Talk:British & Irish Lions/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

POV additions

Using quotations around the word "coincidentally" shows a huge POV bias as does claiming that the Lions have been misrepresented as a national team. By who exactly?

While wikipedians are entitled to their political views this is a sports page and if you have a political agenda please take it elsewhere.GordyB 16:14, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, politics does enter sports. Very much so. How else can you explain the apartheid era scandals regarding international cricket and rugby teams and South Africa? The similarity between the big lion above the four nations and the lions/leopards on England's royal ensign are a little too obvious. The Lions have caused political controversy in the past, and this is remarked upon in the article with regards to the Irish situation. The existence of the Lions themselves are part of a political agenda, i.e. to revive a sense of "Britishness", and "one nation", which has been fading since WWII. --MacRusgail 15:52, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

They also wear red and only Wales wear red. Surely this is a Welsh conspiracy. They originally wore blue and the flags of England, Wales and Ireland have never included blue. All sorts of crap can be talked about endlessly.

As for Lions if they uniquely belong to England then why did nobody tell Leinster or Gauteng? The truth is that big cat names are simply very common in rugby union hence Pumas, Cheetahs, Leopards, Tigers etc.

The Lions tag was adopted for the 1950 tour. If the selectors were in love with everything English then why were so few Englishmen selected? The tour was dominated by Welshmen and Irishmen the very same people who apparently have an aversion to Lions.

As for the Englishmen dominating rubbish, is this not unrelated to the fact that England have far more registered players than Ireland, Scotland and Wales put together and more pro teams as well. It is not surprising that more Englishmen are selected than other nationalities. However the fact remains that Ian McGeechan (a Scot) has been head coach rather a lot and twice as many Irishmen (8) have captained the Lions as Englishmen (4).

The Lions aren't a national side otherwise why would the likes of O'Driscoll play for them? Nobody treats them as a national side. In what way was the BBC's coverage of the Lions different from that of RTE?

Basically you are not interested in any of the above facts, nor Wiki's NPOV stance you just want to push your point of view. Try a debating forum.GordyB 19:34, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

However, if you can provide external, verifiable sources that political controversies have been caused by the symbols of the Lions, then that view can of course be incorporated. The important thing to remember is that the Wikipedia's viewpoint must always be neutral. --Gabriel Beecham/Kwekubo 20:16, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

@ MacRusgail Please read the following before posting again Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. You can post your POV if a) you follow the guidelines on how to change a POV into a fact b) You do so in a relevant place. Wikipedia is politically neutral which means that if you can post your opinion then others can post theirs, this effectively means that what was once an article on a rugby union team will become a politics article and not just this one. There are people who feel that a United Ireland team wearing green is a 'Feinian plot' but I don't want that on the Ireland national rugby union team page, other people might feel that separate England, Wales and Scotland teams are pandering to separatists or that England should not be represented by a red rose since that is not a symbol accepted by Yorkshiremen. If you want to put your point of view then I suggest you create a Politics surrounding the British and Irish Lions page and link it to this one.GordyB 12:54, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Your use of the term "separatist" and comparing a county with actual countries shows your own POV. It's already been mentioned that the "and Irish" tag had to be put in to avoid offence, so I think it is valid to point out the distinct resemblence of "the lion" to England's leopard. That is not "POV", it is fact. One is obviously lifted from the other. Your comment about the Irish national team is right, there are people who object to it, for that reason, and it should be noted.

As for facts, how many Scots were on the 2005 squad (as opposed to team). I seem to recall 4, one of whom was lucky to actually play. And yet the team is alleged to represent four nations. Instead, it is pandering to a British (imperial?) mentality, which is dying faster than the Austro-Hungarian empire took to fall apart. Ein Volk Ein Queen eh? --MacRusgail 19:16, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Again, if you can provide the facts to back up what you are saying, then the view can be incorporated. It is not enough to say that something is "obviously" lifted from something else etc as that is POV - can you give sources? --Gabriel Beecham/Kwekubo 20:23, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Since I lack the heraldic vocabulary necessary, this is slightly difficult, but both the three "lions" of England, and the British "lion" here are leopards ?passant. Not a lion rampant, nor a symbol connected with Wales or Ireland. --MacRusgail 20:33, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Try finding a Lion on the British and Irish Lions site. They simply do not use it as a symbol, it is just the name of the team. Their symbol is the logo attached to this article.GordyB

This logo perhaps?

Image:2005 British & Irish Lions tour to New Zealand (sports tour) logo.jpg - "What's above the shield?"

Image:England crest.png - "See anything you recognise?"

The English football team's nickname is also apparently the "lions", according to wikipedia. --MacRusgail 17:19, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

The lion you are complaining about is so small that it cannot be seen without the logo being blown up. In what way is it therefore important? Wiki also says that '3 lions' is of French origin in any case, symbols pass from one culture to another all the time. In any case '3 lions' represent England, one Lion represents nothing. I have never heard the England football team called 'the Lions', it is utterly obscure.

In any case just post your version onto the link I suggested. If you follow the NPOV guidelines I will not delete what you post but I will add an alternate point of view.GordyB 20:19, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I haven't heard the English football team called "the lions" either, but it appears on their article. I think that it is important, in that it is obviously the lion of the team's name, and "crowns" the shield. The three leopards are of Norman origin, but they are very much seen as England's symbol. I don't think that whoever designed the logo had Normans in mind though (nor did Baddiel and Skinner when they did that song), and I can probably guess which of the four countries they came from. I suppose it beats being named after any of the national plants though. --MacRusgail 20:51, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Especially if like me you are from Yorkshire. "England's" red rose looks decidedly Lancastrian to me.

With reference to some of your other comments. I should point out that I neither said that Scotland / Wales / England should not have their own teams nor compared Yorkshire to Scotland. These are just examples of things other people might say and exactly the sort of thing I don't want to see on sports pages. If somebody has a problem with a united Irish rugby team they should create 'Politics in Irish sport' page and link it.

I've created the page that I mentioned before and tried to present NPOV versions of what you have said along with my own views. It still needs some editing as you need to be more specific about who says what and why. The text in this page says that 'Some Celtic nationalists feel that' - it would be much better if it stated exactly which groups had opinions on this. Are we talking about the SNP, Plaid Cymru, SDLP, Sinn Fein or Fianna Fail or a pressure group? You also refered to the Lions being misrepresented as a national team it would help if you explained exactly who you thought were guilty of doing that and perhaps show how (for example) BBC coverage was different from RTE coverage.

With reference to the Scots players, there is a reference on the 2005 tour (added by me) that the selection of so many Englishmen was controversial. This could be expanded. Most people think that the Welsh were rather hard done by but unfortunately Scottish rugby just isn't very good and there weren't many more Scots that realistically could have made the trip. Selection is always extremely controversial as the Head Coach is usually a serving coach of one of the four national teams, last time around most felt that Graham Henry had selected too many Welsh players. GordyB 08:58, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

• • The funny thing is that the Rose is originally Lancastrian, and the Lion is from England (Normandy before that). On second thoughts, Kwekubo is right. The designers of the logo can't have had the English leopard in mind at all. They would have never done a thing like that. Nor would Winston Churchill have called the UK "England". --MacRusgail 19:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Edit wars

Could we please discuss things before reverting all the time? I expect this page will end up at some kind of dispute resolution. I vote that the link the the politics page should be kept. If you agree or disagree please say so below rather than edit the page.GordyB 19:17, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the link to the politics page should be kept. It is entirely relevant to the topic of the Lions and does not comment on the validity of the argument. --Gabriel Beecham/Kwekubo 19:59, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I have personally followed The Lions for twenty years. I have attended Lions matches and written on The Lions on many occasions in various media. I have spoken with past and present Lions personally. I have never once heard of the political issues that a small minority of those who seek to introduce politics on this entry seem obsessed with. In short whilst a few ignorant obsessives see a political component to The Lions, the Lions office; past and present Lions; the media and most importantly spectators do not. It diminishes the traditions of The Lions for there to be this absurd debate and for politics to be mentioned on the entry. The politics page should be deleted. Let’s keep The Lions page to sport. Paddy Briggs11 August 2005

Not commenting on the validity of the politics page: If a page does exist on Lions politics, then of course that page should be linked to from here. If it is decided that the page on politics should be deleted, then this page of course need not link to it. If you have an issue with the politics page, then edit/discuss it accordingly; if you think it is beyond use, you are free to put it up for deletion. (You can use four tildes after your comment - i.e. ~~~~ - to add a signature.) --Gabriel Beecham/Kwekubo 22:01, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

"Home" Nations! Home of what, exactly?

You quoted the article on home nations. Who says that the usage of home nations is 'technically wrong'? That's very POV, at best some people don't agree with this usage who exactly has the authority to decide what is right or wrong?

Ireland is commonly considered a 'Home Nation' in terms of rugby union as they a) send players to the Lions b) compete for the Triple Crown (France and Italy do not). I haven't come across anyone who objected to this label before. Is this your opinion or is it a common point of view?

