uses the term British Isles to help explain the overseas territories just as we do on this article. As has been mentioned many times before, the reason for using British isles means we dont have to make any mention at all of Crown dependencies which were not related to the British Empire. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I think we know your "two year position" BW, looking forward to reminding you of it on other articles. Process is simple now - lets gather examples of how different sources (ideally authoritative) deal with the problem. Outline the options, have a poll try to agree or go to dispute resolution. --Snowded ^TALK 11:42, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

You pooh-poohed the two references using "British Isles" because they did not refer specifically to the location of the BOTs, even though they were referring to the location of one of them (Bermuda) in a political context (the Commonwealth). Others pooh-poohed them because they were British sources. So we found another reference that was not only not British, and was not only referring to the location of the BOTs, but it used exactly the same wording. And you pooh-pooh that too. You are producing a lot of pooh-pooh. Sometimes you have to back down (see the "overseas" debate, where I did exactly that), even though it's not nice to. I urge you to move on. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 12:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Remember what General Melchett told Captain Blackadder? "Never ignore a pooh-pooh". GoodDay (talk) 15:59, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

(eidt conflict)Dispute resolution - why? And surely not another poll? As for dealing with the problem - what problem? The only "problem" I see here is that some editors object to the usage of British Isles in the broadest possible terms, mainly for political reasons, and this article represents just one battle in a continuing war of attrition. I'm not saying that this is your primary objection Snowded, but it certainly is for many of the contributors here. We now have a source backing up the usage, so can we now please give it a rest. It really is debilitating, this constant attack on BI usage. MidnightBlue (Talk) 12:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

⬅"Pooh-phooh" RedHat? Are you loosing it? There are a range of ways of describing this issue with citations. Its a matter of looking at those and making a decision based on weight etc. At the moment you have one reference that uses BI (Encarta Directory but not the encyclopaedia) and the FCO and others don't they use a different form. I suggested above we find some more and see where we go from there. Your persistent impugning of the motivations of editors does not incline me to 'backing down' on what should be a minor issue. --Snowded ^TALK 15:54, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

"Never ignore a pooh-pooh" (Melchett to Blackadder). GoodDay (talk) 16:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

BEEEEEEH. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 16:47, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

The UK retains sovereignty over 14 territories outside the British Isles, which in 2002 were renamed the British Overseas Territories. This gives the strange impression that they may have overseas territories within the British Isles. They don't of course, and anyway, is there any part of the British Isles considered to be overseas? Jack forbes (talk) 16:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

What is this now: a competition to see who can come up with the silliest misreading of a simple English sentence? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 16:47, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Instead of throwing out insults why don't you explain to me why it is silly. Is there any part of the British Isles that's considered overseas? Telling the reader that the UK's overseas territories are outside the British Isles is pointless. If I told you that the US has 15 overseas military bases outside the US(or North America)wouldn't you think it was pointless to mention they were outside the US? Jack forbes (talk) 16:57, 30 May 2009 (UTC)\

Apart from the legitimate issue raised with the relative clause (which wasn't even in the original wording and only got added after this brouhaha started) the sentence is completely clear. As for "is there any part of the British Isles that's considered overseas", read our previous squabble on that [14] The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 17:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to leave this discussion to you, but I'll ask you one last question. Why do you think it necessary to include the British Isles in the sentence? Jack forbes (talk) 17:39, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

We've covered that, many times over. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 18:10, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

And still no satisfactory answer. As I said, I'll leave the discussion to you and your little insulting remarks can be aimed at someone else. It's just as well I now pause before I press the save button. Bye. Jack forbes (talk) 18:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Really it should say "outside British Islands" rather than b'isles to be technically correct, as otherwise the sentence would imply that Britain has ownership of British Isles. Tfz 18:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

1) No it would not imply that (see the "Sea of Japan" argument above). 2) Your alternative says the same thing... 3) Your argument is circular: What is "Britain"? A geographical entity which is composed of the British Isles. Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Every single (petty) argument has been rebutted and there are multiple (independent) sources supporting the current wording. There is nothing further to discuss. The only thing left to do is move "in 2002" to the end of the sentence so that it reads better. I will do that now. I suggest we then move on. This "discussion" has wasted enough time - it's embarassing - and I think it should be archived asap. Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure that any petty arguments have been refuted, however the substantive ones have not been. You have one minor source supporting the current worked - please list the "multiple independent sources" --Snowded ^TALK 06:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

You ignore a "pooh pooh" and you will follow Captain Blackadder to death!!! (Either that or by listening to General Melchett and not ignoring a "pooh pooh" you will follow Captain Blackadder to death.) Take your pick!Willski72 (talk) 20:57, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

SO RedHat is Melchett and I am Blackadder? I can live with that and realise that this article is his "Speckled Jim" :-) --Snowded ^TALK 07:53, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

1) Saying 'Outside the "British Isles"' implies that the British control all of what they (well, a decreasing minority of them to be honest) still like to term "British Isles". This is not actually the case. In fact most of Ireland is free from British rule nowadays. I have no source for that but I live here and that's just the way it is in 2009. 2) Saying that the above term has been in this article for 2 years and therefore must stay in it is silly. But let's take that logic to its natural conclusion: this article has been in existence since 2002 so "British Isles" has been out of this article for considerably longer than it has been in it. Like so many other wikipedia articles the term has been inserted in recent years as an expression of British separatism from the European Union. 86.44.44.218 (talk) 07:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Options

