Wikipedia talk:British Isles Terminology task force/Specific Examples/Closed2

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 [1], 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 ^TALK 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 ^TALK 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 ^TALK 11:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

No prob. GoodDay (talk) 22:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Conclusion

This section needs to be closed and archived. There is no justification or support for British Isles removal in this case. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:37, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

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[1] and also in the North Pacific Coast of the United States[2]. 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 ^TALK 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 ^TALK 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 ^TALK 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 ^TALK 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)

If the plant grew in what's today the republic before 1922, use the British Isles. If it grew there only after 1922, don't use British Isles. GoodDay (talk) 22:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

GoodDay, perhaps there's two different issues here. This sentence states that the plant was *introduced as ornamental* to the British Isles. No references support this claim. Other editors are perhaps misunderstanding that this is a straight-forward unsupported-claim issue and has nothing to do with plant distribution, etc. --HighKing (talk) 14:10, 7 January 2010 (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)

British Isles is a geographical location, this article seems to be the perfect sort of place BI should be mentioned. There is no agreement on removal, can someone please close this and archive it. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:40, 16 July 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 ^TALK 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 Wikipedia to use one or the other. I have not seen anyone say "UK English". I think this one is OK. --Snowded ^TALK 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)

Your point being exactly? --HighKing (talk) 22:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Since we're dealing with a span of 400yrs, which would be 1610-2010, the entire island of Ireland was under British rule for a huge chunk of that time, thus we should use British Isles. GoodDay (talk) 22:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

British Isles was totally justified to be used in this article. It should not have been removed but it has been. This removal should be reconsidered and reverted. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:43, 16 July 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 ^TALK 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 ^TALK 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 ^TALK 11:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

British Isles not required. GoodDay (talk) 22:51, 6 January 2010 (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)

No justification for removal, can someone please close this file and archive it. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:45, 16 July 2010 (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 ^TALK 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 ^TALK 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 ^TALK 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 ^TALK 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)

The sentence in question has been changed to Home nations. So this one has been resolved. Can someone please close and archive it. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:48, 16 July 2010 (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 ^TALK 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 Wikipedia? I'll embrace it. GoodDay (talk) 19:00, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

This is another of those cases where the Geographical location of the British Isles makes sense, rather than saying "Britain and Ireland". It should have been changed to that. Either way, can someone please close this and archive it. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:52, 16 July 2010 (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 ^TALK 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 ^TALK 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 ^TALK 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 ^TALK 12:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Britain and Ireland is acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 22:53, 6 January 2010 (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)

This is a layman's Project. Experts' opinons aren't invited. GoodDay (talk) 22:54, 6 January 2010 (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 ^TALK 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 ^TALK 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 ^TALK 08:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, speak now or for ever hold thy peace ...

Actioned --Snowded ^TALK 19:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

This one has already been removed. Can someone please close and archive this. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:54, 16 July 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 ^TALK 00:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Use Britain and Ireland. GoodDay (talk) 22:56, 6 January 2010 (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)

British Isles did not need to be removed from this article but it has been. Can someone please close and archive this section. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:55, 16 July 2010 (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)

I'm content with Home Nations, as this is sports related. GoodDay (talk) 22:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

This has already been changed. Can someone please close and archive this section. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:57, 16 July 2010 (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 ^TALK 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 [[United Kingdom]] and [[Republic of Ireland|Ireland]] --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 ^TALK 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)

There is no consensus for removal of British Isles in this case, it is in line with other geographical locations and there for perfectly acceptable. Can someone please close this and archive it. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:59, 16 July 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:

1. 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'.
2. 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

I notice someone changed it to separate Great Britain and Ireland despite there being no consensus here. However the entire list has now been removed by an uninvolved editor so there is no longer a problem with this one. Can someone please close and archive. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:04, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

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 ^TALK 21:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Conclusion

OK - changed to Home nations. --HighKing (talk) 13:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I've put this back to British Isles simply because British Isles is correct, without a doubt. The comments above, including mine, I have to admit, demonstrate a lack of knowledge on the subject matter. Careful reading of the article shows that BI is right, and the attempt to remove it must have been based purely on politcal POV. Mister Flash (talk) 21:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

There was no need for the British Isles to be removed from this article, if he had been the first outside of Europe to win that would be perfectly acceptable there for outside of the British Isles is too. However it has been removed already and there is no point re adding it. Can someone please close this section and archive it. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:07, 16 July 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 Wikipedia 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 ^TALK 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 ^TALK 13:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Conclusion

Corrected --HighKing (talk) 15:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

You see, this is typical of the problem you are creating. Elwes was writing before the rising of the Irish Republic. Ireland meant something quite different to his class and generation. Did he exclude the Isle of Man or Channel Islands from his survey?

I am sorry, but you really are creating an unnecessarily distorted tangle. --Triton Rocker (talk) 16:41, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Clearly there is not consensus on this one. So it can not yet be archived. Just because the author did not mention British Isles it does not stop it being used. Aslong as its not saying his book title was BI when it wasnt. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:12, 16 July 2010 (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 [2]. 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, [3] 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 ^TALK 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 ^TALK 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 ^TALK 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 ^TALK 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 ^TALK 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 ^TALK 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 ^TALK 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 ^TALK 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 Wikipedia: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 [4]. --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)

Who defined that "rule"? Mister Flash (talk) 18:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

If Ireland is no longer included under the British Isles term, then what's all the bickering about? Is not 'Ireland' being or not being within the British Isles definition, the core of the dispute (and the reason for this examples page existants)? GoodDay (talk) 18:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

There is no consensus for removal of British Isles in this case. Can someone please close and archive. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:16, 16 July 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) This article no longer exists as High King mentioned. Can someone please close and archive this. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:08, 16 July 2010 (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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia 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)

No consensus for removal of British Isles in this case. Can someone please close and archive. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:23, 16 July 2010 (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 Wikipedia. Compromises are alway necessary: I happen to find the placement of Londonderry at the wrong name objectionable, but I accept that on Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 ^TALK 08:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Where does it say that this is not "valid"?--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:00, 10 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia. 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)

Actually, British Isles does have an agreed meaning on Wikipedia. And these guidelines are to help agree on usage. We all know by now that you're merely objecting to everything. Are you not aware that this devalues your contributions to less than zero? You will merely be ignored. Far better if you tried to understand what this workgroup is trying to achieve, and to help. Your contributions would be far more valuable if you gave logical reasons for your objections. --HighKing (talk) 22:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, just seen this. You say that "For me, if the term is used in a context where it's actually referring to UK and Ireland, that's incorrect." Thats all very well, and you are entitled to hold that private opinion, but just because you do doesn't make it the rule on Wikipedia. You also say that "British Isles does have an agreed meaning on Wikipedia." but have not yet provided links demonstrating this - it is true that it has been agreed not to use it in a non-geographical sense, but your interpretation of what is and isn't geographical is different from that of many other users, clouding the "agreed meaning" significantly. In terms of the organisation of womens cricket, it seems to be organised on the same county basis as the mens game, with Scotland, Ireland, Wales and the Netherlands apparently included. As I have said elsewhere, British Isles may not be the most elegant phrasing, but it isn't incorrect. --Jackyd101 (talk) 22:29, 15 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" [sic] 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 Wikipedia). 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 ^TALK 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 ^TALK 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 ^TALK 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 ^TALK 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 ^TALK 08:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

English rule in the British Isles during the early 1400's? The Kingdom of Scotland would've protested. British Isles would be inaccurate here. GoodDay (talk) 23:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Conclusion

The entire sentence appears to be unreferenced and unlikely and factually wrong. I'll post a note on the article Talk page before removing. --HighKing (talk) 14:51, 7 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 ^TALK 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)

If the Vikings hadn't been on Ireland, then British Isles is inaccurate. GoodDay (talk) 23:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Conclusion

Given that the only citations are to Great Britain, and no reasons put forward to keep, the article will be changed. --HighKing (talk) 14:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Changed back. Mister Flash (talk) 19:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The disputed sentence is in a paragrpah that is referenced to a scholarly work. If you can show that the work being used as a reference doesn't support your problem term then we'll take it from there. For the moment, please stop trying to find alrernative references that support your POV. Mister Flash (talk) 19:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Plymouth

The article states: "The airport is home to the local airline Air Southwest,[92] 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 ^TALK 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 ^TALK 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)

I think a number of participants here should calm down and tone it down as comments like the one above are unhelpful. If we all remain calm, discuss things logically and above all not make edits or reverts on this topic until all discussion is complete then hopefully we can make progress. I second Good Day however that "British Isles and Ireland" should never be used as a substitute (whoever is using it) - Ireland is part of the British Isles, so it is a misnomer, like saying "Europe and France" or similar.--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Is this some kind of school geography project? Off2riorob (talk) 19:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

If you mean this Specific Examples page, it's more like the Night Gallery. -- GoodDay (talk) 19:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Off2riorob, your wish that Ireland will sink into the sea is as you say, wishful thinking. What may not be just wishful thinking is England sinking into the sea. I'm sure the Irish will welcome everyone to their shores when the disaster strikes. :) Jack forbes (talk) 20:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes,the ice pack pressed the land down and it is still rising, thanks for the link. On a side issue, what do the French call the English channel? Off2riorob (talk) 20:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

RE: "British Isles and Ireland" - hardly uncommon.

RE: Plymouth - If it weren't for Grenoble, I would say that 'British Isles' would seem fine in this case but with the inclusion of 'France' we are mix apples and pears (regions and states). On the 'the Jersey, Guernsey, Ireland, France and the UK' is quite a mouthful. Would suggest 'other parts of the British Isles and Grenoble in France'.

HighKing, please state a reason for why you think a wording should change. That was we can move together towards a consensus MOS on when and where to use BI. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi RA, I believe this is a good (test) case where we're dealing with a subject which is not geographical in nature, yet appears to touch on a geographical subject. The guidelines often refer to 'technical' use:

Generally, the term 'technical' here covers the sciences and disciplines of physical geography, geology, natural history (including fauna but excluding flora) and archaeology. When used in a 'pure' technical sense the term is always acceptable.

This subject doesn't apply here as we're dealing with human geography. I next look for references - is the term "British Isles" something that has been used meeting WP:RS guidelines. In the case of Plymouth, no. Even widening the search for the subject matter in general - airline destinations, I haven't found any usage of "British Isles". There's a number of airlines that fly to various destinations around the British Isles, but none use this term.

Looking back to the guidelines, it states ""These guidelines cover the use of the term British Isles on Wikipedia. Although 'British Isles' is widely and most typically used as a geographical term (in the sense of physical geography), it must be recognised that many editors on Wikipedia consider it to be a politicised term too." Looking to to "Guideline A - UK and Republic of Ireland-heavy issue" for this topic, it states "To avoid the word 'British' being mistakenly connected with Ireland in a political sense, various forms of phrasing can be used to help disambiguate."

So overall, given what I've said above, I think there's a strong case to change. --HighKing (talk) 14:46, 7 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[citation needed], 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 ^TALK 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 Wikipedia's place to discourage its use except in cases of clear inaccuracy.--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The alternative would be to change it to "Great Britain and Ireland". I'd say leave it alone as the Kingdom of Ireland would not have been the target of a French attach, rather Britain itself. The danger at the time was that Britians immediate sphere was relatively undefended. "British Isles" is as good a name as anything for the British sphere. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

@Jackyd, @RA actually I agree with a lot of what you're saying above. With usage, we need to be careful to use "British Isles" appropriately. That's the purpose of the guidelines. As RA says below, the technically correct sentence would read "Great Britain and Ireland", as raising armies is based on political control that may or may not overlap with geographical areas. Did Pitt have troops in the Isle of Man or Channel Islands for instance (I don't know)?. But, context and accepted practice may dictate that "British Isles" is an acceptable term in certain subjects. For example, it's pretty common to read of U-Boat activity patrolling the waters of the British Isles in WWII. This is what I'm asking in this case. In your experience, is "British Isles" commonly used in the way we've encountered (used in books, references available, etc)? Can we add to the usage guide working draft a section on - I don't know - British historical wars? or something? --HighKing (talk) 22:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

New Chronology (Fomenko)

The article states: By 2005 his theory had grown to cover all of the Old World, from the British Isles to China. I believe the "from ... to ..." is unnecessary. --HighKing (talk) 21:41, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello, here we go again. Another attempted purge of British Isles with numerous articles suddenly targetted. Well I believe the from ..to is fine. Your only reason for objecting to it is because it mentions British Isles. If it had said "from Portugal to China" you wouldn't have been in the least concerned. Mister Flash (talk) 22:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I put a fact tag on it, needs justification irrelevant of the BI word. No response and the sentence goes --Snowded ^TALK 07:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Funny that. You haven't put a fact tag on any other unreferenced assertion in the same paragraph. How come? Mister Flash (talk) 18:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Cheryl Gillan

The article states Cheryl represented the British Isles and the Mediterranean on the Executive Committee of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association from 2000 until 2003 and was later elected treasurer of the CPA from 2003 until 2006 The reference states she represented the British islands so it should be changed. --HighKing (talk) 21:41, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Aye, you're dead right here. See[5]. British Islands is correct. Mister Flash (talk) 22:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Conclusion

The references use British Islands - article changed to follow suit. --HighKing (talk) 16:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

English as a foreign or second language

The article states The British Isles, historical home of English, has significant regional language differences in pronunciation, accent, vocabulary and grammar. This is incorrect as more correctly, England is the historical home of the English language (hence the name). This should be changed to "United Kingdom" since Ireland spoke Irish for most of it's history, and I don't understand the need to deal with "British Isles" as a region when discussing the English language. --HighKing (talk) 21:45, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Read it again! The let someone who knows what he's talking about comment. Mister Flash (talk) 22:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Its really talking about the modern day and the use seems valid to me--Snowded ^TALK 16:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Who left the unsigned comment above? --HighKing (talk) 16:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

John Phillips (geologist)

The article states (under the section heading "Selected writings"): To these should be added his Monograph of British Belemnitidae (1865), for the Palaeontographical Society, and his geological map of the British Isles (1847) which is linked to a book entitled A guide to geology which does not contain any such map. The text should be corrected to simply name the book. --HighKing (talk) 21:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Why? The author uses the word "British Islands" in the book to decribe his map. As you know only too well, at this time British Islands was used interchangeably with British Isles. British Isles is correct. Using British Islands, with its now tightly defined meaning, would be wrong. If you're that concerned about it, give the quote then mention the fact that the author actually meant what we now call the British Isles. Mister Flash (talk) 22:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I would have thought that when listing stuff under "Selected writings", it would be common practice to list the book titles. On top of the fact that the reference used doesn't have any such map. --HighKing (talk) 00:42, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Although in the case of a geological map British Isles would normally be a perfectly acceptable term, in this instance we should use the actual and exact title of the work, whatever that may be.--Jackyd101 (talk) 01:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

There was a geological map of the British Isles in that period, in fact the term was in use when I did Geology at school back in the 70s. If there isn't a reference fact tag it --Snowded ^TALK 07:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

According to the current guidelines, geology is a technical field which commonly uses "British Isles". That isn't what we're discussing here though. Under "Selected writings", it would be normal practice to list the books (as has been done for most of that section). The only geological map of the British Isles I've come across is by Knipe. --HighKing (talk) 16:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Guidelines discussion

Occasionally, some editors (as here) state that it's OK to use the term "British Isles" if we're referring to a particular time period. I believe the current guidelines have nothing to say on that - I've opened a discussion on the Talk page at WP:BIDRAFT1 --HighKing (talk) 16:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Music of the Isle of Man

The article states: Derby Castle and the Palace Hall became two of the most prominent venues in the British Isles during this era, and there were a number of thriving smaller establishments. The superlative should be removed - it is unreferenced and the guidelines suggest comparatives should be avoided if possible. --HighKing (talk) 21:51, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

What "guidelines" - those non-binding ones we keep hearing about? This use is OK. Mister Flash (talk) 22:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Use of British Isles is fine, but we should add a tag to the sentence.--Jackyd101 (talk) 01:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Concur, fact tag it --Snowded ^TALK 07:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Please explain why use of "British Isles" is fine. Current guidelines suggest comparatives should be avoided if possible. --HighKing (talk) 16:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

What guidelines are you referring to?--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Cabbage tree (New Zealand)

The article states: It is also widely planted as an ornamental tree, in New Zealand and also in western Europe (including the British Isles) and the Northwest coast of the United States. The obvious duplication should be removed - the British Isles are in western Europe. --HighKing (talk) 21:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Leave it - it's further clarification. Why don't you just stick to articles where usage is just plain wrong, no contest. Mister Flash (talk) 22:20, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Flash, I don't think any action is required on this article - we should focus only on inaccuracies at this page.--Jackyd101 (talk) 01:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Normal geographical use, BI is valid --Snowded ^TALK 07:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Is it normal geographical use to clarify that the British Isles is part of Western Europe? To quote Jackyd above, it's a bit like saying "Europe and France" or similar. Also, as per current guidelines, the scientific distribution of flora does not encompass the entire British Isles, so it doesn't qualify as a "technical" statement either. --HighKing (talk) 16:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say that it is ideal prose (it isn't) and British Isles may not be strictly necessary here. What it is not however is inaccurate, and therefore isn't part of the purview of this page (and what guidlines are you refering to?).--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Stars on 45

The article states: It also reached #14 in the UK where it was called "Stars Medley" - confusingly the exact same title as the third album in the British Isles and Australasia. Albums are distributed in countries, so these should be listed separately. --HighKing (talk) 21:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The current version is fine. It's using geographical areas as well as countries. That's not a problem in my book. Mister Flash (talk) 22:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Flash on this one, its using two geographical terms --Snowded ^TALK 07:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Guidelines discussion

This is a good time to discuss guidelines in the context of this article. Leaving aside references, etc, for the moment, @Snowded agrees that its using two geographical terms, therefore British Isles is appropriate. So, for discussion, how does this affect how we look at future guidelines and articles?