The other problem is the reference to British Isles. The early touring parties were called 'British Isles XV' as in those days 'British Isles' was considered a neutral geographic term. Britain and Ireland isn't correct because I think the second tour had a Manxman along, the Isle of Man is neither part of Britain nor part of Ireland.GordyB 22:49, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Ireland is not a Home Nation in any sense of the word. End of discussion.--Play Brian Moore 18:56, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

The term is a bit redolent of expansionism and imperialism anyway. The Japanese talk about the Home Islands, and the English of Home Counties. Go figure! --MacRusgail 21:19, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

• The whole of Ireland was an integral part of the United Kingdom until 1922, and the part of the nation in Northern Ireland still is. The page on the Home Nations needs reworking - it is entirely reasonable to consider Ireland a Home Nation in appropriate circumstances. The British and Irish Lions is one example. --Kwekubo 19:48, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

was. That is the past tense. Ireland is not in the UK anymore, for the record.You cannot go around changing wiki articles to suit your opinion as I have been shown. The Dublin-based IRFU, who provides the players, would not have Ireland knowm as a HN in any circumstances. It is not, or at least the majority of it is not, so the article would be innaccurate your way.--Play Brian Moore 20:18, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Completely agree with Kwekubo on this, in a sporting (rugby) context. This is an article with a sporting, not political, context. --Cactus.man ✍ 12:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Name and Politics

I have re-established the entry on the name that seemed to have been accpeted by all. Can we please leave this now as it is beginning to get tedious! Any discussions here please not another edit war!PaddyBriggs 13:09, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Once again a plea to discuss here. Everytime a non political amendment (by me or others) is made to this page some Irish nationalist comes along and pollutes it again with anti British tosh! Vent your spleens here comrades and leave the main entry about SPORT! PaddyBriggs 08:59, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

No Brit Lions for football

Scottish football association say no to British Olympics - about time the anglicised Brits of the SRU followed suite. But of course, politics never enters sport does it? According to some people here. --MacRusgail 01:38, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

IMHO poltics is part of Sport as it is part of all other aspects of life. The important thing in Wiki is not to ignore any political aspect, but equally not to overstate it and certainly not to distort the NPOV (as the most recent amendment to the Lions entry did). PaddyBriggs 09:39, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Use of the term Home Nations

If you have a problem with the following statement, then let the edit wars begin. Ireland is not a home nation and I will not let ignorant non-Irish wikipedians portray Ireland as a Home Nation. So if you disagree with that statement then let the war begin Ireland is not a Home Nation and you know that full-well. You are being incredibly stubborn(IMHO).--Play Brian Moore 02:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the Republic of Ireland is not a home nation, but there was no assertion that it is in the previous version of the article. I suggest you read it again carefully. While you are at it you may also wish to read Home_Nations. The use of the term home nation was in relation to the rugby team, which can also contain players from Northern Ireland which is a Home Nation. The wording also made it clear that the term has fallen out of use. As I said, I agree with what Kwekubo wrote above and fundamentally disagree with you. And please, do not shout and call anybody who disagrees with your opinion ignorant. The only person that I see being stubborn here is you, but I am not going to bother getting into an edit war with you, lets hear what others think and we can alter the article accordingly. --Cactus.man ✍ 09:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted to the previous version which is accurate. My name should tell you that I am hardly likely to be anti Irish (!), and nor is the entry in this version which I hope will now be left alone by the prejudiced and the ignorant! PaddyBriggs 10:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Whether individuals dislike the term 'Home Nations' is irrelevant. AFAIK the IRFU has never object to the term 'Home Nations' and surely nobody has more to define whether the term is being correctly used or not than them. In any case the article as it stands does not refer to the current Republic of Ireland as a Home Nation and so what is the problem exactly?GordyB 15:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

• On that very point, a quote from the IRFU website: "The IRFU is 'the envy of the other home nations' for the structure that has been put in place [for the Exiles branch]." [www.irishrugby.ie/htmlpage/62519.html]; and from a news item: "Woodward confirmed he will tour each of the home nations' set-ups during the tournament." [1]. It would seem that the IRFU has no particular qualms about referring to Ireland as a home nation. Nor does the Lions website: "New Zealand continued their victory march through the home nations with an emphatic defeat of Ireland on Saturday which sounded an ominous warning for the rest of world rugby." [2] From RTÉ News: "The Lions' shortcomings indicated the enormity of the challenge facing the home nations this month..." [3]. Neither the IRFU nor the public at large objects to the term "home nation", and unionist supporters would be up in arms if they chose to do so. --Kwekubo 20:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Very well put by both GordyB and by Kwekubo. I suppose that we shouldn't be so wound up by Play Brian Moore as he is clearly a well known trouble-maker! PaddyBriggs 08:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

There is absolutely nothing wrong with being an Irish nationalist. Someone has to stand up for them.--Play Brian Moore 20:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

He calls me a trouble maker even though he goes around deleting user pages he does not agree with only because they have different political views than him. That is what is has to do with me being an Irish Republican. cheers--Play Brian Moore 15:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

• What has this got to do with being an Irish nationalist? Wikipedia is written from an NPOV, and the IRFU, the other Lions rugby unions, the press in Britain and Ireland, and the public widely refer to Ireland as a home nation, in this sort of context and indeed otherwise. --Kwekubo 23:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I am surprised by this very silly ongoing debate. In Rugby terms Ireland is a Home Nation there is nothing offensive or demeaning about this. I think that our Nationalist contributor has a problem which few if any in Ireland would share or even understand. Ireland doesn't need this sort of pettyness and Wiki certainly doesn't! Sports Fan 14:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Well it appears to have it. Just ask Mrs. O'Rourke.--Play Brian Moore 15:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Home nation is not a term used to describe the parts of the UK. If it was RTE and the IRFU would not use it. Would those who object to said term please state exactly which protocol they feel this term breeches in this article or leave it alone.GordyB 12:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

GordyB I have had a go at the separate Wiki entry for Home Nations and feel that it is accurate and acceptable to anyone. Have a look and let me know what you think.PaddyBriggs 12:55, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Those who are seeking to create a political connotation for the term Home Nations in relation to Ireland are wrong. It was never a political descriptor so the cessation of Ireland's membership of the United Kingdom is not relevent to this issue. PaddyBriggs 09:28, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Origin of "Home Nations"

Apart from the "British and Irish Lion" being obviously off the English royal standard (as featured in the England football top see above), the term "Home Nation" originates in British imperialism, where the local colonies are put in contradistinction to the overseas colonies. In this it's parallel to "Home Islands" which was used by the Japanese to describe their archipelago as opposed to Manchukuo etc. There's also a hint of the "Home Counties" which are all either part of London, or satellites of it. The implication is that the Home Nations are all English, or satellites of England. The English lion (properly "leopard") being called a British lion says it all. It's certainly not a Scottish lion rampant, or anything Welsh or Irish. --MacRusgail 20:02, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Home island is a translation from Japanese. Not necessarily very accurate either. Trying to prove what English words mean by using Japanese is ridiculous. No linguist would take that seriously. The 'home counties' is a region of England just as the central belt is a region of Scotland. Obvious Central America and Central Africa is simply proof of how imperialistic the evil Scots are. Kent, Sussex etc aren't satelites of London, they've never been ruled by London. This is getting beyond a joke.GordyB 21:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

• I'd like to reiterate, MacRusgail, that you haven't established that the British Lions' emblem was/is intended to represent English superiority, nor that it was taken from the English royal standard. It being "obviously" the case is not good enough - please read Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. If you have no sources, it can't go in the article. --Kwekubo 22:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC) Peter Horn User talk 21:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

• • I take it then that the Lion is a completely original design, and the resemblance to any historical heraldic symbols is purely coincidental. You must also agree - from your own argument - that the lions on the English soccer shirt also have absolutely no connection with the standard of William the Conquerer.

• • p.s. Why is there nothing about the decreasing representation of other sides in the team anyway? The last squad had 4/44 Scottish players. Scottish rugby is currently bad, but not that bad. All the more reason for Scots to boycott it. p.p.s. Please establish that "Home Nation" is not a political term. No "original research" please. --MacRusgail 18:57, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• • • I never said nor implied that the Lion does or does not have a basis in the English lion, William's standard or anything else. I merely pointed out that you haven't yet provided external verifiable sources that back up what you say. If you have such sources, they would help the discussion greatly. --Kwekubo 21:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Since the English Lion (properly "leopard") has been used as a British "mark of quality" for eggs etc, for English sports teams etc... I think we're talking Occam's razor here. If they put a leek, clover, lion rampant or a dragon on top of the shield, I doubt thatit would have lasted long. The resemblence to Scottish, Welsh and Irish symbols would have been purely co-incidental of course. --MacRusgail 20:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

You've said this a dozen times. Repeating it doesn't make it any less POV. You know what the NPOV guidelines say and why you cannot add this to the article. Can you please just leave the issue alone. This talk page is getting ridiculously long and I'm strongly tempted to edit all of these discussions out.GordyB 11:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Denying it or ignoring this argument does not make it any less POV. I'm afraid I've heard this silly attitude before somewhere. The Scots, Welsh and Irish were told to leave the home rule issue alone. Didn't happen. Same here. You can't pretend there is no problem where one exists. There isn't a Lions football team - probably because football is played by the less anglicised working classes of the Home Colonies. --MacRusgail 20:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

• • MacRusgail, I suggest you read through Wikipedia:No original research. If the symbol of the Lions is so obviously representative of English influence, then surely someone else has noticed this link apart from you. But if you can't provide a single corroborating source, how can it possibly be verified that people in the real world actually do consider the Lions' symbol to be imperialistic, and how could such sourceless infomation be included in a reputable encyclopaedia?--Kwekubo 00:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Non International Player

Is it correct that each Lion's tour features are least one player from one of the Unions that has not yet had an International cap, thus giving a chance of recognition to potential talent? Dainamo 13:19, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

No, that'd be the Barbarians you are think of.GordyB 14:41, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In the amateur era they often took an uncapped player on tours - but this hasn't really happened for about 20 years now. (Danny 22nd June 2005)

Will Greenwood was uncapped before he went on the 97 Lions tour.GordyB

Was Andrew Sheridan uncapped when selected for the '05 debacle, or have I misremembered? -- GWO

No. He had one cap against Canada, coming on as a replacement. As close as can be though.GordyB 20:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Name of British and Irish Lions

Following the edit war between PaddyBriggs and other editors. I'm opening up a discussion on how the 'British and Irish Lions' name paragraph should look. This is obviously a very sensitive area and I think we should try to avoid giving unnecessary offence to any party.

