Talk:British Isles/Archive 33

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

→

Archive 40

British & Irish Lions

I don't deny this happened, as I can see how they name themselves on their website, but try as I might, I can't find a reference anywhere specifically stating that the team was renamed. To confuse matters, the Times style guide [1] has this to say: "Lions (rugby) officially the touring rugby union team is known as the British Isles; alternatively, the Lions. At a pinch, they may be referred to as the British and Irish Lions. They are not the British Lions". Not being a rugby fan (far too many painful memories as a schoolboy shivering in the cold of British winters wondering why I had to go through this ordeal twice a week), can anyone explain that, and hopefully provide a reference for the article? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 13:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I have tried and failed to nail down the date of the name change and find a source. It seems like the name was always fairly informal - British Isles and British Lions were both used in various contexts, but since 2001 they have been (mostly) called the British & Irish Lions. See discussion here. --hippo43 (talk) 23:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I spent 10 mins googling earlier trying to find something but failed too. Pretty strange really, i would of thought thered of been like a BBC article on it at the time. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

My constructive proposal of the week is that the British Lions or, as some people now insist on calling them, the British and Irish Lions, should be in regular sessions. ref Alan Watkins The Independent, 7 December 1999, Rugby Union: Lions sessions could add required bite to British rugby ref

Which is exactly right and proper - but leaves open the real possibility that what officials proudly and insistently call "the British and Irish Lions" may actually be nothing of the sort. ref England Trampling Lions to..., The Express on Sunday, 18 February 2001 Ref

I dont know either. My guess is that this was not some official pronouncement, rather some process of consensus building in the sports community? Þjóðólfr (talk) 08:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Road Atlas, Again...

I just want to point out something that occurred on the NOR noticeboard. [2] It clearly demonstrates the problem with any attempt to deduce things from titles of books in the absence of information about the motives of the publishers.

Þjóðólfr took the 1911 Michelin Guide to the British Isles and the Great Britain & Ireland 2009 and deduced that "Michelin renamed their Guide".

Let's check Michelin's own information on the matter, shall we? (Something Þjóðólfr failed to do himself). Michelin state:

• "1911: The first Michelin Guide to the British Isles (including Ireland) is published and ran for 5 editions including 1912, 1913, 1914 and 1920 (there was naturally a break in production during the First World War). Production resumed in 1922 when the title was changed to Great Britain (Ireland was not included) and this ran until 1930 to include 1923, 1925, 1927, 1929 and 1930.
• "1974: The current Great Britain & Ireland Guide was re-launched and has been published continuously ever since. The 1974 edition did not include London which was published as a separate booklet but this was integrated into the main guide the following year. There were 25 one star restaurants in this first edition.

Well, this changes things completely, doesn't it? This is exactly the problem with going off of a limited number of observations and making a general statement. Ireland was "not included" (Michelin's words, not mine) in the 1922 publication, whose title was "changed" (Michelin's words, not mine) to Great Britain. Forty-four years later (Michelin's number, not mine), the "current" (Michelin's words, not mine) Great Britain & Ireland Guide was "re-launched" (Michelin's words, not mine). That is a completely different story to the one portrayed by Þjóðólfr. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Hang on, the original 4 editions including Ireland used British Isles, then they had one edition without Ireland called Great Britain, when they brought Ireland in again they called it "Britain and Ireland", they didn't use "British Isles". It shows that the modern choice for Michelin is not to use BI. --Snowded ^TALK 01:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

You can travel back in time and read the minds of the publishers in 1974, can you? All it shows is exactly what it says. It was labelled British Isles. They dropped Ireland and labelled it Great Britain. Then forty years later they released a new version and added back Ireland, calling it the old name plus "...and Ireland". That's all we can say. Nothing more. The publishers did not say that they deliberately chose not to use the old name. You are inferring that. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:48, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Snowded on this one. At some time over a 52 year period Michelin decided, for whatever reason, to stop using "British Isles" and start using "Great Britain and Ireland" instead. Skinsmoke (talk) 01:52, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

But it's demonstrably wrong, as I have pointed out. Michelin continue to use the term. [3] 21 hits from their website. They even refer to Trinity College, Dublin as being in the British Isles [4] This is the problem when one makes inferences (== original research) instead of relying on references that explicitly make the same claim. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Red Hat. It's getting late. Now I get it, Michelin continue to use the term "British Isles", but only when they think nobody's watching. How very French! Agree that on that basis Michelin's policy is unclear and all reference to them should be removed. Skinsmoke (talk) 02:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

FYI we've also shown it's the same situation for Philips, the AA and SK. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 02:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I for one am not denying that BI continues to be used, and can be used legitimately. But when people change the titles of an Atlas then that is notable. We need to get a sense of proportion here there is far too much "I told you so" above. --Snowded ^TALK 02:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

So back to this again: Wikipedia:Notability#Notability_requires_verifiable_evidence Wiki-Ed (talk) 09:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Snowded, who says it is notable? Let's be clear that you are suggesting it is notable because it implies something about the name of this article. What if they gave the decision no thought whatsoever? What if they thought "well, it was called Great Britain before, now we're adding Ireland so we'll call it Great Britain and Ireland", and the fact that the WWI title was "British Isles" did not even cross their mind? What if they tossed a coin? What if (as you think) they took a deliberate decision to not call it British Isles? We just don't know. So stop inferring things from a title and having the article imply (or even state outright) what you have inferred. It is pure original research. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 09:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Changing the title of something is significant and calm down on the accusations. Reporting actual behaviour (name changes) is not original research. It is OR to make assumptions as to motives either way. Society norms often change as a result of general movements without conscious decisions as any 101 anthropology text book will tell you. Observing the way in which artefacts change is one way of determining underlying changes in attitudes. I suggest a less confrontational approach, there are facts here, they are capable of different interpretations, we therefore half to work to get some form of words that works. It would be helpful if you worked on that rather than taking such a rigid stance. There is a clear difference between a title, and an occasional use in the text. For a geographical entity an Atlas is significant, this is common sense. --Snowded ^TALK 10:24, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

My references states (VERBATIM!!) :The Michelin Guide to the British Isles was published in 1911 and was relaunched as the current Great Britain and Ireland Guide in 1974. I suggest The Red Hat of Tunbridge Wells send a strongly worded letter to the The Bath Chronicle Þjóðólfr (talk) 07:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

If that's a verbatim quote... where is the bit saying that they had a change of policy over the use of the term British Isles? I can't... seem to see it. Wiki-Ed (talk) 08:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Are you addressing me? Þjóðólfr (talk) 09:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The very small paragraph deals with 'who is using the term', and could very well be expanded as it is of interest to the reader. The only requirement that might be needed is a small change to the sentence, as I offered earlier. Tfz 09:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

So, who is using the term? Let's see... Michelin are. The AA are. Octopus Publishing (Philips) are. SK are. That's four of the five references purportedly showing who is not using the term. And why, pray, limit ourselves to road atlases? What about all these books? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 09:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

You have to realise that BI is not a very common term, or common at all, and is "more honoured in its absence than its observance" to paraphrase. The Google method can be used to prove just about anything. Tfz 09:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

It is however the most common term for the area it describes, and finds use worldwide including in Ireland. Canterbury Tail talk 11:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

There's two issues here. Nobody stated that the publishers dropped British Isles altogether, which is what some editors here are trying to interpret. It's clear that the publishers continue to use the term in some places - for example, most of the UK school books use the term. But. It's also clear that in certain maps and atlases, the term has been changed. Please keep these issues apart. The text is factually correct unless you choose to interpret it to mean a publisher completely dropped the term. --HighKing (talk) 11:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

If the publishers clearly have not dropped the term, as you freely admit, then why even mention the titles? Not only do you not have any evidence as to the motives behind the title choice, if the publishers obviously have not taken a decision to drop the term, then what is there left to mention? Or are you are trying to make a point to the reader based on (a) what you think are the publisher's motives and (b) what significance you attach to a title? (The last question was a rhetorical one, by the way - no need to answer it - it's clearly what you are doing). The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 22:03, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

A pattern of name changes is a significant fact whatever the intent, so is continued use. Now can we be less confrontational and try and fid a way forward on this? --Snowded ^TALK 22:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

What pattern?! Redhat has provided references showing there is no consistent pattern and in any case, unless secondary sources comment on the topic we cannot do so. The Folens reference is example of how this information should be presented. If other sources cannot be found for other publications then they do not get a mention. Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

You could be right that a pattern of name changes is worth commenting on, whatever the reason behind the pattern, but if a wikipedia editor is identifying the pattern, rather than a reliable source, it is obvious OR. --hippo43 (talk) 22:48, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. If someone's done a study on changing patterns, fine, let's reference that. But we shouldn't be collecting data and interpreting the results ourselves. That is what academics and scientists do. That is research. When Wikipedia editors do it, it's original research. And we shouldn't be collecting data and posting it into the article, even if we omit the interpretation of the results, because collection of data involves selection of a sample which any statistician will tell you requires techniques to eliminate bias. The mere act of collecting data and choosing what to include or discard would constitute original research. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

⬅Choosing what to include and what not to include is a part of editing any page, if that is to be called OR then most wikipedia content disappears. [I think I am going to keep a copy of all your arguments here RedHat for the next debate on British Empire :-) ]. It is wrong to interpret that selection without a source to backup that interpretation. If we are going to move it forwards lets see if we can agree on some key facts. As far as I can see:

• Several Atlas names have changed from British Isles to Britain and Ireland
• Many of those continue to use the term British Isles in the body of their text despite title changes
• There is no cited evidence as to their motivation for either of the above

Given that we have a duty to inform I think one way forward here is to create a table of the major Atlas's showing their current name together with past name and date of change if available. Such a table without commentary or interpretation would inform readers and can be cited. Given the nature of this article an Atlas has note and there are not many of them. I don't think that this approach would be appropriate for books etc. We need to find a way forward on this and some compromise is necessary. Such a table could be placed near the Folens reference but with a sentence which clearly states that the term BI is used in said Atlases. --Snowded ^TALK 00:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Snowded, you are confusing two entirely different matters here. (1) deciding what material in reliable sources to include in a summary description of a topic (a problem at British Empire - it would be impossible to include everything) and (2) Wikipedia editors gathering data themselves in order to reach a conclusion (or simply to let the reader "decide") that cannot be found in reliable source. I'm really quite surprised that you cannot see the difference, especially so as you are in academia. An editor deciding what parts of an article should be pruned prior to publication in a newspaper is not engaging in research.

A table here would be utterly inappropriate. What on earth would the explanation for its presence in the article be, if it is not to make a point that cannot be verified anywhere? And why on earth are we putting road atlases on a pedestal? Search for books mentioning the term and published since the same year that Michelin supposedly changed the title and we can find over one million. [5] One million. What does that prove? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Totally agree with Red Hat. Snowded, your suggestion of a table is an editorial decision that isn't justified by referenced material. It would be illustrating (or leading editors toward) a point that is not made by any sources.