What are the options considered to date for the sentence being discussed? It appears to me that there's just too many options being discussed. Can we list the options and poll to ascertain if a consensus exists for one of the choices? --HighKing (talk) 01:10, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The sentence should stay as it is (post Wiki-Ed's tweaking) and we should all move on with our lives. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 01:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed we should move on and resolve this. I have created two working areas below - I suggest that this is for each "side" to work out their idea and we leave each others areas alone for a few days while we get this worked out. I also suggest that all participants read and abide by WP:GF there is already enough for an ANI report, but lets throttle it back and get this resolved.

Working area - modification of current version

The UK retains sovereignty over 14 territories outside the British Isles citation support Encarta Dictionary

Comments

I'm content with either wording. GoodDay (talk) 14:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I support the current wording and see no reason for the removal of British Isles. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a clear example of stuffing the term "British Isles" into a sentence in a clearly ambiguous way. I'd prefer a clearer and more unambiguous sentence - even a longer one that includes the term "British Isles" but that it is used in a clearly unambiguous way. --HighKing (talk) 19:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Working area - alternative wording to current

The UK retains sovereignty over the 14 British Overseas Territories. Citation support to FCO wording

Possible addition after the text in which the BOTs have been summarised add: "The Crown Dependencies of Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man, located within the British Isles, are independently administered jurisdictions under the sovereignty of the crown."

Comments

The possible addition might be better as a footnote --Snowded ^TALK 06:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm content with either wording. GoodDay (talk) 14:44, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I see no reason to go into detail about the Crown dependencies just because some people do not like the term British Isles. I strongly oppose an attempt to have the extra wording adding as a footnote. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I prefer the second (FCO) wording. In my view, the source is better; the information is clearer (it gives the official name, and its use of the word "overseas" will give clarity to readers that the territories are not located close to Britain); and it is shorter. Above all, it overcomes the basic problem inherent in using the term "British Isles" in this article, which is that the meaning of "British" in "BI" (based on location and on past sovereignty) is different from the meaning of "British" in "..Empire" (and "BOT") (based on contemporary sovereignty), and this difference in meaning may be confusing. I would be content with any of three options regarding the Crown Dependencies in this article - not mentioning them at all; mentioning them in the footnote as suggested; or mentioning them much earlier in the article to make the point that they predate the Empire (as suggested in an earlier post). I would be content with mentioning the "British Isles" in the context of the Crown Dependencies if retaining that wording at that point helps to achieve consensus; however, I do not think it is necessary or helpful to do so and would support its deletion if the three CDs are each named as suggested. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Support One day I aim to collect all the arguments put forward for all the reasons to keep one term and not keep another, etc. It shows the two-faced arguments of some editors who are blatently inconsistent with the abstract view, but blatently consistent with their political POV. For example, we don't go with the (official source) FCO quote here, but we use "Londonderry" because it's official, but we don't use the official name of the state "Ireland", but we do use the official term "British Isles" geographically (but we'll stretch geographically to be ambiguous when we like). I could go on. In this instance, I'll stay consistent. I chose to use the official reference, which as far as I can tell is either legislation or the FCO website. I also note that the other articles that actually discuss the legislation, etc, aren't having this debate. Kinda telling. --HighKing (talk) 19:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Examples of other usage

Encarta (main): Britain’s dependent territories are scattered throughout the world and are the remains of the former British Empire. They are generally small in area and without many resources. Once considered colonies, they have opted to remain under British control for a variety of reasons. --Snowded ^TALK 08:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Hutchinson: Today the UK has only 13 small dependent territories
Britannical: The last sigificant British Colony, Hong Kong was returned ... No mention of dependencies
... the British Empire had now passed away (except for a sprinkling of rocks and islands containing fewer than 200,000 people)....p654 Brendon "The Decline and Fall of the British Empire"
... only flotsam and jetsam now remain. Ferguson "Empire: How Britain made the modern world"
the Empire as a formal entity was, certainly symbolically, becoming a relic, with only a few small colonies and dependencies remaining. Levine "The British Empire Sunrise to Sunset"
So rapid and widespread was the dissolution of empire in the first post war decades taht today only sixteen British dependencies remain (all, save Gibraltar and the British Antarctic Territory, small island territories). Stockwell "The British Empre"

General comments

I'm content with either of the 2 proposals above. I'm also content with keeping British Isles. As a layman, all 3 versions mean the same thing, to me. GoodDay (talk) 15:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no point in changing it to something like scattered through out the world, clearly saying outside the British isles is accurate and more clear than a general "throughout the world". No valid reasons for changing the sentence have been made. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not proposing that wording BW, I am assembling examples --Snowded ^TALK 17:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