As I see it the reference to 'arguably correct' is POV even if it tries not to be POV. It is also inaccurate, the Lions are officially known as the 'British and Irish Lions' and therefore that is their correct name.

The other statement that the original name was the the British Isles Lions AFAIK that is not correct I believe they were known as the British Isles XV and the LIons tag was added later.

Some of PaddyBriggs other edits i.e. largely those not listed above are good and I think add to the article.GordyB 12:40, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I haven't managed to find anything yet on the official reason why the name was changed but this link (http://www.sluggerotoole.com/archives/2005/04/mccausland_take.php) should show my point about NI Unionists not seeing the change as necessary. One Mr McCausland actually objected to the change.

their is no need for the inclusion of the line "until 2001 known as the british lions" in the opening paragraph as this is not its name now, and this past name is dealt with in the names/symbols section nor is their any need to state that "the then united kingdom of great britain and ireland" as this non entity is confusing and may lead to incorrect assumptions it should simply state team is composed of players from britain and ireland as this is true then and now Caomhan27 16:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

It is necessary to refer to the British Lions early on because not everybody knows that the name was changed, you can still find tons of references to "British Lions" in the modern media. It is also relevant that the UK did at one time include what is now the Republic of Ireland, it helps explain the name "British Lions".GordyB 17:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

im sorry but the article name is the british and irish lions if you want to read about what it was once called this is dealt with aptly in the naming section their is no need to repeat it also their is no need for the mention of the great britain rugby league team at the top of the article because the name of this article is the british and Irish lions as this again confuses the matterCaomhan27 16:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

See WP:LEAD – the introduction summarises the main points of the article, and doesn't leave surprises for later on. Also, many people who find this page may still be looking for the team under its older name, and this name change should be clarified at the outset. .. dave souza, talk 18:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

so your saying that the fact that it was once nicknamed the british lions is a main point really and we would be a surprised later on?? the name is simply the british and irish lions leave the once called take your pick of three to the names sectionCaomhan27 19:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Nobody is likely to search for the team under "British Isles rugby union team" as that term simply is not in use. Many people are under the opinion that "British Lions" is still the official name of the team. They need some way of knowing that they have found the correct article.GordyB 20:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually there is because the rugby league team is also known as the British Lions (and had the name before the union side).GordyB 17:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

if you look up that term british lions you are informed of the distinction and its use only in rugby league today and basically that only occurs because ireland does not play in any real sense the game of leagueCaomhan27 17:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

You may know that, or hold that opinion, but the disambiguation line is to help readers who don't share that knowledge. .. dave souza, talk 18:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

i got rid of the off topic discussions, i can put it back if the people involved would likeCaomhan27 14:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The name "British & Irish Lions" is a bit silly, as it is a British Isles team to then specify part of the British Isles separately is superfluous. One might as well call it the "British & Irish, Welsh, Scottish, English & Northern Irish Lions", which would render the term British as superfluous. I did find the IONA debate amusing, though - whatever happened to Iceland?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.30.14.137 (talk) 18:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Song

I think the song should be refered to in this article and at the very least there should be a link to it. Although it has only been used on the 2005 tour it is likely to be used in future and so should IMO be on the main page. As there seem to be differing views can we please discuss it here before deleting it again. Could those without accounts please create accounts as it is rather easy discussing things with a name rather than an IP address. GordyB 13:54, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Home nation

Ireland being described as a home nation in the context of rugby union is justified by the following sources, courtesy of Kwekubo (for full discussion see archive).

from the IRFU website: "The IRFU is 'the envy of the other home nations' for the structure that has been put in place [for the Exiles branch]." [www.irishrugby.ie/htmlpage/62519.html];

and from a news item: "Woodward confirmed he will tour each of the home nations' set-ups during the tournament." [4].

the Lions website: "New Zealand continued their victory march through the home nations with an emphatic defeat of Ireland on Saturday which sounded an ominous warning for the rest of world rugby." [5]

From RTÉ News: "The Lions' shortcomings indicated the enormity of the challenge facing the home nations this month..." [http://www.rte.ie/sport/2005/1110/easterby.html GordyB 14:12, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Which doesn't stop "Home Nation" being an offensive and controversial term. Both the GAA and some Ulster Unionists would take umbrage at the usage in an all-Ireland context. --MacRusgail 15:59, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I have yet to see from you, MacRusgail, or anybody else a documented reference for any individual (of substance) or organisation (of standing) who thinks that the term is "offensive and contraversial"! PaddyBriggs 16:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

It's not offensive or controversial as far as the IRFU are concerned and it is their opinion which counts. Find a source ot stop spamming.GordyB 16:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Am I wrong for saying that one of the two (although I know this is contested) earliest formed Rugby Football Clubs was in Ireland (I believe Dublin University/Trinity College)? So, wouldn't it then be quite easy to see the whole of Ireland as a Home Nation (this is obviously in addition to the above stream of quotations already supplied from non-arguably reliable sources)? Rowlan 15:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

If they had one of the earliest RU clubs, why does that make them a "home nation"? France has some of the earliest, but is not termed such. --MacRusgail 17:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Ireland is a home nation PERIOD! Before 1922 as a home nation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and after 1922 as a home nation of the British Isles. Since 1922 Northern Ireland has inherited Irelands place as a home nation of the United Kingdom.YourPTR! 09:43, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

A nation can't be at 'home' in a place that it does not recognise. Scotland, Wales etc are at home in Scotland and Wales aswell as the UK and whatever dated name you wish to give the islands we inhabit. Ireland however (minus Northern Ireland) is at home in Ireland and in Ireland only and so should not be refered to as being a home nation in this or any context. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.94.192.200 (talk) 07:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

It is arguable how "at home" Scotland is in the UK. The current Scottish Government is SNP, they get respectable electoral results across the board in local, national and UK elections, and what's more, not every Scottish rugby fan likes the concept of the British Lions. I don't, and it seems that I'm not alone in this (see here). There is a major campaign to get a separate Scottish Olympic team, and against a Team GB for soccer. The Welsh and Scottish FAs oppose a British Olympic football team.--MacRusgail (talk) 18:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of discussion

• /Archive 1: August 2005 – January 2006

I have to agree with MacRusgail in reinstating this content, whilst I don't agree with his position on the wording concerning "Home Nations". Nevertheless, if any of this content is to be removed, it should be properly archived and not summarily deleted. If anybody feels anything needs archiving, please say so. --Cactus.man ✍ 20:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Archive it by all means but take it away. It is repetitive and little to do with the article. What has devolution and the SFA's decision not to participate in a British football team got to do with the Lions? GordyB 20:34, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I've no problem with an archive, for the older discussion, but some of other material was posted within the last week or so. I made the devolution point as a comparison (something you don't seem to be able to grasp), of a supposed problem that some would have us believe doesn't exist, in the same way that political controversy over the Lions is supposed not to exist. The SFA remark is also a comparison. The lack of a "British" Football Team shows that there are issues over sporting teams of this kind. --MacRusgail 20:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I think you'll find I can grasp many things. Devolution has got nothing to do with the Liona. If the Lions is a geniune problem then you'll have no trouble finding sources. Wikipedia is not here for your opinion on the Lions, if it were the opinion of a major political party for example that would be different. If you ever take the time to read the Wiki principles, you'll see that what is included in an article should be sourced and be noteable. MacRusgail's opinion on the Lions isn't noteable.GordyB 20:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Nor is wikipedia here for your opinion on the Lions. --MacRusgail 21:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC) p.s. It's "notable" by the way. p.p.s. Never said devolution had anything to do with the Lions. "if you took the time to read" what I actually said.