Moreover, the premise that these publishers have changed the names of their atlases is itself unsourced. There is no source provided to confirm that the publishers have 'changed directly from BI to B & I' - we don't have a source showing that these titles cover the same areas, or they may have rejigged all their atlases to cover different regions, or whatever. There is no source provided to even confirm that they no longer produce atlases titled 'British Isles', just links to atlases with different titles. Without any secondary sources covering this, the research is worthless. --hippo43 --hippo43 (talk) 01:03, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Well you were happy to edit war on the subject earlier and get the article locked so I suppose I shouldn't be surprised by an uncompromising response to my attempt to find a way forward that might be acceptable to both parties. Pity really, lets see what others think (or if there are other suggestions) --Snowded ^TALK 01:21, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Not surprisingly, I didn't see it as edit warring, just fixing the problem. This is about as clear a case of OR as I have known - I honestly can't believe you disagree. The fact that there are some who hold the opposite view doesn't mean their opinion is equally valid. I'm open to suggestions of compromise but the type of thing you suggested would be a great example of false compromise. --hippo43 (talk) 02:25, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Two reversals when an article is under a one reversal restriction is edit warring, and the original edits you made were done while discussion continued and where there was no consensus. The fact that you think you were right (or "just fixing a problem") is not relevant; every participant in an edit war thinks they are justified, its no validation. My suggestion is provide a simple summary of verifiable material and allow readers to draw what conclusions they may. If you think there is a better way then come up with a suggestion. I think the atlas name changes are clearly notable, so its a matter of finding the correct way to incorporate them, that will require some good will and effort.--Snowded ^TALK 04:34, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Why are atlas name changes "notable" when we can literally find millions of references to British Isles in current books at the click of a Google search? You think they are notable? Well I think they're not notable given the fact that millions of books still use the term is notable. So now what?

If you were writing a PhD on the changing usage of the term, would you pop out to WH Smith's and pick up a few road atlases, write down their titles and submit that? That would be a farcical attempt at data collection. Rather, if one is attempting to look at changing usage of language, one must look at all forms of media - TV, radio, newspapers, books, and the internet. Say you attempted to plot a histogram of "number of references to the term British Isles" on the y axis versus "year of publication" on the x axis, and you found a clearly declining trend, that might tell you something. But such an exercise would be pure original research. If you want to do it, do that outside Wikipedia, get it published in a peer reviewed publication, and we'll use that as our reference. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 11:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Since when was WIkipedia confined to material published in peer reviewed publications? That aside, if I was writing a book or article (referred or otherwise) on changing use of language in a society then I would look to the artefacts of that society for evidence. So yes I might well go to W.H.Smiths for evidence of current use and the British Library for past use. I would not need evidence of intentionality to report on changed use or to draw implications for as aspect of the ideation culture of the society or group in question. I suggest (i) to try and think of ways that material can be included (ii) reading the history of this talk page - a lot of attempts have been made to delete the whole thing and much current wording arose from past debates. --Snowded ^TALK 21:47, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

My word, Snowded. You should really know this by now. Read what constitutes a reliable source. "Wikipedia articles should rely primarily on reliable, third-party, published sources (although reliable self-published sources are allowable in some situations - see below). Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication." This kind of fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia's policies may come back to bite someone who is aspiring to become an administrator. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 21:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

RedHat, please stop twisting what I say, it doesn't help. You suggested the need for a "a peer reviewed publication", I pointed out that Wikipedia is not confined to such documents. I could have quoted "rely primarily on reliable, third-party, published sources" to make the same point. --Snowded ^TALK 21:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, whatever, we digress. The point is that you engaging in this exercise of data collection is original research. Use of a "reliable, third-party, published source" which engages in the same exercise is not. There is simply no way of doing what you want or propose without flouting the WP:NOR policy. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 22:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Howabout two articles

How's about bringing up an old idea? Have 2 articles ('British Isles' & 'Britain and Ireland'). We can have descriptives in each, explaining how the former is gradually being used less & the latter gradually more? GoodDay (talk) 19:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Problem with that is British Isles <> Britain and Ireland. Two different things. The first includes the second, but the second doesn't include all of the first. Also Britain and Ireland is very often used in a political sense to refer to the two governments, not just the islands. Canterbury Tail talk 19:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Why can't the latter include 'all'? GoodDay (talk) 19:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Because islands like the Isle of Man aren't included in a term of Britain and Ireland. We're not here to make up terms to suit our purposes, but just to inform on verifiable facts. Canterbury Tail talk 19:57, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

British Isles is political, that's why the Faroe islands are not included, even though they are part of the same geographical group. Tfz 20:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Can you reference that? As most of the article and discussions is about how it is a geographic term used throughout the world. Canterbury Tail talk 20:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

For which piece are you looking for a reference? The "political" bit or the "Faroe islands"? --HighKing (talk) 11:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't altogether disagree that the the use of the term is widespread in UK and NZ especially, but most people never use it in relation to Ireland, and avoid it altogether as an anachronistic term from Empire days of yore, subjugation of the Scots, and the rampages in Ireland. Tfz 20:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

It is however used in Ireland, and in relation to Ireland, as has been proven on many occassions in the archives (the 30 gig of them.) Canterbury Tail talk 20:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

It sure would've been easier, if both terms meant the exact same thing. GoodDay (talk) 20:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

This would constitute a POV fork, if the two things described are basically the same thing, which they are. john k (talk) 14:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Two things. First, the Faroes are not part of the same group. That's easy to see on any oceanographic chart. Second, according to at least some very serious definitions, the Isle of Man is part of Britain (or Great Britain - I can't remember but I could find it). 213.155.151.233 (talk) 22:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Replacing British Isles with "British Isles and Ireland"

I recall that at one point a moratorium was placed on removal of the term British Isles from Wikipedia unless with agreement. Does anyone know if this is still in force? I ask the question because Ive just identified another deletionist going by the name of Þjóðólfr who's quitely deleting the term from many articles and renaming others. In fact, in the majority of cases he's replacing "British Isles" with "British Isles and Ireland" - a completely erroneous term. I'm not sure how long this has been going on but he signed up as a user in May this year. He's leaving a trail of devastation in his wake and I'll shortly commence a clean-up exercise. Please see his edit history if you would like to help. MidnightBlue (Talk) 11:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. I see what you mean. As far as I'm concerned, this is a bit underhand and should be reversed ASAP. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 12:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

He seems to have started only recently and at least the edit summaries are indicative. MidnightBlue (Talk) 12:19, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

While the term "British Isles and Ireland" does seem strange, it is appearing more frequently in print. For example Nicholas Leach who has a series of books to his credit, all endorsed by the RNLI, uses this novel term. I am unaware of any 'moratorium'. I would hope that you would carefully consider the issues before embarking on an edit war. ClemMcGann (talk) 12:20, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Whatever the rights and wrongs of this edit in particular, I hope everyone would agree that it is very wrong for one editor to single-handedly (or even in consort with a few others) embark on a campaign to remove the term from Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not the place for righting WP:GREATWRONGS. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 12:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The British Isles includes Ireland so the term "British Isles and Ireland" is incorrect usage regardless of who uses it or where it is used. Actually the problem of the rogue edits is not as big as I first thought. I've examined the user's entire edit history and, assuming his summaries are accurate, we should clear this up fairly quickly. MidnightBlue (Talk) 12:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

That is your opinion. ClemMcGann (talk) 12:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

MidnightBlueMan - please stop deleting references - I just restored Ilybius chalconatus - please seek a third opinion before further deletion - ClemMcGann (talk) 13:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Editors should not be adding/removing 'British Isles' from articles, without notifying others, first. GoodDay (talk) 13:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Is 'British Isles' Grade I listed? Þjóðólfr (talk) 13:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The anti British Isles brigade have been out in force in recent days. 2 articles came under attack yesterday, with the removal of British Isles from text within the article and an attempt to rename Genetic history of the British Isles. Will it ever end :\ BritishWatcher (talk) 14:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Ilybius chalconatus had only one reference - it said "Britain and Ireland" - Þjóðólfr was reverted by MidnightBlueMan who inserted "British Isles" - which was not what the reference said - MidnightBlueMan deleted the reference - I put the reference back along with "Britain" and later "Ireland" - there was no "British Isles" in the reference - so why invent it! why delete a reference? - ClemMcGann (talk) 14:16, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Why are we having this discussion on this article? Discussions here, should deal with changes to this particular article 'only'. GoodDay (talk) 14:20, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

"British Isles and Ireland" is confusing, misleading, and rarely used and we should do nothing to encourage its use. john k (talk) 15:16, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Belfast Telegraph 2 June 2009: The shirt is on tour around the British Isles and Ireland en route to South Africa.

Where is the confusion? Þjóðólfr (talk) 15:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

What are the other "British Isles" besides Great Britain, if Ireland is not one? Don't give me the Isle of Wight and the Hebrides, because those can just be included as part of "Great Britain" - there's no need to use "British Isles" to include the offshore islands surrounding Great Britain. "Britain and Ireland" is perfectly fine with me, but using "British Isles" while excluding Ireland is totally incoherent. john k (talk) 15:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, 'Great Britain' is an island which only includes England, Scotland and Wales so these isles are not included in it. Another thing nobody seems to have mentioned (although I haven't read all the discussion) is that the word 'Isles' signifies very small islands and is accordingly distinct from 'islands'. At some point along the way the British decided to expand their traditional concept of the British Isles and include an island, Ireland. Instructively, this terminological change happened when Britain was engaging in the political conquest of Ireland. 78.16.179.152 (talk) 02:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Far more sources can be found for British Isles including Ireland, just because a few newspapers or people make the stupid mistake of saying "British isles and Ireland" which is totally silly is no justificastion for change here.BritishWatcher (talk) 15:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The term has been used by Key Stage 2 and BBC Northern Ireland - Hardly igonarmuses

They used it to get from place to place travelling to the British Isles and Ireland, the Netherlands, France, Spain, North Africa, Iceland Greenland and North America.

It is in common use and is not barred from Wikipedia. Þjóðólfr (talk) 15:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't disagree uses of it can be found, but the fact remains that, by far, the most common meaning attached to "British Isles" includes Ireland. (If this wasn't the case, then there wouldn't be all this controversy, would there now?) The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 16:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the basic issue is that there's no point in having a term "British Isles" if you are going to exclude Ireland. The only usefulness of the term "British Isles" is if it means "Great Britain and Ireland." If it just means "Great Britain and other nearby islands, but not Ireland," then it can largely be subsumed by "Great Britain." If you want to include the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands, British Islands is available. john k (talk) 17:16, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

To answer miscellaneous points raised here (incluing from john k, above) - "British Isles and Ireland" is misleading and it is incorrect usage; not my opinion but a fact. Its use is akin to that of "United Kingdom and England". If this erroneous term is used in any references then we should be removing those references and looking for higher quality ones. Its use demonstates a poor knowledge of basic geography, or a denial that Ireland forms part of the BI. In either case, references using the term should not be entertained. Clem - the reference you've put back is a bit of a contorted one but I won't revert it. John K - British Islands has a very limited legal meaning and as such its use should be restricted. As for the moratorium on removals and insertions (and by implication, renamings also) it stems from this debate [6]. MidnightBlue (Talk) 18:10, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, please note Þjóðólfr took it to ANI (along with an unfounded accusation of stalking) and he met with an unfavourable response [7]. Quotes from two separate editors: (1) "As this naming dispute has been a very contentious issue in the past, I should think that central discussion would be appropriate before altering links around. If you didn't attempt such a discussion, I don't see how you could be surprised that interested editors have responded with alarm" and (2) "To be perfectly blunt, my perception is that you are trying to get your preferred version of this "British Isles" thing pushed through over the objections of multiple other editors." The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 20:20, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