It seems it's all gone quiet. On that basis, it looks like the weighting given to the primary source is the best reference. Can we just go ahead and implement this? --HighKing (talk) 12:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I don;t think you will get agreement to that, there is a degree of lock in here so a period of silence may be no bad thing. I'm putting together some other examples of how books and directories treat the same issue - haven't found one use of BI yet. WIll post over the weekend --Snowded ^TALK 12:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

It's gone quiet because this is over; we're not playing this silly game any more. Wiki-Ed (talk) 12:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Its not a silly game to look for other examples in order to make an informed decision. I see that yet again we have a failure to address content issues. --Snowded ^TALK 15:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I was beginning to enjoy the peace and quiet!Willski72 (talk) 10:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

So was I... Wiki-Ed (talk) 16:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

It's normal to discuss things until agreement is reached. In the middle of a discussion, silence can be taken for agreement. So far no argument has been put forward for deviating from primary sources, so we're left with ... the FCO wording from primary sources. We also have 3 editors that agree to the FCO wording, and only one editor has objected with an argument that can be broadly summarized as WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Is that a fair summary so far? --HighKing (talk) 10:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Nice try. No sustainable argument has been forward for changing the article from a factual sourced statement. Therefore it stays as it is. You can, if you have nothing better to do, continue to discuss (among yourselves) what you would like it to say if you had produced a sensible reason for changing it. But don't take our silence to mean we won't revert you if you start disrupting the article. Wiki-Ed (talk) 12:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

If you want to recuse yourself for the discussion, fine by me. It's also interesting in a two-faced way that you give more weight to the definition in Encarta than to official governmental sources. Smacks of selective reference-picking to me, and not NPOV. And richly ironic that the same source has this to say on a related topic, but I betcha the same editors here would all-of-a-sudden decide in this case that the "official" version is the best and encarta can't be relied on. So if you want to contribute, please articulate what the official British government source isn't good enough for the article. As far as I can make out, the only criticism I can find is that it doesn't define what "overseas" mean. Is that it? --HighKing (talk) 13:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

You should know better and in any case this sectionis not about verifiability or accuracy (neither of which can be contested) it is about a small group of editors thinking the sentence is not apposite. Wiki-Ed (talk) 16:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

You'd like to think that, but its a matter of finding a form of words which avoids confusion and reflects sources. Your conspiracy theory may make you feel happy but its not correct. So far (and I have been through six books on the BE and two encyclopaedias) the only source which uses the BI word is the tertiary one quoted above. (switch on irony) Maybe this is growing evidence that there is a conspiracy to keep BI in this article? --Snowded ^TALK 16:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Snowded, we didn't ask you to find sources which used identical wording because then we'd have to change the article to avoid copyright infringement. We asked you to find sources that said the current wording is confusing. When you read all those books and encyclopedias did you find anything saying this? Wiki-Ed (talk) 18:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that I was responding to any request from you and there is no requirement to produce the material you request. At the moment we have a primary source which does not use BI (and neither do any others), and one tertiary source (hardly of consequence) which does. Faced with those two alternatives I am pretty sure a NPOV position can be established. I'm building that and will present it then we will see where this goes. --Snowded ^TALK 19:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. I thought we'd all quietly let this one drop. Obviously not. My position (again) is that I'm happy to take part in a cross-page discussion of usage of the term in Wikipedia. I'm not opposed to removing the term here if Wikipedia's consensus policy is to follow the lead of others and stop using the term. But let's be clear what the above "working area" is. It is based on the utterly ridiculous premise that simply because the British government don't use the words "outside the British Isles" in this particular sentence to geographically locate all of the BOTs, neither should we. Why ridiculous?

First, for the sake of argument let's accept this premise. But the British government do use the term to geographically locate one of the BOTs, Bermuda, so that rules out "the British government don't use it so we shouldn't either".
Second, let's continue to accept the premise, even though we've just proved it wrong. On what basis is it being stipulated that the British government is the "official" source on where the BOTs reside? In which Wikipedia policy is that determined? And on what interpretation of WP:RS is the Encarta reference being dismissed?
Third, if we pretend such a policy exists (it doesn't), a reliable source which does not say something is being put forward to "trump" another reliable source which does. I hope it doesn't take a modicum of intelligence to realise that such a view is untenable. There are an infinite number of things that reliable sources do not say.
Fourth, what policy is being interpreted here to determine how one sentence should be worded when the end (verifiable) claim that it is making is the same? Do we all agree what the British Isles are? Yes and so do the sources. Do we all agree that the BOTs are not in said group of islands? Yes we do and so do the sources. Is any of this a matter of one's "point of view"? No it is not. Is there any policy which states we must have the exact same wording as reliable sources or it's not admissable? No, we do not, because as Wiki-Ed pointed out, that would result in an encyclopaedia of plagiarism. As long as the sentence does not make unverified claims, it is OK to phrase differently.

