Misplaced Pages talk:British Isles Terminology task force/Specific Examples: Difference between revisions

< Misplaced Pages talk:British Isles Terminology task force Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 18:41, 5 January 2010 editGoodDay (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers493,047 edits →Conclusion ← Previous edit		Revision as of 18:42, 5 January 2010 edit undoOff2riorob (talk \| contribs)80,325 edits →Plymouth: addNext edit →
Line 592:		Line 592:
	:Still at it are we? British Isles and Ireland is it now, why not just remove Ireland completely, The British isles (which does not including Ireland) ] (]) 18:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)		:Still at it are we? British Isles and Ireland is it now, why not just remove Ireland completely, The British isles (which does not including Ireland) ] (]) 18:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
	::Nobody trying to add ''British Isles and Ireland'', I'm just suggesting they don't. ] (]) 18:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)		::Nobody trying to add ''British Isles and Ireland'', I'm just suggesting they don't. ] (]) 18:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
			:::I can tell you, all of this makes me sick of Ireland and I hope it sinks into Irish sea. ] (]) 18:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

	== ] ==		== ] ==

Revision as of 18:42, 5 January 2010

Strict observation of WP:CIVIL etc

Because there is a likelyhood that discussions tend to get overheated on this topic, what do other editors feel about a strict implemtation of WP:CIVIL and no personal comments or ad-hominen attacks? We might end up making more progress if the discussion steered away from the usual problematic behaviour that tends to clog up discussion pages and slow progress. If enough editors agree to this suggestion, perhaps we could ask an admin to make decisions on how to deal with transgressions... --HighKing (talk) 17:10, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I've no prob with that, the best way to go is the Spicoli way. Be cool & patient folks. GoodDay (talk) 17:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem with such rules if a neutral admin is to enforce them, perhaps User:Black Kite would? One thing that should be done is to inform certain editors about this page who may not notice it, but would take part. Clearly those who have reverted original attempts to remove British Isles from the page should be informed atleast. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:43, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

How can we make sure this section doesn't get archived? Or can we just archive sections that have been closed? --HighKing (talk) 19:20, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

British poetry, Part I

Discussion

I propose British Isles is maintained in the text but the article is renamed to British and Irish poetry. MidnightBlue (Talk) 22:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, suggest changing the lead to British and Irish poetry, whether from the British Isles or the British Empire, may include the following: MidnightBlue (Talk) 22:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The article is specifically about British poetry. It has nothing to do with Irish poetry which has it's own article. It's outside the scope of this discussion to start talking about how we can change articles in order to accommodate the term "British Isles". --HighKing (talk) 22:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

It's a disambig' page (inlcuding a link to Irish poetry) which originally used British Isles. See , so we aren't accommodating anything. MidnightBlue (Talk) 22:18, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The link to Irish poetry was carefully placed there by Tharky as part of his spree. But you probably knew that.... --HighKing (talk) 23:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Im not going to get into debating this one tonight, although i find that entire page insulting when it should be an article, not simply a dab page. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the link I provided above (the first substantial edit of the article) it can be seen that Irish poetry was orginally in there, together with British Isles. A subsequent edit by an IP removed Irish poetry. A further subsequent edit by HK (2008) replaced British Isles with British Islands. Recently User:TharkunColl has restored Irish poetry and British Isles. I think it's OK as a dab page - it does what it's supposed to do, namely point to the individual articles of the poetry of the nations of the British Isles. MidnightBlue (Talk) 20:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, id just rather that was a property article with a little bit of information about poetry from each than just a dab page. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Its good enough as a dab page and doesn't insult anyone that I can see. Given the historical aspects I think including Irish is fine, while it is a dab page and it provides a useful link. If it became an article then I think it would be more dubious. --Snowded 09:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Irish poetry should not be included as British poetry. Poetry is either classified as Irish, or British, not both. Also, the entire opening sentence is pretty lame - does British poetry include Indian poetry? Or Australian poetry?? Claiming the poetry of the British empire as being British is wrong, with no references to back up this assertion. Either this title becomes an article in it's own right, like British litrature or it should be deleted. It should definitely not be a Dab making silly claims. --HighKing (talk) 10:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Highking, if the title remains British poety Irish shouldnt be kept there, im also not sure about the bit mentioning the Empire and i dont like the original research about "British poetry" being a term rarely used.

I think it should become a stub page to be dealt with like British literature, if not then either Irish poetry is removed or a name change for the article to something like Poetry from the British Isles. I see no reason for the name British and Irish poetry. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

So how abot we rename it to Poetry from the British Isles (or Poetry of the British Isles), then remove the lead-in sentence, retain all the links, then it becomes a simple disambiguation page? MidnightBlue (Talk) 17:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Or how about we don't. --HighKing (talk) 00:43, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

And your reasons for not wanting to do so? MidnightBlue (Talk) 10:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Because this is your 3rd or 4th attempt to significantly rewrite or modify articles with the sole purpose of introducing the term. If you could just step back a little and take a look at the way they were currently used rather, and if the usage is correct or not, I believe we'd make a lot more progress. --HighKing (talk) 19:16, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)Pinging this article this for more input please. Issue has not been resolved. --HighKing (talk) 23:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

British poetry, Part II

Discuss Þjóðólfr (talk) 18:15, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

This is tricky. If poetry from (what's now) Republic of Ireland, was written between 1801 & 1922? then it's all British. GoodDay (talk) 18:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Discuss it with yourself. Your actions, in edit warring over two days on numerous articles, without so much as an edit summary, simply show that you're waging a vendetta against British Isles. Even HighKing has acknowledged that the terminology is correct in articles shuch as Eurasia. You are on your own. Don't expect much response to your "request" for discussion. MidnightBlue (Talk) 18:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I've deleted British Islands from that article. Neither term (British Islands or British Isles) are needed. They're more bother then they're worth. GoodDay (talk) 18:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

"Be advised! My passport's green. / No glass of ours was ever raised! To toast The Queen." So wrote, Seamus Heaney when his work was included in a book of "British Poetry" (he's from the Northern Ireland). The problem is stated in the introduction to the article - what is "British" poetry, anyway? Since it is an ill-defined term I think we should strip out most of into waffle and just say something simple like.

British poetry is a rarely-used term as almost all poets of that it could refer to are more clearly identified with one of the various nations. It may include:

And, yes, I'd include Irish poetry underneath that, not least for the 19th century. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there's no article for Irish poetry for the time Ireland was part of the UK of BG&I, and including Irish Poetry in this article for the relatively short time it might be considered a subset of British is not right. For the average reader, they're different and separate articles. I've no problem if the article mentions Irish poetry in the 19th century though. --HighKing (talk) 22:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I suppos moving the article to British and Irish poetry is a non-starter. GoodDay (talk) 22:17, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

It's a dab page. It's no big deal. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:24, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's a dab page. This is a prime example of removing BI due to a hatred of the words. Keep it as British Isles. LevenBoy (talk) 13:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I have yet to read where anybody on this page has expressed hatred for the term British Isles. We are striving for encyclopedic accuracy here, nothing else.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Just to be fair and transparent (and at the risk of being blocked) I've reverted this article to the version as of 29 September, which was the version when the discussion started (way above). No conclusion was reached, so let's kick off here with a clean slate. I'll take first stab ---

I think the article is fine as it is. For a long historical period Irish poetry came under the banner of British poetry. If that's not the case now, then say it in the article. Gotta say it, there's an attempt here to get rid of BI for no good reason at all. Mister Flash (talk) 19:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd rather the article itself being moved to British and Irish poetry or British Isles poetry, personally. As for the content? exclude 'British Isles': when in doubt, throw it out. GoodDay (talk) 19:18, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

"When in doubt, throw it out". I don't think so. "When in doubt, check it out", maybe. Mister Flash (talk) 19:49, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Reopened

@Snowded, you stated above Given the historical aspects I think including Irish is fine, while it is a dab page and it provides a useful link. The current text now reads whether of the British Isles, the British Empire, or the United Kingdom. Given that the British literature definition is British literature refers to literature associated with the United Kingdom, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands as well as to literature from England, Wales and Scotland prior to the formation of the United Kingdom., I see no reason why Irish poetry is included. Why do you believe that the British poetry definition should be different? It might be argued also that Irish poets born while Ireland was part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland could/should also be classified as British, but traditionally I would say that they are not. Either way, including Irish poetry on a dab page on British poetry is wrong and leads readers to draw *completely* the wrong conclusions as it refers to the present tense. Using the term "British Isles" similarly misleads. --HighKing (talk) 15:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there is an easy answer here. There is a large body of Anglo-Irish poetry before the 1920s, and even in the modern day we have literary works from both geographies that assume common concerns etc. It is a dab page, I don't find it offensive. I think it helps people to understand that Irish Poetry is not British Poetry by having the page. Removing BI from the text would make sense but I really don't see this one as a major issue. --Snowded 20:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

There's probably really two issues here. The first is classifying Irish Poetry as British Poetry - perhaps the text could explain why Irish Poetry may sometimes be classified as "British Poetry". Then the issue of "British Isles" is redundant. What do you think? --HighKing (talk) 18:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I think adding a note on that would make sense --Snowded 11:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Conclusion

Nothofagus dombeyi

The above article uses a reference from the Wild Flower Society of the UK where it lists the "List of Accepted Plants of the British Isles 2007" (copied from the List of Vascular Plants of the British Isles) to support the sentence that the plant has been introduced as ornamental in the British Isles and also in the North Pacific Coast of the United States. The reference doesn't support this statement.

Discussion

It looks to me like editors are now trying tactics to introduce the term into articles even if it doesn't support the assertion being made. Can we draw a line under this practice please? And a reminder that we're trying to create guidelines, and flora is specifically one of those areas where distribution of plants is considered, from a scientific point of view, over the entire British Isles. --HighKing (talk) 20:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

It suppports the fact that the plant is in the British Isles, and it's a good quality reference. Given that the plant is not a native species it has clearly been introduced. You don't need a degree in botany to work out that one. MidnightBlue (Talk) 16:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The plant is not a native species? That reference does not support that assertion. That is why using that reference is not a good reference for that statement. If we can't find a reference, we should simply strike the sentence. And as per WP:CIVIL, if you left off the sarcastic tone and comments about degrees in botany, we'd have a lot less friction here. Absolutely no need to be quite so confrontational. --HighKing (talk) 18:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I think there is a stronger case for British Isles when we are talking about a species with a distribution over the area. Of course, Britain and Ireland would defacto be as good and less controversial. If there was more of a spirit of compromise over political articles (which should be linked to the state), it might be easier to reach agreement in cases like this. --Snowded 23:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong - I absolutely agree that there is a stronger case for distribution about a species over the British Isles because scientifically the islands are often used to describe a single distribution unit. If the article stated that as a fact (with reference), I'd say that's fine, no problem. But this article is making an altogether different claim with the reference provided in that it is stating the plant was introduced as ornamental. --HighKing (talk) 01:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Ping - or does everyone agree that the unreferenced sentence should simply be removed? --HighKing (talk) 01:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

It's presence on a list of plants present with the British Isles does I think justify it, but you might want to ask someone with more expertise in original research. I think this one is a legitimate use on the face of it. --Snowded 20:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we're talking at cross purposes. The statement is simply unsupported and unreferenced. Why do you believe it is justified - I don't get it? Are you saying there's no harm in stating that it's been introduced as an ornamental in the British Isles. There isn't any reference that states it has been introduced as ornamental. --HighKing (talk) 18:34, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The reference is to a list entitled BI so I think its supported. This one is reasonable --Snowded 11:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The reference, as I've stated before, is to a list that states that the plants are present in the British Isles. It doesn't state that it was introduced, or isn't native, or more importantly, it doesn't support the statement that it has been introduced as ornamental in the British Isles. You state that it's supported, but it simply isn't. It would be fine to use the reference to state that is was simply present in the British Isles, but it's not fine to state it was introduced as ornamental. --HighKing (talk) 14:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Well it is not native to the British Isles, the list says it is present in the BI so the current article does seem to be a reasonable summary and not original research. --Snowded 17:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

@Snowded - I feel we're butting heads on this one, and I don't understand why. You state the current article is a reasonable summary, but you still haven't pointed out why the reference supports the "has been introduced as ornamental in the British Isles". The reference doesn't support this, period, therefore it's complete WP:OR. Nor have I been able to find any other refs to support the statement. --HighKing (talk) 17:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Have you not noticed? I've fixed it. I took out the word "ornamental". You're right - that fact isn't referenced. All we know is that it's been introduced to the British Isles, and that's now what the article says. Mister Flash (talk) 17:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Back up a sec. We appear to have established and agreed that the reference doesn't support the assertion, fair enough. So as it stands, the sentence is not referenced and should be removed. Your edit doesn't actually fix anything as it's still not supported that it was "introduced", and your edit also goes against the spirit of what this page is trying to achieve. Kindly revert until this discussion has completed.