"British Isles and Ireland" is no more valid than "British Isles and Lewis", "British Isles and Skye", "British Isles and Man", "British Isles and Wight" or indeed "British Isles and Great Britain". It really is high time these anti-British Isles/anti-fact POV pushers grew up and stopped wasting so much time this nonsense.. siarach (talk) 20:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The only "pov pushers" here are the few people who are insisting that the Irish are in what an ever decreasing number of British people still like to term the "British Isles", a term which can only be dated to 1577 when it was used by the imperialist John Dee. 78.16.179.152 (talk) 01:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

During the making of the series Gabrielle travelled extensively throughout the British Isles and Ireland, meeting artisan food producers, talking to farmers and discovering traditional recipes which were adapted for the programme. ref Herald Express 31 July 2009 Indulge in chocolate workshop ref

If the term has no validity why is it used in the mainstream press? Þjóðólfr (talk) 20:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Because the writers are ignorant of basic geography. MidnightBlue (Talk) 20:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Is it they that are ignorant or is it you? Þjóðólfr (talk) 21:03, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

"For information about academic topics, such as physics or ancient history, scholarly sources are preferred over news stories. Newspapers tend to misrepresent results, leaving out crucial details and reporting discoveries out of context. For example, news reports often fail to adequately report methodology, errors, risks, and costs associated with a new scientific result or medical treatment."[8] Personally I think I would be inclined to go with the nice sources referenced at the bottom of the article. Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

For some reason what our patriotic British editors claim is only a "few" sources using the term "British Isles and Ireland" ends up being tens of thousands of sources on a google phrase search here, while a Google search of academic sources also has the term widely used here. The term "British Isles and Ireland" is also used by British organisations such as the BBC, as well as rightwing British media outlets such as The Times and The Daily Telegraph . Additionally, similar uses such as "British Isles, Ireland and the Channel Islands" are also in abundance. Given all these verifiable sources one must wonder what the agenda is that is claiming "British Isles and Ireland" is not commonly used. Wikipedia has rules for a reason, and one reason is to prevent nationalistically-minded editors breaching Wikipedia:Neutral point of view in order to make a political point such as is made by insisting that Ireland is in what one nationalist tradition still terms the "British Isles", despite extensive verifiable evidence to the contrary. 78.16.179.152 (talk) 01:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The first reference (Google) lists 38,000 results for the term “British Isles and Ireland”, the first of which is, surprise surprise, this article. (Google produces 57,200,000 results for “British Isles” alone; cue pointless debate on value of Google. Result:– not worth relying on for any purpose whatsoever.) As for the other points:

The second reference (Google books) provides gems like the “Encyclopaedia of tidepools and rocky shores” and “Seaweeds: their environment, biogeography, and ecophysiology” as supposed evidence of the widespread usage of the term. I’ve mentioned why we prefer scholarly sources over news sources, but for completeness, the reference to the BBC provided about 9 results for “British Isles and Ireland” against about 640 for “British Isles”. The reference to The Times is about grouse and the reference to The Telegraph is about a golfer…

Perhaps our IP friend should revisit the WP:NPOV page and acquaint her/himself with the section dealing with weighting. Wiki-Ed (talk) 10:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps our evidently nationalistically-minded user could stop assuming that the references which say "British Isles" include Ireland. Clearly, tens of thousands of references explicitly exclude Ireland so assuming that the remaining references which simply say "British Isles" include Ireland is a baseless assumption which is not verifiable. For instance, this (very prominent) page just mentions the "British Isles", but in every single instance of its use Ireland is implicitly excluded from the "British Isles": http://www.the-british-isles.com/. Unless you can show that all of your references to the "British Isles" include Ireland your case is very weak indeed. 213.202.185.213 (talk) 13:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

What one can show is that the accepted definition includes Ireland. Just look it up in any dictionary or encyclopaedia:

• Britannica "group of islands off the northwestern coast of Europe. The group consists of two main islands, Great Britain and Ireland, and numerous smaller islands and island groups..."
• Miriam Webster "island group W Europe comprising Great Britain, Ireland, & adjacent islands"
• Farlex "A group of islands off the northwest coast of Europe comprising Great Britain, Ireland, and adjacent smaller islands."

The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 13:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry ip, that website is pretty awful. We could have a competition on it called "spot the mistakes". I never knew I lived in the Capital of Scotland. You may be able to link to some sites that will back up your argument but that's not it. Jack forbes (talk) 13:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the Britannica reference shows that the "accepted" definition is no longer generally accepted, and calls out the controversy in the definition.86.45.178.188 (talk) 00:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

It says the term is increasingly controversial. It does not say inclusion of Ireland in the British Isles is increasingly controversial, and that there is an alternative definition which excludes it. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

If the term has become increasingly controversial, then it is no longer possible to claim that it is the "accepted" definition. It may be the most common definition, but it is certainly not generally accepted, especially when there is widespread use (in major media) of terms that all-so-clearly use a different definition. 86.45.178.188 (talk) 00:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Surely if the term did not include Ireland, it would not be controversial? At any rate, you'll have to find an actual explicit definition of British Isles in a reliable source which says that Ireland is not included. Otherwise what you are doing is OR. That somebody says "British Isles and Ireland" does not necessarily mean they do not believe that Ireland is part of the British Isles - it could just as easily be that they are being redundant (perhaps purposefully). It is not up to us as editors to infer what such usage means. If you can find actual reliable sources which define "British Isles" as excluding Ireland, that would be one thing. But simply showing that people sometimes say "British Isles and Ireland" proves nothing. john k (talk) 00:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

British Isles Until 1949 a collective title for Great Britain, Ireland, and the numerous islands surrounding the two larger islands, including the Isle of Man. In 1949 the Republic of Ireland left the British Commonwealth and so could no longer be included in the title. ref"British Isles" Concise Dictionary of World Place-Names. John Everett-Heath. Oxford University Press 2005. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press.ref Þjóðólfr (talk) 01:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see that this qualifies. It seems to be a statement that the term is obsolete, not that the term now means "the United Kingdom and the Isle of Man," which would be completely ridiculous, anyway, since it would mean that Northern Ireland was in the British Isles, but the rest of Ireland was not. john k (talk) 02:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

It defines "British Isles" as excluding Ireland. And yes the author does seem to say what you consider ridiculous - maybe you should have him barred from the Royal Geographical Society Þjóðólfr (talk) 02:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The author does not say that, though. He says that the term "British Isles," before 1949, meant Great Britain, Ireland, and surrounding islands. He then says that since 1949, because of the Republic's withdrawal from the Commonwealth, it is no longer part of the British Isles. Never does he say that since 1949 the British Isles means Great Britain, Northern Ireland, and surrounding islands that are not part of the Republic of Ireland. john k (talk) 03:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually he does:

British Isles: from 1536 these have included the following states...

1922– : Irish Free State (later Éire (1937) and the Republic of Ireland (1949) ).

1922– : United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Þjóðólfr (talk) 07:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed with JohnK. It is the usage of the term that is controversial, not its definition. And the misreading of the Britannica source is just mind-boggling. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Let's look at what Brittanica says and see how mind-boggling the misreading is. Britannica says that the British Isles is a "group of islands off the northwestern coast of Europe. The group consists of two main islands, Great Britain and Ireland, and numerous smaller islands and island groups, including the Hebrides, the Shetland Islands, the Orkney Islands, the Isles of Scilly, and the Isle of Man. Some also include the Channel Islands in this grouping. Although the term British Isles has a long history of common usage, it has become increasingly controversial, especially for some in Ireland who object to its connotation of political and cultural connections between Ireland and the United Kingdom". So, although it has long been the common term, it is now increasingly controversial. It's not mind-boggling to read this as indicating that the definition is far from generally accepted. Conversely to assert - as Red Hat seems to do - that this "increasingly controversial" term is a generally accepted definition, especially when British media like the BBC and the Belfast Telegraph (for heaven's sake) use "British Isles and Ireland", is in denial of the plain and verifiable facts. 213.155.151.233 (talk) 22:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Þjóðólfr, as I pointed out above with respect to this reference [9], the author contradicts himself in the same book, as have you by quoting that. Note there is no end date after 1922. ie, from 1922 to the present day the British Isles includes the IFS->Eire->RoI. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 11:22, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

You are perfectly right there is a contradiction; I suspect a typo; However we know the authors believes that The BI still exists and his definition is explicity the Republic... is no longer part of the British Isles Þjóðólfr (talk) 12:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

You suspect, but we don't know. Also note he's using British Isles throughout his book to include Ireland. Even if we ignore the contradiction and grant you his definition which excludes Ireland post 1949, the fact remains that no dictionary or other encyclopaedia (that has been posted here) supports this ex-Ireland definition. As has been pointed out several times now, if this really were the 'accepted' definition then surely Bertie Ahern and the rest of the Emerald Isle wouldn't begrudge the British using it to describe their own? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 13:22, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

What is wrong with the British Isles and Ireland? User:Þjóðólfr ^{PS I am British and am ignorant of Bertie Ahern's position} 14:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

As Red Hat says - this definition specifically includes Ireland after 1949. And if it were a typo why on earth would it say that it was the Republic of Ireland after 1949? That is when, you claim, it ceased to be part of the British Isles. Again, "British Isles and Ireland" is bad because it is redundant. "British Isles" might be bad because it is obsolete, but it certainly isn't a term which excludes the Republic of Ireland. Note as a comparison, the term "the Indian Subcontinent". Many Pakistanis don't like that term, because they think it implies that Pakistan is part of India. Just as the Irish often prefer "these Isles," Pakistanis seem to prefer "the Subcontinent." As such, it is a term which we should probably avoid using if there's a clear alternative. There is in the case of the Subcontinent - we can use South Asia. But there's no question that Pakistan is included within the term "Indian Subcontinent," in the same way that Ireland is included within "British Isles." It seems to me that the argument for "British Isles" is that, unlikely the Subcontinent, there is no other way of collectively referring to the islands which is neither ambiguous nor ungainly. "Great Britain and Ireland" is, I think, the latter, and would be deeply awkward as the title for an article. As to the idea that British Isles is a meaningless term, because why would anyone think that Great Britain and Ireland are more closely related to each other than, say, Canada and Kenya, that is obviously ridiculous. The history of the two islands has been closely tied together since at least the twelfth century, and there have been important connections for far longer. john k (talk) 14:46, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe Red Hat accepts the definition explicitly excludes Ireland; he is pointing out a contradiction in the Preface. Þjóðólfr (talk) 14:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The definition says that up to 1949 "British Isles" was a term that included Ireland. It says that after 1949 it no longer included Ireland. It does not say that since 1949 the term has meant "the United Kingdom and the Isle of Man". That is one possibility, but it is just as logically coherent that since 1949 the term has been obsolete. john k (talk) 15:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

(indent) But based on that reference, and the others, it certainly is not logically coherent to say that the definition of "British Isles" is either uncontroversial or generally accepted. 213.155.151.233 (talk) 22:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

British history

May I ask for some outside opinion on this.

• For over three years, the British history page used to redirect to History of the British Isles. Þjóðólfr changed that recently as part of his campaign to remove the term from Wikipedia.
• Despite three editors undoing his work, Þjóðólfr keeps reverting to this version [10] which is bizarrely a disambiguation page for "History of Britain" and "New British History".
• MidnightBlueMan changed it [11] to redirect to History of Britain (seems sensible enough - History of Britain/British history), which he also changed to include Þjóðólfr's New British History link and History of the British Isles in a "See Also" section.