Bottom line - we have a naming dispute here which is being now being shrouded behind the facade "reliable sources". And for that reason, I'm not engaging in the above debate. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 22:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

For reasons stated before, i strongly oppose any attempt to change the sentence in question.. there is just no valid reason for it to be changed. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah! Me too! Only the opposite! (What a great way of arguing) --HighKing (talk) 01:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

⬅Its pretty obvious that this one is going to some form of dispute resolution. RedHat, the BG use in respect of the Government of Bermuda is an interesting one and I think valid, given the historical interlinking of parliaments in Britain and Ireland (although I think Britain and Ireland would be better). The argument is to look at how a range of sources describe the 14, not to have a general discussion about the use of abuse of BI as a term. I note the continued conspiracy theory language "shrouded behind the facade" and this may also need to be part of any referral of this question if editors here cannot come to a sensible agreement. --Snowded ^TALK 04:34, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

If it goes to some form of dispute resolution won't you need a case... like with evidence and reasoned arguments and stuff? Wiki-Ed (talk) 10:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

You really are becoming tedious in your refusal to engage with content. At the moment I think you have one tertiary citation and a conspiracy theory. You might want to address that weakness --Snowded ^TALK 10:39, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Content? What content? You're not providing anything to "engage" with. Wiki-Ed (talk)

There's plenty of evidence and reasoned argument for making the change. The sooner this is resolved the better. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:12, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

So you'll have some answers to Redhat's entry above then? Wiki-Ed (talk) 13:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I should have the examples up by tomorrow, just waiting for some exact words to come through --Snowded ^TALK 11:22, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

(/e/c) Tertiary citation? So? What is the problem with that? Let's break the statement down into the three claims it's making:

The UK retains sovereignty over 14 territories outside the British Isles, which were renamed the British Overseas Territories in 2002.

This statement is making exactly the same three claims as this sentence, where we have changed "British Isles" to a much less succinct geographical description:

The UK retains sovereignty over 14 territories outside the archipelago in the north-west of Europe containing the states of the United Kingdom and Ireland, which were renamed the British Overseas Territories in 2002.

Would we be having this argument if the second sentence was the one in the article (and we'd all overlooked its awful verbosity)? No, we would not. And would we need a reference from the British government to change "the archipelago in the north-west of Europe containing the states of the United Kingdom and Ireland," to "the British Isles? Of course we wouldn't. The problem is not the definition of the British Isles, or the verifiability of its usage, even within the context of the location of the BOTs. You just don't like the usage of the term in the sam way the Irish government doesn't. So, why are you going to waste all of our time, and that of others, by taking this to dispute resolution? Up until this nonsense started, I had a great deal of respect for you. Particularly so having seen you had the balls to identify yourself personally and to link to your website, and having read about who you are and what you do. But I'm having a hard time matching up that person in real life with the one here who is being so stubborn about this. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 11:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

You might remember that I tried to defuse this up front RedHat, but (i) several reasonable editors are in agreement that the current position is wrong so I am not acting in isolation (ii) as far as I can see the evidence will support change and (iii) the more editors attacked motivations rather than addressing the more convinced I have become that this needs to be resolved, properly and based on the evidence. If I was the only person arguing the case, or if there had been less abuse of individual motivations then the situation might be different. I remain hopeful that when the material is presented that you and others will be prepared to reach a compromise. --Snowded ^TALK 11:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

You still notably haven't answered any of my arguments above. I have already shown that I am ready to compromise if Wikipedia decides not to use the term. Until such time, however, we can use it, and I'm not going to pander to the vocal minority just because they don't like it. So again: I urge you to start a cross-page discussion on usage of the term in articles because your reasons for removing it here are not based on our policies even though you are misleadingly framing them otherwise. (Unconciously misleadingly, I'm not suggesting you are deliberately misleading people). The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 12:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid your talking through your Red Hat. It is the very fact that the British Isles is made up of Britain and Ireland that makes its use in this context problematical. What exactly has Ireland got to do with the BOTs? Bill Reid | (talk) 12:48, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back. You missed the fact that we uncovered a reliable source which uses the term in exactly this way, thereby showing any claims to the contrary are original research. [15] "British Overseas Territory": one of 14 territories outside the British Isles that have a degree of self-government under British jurisdiction It is verifiable that this is an acceptable usage. Can we now move on from that argument please? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 12:55, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

⬅No for the many reasons stated. I'll tell you something else RedHat, i someone else used the Encarta Directory against a postiion you were adopting I cam imagine your reaction. At the moment it is the ONLY example of the use of BI, all other sources don't. --Snowded ^TALK 13:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

No it is not the only example - now you are deliberately misleading people. I have pointed out twice that it is used both by the HoC and the FCO to describe the location of Bermuda, a BOT, in a grammatically and contextually similar sentence, to which exactly the same "objections" that you and BillReid are making apply (though the mere existence of those references refutes those objections). And it's really the mark of desperation to justify your rubbishing of Encarta based on your speculation of what I might do if I was in a situation. I don't rubbish sources, Snowded. I have a proven track record here of providing other reliable sources which show there is a disagreement that exists outside my own mind. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 14:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

RedHat, I know you well enough to know that you would not in normal circumstances defend a tertiary source over a primary one. Its not even Encarta, its the Encarta directory! Encarta itself does not use BI as a term. The use of the word "rubbish" is yours, I haven't used it. I have also discussed the FCO use in relation to the age of parliament on Bermuda early. Please stop personal accusations like "deliberately misleading" it doesn't help, especially when its not accurate. --Snowded ^TALK 14:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