Looking up the source quoted by the reference, the BSBI, we can see that is is classed as Alien. The US Dept of Agriculture also has a listing (and refers to BSBI with a broken URL) and lists the English name, Dombey's Beech.

There are also mentions in various gardening books such as Trees for your Garden by Allen Paterson and Shrubs for the Milder Counties by W Arnold-Forster. Note that the "British Isles" is not a formal scientific area/region for plant distribution, but I've no objection if an editor sees fit to expand the article to mention the English name, or that it has been planted in Caerhays in Cornwall. --HighKing (talk) 22:08, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, it's OK as it is, so I won't be reverting. The species was introduced to the British Isles. That's clear from the reference which lists the plant as being here. Since it's not native, and it's here, it's been introduced. The reference shows that to be a fact. Mister Flash (talk) 22:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The reference doesn't support that it was introduced, sorry. Nor does it support that it was introduced to the British Isles - the only mentions are for England. Note that scientific distribution regions treat Great Britain differently than Ireland or the Channel Islands. --HighKing (talk) 01:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Reopen

For me, the sentence is unsupported and should be removed. Can someone throw their eye over this again please? --HighKing (talk) 15:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Conclusion

I fixed it. Mister Flash (talk) 18:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted the non-fix since Mister Flash knows that this discussion is ongoing, and I've explained above why his so-called fix isn't solving the problem. --HighKing (talk) 13:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

American and British English differences

I've changed the text from Over the past 400 years, the form of the language used in the Americas—especially in the United States—and that used in the British Isles have diverged in many ways, leading to the dialects now commonly referred to as American English and British English. to substitute "British Isles" for "United Kingdom", since "British English" is the variant used in the UK only (Hiberno English, for example, is used in Ireland). --HighKing (talk) 18:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted this pending further opinions. The discussion in which the term is used relates to a period of history covering 400 years. That would rule out use of the UK. All things considered, BI would apears to be a reasonable term. MidnightBlue (Talk) 20:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how BI would appear to be a reasonable term given that Ireland has a distinctly different dialect. The term in use does not relate to a period of history covering 400 years - that period merely considers where different dialects originated, with the colonization of North America. If you reckon that "United Kingdom" is incorrect, why then would the article refer to the "United States" seeing as how they weren't around 400 years either? Also consider the article lede which clearly states:

This is one of a series of articles about the differences between American English and British English, which, for the purposes of these articles, are defined as follows:

American English (AmE) is the form of English used in the United States. It includes all English dialects used within the United States of America.

British English (BrE) is the form of English used in the United Kingdom. It includes all English dialects used within the United Kingdom.

All in all, I suggest the article should be reverted to consistently use "United Kingdom". --HighKing (talk) 17:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

There are also Welsh and Scottish forms of English, in this case I think British Isles works. --Snowded 02:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

There are a few issues here. Yes, Ireland has a distinct dialect, but the article is more about words than dialect. Ireland is very much closer to BrE than AmE, in fact the people of Ireland are probably as close to it as are the people of, say, England. The references to the United States are perhaps as incorrect as those to the United Kingdom. Maybe there are parts of the article that should be re-written, but not as an excuse to remove some term or other. On balance, I agree with Snowded; British Isles seems reasonable in this article. MidnightBlue (Talk) 20:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Notwithstanding future improvements to articles in general, the point being made is that the current text is inconsistent with the current article, and the lede of the current article. The article is not concerned with other accents within the British Isles - it is concerned with British English. Even the lede of the article defines British English as the form of English used in the United Kingdom. Should the article have originally stated that used in the British Isles have diverged in many ways, leading to a wealth of distinct dialects such as American English, British English, Hiberno English, Scots English, and numerous other dialects, then it would have made sense. But it doesn't. In the current context, the text is incorrect and "British Isles" should be replaced with "United Kingdom". --HighKing (talk) 01:11, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)Want to get closure on this. @Snowded, you state that there are also Welsh and Scottish forms of English, therefore concluding that "British Isles" is OK. I'd say that this is exactly the opposite of the usage guidelines we want to promote. Hiberno-English, while related to "British English", is not the same and is not a subset, so it is incorrect to use "British Isles" in this context. On reading the article British English, it is clearly refering only to the United Kingdom. I would suggest that we should avoid articles using "United Kingdom" and "British Isles" interchangeably without any apparent reasoning. --HighKing (talk) 13:52, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

British English is really a reference to the form found in the Commonwealth in contrast with American English. Its normal in Misplaced Pages to use one or the other. I have not seen anyone say "UK English". I think this one is OK. --Snowded 20:47, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

You're now redefining "British English" as the form found in the Commonwealth, which isn't the definition used in the article. But I believe the article has now been updated to include a definition from the OED which states that "British English", which would also mean that this article is referenced and OK. I've asked the editor to expand on the OED entry a little more to get the proper context, but it looks fine so far. --HighKing (talk) 18:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)Are we happy then to change? No resp back from @Snowded yet, so I'll wait till I hear. --HighKing (talk) 13:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

No we are not happy to change! Who is we? You, and maybe Snowded by the looks of it. Mister Flash (talk) 18:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Carbon group

In the history section of this article, it states Much of the tin used by the early Mediterranean peoples apparently came from the Scilly Islands and from Cornwall in the British Isles, where tin mining dates to at least 300–200 BCE. Cornwall is clearly in Great Britain and the Isles of Scilly also lie off the coast of Cornwall. The largest relevant land mass is Great Britain in this case, and it isn't relevant to use "British Isles" in this context, as the wider group of islands is not being discussed at all. --HighKing (talk) 17:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Suggest that nothing is required here, remove "in the British Isles" and pipelink Scilly Islands and Cornwall. --Snowded 02:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with British Isles in this article. The Scilly Isles are not Great Britain; they are some of the British Isles. MidnightBlue (Talk) 20:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't get how you agree to change the Isles of Scilly below and disagree here. "Great Britain" is often used to refer to the islands lying off its coast so objecting on the basis that the Scilly Islands is not part of Great Britain would negate all usage where the Scilly Islands is included. Perhaps "Britain" is more commonly used in this way though, I'm not sure? Opinions? --HighKing (talk) 15:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Getting back to this. The text specifically mentions Cornwall, therefore it makes more sense to state "Great Britain". Just like we did in the article below. You wouldn't say Cornwall, Europe either. Cornwall is better qualified and more meaningful to readers by using GB. --HighKing (talk) 22:21, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks like there's a reference there boy. And it comes from Britannica no less. I'd leave off this one if I were you. Mister Flash (talk) 09:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Its a direct quote from Britannica, but that doesn't make it valid. I think my compromise above is better. Pipelink the Scilly Islands and Cornwall, remove "in the British Isles", keep the reference. BI adds nothing here. --Snowded 20:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree - I'll change again. --HighKing (talk) 18:46, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't bother. I'll only change it back. The current text is referenced from Britannica. Mister Flash (talk) 18:50, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

"BI adds nothing". Is that the latest tactic when all else fails and an indisputable reference has been submitted? Mister Flash (talk) 19:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Tautology and repetition are bad editing practice--Snowded 11:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Conclusion

Changed as per discussion above. --HighKing (talk) 20:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Reverted. Reference added. MidnightBlue (Talk) 18:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Changed. --HighKing (talk) 18:46, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Changed back. Mister Flash (talk) 18:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

England national football team

The current text states: England joined FIFA in 1906, playing its first ever game outside the British Isles in 1908. The relevance of this game is that it was the first game outside of the United Kingdom or Home Nations. The text should be changed to refer to "United Kingdom" pipelinked to United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. --HighKing (talk) 15:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

At that time "Home Nations" was appropriate, I would leave that one. --Snowded 13:35, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you suggesting it gets changed to "Home Nations"? I'd agree to that, as this would be more common usage for sport. --HighKing (talk) 17:07, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Yep, Home Nations was the common phrase --Snowded 17:43, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Home Nations is acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 17:40, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The current statement is accurate. MidnightBlue (Talk) 18:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Your standard response I see. In this case I doubt it, Home Nations was used at the time not British Isles (in fact it still hangs around for sporting occasions). Don't you feel any obligation to try and resolve this ongoing issue? --Snowded 18:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. In this context, "Home Nations" it should be. Black Kite 18:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

It's a sports thing, Home nations is an acceptable alternative. GoodDay (talk) 18:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Conclusion

Article should use Home Nations. --HighKing (talk) 00:01, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Article changed. --HighKing (talk) 01:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Done --HighKing (talk) 01:17, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks like the text was changed back. I'll put a link back to here for discussion. --HighKing (talk) 16:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The balance here is for Home Nations, including our independent voice. --Snowded 20:56, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you give this discussion to much weight, who is your independant voice, there is plenty of opposition for this around the wiki, all this pushing is doing is starting numerous edit wars around the wiki. Off2riorob (talk) 15:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Please take a look around the WP:BISLES and WP:BIDRAFT1 pages. You'll see that this is the place for discussions. Also be aware that Mister Flash has personalized this discussion to a worrying degree. --HighKing (talk) 22:46, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Celtic Christianity

The lead text currently states Celtic Christianity or Insular Christianity is a term referring broadly to the Early Medieval Christian practice that developed in Britain and Ireland before and during the sub-Roman period. The term Britain is ambiguous, and in any case the Celts were found in outlying islands and the Isle of Man. British Isles would be a more accurate term. Elsewhere in the article we have Britain and the surrounding isles developed distinctively from the rest of the West. Britain and the surrounding isles is merely a euphemism for British Isles. The article should say what it means. This terminology should be replaced with British Isles. MidnightBlue (Talk) 18:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Usage of 'British Isles' is acceptable, giving the time period. GoodDay (talk) 18:40, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Question to GoodDay which time period makes 'British Isles' an acceptable alternative? Þjóðólfr (talk) 18:43, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Before 1922. GoodDay (talk) 18:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

There was some ambiguity about the different geographic entities at that time. Parts of Scotland (and those associated with early celtic christianity) were de facto Irish for example. I'm not aware of anything significant in the Isle of Man either before or after the Synod of Whitby. In fact there was a presence in Brittany which would invalidate any of the terms in dispute. North Western Europe might be the most accurate. --Snowded 18:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

(EC) To GoodDay: If references are supplied by a historian that rejects New British History I would see your point. However I posit most modern historians are more enlightened. Þjóðólfr (talk) 18:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

If it'll end the constant disputes over the usage of British Isles on Misplaced Pages? I'll embrace it. GoodDay (talk) 19:00, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Sarum Rite