• Is it OK to use "British Isles" when dealing with business (distribution of albums)?
• Is it OK to mix and match terminology in sentences - to switch from UK to British Isles?
• Can I simply change any sentence from "Britain, Ireland, Australia and New Zealand" to "British Isles and Australasia" and it's OK?

--HighKing (talk) 16:19, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Although in general this would be correct usage as it refers to both of the states that make up the British Isles, I think in this instance it would actually be more helpful to name the countries involved. In answer to your questions, 1) Yes, provided it fits with the context of usage 2) The two are not and never should be used as synonyms, but in this case it is OK on principle since the terms are referring to a different thing in each case (charting and title distribution respectively) 3) Yes, although changes should not be made in either direction by participants here without discussion first.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Norwegian Army

The article states: General Carl Gustav Fleischer head of the Army High Command, had pressed the Norwegian government in exile for the implementation of discharge of all Norwegians in conscription on the British Isles. The reference states Already on the 21st of June general Carl Gustav Fleischer - then representing 50% of a 2 men strong Norwegian Army Command - submitted a memo to the Norwegian Government in exile, using the last radio broadcast to the Norwegian people before withdrawing from the country as a springboard for recommending conscription of every Norwegian between 20-35 years of age in Great Britain, and the subsequent outfitting and training of a force of 2.500 at Dumfries. The memo opens (trans. from Norwegian): The text should use "Great Britain" instead. --HighKing (talk) 22:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

This is in reference to the United Kingdom, and should say as much.--Jackyd101 (talk) 01:17, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

If the translation is Great Britain or Britain it should use that, otherwise UK is the only term that would be valid given that the Republic was neutral --Snowded ^TALK 07:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Henry Carvill Lewis

The text states: During the winters of 1885 to 1887 he studied petrology under HF Rosenbusch at Heidelberg, and during the summers he investigated the glacial geology of northern Europe and the British Isles. His paper is actually entitled Papers and Notes on the Glacial Geology of Great Britain and Ireland. The text should be changed to agree with what his published paper. --HighKing (talk) 22:03, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Again, a kind of reverse synthesis - taking two probably unconnected facts and drawing a conclusion to support your POV. Mister Flash (talk) 22:28, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

What's reverse synthesis about using the reference attached to the sentence and showing that it doesn't back up the statement? --HighKing (talk) 00:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Alternatively, the University of Delaware Library states Between 1885 and 1887, Lewis traveled to Europe to conduct petrologic studies, working during the winters in Heidelberg, Germany, and in the summers in England, Wales, Ireland, Switzerland, and Norway. The focus of these studies was European glacial deposits. Or the Cambridge Journals state He published valuable results of investigations in astronomy, mineralogy and petrology, and especially in glacial geology, the last being based on his exploration of the drift and its terminal moraines in the United States, and later in Ireland, Wales and England. The present article reviews his contributions to our knowledge of these drift formations and of the history of the Ice Age, bringing into comparison and correlation the glacial records of America and Europe. Comprehensive as were Professor Lewis' observations and studies in this field, he was planning yet more thorough and extensive exploration of the drift in Britain, Germany and Scandinavia, when he was taken from us. --HighKing (talk) 00:17, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

So this geologist studied in both Britain and Ireland? Sounds like British Isles is OK here.--Jackyd101 (talk) 01:23, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The "British Isles" is not a "shortcut" for "Britain and Ireland" - they have different meanings you know! --HighKing (talk) 02:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The citation says England, Wales & Ireland, it does not include Scotland, Isle of Man etc. so British Isles in inaccurate. I would go with the delaware quote wording. --Snowded ^TALK 07:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems that there is a widespread body of thought that says that British Isles is fine if more than one of the British Isles is involved - if this not an acceptable usage of the term on Wikipedia then please show me the guideline that says so.--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Earl of Warwick

The title states: Earl of Warwick (pronounced "Worrick") is a title that has been created four times in British history and is one of the most prestigious titles in the peerages of the British Isles. This should be changed to read "is one of the most pretigious British titles" or something similar. --HighKing (talk) 22:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Why? Just 'cos you don't like BI, again. Peerages were in Ireland as well. Mister Flash (talk) 22:27, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

No peerages of the British Isles to my knowledge... --HighKing (talk) 00:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

HighKing is correct here, the technical term, which should be linked to, is "the Peerage" without specifying a location (since there is only one).--Jackyd101 (talk) 01:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Jackyd --Snowded ^TALK 07:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

So let's reword it to fit the facts; "Earl of Warwick (pronounced "Worrick") is a title that has been created four times in the history of the British Isles and is one of the most prestigious titles in the Peerage." Mister Flash (talk) 21:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

See The Peerage, no need for geography, just a pipelink and that makes it clear its UK by the way--Snowded ^TALK 23:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

There is no Peerage of the British Isles. It simply does not exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.95.45 (talk) 13:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Strict Baptist

The article states: In 1995, the Grace Baptist Assembly had over 10,000 members in about 260 churches. The Gospel Standard Strict Baptists had 6400 members in 156 churches in the British Isles, plus 3 churches in the United States and 3 more in Australia. This should use the same organization as indicated in the article and the template which uses "United Kingdom" --HighKing (talk) 22:07, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

So --- are any of those 156 churches in Ireland (including NI), IoM, CI etc. Suggest you find out first before attempting to impose yet another possible inaccuracy on Wikipedia. Mister Flash (talk) 22:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I've no idea - there's no reference with the statement. This appears to be the main website, and it merely states "Thus a list of Gospel Standard churches appeared; there are about 115 at the present time including those from overseas." The Baptist heritage group states about the Strict Baptists Central organization in the United Kingdom. Three US churches are affiliated with the Gospel Standard Strict Baptists, who separated themselves from other Baptists in England in the 19th century. Strict Baptists believe in the eternal sonship of Christ. --HighKing (talk) 00:40, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The fact tag the numbers and if no one does anything in say a week, make it conform with the quote. --Snowded ^TALK 07:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Wet nurse

The article states: Once wet-nursing was so commonplace to the British Isles that Jane Austen mentions it in Emma:

"For years it was a really good job for a woman. In 17th- and 18th-century Britain a woman would earn more money as a wet nurse than her husband could as a labourer. And if you were a royal wet nurse you would be honoured for life."

Jane Austen uses "Britain" - the article should be changed to accurately follow the quote. --HighKing (talk) 22:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Yep, this is a classic! Reverse synthesis to argue for the removal of British Isles. Thoroughly disgraceful. Mister Flash (talk) 22:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I come here occasionally to see what is going on, how are these article found? Totally amusing. Off2riorob (talk) 22:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the edit history of this so called task force page imo the page should be deleted, it is more reflective of a crusade than a consensus. Off2riorob (talk) 22:44, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The articles are found by trawling the 'What links here' link on British Isles. I agree entirely with your assessment of this page. Mister Flash (talk) 23:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Although in this instance I agree with highKing's assessment, I too think that there are serious questions over the neutrality and purpose of this page that can only be answered by the arbitration of an uninvolved admin.--Jackyd101 (talk) 01:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Jackys101, this page was introduced to provide a central clearing house for changes, rather than multiple edit wars. So far its presence has reduced edit warring considerably. We had a neutral admin, but he got fed up! For the moment I think salvation is in our own hands--Snowded ^TALK 10:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

If that is true, then we are all in a lot of trouble.--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, while I too agree with HK on this occasion, we are learning nothing from this process. It needs to be about more than just a noticeboard to give a heads up that a link it going to be changed. We need to be able to get something out of it that can be used in a practical way going forward, not just a case-by-case shoot out. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 01:23, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Building to Guidelines

It's something I continually refer to - building on the guidelines. This is the stated purpose of this page. --HighKing (talk) 02:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

and one guideline that is building here, is to confirm with the reference. I also think we need a little less abusive language. It is perfectly proper for someone to seek out what they think is an invalid use of language and propose changes. Flash/Off2rio may disagree with that but it has to be handled objectively. --Snowded ^TALK 07:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Could we then have an exercise in summarising what we have learnt from it so far? Bullet points of when to/when not use BI based on the discussions here? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 10:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think we are seeing which editors take a balanced view, as far as I can see we have (i) go with the reference (ii) take account of the historical period in question (iii) geography OK, political use more questionable depending on period - see prior point. I've held off on a dispute resolution process for the moment as the involvement of some new editors has helped. At the moment we have High King proposing changes (and abiding by the agreement to use this page). You can then with a rare exception assume that Flash will oppose supported by Off@rio, then there are a small group of editors who support and oppose on context. We need some more of those. --Snowded ^TALK 10:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

A basic problem which has not yet been resolved and it not yet even close to being so, is the issue of what British Isles means. One group (including me) think that it is an acceptable general short hand for any combination of Britain, Ireland and/or the smaller islands in the group, while another group think that it should only be used in specific geographic circumstances. Until this basic point is reconciled, the edit wars will continue.--Jackyd101 (talk) 11:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

That won't be solved. For some people the term is offensive (and that is referenced), others like it as a hark back to the days of Empire, others think that attempts to remove it are part of a conspiracy of some type. We finally got to an agreed text on the BI article which does follow a definition but which also acknowledges that its use is controversial. Given the reality of that situation we have to find ways forward. This page has been a contribution to reducing the edit wars so it represents one of the few ways forward at the moment.--Snowded ^TALK 11:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The correct place to discuss and create/extend guidelines is ... at the guidelines page. There's a reference guideline and a sandbox guideline for discussing changes, etc. Check out:

• WP:BISLES for the initial discussions and agreements on scope, etc. Good idea for people to read this.
• WP:BIDRAFT1 for the sandbox.
• WP:BIDRAFT2 for the reference.

I expect we may need to recover some old ground, but nevertheless, we can continue to look at examples here, with discussions on how they may reflect in guidelines, and we can discuss the guidelines themselves at the sandbox. I believe we should also look at the examples above in the context of principals and guidelines rather than a "shoot-out", which is also something I've attempted to do in the past. Civility is flagged, at the very top of this page, as being a strict requirement for participation. It's a non-binding agreement of participation, unfortunately, but perhaps we could encourage editors in this direction - we're much more productive this way. --HighKing (talk) 16:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

RE: the guidelines, I can't make head-nor-tail of any of that. Maybe someone could explain it to me. Otherwise, I suggest we archive it an start fresh. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 16:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

It got no where, in part cause it tried to define principles before we had enough practice. This page is getting us that and it may be time to summarise it and see what we can get from that summary. It has to start afresh though. --Snowded ^TALK 17:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

It didn't get no where. A lot of good groundwork went into the existing guidelines based on the several hundred edits that had already taken place (although not recorded centrally as on the SE page), and I don't see the point in rehashing our way through all of that again. Seriously, I've no problem tidying up the guidelines and reorganizing for clarification, but we've long past the point where we need to rehash the principals agreed on the main project page of WP:BISLES for instance. --HighKing (talk) 17:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it would help then to say what those principles are and archive the rest. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 17:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Summarise them then HighKing, my memory is that they failed to achieve any consensus --Snowded ^TALK 17:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

You know what - you can stuff those "guidelines". They are meaningless. They serve just one purpose, namely to limit use of the term British Isles as much as possible. They are not binding, and when you read them they are stupidly complicated. More on this later. I've got better things to do for the moment. Mister Flash (talk) 18:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Flash, your consistent lack of co-operation here and attacks on other editors are getting excessive. Please tone them down voluntary, you are on the edge of a report for general behaviour here - abuse of other editors, reverting against consensus etc. --Snowded ^TALK 19:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I commented yesterday, no claims of consensus should be used referring to this page, I object and another editor, jackyd101 yesterday commented that this page has clear issues and Highking is simply standing up for this position, if he disputes he disputes, that is enough to move the issues to a better location, threatening him with this so called consensus is not correct, his and mine and the other editors objections should be addressed at a larger location where this issue can be given much wider community discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 19:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Your advise to Flash on his talk page made sense. You are of course free to object to this page, but it was set up to prevent edit warring and has had admin support for that. The page is a central place for discussion of the issue so I am not sure what larger location you have in mind. Pending some change in that consensus can be judged from discussions here, you don't have some right to prevent change just by objecting--Snowded ^TALK 20:07, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I and two other editors object to the idea that the discussions on this page represent any kind of consensus, if you like I will go into the edit history of this talk page to show you the limited repetitive names that are commenting here, this situation here is not a consensus of anything and should not be used to insert a few editors point of view into numerous articles, the inserting of which is often disputed at the individual articles and has and is still resulting in edit wars. Off2riorob (talk) 20:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. This is a page for POV pushers. It generates sham consensuses, which in some cases are applied to articles, invariably resulting in removal of the term "British Isles". The first any regular editor of the page knows about it is when an edit war breaks out. No doubt most regular editors then think something along the lines of "well what a bunch of POV-pushing tossers we have here". That is how a number of current contributors have arrived at this page (JackD, Off2riorob and others); they've been incredulous at the antics suddenly foisted upon pages they've edited. Mister Flash (talk) 20:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Well you've been warned once so lets see shall we. As to the other pages so far if there has been any issue then they can come here - and have been invited. As far as I can see both of you are attempting to prevent an approach to solving the problem which does not involve one side or another winning. --Snowded ^TALK 23:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

As I have said, please do not use what you call consensus on this page to push edits into article and create edit wars. Your so called warning of not following a consensus that originates here on the page is worthless and is disputed. Off2riorob (talk) 23:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but I do not regard your statement as authoritative. I do regard your behaviour and that of Flash to be disruptive and it may be time to deal with that--Snowded ^TALK 23:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

You regard my opinion as I regard yours then. Off2riorob (talk) 23:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The guidelines

After much disruption in the past, the WP:BISLES page was set up and the Shared principles were agreed. I suggest that editors here read these principles because they form the basis of the guidelines. Note that these principles have consensus. The guidelines themselves are a work in progress and do not yet have consensus. The guidelines in the sandbox take a particular approach, where a subject is judged on whether it is Irish or British or both. Here on this page, we've tended to take the a slightly different approach:

If an article uses the term "British Isles", look to see if a reference supports the usage

If no reference exists, check if the usage is in line with "technical" usage. Perhaps the term is widely used in the context of the subject.