I agree it is not. Nor have I given my opinion on the Lions. If devolution has nothing to do with the Lions then don't post it here.GordyB 21:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

You certainly have given an opinion on the Lions, aka there is no controversy. I used devolution as an example of how pretending a problem with the Celtic Fringe (for want of a better term) doesn't exist, will not make it go away. I have pointed out a number of problems with the Lions, and you claim that they don't exist, ergo no problem. Such an approach was tried with devolution, hence the reference. I am going to add a sentence about the under representation of Scots in the 2005 squad. --MacRusgail 21:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

My opinion on the Lions cannot be found anywhere in the article. All you need to do is find a suitable source and your opinions can be included. A sentence about the representation of Scots is fine as long as it is NPOV.GordyB 21:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Your opinion on the Lions can be found in your edits. --MacRusgail 15:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

My edits are based on objective facts. I don't post that the Lions are apolitical (opinion), I post that they don't represent a nation state (objective fact). Show me one of my edits that breaks a Wikipedia protocol.GordyB 16:26, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Future contributions

Could contributors please read and follow the guidelines in Wikipedia:Verifiability Wikipedia:No original research Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.GordyB 14:12, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

What original research? And as I have pointed out, you do have an opinion and it is not neutral. --MacRusgail 15:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't post my opinion I post objective facts.GordyB 16:27, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Just read the protocols they explicitly state that your personal opinion is worth nothing as it constitutes 'original research' which is strictly forbidden.GordyB 16:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

No original research Gordy, because as you can see several Irish wikipedians have been making similar statements, independent of me. --MacRusgail 20:08, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

That's also 'original research'. Read the protocols.GordyB 20:14, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Original research is a term used on Wikipedia to refer to material added to articles by Wikipedia editors that has not been published already by a reputable source. In this context it means unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, and ideas; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments that, in the words of Wikipedia's founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation".

No "original research" has been proferred, not even in the interpretation of Dumbo the Elephant or Willy the Whale. :) --MacRusgail 11:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Which part of 'unpublished theories' do you not understand?GordyB 20:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

British Isles

British Isles is better than Britain and Ireland. Players can be selected from any of the British Isles territories/islands not just the two islands of Great Britain and Ireland. PaddyBriggs 16:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you want to nitpick, I believe that the Manx and Channel Islanders field national teams at the Island Games and Commonwealth Games. People from these places are eligible for the other teams, but do not compete for the national Manx/Guernsey/Jersey sides. Seemingly though, anyone with a granny born in the right place is eligible. --MacRusgail 20:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about the Channel Islands but I'm pretty sure that the Isle of Man comes under RFU jurisdiction (so I'd guess that the Channel Islands did as well). Neither field 'national' teams AFAIK and as far as rugby union is concerned they are honourary Englishmen. You must be eligible for one of the four home unions to play for the Lions, AFAIK you could be a New Zealander born and bred but if you qualified for say Scotland you could play for the Lions. I think it is more accurate to say that the Lions can draw from players eligible for one of the home unions rather than they can draw from players from the British Isles. A player might be from England but be qualify to play for a non-home union team and therefore AFAIK make themselves ineligible for Lions selection.GordyB 20:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

The Manx do have a national team (no inverted commas), but they don't field it much (Commonwealth Games). By the way, they are not necessarily "honorary Englishman" (that's the imperialist streak showing again), they are in fact eligible to try out for Scotland and Wales too. Matt Le Tissier for example, isn't English (or a rugby player!), but tried out for Scotland at one point. The same would apply in rugby terms. Their qualification would be different to that of a NZer with a granny born wherever. Your last sentence is perfectly true. --MacRusgail 11:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

According to the IRB who run the game they do not. 'Honorary Englishmen' imperialist good grief! Where did I say that they were English. Your last point is wrong the rules for soccer are different from rugby union. By UEFA rules anybody holding a British passport can play for any of the four 'British' teams, however, there is a gentlemen's agreement between the different associations not to abuse this rule and to restrict selection to those who at least have a grandparent from that country. Channel Islanders and the Manx are exempt from this and can play for any of the four nations. The national teams in fact represent their union which is why teams exist that don't represent nation states England, Scotland and Wales don't exist as nation states and neither does a united Ireland. THe RFU administers the game of rugby union in the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands (AFAIK) and therefore they are eligible for selection by the RFU team i.e. England.GordyB 20:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

You automatically said/assumed "Honorary Englishmen", whereas as you yourself point out, they can play for three other national teams. And that line of thinking is precisely why we've reams of long debates on this page. --MacRusgail 20:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

A Kiwi who plays for Scotland ain't an 'honorary Scotsman'? And AFAIK they can't play for three other countries re-read what I said.GordyB 21:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I removed the reference to 'British Isles' as although the IRFU may use the term 'Home Nation' to describe themselves I'm pretty damn sure they'd object to 'British Isles'. IMO this term should only be used in this article when refering to the Lions when they were then known by this name.

I also don't believe it to be accurate. For example Dallaglio (or Lol) could have qualified for England (through birth and residency), Wales (through his mother) or Italy (through his father). As an uncapped player he would have been available for one of two home nations and therefore eligible for Lions selection. If he had chosen to play for either England or Wales he would still be eligible, however if he had chosen to play for Italy he would not be. The fact that he is from the 'British Isles' isn't sufficient. All this is to the best of my knowledge, if you know better then correct me.GordyB 22:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Rugby League

The British "Lions" are a Rugby League tradition as well and the name "Lions" originated from the 1925 tour. Union copied it. I think that a disambiguation should be created between the two. Licinius

The rugby league Lions did in fact use the name 'Lions' before the rugby union Lions. I have never heard of any allegation of 'name theft' though. If you can find a source, it could be incorporated. I have thought for some time that there should be a disambiguation link between the two pages.GordyB 10:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but bosh (repeat fives times) and kick ahead isn't rugby is it? — Dunc|☺ 10:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

No, it is rugby league as opposed to rugby union. There is no sport called 'rugby'.GordyB 11:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

This issue seems to have reared its ugly head again. I am very much a league man first and foremost but this 'name theft' allegation is a new one on me. It's also completely unsourced. League had the name first - fact, union copied the name - unsubstantiated. Big cat names are simply very common in either code of rugby.GordyB 23:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Pre- and Post-war

Why is their a split between these 2 tables ? (Gnevin 18:42, 2 April 2006 (UTC))

I think it is because originally only the post-war tours were listed then somebody added the pre-war tours as well. As far as I am concerned there is no reason why these two tables should not be united.GordyB 20:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Willie John McBride

I took the tricolour flag out because he is from Ballymena, Northern Ireland and to my knowledge does not have a RoI passport. There is an on-going problem with Irish players, using a RoI flag to represent players from the North is nonsensical. There needs to either be a symbol used for both Irelands or use the RoI flag only for those from RoI (or those who have a RoI passport) and the NI flag for the rest. 195.93.21.40 13:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)(GordyB)

cf prior discussion of this topic at Talk:Ulster Rugby. --Kwekubo 15:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I was part of said discussion but I'd hoped that something would have been worked out in the two or three months since I last edited. It seems not.GordyB 20:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment There is no such thing as an ROI passport. There is a passport for citizens of Ireland though. Appreciate your point (and agree) but we're talking about details here. (BTW non of the English/Scottish/Welsh players have English/Scottish or Welsch passports either :) )Dodge 11:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

There was a vote held here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rugby union#Flag of Ireland, the result was that a shamrock was the popular choice.

English / Welsh / Scots players have UK passports, if they weren't capped by an national team it would cause a problem as many players e.g. Dallaglio or Charvis could qualify for more than one country. Luckily there is no particular need to have an article on a player that has never been capped or is not part of an elite squad.GordyB 12:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Possible Copyright Infringement?

I found this text on the official page which is partly identical to sentences in the first few paragraphs. Is there a rational explanation? --youghal 17:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The rational explanation is that the Lions site is one of the sources for the article. However, a couple of sentences don't constitute a copyright violation. There is a metawiki on the subject called something like 'Avoid copyright paranoia'.GordyB 13:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'll try to stick to that motto in the future. Thanks! --youghal 13:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

No problem. You are only doing what a Wikipedian should do.GordyB 13:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

PoV and IONA

I edited "However, many Irish people maintain that the term British Isles does indeed carry political overtones and prefer the truly neutral geographical term IONA to describe the British-Irish archipelago." to remove the last clause "...and prefer the truly neutral geographical term IONA to describe..." Why? Because its completely unsourced and far from reality, I imagine. I think Iona, to the average Joe Soap, means the Scottish island, if anything. If User:Vintagekits wants to revert - fine - but show us a verifiable source demonstrating that many Irish people prefer the term IONA to describe the British Isles. Bastun 15:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with your revert- in any case, what people use to describe the islands is not relevant for this article. Astrotrain 15:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is. As I have repeatedly pointed out, the Lions carry a great deal of political baggage with them. For one, they date from a time when the "British Isles" were far more united (especially amongst the anglicised upper middle classes, who were often rugby supporters), and centralised under London, and for another, their logo is an English lion (Norman leopard, if you wish to be precise). The team has increasingly sidelined three out of the four nations as time has gone on. The GAA was set up specifically to counter such anglocentric tendencies in Ireland. --MacRusgail 16:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

MacRusgail, can you provide any source for the statement that "many Irish people... prefer the truly neutral geographical term IONA to describe the British-Irish archipelago."? Bastun 16:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Offhand, I can remember an incident from last year, with a parent complaining to an Irish school over the use of "British Isles". A search on google (difficult, since "IONA" brings up "Iona") brings up some of the following:

"In 1980, Sir John Biggs-Davison, the former Conservative front-bench spokesman on Northern Ireland, suggested a loose linkage of the United Kingdom, the Republic, Isle of Man and Channel Islands to form the Islands of North Atlantic (IONA)." [6]

British Isles article on wikipedia, which suggests that the Republic's government frowns upon the term, and provides sources to back up that claim.