This article states: The Sarum Rite (more properly called Sarum Use) was a variant of the Roman Rite widely used for the ordering of Christian public worship, including the Mass and the Divine Office, in the British Isles before the English Reformation. Various parts of Britain and Ireland developed local variants of the Western Liturgy: the Sarum Rite was originally the local form used in the Cathedral and Diocese of Salisbury; it later became prevalent throughout much of the British Isles, particularly in southern England. For a number of reasons, the term "British Isles" should use "Britain and Ireland". None of the references refer to "British Isles", and it is an example of usage which confuses geographical usage with geopolitical usage. There is no references that show that the Sarum Rite was used outside of England, Scotland and Ireland. One reference states: The manner of regulating the details of the Roman Liturgy that obtained in pre-Reformation times in the south of England and was thence propagated over the greater part of Scotland and of Ireland. Other, though not very dissimilar Uses, those of York, Lincoln, Bangor, and Hereford, prevailed in the north of England and in Wales. I recommend that the article either refers to Britain and Ireland, as per the references. --HighKing (talk) 18:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree, Britain and Ireland is more appropriate here given the organisation of the Church. --Snowded 00:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Suggest expert opinion is elicited. In the mean time I'm reverting the change. Mister Flash (talk) 15:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Its nothing to do with expert opinion, As far as I can see high King is right, British Isles is not in the references so it should be changed. Do you have a reference Flash? --Snowded 21:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Nope, haven't got one. Like you I'm not interested in references for this sort of thing (see your comments about the Britannica reference at Carbon Group). Most uses of British Isles are axiomatic. All I ask is that HighKing doesn't edit it out of articles whose subject is not in his area of expertise, and from what I can see his area of expertise is something to do with computers. Leave the experts to sort this out - we're all too biased. Mister Flash (talk) 22:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Well I wound't claim deep expertise, but I do know that the Church has never (pre or post reformation) being organised on a BI basis and Ireland has always been a distinct entity. I don't see you making any effort to identify an expert or seek one, this looks like a stalling argument to me. To date you have always opposed any removal of BI regardless of the evidence, some of us have taken a more balanced view so I think your "we are all to biased" is not a universally valid label. You also need some reference to make this one stick. On Carbon Group its a question of how much of a geographical strong of references is required. My view is that Scilly Isles and Cornwall is enough. --Snowded 00:50, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter whether the church was organised on a BI basis or not. The term is being used to describe a geographical extent, and is therefore valid. I have acknowledged cases of wrong use of BI. Have a look up and down this page, there are a few - not many, I grant you - where I acknowledge incorrect use. My problem with this whole thing is motivation. The anti-BI POV pushers (I don't include you) are not out to improve the encyclopedia, they're out to remove BI for political reasons; straight up. As for references, you can't have it both ways. "Get me a reference, get me a reference... here's one from Britannica ... don't like it. Mister Flash (talk) 11:58, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Your statements about the motivations of others would have far more credibility if you didn't have a knee jerk rejection to reject changes. Many geographical terms can be valid some are inappropriate. Where have you acknowledged incorrect use by the way? --Snowded 12:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Conclusion

Changed to Britain and Ireland --HighKing (talk) 15:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Reverted pending expert opinion. Mister Flash (talk) 15:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Lets try and work from the facts

I had a suspicion about this one so did some checking. My memory of ecclesiastical history had this as primarily an English rite, linked to Old Sarum. This source backs that up. This also supports that view with an emphasis on Souther England, with propagation to Scotland and Ireland. Given that at this time we have three political entities (England inc Wales, Scotland and Ireland) I think the form of the second reference is the most accurate. This phrase "St. Osmund, Norman nobleman and Bishop of Salisbury between 1078 and 1099, established the Sarum rite which regulated the Divine Office, Mass and Calendar. "The Sarum rite came to be used throughout most of England, Wales and Ireland, and later Scotland, until the reign of Queen Mary" is from this source. We also need to remember that the origin of the phrase British Isles is in Elizabethan times, post reformation. Remember that, despite the Synod of Whitby celtic practices also continued in the Irish and Scottish Churches. The citation evidence here is to use the country names not British Isles. --Snowded 20:16, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The terminology used by the citation is irrelevant. Are you saying that BI shouldn't be used in any historical context prior to the origin of the term? If you are, then that's bizarre. British Isles is a convenient description for the geographical area encompassing GB and I, regardless of period. Its use here might not be preferred by some, but it is certainly not incorrect. Mister Flash (talk) 21:08, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Terminology used in citations is actually relevant. Given that the balance of citation evidence is for country names that wins out. Add the fact the term was not in use at the time, and the British Isles was never an ecclesiastical unit of any sort and the evidence is clear. This one is a real chance for you to prove you are not just advocating BI regardless of the facts Flash. The evidence is building that you are just sitting there saying no and stalling on every case. That type of behaviour is as bad as edit warring and can itself lead to sanctions. I suggest you think about showing some adaptability on some of these subjects.--Snowded 00:40, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Fine. You are putting forward some good arguments on this one, although I object to the idea that BI can't be used to describe anything prior to the advent of the term. It would be good to see a contribution here from a regular editor to the article, to confirm your arguments, or not, as the case may be. Mister Flash (talk) 18:26, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I placed a notice on the page and no other editors have engaged. On that basis I thnk it needs to be confirmed to the references above. --Snowded 08:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Banknotes of the Republic of Ireland

The article states When the Irish Free State came into existence in 1922, three categories of banknote were in circulation. These consisted of notes issued by the Bank of England, the British Treasury and six Irish banks then in existence who were chartered to issue notes. Only British Treasury notes had legal tender status within the state. The issuing of banknotes by multiple private institutions was an everyday aspect of banking in the British Isles at the time and indeed remains so in Northern Ireland and Scotland today. The text shouldn't mix geographical and geopolitical descriptions and should use "United Kingdom" instead. --HighKing (talk) 01:08, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree as banknotes have nothing to do with geography.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes they do. They are issued in geographical entities known as countries. LevenBoy (talk) 12:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Geographical entities don't issue banknote. A mountain doesn't. An ocean doesn't. Banknotes are issued by the treasuries of sovereign states. As such, name the states not the geographical entities. --HighKing (talk) 14:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Euro? Mister Flash (talk) 16:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

All issued by the treasuries of 28 different sovereign states who all issue banknotes and coins. Europe, as a geographical entity, does not issue currency. The Eurozone is not geographical, it's geopolitical. --HighKing (talk) 17:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, because not all countries situated in the continent of Europe are part of the EU.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

And not all the countries that have adopted the Euro are in Geographical Europe... --HighKing (talk) 17:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

You lot seem to be missing the point here. It's stated that multiple private institutions were issuing the banknotes, not countries, so in the historical context it seems okay by me to relate those institutions to the geographical region in which they existed, viz the good old British Isles, given that what they were doing was being carried out throughout the islands. What's your problem? Mister Flash (talk) 17:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

By you lot, do you mean HighKing and myself? I personally have no problem with the geographical term British Isles, but it shouldn't be used in lieu of Britain or the UK, when geography is clearly not the issue as in this case of banknotes.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

You lot here is anyone hell-bent on junking British Isles. Most articles has some geographic angle, as this one does, and within that angle it's okay to state British Isles. Mister Flash (talk) 17:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not hell-bent on junking anything, Mister Flash. All of us here are part of a project which is to build an encyclopedia. I often use the phrase British Isles when it is appropriate, which in this case isn't. It appears as if you have a problem if you insist upon lumping editors together in the sweeping term You lot just because they happen to disagree with you. I might add, although I am certainly not obliged to do so, that none of my edits or comments are politically-biased.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

⬅I would be inclined to Britain and Ireland here as that is correct in both time periods. --Snowded 00:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Conclusion

Changed to Britain and Ireland. --HighKing (talk) 18:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Again, don't bother. I'll put it back. No consensus - again! Mister Flash (talk) 18:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no consensus for these changes and it is better if left as they were until discussion can take place, altering these names is a catalyst for creating edit wars and should stop until a clear consensus is shown. Off2riorob (talk) 18:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

England national football team

The text currently reads Before Wembley, London was opened, England had no permanent home ground. England joined FIFA in 1906, playing its first ever game outside the British Isles in 1908. The text should either refer to "United Kingdom" or "Home Nations". --HighKing (talk) 18:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Won't give up will you. You've already had a go at this one and been knocked back by an uninvolved editor. Leave off! LevenBoy (talk) 18:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Yep, this one's got a double helping. See above. Mister Flash (talk) 19:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

It is claimed there is a one revert condition on this article, is that correct, also I can see no consensus for change to the article but it is being repeatedly changed? Off2riorob (talk) 13:30, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

List of extinct states

A heading states:

In and around what is now the British Isles

Kingdom of England (927-1707)
Kingdom of Scotland (843-1707)
Lordship of Ireland (1171-1541)
Kingdom of Ireland (1541-1801)
Commonwealth of England, Scotland and Ireland (1649-1660)
United Kingdom of Great Britain (1707-1800)
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (1801-1922)

The other headings for Europe all mention current sovereign states - this heading should be changed to refer to "UK and Ireland". --HighKing (talk) 18:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

'Great Britain and Ireland', is prefered. GoodDay (talk) 18:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Not by me it isn't. British Isles is right. LevenBoy (talk) 18:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

except it does not need to say "what is now the British isles" it should say within the British Isles. We would not say " What is now Europe". British isles must remain in this case. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Its political and the phrase "what is now" would imply UK and Ireland as being the most appropriate --Snowded 13:29, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

British Isles is not a problem here. The article also uses "Nordic" "Comecon Countries" and "South East Asia" as examples of geographic groupings. This is one of the clearest examples yet of someone trying to remove British Isles simply because of a dislike for it. LevenBoy (talk) 14:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Conclusion

Change to ] and ] --HighKing (talk) 01:27, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Reverted. No agreement. LevenBoy (talk) 12:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Ya'll have to work this out at the article-in-question, now that HK's change has been reverted. GoodDay (talk) 12:28, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I've notified Black Kite over this editors continued ad hominen comments in edit summaries and disruptive reversions. The consensus above is to change. --HighKing (talk) 22:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I'm with keeping BI so that's three apiece. No consensus then. You haven't changed it yet have you? Mister Flash (talk) 09:38, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Too late. Your chance to discuss it was above for weeks. If you want to put it back, read BK's rules on references and the guidelines above about civility and personal comments. If you revert, chances are you'll be blocked. --HighKing (talk) 15:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Change it to Great Britain and Ireland. -- GoodDay (talk) 15:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree with GoodDay here, British Isles is as accurate an inaccurate a phrase given that the Crown Dependencies are not part of the referenced Kingdoms --Snowded 06:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
@Snowded - can you clarify your comment please. Are you agreeing with GoodDay or saying you believe British Isles is OK? --HighKing (talk) 01:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Well it's not clear who thinks what here. For me, British Isles is not a problem. I vote British Isles stays. Mister Flash (talk) 19:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

~~(outdent)Changed to UK and I --HighKing (talk) 17:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC)~~
~~Is there as claimed an official one revert rule on this article? Off2riorob (talk) 15:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)~~
~~Reopen~~
~~@Snowded - can you clarify your comment above please - are you in agreement to change or to keep British Isles for the reasons stated? Thankyou --HighKing (talk) 13:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)~~

~~National myth~~
~~The article discusses and lists national myths, describes as A national myth is an inspiring narrative or anecdote about a nation's past. Yet the article uses the following list structure.~~
British Isles: Brutus of Troy (Brythonic legend reclaimed by the Celtic Tudor and Stuart rulers who reclaimed the islands from Norman Plantagenet and Bruce dynasties, contemporary to the union between Brittany and France during the Renaissance and Reformation)
Cornwall: Corineus (Brythonic)

Wales: Camber (legendary king) (Brythonic)

Ireland: Ériu (Gaelic)

Isle of Man: Manannán mac Lir (Gaelic)

Scotland: Scota (Gaelic)

England: Yngvi (Ingaevones) (Germanic)

Jersey and Guernsey: Rollo or Ragnar Lodbrok, his predecessor (both Germanic)
The article should not group different sovereign states and nations under "British Isles". I suggest that there's no need for grouping these together and Cornwall should be included as part of England, or at most, Cornwall should be grouped separately under England. --HighKing (talk) 01:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I disagree. In this case, I support the use of British Isles; and Cornwall should not be included as part of England. The reason for my support of BI is the Celtic history and ancestry which is shared by all of the nations and islands mentioned above. The mtDNA of most English people is Celtic, as the Anglo-Saxon invaders were mostly men. The Normans who came with the Conqueror married Norman and Breton women; however, a large number of Anglo-Norman noble families from the 13th century onwards had Irish mtDNA from Aoife of Leinster.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I have two concerns:
Using "British Isles" as a super-category when talking about anything to do with "nation" is off. In this case, it gives the appearance that all beneath the "super-category" have their own national myths but that there is a unifying myth or national 'homeland'. The "British Isles" should instead be listed in parallel to the other nationalist 'homelands' in the area. It is one of many 'homelands' that people look to but not a unifying 'homeland'/myth/nation for all the (purported) 'subgroups'.