If not a technical usage and no reference exists, check if the term is accurately being used. Perhaps the subject deals with human geography (principal 5) or comparisons (principle 7) and the term can be removed while retaining the same meaning.

I suggest that most of the articles we've dealt with fall into these rough categories. Perhaps we should create a table and categorize the articles to date? It might prove an insightful and useful exercise. --HighKing (talk) 11:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

And how binding are these guidelines? Like, not at all. Who developed them? Those with an interest in junking the term from Wikipedia. I don't see any mention of where, and under what conditions, the term can be inserted. It's all about getting rid of it. I will continue to ignore these "guidelines". At best they are advisory, and in any event I disagree with nearly all of 'em. 195.206.194.36 (talk) 21:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I totally agree, it appears to be some kind of opinionated campaign to simply remove the expression the british isles from the whole wikipedia against all standard naming policy. Off2riorob (talk) 21:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Try addressing content issues rather than speculating about the motives of other editors. --Snowded ^TALK 21:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Likewise. Instead of trying to remove BI, why don't the anti-BI brigade concentrate on real content issues? (that was me above, btw. Forgot to log in). Mister Flash (talk) 21:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

If you would adopt a NPOV content focused approach rather than blind reverts based on a nonsensical conspiracy theory then we would all have more time.--Snowded ^TALK 22:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

@HighKing. I haven't read through the rest of the page beyond the Shared Principles section, but it doesn't appear that any consensus emerged below it, so I will focus on that section alone. After eliminating all of the material that deals with the question of what to call the Republic of Ireland which has now been definitively decided and is not relevant to this discussion, we are left with principles 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7. The first thing to note is that this "consensus" is not binding to those who have not signed up to it, which a significant number of contributors here (myself included) have not. Secondly, that "consenus" was far from unanimous and was actually formed by just five users, which tends to detract from it being a universal indicator (possibly six, I'm not sure if Sarah777 voted, but she seems to have drawn them up in the first place), with just three others abstaining. By contrast, the number of users who formed consensus on the name of the Republic of Ireland was 239. Thirdly and most seriously, they do not answer the fundamental problem at the root of the arguments on this page - namely where to draw the line on what constitutes geographic usage. As this "consensus" was formed by a very small body of users 18 months ago and fails to address the more significant issues we face, I do not see how it can be binding enough to be used as a reason for making changes to this controversial topic (indeed, it is not). It is a starting point, but further debate is needed before it is acceptable beyond those users who signed up to it at the time (for example, I do not agree with number 3 and I don't even understand number 7). As I have said before, all article editing on the usage of British Isles related to this page must stop until a neutral admin is appointed to oversee it, and the discussion of these "principles", while useful, does not change that.--Jackyd101 (talk) 13:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Just to correct you. A consensus emerged on the Shared Principals. Likewise, consensus can and frequently does change. And consensus is binding regardless of the number of editors. (BTW, a small aside, your Republic of Ireland example is a poor example as that vote took place within a process which has since broken down and is therefore not regarded as consensus. Many voters may have voted differently if it had been a stand-alone vote.) If you like, feel free to establish if consensus has changed.

Your point about one of the fundamental problems - geographic usage - is also addressed in the Shared Principals. You may not agree with point 3 - I don't agree with point 11. Point 7 relates to using the "British Isles" in statement such as "the tallest building", etc.

Finally, just to clarify and to avoid confusion. There is nothing binding about participation on this page, nor of any content decisions on this page. Be aware that my editing follows editing guidelines regarding references, etc, and before this page, each article was treated separately. Most of the editors that oppose this editing do so by attacking the editor (never a pleasant experience). In order to avoid disruption (and with the longer term aim of forming guidelines), I *volunteered* (reluctantly) to discuss all edits on this page. This is pretty unprecedented on Wikipedia. But, there are benefits, and as an experiment it appeared useful. There is nothing binding to this page, or this process, and we are all free to edit as we see fit, so long as we follow guidelines.

Throughout, I've been subject to many attacks by a small handful of editors. If you check their history, it is very clear that they are acting disruptively. Yet their behaviour goes unchecked.

I believe the usefulness of this page may be coming to an end. I notice that if I don't post here, nobody does. Yet if I change an article, a number of editors blindly revert (and can seemingly do so without giving reasons or discussing, etc), and then howl constructively about motives, political leanings, campaigns, etc, but usually little or nothing useful about the actual content. This is one-sidedness in the extreme.

That said, the willingness shown by you and a small handful of others to reasonably discuss this topic keeps me here. But to be clear. I volunteered to participate here, but only while we made progress. I am close to un-volunteering precisely because we are not making progress, and I will simply go back to editing each article, one at a time, based on it's individual merits. If the community can't be arsed, then, quite frankly, why should I participate in a fake process and put up with the abuse? There are not enough editors involved here any longer, and even fewer who have bothered to read the Shared Principals or the Guidelines (which took, literally, many months of work). I'd probably fare just as well, and probably better, going back to my older approach. --HighKing (talk) 15:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

While I do not condone personal attacks on any one, I would suggest that abandoning this system isn't going to help - those seeking to revert you will still do so and since you will be acting unilaterally you will have less defence against them than you do presently where at least the issue is being discussed at a centralised location. I actually think we are making progress - clear inaccuracies are being ironed out while more contentious issues are being flagged which (provided no one makes a premature edit on the subject) seems to be limiting edit wars somewhat. It also assists in achieving balance by highlighting those cases where the term is being removed uneccessarily as well as those where it should be removed.

On your other points: consensus has obviously been reached on the Republic of Ireland issue for the time being - see the part of the page linked above that states: "Results of the vote are final and binding for a period of two years". I voted based on this clear principle, and there are no grounds for suggesting that it doesn't apply now. In addition, while geographic meaning was touched on in those shared principles, it was not clearly enough defined, as is repeatedly demonstrated in the sections above where there are numerous arguments about the extent of geographic usage. I think agreeing new set of principles separate from the settled issue of the Republic of Ireland is an essential step at this stage before this page goes any further.--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

There is no "settled issue" of the "Republic of Ireland". The original status quo remains unchanged (which coincidentally is the same as the result of the vote) but for the vote to have any authority, the process would need to be completed and given a seal of approval from Arbcom. It doesn't. Therefore no change to the status quo (which is not the same thing as the vote having carried). You may not have been aware that the vote was carried out as part of a process. The 2nd step broke down, bringing the process with it.

If this page is abandoned, and I return to editing articles, I might actaully get some small protection from the continued harassment which is more than is happening now, and the disruptive editors might learn the error of their ways and perhaps even change them. There are many examples where their reverting will result in a block, and while I've been hesitant in calling for blocks in the past, I have seen no sign that they are willing to engage meaningfully.

I've given this page a meaningful run, but I am starting to believe that an article by article approach might be the only way forward. There's nothing here that suggests anyone is treating the guidelines seriously (barring one or two). --HighKing (talk) 01:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

HighKing, at the moment your participation here is starting to demonstrate that you are willing to engage while others are not. As Jackyd101 says we are making progress on the content issues. OK its not fast, but if you abandon it then you will make less progress. The evidence of who is attempting to make things work and who isn't is building here now but you need to continue to demonstrate patience. The provocation is clear, don't let it succeed. --Snowded ^TALK 19:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Snowded, I've always been willing to engage. Previously it took place on each article's Talk page and the evidence of this is still evident on many Talk pages. The provocation is endless. And the mud sticks. Many editors here believe I'm some rabid anti-British editor with a republican agenda, or some other rubbish, based purely on the name-calling dished out. I'd hazard a guess that even Jackyd above had that opinion in the past, based on comments. Unfortunately my patience isn't endless. With no admins willing to enforce the basic policies on civility, especially on this subject, and editors able to stonewall here and revert on articles based on reasons of "political editing" or "anti-British Isles campaign" (and let's face it, why do you think that not one, not one single one, has received a meaningful warning let alone a block?) the realist in me says that this process has run it's course. I've read both sets of comments above, but I'm still unconvinced.... --HighKing (talk) 01:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes this really isn't correct Snowded, and HighKing just doesn't deserve it either, as I've been trying to say (without getting too involved) in a few places now. I was out of Wikipedia most of last year (so I don't know how things were when this BI taskforce came alive again), but when the taskforce was started (the summer of 2008), HighKing clearly contributed the most to it. It has to be said that he did this at a time when you were dragging your heals about using Ireland over Republic of Ireland so much that it actually went to Medcab, until I let my end go (despite some unhelpful provocation for doing so) and started the IDISAM Ireland naming taskforce instead (and everyone's focus was subsequently diverted there, and whether to rename the Ireland articles or not). Before this, you and Sarah specifically wanted to strike a deal on British Isles where, if the term was to be accepted at all, 'Ireland' must be used to contrast with the 'UK', and not 'Republic of Ireland'. But this cross-meaning effectively politicised the consensus-based "geographical-only" usage of BI , to the point where the guideline simply got too ambiguous. Unlike HighKing, you simply wouldn't move till you got what you wanted – and I suppose, with all the resultant Ireland shenanigans, you eventually did with the final 'piped Ireland' ruling about a year later. With that hurdle passed, it is only the Channel Islands issue now to resolve, and the path will be open to get decent a guideline down (and perhaps, I concede, one that is more readable than the one that is still, after all this time, a work in progress)

The fact that HighKing was initially happy with using 'Republic of Ireland' over a piped 'Ireland', combined of course with his work on the guideline, said everything about him wanting a British Isles guideline: and the question on whether to actually have a guideline or not is at the very heart of all this. It is still the case that some people want to see a guideline, whereas other very specifically don't - whether it so they can use the term without censure, or whether it is to prove the term is unsolvable (and therefore unusable). It is a typical deadlock resulting from two opposing sides wanting a similar outcome for different reasons (ie having no BI guideline). One side recommends just having article-specific debates, where they can prove BI can be used via refs and relevance etc, while the other side wants to prove there are insurmountable problems inherent in the term, thus proving we need an alternative term recommended at MOS. In opposition are the more moderate people (like HighKing) who want to see their own outcome: a clear guideline of use (no-doubt with slight 'leanings' one way or the other).

So I personally remember HighKing working hard on creating balanced content (whilst disagreeing on some specifics too) when you simply refused to play pretty much all of the way, for reasons that could only have been linked to your very strong sense of nationalism in my opinion (don't get me wrong – nationalism is not a bad thing in itself). You had – and have - a right to be like that, but your recent comments here (and elsewhere) on HighKing are just completely at odds with both your and his past behaviour. You were very happy to criticise British Isles as an archaic and pov-inherent term in the past, but HigkKing held the same negative sentiments towards the term and worked positively on the guideline too.

I don't really want to dig up old ground at all, but to keep suggesting HighKing is so extreme, and only now starting to engage, is just not right at all, whatever may (or may well not have) happened in the realm of BI during the time I had retired from Wikipedia. Criticising HighKing might seem to show you hold a 'balanced' position between the two broad sides here, but you just can't reformulate someone's history to do that. Anyone can of course change their stance on Wikipedia, and good luck on becoming an admin - but don't completely forget your own (or HighKing's) actual history on this matter. Matt Lewis (talk) 11:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

HighKing may well have worked hard on the guidelines, but why? What is his ultimate motive? I think we all know what it is. He may say it's to do with correct usage of British Isles, but why should he be so concerned about that, more so than the correct usage of any other description? Obviously, there's an underlying objective; to eliminate, or at least restrict use of the words British Isles. If that's the case, so be it. He has his own views on the matter and is entitled to them. I happen to disagree with them, since I don't see a problem with the use of British Isles, generally speaking. The biggest problem is that HighKing's rejection of the term causes edit wars and other conflicts, and it is therefore bad for the encyclopedia. This is why I hope he will not restart his - shall we say, challenging - of British Isles usage. He makes an interesting point above: when he doesn't edit this page, neither does anyone else; that fact speaks volumes. LevenBoy (talk) 13:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment: "Underlying objective"? That is very rich. From what I can see HighKing is showing where so-called references in Wikipedia to the use of the term "British Isles" are in actual fact a distortion of what is actually said in the references to the term. The Jane Austen instance above is a very good example of people with a clearly political agenda replacing the word 'Britain' with the words 'British Isles' in a Wikipedia article. HighKing should be commended for following this and exposing the political agenda of those who wish to impose the words "British Isles" into as many articles as possible here. In short, then, this is about truth versus the nationalist political agenda of some British wikipedia users, such as User:LevenBoy, User:Mister Flash and - he's back - User:Matt Lewis. Dunlavin Green (talk) 11:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The majority of people have always accepted the term must be restricted at least in some way, whatever take they have on it: it can't just be casually used; eg a trip around the Lleyn peninsula and and Anglesey for example, is not a trip around the British Isles - it's a trip around Wales. Acceptibilty shifts with context of course - in a wider context (if there is one) it could indeed be a trip within the British Isles. HighKing has always accepted things like that, and he is only bringing in here the articles he finds ambiguous - he is leaving all the clearly correctly-used ones be. If he's not 100% perfect on that - so what? Like he says, this is an optional place, and one where he has to accept abuse that would never pass in the Talk pages of a public article.

One of the central parts of the guideline is that both the island of Ireland and the island of Great Britain has to be within the scope of any article-specific 'area', for it to be described as the 'British Isles'. That is fair basis, surely. If you are on the 'use it where possible' extreme, HighKing is actually closer to you than quite a number of people around who would rather see Wikipedia suggests alternatives like "Britain and Ireland" wholesale. Most of them simply don't edit these articles though - HighKings big 'sin' seems to be that he is actually tackling with the issue in article space. Which as I've always said, is his right. Working with him on a guideline is best for all the parties who don't want the term to be completely removed from editor-composed article prose. Matt Lewis (talk) 14:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Strumpshaw Fen RSPB reserve

Factually incorrect. I added a reference but was reverted here. --HighKing (talk) 18:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

You are right I believe it is factually incorrect, but you better get an opinion at the article's talk page. MidnightBlue (Talk) 20:09, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

No. This page is the page to discuss British Isles terminology, and is known about by you and other "involved" editors. It was created so as to keep this discussion in one place and to minimize disruption in other places on Wikipedia. If the change is especially contentious, or if uninvolved editors object, then the Talk page would become appropriate and I've no problem with that. --HighKing (talk) 20:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Well put a comment on the Talk page that you've changed it. MidnightBlue (Talk) 20:22, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

You cannot demand that (or ever even expect to see it on wikipedia) for a clear and inarguable edit with a source - it's a pretty outrageous ask. People who watchlist the article will see the change (and would hardly argue with it). HK took it to this SE page, which is more than he has to do, esp with such a simple matter of correcting the error. The source says that the bird can be found in Europe, not just the British Isles. Matt Lewis (talk)

As it is, we've decided that this page is the correct forum for discussing the edits. Once decided, we'll make the changes. If someone objects and discusses or reverts, we can discuss it then. --HighKing (talk) 20:29, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The issue here is the referenced list. That is wrongly named as it only uses UK source material. So maybe best to activate the 2008 discussion on renaming then this article gets picked up with whatever is agreed (FAD that relates to the remaining use not the one which has been validly removed) --Snowded ^TALK 21:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Are you referring to list of endangered species in the British Isles? --HighKing (talk) 22:07, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Yep - it should be UK --Snowded ^TALK 22:08, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Like opening up cans of worms do you? The proposed renaming apears to have been debated back in 2008 and there was no agreement. Let's leave it at that - please! MidnightBlue (Talk) 22:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I see a few comments which were sympathetic to a name change but no one took it forward. In that case the references are all to the uK, most other lists are by nation state so its pretty open and shut. --Snowded ^TALK 22:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Hold on - this really is a classic example of where personal POV (e.g. wanting to remove a term like British Isles) can lead to errors. First off, Matt - it's a butterfly we're talking about here, not a bird. Next, check out this [6] and maybe other sources. You'll then find - I think - that as a result of the attempt to remove British Isles we now have incorrect information - it wasn't exactly incorrect before but it seems like it is now! The sub-species is not found elsewhere in Europe. The sub-species is restricted to Norfolk and Suffolk - a better description that British Isles, but if the article hadn't been picked up by HighKing it would be more accurate than it is at the moment! As for my request to put it on the Talk page - I suggest it should have been, then someone who actually knows what they're talking about might have spotted what appears to be a mistake. So Matt - why do I want stuff on Talk pages - simple, because virtually all of the edits that are brought here are done so by non-experts, who have no real interest in the subject. MidnightBlue (Talk) 22:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll give you your final warning from me on this SE page now regarding your unchanging accusations of bias. Don't do it to me again, not even indirectly. I am no mood to just 'take it', esp from an editor I remember very-well starting his "my new user ID" MidnightBlueMan account with a particular British Isles edit and withought moving from the subject ever since. You set up MidnightBlueMan after your IP edits aroused suspicions, with which you admitted to editing even before the IP. MidnightBlueMan has made sporadic edits since 2008, and have been a 100% BI-related WP:SPA. You have attacked HighKing in exactly the same manner for as long as I can trace you.