MidnightBlueMan's solution seems like a fair compromise, and I don't know why Þjóðólfr is continually reverting this. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 16:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The place to discuss this is ay Talk:British history Þjóðólfr (talk) 16:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Seeing as it's just you and me there, I thought it was appropriate to draw attention to what you are doing. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 16:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, if certain people are claiming that Ireland is in this "British Isles" and are then trying to put a link to that term under the British History page, then it is claiming that a history of the British Isles is British history and ipso facto a history of Ireland is British history. As we say at home, it's shit stirring. In fact, an article entitled History of the British Isles is just a blatantly politically-motivated attempt to make everything Irish British. 213.202.185.213 (talk) 17:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Amaideas as usual IP. The fact that "History of Britain" redirected to "History of the British Isles" signifies only that the history of Britain, being part of these British Isles, is a subset of the "History of the British Isles" and thus rather than having a distinct article (unnecessary given the size of articles on History of Scotland, History of England and History of Wales it redirected to here much. I mean honestly, do you ever stop to think how ridiculous, small minded and flatly anti-factual your POV is on this issue? Ireland was politically British, then most of it voted for independence and thus ceased to be politically British. This doesn't change the fact that Ireland as a whole was politically British and that the north remains so. And none of this has any bearing whatsoever on the fact that the island of Ireland is one of the islands that make up the geographical entity commonly and historically known as the British Isles. Get over it man and stop wasting so much of other peoples time. siarach (talk) 17:30, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Ehm, would Siarach care to list the dates when "Ireland as a whole was politically British" and compare that duration to the periods when Ireland as a whole was not politically British? 86.45.178.188 (talk) 00:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. Given that the relevant part was the sentence which followed: "And none of this has any bearing whatsoever on the fact that the island of Ireland is one of the islands that make up the geographical entity commonly and historically known as the British Isles." No i won't. siarach (talk) 14:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Given that references show that the changes in the political situation have had a direct impact on the naming convention, it has an extremely large bearing on whether the islands are commonly now or were historically commonly known as the British Isles. 213.155.151.233 (talk) 22:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Dubious tag

Hi. I removed a "Dubious" tag which was placed in July. There's been no discussion about the tag, and the text in the relevant sentence is supported by two good references that say exactly what's in the text. The tag is unjustified. A user called "BritishWatcher" immediately reverted my change. Now, I don't want to be impolite, but the reversion is not justified, nor is the "Dubious" tag. Unless there's some source which says something different to what's in the sources supplied, and none has been offered, BritishWatcher is reverting a good change. 213.155.151.233 (talk) 23:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Britain and Ireland is a term used for describing the two sovereign states. Britain and Ireland is NOT an alternative for the British isles because it does not include all parts of the British Isles. How can Britain and Ireland be an alternative name for a location which includes other places like the Isle of Man and Channel islands?

I dont doubt that "Britain and Ireland" is said more now but saying its an alternative name is not the same thing which is why someone added the dubious tag, or atleast that is why i have a problem with it. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

But the references say it is. It doesn't matter what you think or I think. We can use "preferred" or "favoured" which is what's in the references, IIRC - but we cannot put tags on text because you "have a problem with it". I'll rephrase to reflect more exactly the reference and then I expect no further reversions unless there's something beyond someone having "a problem with it". 213.155.151.233 (talk) 00:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I'll give British Watcher the opportunity to put in the improved text. "Although still used as a geographic term, the controversy means that expressions such as "Britain and Ireland" are more favoured.[16][17]". It seems only fair to give him the chance to do that. This text is pretty much exactly what the sources say. 213.155.151.233 (talk) 00:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I have to say, BW, the references do support that. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

That sentence is much better than the current wording, but i did not add the tag so we should wait for who did to avoid an edit war.. this article has only been unlocked for a short while, we dont want it protected again. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record, here are a few links to sources where "Britain and Ireland" can reasonably be said to be used as an alternative to BI. Whether this constitutes an alternative "name" or just an alternative choice in wording is debatable, but I bet 20 years ago almost all of these would have used BI rather than B & I. [12]; [13]; [14]; [15] Nuclare (talk) 03:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

These are just talking about the states or short for the island of Great Britain / Ireland. I agree with you in the past they may just of used British Isles, but that is still not the same as saying Britain and Ireland is an alternative name for the British Isles.

Basically, instead of using British Isles, some have chosen just to refer to the two states or the two islands of Great Britain and Ireland, but both of these leave out other parts of the British Isles, such as the Isle of man which is not part of the UK or the island of Great Britain. This is what causes the problem and the current wording in the article does not explain that, it makes the dubious claim that Britain and Ireland is an alternative name for the British Isles. BritishWatcher (talk) 03:44, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, by some very serious definitions, the Isle of Man is part of Britain. 213.155.151.233 (talk) 11:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the dubious tag is there because of use of the word "preferred".

The first source (pg.9 of British Culture of the Postwar...) is available on Googlebooks and does indeed use the word, but I can only read page 9 and the reference is at the bottom of the page so I'm not sure about the context and whether the author means "Britain and Ireland" is "preferred" in the regions referred to, which might be true (or not), or more generally, which would not agree with the preponderance of other sources suggesting otherwise.

The second source (The Reformation in Britain and Ireland: An Introduction) is also on Googlebooks. There is no page reference and a search for "Britain and Ireland" returned no results. The author does use the term "British Isles" 36 times though.

The dubious tag certainly could be applied to use of the second source; as for the first source it's one against thousands. Once the dubious tag is removed (when the second source goes) a new tag requesting more references could and should be added. I thought there was a tag for querying the validity of a source, but I cannot seem to find it. Wiki-Ed (talk) 09:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Next to the tag someones put the note "refers to the states, UK + RoI, not the archipelago" , thats the problem i have with the current wording and i never write those notes so must of been someone else. If we can reword it to say something like suggested by the IP above then its ok with me. The intro just needs to clearly point out Britain and Ireland is not an alternative name for the British Isles, its just said instead of it but doesnt include Isle of Man etc . BritishWatcher (talk) 09:55, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

As above, by some very serious definitions, Isle of Man is included. I may have to dig that one up again. I read it around here somewhere. OED, IIRC. 213.155.151.233 (talk) 11:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I dont understand how under any circumstances Britain and Ireland can include the isle of Man when its not part of the two islands and its not part of the sovereign states. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, although I don't have access to the book myself, another editor (and I've lost the darn page again) posted this as being from the SOED. Britain /brt()n/ n.1 [OE Breoten, Breten, Bryten f. L Brittones (see BRITON); later forms f. OFr. Bretaigne (mod. -agne), f. L Brittan(n)ia f. Brit(t)anni, corresp. to Gk Bret(t)anoi, Pret(t)anoi.] More fully (esp. as a political term) Great Britain. As a geographical and political term: (the main island and smaller offshore islands making up) England, Scotland, and Wales, sometimes with the Isle of Man. Also (as a political term) the United Kingdom, Britain and its dependencies, (formerly) the British Empire. So, it doesn't matter whether you understand it. Isle of Man may be part of Britain, so according to that source (which again, I don't have in front of me) it's not geographically incorrect to call the islands "Britain and Ireland". If you also wish to include the Channel Islands then there may be another discussion. 213.155.151.233 (talk) 13:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The second source [16] says "'Britain and Ireland' is the more favoured expression". For some bizarre reason the search doesn't pick it up if you type in "Britain and Ireland", but if you search for "more favoured" you will see it on p17. (The author says that there are "problems with that too" but he doesn't explain). The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 10:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, im fine with it saying more favoured expression (certainly more accurate than saying alternative name) , although we should add that there are also problems with that (as mentioned in the text). BritishWatcher (talk) 11:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Unless you can find explicit discussions of the problems with that term, it would be original research to say so in the article. The only claim that can be made at the moment is that the author of this book suggests there are problems with it. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 11:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Are we giving undue weight to this in the intro? Only two authors are cited as saying "Britain and Ireland" is "preferred" or "favoured" and one of them uses "British Isles" quite a lot. Flat Earth and all that. Wiki-Ed (talk) 12:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

They are describing what others are doing, rather than saying what they themselves prefer. Unless we have other authors who also say the contrary (that "British Isles" is as in vogue as it ever was), we aren't giving undue weight. We are using these authors as reliable sources to tell us what is happening "out there". The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 12:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Plus what they're saying is generally in line with Britannica and backed up by much of the other evidence (anecdotal or not) that's been discussed above. So, who's replacing the text and removing the "Dubious" tag? 213.155.151.233 (talk) 13:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

As Armand Tamzarian (aka Seymour Skinner) said, Done and done, and I mean done. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 13:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Minor change to lede

I made a (hopefully) un-controversial change to the lede- I amended physically to geographically. Didn't trawl through the whole history of the article to see whether this was in dispute- Stanstaple (talk) 18:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Absurd name

It's 2009 not 1709 so my question is: who uses this ridiculous term? I'm still waiting to hear an Irish person use it. The vast majority of Irish people I know would be deeply offended to be told they live in something called the "British Isles". It wouldn't even enter their thinking yet here we have a wikipedia article simply because it is an old way for British people to make their traditional colonial claim over Ireland and the Irish people. This is a partisan name and political viewpoint if ever there was one in the English language. To have it as a historical term on Wikipedia is one thing; to claim it is a modern term without enormous political connotations is plainly wrong and wholly contrived. Yours sincerely. 212.2.175.173 (talk) 14:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

What it is is the term that is most commonly used - both in historical and modern contexts - and this is the only relevant factor. siarach (talk) 15:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Check the archives, plenty of places and people in Ireland use it as has been referenced on many occasions. Canterbury Tail talk 16:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Many British people i know would be deeply offended if i said they lived in Europe.. it doesnt mean its not true =) BritishWatcher (talk) 17:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not siding with Mr. IP here, but I don't know of anyone who objects to the term 'Europe'. The BI dispute is about terminology. British objections to Europe are not terminology based. It's a different kind of issue. Nuclare (talk) 02:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I know some people who object to Britain being considered part of Europe (not the political part of Europe, but the well established geographical location known as Europe). That seems a bit like those who object to the idea that Ireland is part of the British Isles (another well established geographical location) BritishWatcher (talk) 03:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

But you are ignoring the fundamental point of my post: It's about terminology, NOT locations. My point was about the *name* "Europe", not it's boundaries. Do you know anyone who's objection is to the word "Europe"? What many Irish object to is not that Ireland is part of a geographic archepeligo; they object to their archipeligo being referred to as the "British Isles". *That* is the objection. That, unless you can prove otherwise, is not the British objection to Europe. Nuclare (talk) 03:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure i understand many just have a problem with the name "British Isles" which isnt a problem with Europe, but there are some who do not like the way Great Britain and Ireland are grouped together at all, even if it had a more neutral name. That is like British people rejecting the idea of being part of Europe. Anyway it wasnt a technical argument, was just another example of people not liking something but it not being able to change the reality of where we live. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, but that isn't the argument that was made here. We may not agree with the IP, but he did very much focus on the issue of the *name*. In any event, there are, actually, in *some* cases perfectly legitimate reasons to prefer that Ireland (for example) be discussed separatly rather than in a "All-islands" way because such approaches can often end up being very 'centralized' in nature, and meaningful issues can get lost amidst approaches that focus on the center of power, etc. in a broader area. Nuclare (talk) 03:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Spot on BritishWatcher. Many people in Wales and Scotland find being described as "British" every bit as objectionable as any Republican Irishman. Indeed some English nationalists reject being described as "British" as well and view the very idea of "Britishness" as being an attack upon English identity and feel that a massive double standard exists whereby 'Celtic' nationalism is accepted while the slightest hint of English nationalism is decried as inherently racist. Many Cornish now object to being described as English or Cornwall being described as part of England despite the fact that they are, and it is. Canadians are often offended when they are mistaken for 'Americans' but this doesn't change the fact that Canada is part of North America. Of course none of this politically/ethnically motivated stuff has the slightest bit of bearing upon geographical or political reality. siarach (talk) 17:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