"The term British Isles can be misunderstood, and is sometimes considered objectionable, primarily in Ireland . The term is not generally used in the Republic of Ireland."

An Irishman's Diary Myers, Kevin; The Irish Times (subscription needed) 09/03/2000, Accessed July 2006 'millions of people from these islands — oh how angry we get when people call them the British Isles'

Debate in the Oireachtas, Written Answers - Official Terms", Dáil Éireann - Volume 606 - 28 September, 2005. In his response, the Irish Minister for Foreign Affairs stated that "The British Isles is not an officially recognised term in any legal or inter-governmental sense. It is without any official status. The Government, including the Department of Foreign Affairs, does not use this term. Our officials in the Embassy of Ireland, London, continue to monitor the media in Britain for any abuse of the official terms as set out in the Constitution of Ireland and in legislation. These include the name of the State, the President, Taoiseach and others."

[7]: "New atlas lets Ireland slip shackles of Britain: A spokesman for the Irish Embassy in London said: “The British Isles has a dated ring to it, as if we are still part of the Empire. We are independent, we are not part of Britain, not even in geographical terms. We would discourage its useage [sic].".

--MacRusgail 16:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

This is an article on the rugby team- the Irish government's opinions on what these islands are or should be called is not relevant here, and is mentioned in depth at the other articles. Astrotrain 16:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The fact that many Irish people dislike the term British Isles is not in dispute. The statement that many Irish people "prefer the truly neutral geographical term IONA" is in dispute. I've asked for a source for this, and the only cited mention of the term at all is from a British Conservative politician. (Though if you google hard enough, you'll find Bertie mentioning it as a term he heard someone proposing. It obviously never caught on.) Removing the reference to IONA still leaves mention of many Irish people's dislike of the 'British Isles' term. I am therefore going to remove the unsourced IONA statement, but will link to the British Isles naming dispute article. Bastun 18:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

How pointless is this? The facts are that some Britons feel that British Isles is neutral and thus the name change was unnecessary whilst many Irish people object to the label thus the addition of 'and Irish'. There's no need to go beyond that.

The team aren't called the 'Iona Lions' and this isn't an article on geographic terms. There is absolutely no need to mention 'Iona'.GordyB 23:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

You guys obviously don't get it. It's not just about the Irish government, it's about the political identity of the archipelago, which also relates directly to the Lions in at least half a dozen ways. No, the team isn't called "the IONA Lions" - the point is that calling the Irish British is considered offensive to many of them. In fact in Scotland, the "British" tag is more political than geographical as well. --MacRusgail 15:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

That most Irish people don't like being called 'British' is noted. The article is not about what Irish people like being called nor the politics of the archipelago. It is about a sports team, there is a need to discuss the name change from British Lions to British and Irish Lions. There is no need to discuss whether British is a geographic or political term. That belongs in a completely different article.GordyB 11:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The article deals with this POV far more already than it should. Remove IONA, leave the fact that some in Ireland disagree with the term British, even though the name dates from the Romans and possibly derives from a celtic word. Why do people object? ignorance? hate? political gain? insecurity? Whatever it is it is not an issue for this article. Besides this, has an Irish player ever refused selection because of the name? --Bob 07:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

This debate seems rather pointless. The team is now called the British and Irish Lions. Historically it has been called the British Isles, it's not anymore so who cares. If anyone can find a match programme that calls the team the IONA Lions then let me know, otherwise this is a waste of time. I think some of the discussions mentioned here go well beyond the scope of an article about a combined team that represents the home unions. I think the major points regarding the name have been covered pretty comprehensively in the article. No point continuing this debate. - Shudda ^talk 08:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The British tag is increasingly dated in Scotland and Wales too. This just goes to prove what an anachronism this whole nonsense is.

"Scottish, not British: how the nation sees itself THE number of Scots who say they are Scottish rather than British has reached record levels. Asked about their national identity, 37% said they considered themselves Scottish rather than British. When the same question was asked nine years ago, only 19% gave that response. Taken together with those who feel more Scottish than British, the number - of those who feel ‘predominantly Scottish’ - rises to 68%. " [8]

Given a few years, with the current trend, most Scots will not consider themselves Brits at all. Even the Welsh are on their way:

"Welsh identity growing (Times Education Supplement, Pub: 04 May 2007) New recruits demonstrate shift towards `Welshness' and bilingualism, says teaching council Most new teachers regard themselves as Welsh rather than British, new figures reveal."

Sorry to break it to all you Brits who seem to think the Lions are somehow representative, but they aren't in name, and they are decreasingly so in number. Scots don't even figure in that side. I wish the SRU would move away from this Victorian rubbish and into the future with the rest of us. --MacRusgail 16:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)]

How is this remotely relevant to the article? You are welcome to your opinion but this page is for discussing what content the article should have not whether Britishness is dying out or not.GordyB 20:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

You really don't get it do you? Poor man. The British (and Irish) Lions represent a political agenda in their very name, and purpose. They also represent a political viewpoint of United Britishness which has been on the wane since the British Empire broke up. The fact that they pretend to be our (i.e. Scotland's) team as well, is belied by the fact that they barely even be fagged to include any of us on the bloody team.

This is without pointing out the fact that branding the Scots, Irish and Welsh "British" is offensive to increasing numbers of them. --MacRusgail 16:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Do I have to add this to the list of lamest edit wars? Either source your points or don't make them. The team name is the British and Irish Lions and the article is named after the team. If the team ever changes its name then be my guest and move the article until then tough. If you find 'British' offensive that's too bad; if I found 'Scotland' offensive that would give me the right to bleat on about how it ought to be 'North Britain'.GordyB 19:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes it would. But what you seem to think is "lame" and minor, is in fact a big part of life for many people. The implication is that the Lions represent an old fashioned agenda... politics masquerading as entertainment. --MacRusgail 17:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC) p.s. re the Celtic Nations thing. I do agree with you on this though. It's not relevant here, even if 3/4 of the teams possibly fall into this cat.

Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Note the Wikipedia is not subject to censorship section. That means that no matter how offensive it may be to some, reality is reality. The British and Irish Lions are called the British and Irish Lions and not the IONA Lions. If this policy was not in place then there would be no religious pages (since they would offend somebody), no page on evolution and probably no articles stating that the world is in fact round.

If you can source a major controversy about the Lions this can be incorporated but in reality the Lions aren't all that controversial. Alex Salmond may have said he wanted a Scottish Olympic team but he said nothing about the Lions changing their name. If you persuade him to make a speech on the need for the Lions to be further renamed or disband then it would be worth noting (the title should stay the same though).GordyB 20:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not asking for censorship. As for the Olympic thing, we have our own rugby team already - that's the difference. --MacRusgail 15:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Objecting to the word 'British' is censorship. If people click on the link then there is a full debate over attitudes towards Britishness and such like. It is total overkill to insert similar information into every article that includes the word 'British'.GordyB 16:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Provide references and stick to a neutral POV, whilst also not giving undue weight to minority opinion. --Bob 16:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

a) The article is not neutral, and b) it is not a tiny minority opinion. Check out the recent figures. Britishness is in rapid decline. As are the numbers of players from three countries in the Lions. --MacRusgail 16:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not Britishness is in decline is not the point. You are not a rugby man and you don't really know what you are talking about with representation. The last two tours had lots of Englishmen because it was a golden era for English rugby, there were very few Englishmen in previous tours. The Welsh dominated the Lions in the 70s and the Scots had loads of players in the eighties but then Scotland was much more of a rugby power back then. The current English team is poor and the next tour will not have nearly so many.

As for neutrality, if you feel that it is biased then there are places you can take this too such as dispute resolution. I'll tell you in advance that you haven't got a leg to stand on but you are welcome to try.

However I must ask to to keep making the same points endlessly. It's just spamming to keep saying that Britishness is in decline as it has nothing to do with the article.GordyB 19:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Who the hell are you to tell me "I'm not a rugby man?" - I am and I even have the scars to prove it (literally). I am a rugby man, but I support Scotland, not some anachronistic imperial set up like the Lions. I know people like you are itching to have the Scottish and Welsh national teams abolished, and this is the next best thing for you. --MacRusgail 14:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

You don't edit the rugby pages and you don't seem to know your rugby history so I assumed that you had little interest in the game. Obviously I was wrong. As for the rest, despite your constant accusations of unionist bias on my part I am actually much more of an English nationalist. If you look at at my user page, you won't see a union jack anywhere. I just prefer to edit non-political pages. If you need further confirmation then if you check out the history of the Scots / Welsh / Irish national pages - I did a lot of the work on them especially the history sections.GordyB 15:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

So, you made an assumption? Kind of par for the course, like all Scots want to be "Brits"? No thanks. I had to give up rugby partly because while I had few minor injuries, I didn't fancy getting any more major ones. If you look at my user page I also list myself as a fan of Scottish rugby. I was fortunate enough to able to go to many of the games of the last grand slam, and a pal of mine even got one of the match balls from that season at Murrayfield, but I can never condone this kind of expansionist "Britishism". If there is to be some kind of multinational team, a 6 nations one would be better, but even then... --MacRusgail 18:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

You also seem to have made a few assumptions. I don't think I have ever commented on whether Scots wish to be British or not. It isn't really relevant to the page. The Lions are unlikely to ever be expanded and are more likely to abandoned as many people think that they are an anachronism but not because of the "British issue".GordyB 19:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd say the British issue is a contribution, but the lack of Scots in it, will be a bigger factor. The SRU cannot justify supporting a team in which it has little or no place. By the way, rugby is my favourite sport. I prefer it over football. Despite of the blazers and public schoolboys who run the SRU. Probably because I think it is a much more exciting game. --MacRusgail 19:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The SRU need the money, I presume that they get their share of the tour profits. If the Lions crash on their tour like they did in NZ then there will be questions over their viability.GordyB 21:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

That's it lads - keep the independence racism up! (this is meant ironically) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.251.178 (talk) 17:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

References

The definition of "British" and "Irish" in the name

Both the words "British" and "Irish" have ambiguous definitions.