Wikipedia is written by "non experts" and people have Watchlists. Mistakes are made and can be corrected. Your demands to either leave well alone, or to 'dot every i' that is possible to dot, make this Special Examples page pointless. One of the benefits of this SE page is that it keeps your kind of comments off the article talk pages. We cannot go back to the article talk disruption you have been part of. And having the page also stops those articles getting locked. We have this SE page to work things out (as we are doing), and you need to respect that. Matt Lewis (talk) 19:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Its fairly easy to place a notice on the talk page with a link here. I've done it on some articles. Probably takes less time and any expert interested will come here. Also if someone doesn't see the change on the article, they are hardly likely to see a change on the talk page --Snowded ^TALK 22:35, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Good idea. This should be done in all cases. MidnightBlue (Talk) 22:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

And another thing - HighKing's reference [7] is a trade association website. Hardly a good academic source. MidnightBlue (Talk) 22:35, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Based on which policy exactly? --HighKing (talk) 22:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

St. Peter's Church, St. George's

Not supported by the references in the article, or even the photograph of the plaque outside the church. I changed to reflect the facts but was reverted. --HighKing (talk) 18:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

No discussions or objections. I'll go ahead and change the article. Seems pretty straight forward in terms of references, especially the photo of the plaque in any case. --HighKing (talk) 19:47, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

No, I've got a good reference. Suggest you leave it. MidnightBlue (Talk) 20:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Reference now in place. MidnightBlue (Talk) 20:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The reference you have added is not a good reference. The article was written by a freelance writer and (the key point here) uses the same wording as appears in the Wikipedia article - namely is the oldest surviving Anglican church in continuous use outside the British Isles. It also doesn't override the plaque outside the church itself which makes a different claim, and this is a verifiable source and a good reference. --HighKing (talk) 20:27, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Verifiability - that's what it's about. The Boston Globe is a reliable source, full stop. The freelance credentials of the writer are totally irrelevant. Furthermore, the text on the plaque is by-and-large confirmed in the second reference. The two references are not contradictory. I'm sorry, but you can't have it all ways. MidnightBlue (Talk) 20:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:V and WP:RS. It is pretty obvious that the writer took the "factoid" from Wikipedia. And we've already noted in our (developing) guidelines that it is preferable to make claims according to the largest area, which in this case would be "Western Hemisphere". I've reverted your changes while this discussion in ongoing. --HighKing (talk) 20:36, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Article was By Elizabeth Gehrman, Globe Correspondent, September 14, 2008. This was several months before the Wikipedia article was created. So no, your assertion about the 'factoid' is incorrect. MidnightBlue (Talk) 20:50, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Church history pages uses BI and in this case it would be difficult to construct a simple sentence that avoided it. For this one I think BI is valid. --Snowded ^TALK 21:23, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, this raises two points. Many articles relating to the Anglican church appear to use "British Isles" a lot. I was involved in some discussions on this before, and I was saving the discussion relating to all things related to the Anglican church until we get to the more difficult topics. My opinion at this point in time is that "British Isles" appears to relate to an ecclesiastical area within this context (but I'm not sure). I also believe this is what @Snowded means by "Church history pages" above. If "British Isles" is seen as a specific ecclesiastical area, I've no problems adding this to the guidelines.

But in relation to this specific item, I was basing this on the fact that it appears to fall under the previous discussions we've had regarding comparisons (biggest, highest, smallest, oldest, etc). From previous discussions, we've learned that we should use the largest appropriate area. In this case, should it not be Western Hemisphere? --HighKing (talk) 21:43, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Mmm, it would depend on third party material. At the moment the use of BI is obviously geographic and on the Church's own web site (which is my reference to the Churches own history) . Now that might be a primary source so it would get complicated. I don;t buy western hemisphere, I doubt is true anyway - Gibraltar etc.--Snowded ^TALK 21:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I had previously checked the wikilink and couldn't see it on the official website. But seeing as you said it again I rechecked and yup, it's there. The link is here BTW and it states something slightly different along the lines of oldest continuously operating Protestant church in the New World and is one of the oldest official buildings in the English-speaking world beyond the British Isles. So there's still no reference for the claim being made in the article, and I'm not even sure what is meant by "one of the oldest official buildings". Whatcha think? --HighKing (talk) 22:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you should give up on this one, and go and look for instances of British Isles usage where it is definitely incorrect, as in the case of the nature reserve. MidnightBlue (Talk) 22:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Quote the Church history page exactly, its a better statement anway --Snowded ^TALK 22:06, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I've changed the article to use the newer references, but I'm not 100% sure what you're proposing as a solution. Using the quotation from the Church history page would result in the statement oldest continuously operating Protestant church in the New World and is one of the oldest official buildings in the English-speaking world beyond the British Isles? I really am not sure what the claim of "oldest official building, etc" is trying to claim exactly. Official in what way? How to define "English-speaking world"? What about Gibraltar for instance? And the Palace of the Governors is an older official building in New Mexico - I'm sure there's loads more. --HighKing (talk) 10:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Makara (surname)

So many things wrong with stating Makara is ancient personal name and surname of Brythonic and Goidelic origin. It is one of the oldest family names on record in the British Isles and Eire. It should use UK and Ireland. --HighKing (talk) 19:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

You simply need to remove "and Eire" from the opening sentence. MidnightBlue (Talk) 20:24, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure the page is even notable and there is no reference to support the claim. Its Irish/Scottish anyway isn't it? I don't recognize it in Welsh? I suggest using Irish here its more accurate. --Snowded ^TALK 21:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I think these kind of example need research before changing anything, as having the facts (or at least a source) should clear it up. (I'm not saying I've necessarily got time to do it but,..) Matt Lewis (talk) 21:42, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Matt, that this needs a tag. However, it may be appropriate to simply remove "and Eire", since Eire redundant as it is one of the British Isles. (Like putting "Europe and France").--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I've been trying to find out more about this surname, but from what I can see, it doesn't exist as a British or Irish name. I found an obscure page at a genealogy site of sorts which states that it's the Polish, Ukrainian, and Slovak: derivative of Makar. Also, the article claims that it's related to McAra, McCara, MacCara and Macara but the surname McCarey also lays claim to these as this fairly reliable website says. Overall, I think this article is incorrect and I'll put it up for deletion. --HighKing (talk) 19:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:Policy shopping Mister Flash (talk) 20:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

That would imply nominating the article for deletion? --Snowded ^TALK 21:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Conclusion

Article deleted. --HighKing (talk) 19:19, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Currencies of the British West Indies

When describing currency in Jamica, the text states 'the rest of the British West Indies just used the exact same coinage that was circulating in the British Isles. This should use United Kingdom. --HighKing (talk) 19:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

United Kingdom is used in the lede and that term should carry through. Its the legal entity which established the coinage in use and BI is thus an inappropriate term. --Snowded ^TALK 21:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

British Isles is correct here, since the same currency was used throughout the islands and in the West Indies at the time under discussion, so the geographical requirement holds. However, it is needlessly imprecise and I support changing it to United Kingdom.--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with your reasoning and I believe it results in an imprecise article. The British Isles is not, and never was, the name given to any economic region. It was the currency of the United Kingdom. Nor is it accurate to use British Isles to suggest that circulation was confined to the British Isles - Sterling also circulates in regions outside of the British Isles such as Gibraltar, British Overseas Territories of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, and British Antarctic Territory, etc, and betweem 1840 and 1969, would also have included other parts of the British Empire such as Australia, Barbados, British West Africa, Cyprus, Fiji, New Zealand, South Africa and Southern Rhodesia. --HighKing (talk) 18:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

You are overcomplicating the sentence as written. It reads "the rest of the British West Indies just used the exact same coinage that was circulating in the British Isles." That is all, it is a simple comparative and is largely correct - for the majority of the time under discussion (from 1840 until 1969, 88 of 129 years - Ireland used GB pound until 1928 and the currencies were directly interchangable until 1979) the British pound was used in Jamaica and was also used in all of the British Isles. There is no reference to other places, and no suggestion that we are talking about economic regions: indeed the very use of British Isles in this context implies that a geographic region is meant. However, as I said above, use of the term in this context is imprecise and should be changed.--Jackyd101 (talk) 20:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I understand that you don't see a need to differentiate between geographical and cultural contexts and usage. While in general the sentence is logically correct as it stands (for most of the area and for most of the time), it leads to editors using British Isles in contexts which are not geographical or technical, leads to objections, and results in usage where a more correct and/or precise term exists. This is why we need the guidelines, and why we use the terminology that would commonly used in the field in question. When dealing with currencies, we use terms associated with that field which are states and financial regions. For that reason, UK is correct. --HighKing (talk) 18:27, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Ireland men's national water polo team

This edit seems pretty straight forward so I've gone ahead and changed it to refer to the UK of GB&I rather than BI. --HighKing (talk) 19:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Why specifically the state and not the region? (Since the two are not conterminous, either at that time or today ... the boundaries having even changed since.) -- RA (talk) 19:47, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Because it's talking about a sport, on the island of Ireland. The statement (which itself is unreferenced) mentions Dublin and Belfast which would initially suggest that the term "Ireland" would be more correct in this context. But in the context of the article which discusses the fact that the team competes as "Ireland" and competed against other countries in the UK (the Home Nations) which are also mentioned, and mentions the olympics, I believe referring to the UKoGB&I is most correct. Happy to hear other suggestions tho. --HighKing (talk) 19:54, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted it according to WP:BRD. Please discuss it at the relevant talk page. MidnightBlue (Talk) 20:01, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

"At the turn of the twentieth century, water polo was a popular summer game in outdoor seawater baths in X, including at seaside resorts near Dublin and Belfast." Why would X refer to a state and not a place? "Because it's talking about a sport, on the island of Ireland." That doesn't follow.

I agree that "Ireland" would be fine. In the context of the subsequent sentence, "United Kingdom" would be good too. (But not UKGBI - the full name UKGBI is no more used than the full name UKGBNI is used today. That might mean that some explaining of the sort that all of Ireland was a part of the United Kingdom at the time would be necessary.) "British Isles" would seems fine too.

Can you explain what is wrong/incorrect about "British Isles" that you removed it? I don't see any good reason to removed it other than not liking it. Liking/not liking that phrase has led to edit wars in the past. Unless there is a reason to change the text of articles that justifies removing/inserting that phrase, let's leave it alone. -- RA (talk) 20:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I would have thought that you, of all people, would avoid labelling my edits or attributing motives. A little more AGF wouldn't go astray. Fine if you don't agree with the edit, but don't start commenting on the editor or motives, OK?

That aside, you ask a good and pertinent question - what is "wrong/incorrect" about using "British Isles" in the context of this article. I've actually answered that question above, but I'll reiterate for clarity. First off, we're agreed that "British Isles" is a geographic term - see the discussions that have already taken place on the main Task Force page. The incorrect usage in the context of this article is that we're simply not talking geographically, we're talking about a cultural subject. The article subject concerns a sport, and the sport was organized according to national boundaries and states, and not geographical areas. Also, the sentence in question states "water polo was a popular summer game in outdoor seawater baths in the British Isles" - it is obvious to me that usage in this article is incorrect as the author is using "British Isles" to refer to either the UK or Ireland, since it is referring to people and activities and not related to any geographic entity. --HighKing (talk) 21:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Given that the four home nations are spelt out in full in the second sentence, it might make sense to combine the two sentences. That way neither NI or UK or B&I is necessary and we have a neater sentence anyway? --Snowded ^TALK 21:10, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

"...it is obvious to me that usage in this article is incorrect as the author is using 'British Isles' to refer to either the UK or Ireland, since it is referring to people and activities and not related to any geographic entity." - Obvious? The sentence merely states that "water polo was a popular summer game in outdoor seawater baths in the British Isles". There is nothing in appropriate, inaccurate or incorrect about the use of the term British Isles in that context. You say that sport is "organized according to national boundaries and states, and not geographical areas". First, the sententence has nothing to do with the organisation of sport but second, let me ask you is the Ireland men's national water polo team organized on the basis or (a) political boundaries or (b) geographic boundaries?

(With respect to assuming good faith, I am assuming good faith. I don't believe you are doing anything malicious here.) -- RA (talk) 01:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Cool. If we're sticking just to the sentence in question and not the wider topic, see my answer below which Matt has replied to regarding culture. Dealing with the wider topic of sport in general, for some we tend to use "Home Nations" (e.g. Rugby) as it's sometimes more appropriate when discussing sport organizations and gets over the political/geographical arguments. As to the current organization, it's organized under "Swim Ireland" and like other sports on this island (e.g. basketball) - it takes in the entire island. Many sports are organized on an all-island basis - check the Olympic Council of Ireland website for a list. --HighKing (talk) 01:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Funny you should mention rugby. Consider that at that time (and until a few years ago), we had a sports team known as the British Isles rugby football team that was (and still is) made up of players from England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales. Even before partition it was never called the United Kingdom rugby football team. -- RA (talk) 01:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure, 50 years ago they were called the "British Isles". Then "British Lions", and for the last decade the "British and Irish Lions". And Golf and Tennis I believe were too (not sure). Can't argue with facts. But back then, "British Isles" was openly interchangeable with "United Kingdom" a lot of the time, even after partition. Things change, times move on, etc. --HighKing (talk) 01:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

If the two were interchangeable, why change it to correct an "error"? Specifically why change BI -> UKGBI when the UK has changed in its make up since (and thus introduce an unnecessary layer of complexity and potential cause for confusion). -- RA (talk) 10:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

RA - I think it's about whether to use UKofGB&I or not for the period.

HK - it is used geographically, isn't it? It's not using it in the sense of British Isles as a culture (that happens to cover the various parts) - it's using it specifically to describe the various geographical parts where the game was played.