"Cornish people" are English. English people, Welsh people and Scottish people are all British no matter how they feel about it or if they are separatists, this is simply the way of the world they are from Great Britain. That is different to the British Isles ofcourse where it doesnt imply all within the British Isles are British. In the case of Europe, British people are Europeans. Anyway the IP clearly was only here to cause trouble. BritishWatcher (talk) 03:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

That was exactly my point. Nationalist wishful thinking doesn't trump geographical/historical/political reality. siarach (talk) 10:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed BritishWatcher (talk) 12:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

It is a fact that Nationalist wishful thinking is trumping geographical/historical/political reality on this page at the moment. British Nationalists have imposed, without reliable sources, the fact that the term is simply geographical ^fact?; that it does not have a historical/political context^fact?; and that The British Isles first appeared in the writings of travellers from the ancient Greek colony of Massalia^fact?Þjóðólfr (talk) 20:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Fact The British Isles are a "group of islands off the northwestern coast of Europe (consisting of) two main islands, Great Britain and Ireland, and numerous smaller islands and island groups, including the Hebrides, the Shetland Islands, the Orkney Islands, the Isles of Scilly, and the Isle of Man". [17] I'd be interested to hear you explain how that is not a geographical description? Actually, come to think of it, no I wouldn't. I've heard it all a thousand times. Go away and come back when the rest of the world redefines it in the way you want. Until then, stop trying to right WP:GREATWRONGS. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 22:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Britannica says it is a group. Not they are, it is. Apart from that, various sources have described the term as politically loaded, or similar, so it's at least widely seen as not "merely" geographical. 86.41.176.148 (talk) 22:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The European Union also clearly says its only a geographical term. [18] BritishWatcher (talk) 23:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes. It does. Others also say it's politically loaded. 86.41.176.148 (talk) 23:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The content of this article is irrelevant to me. Wanna have it as 'BI is no longer used' or 'is still most commonly used' etc, matters not. However, the title of this article shall remain, as the term does/did exist. GoodDay (talk) 22:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Some people just don't get it. Even if the term was politically/ethnically (and it is not, the "British" ethnic group of the "British Isles" no longer exist, with linguistic remnants/descendants in Wales and Britanny) loaded rather than geographical that wouldnt matter one bit. What matters is that this term is the one most commonly used for what the article covers and this is all that matters to wikipedia. Wikipedia does not play politics, and does not pander to nationalist POV pushers who are determined to change language and push neologisms to replace terms they find objectionable whether their objections are valid or not - and in this instance the objections are utterly lacking in validity and are simply a clear cut example of the most small minded petty nationalist POV pushing in the face of all fact and reasoned argument. siarach (talk) 23:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

"Actually, come to think of it, no I wouldn't. I've heard it all a thousand times. Go away and come back when the rest of the world redefines it in the way you want." Well said Red Hat. I was going to make that point myself - after all we've got 30+ worth of archived discussion for this article, most of which relates to this bloody issue. Some people on wikipedia seem pathalogically incapable of understanding that what they want to be true has no bearing upon what is true. Whatever the merits or flaws of the term "British Isles" (and the complaints against it are generally rooted in hardcore Irish-republican fantasy and pseudo-history) this term remains far and away the most commonly used piece of nomenclature for these islands and until that changes the article title will remain what it is. siarach (talk) 23:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I actually thought that the term 'British Isles' was defunct until I started editing Wikipedia. I see pov-pushing British nationalism is alive and well with the above remarks in place, thanks to Mr Siarach, sheesh. Tfz 23:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Obviously you didn't do much reading around then, Tfz. [19] You see, if you and Poolfr had your way, anyone coming fresh to this article would think that too. Even though, as you'll see if you click on that link, over half a million books have been published since 1990 using the term. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Me, a British PoV pusher? No way, Jose. GoodDay (talk) 23:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I see pov-pushing British nationalism is alive and well with the above remarks in place, thanks to Mr Siarach. Sure. Because if there's one thing native Gaelic-speaking Catholics like me are known for it's our fervent British nationalism. The facts are what they are; that you find them irritating is utterly irrelevant. siarach (talk) 23:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

lmao BritishWatcher (talk) 23:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

That you *don't* find BI irritating is also utterly irrelevant. I don't think this page should be moved and I don't object to you criticizing some of the rhetoric used here against the page name, but the *manner* in which you speak of "facts" here as if names are Unchanging Absolutes and dismiss this issue as the work of only a few nationalist pov pushers means that you are also willing to dismiss evidence and reliable sources, just as you accuse others of doing. There are historians and other scholars who avoid BI and/or who comment on the problematic nature of the term. The two main govts of the islands avoid or discourage BI. The Council created for the islands doesn't even use the name that you say is so undeniably its factual name. There are map makers who have made choices that evidence BI is not so irrefuately accepted as the name for the islands. Your comment that the "British" of "British Isles" is just some now-defunct tribe and, therefore, it is just a neutral term is nice, but perhaps wishful thinking based on my experience of seeing/hearing again and again and again Ireland and the Irish described as British, and sometimes with the justification that they are part of the British Isles. Nuclare (talk) 03:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Nuclare, don't assume that those of us who believe British Isles is the best title for this page are not unsympathetic to what you say. I do understand your irritation when the Irish are described as British, but it is probably by those same people who think that Britain is part of England; who assume because they know someone in London that you, living 200 miles away, will also know them; and who can't comprehend that English is the language spoken in England. All you can do in those circumstances is pity their lack of education and gently put them right (if they haven't lost interest already and got out the photos of that friend in London who you are sure to know). Most of us do accept that the term is sensitive in Ireland, and have no objection to that being pointed out. What we object to is false or exaggerated claims being made to justify a personal view that the term should not be used - Anywhere - Ever. Skinsmoke (talk) 07:48, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Since I think BI should stay where it is, why would I make such an assumption? I'm not assuming anything. The collective nature of Siarach's comments suggests that he has no sense at all of why anyone would dislike the term without being a raging nationalist nutjob. After all, the British don't even exist anymore, according to him. But it does not take ignornance to think that something being called British is being called British. The ignorant people you are referring to, of course, are a subset of those who think the Irish are British. But they are not alone. The British themselves are problably the most guilty of this. Nuclare (talk) 11:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

This really is like banging your head into a wall. "That you *don't* find BI irritating is also utterly irrelevant." Exactly - and that is the point i was making as was perfectly clear. Whatever ones POV on the validity of the term it remains far and away the most commonly used piece of nomenclature for what the article describes and THIS is the only relevant factor. It really is not that hard to understand. Do yourself a favour and read through the relevant guidelines on this issue - already posted by Red Hat Wikipedia:GREATWRONGS#Righting_Great_Wrongs. Wikipedia is not some plaything for you and others to crusade around righting what you percieve to be various bits of odious Imperialist language. Should the day come when "British Isles" is no longer what the British Isles are generally known as then this article will indeed have a change of title. Until then it will remain as it is and rightly so. siarach (talk) 09:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, keep banging your head away then, siarach. :-) As it is impossible to count how many times a term isn't used, the extent to which BI is no longer accepted or used as a name is quite difficult to measure. Not to mention that some people here are denying the obvious, which is that 'Britain and Ireland' is used as an alternative. Whether it is a perfect alternative is as irrelevant as our feelings about 'BI'. But "BI" is still used enough that I don't think a move is a good idea. Nuclare (talk) 11:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

There must be myriad 'alternatives' to every single article title on wikipedia but that doesn't matter. Leaving aside the inherent flaw of "Britain and Ireland" (what about my island - Lewis? or every other island in this archipelago which isn't Great Britain or Ireland?) what wikipedia uses is the most commonly used/referenced/accepted piece of nomenclature which is demonstrably and overwhelmingly "British Isles". Should there come a day when "Britain and Ireland" is more demonstrably the orthodox, most commonly used, term then it will - despite explicitly excluding all islands but 2 of the British Isles - become the article title as it will then fulfil the necessary criteria. siarach (talk) 12:18, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Umm, no it won't. This article will always be so-named, even if only as a reference to a historical term. There are other articles covering the other terms and if at some point in th future one of them becomes fully accepted as a viable alternative then the wording of both articles can be adjusted. Wiki-Ed (talk) 12:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Certainly if the Welsh and the Scots objected to the to the term, then it would be defunct very quickly, but still be worth a page about a defunct term. Remembering Culloden, and Wales demotion to 'permanent principality' makes me wonder how long? Tfz 14:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Probably more chance of the English objecting to it. After all, the Welsh and Cornish are the only true Britons among us. Skinsmoke (talk) 16:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Let me get this correct: the proponents of the term "British Isles" object to "Britain and Ireland" (or its variants) as a more accurate name because it doesn't include all the "British" isles. So they can find affront in this but no affront at all in Irish people not being British but being told that they are in this "British Isles" entity nevertheless. Shoving Ireland (a major island in the scheme of things) into an archipelago named after another country, Great Britain, is accurate, but shoving a few glorified rocks like Lewis (minor isles at best) under the name 'Great Britain and Ireland' is not accurate? It sounds like some people have a very selective approach to accuracy. 78.16.173.186 (talk) 16:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Without getting into debate on this, for that go on forever, my observation is that the Welsh are least 'attached' to it, and probably for that matter the Cornish too. I often notice that Unionists, as in UK unionism, are the most fervent supporters. Was in northern GB recently, and noticed that quite strongly. Tfz 16:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Northern GB? You mean Scotland or Northern England? Just curious. Skinsmoke (talk) 16:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Northern Scotland in fact, three days on a short holiday, and had a good time there. Tfz 18:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes I can see that Scottish unionists would be wedded to the British idea. It all really depends on context. Here in England it tends to be Afro-Caribbean and Asian communities that are most wedded to the idea of Britishness, and less so to Englishness. Skinsmoke (talk) 23:36, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that the term "Great Britain" clearly includes the Hebrides, the Isle of Wight, Anglesey, the Orkneys, the Shetlands, etc. Those were all part of the Kingdom of Great Britain, and each today is part of England, Wales, or Scotland, which together form Great Britain. The Isle of Man, however, is not part of Great Britain, and it is not part of Ireland. The term "Great Britain and Ireland" clearly excludes the Isle of Man, and always has done (the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, for example, did not include the Isle of Man). If you want to indicate Great Britain, Ireland, and the Isle of Man, as far as I am aware, "British Isles" is the only term in common use. john k (talk) 21:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Yep i dont know of another term which includes everything the British Isles does. The Isle of Wight is certainly part of Great Britain just the way Great Britain is part of Europe despite there being a little bit of water. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Why would "Great Britain" include the Outer Hebrides and not Ireland when they are further away from Great Britain than is Ireland? siarach (talk) 23:18, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Because, at the present time, the Outer Hebrides are part of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It therefore sticks in minds that they are part of Great Britain, as they are obviously not part of Northern Ireland. Skinsmoke (talk) 23:36, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Great Britain is one island, Lewis is another island of course. Anything else is the stuff of 'Alice in Wonderland', isn't it? Tfz 23:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