I don't believe that the "British Isles" that being referred to is the British Isles that we all know and love today. I think it is instead Britannia, the Roman province and, later, the island. I don't believe it is the island group. But that will require a reference, which I will look for this evening.

--rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 09:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
++ Yes indeed, the article itself says that Brutus of Troy refers to the island, not the island group. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 09:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't have a prblem with British Isles here. We aren't talking politics. LevenBoy (talk) 13:10, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I've no probs with the usage of British Isles. GoodDay (talk) 14:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi GD, just to be clear. You've no problems with using "British Isles" to group together different national myths? Note the word "national". Using British Isles in this case makes it seem that the British Isles is some sort of super-nation ... like the UK perhaps :-) Or am I missing something? --HighKing (talk) 15:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Ireland is mixed in there. GoodDay (talk) 15:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Charles Cawley in his Medieval Lands includes Ireland with the British Isles when he lists the monarchs and nobility of Europe.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Ireland and British Isles or British Isles and Ireland makes no sense to me. Ireland should always be included in the 'British Isles' term. If it ain't? then the term is obsolete. GoodDay (talk) 17:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
The grouping as it stands is quite convenient. I vote leave it alone. Mister Flash (talk) 19:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree. British Isles is more convenient to use in this case.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
@Jeanne - why is British Isles more convenient. I stress that we are discussing "National" myths, not geographic myths. Why is "British Isles" a convenient grouping of different nations? Your point about Charles Cawley including Ireland with the British Isles makes some sense since he is referring to geneology, but I don't see why it's a convenient grouping for this topic, especially when the myths in question don't overlap and bleed into each others geographic areas. --HighKing (talk) 13:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Quick question, what's the deal with these discussion and matters of WP:VERIFY. In this case "Brutus of Troy" is not a founding myth of the British Isles but of the island of Britain (Albion) (cf. The History of the Kings of Britain, Geoffrey Monmout). Is it considered warring to go and simply correct that? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
~~Conclusion~~

~~FWA Footballer of the Year~~
Another sporting article. It states that a footballer was First winner of the award from outside the British Isles. I suggest that in keeping with other sporting articles, it would be better to use Home Nations. --HighKing (talk) 02:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree with you here.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
No. It's a fact. Home Natuions doesn't cover Iom etc, which BI does (for completeness and clarity). LevenBoy (talk) 13:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Sport events = Home Nations, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 14:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Says who? Again, you see, there's a chance of introducing errors. Who knows but what one of the ballers didn't come from the Isle of Man? If so, British Isles would be correct, and Home Nations would be wrong. And if there wasn't anyone from IoM, then British Isles is still right. No, BI is good here. I think we'll stick with it. Mister Flash (talk) 18:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
A chance of introducing errors? As a matter of interest, if a footballer is born in IoM or Channel Islands, which national team do they play for? Home nations is the correct term here. --HighKing (talk) 19:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
You tell me. The statement remains true. Mister Flash (talk) 19:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Nay! home nations will do. GoodDay (talk) 18:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Home Nations has always been used for Football, it is the common term and it relates to the national sides involved. --Snowded 21:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
~~Conclusion~~
~~OK - changed to Home nations. --HighKing (talk) 13:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)~~

~~Henry John Elwes~~
The article states: From 1900 to 1913 Elwes undertook his greatest work, "The Trees of Great Britain and Ireland", in conjunction with the botanist Augustine Henry. Between them, in seven large volumes, they described every species of tree then grown outdoors in the British Isles Leaving aside the obvious copyvio from this website, the article should retain use of "Great Britain and Ireland". Changing to "British Isles" is WP:OR. --HighKing (talk) 02:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I think BI is acceptable in this case as they are describing trees.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi Jeanne, the issue here is about sources and references, as well as normal practice. The source is a series of volumes that describe the trees of GB&I, as per the title. The introduction by the author states THE object of this work is to give a complete account of all the trees which grow naturally or are cultivated in Great Britain, and which have attained, or seem likely to attain, a size which justifies their being looked on as timber trees ; but does not include those which are naturally of shrubby or bushy habit. So using "British Isles" to describe the book is WP:OR. Also from a scientific point of view, the Channel Islands is categorized as part of France in regard to Flora distribution (with the code "Ga" for "Gallia"). --HighKing (talk) 14:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I see what you mean. If the author of the book (Elwes) didn't use BI in the title, then the Misplaced Pages article should not change the wording, as it is indeed OR to do so. Thanks for the clarification.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
But. There *are* many books that describe flora over the "British Isles", and in those cases it obviously is perfectly fine. Just in this case, it's OR. --HighKing (talk) 14:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The book is named The trees of Great Britain and Ireland, not The Trees of the British Isles. Therefore, use Great Britain and Ireland. GoodDay (talk) 15:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I believe we have reached a consensus. HighKing?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't think we have, lol. HighKing gaming the system again. It's nothing to do with WP:OR (try reading link). Both Ireland and GB are in the British Isles. It is irrelevant what the book's named. Does the book cover any trees in the Isle of Man - well, we just don't know. So imposing GB&I could, repeat could, result in errors being introduced. British Isles on the other hand covers every eventuality. It's a classic. An attempt to shed British Isles maybe leading to errors. Disgusting! Mister Flash (talk) 18:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
This discussion is taking place under strict adherence to civility policy. You shouldn't need to be reminded of this. No more personal comments - they will simply be removed. You have been warned in the past. Please strike your comment on "gaming the system" above.

As to your reasons to include "British Isles" above, it's not references, it's WP:OR, the introduction of the book is clear. Trying to keep the term on the basis that it could result in errors misses the fact that keeping it in definitely introduces an unreferenced error. --HighKing (talk) 19:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Again, it's a policy thet you singlehandedly implemented - but I'm happy to abide by it anyway. You are gaming the system. It's something you've previously accused others of. Look it up in the applicable procedure. You'll see your actions on this article are precisely that. Mister Flash (talk) 19:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
User:Canterbury Tail has replaced BI with GB&I in this article. However, if you examine the text of the book you'll find that Elwes refers to trees in the Isle of Wight. Now forgive me if I'm wrong, and the Isle of Wight is a long way from where I live, but I think the IoW is NOT part of Great Britain; the latter being a distinct and well-defined island in its own right. So Elwes does cover tress elsewhere in the British Isles. Although his book title is GB&I it's a reasonable, and correct, statement to say that his work covers the British Isles. In fact it's more accurate than to say his work just covers GB&I, which is what we are currently saying, and which is incorrect. BI would not be incorrect. Mister Flash (talk) 19:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Interesting bit of evidence here. you rejected the Isle of Man argument on the Five Peaks Challenge, but here you use it. --Snowded 12:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
The difference being that in mentioning the IoM the suggestion is that BI can only be used if the subject includes every element of it. That is merely an opinion (one that I reject). However, for the IoW, it most definitely isn't included in GB&I and that is a fact. Mister Flash (talk) 12:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
I think this more or less confirms my position. --Snowded 13:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
~~Conclusion~~
~~Corrected --HighKing (talk) 15:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)~~

~~Unitised insurance fund~~
The article states: An insurance company's contract may offer a choice of unit-linked funds to invest in. Insurers that offer these contracts are mainly found in the UK and British Isles offshore financial centres.. No need for "British Isles" in this sentence. --HighKing (talk) 02:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree it's not needed in the sentence. UK is sufficient.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
It's not on Henry John Elwes. Which article is it on HighKing? Daicaregos (talk) 08:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes it is there, and it's OK to keep it. BI offshore centres has a very specific meaning. LevenBoy (talk) 13:17, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

UK and British Isles make no sense to me. Are these contracts offered off the shores of Ireland? GoodDay (talk) 15:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
@HighKing: Thank you for adding the article title; it helps with context :)
Agree with LevenBoy - to a point The phrase "offshore financial centres" certainly does have a very specific meaning (that of jurisdictions allowing beneficial tax rates), but I have never heard the phrase used with "BI", or even with "British Isles". The sentence would benefit from being rewritten as HighKing suggests: Insurers that offer these contracts are mainly found in the UK and offshore financial centres., or with an additional "in" before "offshore ..." Daicaregos (talk) 16:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Ah,ha, this is one you've had a go at previously . From what I read, BI is dead on here. The centres include Dublin, Man, Channel Islands, so British Isles offshore centres, yep, spot on. Mister Flash (talk) 18:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Dublin is included? then we go with 'British Isles'. GoodDay (talk) 18:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Eh, no. This financial product is offered mainly by UK insurance companies (but not exclusively), but sometimes (for beneficial tax breaks) through their offshore arms usually based in the IoM or Channel Islands (not Dublin). But they're also offered by many EU insurance companies and even by US companies. See With-profits policy for more info. Use of "British Isles" in this case is totally incorrect as there is no "British Isles" jurisdiction, and the article incorrectly gives the impression that they are somehow unique to the UK. --HighKing (talk) 19:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I think you'll find Dublin's in there. Mister Flash (talk) 19:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Ah. You've found a reference I take it? Can you put it here please. --HighKing (talk) 20:35, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
~~Try this, page 242. Wait for it ... Mister Flash (talk) 21:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)~~
Tortuous logic. Dublin is listed with Switzerland and other areas. So the current article is not logical, if it is to replicate the text then it it various crown protectorates and various countries. No case for the use of BI. --Snowded 21:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Dublin is listed as an "offshore finanical centre", and I believe it's also in the British Isles. Mister Flash (talk) 21:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
So is Switzerland and it is not, the term British Isles is used no where in the article. Without a citation it goes, you are engaged in synthesis here, and dubious synthesis at that. --Snowded 21:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Yessss! That's what I was waiting for! Someone (you beat HK to it) claiming synthesis, i.e. attempting to game the system by applying inappropriate rules. Read up on what really constitutes synthesis. There's no doubt about it. Dublin is a British Isles offshore financial centre, full stop. Like it or lump it. Claim synthesis or whatever. It just won't wash any longer. Mister Flash (talk) 21:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
It pretty obviously is synthesis. You do not have a citation which uses British Isles, you have an article which on page 242 talks about Dublin along with other states which are nothing whatsoever to do with the British isles. In effect you are imposing an uncited term, which is not even a complete description for reasons I find it difficult to fathom. I have read up on synthesis extensively over the years and this is a pretty clear example. Accusing me of gaming the system is arrant nonsense. If you check the above arguments you may care to note I have supported the use of BI when appropriate. You seem to lack either the willingness or the judgement to discriminate, advocating BI on the flimsiest of grounds. Lets see what other editors say and take it for comment if necessary. --Snowded 21:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Since Dublin is involved, I've no probs with using British Isles. GoodDay (talk) 21:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Locations described as "mainstream offshore centres” along with Dublin in that reference (p 242) are Bermuda, Bahamas, British Virgin Islands, Jersey, and Switzerland (Cayman Islands is also included). Note # 1: they are not called British Isles offshore financial centres; # 2: of those locations, Dublin is the only one to be in the British Isles. The sentence being debated should therefore have the reference to British Isles deleted. Daicaregos (talk) 22:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

(conflict edit)Anyway, it doesn't matter about Dublin, as HighKing says the product isn't sold out of there. No problem. Is it sold out of Jersey etc? A place also in the British Isles, so the statement in the article is valid, if Jersey and others are involved. Are these contacts available from British Isles offshore financial centres? The article says they are. This one really is futile! Mister Flash (talk) 22:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I gotta take a break from this. You guys are darn good at making your cases. GoodDay (talk) 22:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Saying "British Isles offshore financial centres" is akin to saying "British Isles cities". A city does not have to be descibed as "being in the British Isles" before reference can be made to the fact that it is; and so with British Isles offshore financial centres. Mister Flash (talk) 22:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Actually Europe would be more accurate than British Islands given the other cited countries. I repeat Mister Flash, the citation does not mention British Isles, it mentions multiple countries/cities and you are selected some of those and arguing that they fit a geographical term BI. In any definition of the word that is synthesis and supporting clearly dubious uses here damages your credibility. As a matter of interest do you have any examples of where you have supported the removal of BI? --Snowded 22:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
No. Mister Flash (talk) 22:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I rest my case, I think its time to get a third party on the whole behaviour here, not just this particular issue. --Snowded 22:18, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