The diff seemed to need something like 'the former' United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. History needs to be part of the guideline - which do we default to when a term is clearly needed for this period? BI (or a modern equivalent), or UKofGB&I? Assuming they are suitable for the article/section, of course. I would say use BI (or a modern equivalent), unless the UKGBI is the focus of the article or section. Here it isn't - the section moves onto Ireland post 1922, so using United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland does seem odd. Stick to BI here I think, or edit around it if it's beneficial, as Snowded suggests. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Matt, great to see you here. it is used geographically, isn't it?. Good question. If we remove the bit about outdoor seawater baths, we're left with water polo was a popular summer game in X. That's like saying "Cricket was a popular summer game in the British Isles", or "Hurling was a popular summer game in the British Isles", etc. The "outdoor seawater baths" piece doesn't make it geographical (does it?). It isn't a "technical" use of the term. I understand the sentence to mean that "water polo was popular with British and Irish people during the summer where it was played outdoors". I would have difficulty discussing this as a geographic phenomenon unless we were involving climate or something, along the lines of "the mild climate means that water polo was a popular summer game in the British Isles". I'd see the sense in using it then. Does that make sense? Not trying to be difficult, but I am trying to understand why I think this isn't a good example and I'd like to be a precise as I can. --HighKing (talk) 21:53, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Please stop looking for excuses to remove British Isles. Its use here is not wrong. Yet again it boils down to personal preference and it should not be removed simply as a result of anyone's preference. If its use is incorrect then fine, remove it, but that is not the case here. MidnightBlue (Talk) 22:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments in breach of WP:CIVIL will be struck out, and persistent offenders will be reported and may face a sanction. You've been warned multiple times in the past, let this be a reminder - comment on the content, not on the editor. --HighKing (talk) 22:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Push off HighKing! Who do you think you are, striking out as perfectly reasonable comment. MidnightBlue (Talk) 22:06, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

We have to establish what is cultural/political and not. If location is central to he meaning it is geographical, if some cultural or political matter is then it's gone beyond geographical. That people play the sport is a given, so that is not a cultural 'theme' in itself.

However, like you point out, the word "popular" seems to be the (cultural) centre of the sentence. I hadn't noticed that. So British Isles actually isn't suitable at all in this sentence. I'd go with Snowded's suggestion and try and re-write it. And Water Polo is hardly just a BI sport too. I'll give a rewrite a go. Matt Lewis (talk) 22:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Re-write - just so that we can remove British Isles; I think not! See my comments above about the nature reserve. Why don't you all just back off these articles when you don't know what you're talking about (unless of course you're a water polo fan). MidnightBlue (Talk) 22:41, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't ever tell me what to edit, or negatively explain my actions when you have no idea what my intentions are. I'm here to be productive, and I won't personally tolerate any personal abuse re BI. The subject has seen enough of it. Matt Lewis (talk) 22:53, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I self-reverted this copy edit as I understand from MBM that it is against the current 1RR rules (despite being my only edit to the article). It was an attempt to fuse the two sentences. Doing that makes sense for a number of reasons, not least good copy. It also has a "citation needed" tag for the "popular" issue. Matt Lewis (talk) 23:31, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Matt, just in reply to your comment above - I mean that it would be better to pipe link (e.g. United Kingdom) rather than pushing the full title into the text. -- RA (talk) 01:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

As a general comment on these issues, we should not be rewriting the content of articles that we know little or nothing about and never had any previous involvement in simply to add/remove a phrase that we like/dislike. The content of articles on Wikipedia does not hang on the use or non-use of the phrase "British Isles". What involvement did we have with the article on Ireland men's national water polo team before tonight? What do we know about the topic that we feel we can re-write any portion of it so as to avoid the use of a word that we don't like? Is our motivation here to better inform our readers on the topic of water polo in Ireland? Or simply to add/remove a phrase that either grates us or delights us? -- RA (talk) 01:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

As a general response to your general comment, we should be making every effort to ensure that we are accurate, and if that means correcting articles for grammar, spellings, and incorrect usage of terms, then that is of course contributing to making the project a success. It's why I took the position I did with "Republic of Ireland", it's why I'm argueing that the process wasn't followed there, and it's why I'm examining usage of "British Isles". Others might correct date formats, or flagcruft - whatever. But it's bad faith to continue to allude to the reason of not liking a term. Or having an political agenda. Perhaps you are happy to live with terms that are close enough, or roughly in the ballpark. I prefer accuracy and correctness, and I believe it's a poor reflection of WP (or more accurately, it's editors) that discussions always end up at an emotive level rather than factual. --HighKing (talk) 01:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify, by the above I mean flipping sentences around etc. in a manner that could alter their meaning. Simple correction of words/phrases or trivial changes are fine but we should otherwise be very cautious about making changes to articles simply to make them fit with what we want here. The changes we make can alter the meaning of sentences/parts of those articles and introduce more serious inaccuracies than someone saying British Isles when they mean UKGBI. -- RA (talk) 01:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I think how much we need to research becomes apparent for each example. Me adding (or suggesting) a 'citation needed' tag to the word "popular", for example is pretty standard - I'm not obliged to research it further (though it would be nice if I had the time, obviously). Wikipedia is collaborative after all, and people watchlist articles to follow these kind of changes. In my oponion, the sitting edits across Wikipedia are clearly on the poorer side, so I can't imagine any reasonable group of people here leaving Wikipedia worse for making changes. I haven't seen all the work on BI, but I'm sure they are all improving the articles. I myself have tidied up a 'side issue' or two I've noticed, before now. Wikipedia (overall) is built on these kind of minor improvements - we just have to use common sense. One of the reasons I always 'stand up' for HK focusing on BI, is that I've noticed from the start how many articles are always a little improved for focusing on them - I've never seen them actually come out worse - even before the SE page was created, which of course limits the possibility of hasty edits further. Matt Lewis (talk) 09:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

@HK -

Criticism of any kind is not the same as bad faith. Please accept some criticism gladly and in good faith.

Correcting errors is good. You are systematically going through Wikipedia to correct errors in the use of the term "British Isles". You understand that this is a reasonably controversial matter - to the extent that it stirs passions at least. "Correcting" use of the phrase where there is no need to can thus stir up those passions and can lead to the edit warring that we have seen over this matter in the past.

If there is an obvious error then correct it with all of our thanks. If there is no obvious error then leave it alone. There is nothing obviously incorrect about use of the term British Isles in the sentence, "At the turn of the twentieth century, water polo was a popular summer game in outdoor seawater baths in the British Isles..." Don't imagine that the author must have meant something else. Don't rewrite passages so as to create an error. And don't exchange it with another term (even one that makes equal sense in terms of the sentence) unless an error exists. Doing so only stirs up the passions we have seen and with no benefit to the encyclopedia. -- RA (talk) 10:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll accept criticism when it doesn't try to incorrectly attribute an illogical or nationalistic motive, and I hope you accept that there's a difference between criticizing a mistake and criticizing what you believe is the motive of an editor. I accept that you're not trying to wind me up on purpose and that you are constructively discussing this topic, and that we both recognize good faith in each other. We can disagree and still get on.

Despite what your interpretation of the meaning of "British Isles" to be, in my opinion it is used in this article in error. You say there is nothing obviously incorrect about the use of the term in this article - I disagree. I've explained my reasoning above, but I've yet to hear from you a structured reasoning as to why it is correct. Is it that you don't see anything incorrect with using "British Isles" as a shorthand for UK and Ireland, or UK, or GB and Ireland? --HighKing (talk) 10:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The statement is that, "At the turn of the twentieth century, water polo was a popular summer game in outdoor seawater baths in the British Isles..." You don't question the factual accuracy of the statement but that a geographic region can be used to delimit where a sport was popular at a time in the past. "The British Isles" is the name of a geographic region. Thus you say it is erroneous to use the phrase British Isles in that sentence. Is that correct?

I reply that there is nothing erroneous about using a geographic region to delimit where a sport was popular in the past. Regions are commonly used to delimit where sports are popular. For example, one can say that, "Rugby is popular in Munster." Or "Cricket is popular in the Caribbean." Or "Basketball is popular in Eastern Europe." Or "Ice Hockey is popular in Scandinavia." The British Isles is no different.

You need to explain what is different about the British Isles that it would be exceptional and thus possibly erroneous in this context. -- RA (talk) 11:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Great question. Now I think you've hit the nail on the head! There's a number of reasons, but probably the main reason I believe, is that the "British Isles" is exceptional because (without rehashing everything on the main Task Force page) it is a term which was once used interchangeably to mean the UK and using it today in the older context of a united UK and Ireland is inaccurate, and erroneous. Secondly, using regions to delimit where sports are popular is usually done based on a geopolitical region, and this in turn makes references and statistics easier to come by. Leaving aside the fact that no reference exists for the statement above, even if they did, it would likely have been a survey based on a geopolitical area - the UK - and not a geographical area. The area of sport in Ireland is extra-difficult since the foundation of many sporting organizations pre-dates Ireland's independence, and thus many sports are organized on an all-Ireland basis. But it is stated that these sporting organizations are nonetheless the national organizations of the Republic of Ireland, so as to disambiguate and avoid confusion. --HighKing (talk) 11:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• "...it is a term which was once used interchangeably to mean the UK and using it today in the older context of a united UK and Ireland is inaccurate..." First, what evidence do you have to believe that the original author confused it with the UK? The author wrote "British Isles". Why do you assume that they meant something other than what they had written? Second, as you point out, the UK and BI are not the same thing, yet you replaced BI with UK as if they were.
• "Secondly, using regions to delimit where sports are popular is usually done based on a geopolitical region, and this in turn makes references and statistics easier to come by." No. None of the examples I gave are geopolitical region. Munster is not a geopolitical region. The Caribbean is not a geopolitical region. Eastern Europe is not a geopolitical region. Scandanavia is not a geopolitical region. Indeed of these examples, only Munster has a well-defined border. If I was to say that soccer is a popular sport in South America, I would be talking in terms of simple geographic regions not geopolitics - and the statement would not necessarily be based on statistics. The British Isles is no different.
• "Leaving aside the fact that no reference exists for the statement above, even if they did..." Let's leave that aside since you did not provide a reference for your change.
• "...it would likely have been a survey based on a geopolitical area - the UK - and not a geographical area." It would? What survey? There is no mention of a survey. (And if there was one, there is no reason to assume that it not have been based on the British Isles.) Again, unless you have evidence to believe that an error was made, accept what the original author wrote. -- RA (talk) 12:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

We need to be very cautious about things like this, especially when the article doesn't provide a reference and we don't have any of our own. The solution here is to give the sentance a tag and move on until new sources are found - we shouldn't risk changing the meaning by making unevidenced assumptions about the original author's intentions.--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• I didn't say the author meant to use "UK". I said that in the past, the two terms were used interchangeably. What evidence exists to suggest the author meant to use "British Isles"? None. But based on the rest of the article which uses Home Nations, lists the nations, and the Irish Free State, it seems to me that the article is more focussed on cultural and geopolitical areas.
• Actually, all of the examples you gave are geopolitical or cultural entities in some respects, and checking the wikipedia articles backs this up. (Munster is a province nd cultural region, the Caribbean is both geographical and geopolitical, Scandanavia is both geographical and a cultural entity (often confused with Norden), Eastern Europe is a cultural (and econo-cultural) entity). The British Isles is purely geographical. Since it is objectionable to many Irish people, the guidelines are trying to work out the contexts where it's OK to use it, and to also work out where it can and should be avoided.
• Given that no reference exists for the statement, I could simply have deleted the statement as per policy. Inserting a {{fact}} tag, as I've done in the past, results in not one iota of discussion or change - although when I've returned in the future to remove the unreferenced fact, it resulted in edit wars. I don't think that helps. Do you? I gave my reasoning why I believe UK was appropriate above, based on the article. True, I also have no reference. Perhaps (I believe Snowded remarked sometime earlier) we should simply remove anything that is unreferenced, and avoid these discussions.
• I didn't say there was a survey. But I disagree when you say that there is no reason to assume it would not have been based on the British Isles. There are ample reasons based on common sense (and funding) as to why it would use a different term. Some technical subjects use "British Isles" as a region - for example geology or fauna. A survey on "Migratory birds of the British Isles" wouldn't raise an eyebrow. Why do you say that there is no reason to assume it wouldn't be based on the British Isles? What exactly would the survey be about do you think?

Finally, you state that "...unless you have evidence to believe that an error was made, accept what the original author wrote". Nonsense - I've probably misunderstood your meaning. This is a wiki. Core policies encourage editors to be bold, and to edit. I can understand some editors who would love to censor any edits involving "British Isles", right or wrong, but I'd be very shocked if I had to count you among their number. --HighKing (talk) 18:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• "What evidence exists to suggest the author meant to use 'British Isles'?" That is what they wrote and what they wrote makes sense in the context.
• "Actually, all of the examples you gave are geopolitical or cultural entities in some respects … The British Isles is purely geographical." If you mean it in that sense, then yes those are all "geopolitical"/"cultural" regions. Of course, if that is the sense you mean it in then so too are the British Isles. In fact, even more so than other examples given: the British Isles has a political aspect, one that was far stronger at the time in question (when all parts of the British Isles were either a part of the UK or a dependency upon it and legislated for directly from Westminster).
• "Given that no reference exists for the statement, I could simply have deleted the statement as per policy [or marked it with a {{fact}} tag and returned] in the future to remove the unreferenced fact…" Quite. Are you surprised that these endeavors result in edit wars and land you at AN/I?
• "Why do you say that there is no reason to assume it wouldn't be based on the British Isles? What exactly would the survey be about do you think?" There is no mention of a survey. -- RA (talk) 19:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• "...what they wrote makes sense in the context" - I disagree for the reasons I've set out above. Your reasoning of "cos that's what they wrote" is hardly a strong argument on it's own, and breaking the discussion up into bullet points hides the bigger issue. You need to explain why you believe "British Isles" is appropriate when discussing a "popular pastime".
• "...so too are the British Isles" - actually no, and that is one of the reasons to avoid using "British Isles". The other articles here on Wikipedia openly state that the terms are used to signify economic regions or cultural regions, but British Isles doesn't.
• "...and land you at AN/I" - veiled threats or just trying to make a personal comment? Either way, that comment is inappropriate here.
• It appears to me (correct me if I'm wrong) that we're merely disagreeing on the contexts where British Isles is appropriate. I've outlined my arguments above, and clarified according to the multitude of questions you've asked. Perhaps you can clarify your position in return and we can make progress. I don't believe I'm going to convince you to change your mind, but perhaps we can aim for understanding? --HighKing (talk) 20:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

All of your arguments were founded on the assumption that use of the term must be incorrect (for one reason or another). If you begin with that premise it is hardly surprising that you would end with the conclusion the sentence should be changed. My approach is to ask if it is evidently incorrect to make a statement that, "At the turn of the twentieth century, water polo was a popular summer game in outdoor seawater baths in the British Isles..." No, it is not. No more than it would be evidently incorrect to say that any sport was popular in any place at any time.

"...veiled threats or just trying to make a personal comment?" Neither, but I do ask you to reflect on your approach to this issue. There are contexts where use of the term is genuinely questionable or evidently incorrect. You do a good job in finding those and correcting them. There are other cases, such as this one, where you are over-zealous. -- RA (talk) 21:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• "....All of your arguments were founded on the assumption that use of the term must be incorrect" - this comment can also be interpreted to mean that you assume my starting point is to assume that usage is incorrect. That's untrue. I've no problem starting another section where we can consider all the instances where I believe usage to be correct and outlining reasons why. It would also help if others would add new sections here. I've argued why it's incorrect, that's true, but I've given my reasoning. Insofar as you disagree and are making inappropriate comments about AN/I, or calling me over-zealous, that's untrue and unfair. It's OK to merely disagree, you don't have to resort to personal comments or insinuations. I'm not merely saying "It's incorrect", and stonewalling about needing to change the text. I'm giving reasons, and trying my level best to explain my reasoning. It would be great if similar arguments could be put forward for why you believe it's correct, which isn't clear to me at all. --HighKing (talk) 22:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Emerald City Supporters

I fixed an incorrect wikilink from [[British Isles|British]] to [[United Kingdom|British]] --HighKing (talk) 00:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The British Isles and Contental Europe could probably be combined into simply European e.g. "Emerald City Supporters take influence from the European and Latin American traditions of singing at the stadium." -- RA (talk) 01:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The source says "Europe or South America", and so should we.--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Conclusion

Changed to agree with the reference --HighKing (talk) 18:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

History of Norway

The article states the remains of settlers from Doggerland, an area now submerged in the North Sea, but at the time a landbridge that connected the present day British Isles with Jutland.. The article Doggerland states that it connected the island of Great Britain to mainland Europe, and Geological surveys have suggested that Doggerland was a large area of dry land that stretched from Britain's east coast across to the present coast of the Netherlands and the western coasts of Germany and Denmark. Since Ireland was a separate island at the time, the article should be corrected to use "Great Britain". --HighKing (talk) 19:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Are we certain that at the period under discussion Ireland and Britain were seperated? If so, then you are correct, but it would be good to confirm this fact before changing anything rather than risk making an error.--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

That is much better. Doggerland never connected the "British Isles". It was after the last vestages of Doggerland disappeared that we have the "British Isles". Before then there was only "Ireland".