If we were talking politics that might be fair enough Skinsmoke. However we are talking geography here and it seems bizarre, and quite arbitrary, to say that a set of islands is somehow part of a bigger, neighbouring, island while another island which is actually closer to this big island is not. siarach (talk) 23:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

But of course politics is part of this. Lewis is part of Scotland which is part of Great Britain, although obviously not the island of Great Britain. john k (talk) 00:57, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

No. The Outer Hebrides, Lewis, the Isle or Wight etc are not part of the island of Great Britain (a geographical entity), they are, however, part of the United Kingdom (a political entity). 'Terminological inexactitude' is not a good idea with this article/talk page. Wiki-Ed (talk) 09:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Great Britain is an island, certainly. But it is also a political term which refers to all of England, Scotland, and Wales, whether on the island of Great Britain or not. Lewis, Skye, the Isle of Wight, and Orkney are all in Great Britain. The Isle of Man, however, is not. john k (talk) 03:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Since you lot are all too busy arguing and being sure that you're already right to bother reading information that's provided posted, try reading this - which was posted only a few days ago.
"Well, although I don't have access to the book myself, another editor (and I've lost the darn page again) posted this as being from the SOED. Britain /brt()n/ n.1 [OE Breoten, Breten, Bryten f. L Brittones (see BRITON); later forms f. OFr. Bretaigne (mod. -agne), f. L Brittan(n)ia f. Brit(t)anni, corresp. to Gk Bret(t)anoi, Pret(t)anoi.] More fully (esp. as a political term) Great Britain. As a geographical and political term: (the main island and smaller offshore islands making up) England, Scotland, and Wales, sometimes with the Isle of Man. Also (as a political term) the United Kingdom, Britain and its dependencies, (formerly) the British Empire. So, it doesn't matter whether you understand it. Isle of Man may be part of Britain, so according to that source (which again, I don't have in front of me) it's not geographically incorrect to call the islands "Britain and Ireland". If you also wish to include the Channel Islands then there may be another discussion."
So, if the reference is correct (and I don't have it so I can't verify) then Britain includes its smaller islands like Lewis, etc, AND may include the Isle of Man. 86.45.181.172 (talk) 10:03, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Wonderful, however i suggest you take this up at the article on Great Britain if you seek to include other places as part of Great Britain thats a matter for them there to decide. Once that article says the isle of man and channel islands are part of Great Britain then i will be more prepared to accept that there is an alternative term to the British Isles.. not that it would justify a name change of this article. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:30, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Amusing, we don't even know what 'Great Britain' includes, this exposes the problem about naming styles and conventions, if they exist at all. All these terms are subjective, they mean different things to different people, and context is very important too. Tfz 15:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Why do we keep switching randomly between 'Britain' and 'Great Britain'??? The Wiki article on GB is sort of interesting, since it avoids the other use of GB that does or at least has existed: that of Great Britain as being the -- for lack of a better word --'country' that resulted from the union of Scotland with England/Wales. Under that definition the small islands would be included, which would make "U.K. of GB & NI" make a bit more sense. Nuclare (talk) 15:38, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

This page is not a general discussion forum. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 15:39, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

This bears on the lede. Great Britain appears to be all of the British islands, and include Lewis and Skye and the rest. Is that so? Tfz 16:03, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

What is this "lede" word that keeps popping up? It's not in my OED. Wiki-Ed (talk) 19:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Lede = lead (as in the intro) not sure why its spelt that way though BritishWatcher (talk) 20:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

You have the United States of Americans to thank for that spelling. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 20:57, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm originally from the USA-California to be precise, and I have never, ever seen lead spelt lede. Looks more like medieval English than American.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The situation is summed up admirably here - Great Britain#Political definition. Geographically speaking it's a single island. Politically - well read the definition but yes, it includes offshore islands, but not the Isle of Man. MidnightBlue (Talk) 16:56, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what other Wikipedia articles say, since they're not reputable sources, nor does it matter what MidnightBlueMan says about it being "Geographically a single island". OED - in at least one version - apparently says that Britain is "..As a geographical and political term: (the main island and smaller offshore islands making up) England, Scotland, and Wales, sometimes with the Isle of Man." Can anyone check this or shall we all just keep pretending our opinions matter more than dead pigeon poop? 83.147.165.129 (talk) 00:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Lets stick with the dead pigeon poop. thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 01:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The OED doesn't in general include definitions for proper nouns. The current (full) OED has no entry for Great Britain, for example, and the few entries it has for "Britain" seem irrelevant. It is an archaic spelling of "Briton" (an inhabitant of Britain), a type of cloth manufactured in Britainy, an adjective to describe things pertaining to Great Britain ("British" being the more common form of the adjective), and the plural "Britains" can refer to the British Empire. Finally, it refers to the phrase "to ___ for Britain" to mean to do something excessively ("for England" is the more usual form). The OED doesn't give any definition of what Britain or Great Britain actually is. —ras52 (talk) 20:17, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

If the source is correct, then OED seems to have given a definition of Britain in this case and it's a definition that's pretty straightforward. It says it's the main island and the smaller offshore islands, and that it sometimes includes the Isle of Man. That means Lewis, Wight, Orkneys, etc are included.
As for whether Britain and Ireland might mean a combination of a type of cloth manufactured in Brittany and the Man City player, I don't think many people would make that mistake.94.42.104.97 (talk) 10:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

No citation provided so no way to confirm; but my OED (as with Ras52's comments) certainly does not define it. In any case dictionaries do not make good sources for technical details. Wiki-Ed (talk) 12:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

SOED was mentioned. That's the Shorter version. I have a Compact OED that doesn't define British Isles, but that's not to say that other versions of the dictionary don't define British Isles, nor that such a definition exists. In any case, the composition of Britain is hardly a technical detail. 94.42.104.97 (talk) 13:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I think we might have to delete this entire article if the OED doesnt mention it ;) BritishWatcher (talk) 13:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

That might be true. All I know is that my Compact OED doesn't mention it. I suspect others do. However, the substantive point still remains that "Britain" includes all its small islands like Lewis, Wight, etc, and may also apparently sometimes include the Isle of Man. 193.186.4.1 (talk) 08:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Map of Flags

The United Kingdom's four constituent countries (England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales) and the Republic of Ireland.

The current image overlaying the countries with their flags isn't right. The problem is that Northern Ireland is showing the Union Jack, which implies that it is the flag for only that constituent country. England, Wales, Scotland show their own flags. Northern Ireland doesn't have a flag outside of the UJ. The image just gives the wrong impression. So the UK countries should show the UJ. Although in truth I believe the image isn't particularly necessary in the first place? Thoughts? --HighKing (talk) 00:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Correct - it might as well show the EU flag! NI doesnt have a flag of its own.--Vintagekits (talk) 00:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't be surprised to hear me say that using the UJ for Scotland, Wales and England is a bad idea. They have their own flags and if I understand it right N.Ireland doesn't. It's the N.Ireland flag issue that has to be sorted, not the others. Jack forbes (talk) 00:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, that was the reason I gave for removing the image, but an editor has reverted stating that the Union Jack is the flag to represent Northern Ireland. But the problem with the image is that as presented, it makes it look as if the UJ only represents NI. I know that Scotland, Wales and England have their own flags. But stepping back one step further, the image adds nothing to the article, really, and is not very clear. But having no idea if the 1RR rule is still in place (and assuming it is), I'm just pointing out my reasoning here to make a consensual decision. As it stands and with no replacement (corrected) image, I propose to just leave the image out of the article. --HighKing (talk) 00:55, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed the image should be removed completly or replaced with one that just has the union flag across the United Kingdom, although such an image then would be totally pointless really. Best to remove it fully. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Although it's a very nice piece of artwork, if, unlike the connoisseurs here, you don't know which flag is which, it's not a very helpful map either. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll take it upon myself to remove the image. I presume the 1rr rule doesn't apply here. If it does I'll just blame you lot. Jack forbes (talk) 06:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Why not use the Ulster Banner? It is used at the Commonwealth Games apparently. john k (talk) 15:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, if the Ulster Banner could be put in the image by the designer - User:TheBritishExplorer if I recall - then we should reinstate it. It's good artwork and emphasises the different nations of the islands. Mister Flash (talk) 16:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The Ulster Banner is not the flag of Northern Ireland currently, so it would be incorrect to put it in. And having the map in solely on the grounds that "it's good artwork" isn't a reason to have it in the article. Consensus seems to be that, despite the flags issue, the image has no reason to be in the article. It doesn't particularly add anything encyclopaedic to the article. Canterbury Tail talk 17:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

It's no longer the official flag, but it is still used as an unofficial flag, and is used in certain semi-formal contexts like the Commonwealth Games. Is there a particular objection to it? john k (talk) 18:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The particular objection would be that it is seen as a Loyalist and sectarian flag by one half of Northern Ireland and high contentious.--Vintagekits (talk) 08:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

It is not as though nationalists and republicans identify with the Union Jack, though. Anyway, I agree it's best to remove the map. john k (talk) 14:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank goodness that map was deleted. Even if Northern Ireland had a flag of it's own, such a map would be a headache. Imagine trying to explain (with such a map) that 4 of the 5 mapped sections 'are not' independant of each other? GoodDay (talk) 19:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

This is probably right - there's no real point to the map. john k (talk) 01:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

For God's sake let's not get into the NI flag issue here. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 09:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I reintroduced the map, but completely removed NI's flag with the legend "Northern Ireland". I do believe a potential reader to this article would like to be offered a visual explanation of the political structure that currently exists within the British Isles. --TheBritishExplorer (talk) 16:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

(conflict)Map's back, and it now looks good. What does it add? The flags of the nations for a start, which in an article about the British Isles is highly relevant. Before someone comes and deletes it let's get more views on this - if it's still an issue now that NI is flagless. Mister Flash (talk) 16:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no consensus to have the map, it adds nothing encyclopaedic to the article. I know you made it, and put a lot of work into it, but it seems people still don't see a reason for it to be in the article. Canterbury Tail talk 17:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

That map's gotta go, it looks like 5 independant countries. At the very least, have the Union Jack cover the entire United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 17:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

"Adds nothing encylopaedic[sic]"? If a map depicting political divisions within a geographical region is not encyclopedic, then, what exactly is encyclopedic to you? I ask you this question in a respectful manner. Cheers. --TheBritishExplorer (talk) 18:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Encyclopaedic is the correct British spelling, nothing archaic or incorrect about it. Canterbury Tail talk 18:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

It's too confusing. It creates the look of 5 independant countries. The Union Jack coverning the United Kingdom would make it less confusing. GoodDay (talk) 18:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree. It's too confusing. 213.155.151.233 (talk) 18:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Not confusing at all, even without the text. Anyway, the caption explains that it's two independent countries. Hell's teeth! Wikipedia readers are not, on the whole, stupid! Mister Flash (talk) 18:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I've put the map at the head of the discusson. Now, editors can view it & judge its appearance. GoodDay (talk) 18:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

How did I know you were going to do that? Am I sikic or something? Mister Flash (talk) 18:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Psychic? perhaps or I'm just very predictable. I figured, this would also be the best way to avoid edit wars. GoodDay (talk) 18:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The countries in question have varying degrees of independence. The RoI is sovereign, and independent in almost all respects (apart from a few vestigial bodies such as lighthouses and sea rescue, etc.). Scotland and NI are not sovereign but nevertheless have a large degree of independence, and Wales is autonomous. ðarkuncoll 19:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Would a map like this, and caption, be accepted for the "Political co-operation within the islands" section? Yes or no, and please say why so I can make the changes. Thank you.