May I see the 'citation'-in-question? GoodDay (talk) 22:17, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
"these contracts are mainly found in the UK and British Isles offshore financial centres". Why Europe, why not "the world". Let's try rewording it "they are found in offshore financial centres located in the British Isles"? That covers Man, Jersey, and if needed, Dublin. Mister Flash (talk) 22:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
~~(outdent) I can't tap into that citation, as it freezes up my computer. GoodDay (talk) 22:35, 30 November 2009 (UTC)~~
It should be OK. It's a lengthy pdf doc. Try again, and if no luck I'll transcribe the relevant section. Mister Flash (talk) 22:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
A transcribtion would be prefered. GoodDay (talk) 22:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Here's the relevant text (section heading from document shown in bold here)
Are British Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies well-regarded as Offshore Financial Centres, both in comparison to their peers and international standards?
104. As acknowledged by the FSF report in 2000, all OFCs are not the same. The offshore centres differ in both the nature and diversity of their financial services on offer as well as in the quality of their regulatory frameworks.
105. Notwithstanding this diversity, the Cayman Islands is one of the so called “mainstream offshore centres” (other jurisdictions widely held to be part of this group are Bermuda, Bahamas, BVI, Jersey, Dublin and Switzerland). These jurisdictions can therefore be regarded as Cayman’s peers. For the most part these jurisdictions recognise the relatively higher quality of each other in terms of both their commercial success and regulatory standards. As a result there is cooperation at both the official levels between regulators as well as within the private sector as evidenced by many of the leading firms having offices across several of these jurisdictions. In some cases, these jurisdictions also provide complementary services based on their relative strengths. As an example the Cayman Islands is home to over 90% of the world’s hedge funds but a large percentage of these funds are administered in Dublin.
Mister Flash (talk) 22:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
~~The citation doesn't mention British Isles. As a result, I'd recommend 'exclusion' of the term. GoodDay (talk) 22:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)~~
"... the UK and British Isles offshore financial centres..." What does that even mean? I suggest we contact someone with knowledge about the subject to find out what is being referred to.
Mister Flash, the article deals with unit-linked insurance funds and says that insurers that offer these contracts are mainly found in "the UK and British Isles offshore financial centres". Your citation doesn't appear to mention "unit-linked insurance funds" or say where they are mainly found. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
My citation was merely to demonstrate to HighKing (at his request) that Dublin was "an offshore financial centre". What does that even mean - well the more I read it the more it becomes clear and unambiguous - financial centres located either in the UK or offshore (from the UK) but within the British Isles, e.g. Jersey, Dublin. I don't see what the problem is. Mister Flash (talk) 23:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
And Switzerland? The Bahamas? all listed in your citation --Snowded 23:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Well as you pointed out, there's no mention of British Isles in the citation! Those locations are descibed as "mainstream offshore centres". Again, what is at issue here? Mister Flash (talk) 23:18, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I give up, you have a position and you intend to support it regardless of evidence or argument. We are probably getting close to a straw poll here. --Snowded 23:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Consensus rather than a straw poll is what's needed, but you won't get it here. Why not move on to the next battleground? Mister Flash (talk) 23:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Consensus does not mean unanimity and a straw poll and/or involvement of third party editors will hopefully resolve this. I note you see this in military terms, I suggest a rethink on your part. We need rational discussion of when BI is appropriate and when it is not, not a partisan refusal to change. --Snowded 23:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
"...the more I read it the more it becomes clear and unambiguous - financial centres located either in the UK or offshore (from the UK) but within the British Isles, e.g. Jersey, Dublin." Really? But not offshore centres in the UK and/or "onshore" in centres in Ireland? Do you have a citation for that - or are you in anyway familiar with the topic?

Let's contact Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Finance and ask someone who might know what they are talking about to shed some light on what could be meant here. Otherwise we are just fumbling in the dark. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 23:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
~~Conclusion~~
~~I'm in agreement with administrator Black Kite. We're likely headed towards an RfArb. GoodDay (talk) 23:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)~~
Although I don't understand financial stuff like this, it seems to me that since the British Isles is a geographic, not a financial entity it shouldn't be used in this context (and the structure of the sentance under question is all wrong - you can't have "UK and British Isles" like this, since the UK is part of the British Isles, either just say British Isles, or if this is incorrect, change it to UK (or Europe, or whatever it is actually referring to).--Jackyd101 (talk) 20:03, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
A comma wouldn't go amiss. It's actually 'UK', and 'British Isles offshore' etc.. with BI offshore having a specific meaning as I understand it. Yikes, I've been dragged into these fruitless, ridiculous arguments again. Mister Flash (talk) 20:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
You are quite right actually - the term "British Isles offshore financial centres" is actually a technical term (at least it appears so on google), meaning the financial industry of the Channel Islands, Isle of Man etc. A comma is definately necessary, but in this case the use of British Isles is clearly correct (although it should be delinked).--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. Linking is not needed here since BI is a "sub-term" in this case. Mister Flash (talk) 23:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
~~@Jackyd - if you exclude the wikipedia entries from Google, you'll find it doesn't appear at all. It's not a technical term. --HighKing (talk) 19:09, 24 December 2009 (UTC)~~
Completely wrong . --Jackyd101 (talk) 21:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Completely right. You forgot the quotes "" --HighKing (talk) 22:34, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
No, I didn't. See the third result on the page I linked to. Also note that "British Isles Offshore Financial Services Industry" seems to be an even more popular term.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
No, still wrong. The page you linked to simply isn't searching for the correct phrase. Also, seaching for "British Isles Offshore Financial Services Industry" shows exactly one result (after removing duplicates) which is a report by Datamonitor, and which uses "British Isles" in a way that actually excludes Ireland and only includes the crown dependencies. --HighKing (talk) 13:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Who said every instance of BI should include Ireland? The current usage is correct. Mister Flash (talk) 18:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
I won't compromise on the term British Isles. If the term is used in an article, it must 'include' Ireland. If Ireland isn't included, then the term BI is un-necessary. Afterall, if Ireland is excluded for ther BI term, then what's all the bickering about? GoodDay (talk) 18:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

~~BL Challenge~~
The article states 2009 saw the intrepid duo complete a tour of the British Isles in their cars, albeit with Adam using a different car to the previous year.. The website reference shows that they toured the island of Great Britain (or England, Wales and Scotland). The article should be changed to either Great Britain or England, Wales, and Scotland. --HighKing (talk) 17:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
~~Since they've only toured the island of Great Britain? then we should change to Great Britain. -- GoodDay (talk) 18:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)~~
~~Could we try This Format I think it would allow the involvement of more disintersted and Interested parties? Þjóðólfr (talk) 19:12, 8 December 2009 (UTC)~~
I think think the issue here is that the article should be AFD as neither Adam Ransom or Dominic Makemson are notable. Þjóðólfr (talk) 19:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Yep. Wrong, wrong, wrong. British Isles dead wrong here. But be safe. Go for AFD then British Isles will definitely go. Mister Flash (talk) 20:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
~~Conclusion~~
~~Article no longer exists. --HighKing (talk) 15:09, 23 December 2009 (UTC)~~

~~Mediterranean campaign of 1798~~
~~This followed by This Warrants a new Topic Here Þjóðólfr (talk) 21:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)~~
In 1798, we should use Kingdom of Great Britain & Kingdom of Ireland, in place of British Isles (if we want it political) or use the island articles Great Britain & Ireland (if we prefer the geography). GoodDay (talk) 21:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Comment on Subject Þjóðólfr (talk) 21:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Is This comment acceptable? Þjóðólfr (talk) 21:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
I'll let the administrators decide. GoodDay (talk) 21:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
I should say so. It's spot on, fact of the matter, straight up. Mister Flash (talk) 21:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Mister Flash, you are in breach of the agreed strict civility rules set for this page. If you can't comment on the content, don't comment on the editor. This is your last warning. In future, your behaviour will be reported and you may get blocked. --HighKing (talk) 21:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I agreed nothing. Might just stop contributing here then. Am still going to check all your weird edits. Mister Flash (talk) 22:38, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
If you don't agree, don't contribute. But this is the place to discuss articles, so if you want to help shape future guidelines, then tone it down. --HighKing (talk) 03:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
~~Conclusions~~
Comment The term BI is not justified by the existing Reference - but alternative references do exist. To my mind this is the old truth/verifiable Chesnut. Both BI and NE Other alternative are verifiable. Infinite loop. But then again the fact that BI increasingly irksome to the Irish is also verifiable. Is the fact that there is nothing wrong with British Isles also verifiable? Þjóðólfr (talk) 23:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
A similar article was discussed above and the decision was to remain within references and the intention was to invade Britain, not to invade the British Isles. --HighKing (talk) 03:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
That is an entirely separate event 40 years earlier! It has no bearing on this at all. In this case, the sources describe planned invasions of both Britain and Ireland - the two biggest islands of the British Isles. Therefore, the use of the term British Isles is perfectly correct. Can people please stop changing this in the article until the discussion (either here or on the talk page) is resolved - that is how edit wars start.

On a more general note, if this task force really wants to improve the encyclopedia by encouraging accuracy in the use of this term, then it needs to stop being so imperious with its editing. Edits like this should be raised on the talk page first, major contributors notified and the discussion here clearly linked to before these changes are made. In addition, I have asked where this task force gets its authority to state conclusively that "British Isles is certainly not to be used for convenience" and so far I haven't received an answer yet.--Jackyd101 (talk) 12:07, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
If that is what your references state what is wrong with Britain and Ireland? I do agree that a BI:MoS/Mediation page/RFC page Misplaced Pages:WikiProject British Isles and Ireland would be more authorative. I dont understand the convenience of repeatedly reverting back to BI without adding a supporting reference. Þjóðólfr (talk) 12:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
There is a reference - just because it doesn't use the exact words "British Isles" doesn't mean that it isn't referencing the sentance. There is nothing "wrong" with "Britain and Ireland" per se, its just that its an unusual construction - British Isles is a much more usual term as far as I know, and it has a link, to the British Isles page. (Why are we even having this discussion while the page British Isles is where it is? Surely if the main article is at that page then its use throughout Misplaced Pages should be encouraged, not removed without good reason?)--Jackyd101 (talk) 13:12, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Before anyone points it out, I know there is a page Great Britain and Ireland, but that stub has little context and really should be a redirect to British Isles, so linking to it wouldn't be very useful.--Jackyd101 (talk) 13:14, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
~~Reopened~~
There are some topics where we've found "British Isles" to be used commonly, and we therefore don't require references for each and every usage. The reference guideline proposal already lists technical usage such as physical geography, geology, natural history (including fauna but excluding flora) and archaeology. My initial feeling was that this is an example of a "political use" of the term - where "British Isles" is in reality referring to the areas ruled by the English monarch, but perhaps we need to ask ourselves the question - is there a case here, that "British Isles" is also commonly used when referring to wars against Britain, in which case it qualifies as common/technical usage? --HighKing (talk) 12:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Apologies, I somehow missed your comment here (very busy in RL at the moment). I'm not quite sure what you are trying to say? Although I have mentioned in relation to this the fact that the British crown was in control of all of the British Isles at this time, the term is (also?) correctly used in the geographical sense - the French were planning invasions of the two largest British Isles and thus the use of the term is correct here. You still have not provided anything to back up your assertion that "British Isles is certainly not to be used for convenience" - where did this come from?--Jackyd101 (talk) 08:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
No probs. Starting at the last point - I stated that it isn't to be used for convenience (my words) when discussing geographic areas and where references don't exist that use the term. It stems from the reasoning that the term is objectionable to many Irish, and it's usage often incorrectly fails to acknowledge Ireland as a distinct nation. Many discussions here on WP have led to the agreement that "British Isles" should only be used as a geographic term, and not as a geopolitical term. Exceptions have sometimes been made where specific references use the term, but in the absense of references, we try to use the terms that do exist within the references. You state that the "British Crown" controlled the British Isles - that's true. But you state that the French were planning invasions of the two largest British Isles - I wouldn't agree to this usage as it is using "British Isles" to mean "two islands owned/controlled/ruled by the British" as opposed to the accepted definition of "the archipelago consisting of....". --HighKing (talk) 10:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Actually, during the specific time period under discussion, both meanings are correct. I fully agree with you that the term should not be used incorrectly (i.e. to refer to only one of the British Isles), but otherwise there shouldn't be a problem with using it (as in this case), as a geographic term, even if there may be an additional political meaning. On your second point, while it may be true that "the term is objectionable to many Irish" (although actually I have never met an Irishman who had a problem with it and I've spent a lot of time on the island), I don't see why that should prevent the use of the term on Misplaced Pages. Compromises are alway necessary: I happen to find the placement of Londonderry at the wrong name objectionable, but I accept that on Misplaced Pages one can't always have what one wants. This page should stick to removing clear inaccuracies, and avoid attempting to remove accuracte text because a small minority may find it "objectionable". --Jackyd101 (talk) 17:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
You state that during the specific time period, both meanings are correct - but that's part of the problem. The text is not being read and interpreted by readers from that era. It has also been argued in the past that the term "British Isles" *used* to also have a political meaning, synonymous with your earlier terminology or "ruled by the British crown" - and this usage is also avoided wherever possible and whenever a clear alternative exists, primarily to avoid confusion, but in fairness, also to avoid avoidable aggro. Also, it's only a guideline. If the article is improved by using the term "British Isles", especially in historical articles where the political meaning is deliberately intended, then it makes sense to do that.