The formation of the islands can be seen here. Dates differ depending on the models used but Ireland was formed about 12-8,000 years ago and Britain was formed about 5-4,000 years ago. -- RA (talk) 20:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Union of the Mediterranean

There's a reference associated with the UK that states name="UK">The British Isles do not have access to the Mediterranean Sea, but the British overseas territory of Gibraltar is located in the Mediterranean and it is part of the European Union. The two Sovereign Base Areas on the island of Cyprus also have access to the Mediterranean, Akrotiri and Dhekelia, but are not part of the EU and have a special relationship with the European Union. Since it's talking about the UK, the "British Isles" should be corrected to UK. --HighKing (talk) 19:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

You are correct, this is misleading and should be changed.--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

concur --Snowded ^TALK 19:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree also. -- RA (talk) 19:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Conclusion

Changed to UK --HighKing (talk) 01:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Katie Trumpener

The article states The book links the literary and intellectual history of the British Isles to that of the overseas colonies of the British Empire but the actual text on the back cover states "This magisterial work links the literary and intellectual history of England, Scotland, Ireland and Britain's overseas colonies during the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries..." (can be seen here on Google books). --HighKing (talk) 01:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

List of mythological places

Currently states:

• Avalon - Legendary Island of Apples in the British Isles. It is believed by some to be the final resting place of King Arthur.

I suggest this as a better explanation:

• Avalon - Legendary Island of Apples in Britain and believed by some to be the final resting place of King Arthur.

--HighKing (talk) 18:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

BI clearly wrong here. Matt Lewis (talk) 19:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Worthwhile to examine articles that currently use British Isles and are agreed OK?

The number of articles remaining that I can see to use British Isles incorrectly is relatively small. But there are a great number that I can't see anything wrong with, and I believe it would be of enormous benefit to examine these articles and understand this reasoning. I also believe that general categories will emerge, which will be of great help in the future. Do others believe this is worthwhile or beneficial, and be willing to help? --HighKing (talk) 18:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Sounds okay to me. Matt Lewis (talk) 19:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

BTW, how are finding these? Is it via 'What links here' at British Isles, or via a search engine (ie "British Isles" site:en.wikipedia.org)? I came across an unlinked "British Isles" the other day - I wonder how many you thought there might be in comparison to linked ones? Matt Lewis (talk) 19:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm primarily using the "What links here". I haven't looked at the unlinked "British Isles" yet, but I'm aware that there's a few incorrect ones there too. --HighKing (talk) 21:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

INCIDENTS

As I know that BI is a difficult area for admin to continue to tread, I'm starting this "incidents" section, so any admin passing can chose to deal with (or comment on) an incident if he or she wishes to.

I suggest keeping this section at the bottom of the page.

Personal abuse and trolling from User:Mister Flash

• Is this diff acceptible bahaviour? (I'm taking about the revert that lead to the section "WARNING: your revert of a basic error correction was used only for a personal attack.") Matt Lewis (talk) 18:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Edits for sole purpose of removing British Isles

We have an editor who is carrying out edits with the sole purpose of removing British Isles. Given that virtually every one of his edits either removes the term or challenges it pending later removal, it's clear that the primary purpose of this user is not to improve the encyclopedia but to get rid of this term. How do we deal with this situation? Mister Flash (talk) 19:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Obviously HighKing does not edit any of the uses of 'British Isles' he sees as valid, and there have always been areas where he accepts its use. Attempting to remove the unnecessary use of British Isles on Wikipedia is NOT illegal. So unlike your cynical personal attacks, we don't actually have to do anything about him re-phrasing it.

What we are doing on this page is attempting to debate whether particular incidences of removing the term are reasonable or not, and (during this) getting a grip on what we feel is a fair use for the term, regarding Style guidelines. You and the other attack accounts are alone in wanting the term to to be used unconditionally, and then protected from any subsequent copy change - which given the pointlessly misleading and contentious of the term in certain uses, and the organic spirit of Wikipedia too, is just ridiculous.

You need to understand the difference between trolling over something you don't like (which you are doing relentlessly over HighKing's actions), and 'editing around' something you don't like (and using debate and consensus too), which is HighKing's approach. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow - almost a personal attack on me. Actually, I might report it as an incident here. No offence Matt but you really just don't get it. You don't understand HighKing and what he's about. And I note you mention removing the term but you say nothing of adding it. BTW I don't want it to be used unconditionally. Where did you get that load of old cobblers from? If its use is wrong then ditch it, I say. Problem is, it hardly ever is wrong and its use is nearly always a matter of opinion and style. Mister Flash (talk) 22:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I thought Matt's comment was a helpful distinction and one you should take on board. As to old cobblers, if some one keeps on hammering in the same nails .... --Snowded ^TALK 22:04, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Removal of PROD notice

I posted a PROD notice on Colin Rivas since the article is dubious and has had a notice concerning sources since December 2008. Mister Flash removes the prod and leaves this comment on the Talk page where he states I've removed the PROD notice because the only reason the article is realy being proposed is that it contains the words British Isles. The campaign by Mister Flash to revert all my edits is extremely disruptive and his personal targeting is becoming intolerable. --HighKing (talk) 23:36, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

IP edits

Hi, not sure if this is the correct place to bring this, but there is an IP address User:209.119.9.98 that has made a large number of changes from British Isles to United Kingdom without any form of discussion at all. I noticed because one completely incorrect example popped up on my watchlist (see [8]), but they seem to have made at least 20 unsanctioned unilateral edits. Can people look through and revert where necessary?--Jackyd101 (talk) 07:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The IP address is based in New York. The example you give is quite correct (the United Kingdom didn't exist in the 1790s). Other examples are less clear cut. We also cannot talk of "unsanctioned" edits; we don't have that authority. -- RA (talk) 09:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, I've adjusted the wording. Although of course we should assume that the IP was unaware of the process here, I think that the level of debate that similar changes have provoked require these to be carefully examined.--Jackyd101 (talk) 10:45, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I would have thought that the French plan was to invade Britain and Ireland as opposed to the British Isles. It was a political rather than a geographic entity that they wanted attack. Fmph (talk) 12:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Britain and Ireland is not and was not a political entity. --Jackyd101 (talk) 16:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

It was more of a political entity than the BI. Fmph (talk) 16:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

It was the Kingdom of Great Britain and the Kingdom of Ireland, aka Britain and Ireland Fmph (talk) 16:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The link to Britain and Ireland is useless for these purposes (its a pretty terrible article in general) and is no more a political term than British Isles is - both are purely geographical. The geographical term is correct here because were are talking about the physical act of invading a piece (or in this case pieces) of land - its not necessary to distinguish between geographic and political terms when the context does that successfully and the term is correctly used.--Jackyd101 (talk) 20:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Tiresome stuff eh! I've reverted all of em except Aerial bomb. Where there's some doubt as to whether "the ip" is correct I've commented in the edit history. Stroll on! Mister Flash (talk) 19:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

No. I've reverted all of the ones I think are not obviously incorrect. You should not revert just because you don't like the edits or because you can't be sure if the edits are accurate or not. You must AGF, and if you revert you must give a reason in the edit summary. I can see where the ip made some errors, but not everywhere. That ip hasn't edited recently either, but it may have been a dynamically assigned address - while I haven't detected any other edits, we can keep an eye and make sure that the ip is aware of this page for future edits. Rather than reverting as you have done, if you want to discuss any of the edits, then bring them here, but the default action isn't to blindly revert. --HighKing (talk) 17:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, you haven't done it yet, so you bring em here before reverting my changes. I'll discuss them. It wasn't you by any chance was it, the ip I mean. Noty that I'm casting aspersions, just asking 'cos the very first ip edit was one of your recent ones as well. Mister Flash (talk) 17:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

(editconflict) OK, I think someone needs to interject before this spirals out of control. Firstly, to Mister Flash, it is impolite and unwise to make insinuations like the one above and I strongly suggest you withdraw it. We have to assume good faith and part of that involves not accusing editors of effectively sock-puppeteering or lying about hidden identities. Secondly, since these changes have now become controversial, all of those that are problematic need to be brought here for discussion and wider consensus. Until they are resolved, there should be no further reverts by anyone. Please can the participants begin listing those edits that they think need discussion below so that we can move forward on this.--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Jack, I did say I'm not casting aspersions. It's a perfectly reasonable question under the circumstances. It's not an accusation, I just wondered, as did everyone else here. Mister Flash (talk) 17:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

We must assume AGF on the part of the IP. I will revert those edits of MF that could easily be correct, and I advise that in future, if someone finds a removal that is clearly wrong, then we say why in the edit summary to avoid confusion. Also, if there's doubts don't revert a removal - just as I bring article here for discussion when we discuss should the term be changed, so too must articles be brought here if the term should be put back. This isn't a one-way street, and the purpose isn't to censor edits. On a separate note, I am going to bring this recent behaviour from MF to the attention of an admin, User:Cailil. --HighKing (talk) 18:03, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

(editconflict) @ Mister Flash: Just because you say "Noty that I'm casting aspersions" doesn't mean that you aren't doing it, and it is not helpful. Highking is certainly not normally shy about announcing when he has done something relating to British Isles and I would be surprised if he was resorting to such sneaky activity now. I think this was probably the work of a well-meaning IP address who simply wasn't aware that British Isles is a perfectly acceptable term on Wikipedia and consequently made some overzealous edits. The point now is to move on without getting into uneccesary arguments.

@Highking: I urge you not to make further reverts without discussing them here. This whole process is made much more difficult by knee-jerk reactions like this - Mister Flash should also have discussed, but he was at least restoring the status quo pending discussion, whereas you would be acting unilaterally if you restored the IP edits without bringing them here first.--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

@Jackyd101, so what do you mean by "status quo" exactly? If anything, the status quo is to allow people to edit articles - not to blindly revert without reasons which is going on here so all I'm doing is allowing normal activities to continue. We cannot allow a situation whereby MF and MBM can "restore" edits in this way, *especially* since they both know that if they have anything to discuss, then they should bring it here first! I am in the process of giving each article a quick examination and I will post here which ones I will revert - unless someone has a really good reason as to no AGF. And by reason, I mean that someone will point out why the edit is wrong. --HighKing (talk) 18:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Right, 1) It is well established that use of the term British Isles can be controversial and care should be taken when adding or removing it from an article 2) We have a system here where cases where the term is disputed can be brought before a wider audience and consensus reached 3) a well-meaning IP address removes the term British Isles from quite a large selection of articles - no malice was intended, but in replacing the term with United Kingdom, the IP made at least one serious inaccuracy and I can see several more that have no sources to support the usage 4) This was highlighted here (by me) for concerned editors to look into. 5) Mister Flash felt that these edits were troublesome, and so reverted them back to the usage of British Isles (except one that he correctly indentified as an accurate change) 6) At that point (i.e. now) these edits were confirmed as controversial (by the revert from an involved member of this page) and should all be brought here for discussion and nobody should perform any further reverts until the discussions are completed - further reverts are out of process and will inevitably lead to edit-warring. --Jackyd101 (talk) 18:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Yup, agree with you right up to point 5. After point 5 you're failing to acknowledge that MF acted our of process. Once you highlighted the edits here, they were marked. It's not up to MF (or anyone) to revert edits he finds "troublesome". Let's put it back into process. We'll AGF on the part of the IP, revert the obvious mistakes, and follow process for the rest. I'm nearly done with my summary, which I'll post here before reverting. --HighKing (talk) 18:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I await your summary, but I'm confused by your logical process here - to clarify: if an IP went around adding British Isles to articles where ever they felt like it, are you saying that you would not revert them straight away?--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Good point. In truth, I would revert ones I knew to be wrong (and list them here), and bring the rest here for discussion if I believed they were debatable or contributed to the guidelines. You may have noticed that in fact, that's what I have done in the past. --HighKing (talk) 19:03, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Review

Based on MF's reversions and Jackyd discussion above, here's what I propose to do unless someone can point out an obvious reason why the revert would be wrong.

2010 Six Nations Championship squads

revert, looks ok. Using British Isles in this way is no longer done for sports.

• diff

• Switch British Isles here for Home Nations.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

• I would suggest that listing the countries is easier since the 6 Nations title is about 6 nations on equal footing. (Grouping four of the nations together only makes sense in the context of the triple crown, and the term used at the official website is Home Unions). It also serves to make it consistent with the main article 2010 Six Nations Championship. --HighKing (talk) 14:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I suggest leaving this alone. The current version clarifies a point that some readers may not know. Namely the countries of the BI are etc.. and those countries are geographically separate from the others. Above all though, the statement as it stands is not wrong! - so leave it. Mister Flash (talk) 19:06, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

That's irrelevant to an article on a Rugby competition - next thing we'll start including other irrelevant facts such as their populations, and the names of the religious leaders. There's no clarification (as you call it) necessary or required. @Jackyd, @Snowded, and others - can you comment please on the point of simple listing the countries? --HighKing (talk) 14:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Use of Home Nations is established convention, change. --Snowded ^TALK 10:29, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Please show me where this is documented. I disagree. Home nations is not appropriate. Mister Flash (talk) 18:07, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Its one of those norms which have been emerging here Mister Flash. In Football, Rugby etc. the descriptions of the championships are all "Home Nations" not "British Isles" --Snowded ^TALK 08:00, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

It's only been emerging 'cos you and HK have been promoting it. Is BI factually incorrect here? No. So leave alone. Mister Flash (talk) 21:09, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Well its 3:1 at the moment so unless someone else joins in I think not --Snowded ^TALK 19:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh it's doen to straight voting now eh? You didn't answer my question. Mister Flash (talk) 19:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Given your more or less permanent intransigence and SPE status there is little alternative. Your question is answered above --Snowded ^TALK 17:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

64 Spoons (closed)

- revert - nothing to suggest the edit was wrong

• diff

• Nothing to suggest it was correct either. In the absence of sources that explicitly demonstrate whether they toured the UK only or UK and Ireland we should not presume to change the original text.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

• Reading this interview with Jakko where he states the first time he was in Ireland was in 1995 rules out the idea that he toured there with 64 spoons. --HighKing (talk) 14:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• Based on the interview, I've changed the article to UK. --HighKing (talk) 23:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Its a poorly referenced article, looks like UK is best --Snowded ^TALK 10:33, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Already changed by HK. He may be right, so let's give him this one. Accuracy? What the hell, if BI is junked, no problem, eh! Mister Flash (talk) 18:07, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

He is right and the decision is not in your gift. Cool the language --Snowded ^TALK 08:00, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Closed. Reason: Unreferenced and subsequently shown that jakko first visited Ireland in 1995 --HighKing (talk) 19:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Alexander Watson Hutton

- revert since UK is accurate if it refers to the UK of GB&I. Otherwise Home Nations

• diff

• BI is technically correct here, but I think that UK is more helpful. Needs a source though.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

You guys really must try harder. It is just no good demanding sources then not looking yourselves. Here's a couple. The second probably being the better of the two. Mister Flash (talk) 20:20, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

[9]]

[[10]]

• Neither of which are reliable sources. Please read WP:RS. One is from a fan blog and appears to be a translation from a book by the blogger. The other is yet another fan blog. Neither qualify as sources. Also, neither the current Argentine Football Association article, not the Argentina Football Association website make the claim. --HighKing (talk) 14:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

The second one is not a blog - it just has a link to a blog. It's a comprehensive site. Granted, it doesn't come up to your exacting standards for references, but it's good for purpose. We're hardly going to find an "academic" source on this subject. Mister Flash (talk) 19:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The second one, southamericanfootball.co.uk is both a blog and a fansite. The editorial team is listed here. WP:RS has a section dealing with self-published sources. --HighKing (talk) 23:57, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's a fansite. So where else might you expect to find such a reference? Again, it's a good reference. OK, you reject all references that anyone offers, but that's your problem. It's good, authoritative material. Mister Flash (talk) 18:05, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd expect to find this reference at an authoritative source, such as the FIFA website, or the Argentinian Football association website, etc. A fansite does not meet WP:RS or WP:V. If you have a problem with policies, I suggest you stop blaming me and take it up on the Talk pages of the policies themselves. Or request another opinion. But your personal comments must stop. --HighKing (talk) 19:05, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Not wild about the sources. I would go to the Home Nations convention here --Snowded ^TALK 10:36, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Again, what convention would that be? I've provided a reference, so leave, I think. Mister Flash (talk) 18:07, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Sources have been disputed and you have acknowledged that its a fan site so you really haven't provided a reference. Plus see comments above --Snowded ^TALK 08:00, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree with using Home Nations here. --HighKing (talk) 19:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Allacma fusca

• diff

- revert, since MF actually reverted another editor who fixed.