In political sense, "British" means "of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" and "Irish" does "of (the Republic of) Ireland". In geographical sense, on the other hand, they means "of (the island of) Great Britain" and "of (the island of) Ireland" respectively.

Thus, the "British and Irish Lions" can be understood slightly differently according to the two different sense: "Players from UK + Players from the Republic of Ireland" (in political sense) or "Players from Great Britain + Players from the island of Ireland" (in geographical sense).

Is there the official definition of "British" and "Irish" in "British and Irish Lions"? ― 韓斌/Yes0song (談笑 筆跡 다지모) 19:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no official definition and to my knowledge (and I've searched long and hard), there was no press statement (or similar) to give an official version of the precise reason for the name change. Originally the team were the British Isles rugby team and so British back then equalled "British Isles" rather than Britain the island. The (bad) joke is that the Lions are a team of Ulster Unionists since they are the only people to be both British and Irish.GordyB 19:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it means the UK and Republic of Ireland. There seem to be a lot of arguments about the name, but the facts are the facts. It's been called the British Isles, the British Lions and now the British and Irish Lions, but at all times it has represented the people of England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. Thats the way it is and we are not in a position to change that. So sick of these discussions! - Shudde ^talk 23:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe it refers to the islands - Great Britain and Ireland. I doubt it refers to the political makeup since the Irish rugby team picks from all of the island. There is no (Republic of) Ireland team, and there is no Northern Irish team. --Bardcom (talk) 00:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It is a fairly pointless discussion. The team is called the British and Irish Lions and since there is no official explanation, people can interpret it how they like. From what I know, the change came became because a coach from the Republic of Ireland made a stand over it. It is nothing to do with Northern Ireland, if the team were merely a UK team then the name would not have been changed. Players / coaches from the North would not have made an issue of the name.GordyB (talk) 09:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Just to throw something into the mix, if this team represented the (islands) of Great Britain and Island, would that mean players from the Hebrides or Isle of Wight etc would be ineligable to play??? --Jza84 |  Talk  00:11, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

The team always has been a "British Isles" team and this has been reflected in early names of the team e.g. British Isles XV. One of the early tours had a player from the Isle of Man.GordyB (talk) 11:15, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

British people are from Britain; Irish people are from Ireland. It really is not that complicated unless people in Britain are trying to assert a political claim over a part of Ireland and redefining the meaning of "British" to suit their political agenda. That would never happen, would it? As for this "British Isles" claim over Ireland; your empire is over. Get over it, and yourselves. 86.44.34.19 (talk) 13:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Exactly who do you think you are arguing with?GordyB (talk) 13:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Tours of Argentina

Does anyone know the cities where the Lions played their Argie Tours. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.64.171.242 (talk) 15:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Olympics

I don't see the relevance of this. Rugby union is not an olympic sport and even if it was the British and Irish Lions would not compete because they aren't the British rugby union team nor the UK team either.

Back in the days when union was an Olympic sport, Britain was not represented by a team drawn from the four home nations. One year the British representative was the Cornwall county team, another year it was Moseley Rugby Club. And nor was the term "Lions" applied to this team.

If rugby sevens ever gets to be an olympic sport then Irish players won't be eligible (unless from Northern Ireland and even then it is unlikely that any would play for Britain rather than Ireland).

So I can't see any relevance to this article.GordyB (talk) 16:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the relevance is pretty obvious. A British rugby team got sent to the Olympics. The British Lions was set up along similar lines (majority Irish independence, and the ever widening gaps in the UK not withstanding...) I see it as part of the prehistory of the Lions - after all, they only became known as the "Lions" in 1950. --MacRusgail (talk) 18:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

NO. Just officially from 1950, but the usage of the nickname is well attested to from the early 1920sJatrius (talk) 16:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Having looked again at the passage, I think you have a point. However I think it needs a rewrite. The paragraph really should not start with the IOC's view on non-sovereign nations.GordyB (talk) 21:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. But all the info on other similar teams should be put together. --MacRusgail (talk) 15:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Name.

The name "British and Irish Lions" goes back before 2001 as stated in the article. The "Irish Times", a newspaper of record, is using the term "British and Irish Lions" before 2001. The Irish Times digital search only goes back to 1996, and the term is then. PurpleA (talk) 01:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The Irish Times articles are from 2008 and 2009. The "and Irish" was adopted for the 2001 tour. You may or may not be able to find articles using the term prior to this but there was never any official statement on the name change so it is difficult to put a date on it other than the 2001 tour.GordyB (talk) 09:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The Irish Times archive (linked to by PurpleA above) includes examples back to 1996 (though doesn't seem to have anything from the 1997 tour??). It isn't clear, however, if this name was used officially or just in these cases because it's an Irish newspaper. The Godwin source, however, can't be a source for the name being used since 2001 because it was published in 1981! Without a good quality source stating when the name was changed 'officially', we can't really put a date on it. --hippo43 (talk) 10:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• The Irish Times is a newspaper of record, and therefore would not make up their own name for the team, that's a "no no". They were called "The British and Irish Lions" as far back as 1977. Some British media and Commonwealth still use the term "British Lions", but that's really not the proper name since 1975 at least. PurpleA (talk) 15:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The Lions used the name "British Lions" up til 2001. I doubt you would find the "British and Irish" used outside of the Irish Times (and possibly other Irish media) before that.GordyB (talk) 15:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm talking about the correct name of the team, it does not matter what the media calls them, that's an entirely different issue. The Irish Times has it spot-on, as they usually do. PurpleA (talk) 15:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

If B & I had been correct then you would expect that other media outlets would have used the term. None of them did until 2001 and then suddenly they all did. It would be a bit odd if the actual name change had happened 25 years earlier.GordyB (talk) 15:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with you, but I have trumped with The Irish Times for 1996, and their digital search only goes back to 1996, which proved the original text was incorrect. I remember the team being called The British and Irish Lions long before 1996, but alas that's original research on my part. I think the important thing here is to go with the sources, and Irish Times is a worthy one. So we have the name going back to 1996 at least. I'll try check some other sources, but don't want to spend valuable time on this issue. PurpleA (talk) 16:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Simply asserting that a name was used in 1996, 1977 or 1975, or that it only changed on 2001, without any evidence, is getting us nowhere. Without a citation, we can't be specific. Sources like this - [9] - are still using the name 'British Lions', so clearly, showing that a newspaper uses a name is not the same as a citation which documents the proper name being changed. My quick search of The Times' archive (http://www.newsint-archive.co.uk) - a reliable source - gives plenty of results for 'British Lions' and 'British Isles + rugby' between 1985 and 1994, but none for 'British & Irish Lions'. The Independent in 1994 was using 'British Isles' - [10]. Similarly, this book on the 1977 tour - again, a reliable source - [11], uses the name British Isles, as does a similar book on the 1974 tour. So far, I can't see a source anywhere that clarifies when the proper name changed, if it did, or what it previously was.

My understanding, though I obviously don't have a source which absolutely clarifies it, is that the team was officially 'the British Isles' in test matches, and informally 'the British Lions' (or British & Irish, depending on the speaker) until the name was changed some time recently. --hippo43 (talk) 17:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I've googled this to death in the past, if there is evidence of when and why the name was changed then it is not available on the Internet.GordyB (talk) 17:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

This source certainly sheds some light on it, and casts some doubt on the Irish Times' impartiality - "in rugby, the 'British Lions' (officially the 'British Isles') have come to be described, in Irish publications at least, as the 'British and Irish Lions'" (Jeffery, K., An Irish empire?: aspects of Ireland and the British Empire, Manchester University Press ND, 1996) --hippo43 (talk) 17:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, a Google Books search returns several uses of 'British & Irish Lions' before 1997, and hundreds of 'British Lions' and 'British Isles' going back decades. No clarification of the name change, though. --hippo43 (talk) 17:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm getting closer to 1977 here, "Yearbook of the United Nations 1980" [12]. One aspect about the internet is that much of the content is quite recent. Even websites that existed in the 90s have been scrapped in favour newer PHP database driven sites. Printed books and journals would be better source, it probably needs an 'expert' study to nail it down definitively. PurpleA (talk) 22:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the point is that the use of at least 3 terms overlaps - finding more examples of usage won't prove anything. The fact that a source uses a name doesn't make it the 'official' name. To specify a date for the name change, we need a good quality source which specifically deals with the name and the change. I don't expect to find one any time soon. --hippo43 (talk) 23:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

From some memorabilia sites, I was able to check out most of the Lions programmes available since the 1950s, which give some idea of what the team was called at the time. From my totally unscientific survey:

Until 1983 - generally called 'British Isles', sometimes 'British Lions'. 'British Lions' seems to be used more in tours to South Africa, 'British Isles' in tours to NZ

1986 - 'British Lions' (vs The Rest)

1989 & 1993 - 'British Lions', sometimes 'British Isles'

1997 - 'The Lions', sometimes 'British Lions'

2001 - 'British & Irish Lions' & 'The Lions' more or less equally

2005 - 'British & Irish Lions', but 'The Lions' against Argentina

'British Isles' was last used in 1993. 'British Lions' was last used in 1997. There has been a general, but overlapping, progression from British Isles - British Lions - The Lions - British & Irish Lions. --hippo43 (talk) 23:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

It's probably more of a media thing. I wonder does the "British and Irish Lions" even have notepaper, or an office. If so, then there would be some record available. The names applied, and probably even within the same tour, have been quite variable, and this is difficult to pin down. PurpleA (talk) 23:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Seems to have been a series of fairly ad hoc arrangements between the Unions, at least until recently - now the tours are organised by the Four Home Unions committee. Looks like the host unions have each chosen how to promote the games. The variety of names used suggests there was no one 'official' name until recently. --hippo43 (talk) 00:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

in view of the selections for the 2009 tour, shouldn't the name be changed to "Irish and British Lions"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.224.27 (talk) 18:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

John Hopkins's book on the 1977 Lions tour states that the Lions tours, and incoming tours to Britain and Ireland, were organised by the "Four Home Rugby Unions' Tours Committee", and later that the players' holdalls were stamped "1977 B I R U T" - for 1977 British Isles Rugby Union tour.--Bcp67 (talk) 19:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Flag icons in infobox

I propose removing all the flagicons from the infobox at the top of the article. It looks a real mess right now, both because of the whole Ireland flagicon issue, and because there is a flag for Great Britain, but not the B&I Lions, as well as non-national teams not having flag icons. The current state can't be at all clear for readers who aren't familiar with the issues. No flags will be much cleaner and less confusing for all. Thoughts? --hippo43 (talk) 19:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Why not just put a minature map of Ireland in the box? --MacRusgail (talk) 16:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

That's an issue for another discussion, as you know. I'm just concerned with the look of this article for now. --hippo43 (talk) 18:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

We've been discussing this ad nauseam all over the place. I almost get the impression certain editors would not be content, until the Union Jack is hoisted over Dublin Castle again! Still, the sensible options would be, a) minature map, b) four province flag, or c) the IRFU logo.--MacRusgail (talk) 16:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Per the lengthy discussions elsewhere, (a) is not on, because it's an invented icon, and because it's not the national flag used by the IRFU. (b) is not on because it's not the national flag used by the IRFU. (c) is not on because it's a copyvio. --hippo43 (talk) 17:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Bias again!!!

How can you have an article on the Lions which does not mention the apartheid scandals? I wonder if some people would like to whitewash (pun intended) the history of the Lions, and ignore their unsavoury relationship with racist regimes in South Africa and Rhodesia. That and the fact that the criticism section has been completely removed, makes this article a joke again...--MacRusgail (talk) 18:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

It's still a work in progress, until the last 6-9 months only half the tours had been completed. I don't think anyone is trying to whitewash this part of the Lion's history, we just need people to put in some effort. We have a complete lack of references in the main article as it stand, and maybe no one wants to head into controversial territory without referencing to back it up. It will need to be addresses, we just need to get there. FruitMonkey (talk) 18:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

It may well be a work in progress, but it seems that some people continue to think there was nothing political about touring countries where blacks weren't allowed on the team. Other material has been deleted.--MacRusgail (talk) 16:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually blacks were allowed on the team see Errol Tobias. But regardless the Lions tours of South Africa were controversial and I think it would not be too difficult to find the appropriate references to back this up.GordyB (talk) 19:58, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Certainly were, and there was some pretty ferocious protests about the issue too. I think we can safely say that the South Africa issue was the most controversial that rugby has ever encountered, dwarfing even the league split, and the end of amateurism. (The most obvious effect being that South Africa went from being a popular Lions destination to being unvisited between 1980, and 1997.) I know they also visited Rhodesia at a time when Ian Smith was in charge - I haven't heard anything about that, but I can't imagine everyone was pleased with it.--MacRusgail (talk) 14:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC) p.s. Any idea why they don't go to Argentina anymore?

<--MacRusgail, I guess they don't go to Argentina because the team is now too strong, but who knows, I don't have the sources! Have you got any sources to contribute to the SA/Rhodesia problems? Bigger digger (talk) 15:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

You're right to say the Argentine team is strong, but surely that's a plus? SA, NZ and Oz are all formidable. The most formidable teams in the world, perhaps, along with the Argentines, French and English...

The South African controversy shoudln't be too hard to find. However, I haven't seen anything about the Rhodesian business - I just know Ian Smith's Rhodesia was controversial in the non-sporting arena, and it would make sense that some of that would carry over into rugby.--MacRusgail (talk) 15:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The subject is definitely relevant to the story of the Lions and the South African tours. I put a small section in the article on the 1980 tour, intending to expand it at some point and have just added a link to the Gleneagles Agreement. The 1980 tourists originally had a fixture scheduled against Rhodesia but from memory this was cancelled and replaced with a game against Eastern Transvaal though I can't find a ref for this. Zimbabwe had become independent earlier in 1980 and a Lions visit there probably didn't fit with the new government.--Bcp67 (talk) 19:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

As for Argentina, I only heard of these tours recently. Clem Thomas's history of the Lions doesn't cover them at all and nor were they recorded in the Rothmans Yearbooks. I guess they died out post-war and the idea was never revived.--Bcp67 (talk) 19:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The Argentina matches have never been given much weight. The original tour if I remember was knocked together by Cambridge students and ran almost at the same time as another British Isles tour. John Griffiths also fails to cover them his books. FruitMonkey (talk) 19:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

So as I understand it, the reason the article has been tagged as POV is because it contains no critical information, or mention of the controversies in 1974 and 1980 in particular? There's talk of a criticism section having been removed, but I can't find it in the rather large history :) I agree the article needs information about the controversial 1974 and 1980 tours, and more perspective on objections to the "British" etc. The 1980 article has a minor mention of the controversy, the 1974 article nothing. The article mentions Irish nationalist concerns with the old name fairly neutrally, and otherwise the problem seems more one of omission than of neutrality, as the issue is about the article being incomplete, rather than providing undue weight to one side of a conflict. If anyone can find sources for criticism of the tours during the apartheid era, and related issues, let's add them. If anyone can point me to the deleted criticism, please do so. Greenman (talk) 19:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

They're not just Irish concerns. Adam Price, of the Welsh Assembly, has been critical of the Lions, and they catch quite a bit of flak in Scotland too.--MacRusgail (talk) 21:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Coming from a Welsh perspective, Adam Price would use something which he could see as a 'British' element into a personal political points scoring exercise. He is not the voice of Wales and should not be thought as. The British Lions is not an issue in Wales. The Lions gain very little flak in Wales, only when there are few Welsh on the tour. But I agree with the POV argument from Greenman, there is no POV issue with this article; it actually has no reference either way, so I believe the POV tag should be removed. If you want to add something about the controversy surrounding African tours, then add it.FruitMonkey (talk) 23:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

He is neither the first nor last Welshman to make such comments. The British thing, is in fact, one of the chief problems. Are we just going to do what the Lions did with apartheid, and pretend these issues don't exist? LOL.--MacRusgail (talk) 00:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The Power of Four

I turned the game on at the 5 minute mark and missed the anthems. Are the Lions still using that "Power of Four" song from the NZ tour or has it been cast aside (which would be no loss - it's a hideously bad song!). 58.178.30.40 (talk) 04:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

No, the Lions have no anthem in the 2009 series. Swiss09 (talk) 15:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Flags

Are we having Irish flags in this article or not? Personally no problem either way, although I am aware there has been an ongoing debate on the subject of what symbol should represent Irish rugby. If we are, all the people in the results table ought to be shown with an Irish flag, and if not, none of them. For the moment I'll take them out again as its quicker than putting ones back in for all the ones which aren't currently aren't there!--Bcp67 (talk) 20:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The consensus is, for the Irish rugby team, no. The question is whether the flag here represents the players nationality, or that of the team they represent. I'd argue for the latter, since we don't make exceptions for all the other people who've moved countries, in which case, no, no flags. Realise also there's been persistent vandalism on some articles inserting Irish flags into Irish rugby team articles.Greenman (talk) 21:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Martin Corry: Lions Captain

Martin Corry was a Lions captain and should be listed because he is is listed on the Lions captain template as one of the 39 who have had the honour of captaining the Lions The C of E (talk) 07:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

While I can appreciate a Tigers supporter wanting to promote one of their own it really is not notable. On the current Lions tour there have been several captains for matches who are worth of note for those matches on the relevant tour page. However on the main Lions article its only the tour captain that is notable.--Snowded ^TALK 07:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

If that's the case, then what is Thomas doing as a tour captain? He was not the official tour captain and yet he's listed. Thats double Standards. And anyway, i'm not a hardcore Tigers fan so i'm not trying to force the issuse, i'm mearly trying to add a fact that has been omitted The C of E (talk)