For this article, existing references don't use the term, and new refs haven't been produced that uses the term, which significantly weakens the argument for using the term and strengthens the argument that the term is avoidable and unnecessary. --HighKing (talk) 20:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm confused, you say that "If the article is improved by using the term . . . then it makes sense to do that" (as is clearly the case here), and then you say that "For this article . . . the term is avoidable and unnecessary". Which is it? --Jackyd101 (talk) 22:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Jackd. Not sure why you're confused at all...you say that it is "clearly the case" that the article is improved by using the term. Yet we've discussed above that you're using it to refer to a political area - the area ruled by the British Crown. This is not the definition given in British Isles. Given the ambiguous and political nature of the topic (two European/World powers duking it out), the valid and accurate alternatives exist such as invasion of Britain, invasion against the British Crown, of UK, etc, and most importantly the lack of references, I believe there's a strong case for accepting the case to change it. Perhaps some other people could comment? --HighKing (talk) 13:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
No, you are wrong. I am not using the term "to refer to a political area". I am using it to refer to a geographical area, in this case Britain and Ireland (as covered by the sources), which is most conveniently expressed as "British Isles". The fact that at the time it also refered to a political entity is just an added bonus.--Jackyd101 (talk) 15:29, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
If, as you've just stated, you are referring to "Britain and Ireland", then use that term and not "British Isles" which is something different. British Isles is *not* a conveniently expressed as British Isles. --HighKing (talk) 19:11, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
"British Isles is *not* a conveniently expressed as British Isles" doesn't make any sense. However I think I get the jist of what you were saying. Unfortunately, despite being asked repeatedly, you haven't shown me where that rule exists on Misplaced Pages and until you do it sounds a lot like you are reverting to WP:IDONTLIKEIT.--Jackyd101 (talk) 21:33, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes - I meant to state that "British Isles" is *not* a conveniently expression for "Britain and Ireland". And I believe you'll find that nobody has ever said anything about there being a "rule" - just commonsense guidelines about usage, especially where it's unnecessary and inaccurate. --HighKing (talk) 22:38, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
So there isn't a rule? It's just your personal preference? In that case, I respectfully choose to ignore your preference as I disagree with it completely. One man's "commonsense" is another man's "nonsense".--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:09, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

~~If the sources say "Britain and Ireland" then its not valid to substitute "British Isles". Go with the sources --Snowded 08:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)~~

~~Women's County Championship~~
Article states that it is the women's domestic cricket league in the British Isles. There's no reference for this. And it appears to include the Netherlands. Doesn't appear to include any team from IoM or Channel Islands. Probably should read as GB, I, and NL. Can someone who knows about womens cricket comment? --HighKing (talk) 12:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
~~Using United Kingdom, Republic of Ireland & The Netherlands, would be acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 18:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)~~
~~Conclusion~~
~~Changed. --HighKing (talk) 15:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)~~
No one yet commented. Wait till they do. Mister Flash (talk) 15:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Since I'm here, I think this is correct as either "British Isles and the Netherlands" or "Britain, Ireland and the Netherlands", since they mean exactly the same thing. The Netherlands should definately be mentioned.--Jackyd101 (talk) 20:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but they don't mean the same thing. At all. The British Isles also include the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. "Britain, Ireland and the Netherlands" is accurate seeing as Cricket is organized on an all-island basis. --HighKing (talk) 19:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Since British Isles is an acceptable short-hand for a combination of any two of Britain, Ireland and the smaller associated islands, they do mean the same thing. What do you mean by "an all-island basis"? Britain has more than one team (so no all-island) and the Netherlands isn't an island at all, so your meaning is unclear.--Jackyd101 (talk) 21:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
No. British Isles is *not* an acceptable short-hand for anything. It has a specific meaning. But at least I now understand why we disagree - if that is your understanding and position, that British Isles is an acceptable short-hand for a combination of any two of Britain, Ireland and the smaller associated islands, they do mean the same thing.

There's some previous discussions dating back 18 months here and at the Draft proposed guidelines pages at WP:BIDRAFT1. --HighKing (talk) 22:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
That is what I believe the term means, yes. Neither of those (quite old) discussions seems to have reached a conclusion, so I don't see that they are particularly relevant now. I do understand that other people can have differing interpretations of the meaning of the term, but I fail to see that any "meaning" has reached predominance on Misplaced Pages. Until a meaning is agreed, this page should stick only to removing instances where the term is incorrect (i.e. where only one island is referred to).--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
The discussions we're having now are actually a continuation of those other discussions, and they're still relevant. You are partially correct about meaning - "British Isles" has an agreed meaning. It refers to a geographical region, etc, etc. Most of the discussions here are about usage, not definition. Incorrect usage means different things to different people. For me, if the term is used in a context where it's actually referring to UK and Ireland, that's incorrect. So for this case, the question being asked is, "Is Women's Cricket organized by country or by geographical region?" --HighKing (talk) 13:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
British Isles does not have an agreed meaning in Misplaced Pages. It's just what you would like. Usage here is not incorrect, merely a preference. It can and should stay. Mister Flash (talk) 18:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

~~5 Peaks Challenge~~
This article stated The 5 Peaks Challenge is a hill climbing challenge in the United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland, where the aim is to ascend and descend the highest peak in each of the five countries of the British Isles. Given the obvious misuse of terminology from UK and I to BI, the article has been changed to read The 5 Peaks Challenge is a hill climbing challenge in the United Kingdom and Ireland, where the aim is to ascend and descend the highest peak in each of England, Republic of Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales --HighKing (talk) 21:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
I reverted User:LevenBoy who tried to use the 5-peaks self-published website as a reference, even though it is obviously wrong. First off, the website states So this was our challenge: to climb the 5 highest mountains in the British Isles, within 48 Hour target! But the 5 highest mountains in the British Isles are probably all in Scotland for a start. Changing the article to read "in each of the five countries of the British Isles" is WP:OR - that isn't referenced. Also, what about the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands? There's debate over whether Wales and Scotland are "countries" (seems we don't have the monopoly on sillyness here), but if they are, then the Isle of Man and Channel Islands are also countries. All in all, it's a pretty dumb sentence to start with, but at least it's unambiguous and technically accurate and correct now. --HighKing (talk) 13:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Nope, you're wrong I'm guessing. Website looks like from the people who dreamed up the idea. Even if it isn't it uses the dreaded words, so good on em. BI is spot on for this article. Stupid listing the countries separately. Oh yes, I know the five highest are in Scotland, so I'm going to set about rewording this article to account for that. Mister Flash (talk) 17:38, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Done. And I see HK didn't comment on the 3 peaks reference. If you caint have BI here where can ye? Mister Flash (talk) 18:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

"British Isles" is correct. It's "five countries of the British Isles" that I would shirk at - last I saw there were two countries in the sense of sovereign states, or four in the sense of traditional countries, (are Mann, Jersey or Guernsey are ever referred to as being "countries" in any sense?) ... but that's another matter.
British Isles is not correct, seeing as they merely scale the highest mountain in each of England, RoI, NI, Scotland and Wales. --HighKing (talk) 21:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

FYI, I've moved the page to "Five Peaks Challenge" to avoid a leading number. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 18:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
FYI, I've reverted Mister Flash. His rewriting of the article is WP:OR in terms of the reference. The guidelines state to use the smallest relevant area, which in this case is simply GB&I or UK & I. Rewriting articles just to insert the term "British Isles" isn't a good idea. TBH, this article wouldn't even make the grade for notability anyway... --HighKing (talk) 21:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Yep. Notability. Now there's an opportunity for gettting rid of BI. Your logic is BS! And rewriting articles just to insert BI. Thats a bit like having 101 reasons up your sleeve for getting rid! Mister Flash (talk) 22:27, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Notability did cross my mind too, but as it would otherwise be encyclopediac the inclusionist in me said otherwise. Yes, they are the highest peaks in England, RoI, NI, Scotland and Wales. Those are the major jurisdictions in the "British" Isles and there is (sadly) no better way to describe that concept at this time except by that term. The inception of the event is clearly best understood in terms of "archipelago unionism" (to coin a phrase) - and verifiably so in terms of the "British Isles". Until such time as a better turn of phrase (?) becomes more common, Br*tish Isles it is. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 00:04, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
It's an inaccurate and unnecessary way to attempt to describe it. They're picking the highest points in geopolitical areas, not geographical, and have not picked the highest in 2 of the other geopolitical juridictions - IoM and CI. It is not a "convenient shorthand" to group the 5 political entities in 2 of the major islands as "British Isles". This use is confusing, and inaccurate. --HighKing (talk) 03:09, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
...but not a random selection of just any five geopolitical areas. By choosing those particular ones, the competition (as expressly stated by the website) climbs the highest peak in each of the "5 countries" of the "British Isles".

Suppose there was a better term for the archipelago (whether you see it from the perspective of physical or human geography). Let's say the Isles of Nodd. Would you still say it is inappropriate to say, "The 5 Peaks Challenge is a hill climbing challenge in the Isles of Nodd."?--rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 10:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
No, you're wrong. The challenge, as expressly stated by the website is So this was our challenge: to climb the 5 highest mountains in the British Isles, within 48 Hour target!. Which is not what you've said above. You're interpreting that this means "the highest peak in each of the 5 countries of the British Isles", which is WP:OR. I agree, the peaks are not random, they're the 5 highest peaks in each constituent country of Great Britain and Ireland. That's as accurate as it gets based on the facts. --HighKing (talk) 12:38, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
The peaks they mention are not the five highest mountains in the British Isles. Either the website is wrong or you are incorrectly reading what they mean when they say, "the 5 highest mountains in the British Isles". In any event, I think you are getting your knickers in a twist over very little. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 13:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
That's exactly my point. The quoted reference is wrong - they are simply not the 5 highest mountains in the British Isles. Other references that have since cropped up state 5 peaks in the UK and Ireland (BBC), the highest peaks in England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland (Times and Star), the five highest mountains in Britain and Ireland (Europe Intelligence Wire), and the highest peaks in the Republic, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England (Bray People). In line with other discussions, we've stated in the past that the smallest relevant area should be used, and in this case it should be either "Great Britain and Ireland" or "UK and Ireland". Also, all the references quoted as part of the recent AfD (above) use similar terminology. I believe it should be changed to UK&I since 5 peaks were climbed representing the 4 constituent countries of the UK, and RoI. --HighKing (talk) 23:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
"In line with other discussions, we've stated in the past that the smallest relevant area should be used, and in this case it should be either 'Great Britain and Ireland' or 'UK and Ireland'." That's a little restrictive, don't you think? What would you say to a guidelines that suggested that the smallest relevant area should be used over, say, "Europe". We could not therefore say that the EU is in Europe. Or that there was a war in Europe between 1939 and 1945. Unless the point of reference was precisely counter-terminous to Europe, we could not use that word. It would be quite an unnatural restriction to place on ourselves, wouldn't it? Is it reasonable to place a similar restruction on ourselves vis-a-vis the "British" isles?