For the umpteenth time, what is this tertiary "over a" primary source business? These sources do not contradict each other, do they? They do not have differing points of view, do they? The House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee and the Foreign Office are not implying something different to Encarta when they use the term "British Isles" to describe the location of Bermuda. I just cannot believe you are going down this line of reasoning and you are blind to the inherent problems with it. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 15:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Was British Isles already in the content before this dispute started? If so, it should remain until the BI-Taskforce is completed. It's best we don't add/delete the term from articles, until then. GoodDay (talk) 14:07, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed it was. For over two years, it quietly sat there, minding its own business. And for what it is worth, I completely agree with that advice. The BI-Taskforce is where this should be resolved, across all articles, not just this one. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 14:10, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I've been up and down this page and can't find a link to your HoC and FCO sources so could you or somebody else give it? Ta. But again, what has Ireland got to do with the BOTs? Bill Reid | (talk) 14:27, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Bill, if you are going to engage in the debate, please do others the service of reading their arguments. You can find the links in a section with a very clear heading "Outside the British Isles - a few usages in reliable sources", a section to which you also contributed. [16] Ireland has got nothing to do with it unless you intentionally and wrongfully place a meaning on the term British Isles which it doesn't have. Which is what you and some others are doing here. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 14:34, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Slightly condescending reply. Yes, I was looking for ones that I thought I'd missed as Snowded had already answered your points in that section. No, I didn't take part in that section. You yourself by breaking the sentence into colours have very nicely illustrated my point—The UK retains sovereignty over 14 territories outside the archipelago in the north-west of Europe containing the states of the United Kingdom and Ireland,. The fact that the BI contain 'the states of the United Kingdom and Ireland' and with its linkage to the BOTs serves to confuse and should be avoided. I have consistently argued that point since I came to this page. There's times for the term's use and times when it should be avoided. Simple as that. You, on the other hand, seem to want to use the term at all costs to counter the anti-British Isles brigade (of which I am not one). Now please point me to the HoC as I can't find it. Bill Reid | (talk) 16:06, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Who says it is confusing? We keep asking, but all we hear is other editor's opinions. That is not enough. Wiki-Ed (talk) 17:27, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually I posted the wrong link up there. It's this HoC FAC publication, "Overseas Territories": [17]. "Bermuda's bicameral Parliament, which first met in 1620, is the oldest legislature in the Commonwealth outside the British Isles." Same usage (to geographically locate a British Overseas Territory), same kind of context (relating to a political association originating from the British Empire), obviously meaning to exclude the Crown Dependencies (for they have older legislatures), and nothing of the above has anything to do with the state of Ireland. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 16:22, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I don;t think that is a geographical placement RedHat, its about the oldest legislature outside of the commonwealth of which Ireland was albeit briefly a member. So if anything that supports the case against use in this context. --Snowded ^TALK 17:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

For some reason, I see a Welshman in a deep hole, digging furiously, each lunge of the spade more desperate than the last. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 17:07, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I thought you were clutching at straws even using that example RedHat, but I see yet again that when you don't like an argument to resort to attacking the editor. I'm not impressed. Your assertion that it is a geographical exclusion is your interpretation, I'll respect that even if I disagree with it. Maybe you will have the common decency to do the same in reverse. --Snowded ^TALK 17:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Here we go again. Around and around and around in circles. Don't you ever get dizzy? There is no definition of British Isles which is not geographical. If I am wrong, provide a reliable source which states otherwise. Please do that instead of this silly exercise of trying to collect every single way possible of stating where the BOTs are. We don't need references to tell us how to do that!!! We all accept that it is possible to rephrase the sentence!!! I can probably come up with a few hundred versions myself without British Isles. It is the underlying reason for rephrasing it that we are objecting to. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 17:24, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm collecting examples of how other reliable sources deal with the issue of the remnants of Empire Patrick, if you want to add to that it would be helpful. The issue should be a content one, not your view of what other people's reasons are. Surely I don't need to remind an experiened editor such as yourself of that basic fact. --Snowded ^TALK 17:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Such an exercise is warranted when we are disagreeing about the usage of terms such as "American Colonies", "Thirteen Colonies". That is a matter of what historians mean by the terms, and which is most commonly used. But not here. This is a naming dispute. You simply don't like the name "British Isles". Just admit it. There is nothing wrong with arguing that point, and it would clear the way for the right discussion: is it OK for Wikipedia to use the term? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 17:36, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

This should be a question of how to best describe the remnants of Empire so it is appropriate. You may want to make it a naming dispute, but I think that is a mistake and its a pity you allowed yourself to get trapped into this particular hole by not realising up front that treating it that way would avoid conflict. --Snowded ^TALK 17:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