Political structure within the British Isles.

--TheBritishExplorer (talk) 20:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The map on the left will do. Remember, this topic (BI) deals with Rep. of Ireland & the United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 20:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I support the dual map. BI deals with all the constituent countries, not just the UK and Ireland. Mister Flash (talk) 20:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

To be quite honest. I'm not too happy about having 'any' political map at this article. The British Isles (or whatever ya want to call it) is made up of islands -mainly Ireland and Great Britain. Thus geographic maps are preffered. GoodDay (talk) 20:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

There is a political co-operation section, so an accompanying map would be useful. (TheBritishExplorer - can you adjust the English flag for correct dimensions of the cross in the right-hand image. Even if we don't use the map in this article I wouldn't mind a copy of it for my own use, if that's OK) Mister Flash (talk) 20:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback Mister Flash and the rest of you as well. I'll get to work to correct the dimensions of England's flag. I release all my images to the public domain, thus, you can all have a copy and modify it as you wish. Cheers. --TheBritishExplorer (talk) 20:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks. Mister Flash (talk) 20:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

How about having a single flag for the whole of Ireland? Either the cross of St Patrick or something else. Ireland is a country, but both the RoI and NI are artificial, gerrymandered states. ðarkuncoll 21:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it could work. Such a map would not be a political statement at all and would reflect nationality and ethnicity rather than politics. Mister Flash (talk) 21:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

As the isle of man is not part of the UK I assume the union Jack does not represent them? Jack forbes (talk) 21:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Just remember folks, get a consensus 'first' before adding any of those proposed maps. The last thing we need on this article is more edit warring. GoodDay (talk) 21:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Answer one question for me please. How does this map, or any variation thereof, help the reader in the encyclopaedic understanding of political co-operation within the islands? How does having the extra weight and bandwidth of the image illustrate it better than a sentence? Canterbury Tail talk 21:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't. The map does not even take into consideration the Isle of Man. I agree with Canterbury, it brings no encyclopedic knowledge that can't be better told in text. Jack forbes (talk) 21:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry folks, I see these proposed maps as potential powdered kegs. GoodDay (talk) 22:11, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The first problem that rises when one tries to answer Canterbury Tail's question about the nature of "encyclopedicness", is that it's very challenging to actually draw a line between what's encyclopedic and what's not. Because the answer to this question depends on who is asked. There are projects, such as traditional encyclopedias, where editorial boards and professional staff define what's going in and what's not, we don't have that luxury.

In my experience, when one tries to explain the nature of geo-political and cultural divisions, it's rather important to count with a strong visual element. For instance take a look at articles such as Ethnic groups in Europe, Languages of Mexico, or simply Africa. The added visual elements, in the form of maps, add more that one can put into words. --TheBritishExplorer (talk) 22:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Imagine though, for a moment, that you are not familiar with the countries' flags. Then this map is not very useful. I can see the value of a map, but with shading and a label/legend rather than filling the space with part of the flag. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree. A map helps make things clearer, but covering it in flags make it incomprehensible to many, and adds no extra info for those who do know what the flags are. However it is done, the map needs to clearly show that Ireland is a sovereign state, while Scotland etc are not. --hippo43 (talk) 23:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I don;t see that the map adds anything of value to be honest (however pretty and however much effort went into it). The circle around the BI on the wider map of Europe is more informative. A map with flags just does not work due the problems over NI. --Snowded ^TALK 00:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

A very important point made by The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick was, as he or she put it, "Imagine though, for a moment, that you are not familiar with the countries' flags. Then this map is not very useful". Thus, I added a table to the bottom of the image that lists both the sovereign states and constituent countries in the isles. I hope this helps. Thanks for the feedback. --TheBritishExplorer (talk) 01:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Although I appreciate the effort you've put in, I don't see the point of this. In what way does covering a map in flags make it any clearer or more useful to readers? What is wrong with shading, or text, to indicate which country is which? To me, this is far more likely to confuse than clarify. --hippo43 (talk) 03:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

And its a bit reminiscent of the credits to Dad's Army. I keep expecting the Irish and UK flags to sprout little arrows attacking each other over the Northern Ireland/Republic of Ireland border. Skinsmoke (talk) 04:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

And what do you know, after years of claiming the "British Isles" is a harmless apolitical term, our nationalist friends over in Britain want to plaster political flags all over the article. Well, honesty comes dropping slowly. This article remains a complete joke sustained and edited by flag-waving John Bull types. Dunlavin Green (talk) 05:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it's pretty neat, and not at all confusing, certainly with the legend. It'd be nice if it showed the Isle of Man separately, though. john k (talk) 04:46, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Its a geographical term declining (slowly) in use, its worthy of note that there are two nation states but the map adds nothing, the flags either on their own or as a part of the map add nothing. The different country articles all have that material. This is an unnecessary addition, please can we just forget it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snowded (talk • contribs) 05:30, 20 August 2009

Don't agree with the assertion that the term is declining in usage, but do agree that the map it not useful - let's not fan the flames by adding unnecessary pictures. Wiki-Ed (talk) 09:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Dunlavin Green - you just can't help it can you? Every time there's a reasonable debate about something you have to jump in with your nasty insinuations. Is it just me, or are any other editors getting fed up with the utter garbage we keep getting from this unwanted contributor? Mister Flash (talk) 15:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I let the administrators judge DG's contributions. GoodDay (talk) 19:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

So, going back to the map discussion, I replaced the superimposed flags with small ones. Also, I added the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands to the mix as suggested by John Kenney. I think that a potential reader to this article would like to actually see how the political structure within the isles relates to the geographical one. Just my humble opinion. Cheers. --TheBritishExplorer (talk) 19:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Again, such a map is a potential powdered keg & it doesn't add anything to the article. Exspecially with the England/Scotland/Northern Ireland/Wales coloring. Recommend the proposals be dropped. GoodDay (talk) 19:42, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

How so? Give me suggestions on how to "empty" the keg. Also, what's the problem with the coloring? Please give me a sound suggestion and I'll do it. --TheBritishExplorer (talk) 20:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

There's no consensus to add any of these maps, in fact most editors here oppose their insertion. Pushing for it's insertion 'might' cause frustration. GoodDay (talk) 20:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'll give it up since you seem to be opposing the motion and seem to be a well-mannered and educated editor. It's a pity since I spent several hours working on them. Tough luck. Cheers.--TheBritishExplorer (talk) 20:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Rugby Team

Why do we have the completely irrelevant statement about the British and Irish Lions renaming? Unless we have a reference for the reason the team was renamed then we should remove the sentence. Mister Flash (talk) 18:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

It's hardly irrelevant. It's an example of a different name being used. The renaming is fact, notable, and verifiable. 213.155.151.233 (talk) 22:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not so sure it is notable or verifiable - we still don't have a reliable source which documents when the renaming happened or why. --hippo43 (talk) 23:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. How do we know the name wasn't changed because it rolls off the tongue easier? Unless a reference is forthcoming, it should stay out of that section. And besides, it is already mentioned in the sport section. I was WP:BOLD and deleted it from the "alternative names" section. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

A cross border institution changing its name is notable, no claim is made as to particular motivation --Snowded ^TALK 00:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

If it's simply a case of being notable, it is already mentioned in the Sports section, so that's covered. If it's notable because you think it reflects changing attitudes to the name, then you need to provide a reference for that, otherwise, just like the road atlas titles, it's original research. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clear, this is what the sports section says "The British and Irish Lions is a team made up of players from England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales that undertakes tours of the southern hemisphere rugby playing nations every four years. This team was formerly known as The British Isles or colloquially as "The British Lions", but was renamed as "The British and Irish Lions" in 2001. Ireland play as a united team, represented by players from both Northern Ireland and the Republic." That satisfies your "notability" issue (it's mentioned), and it avoids the lack-of-reference issue (it's not in a section about the disputed name, thereby implying something, even if not explicitly stated, which has no reference). The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec)You are in breech of BRD Red Hat, a suggest you self revert and discuss rather than edit warring. The section concerned is about alternative uses, it makes no reference to controversy. No claim is made as to motivation, but a verifiable fact is made. The fact it is also mentioned in the sports section does not invalidate it here. In practice there has been controversy in the past, with issues about Rugby Union being seen as a "west brit" sport, hence all the controversy over using Croker Park for the Irish National Rugby team (at one point two years ago it looked they would have to play at the Millennium Stadium while Landsdown Road was redeveloped. Now I don't think the article would be much helped by recording all of those various controversies. In the meantime a section on alternative names can legitimately give examples of name changes without it being called original research, provided no additional claims are made. --Snowded ^TALK 00:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec)And a further point, we never actually found a reference confirming that they did officially change their name [20] The only reference I uncovered (the Times Style Guide) says "officially the touring rugby union team is known as the British Isles; alternatively, the Lions". [21] So that reference contradicts what you are claiming is notable. I'd honestly be interested if anyone can resolve that. And if while doing that anyone can come up with a reference that the name change was due to sensitivities, great, that can go back in the article, explicitly stating so. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

ast time I looked the Lions web site history section showed the names over different periods. That aside Redhat you are not addressing the BRD issue. Please do so. --Snowded ^TALK 01:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

A statement that a rugby team dropped "British Isles" from their name in a section about the controversy is clearly implying something for which a reference is required. My edit did not remove any information from the article, so there is no reason for you to object, unless you want the article to claim (by implication or otherwise) that the team was renamed because of the controversy. Such a claim requires a reference, per WP:NOR, as I'd hope anyone with aspirations of adminship would understand. Re BRD, my understanding is that it is no longer in force. I object to it anyway, as it's just a convenient excuse to undo someone's edits confident that you won't get reverted yourself. Besides, you didn't even let it stand for 5 minutes to see what the reaction was (on the talk page) to my edit. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Please get your facts right. It is not in a section on :controversy" it is in a section on alternative names. The Lions adopted an alternative name in 2001 - fact. Your assumption as to my motivations is not correct. A stated and verifiable fact does not fall foul of OR unless some additional claim is made. BRD has no requirement to allow a disputed edit to stand. BRD is a generic WIkipedia policy, while the 1RR rule may not be in force that doesn't matter. --Snowded ^TALK 01:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

AFAIK, BRD is not a policy, or even a guideline - just an essay. --hippo43 (talk) 03:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I am confident I have my facts straight. You, however, are putting a spin on the facts. Can you not see how you are doing that? To repeat: what is your evidence that the rugby team sought (ie there was explicit intent on their part) an "alternative term" for "British Isles"? And before we even deal with that, how do you square this with the only reference put forward thus far, which actually says that they are still officially the British Isles Lions? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Confidence and reality are not the same thing. The section is not about controversy. The name change is verifiable against the official web site. Explicit intent is not required for notability. One of the whole issues here is that changes happen over time, and in this section examples are given of the emergence of those changes. It really isn't controversial and the section would benefit from more examples without statements bout motivation, or a requirement for motivation. Why can't you see that? --Snowded ^TALK 01:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Snowded, I couldn't find anything to verify the name change on the Lions website - could you point it out? --hippo43 (talk) 03:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

This section is about alternative names for the British Isles. Where we have references showing that organisations are conciously preferring alternative names for the British Isles, we are stating that, along with the reference. As far as the rugby team is concerned, we have a team that used to call itself the British Isles Lions, and which now goes under the monicker of the British & Irish Lions (assuming that the Times is wrong, which will have to be dealt with: it cannot simply be brushed under the carpet). All that can be concluded is that a rugby team have renamed themselves. We cannot conclude, in the absence of a reference, and without resorting to synthesis, that this is an example of an alternative name for the British Isles. Furthermore, its mere presence there following the statements about Folens and NatGeo conciously dropping the term is also clearly implying that there was a similar concious decision taken to drop the term by the rugby team.The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:46, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

If an international team stops calling itself "British Isles X" and starts calling itself "British and Irish X" and that fact is verifiable then it is notable in the context of a section called "alternative names". All that is concluded is that a rugby team has renamed themselves. The sequencing point is a good one, and it might be a lot better, rather than deleting the Lions reference, to rewrite the section simply as a series of examples of name changes. You have not addressed BRD and obviously feel that you are exempt from the rule if you think you are right :-). One of these days I may come to understand why a dedicated editor such as yourself has such a blind spot about using BI as a term, but in the meantime I am going back to bed. In the words of the Times (sic), for the moment this correspondence must cease --Snowded ^TALK 01:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I rather think that the blind spot is with you and your ability to "sniff out" synthesis. But I'm sure there will be much to be said about this tomorrow when the usual suspects (on both sides) awake. Sweet dreams... The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 02:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

(Teletubbies baby-sun rises over the horizon[22])

If I might quote at length from WP:NOR: "Information in an article must be verifiable in the references cited. Article statements generally should not rely on unclear or inconsistent passages nor on passing comments. Passages open to multiple interpretations should be precisely cited or avoided. A summary of extensive discussion should reflect the conclusions of the source's author(s). Drawing conclusions not evident in the reference is original research regardless of the type of source. It is important that references be cited in context and on topic."