Suppose the article still existed, what would be wrong with flipping UK and ROI around with BI: "The 5 Peaks Challenge is a hill climbing challenge in British Isles, where the aim is to ascend and descend the highest peak in each of the five countries of the the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland." (This by now obviously a purely academic question.) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 00:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi RA, the article existed when I posted the comment. Although it's now academic, let's continue so that we can at least understand each other. The "smallest relevant area" reasoning was used previously when "British Isles" was used in places where UK&I or GB&I was more accurate. I understand your logic about using "Europe"; factually, you *could* say that the EU is primarily in Europe but you couldn't state is in Europe. The "restriction" on British Isles as you put it, stems mainly from inaccurate use, or use that leads readers to incorrectly associate the British Isles as being an interchangeable term for Britain or the UK, or one that treats the British Isles as being a logical cultural or political geographical unit. BTW, your suggested corrected sentence is fine and factually accurate. But I'm less interested, for the purpose of these discussions, to work out ways where the term "British Isles" could be inserted into articles - the purpose here is to understand correct and incorrect usage, and to come to grips with the myriad grey usage that abounds in articles. Your suggestion suggests you grasp the difference - here's hoping others eventually grasp it too. --HighKing (talk) 10:18, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
~~Conclusion~~
~~The article has been merged with Three Peaks Challenge, but discussion still appropriate and useful. --HighKing (talk) 14:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)~~
...er..I think you have forgotten how weak willed, TheWeakWilled can be: Five Peaks Challenge. Þjóðólfr (talk) 14:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
In the meantime .. the opening sentence was "rewritten" to remove the factual error but to include "British Isles" - as per other copyeditting jobs here, I've changed the opening sentence back to the original way it was, but without the incorrect facts about the highest peaks in the "British Isles". --HighKing (talk) 15:03, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

~~Terry Hollands~~
As part of a fairly reasonable clean-up of this article, I changed In 2006 he lost his UK title to the experienced and established Glenn Ross but turned his attention to "ultimate" title within the British Isles, Britain's Strongest Man. to In 2006 he lost his UK title to the experienced and established Glenn Ross but turned his attention to the Britain's Strongest Man competition. --HighKing (talk) 21:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Aye! Heaven help us if we had anything "ultimate" in the British Isles. Mister Flash (talk) 18:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

As the "Britain" being referred to is a combination of England-Ireland-Scotland-Wales (as oppose to UK-Ireland), then "British Isles" seems (until such times as a better word becomes more common) most appropriate. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 00:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

~~A reference to Home Nations though might not go amiss.~~ --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 00:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Why? Home Nations has never been used in the context of Strongest Man competitions, it's usually reserved from sports that are (or were) still organized on an all-Ireland basis. The structure of the "Strongest Man" competition is the winners of the Republic of Ireland and the Ulster strongman competitions, then compete for the UK title with UK competitors, who then go on to compete in the Europe competition. --HighKing (talk) 03:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Just a thought ... but just looking at the Wiki page it includes winners from the Channel Islands and and competitions held in the Isle of Mann, which are not normally counted among the Home Nations. British Isles (until a better word enters common usage) would seem most appropriate. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 10:56, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Just to be clear - there's numerous sentences, all valid, that can be constructed to include the term "British Isles" on almost any subject. Your point about the winners is one such point - a sentence could easily be created that states that the winners of Britain's Strongest Man come from all over the British Isles, or competitors from all over the British Isles can compete, etc. But 1) we're looking at the usage in existing sentences and trying to (one day) understand common sense guidelines for usage and 2) Not trying to insert the term by writing new sentences. 3) Sticking to references where/if possible for descriptions.

If (and when) we agree on what is good usage, as opposed to the "grey areas" and the obvious incorrect usages, we won't have to discuss each and every article.

The point here is that this article makes a claim. One of those biggest/highest/longest/etc types of claims, about the competition being the ultimate in the British Isles. First off, there's no "ultimate" title in this competition. Second, there's no reference - there isn't even a website! So how can we be factual? How can we try to understand the intent? Is a competition with the title "Britain's Strongest Man" really a competition about "British Isles Strongest Man"? I believe making that assumption is incorrect and WP:OR. Is "Britain's Strongest Man" a better or more prestigious competition that the UK strongest man (as per the claim in the article?) - again, unless we find a reference, the claim should not be in the article. --HighKing (talk) 12:28, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
And there are numerous sentense, all valid, that can be constructed to exclude the term "British Isles" on almost any subject. That doesn't mean we should remove "British Isles" at every turn. What do you suggest it should be changed to? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 13:27, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
My suggestion was to simply remove the "ultimate" title within the British Isles, clause. Most of this article is simply ripped off from Terry's website (along with grammer errors), but it's not even in a form where we can turn it into a quote along the lines of "Terry stated he wanted to focus on the premier competition in the British Isles". It probably fails copyvio but I'm not too expert in that policy... It's basically making an unsubstantiated claim without reference. --HighKing (talk) 17:22, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
And by shear chance ...... your suggestion would also remove British Isles. Mister Flash (talk) 19:33, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

That seems fine. My apologies, I hadn't read your suggestion above properly or hadn't understood what you meant by it. Examples like this article demonstrate that sometimes issues like with "British Isles" are not actual issues with the term but more simple copy editing issues. Just as we shouldn't edit to remove/insert the phrase, we should resist edits just to keep it in/out. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
~~Conclusion~~
~~The article was using an unreferenced superlative which has now been removed. --HighKing (talk) 14:04, 23 December 2009 (UTC)~~

~~Attempts to avoid edit wars~~
Perhaps, we should 'wait' 1-week, before making changes to these articles. If there's no opposition then we declare it a consensus. Right now, there's a growing edit-war on these latest articles. GoodDay (talk) 18:09, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
There is clearly opposition to these changes, imo this discussion is so limited that it shouldn't be used to push through changes. Off2riorob (talk) 13:38, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
The only other alternative (which would be painstakingly long) would be to work it out on each article talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 14:36, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
There are only a few editors involved in the discussion here, this should not be used as a consensus to push though changes which are starting edit wars and for which there is a fair bit of opposition. Off2riorob (talk) 15:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Are ya recommending the Specific Examples page's closure? GoodDay (talk) 15:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Not especially as it is a place to discuss but the limited comments from editors here should in no way be used as a consensus to push through change. Also is it true that there is a one revert condition on the england football team article and who is the independent here? Off2riorob (talk) 15:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm not aware of any 1RR rule for the usage/non-usage of 'British Isles'. The only 1RR restriction (to my knowledge) is the one covering the Troubles-related articles. GoodDay (talk) 15:50, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Well I think it was snowed that has claimed that? As I look through the contributors to this talkpage I see there are only limited contributors and clearly not a position to claim consensus for these changes, this situation requires wider discussion. Who is the so called independant admin here? 15:56, 24 December 2009 (UTC)Off2riorob (talk)
There's no longer an administrator monitoring the Examples page (Administrator Black Kite has retired from Misplaced Pages). PS: I've added a suggestion to the main page. GoodDay (talk) 15:58, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Right thanks GoodDay for the detail. Off2riorob (talk) 16:32, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
No prob. GoodDay (talk) 16:33, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow, he was a good admin and it seems that the issues here were involved in his retiring! Off2riorob (talk) 16:36, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
I can understand his resigning of the role of moderator. But his retiring from Misplaced Pages, caught me off guard. Who knows, maybe in 2010, he'll reconsider & return to the Project. GoodDay (talk) 16:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Until Black Kite is replaced, all activity surrounding the removal of the term "British Isles" from Misplaced Pages articles should be suspended Discussion can continue of course, but no resolutions or changes should be made by involved participants.--Jackyd101 (talk) 21:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
That's an option, I'd have no problem with. GoodDay (talk) 21:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Jacky101 is clearly correct, this whole process or whatever you call it is out of control, it is being used to support making controversial edits for which there is not consensus at all, as far as I know three articles are already fully protected as a result of actions related to this page. Off2riorob (talk) 21:56, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
I still think, adopting my 1-article-per-week idea will work. In the meantime, I'd go along with suspending operations until we get another moderator. GoodDay (talk) 21:58, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
~~One article per week~~
Perhaps too many articles are be tackled at once. Howabout, bringing 1 article-per-week to this Examples page. Then have the discussion of that article 'linked' to that article's respective talkpage? GoodDay (talk) 21:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps the situation and the whole situation is in need of returning to Arbcom, isn't this the exact same behavior that created the first case, personally I would topic ban the lot of them from all Irish related articles, that would end it. Off2riorob (talk) 21:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
I think if we adopt my proposals, it'll lower the tension. GoodDay (talk) 21:47, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
I support a topic ban. I've no interest in putting BI into the text, or it being removed where it's wrong, and I'm happy to leave off British and Irish articles. What I'm very bothered about is these editors using Misplaced Pages to promote their political agenda, which in this case appears to be an Irish nationalist agenda. Mister Flash (talk) 23:18, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

~~Edit warring warning (moved from HighKing's Talk page)~~
You have been edit warring at multiple articles attempting to insert the same content, as you know from the task force talk page this is disputed, although you have not broken the 3RR this behavior is edit warring if it continues in any way I will report you. Off2riorob (talk) 23:58, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
@Offriorob, this is a rather transparent tactic. I have not edit warred today. I have 3 article edits for today all one edit on different articles - hardly editing, never mind warring. BUT I notice you have been very active today - have you any article edits that weren't reverts..., and I notice you have supported Mister Flash on his edits today (and who breached 3RR) but no warning to him. I'll let others make up their minds. --HighKing (talk) 01:21, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
The three editors that I have warned have all followed a pattern of warring with the same content in multiple articles, resulting in the locking of two or three article, you have been part of that disruption, that is undeniable. I had no need to warn Mister Flash as he already had templates warning him of the conduct on his talkpage, myself I don't care if you call them the rainbow islands, I have made one edit to the articles and that was in a vain attempt to stop the warring. Off2riorob (talk) 01:29, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
You also need to remember that just saying "I object" to a change is not enough. Part of the problem here is we have some editors who auto-revert any change even when the discussion here shows that use of BI is inappropriate or not supported by the balance of citations. As long as people do that we are going to get edit wars. HighKing has agreed to nominate articles here before making the changes (that was a major step forwards). What we now need is for the other side to treat each nomination objectively. --Snowded 09:21, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Double checking, you issued three warnings to three editors who generally oppose the use of BI, you issued no warning to Mister Flash or others who are doing the same to reinstate it. You also got into a pattern of issuing warnings around BNP/EDL which turned out to be inappropriate. Now as it happened three editors (2 republican, 1 unions) were edit warring around two articles but I would exercise a bit more caution in your shoes. Threatening to write report on people tends to inflame things not calm them down. --Snowded 12:40, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
As I said just above Mr flash was already multiple tagged by the other involvees, this situation has been created by the three editors that I warned, I am clearly acting in good faith by warning them, suggesting that it is me that is escalating this situation is to be honest silly. Off2riorob (talk) 13:13, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
The situation is a mixture of overenthusiastic removal and auto-reverting by Flash and others. We need more neutral editors here rather than those who want to blame one side or the other. Sorry you think its silly to suggest you are escalating things, you obviously have little experience of this and related Irish editing issues. --Snowded 15:44, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, the situation here and the edit wars have been created by a group of editors related to the troubles arbcom case attempting to push into multiple articles their favored position with only a consensus between themselves. Off2riorob (talk) 16:02, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
I think that statement makes you a protagonist for one side in this dispute. Its not true by the way, its been an issue in its own right for several years. --Snowded 21:43, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Absolutely! Talk about jumping to conclusions! Difficult to believe you've come here to be objective when you state The edit wars have been created by a group of editors related to the troubles arbcom and this situation has been created by the three editors that I warned???? You claim to be acting in good faith? I was *not* engaged in an edit war - as I've already pointed out, I made 3 article edits that day. I have and had *nothing* to do with any troubles-related arbcom case. And did you notice Mister Flash's behaviour changing because of the warnings, because it didn't - but still not enough for a warning even though he had reached 3RR on numerous articles and breached it on one occasion. If you intend to be seen as a new, neutral, and objective voice here, you've started the wrong way. Making unfounded and wild allegations and siding with an editor breaching countless policies tends to give a different impression. --HighKing (talk) 22:16, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