Thomas took over as Tour Captain after the first test, that is notable. Taking over in one test due to injury is not. Also please note that you inserted this material, two editors have opposed it so you should not reinstate your disputed position. --Snowded ^TALK 08:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

As far as i'm concerned all Lions captians are notible, no matter if it was for 80 minuites or 79 minuites The C of E (talk) 08:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Then the list is going to be very long for the current tour and gets nonsensical. Either way lets see what other editors think. --Snowded ^TALK 08:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The British and Irish Lions Team captains template says who was a Lions captain and ho should be included in the list. But if that still doesn't pursuade you, then we'll leave it to the other editors in a discussion page The C of E (talk) 08:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Snowded. It's not notable.MITH 17:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The Lions captain template isn't fully definitive in any case. It doesn't for example show that Bleddyn Williams captained in two tests in 1950 or that David Watkins did the same in 1966. If I find the time I'll do the edits. For the subject under discussion, I'd say leave Corry off the list in this article, which I'd say should really be restricted to the officially appointed tour captain, or his replacement if he was forced permanently out of the tour by injury. It should be mentioned in the match report for the 2005 tour that he took over as the captain on the field.--Bcp67 (talk) 20:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Corry was O'Driscoll's replacement albeit for the rest of that particular game, he was still named as the replacement Captain before Williams was given it The C of E (talk) 17:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Arthur Shrewsbury

This article barely mentions that he organised the first British Isles tour, should be expanded perhaps.--MacRusgail (talk) 14:01, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Non-Test matches against international sides

I notice a recent addition and then reversion surrounding some non-Test matches against international sides. Would the article benefit from a section on these matches. It would seem a shame to lose or disregard this information.Kwib (talk) 10:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually there is one, added by me. I think British imperial stupidity (almost inherent in the name and the logo of the British Lions team) not only hindered recognition of some of these other sides, even when they were almost entirely white, but also meant that their continual visits to the Tri-Nations ended up depriving the likes of Fiji, Argentina, Ceylon/Sri Lanka Kenya and Canada etc the international recognition they deserved. My cynical side says that the tours to Argentina didn't get the recognition, and were later discontinued, was because the Anglo-Argentine hegemony was fading. When did these guys ever go to somewhere which wasn't either mostly white and Anglo, or mostly English speaking?--MacRusgail (talk) 16:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The main reason I felt the matches should be removed was to make the issue clear for the reader. The tours were not billed as to "Australia, New Zealand and Canada", it would be to "Australia and New Zealand". Secondly the results column at the end states "Test Results", and the scores against team which were not Tests were added into the box. The whole "what is a Test" problem has been going on for quite some time, and if the IRB refuses to retrospectively class certain matches as tests, then we can't change history. But I agree with the mentioned point of the 'imperialistic feeling' to the whole thing. FruitMonkey (talk) 19:30, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Certainly for 100-ish years the members of the IRB tried to keep the game very much to themselves; France didn't even get the honour of membership until 1977! And I agree that it all smacks of the old empire running things like a cosy club and making sure that the "natives" didn't get a look-in. Having said which.... the thrust of the Lions tours was to play test matches against the Tri-Nations (and don't forget that even Australia were treated somewhat like the poor relations for many years, fobbed off with a couple of tests en route to or homeward bound from NZ). The games against the other international sides were simply never treated as anything like full internationals by the Lions tourists, and I think we have to accept that and not try to re-write history. For example, the sides representing South-West Africa (modern Namibia) and Rhodesia (modern Zimbabwe) which the Lions played against, for example, in 1962 and 1968, were tour fixtures because they were teams which were then playing in South Africa's domestic Currie Cup, not necessarily because they were the national teams of those countries. The records of Lions full internationals for caps, points etc, never include these "minor" internationals and personally I think we have to go along with that. --Bcp67 (talk) 20:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Can I suggest two tables, one for "Results in tour test matches" and one for "Results in other international matches", that would look something like the below example (essentially for tour tests remains the same, for others just some minor column heading changes). There are a number of matches already in the Results that perhaps should not be there using the logic extended to matches against the likes of Canada, and I think this would help to fix that, and to highlight important matches against other international sides (in some cases very important to history of the team playing the Lions).

Results in tour test matches

Introduction explaining what constitutes tour test match...

Year	To	Captain	Head coach	Top Scorer in Tests	Result	Tests record

Results in other international matches

Introduction explaining some on tour other's one-off, some at home etc...

Year	Against	Captain	Head coach	Top Scorer	Result	Related tour

2013 Tour of Australia

As the matches have now been annouced and the tour is only 18 months away, isn't it time there was a page specifically for the 2013 tour? The 2009 tour page was created in October 2007. 90.198.203.3 (talk) 10:37, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Naming and symbols intro

An edit I made to this section has just been reverted on the grounds that it "could confuse readers". The original text read:

When the team first emerged in the nineteenth century it represented one nation-state, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. However despite the Irish War of Independence and the subsequent formation of the Free State of Ireland in 1922, the team continued to be termed the British Isles, referring to the British Isles geographic term, rather than national citizenship. To avoid the ambiguity and offense and to more correctly associate the team's identity which is composed from two sovereign states Ireland and the United Kingdom, from the 2001 tour of Australia the name British and Irish Lions has been used.

My version read:

However despite the Irish War of Independence and the subsequent formation of the Irish Free State and Northern Ireland in 1922, the team continued to be termed the British Isles, referring to the British Isles geographic term, rather than national citizenship. To avoid ambiguity and offence and to better reflect the fact that the team draws its members from two sovereign states, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, from the 2001 tour of Australia the name British and Irish Lions has been used.

Note that the original/current text ignores the fact that Northern Ireland was also created in 1922. That, I think, might confuse some readers, so I have part-reverted to include "and Northern Ireland", but would ask for views on the rest of the text. Brocach (talk) 18:27, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I thought that the original version was the clearest thing we've seen so far on the subject on this article, which isn't to say it can't be improved! The split into separate political entities in 1922 does need to be mentioned because it has some relevance to the fact that the team was still being called the "British Isles" up to the end of the 20th century. I'm also well aware that any mention of Ireland and its political status is a huge minefield on here. I do think the links to the sovereign states are useful though. --Bcp67 (talk) 18:40, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, just realised that your version does retain the 1922 creations but that you were asking whether Northern Ireland should be mentioned or not. My own personal feeling is that does add a little bit of confusion as it could be taken as reading that Northern Ireland was also a separate state to the rest of the UK. --Bcp67 (talk) 18:43, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I think referring to northern ireland in the first part is fine but still not entirely necessary as the name change only occured due to the old name name not incorporating any recognition of the the players who where citizens of the subsequent state of "Ireland" and so the creation of NI has no real bearing on the issue being discussed, also the link to the free state article would infrom the reader of the status of northern ireland, I think leaving the second part at UK makes way more sense.Caomhan27 (talk) 19:16, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Just a note of courtesy here to say that I have tweaked the naming section to get the team's first name in (why was this left out before?) and to split the first paragraph into two for the sake of readability. I suggest that it is best to avoid getting unnecessarily sucked into the 'British Isles' geography debate - we have to accept and respect that the Irish officially do not recognise this as a geographic term. The team was named 'British Isles' for a time and it is advisable to simply state this as an undisputed fact and move on. pconlon 22:10, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Uniform evolution

The new kit pictures don't quite tally with the descriptions in the section above. For example, "The 1924 tour returned to South Africa, retaining the blue jerseys but now with shorts to match" - this isn't reflected below, and nor is "1938 became a green turnover (although on blue socks thus eliminating red from the kit)". I don't know enough myself to be able to change the images - would someone be able to bring them in line with the written descriptions? Thanks. --Bcp67 (talk) 19:33, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Lions captains

The list of tests and tours is inconsistent. The 2005 tour has three captains listed - O'Driscoll (the original tour captain), Corry (his on-field deputy in the first test) and Thomas (the permanent replacement). It doesn't include Michael Owen, who captained the match v Argentina which is counted an official Lions test [13]. Earlier tours either do or don't reflect "stand-in" captains - for example the 1966 tour includes David Watkins, who stood in for Mike Campbell-Lamerton, but the 1930 tour doesn't show Carl Aarvold, who also captained in a test match. The Lions captain template is similarly inconsistent. Any thoughts on which way to go with this? Seems that the choice is either (1) include everyone who captained the Lions in a test or (2) just list the actual official tour captain. --Bcp67 (talk) 20:13, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on British and Irish Lions. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121018010111/http://www.iaindale.com/posts/rugby-world-cup-what-now-for-the-home-nations to http://www.iaindale.com/posts/rugby-world-cup-what-now-for-the-home-nations

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:15, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Are "cap" and "appearance" duplicates?

The page currently says: Most caps Ireland Willie John McBride (17) Most appearances Ireland Willie John McBride

The term "cap" is defined on the linked page, "In British sport, a cap is a metaphorical term for a player's appearance in a game at international level." Why have both? I suggest choosing the more widely known word: `Most appearances Ireland Willie John McBride (17)` — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.52.60.67 (talk) 05:08, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Statistics

Should the statistics follow the official British and Irish Lions web page? https://www.lionsrugby.com/historical-statistics/ If so, Andy Irvine is the top scorer. Which source should be used for the official statistics? Unfortunately, World Rugby don't appear to have a records or statistics page. TGB13 (talk) 19:47, 4 July 2017 (UTC)