The random excerpts are being weeded out on this basis. If there are sources discussing the etymological developments of the term in recent years then we can include their conclusions. We cannot collect and use material from unrelated sources and combine them to support arguments like this.

As for BRD, it appears to have lapsed because SheffieldSteel is no longer enforcing it. There has been a lot more discussion and a lot less edit warring - I thought we were doing quite well up until now. Wiki-Ed (talk) 09:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

No. It lapsed because other admins decided to specifically *not* enforce it. Their perogative I suppose, but it'll just end up in more reverting and edit warring. Speaking of which, I've reverted the changes recently made since it's still being discussed and has not been agreed. This does not endorse a specific version - just that it would be far better to agree the text before multiple attempts at changing. --HighKing (talk) 12:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

HighKing, not sure why you reverted my changes to the sport section - I made some small tweaks to the language which were not political. Nobody has presented a source which shows the Lions were renamed in 2001, but the team has certainly been called the British & Irish Lions since at least then. There has been a bit of discussion on this at British and Irish Lions, where I was involved - my version was hardly controversial. --hippo43 (talk) 12:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Not sure why you're not sure. I explained the reason to the revert above. Discussion is still ongoing. Is it such a big deal to wait? --HighKing (talk) 13:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Wait for what? Where is the discussion above about the small, uncontroversial changes I made? The discussion above is largely about whether to include the name change in a section about name changes, not the sport section. Why did you revert the changes I made? Were they in some way contentious? --92.41.121.78 (talk) 14:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Wait for the discussion to reach a consensus. I've merely reverted to a version that predates the discussion and are not an endorsement of any particular version, nor a disagreement with any particular edits. But while discussion is taking place, it is best to avoid editing the article text, especially text that is involved in the discussion. --HighKing (talk) 15:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

As nobody has objected to the substance of the minor changes I made to the Sport section, I've restored them. The language is consistent with the British & Irish Lions article, and with the sources available. If anyone does disagree, I'm happy to discuss. --hippo43 (talk) 16:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd prefer something closer to team was officially known as the British Isles, usually referred to as the British Lions, though they are now known as the British and Irish Lions since the "British Lions" was not an "official" name even though it was widely used. The current text loses an semblence of this distinction. --HighKing (talk) 16:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

That makes sense. My concern is that sources on this are contradictory. It's not as simple as saying that 'British Isles' was the 'official' name and 'British Lions' was just a nickname - I don't know how we define an 'official name', and 'British Lions' was certainly used in official contexts, most heavily from 1986 onwards. Indeed, the parent company today is British Lions Ltd, apparently only registered in 2005, which suggests a degree of officialness.

By saying "the team was officially..." it implies that there is now a different official name - as far as I can see, we don't have a reliable source which confirms that the 'official' name is now the British & Irish Lions or anything else. If we rely on the prevalent, but not exclusive, current usage (British & Irish Lions) to establish officialness, we would need to do the same for past names, and particularly in the late 1980s, 'British Lions' was overwhelmingly used, in almost every context. --hippo43 (talk) 17:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to resolve how to mention changing terms

We've bumped into this topic before - for example the atlases and now the rugby team. Some editors argue that instances of changing use cannot imply that these changes are a result of dissatisfaction with the term "British Isles" unless specifically stated. Other editors point out that these changes are notable and should be mentioned. Does it make sense to simply move all of the references to a new section as a list, with no commentary? --HighKing (talk) 12:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Does a secondary source describe such changes as notable? Do any secondary sources discuss the pattern (or not) of name changes? Are there examples of bodies changing from 'Britain & Ireland' to 'British Isles'? (Has anyone looked for them?) Including such a list here, among all the stuff about the name being controversial, is implying significance to these name changes. Unless a source ascribes a reason for the change, I can't see any relevance to an article about the islands. --hippo43 (talk) 13:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The standards for notability you're quoting above apply to articles, not for content on articles. Content is decided, ultimately, by consensus, and guided by policies. Including a list of name changes in the article in a seperate section is designed to reduce the current edit warring over inference of motivation for the name changes, while still satisfying those editors that believe that noting the name changes over time deserves mention. Neither does the list have to be limited to a one-way change in usage. I agree that the list absolutely must mention changes *to* usage of British Isles. --HighKing (talk) 13:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't quoting any standards for notability, or any specific policy, and I wasn't referring to articles. However, per various policies, material (not articles) in Wikipedia needs to be sourced, and needs to reflect the weight of coverage the subject receives in reliable sources. I have no problem with the atlas examples which are sourced, but the Lions name change, or any reasons for it, is not yet referenced. No source has been provided which documents it being changed, never mind why it was apparently changed. Your proposed list of name changes obviously implies significance, otherwise why would it be in the article? Again, do any sources actually discuss a pattern or trend of name changes, for any reason? Or does an example of such a list appear in a reliable source? If not, we would be giving undue weight to the idea of a trend in name changes. Also, if no research has been published on these name changes, or the extent of them, to publish a list of examples found by wikipedia editors would be OR. --hippo43 (talk) 15:35, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

You were asking for secondary sources to describe such changes as notable. I was merely pointing out these standards apply to articles. I did not state that you were quoting standards or policy. But I'm puzzled as to why you request secondary articles on notability for content if they are not required? And of course material will be sourced. That's pretty simple on the face of it - point to an old reference using one term, and a new reference with the other term. You also appear to be requesting that sources discuss a pattern or trend - this is also not a requirement for content or inclusion of a list. You also ask if a list appears in a reliable source - this is also not a requirement for inclusion, etc, etc. Including a list is not OR either. It appears that perhaps you don't agree that any mention should be made in the article. If this is so, can we have a proper discussion about the why's and why-not's so that we can address whatever the underlying issue might be? --HighKing (talk) 15:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

You wrote "The standards for notability you're quoting above apply to articles...", so you'll understand why I got the impression that you did state I was quoting standards.

As discussed at length above re atlases, a source using one term and a later source using a different term does not prove that any renaming took place. If sources describe any examples of things being renamed, we should include them - hence referenced examples of atlases are included, and, if sources can be found, the rugby team. I have no problem with referenced cases of renaming being included. I have a problem with editors trying to disingenuously insert 'neutral' lists of name changes, which clearly imply some kind of trend, when no sources have been supplied which have researched the subject of renaming or if any such pattern exists.

Having a section about a subject implies the subject has a certain level of importance. Why would we have a section on a subject if no reliable sources can be supplied which deal with the supposed subject? My agenda on this is really simple - if reliable sources have published anything significant on the subject of such renamings, put it in. If not, leave it out. --hippo43 (talk) 15:35, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

You continually refer to "sources" and the requirement for these sources having to make mention of events for the event to be notable. You also state that the sources must (explicitly?) describe things being renamed. This isn't the case from policy, and such decisions are usually made by consensus. Many of the current objections to these events being included is that some editors are claiming that the wording implies that the renaming was a deliberate act. A simple list cannot be interpreted in this way. A simple list showing how something used to be referred using one term, and then how it is referred to today, without trying to interpret a reason or ascribe a motivation for the change, is a simple mechanism to note the change, and the reader can make their own decisions or draw their own conclusions.

You have mentioned the rugby team. As an example, what about the 1993 Lions Tour programmes showing a mixture of the previous official name of "British Isles" and the nickname of "British Lions", followed by the 1997 programmes only referring to "Lions", and then the 2001 programmes showing the introduction of the "British and Irish Lions" name. Or the reuters news which states "From 1950 to 2001 the team was officially known as the British Isles, usually referred to as the British Lions, though they are now known as the British and Irish Lions."? I don't see why this can't appear in a list. --HighKing (talk) 16:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Why would a list of items that have been renamed be included if it wasn't significant in some way? In order to avoid giving undue weight to examples of renaming or name changes, we would have to include a list of things that still use the term 'British Isles' and have not been changed or renamed, in proportion to their coverage in reliable sources. In that case, the reader really could draw their own conclusions, though such a list would obviously be ridiculous.

For me, it's really simple - if you want to state that something has been renamed, supply a source which confirms it has been renamed. If you believe people use a new name for something, supply a source which says people now use a new name for it. Supplying two sources using different terms from different times proves no such thing. Different people use different names for things - while some may use a new name, others still use the original name. Unless a source points out that a name has been changed, or that use of a new name has become prevalent, it is original research for editors to make such a claim based only on examples of usage.

The Reuters source is interesting - I hadn't seen it before. However, it does not say that the rugby team has been renamed, or why, or even that 'British and Irish Lions' is now the official name (it says "they are now known as.."). Per the discussion here, various sources are contradictory on what name was used when, and what the 'official' name is/was. The name 'British & Irish Lions' was used in some contexts well before 2001 (including by some Irish sources) and the names 'British Lions' and 'British Isles' were used more or less interchangeably in apparently 'official' contexts for many years. --hippo43 (talk) 16:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

HighKing your own post makes that sentence in the article incorrect. You said "followed by the 1997 programmes only referring to "Lions", and then the 2001 programmes showing the introduction of the "British and Irish Lions" name". The sentence currently says "In 2001 the rugby union team the British Isles or British Lions were renamed the British and Irish lions". But according to you its been refered to as just the lions in 1997, so to say the British Isles or British lions were renamed British and Irish lions is misleading. It should be reworded if thats the case. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm trying to make a proposal to remove that sentence (and others) as it stands, due to the objections based on making an incorrect (or unsupported) motive about the name changes. I believe having a simple list is a better suggestion, and letting readers draw whatever conclusions they deem appropriate. It's a better idea than back-and-forth arguments over when exactly the team was renamed, or finding references with different dates, etc, while still including the information or the name change from Term X to the current term in the article. If you believe it also merits inclusion that the term "Lions" was also used, that's fair enough, although you'll find that the term "Lions" was actually used before "British Lions" begin a commonly used reference... --HighKing (talk) 22:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)