• Agree, clearly geographic useage so BI should be used.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

references are poor, the one used is just a map, I found others with France. I would be inclined to say Western Europe here as that is the wider unit --Snowded ^TALK 10:55, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Is it currently WRONG? No? The leave well alone. Mister Flash (talk) 18:07, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Highest geographical unit and there are no clear references, to Western Europe --Snowded ^TALK 08:03, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I've asked for a reference for the Europe part. And the reference currently given is for UK, not for British Isles. That said, typically British Isles is used as a technical geographic unit for fauna. --HighKing (talk) 18:36, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

"The one used is just a map". And what is it a map of? Mister Flash (talk) 20:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

A part of Western Europe. You are missing the point here, at the moment the citations put it in France and then some scattered population in BI. Ww really need more references but the geographical unity is going to be larger than BI and the largest unit is the one that is used. --Snowded ^TALK 19:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree we should use the largest appropriate geographical unit. --HighKing (talk) 19:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Disagree. The map is of the BI. Mister Flash (talk) 19:28, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

You are not dealing with the argument. Largest geographical unit is a clear convention. --Snowded ^TALK 17:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Carried to Dust

- revert, since edit looks OK and a quick look at [[11]] shows the tour locations (BTW, MF - why is it that you never check anything out?)

• diff

• Agree, Western Europe is the best term here.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually it isn't. See the reference I've added. This is symptomatic of the problem we have here: wrong or missing information as a result of the continuing drive to remove British Isles from Wikipedia. HK - you would also do well to check things out. Mister Flash (talk) 19:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted your edits because once again, your reference comes from a online edition of a newspaper's "What's Hot" section. Sure, they mentioned "British Isles", but this doesn't make it true or factual. I did find this list of tour dates and at best, they toured Ireland, England and Scotland, as well as locations throughout Western Europe. I agree with Jackyd that it's best to use Western Europe. --HighKing (talk) 14:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

And despite your comments on the article that you commented here, I don't see it. I've reverted you again. Please discuss here before editing. --HighKing (talk) 23:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I remind you that we are after verifiabilty, not truth. The source I added is reputable and the section you mention is the only section in which you're likely to find such information. The reference is good. The source is verifiable. It states British Isles. Enough said. I've put it back. Mister Flash (talk) 18:02, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

And the source does not meet either WP:RS or WP:V. The source is not an authoritative source. You state that the source is verifiable, but you are incorrect since the gossip columnist does not list where this factoid originated. Please do not continue to edit war on this article, but discuss here first. --HighKing (talk) 19:05, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Higher level term would be norm - that is Western Europe. BI is a part of that --Snowded ^TALK 10:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

There is a reference for British Isles! Mister Flash (talk) 20:11, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree. It's also emerging as a norm to use the highest geographical unit. --HighKing (talk) 18:38, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

There maybe, but saying "Continental Europe and the British Isles" is clumsy, we normally go to the highest geographical level (its an argument you have used elsewhere by the way). So Western Europe would be proper--Snowded ^TALK 08:00, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

There is no policy in this matter. You've got a reference so it's fine. Highest geographical unit eh! Unless of course you can provide lists such as England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales. You can't have it all ways. I suggest you back off this one given the clear reference. Mister Flash (talk) 20:49, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

It is the norm Flash and you know it. Again you are in a clear minority on this one--Snowded ^TALK 19:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Show me the policy. Until then, remember it's referenced. Mister Flash (talk) 19:29, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

At the risk of repeating myself, the source does not meet either WP:RS or WP:V, and consensus is to use the highest geographical unit. There are many examples of the term "British Isles" being used incorrectly in a colloquial fashion - I've just watched a program about John Lewis where the guy states they have stores all over the British Isles. They don't. A gossip column is not an acceptable reference. I've searched and cannot find another reference, so we'll go with the highest geographical unit unless another reference is shortly forthcoming. --HighKing (talk) 19:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Danny Crainie

- revert, all of the locations are in the UK

• diff

• UK probably the better term although either would be fine.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

British Isles probably better since one of his clubs was on the island of Ireland. Mister Flash (talk) 20:22, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The British Isles is not a term to be used as an alternative to "Great Britain and Ireland", or "UK". In this case, I agree with @Jackyd that UK is the better term. I disagree that either would be fine since he did not play for anywhere in the IoM or the CI. --HighKing (talk) 14:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Who says BI is not an alternative as you describe? And what the heck has IoM and CI got to do with it? Ah, the old inclusivity argument - BI is not valid unless the subject includes every last bit of the islands. Sorry, but that's pedantry taken to the extreme. BI is fine in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mister Flash (talk • contribs) 19:37, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The definition of British Isles at the main article says, that's who. If you want to use British Isles in the way you describe, I suggest you edit the article to include this new definition first. Also, this British player only played for British clubs, so using UK is accurate? --HighKing (talk) 23:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

No, 'cos it's UK of GB&NI. Too much of a mouthful when BI is just as accurate. Mister Flash (talk) 20:11, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I suggest Home Countries here - its the norm for sports articles --Snowded ^TALK 11:01, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Home Nations. --HighKing (talk) 19:32, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Nope. Nothing wrong with BI. Suggest it's left unless you can prove it is wrong. Maintain status quo. Mister Flash (talk) 19:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe consensus is against you here. --HighKing (talk) 19:38, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

If 2:1 against is consensus (which it isn't) then you're right. JackyD is non-committal on the matter. Mister Flash (talk) 19:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Consensus is to use Home Nations for sporting related articles, and is a decision we've discussed and reached many times previously. See previous discussions relating to Football for example. --HighKing (talk) 19:58, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Eggs and Marrowbone

- revert, since this and this indicates it's an English song

Agree English --Snowded ^TALK 11:08, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

• diff

British Isles, per this and this. Mister Flash (talk) 20:48, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

First reference is not valid, second is so accept BI with that reference --Snowded ^TALK 08:00, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

There are far more scholarly references (in that they specifically deal with folk songs) that point to it originating in Britain or England, as opposed to a footnote in Huckleberry Finn. For example, this website (already pointed out) indicate it is from England, and refers to Herbert Hughes' Irish Country Songs that it is clearly from England. And this book also indicates that it is of British origin, as does this one. Actually, the more I look into this folk song, the more variants I'm finding. Seems like this article could be seriously expanded. Another book refers to it as "The old woman from Boston", and this book has even more (Scottish) titles. So overall, I believe the weight of references are pointing towards it being British, with an emphasis on English and Scottish. --HighKing (talk) 19:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Now that is unfair to poor old Huck! I think we need an authoritative quote here - a dictionary of folk music or similar.--Snowded ^TALK 19:22, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

You've got one. See above. Mister Flash (talk) 19:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I've included references to two books which could be regarded as authoritative on folk songs. --HighKing (talk) 19:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

For this subject "British" and "British Isles" are synonymous, given the time period. And you have my reference. So job done. Leave as is. Mister Flash (talk) 19:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Please provide references that show that "British" and "British Isles" are synonymous. Or are you just expressing your opinion (again). On the basis that you are, then a single Huck Finn reference over multiple scholarly references doesn't cut it. --HighKing (talk) 23:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Everyone (song) (closed)

- leave for now. It's an unreferenced statement, but I can't access the referenced book.

• diff

No references, fact tag or just make countryside? --Snowded ^TALK 11:08, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Leave as is. I'll look for a reference, if I must! Mister Flash (talk) 20:11, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

You must --Snowded ^TALK 08:03, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Can't find one. Away you go. Mister Flash (talk) 21:13, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Article changed. --HighKing (talk) 19:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Yep, this one takes the biscuit. The very suspicious ip from New York changed BI to Ireland - and he may have been right. It's stated in various customer reviews that Van Morrison wrote the song and the album in celebration of the coming of autumn in the British Isles. Here's a ref; [12]. Of course it wouldn't be good enough for some people, no siree! Due to the removal of BI by the very dodgy ip I reverted pending clarification. And what have we now got? The limp phrase "rural countryside" - so tell me pop-pickers, what other type of countryside is there? Yep, another case of information degradation just so we can junk the hated term. Brilliant! Mister Flash (talk) 22:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

You are once more failing to focus on content issues. --Snowded ^TALK 17:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Good Gardens Guide (closed)

- revert, since the title of the book in question doesn't use BI and probably for a reason?

• diff

Conform to book title, so remove BI --Snowded ^TALK 11:29, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Err, have you seen this?. This one is so obvious that to suggest removing BI from this article should attract an immediate block on the editors who do so! I invite you to remove yourselves from the BI debate immediately, in the interests of protecting Wikipedia from misinformation. Mister Flash (talk) 21:01, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree - the website for the book states: GGG is dedicated to encouraging people to visit gardens at every corner of the British Isles – 1230 of them, ranging from the late Queen Mother’s Castle of Mey in the northernmost tip of Scotland to Barbara Hepworth’s sculpture garden in the toe of Cornwall, from the cottage garden created by three sisters in Plas-yn-Rhiw on the windswept Lleyn Peninsula to Walmer Castle,one of the Cinque Ports guarding the approach to Kent. Not forgetting, of course, those in our offshore islands – Jura and Gigha, the Isle of Wight, the Scilly and Channel Islands – and in Ireland. --HighKing (talk) 19:24, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Closed --HighKing (talk) 20:00, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Intra Airways (closed)

- leave for now, should be discussed though

• diff

Changed to Europe logical change --Snowded ^TALK 11:08, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Closed --HighKing (talk) 20:02, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I had to restore the change as it had been blindly reverted. I thought this one was obvious, saying "continental europe and BI" harks back to pre EU days. The area is part of Europe. If someone had raised the objection here rather than just reverting I would have left it for discussion. However this one is really straight forward. --Snowded ^TALK 03:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Well things are either being discussed here or they aren't. Looks like they aren't to me. You lot are always complaining about need to discuss - well discuss then. This one, and Jersey Airlines, hasn't been discussed. Snowded just mosied on in and got rid. I'll revert both of em, awaiting some discussion as to why BI should be junked here. My view - it shouldn't be. BI is acceptable here. Mister Flash (talk) 17:27, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't revert. I don't see any objections here for a week, so it seems it was accepted. We're not holding votes or polls here, and it's unreasonable to pop up after a week and revert without having a *good* reason. --HighKing (talk) 17:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Concur - and in this case Europe is the more accurate term anyway --Snowded ^TALK 18:00, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

James Kay

- revert, UK is better here

• diff

Given the period I think BI is fine --Snowded ^TALK 11:12, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

He invented it in 1824, so I'd say that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland is more correct. I don't get what you mean by "given the time period" either - can you elaborate? --HighKing (talk) 19:26, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Jersey Airlines

- leave for now

• diff

"in the British Islands" was unnecessary given the listing of destinations. Europe as per Intra Airlines --Snowded ^TALK 11:12, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

See :Intra Airlines" above--Snowded ^TALK 03:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

See Intra Airlines, above. Mister Flash (talk) 17:29, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't revert. I don't see any objections here for a week, so it seems it was accepted. We're not holding votes or polls here, and it's unreasonable to pop up after a week and revert without having a *good* reason. --HighKing (talk) 17:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Too late, I've done it. There's no time limit here. Snowy unilaterally decided on this one - that's no good. Mister Flash (talk) 17:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

This is one of the simplist Flashy its perverse to insist on BI in situations like this where a wider term is both applicable and available--Snowded ^TALK 18:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't buy this business of the wider term. Where is that "rule" stated? Anyway, Jersey is part of the British Isles and it's good to note that this airline serves Continental Europe as well as British Isles destinations. Mister Flash (talk) 19:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

There are two edits here. Firstly saying Europe is the same thing as "Continental Europe and the British Isles", its also shorter and not an archaic term. In the second area specific airports are listed there is no need to group them. --Snowded ^TALK 19:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

How many edit wars

How many edit war have been created by unsupported claims that the contributors comments here assert some kind of consensus that is then when the edit is implemented is resisted and objected to, many multiple articles have been disrupted talk page history Off2riorob (talk) 20:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

That's a circular argument of sorts. We volunteer to discuss changes relating to the term "British Isles" at this page, to give people a chance to discuss first. We discuss. Then we make the change (if any). It's a bit perverse to then try to argue that decisions to edit a page that are made here don't have a consensus, especially since in this case there was a note to change and there was no discussion for a week. In fact, earlier today Mister Flash reverted a very straight-forward edit of mine claiming that it wasn't discussed here first. Yet Mister Flash seems to operate on the understanding that *other people* have to discuss first, but it doesn't apply to him. I (and others) see that as disruptive. --HighKing (talk) 22:27, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

They were both flagged as "leave for now". But on no! That wasn't good enoght. Snowded had to come along and impose his POV anyway. Mister Flash (talk) 22:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

John Dongan

- leave for now although we should confirm where he was returning to and use that term instead

• diff

The actual quote states: On 31 May or 1 June 1374, he was elected bishop of the diocese of Sodor and Man by the clergy of Man in St German's Cathedral, Peel. He received papal provision to the diocese from Pope Gregory XI, and was consecrated at Avignon by Simon Langham, cardinal-bishop of Palestrina, on 25 or 26 November 1374. Dongan was imprisoned at Boulogne on his return from Avignon and only released on payment of a ransom of 500 marks. So it is clear that he was returning to his diocese. Article should be changed to reflect this accurately. --HighKing (talk) 22:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

John Fox Watson

- revert, the edit was good

• diff

• British Isles is technically correct, but I think UK is more useful in this context. It does need a source though.--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• It's not "technically" correct in the context of football. Home Nations might be better. But the claim in general, appears highly dubious. "One of the first" and "high profile" for example. So he was neither the first, and we've no idea how a club qualifies as high profile. Even the article itself is contradictory as it states In 1948, Watson joined Englishman Mike Keeping, a fellow former Fulham player, at Spanish giants Real Madrid as a player/coach - so there was already another British player at the club. The claim is dubious at best, and completely unreferenced. --HighKing (talk) 17:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• I've not seen Home Nations used in the context used in the article, but I agree fully on the desperate need for further sourcing of this "fact".--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• It's unreferenced, and having done a little digging (and even the content of the article itself), I believe it's implausible. As such, it should be deleted. I'll add a fact tag and wait a few days before deleting. If someone finds a reference, feel free to re-add it back in. --HighKing (talk) 18:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Home Nations should be default --Snowded ^TALK 11:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Disagree. BI should be used where possible. Everyone knows what it means. Mister Flash (talk) 21:11, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Monte J. Brough (closed)

- leave, we've discussed the possibility that "British Isles" in some religious articles qualifies as "technical" usage. @Snowded?