We don't need to resort to comparing references to tell us where the BOTs are. You are making this a matter of controversy. There is no controversy in reliable sources as to where they are. And please stop returning to the notion that you tried to resolve this quickly. You tried to resolve this quickly to your satisfaction. When that didn't happen, you pressed and pressed and pressed and are now threatening dispute resolution. All because you didn't get your way at the beginning. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 17:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Sigh --Snowded ^TALK 17:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Sigh indeed, sigh indeed. What a pathetic waste of time this whole debate has been for everyone. If only editors put as much effort into improving articles as they do into waging talk page campaigns, Wikipedia might have a lot more featured articles than it presently does. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 18:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I assume Red Hat you are being ironic, as it was none other than your good self that initially suggested this issue be taken to the Talk Page for resolution.RashersTierney (talk) 19:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, the instigator again. I presume you're pleased with your handiwork? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 20:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Your repeated implications of bad faith do you no credit. RashersTierney (talk) 20:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Reminds me of something...[18] Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:57, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Is there a suggestion here, or earlier in the debate, that one shouldn't use the words "British Isles" unless Ireland is within the context of use? I've seen that standpoint on numerous occasions when, for example, HighKing would use it as an excuse to remove the words simply because the context didn't include every last element of the British Isles ("species X is found in the British Isles". HighKing - No it isn't because it isn't found in the Isle of Man). It's a crazy argument and if it's being used here as an excuse to remove British Isles from the text then I thoroughly deplore the attempt. It is absolutely not a requirement of a grouping term such a British Isles that the context of use includes every element of the group. MidnightBlue (Talk) 16:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

And even if it did, the geographic island is politically split into two parts, one of which is also under the sovereignty of the UK. Wiki-Ed (talk) 17:27, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

No, the geographic island is not split into two parts but the geographic islands are, and that is precisely the crux of the matter. Because there are two independent countries in the islands one of which has nothing to do with the BOTs then why use the term to confuse. Bill Reid | (talk) 19:04, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

You appear to be having reading comprehension troubles today. If you reread the paragraph above you will see that I did not say the island (Ireland) is geographically split in two; I said it was politically split in two. Since there are elements of British sovereign territory on all of the major islands it is both accurate and apposite to state that British Overseas Territories are not a part of that geographic archipelago. Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Again, let's leave British Isles in the content (until the results of the BI-Taskforce). In the meantime, let's not add/delete British Isles from articles. GoodDay (talk) 19:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I think, GoodDay, the taskforce has gone, with retirals and all. 7 months since any posts there so I think we have a dead parrot on our hands. So here we are arguing the toss until the cows come home. But re-asssuringly, the deletionist(s) have stopped and discussion of sorts has continued albeit, fractured. At some point, after going round and round in circles ad infinitum, outside help is needed to resolve this situation. Bill Reid | (talk) 20:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Call in the reinforcements! The taskforce has been wiped out! If this continues an endless conflict is imminent! They told us it would all be over by christmas!Willski72 (talk) 20:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

This comment is my summation of where this discussion is at. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Ye, and where it will still be in 4 years time....Willski72 (talk) 12:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

A plea to Snowded

We have expended too much time and space here, over something that really isn't worth it. There is still no consensus for changing the wording, and a reference has been found which deals with the claims of original research. So I am publicly appealing to Snowded to move on, so that we can free up this talk page and ourselves for more important matters. Please. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 11:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry RedHat, but why? If anything a majority of editors think there is a better way of expressing the point and there are supporting references for both (although relying on a tertiary source would not give me the confidence it gives you). Your constant attacks on the motivations of other editors have escalated what should have been a simple content issue and you appear to take no responsibility for your actions in that respect. I've put a structure up above that should allow this to come to a quick conclusion, if you can please focus on content not other editors. Lets get this out of the way then we can look at some of the other issues in the article (the pre 15thC period for example) --Snowded ^TALK 12:24, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Clearly, if you read all the comments above, there are not a majority of editors who think that, and you appear to be taking it all too personally. Please don't lose sight of the fact that it is you who has been pushing the most here. You were involved at the start, you attempted twice to get your edit into the article, and you are still involved at the end. When I'm on the losing end of an argument (losing in terms of not convincing others), like I was at Gibraltar recently, I take the article off my watchlist for a few days to calm down and get a bit of perspective. I suggest you do the same. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 12:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I counted it differently RedHat, and I'm not taking it personally, I'm attempting to get you to address a content issue without making it personal. If you get yourself worked up to the point where you have to take articles off your watchlist fine, sounds a good idea. I'll remember it if I ever get to that point. --Snowded ^TALK 13:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm just giving you feedback on your behaviour here, and suggesting a way that you might get some perspective on the issue. No need to make nasty little snipes. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 13:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

You've been giving lots of editors feedback on their motivations and behaviour RedHat, its been part of the problem on this, and come to think of it other, occasions, Try working on the content issues and I recommend self-reflection before recrimination (given that we are into advice giving). --Snowded ^TALK 13:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

We have been working on the content issues. Over, and over, and over, and over again. The result of the huge discussion we had was: no consensus for change. And when a reference was finally found which single-handedly rebutted every single argument on this talk page for change, you still decided to persist in your Quixotic quest, notably moving on from your original arguments to a new approach that tries to frame it as though there is some difference of opinion in reliable sources as to whether it is correct to say that the BOTs are "outside the British Isles". This is nonsense. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 13:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