~~Owain Glyndŵr~~
The article states: "More recently, Owain has joined the long list of failed opponents to English rule in the British Isles to be adopted as a symbol by current nationalist movements.". There's so many things wrong with this assertion it's difficult to know where to start. But the first would be to correct the "English rule in the British Isles" as this isn't true. I suggest the sentence would benefit from simply stating "Owain has been adopted as a symbol of the Welsh nationalist movement" (if that is, in fact, true), or otherwise deleted. --HighKing (talk) 13:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree, sentance is not helpful and this would be better focused on Wales only (unless he truly has been taken up as a symbol by Irish nationalists as well, which I doubt).--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
I also agree with High King. The term British Isles wasn't used in the early 15th century, and Scotland was a completely separate kingdom, so I fail to see how British Isles can be justified in an article on Owain Glyndwr.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
This is one of the dumbest arguments yet against use of British Isles (and there's plenty of competition). I'm presently reading The Seven Daughters of Eve, in which author Bryan Sykes describes an area of land in NW Europe at the time of the last ice age. Guess how he refers to it - yep, British Isles. If the sentence is factually wrong then fix it, but not JUST because it contains British Isles. Mister Flash (talk) 08:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
The whole sentence should go unless it has a citation. Glyndŵr is an important part of welsh history and recently did rather well in a poll of the greatest ever welshman, but I am not aware he has been adopted as a symbol by anyone (although he will be referenced in various speeches. --Snowded 08:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

~~Neopaganism~~
The article states: "The 19th century saw a surge of interest in Germanic paganism with the Viking revival in the British Isles and Scandinavia." The article on Viking revival states The Viking revival (Septentrionalism) was an increase in popular and scholarly interest in and enthusiasm for the history and culture of the Vikings and other Norsemen of the Viking Age. The revival proper was part of 19th century Romanticism. In Scandinavia it took the form of a Romantic nationalism called Scandinavism. Interest was also widespread in Great Britain, which had for a time been partly ruled by Danes. The reference from the BBC] focuses on Victorian Britain. I suggest that the article is changed to agree with the references and the other articles on the same subject. --HighKing (talk) 13:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Only citations are to Great Britain, but there are few citations in this article. Technically I think BI is not valid, but is this one really worth the bother? --Snowded 08:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Does it help to understand and create general guidelines on usage? If so, it's worth the bother. --HighKing (talk) 13:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
No, it's not worth the bother. Mister Flash (talk) 18:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

~~Plymouth~~
The article states: "The airport is home to the local airline Air Southwest, which operates flights across the British Isles and France." This should use "UK and Ireland" instead. --HighKing (talk) 13:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Why? This seems a perfectly reasonable use of BI as a geographic term?--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree with you, Jackyd101 as this is clearly geographical.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Reason being because the subject is not geographical in nature, and because airlines fly across jurisdictions. Using UK, Ireland, and France is more subjective and informative. --HighKing (talk) 18:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
In what way can you possibly claim that travel is not "geographical in nature"? That makes no sense.--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
We're talking about a local airline's operations to various destinations. An airline doesn't advertise that it operates across the British Isles, so why are we using this language here? An airline operates across different countries and jurisdictions, so that's why I believe it's best to reflect this fact here and it makes sense to keep the message consistent. The airline in question actually advertises itself as "Air Southwest - the low fares airline for the South West of England". --HighKing (talk) 19:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
What do you mean by "it makes sense to keep the message consistent"? I'm not sure exactly what message you think we are trying to convey. Airlines operate between geographical locations that are within political entities, so this usage can be construed as either a geographic or a political meaning as the reader so choses. What this usage is not, is remotely incorrect or controversial, and therefore there is no reason to remove the established and sourced text beacause it doesn't conform with your "message". In addition, if you actually look at the source used, you will see that they fly to destinations in Britain, Ireland, the Channel Islands and France, which seems an even clearer indication that "British Isles and France" is both the most accurate and most suitable choice here.--Jackyd101 (talk) 20:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
They fly to the Channel Islands so in this case BI is OK I think --Snowded 08:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
They don't fly to the Isle of Man. I'd be much happier if any of the sources used the phrase "British Isles". I've checked a ton of other airline sites, and even generic trucking and transport sites, and I've yet to find any that use the term "British Isles". The Air Southwest article doesn't use it. The Plymouth City Airport article doesn't use it. It's not accurate, and it's not in keeping with the language used in other articles and by the sources. --HighKing (talk) 13:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Here's what they say at their own webpage: Air Southwest is the airline subsidiary of the Sutton Harbour Group, and has been flying regional services in the UK and Ireland since 2003. We operate a fleet of quiet, comfortable, fuel-efficient, Dash 8-300 regional aircraft, each fitted with 50 leather seats. Our home-base is Plymouth City Airport, and we also base aircraft and crew at Newquay Cornwall Airport. We offer a range of frequent flights from Plymouth, Newquay and Bristol airports to destinations in the UK, Ireland and the Channel Islands. --HighKing (talk) 13:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Stroll on! They fly within the British Isles! If you've "checked a ton of other airline sites" you must have far too much time on your hands! Give it up and do us all a favour! It doesn't matter if it says British Isles because it's not wrong and 99.9999% of readers don't give a flying thingamyjigg about it. Mister Flash (talk) 17:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Flash, you are setting yourself up for a report for failure to observe Wp:Civil, for that and whole series of other unnecessary, unjustified and provocative comments. Please stop, now. --Snowded 18:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Agree with Snowded on this one - You have to calm down Flash. I know this situation can be frustrating, but if you resort to personal comments you'll find yourself banned and you will have no way of getting your point across at all. Never type angry. To Highking, there really are no grounds for saying that "UK, Ireland and the Channel Islands" should replace "British Isles" here, both are correct, but so far you haven't given an actionable reason to remove the long standing term.--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it's frustrating, and I've had just about enough of it. I'm going to seriously look at what sanctions can be imposed here. Mister Flash (talk) 18:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

~~Please, just don't replace British Isles with British Isles and Ireland in any articles, hopefully nobody will except that alternative. GoodDay (talk) 18:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)~~

Still at it are we? British Isles and Ireland is it now, why not just remove Ireland completely, The British isles (which does not including Ireland) Off2riorob (talk) 18:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Nobody trying to add British Isles and Ireland, I'm just suggesting they don't. GoodDay (talk) 18:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
I can tell you, all of this makes me sick of Ireland and I hope it sinks into Irish sea. Off2riorob (talk) 18:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

~~William Pitt, 1st Earl of Chatham~~
The article states: "Pitt had stripped the British Isles of troops to send on his expeditions, leaving an opportunity for the French if they could land in enough force." This should refer to the relevant Kindoms instead. --HighKing (talk) 13:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
The British Army always had many Irish troops throughout its history, so perhaps British Isles is not out of place here. Actually, it should stay as a reminder of how many Irish had worn British uniforms and fought in her wars.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't think there is anything at all wrong with the use of British Isles in this context (as Jeanne boleyn says above, many thousands of Irishmen served with the British armed forces at that time (and ever since)), but in any case that sentance must have a reference to stand on its own (its very subjective). I recommend a note on the talk page for a week and if there is no response then eliminating the whole thing.--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
If Jeanne (or you) wants to make a point about Irish troops serving in the British Army, go ahead, but that's a different point, not to be confused with what the article is stating. But Pitt had jurisdiction over British troops, stationed wherever they were. Using "British Isles" in this context is incorrect, as we're actually talking about political jurisdictions, and we're careful to avoid using "British Isles" to describe the area ruled by the British as this is the exact usage that many Irish object to. Far better to stick with the names of the kingdoms as being factually and historically accurate. --HighKing (talk) 19:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
It is fortunate therefore that "British Isles" is also "factually and historically accurate" and is also more concise, making it by far the better candidate. The point (or at least my point) here is that British Isles accurately describes the region over which Pitt had control, and thus accurately describes the region that was denuded of men. Therefore it is a perfectly accurate use of the phrase and, as I have pointed out many, many times, you have no authority to remove it just because you (or "many Irish") don't like it. In any case, I think that this entire sentence is extremely questionable and will probably not stand up to a request for decent sourcing, so this is fairly academic anyway.--Jackyd101 (talk) 20:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
It's a point you've made in the past. I'd be much happier if "British Isles" is a phrase commonly used in this context. I know it's an area you're interested in too - I asked for references to show this for a previous topic. Is it possible to point to some references here too? As I said, I'd be much happier if it could be shown to be commonly used in this context. --HighKing (talk) 00:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Just to be clear, what context are you referring to? 18th/early 19th century politics? Military history? I have a range of sources about and from this era, most of which use British Isles quite freely (as I have pointed out before, writers in this period were much less discerning about how precise their terms were). I also have some modern texts that use the term and some that pointedly avoid it - it really seems to be up to the authors individual tastes. Let me know specifically what you are asking and I'll see what I have.--Jackyd101 (talk) 03:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Given the time period I think that BI is OK here, BI was synonimous at that time with the UK of Britain and Ireland which would be the alternative and that would require too much explanation. --Snowded 08:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
@Snowded - unfortunately your example is the use that is most objected to - using a term with an historic meaning different to the modern meaning and therefore is confusing and open to misinterpretation.

@Jackyd101 - so far from previous examples, it's clear that maritime excursions use British Isles freely up to modern times and this is accepted. It's also accepted that historically, the term may have been used to refer to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland even though it wasn't an official term but it's impossible to know if it was truly synonimous with the area or if it also included either IoM or CI or both. Leaving aside the references for this point for now, is it possible to establish some guidelines on when "British Isles" is used in historic articles (articles dealing with historic encounters)? From your experience, can you help? --HighKing (talk) 13:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Frustrating isn't it folks? Mister Flash (talk) 18:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Use British Isles in this article. GoodDay (talk) 18:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
@Highking, this really seems to be at the root of the problem. If I understand it correctly, you (and possibly others) think that British Isles should be avoided where ever its use might create the (possible mis-)impression that it refers to "British-control of all of the islands", whether that was the case at the time or not and whether such an impression is likely or not. I (and others) disagree entirely, and think that British Isles is a perfectly acceptable way of referring to the geographic region incorporating Britain, Ireland and/or the smaller islands (Channel Is. status pending).

In this particular case (leaving to one side for a minute the highly questionnable nature of this entire sentence), the article is actually referring to the whole group, or "the area in which Pitt could actively recruit men", and so British Isles is more correct than naming seperate entities, beacuse Pitt could recruit across all of the islands. I do think that use of the term British Isles should be primarily geographic - it shouldn't be used in a way that deliberatly lays claim to all of Ireland post-1922 (i.e. "Prime Minister Winston Churchill was in command of the British Isles", while technically correct - he was in command of several of the islands that make up the archipeligo - would be misleading) and it should never be used to only refer to one of the islands (and frankly, I think using it when it doesn't include both of the islands of Britain and Ireland, regardless of other islands, has the potential to be quite misleading). However, I don't place such strict restrictions on it as you do, and I don't think it is Misplaced Pages's place to discourage its use except in cases of clear inaccuracy.--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:42, 5 January 2010

Strict observation of WP:CIVIL etc

Archives

British poetry, Part I

Discussion

British poetry, Part II

Reopened

Conclusion

Discussion

Reopen

Conclusion

Conclusion

Conclusion

Conclusion

Lets try and work from the facts

Conclusion

Conclusion

Reopen

Conclusion

Conclusion

Conclusion

Conclusion

Conclusion

Conclusions

Reopened

Conclusion

Conclusion

Conclusion

Attempts to avoid edit wars

One article per week

Edit warring warning (moved from HighKing's Talk page)