You must have been in a different conversation RedHat, the bulk of your edits have contained references to the motivations of other editors (well as two days ago when I did the analysis). The discussion has (for some of us at least) always been about the best way to explain the fact that the UK has 14 Overseas Territories. The fact that you have found one tertiary source to support the wording you favour is not a rebuttal. I simply want the form of words in the FCO description (as do other editors) I haven't changed my argument here and I welcomed the fact you had finally looked for some sources to back your approach up. I had hoped it might be the start of a rational discussion. There has been no resolution other that your assertion of that result and I am not sure its a matter of "consensus for change" but we will see. If you want to use phrases like "Quixotic quest" feel free. I'm going (if no one else does it) to pop into the library early next week and get some more examples of how the issue is handled elsewhere and insert it in the template above. After that we can move it to resolution either with the editors already involved, or through dispute resolution. --Snowded ^TALK 13:44, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Good luck. You know where I stand. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 13:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll join the plea. And Snowded, the only reason anyone is querying motives is because there is no rational reason for wanting to change the sentence. Or at least any reason that has been listed. I've asked a few times but all I've heard is "it's confusing" or "it implies ownership", neither of which is true. Every time these arguments are rebutted someone starts a new section. Wiki-Ed (talk) 14:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

"implying ownership" is a subjective, and can be argued against, but it would be reasonable to argue that some readers would interpret wording as "ownership". Tfz 16:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

There are rational raesons WIki-Ed you just don't agree with them! I just want to get this conversation back on line, get some examples of what others have done, look at the options or the arguments and make a decision without nationalist or unionist agendas intruding. --Snowded ^TALK 15:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I also support Red Hat's plea. Snowded, can we now move on. There is no consenus for change and this continuing debate is just wasting editing time. LevenBoy (talk) 15:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Add Tharky and Catterick and that will be all the "pro-BI people" wanting the discussion to stop - what a suprise --Snowded ^TALK 15:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Shut the hell up Snowded. Can you just leave it be? TharkunColl and I hardly agree on many things and we have our own issues. I really don't want to be associated any more with this article, until all of this nonsense goes away and more productive edits, rather than fruitless political discussions, are done as a matter of course, like any other article here. Even then, this place wreaks of dung. Again, Snowded, don't bring me up. I don't want anything to do with this. It's a wonder what Google searching will turn up! LutetiaPetuaria |

10:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL Catterick --Snowded ^TALK 12:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

~~You might want to cancel out Catterick, as he's retired.~~ GoodDay (talk) 15:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Snowded wrote: "Lets get this out of the way then we can look at some of the other issues in the article (the pre 15thC period for example)"

What pre-15th century period? The British Empire is a phenomenon of the Age of Discovery. If you're talking about the various internal conflicts within the British Isles before they became unified, then that's got nothing to to with the British Empire I'm afraid. ðarkun coll 16:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Thats another subject Tharky, the section on the plantations is not really enough on the pre-history. I'm researching it at the moment and you might be surprised (well maybe not) that not all historians agree with you. The Indian section has some issues as well (especially post mutiny). --Snowded ^TALK 16:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Steady on, Snowded. Even Don Quixote didn't try to embark on more than one quest at a time. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 17:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't panic RedHat, I'm in the research stage on that one, done the basics, interesting box arriving from Blackwells midweek, but assume you will prepare the windmills --Snowded ^TALK 17:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Map

Hi there. Some islands around Papua New Guinea are grey, should they be? Also, according to the Bay Islands' (Honduras) article they were British until 1860. If this is correct they should also be coloured. Many Thanks. Jambo-numba1 (talk) 12:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe Gambia should be labeled "The Gambia" Jambo-numba1 (talk) 12:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The map does not include Oregon territory. Britain once claimed what are now Oregon and Washington states. The map shows all of India and Pakistan as British even though some parts of those countries were ruled separately as Princely States by rajas. This map is more accurate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:British_Empire_Anachronous_7.png —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.5.101.121 (talk) 00:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

A part of Java was also briefly a British possession, but is not shown. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.175.214.216 (talk) 07:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Surinam was also British in the 17th century. John W. Kennedy (talk) 13:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I came to mention the point regarding the Oregon Country too (or from the point of view of the British Empire, the Columbia District of the Hudson's Bay Comapny), but John has beaten me to it. The details can be found in the article on the Oregon Country, but essentially the map needs to be altered to include the region north of the 42nd parallel and west of the Rockies (i.e. what later became the US Oregon Territory as originally constituted). Also, before the Treaty of 1818 moved the border east of the Rockies from the Mississippi River to the 49th parallel, half of North Dakota, part of Minnesota and a tiny sliver of South Dakota were part of Rupert's Land. Unfortunately I don't have the skill to alter the map myself. Petecollier (talk) 22:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

It seems that Corsica could be included in the map aswell. Anglo-Corsican Kingdom 1812ahill (talk) 15:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The Oregon Country or Columbia Department of the HBC was not part of the British Empire, as I understand it. The region was the domain of the Hudson's Bay Company, which had been granted monopoly rights by the British government. It was the HBC that ran the Oregon Country, including establishing laws, forts, garrisons, etc, not the British government. The British government merely made the claim that the HBC had the right to operate in the region. That's what the Treaty of 1818 was about. No Crown Colony was established until 1858, after the Oregon Treaty. A British warship was sent to the Columbia during the War of 1812 to defend the right of the fur company (the Northwest Company at the time) and to seize the American Astoria company if possible. But as far as I know there was no further action by the government in the Oregon Country itself, other than high level diplomacy regarding claims and future boundaries. Does all this make the region part of the British Empire? It depends on what "empire" means. My inclination is to say no. I think there are good sources that say as much, but I must go right now. Can dig up later if desired. Pfly (talk) 18:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

TGrade monopolies/operations are still empire, and on schoolroom maps (in both countries( it's common to show this region cross-hatched/striped with the colours of the US and Britain and/or Russias and Spain (even France had, or wanted, dibs on it). It was aserted as part of the Empire, or that it should become so...what shows on the comparable section on the US in whatever articles there might be, i.e. do they show the "northern Oregon Country" (today's southern British Columbia) as part of the US? It's worth noting that the treaty of 1818 didn't esclude the claims of any other power either, although the only signatories were the US and UK....if the HBC had already been active in the region, instead of the NWC, there might have been already an assertion of possession something like what was in Rupert's Land...the point remains that from 1813 to 1840 or so, virtually teh only non-native operations/presence in the region was a commercial interest of the British Empire.....Skookum1 (talk) 19:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

But I suppose it could be also considered in the context of teh claims in the region by Drake, Cook and Lt. Broughton (who did perform acts of possession in the lower Columbia region, just as David Thompson did the same at the confluence of the Snake and the Columbia a decade or so later...). That these claims were negated or rather abjured by the treaty of 1818 doesn't mean that there wasn't a position that this was actually part of the Empire, or destined to be so; the diplomatic niceties of the 1818 agreement were lip-service, especially in the eyes of the HBC (until McLoughlin switched allegiance anyway...); the imperial pretensions were very real, as well as the value of the region to imperial interests and even its economy...you don't send warships to defend somewhere that's not considered your turf, after all...Skookum1 (talk) 19:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

After writing the above bit, I thought of a simpler way to say it. Before the 1846 Oregon Treaty the region was not part of the United States but rather a disputed claim. Likewise, before 1846 the region was not part of the British Empire but rather a disputed claim. The Treaty of 1818 essentially said "let's not fight over this--we'll resolve the issue of sovereignty peacefully and until then region shall be free and open to people from either nation". It took a while, but the question of sovereignty was resolved in the 1846 Oregon Treaty. It is true that the HBC was able to dominate the region and prevent or out-compete American business ventures. But they were unable to prevent the mass migration of American settlers to the Willamette Valley. In any case, the first sentence of this article reads "The British Empire comprised the dominions, colonies, protectorates, mandates, and other territories ruled or administered by the United Kingdom..." Before 1846 Oregon/Columbia was none of these things. The word "territories" links to Dependent territory, and that page specifically says it does not include "territories that are disputed". If the map were to show the Oregon Country as part of the British Empire, the first sentence should probably be rewritten, it seems to me. Anyway, you know I basically agree with you, Skookum, that the US ended up with far more territory than it had realistic claims to. But that is not relevant to the question of what was and what wasn't part of the British Empire. "Ought to have been", perhaps; "was", perhaps not. Pfly (talk) 04:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

My comments didn't have to do with the "loss of rightful territory" position, only with the technicalities of Empire; if the territories and Empire are defined as such, then that's the way it is; in most other cases where such trade licenses existed they became parts of the Empire proper, e.g. the North-West Territory was claimed, loosely, also by the Russian Empire and after the Alaska Purchase was under risk of becoming subject to American claim - hence the creation of the Stikine Territory to pre-empt that (now mostly part of BC). My context was in the same mode as the Spanish Empire's abandoned claim to this as part of New Spain, and Russia's as part of the Russian Empire (1821-1825). I think on the map's own talkpage I went into some aspects of this as regards leases, e.g. Hong Kong was a lease, not under British sovereignty, not a British territory, not a possession in any way except by way of lease (as I understand it; maybe that only applies to Kowloon) but is always shown as part of the British Empire. Singapore - I think - was also not technically under British sovereignty but was a lease from one of the Rajahs of Malaysia, even though it was a swampy bog when the British began to turn it into a major trade entrepot. The reason I mention the lease is becaues of the HBC/British lease of 1839 resulting from the Anglo-Russian Convention of 1838 (I think it was, maybe 1839), which saw about a quarter of the Alaska Panhandle leased to Britain/the HBC by the Russian Empire; this was ignored, despite its renewal, with the Alaska Purchase and it's never shown on maps as having been part of British "territory" - but HK/Kowloon/New Territories are, and other cases of the same kind. Doesn't apply to the Columbia District/Oregon Country as a whole, but Fort George (Astoria), Fort Vancouver, Fort Spokane et al. were British property; they could be shown as "points" on the map, because it's not like they weren't there....British subjects living and workign in those posts and also when outside them were subject to the laws of the Colony of Canada, part of the Empire....obscure technicalities I know but it's not like the British presence in the Columbia District didn't have a legal standing; what was suspended was any active pressing of the standing claims made/asserted by Drake, Cook, Broughton and Thompson.....Skookum1 (talk) 15:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)