• diff

• No, what we need here is a source to tell us where he did his missionary work between 1959-1961 - was it in Britain alone, or in Ireland too (in which case British Isles would be correct).--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• Best I can see is this speech given by Monte himself where he says he served as a missionary in England. --HighKing (talk) 16:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• Very interesting. On the strength of this I recommend changing to England (unless alternative sources are discovered).--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• I'll change and add the reference --HighKing (talk) 18:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Nope. I've found one that says British Isles. BI is best 'cos if it actually is just England then BI remains correct, but if it's more than England then just saying England is defo wrong. Best err on the side accuracy, I'll put my reference in. Mister Flash (talk) 21:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

• I'm happy with that. I believe that the Anglican church regularly refers to "British Isles" so I reckon it would also qualify as a "technical" term in this context. --HighKing (talk) 22:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Closed --HighKing (talk) 20:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Pedestrianism (closed)

- revert, probably ok

• diff

• So horse racing was only popular in the United Kingdom during the period under discussion? In fact, for half of that period, the UK did not exist at all, so we need a source to tell us whether in this context the author meant BI or something else. Until that is established, BI should remain.--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• A history entitled Pedestrianiam; or, An account of the performances of celebrated pedestrians notes famous athetes. All from Britain (skip to page 45 and continue from there). A book on Sport, time, and society: the British at play also speaks in the context of British and Britain. So until someone establishes that BI is correct, then we should accept the edit was made in good faith. --HighKing (talk) 17:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• Even if that is true, the UK did not exist during half of the time under discussion, so a different link is needed.--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• What about simply changing it to use the term "Britain" instead? How do you feel about using that term as it keeps the text in line with the books referenced above. --HighKing (talk) 18:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't like that. I'd prefer to stick with British Isles. Mister Flash (talk) 23:12, 23 March 2010 (UTC)\

I think BI is reasonable here --Snowded ^TALK 08:18, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Let's leave this as BI for now and circle back to discuss the ins and outs of this example at a later date. --HighKing (talk) 19:28, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Closed --HighKing (talk) 20:32, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Richard Sharpe (historian) (closed)

- revert, probably OK and none of his book titles use the term

• diff

• He has written on the Hebridies, as well as Britain and Ireland, so British Isles is absolutely correct here.--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• His profile at Oxford University states Professor Sharpe's interests are broadly the history of medieval England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales. He has a special concern with first-hand work on the primary sources of medieval history, including palaeography, diplomatic and the editorial process, as well as the historical and legal contexts of medieval documents. He is general editor of the Corpus of British Medieval Library Catalogues and has published recently on medieval books and libraries before 1540 and on the Latin writers of Great Britain and Ireland. He is currently working on writs and writ-charters in eleventh- and twelfth-century England, preparing editions of the charters of William II and Henry I. Saints' lives and cults, especially those of the Celtic churches, have long been an interest.
• We can't go wrong sticking with these references. --HighKing (talk) 17:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• Although British Isles seems to be correct in this context, I agree with your point on sourcing and on consideration of I think BI should be changed (as long as the source is properly referenced in the article)--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• OK, I've changed the article to quote from the official profile. --HighKing (talk) 18:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Closed --HighKing (talk) 20:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Rois-bheinn

- leave, geographical term

• diff

• Agree that British Isles is probably the best term, but we really should have a source on this with some empirical evidence.--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

BI OK if there is a reference, but I'd delete the whole sentence --Snowded ^TALK 11:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Ron Kavana (Closed)

- revert, edit seems OK

• diff

• No it doesn't - lets have some sources before we accept a change like that.--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• Ron writes Celtic/Irish songs, and also writes a lot of political stuff. There's a few interviews (here's one) and in general, the view is that he was pretty ... anti-colonial. But, I see that the profile for him on Amazon.com provided by the "All Music Guide (C)2008" is what has been included in this article (nearly too closely). As it's referenced, this one should be left as "British Isles". --HighKing (talk) 18:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

• Closed --HighKing (talk) 20:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Ronald Smith Wilson

- revert, edit seems OK

• diff

• I don't think BI is the best term to use, but we need sources here to determine whether UK is meant or UK&I. Until then this should not be changed.--Jackyd101 (talk) 09:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• Well no. People don't go to work in the British Isles - they work in the UK, or Ireland, or both. This was a good edit. Did he work in the IoM? Or Channel Islands as well? I doubt it. The only reference states he directed in London. It should stay as UK, and if he also worked in Ireland, then add Ireland. At least we know he worked in London - the rest is conjecture. --HighKing (talk) 17:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• There is a list of countries given that includes British Isles, which could well mean Britain and Ireland or (inaccurately) just Britain. Since the sources are offline, and the article seems rather incomplete, there is no way we can be sure and I don't think, in the absence of contradictory sources, we should second guess the original editor.--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• You've said it yourself. There's a list of countries in the article. "British Isles" is not a country. It doesn't belong in a list of countries. That's mixing up geographic use with geopolitical/cultural use, which is one of the things we've identified that should be avoided. As the reference only states he worked in the UK, the article should reflect the reference and sources. If other sources are found, the list can easily be extended. --HighKing (talk) 18:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

It is a list of countries so that should be B&I, pr we can just make it Europe, but the country list is better --Snowded ^TALK 11:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Safflower Skipper (Closed)

- leave as is for now, could be accurate although sources aren't clear

• diff

• Agree, further sources required before this can be decided.--Jackyd101 (talk) 09:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree --Snowded ^TALK 11:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

• Closed --HighKing (talk) 20:34, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Tighernac (closed)

- revert, although the article needs expanding one source

• diff

• Certainly more sources are needed before a decision can be made (the source you provide is useful, but doesn't clear up the Celtic/BI problem).--Jackyd101 (talk) 09:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• Equally we could take the view that we're examining the reverts, not the recent edits. So unless we can point out why the revert was correct, then the edit stands. --HighKing (talk) 17:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• But we aren't looking at the reverts, we are looking at the original edits - they are what began this discussion, which is called "IP edits". The reverts play a part in the conversation no doubt, but the important factor is to determine whether these changes were justified in the first place.--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

BI on that one given the time period --Snowded ^TALK 11:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd argue against usage in this context. But again, for the sake of completing this review, let's leave it and we'll see what emerges as we get into more in-depth and technical discussions at a later date. --HighKing (talk) 19:30, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

During the course of normal editing British Isles has been removed from this article. MidnightBlue (Talk) 19:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

United Hospitals RFC

- revert, probably accurate and refers to UKoGB&I

• diff

• This is marginal - either would be acceptable and without some form of consensus this should not have been changed from BI.--Jackyd101 (talk) 09:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• Consensus isn't required by editors not part of this task force. The edit was made, and assuming good faith, the edit should remain unless someone can point out that British Isles is correct. --HighKing (talk) 17:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what you mean by that - consensus can be built up by any body of editors, whether they are from this task force or not. In addition, with a topic as controversial as this that is not how assuming good faith works - if an editor makes controversial changes without discussion or provision of sources then another editor has every right to revert them. You yourself said that if this was the other way around (i.e. with the addition rather than the removal of the term British Isles) then "I would revert ones I knew to be wrong" - Mister Flash has reverted those he believes to be wrong and it is up to us as a group to sort them out and decided one way or another (please note that I am not on his "side" or supporting all of his conduct in this discussion, some of which has been very unhelpful).--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• But at the same time, it is very unhelpful. Mister Flash reverted everything, without research, without reasons, and without discussion here. Another editor would not have behaved in this way. And if I reverted the ones I knew to be wrong, that would obviously include giving a reason and participating in any discussion. So on that basis, I'd give the IP at least as much credibility as Mister Flash, and I would AGF on their intentions and edit. I'll start the revert process on those we've either agreed on, or those where no counter-argument has been put forward when I get a chance. --HighKing (talk) 02:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

• Apologies, I got side-tracked over the last couple of days. Can you hold off on the ones that I have not replied to for the minute? The others you can move ahead on. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 07:10, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

• OK. --HighKing (talk) 18:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Home Nations surely --Snowded ^TALK 11:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Surely not. Leave as is. BI OK here. Mister Flash (talk) 23:11, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

See earlier comments --Snowded ^TALK 08:20, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

You cannot simply swap BI with Home nations here. It would require a re-write of the paragraph, and in any case Home Nations is not appropriate given the date. UKofGB&I is too much of a mouthful. British Isles is good here. Mister Flash (talk) 21:06, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Home nations has always been used for Rugby and Football --Snowded ^TALK 18:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Vicki Noble

- revert, could be accurate, no refs either way

• diff

• The article is talking about "goddess cultures" in geographic locations (certainly pre UK), there are no sources and it is not well written, but I don't think we should assume that UK is correct here.--Jackyd101 (talk) 09:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

HighKing (talk) 19:03, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• I'll put a fact tag in for now and give it a few days. --HighKing (talk) 18:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Fact tag eh! Why? You haven't tagged Bali, Greece or Turkey. Funny that, isn't it? Mister Flash (talk) 21:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Delete the sentence if no one comes up with evidence. Otherwise a country list should be a country list so UK and I --Snowded ^TALK 11:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

In other words, delete the sentence if all else fails - that should do the trick. There's nothing inherently wrong with BI here, so leave alone. Mister Flash (talk) 23:11, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Without a citation deletion is perfectly reasonable. If there is a reference then either something is a list of geographic units or a list of countries it can't be both --Snowded ^TALK 08:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I've changed the article referring to this bio --HighKing (talk) 20:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

• Closed --HighKing (talk) 20:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

That's fine, but I've added a reference for BI. Mister Flash (talk) 22:15, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I've listed the countries according to her faculty CV. A better reference. --HighKing (talk) 00:30, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

The two references aren't necessarily about the same thing, so I've put the other back and done a bit of copyediting, thus maintaining both references. Mister Flash (talk) 11:58, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

What else can they be referring to only her tours. The CV is dated 2010 and is the most up-to-date reference. It lists the countries and is a more accurate picture of where she has led tours. Stop editing the article while this is being discussed. When a consensus has been reached, then we'll change the article and it avoids edit wars and disruption on articles. --HighKing (talk) 15:35, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Consensus is never reached on these matters. Anyway, I've just added new material (referenced) and not deleted anything. It is unclear from the references if the "tours" are one and the same thing - they may not be, so play safe. Oh, and there's a potential copyvio issue on the whole article, but that seems to have been overlooked. Mister Flash (talk) 17:18, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you're possibly right about the copyvio - well spotted. --HighKing (talk) 21:23, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, re-reading some material here and it's possible we're talking about one and the same thing in terms of the tours carried out. If that's the case I wouldn't object to the more detailed list. Suggest User:Rosencomet is contacted for an opinion. Mister Flash (talk) 18:58, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

OK. --HighKing (talk) 21:23, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

COMMENTS

The arguments offered above are mere opinions. Here's my idea - leave em all, unless they are clearly wrong, and let those who know about these thing decide. So which are the ones that are defo wrong? And when I say wrong I mean like, really wrong. Mister Flash (talk) 21:05, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

If the citations doen't support BI but use some other term then go for that. Geography leave (unless citation indicates otherwise. Sports to Home Nations in general. Anything not clear list here for secondary checking. Flash, that idea that no changes should take place was rejected at the ANI case. --Snowded ^TALK 22:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not against changes to put right errors, but let's just take stock here. We have a very dubious ip account that pops up out of nowhere and removes British Isles from quite a lot of articles. What is the motive of that ip? Is it accuracy, or is it a dislike of British Isles? Well, I reckon the latter, hence the need to revert. Yet again we have a bunch of articles where for most of them there's no right or wrong. What we've got is potential for edit wars - again! If you want to change any of these articles please put a case forward something along the lines of "British Isles is wrong because of fact, fact, fact. As for arguments above like Danny Crainie - revert, all of the locations are in the UK. So? there're also all in the British Isles, with one of em being in N.Ireland! Mister Flash (talk) 22:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

If anyone knows about potential for edit wars you do flash. Take each case on its merits, work to the references etc. --Snowded ^TALK 23:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

You're not wrong there, ha, ha! Mister Flash (talk) 23:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the diffs Jackyd, makes it easier to read. @Snowded, can you list or indicate the ones you believe should be reverted, and I'll revert them and list the others here for rediscussion. I'd also like to point out that this group is showing a lack of AGF and I also smell double standards - but I admit it seems strange that this IP appeared to focus on "British Isles" even though there's nothing to indicate they knew about this page, or any controversy surrounding BI. Be aware, it seems that 1RR is not going to be enforced, so either we find an admin who believes it's a good idea, so we're going to be suffering a setback shortly. --HighKing (talk) 01:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Recent BI removals

My edit history for today shows a list of articles where British Isles has been removed in the last week, probably for no good reason. If you think any of the edits were valid then bring them to this page. Here's one I haven't reverted, Isle of Man Steam Packet Company, since it seems to have been done by an editor who knows the subject. MidnightBlue (Talk) 21:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

No. You have been warned previously about your edit summaries, and you are in breach of civility for some. You have reverted without giving a reason other than a spurious "possible blocked user" which I can't see any evidence for. You must AGF and give proper reasons in your edit summaries. If you've any doubts, AGF. If you wish to discuss an article, bring it here. --HighKing (talk) 17:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Canterbury-York dispute

This discussion has been moved back to the Article Talk page on the request of the article creator --HighKing (talk) 23:28, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Probably needs another pair of eye at the article Talk page. If someone gets a chance, can they take a look? --HighKing (talk) 00:52, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Out of interest I checked the reference for British Isles being used in the Canterbury-York dispute article and it was from Barlow:English Church 1066-1154 page 31. Unfortunately google book search does not show this page or many other pages. It would be interesting to know if the actual text from the book matched up to the use of British Isles in the article. I'm not showing bad faith to the editor who referenced it, but rather as I said, I'm curious. Jack forbes (talk) 15:54, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

The quote is on the article Talk page in the "Moved back" section and says primacy over the whole of Britain, and so could be used against Wales, Scotland, and Ireland.. Let's leave article-specific discussion on either this page's Talk page or the Article Talk page. Jack, would you mind if this was moved to the discussion page if it turns into a discussion about ins and outs of Canterbury York specifically? Feel free to move it to here if you agree. --HighKing (talk) 16:09, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

We have to be careful using British Isles in this case. If we use and link to British Isles we are giving the readers false information. England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland do not make up the whole British Isles. Anyone reading will think they do until they click the link to British Isles. They will then either think all the British Isles shown on that map are part of either, Scotland, England, Wales or Ireland and they will become very confused indeed! We are not her to confuse our readers, rather to give them specific information. The specific information would be using England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland in the text. Jack forbes (talk) 16:36, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Workweek

The article was changed recently from The legal workweek (a US term, in the UK called the working week) to The legal workweek (a US term, in the British Isles called the working week). I reverted on the basis that the article subject is based on legal definitions which will be different from state to state. Therefore the correct unit to use is a geopolitical unit of "UK" and not a geographical unit of "British Isles". --HighKing (talk) 17:42, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Revert is fine as it was a drive-by nomination without sources. It is worth pointing out that this makes it clear that the term is also used in Ireland.--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Put Ireland in as well. Mister Flash (talk) 17:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

We could quickly get to a ridiculous situation and start listing every state that uses "Working Week" such as Canada or South Africa. I suggest the article would be better served to simply restate the lede as "The legal workweek or working week is ..." --HighKing (talk) 21:28, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, just leave it as it is then. Mister Flash (talk) 22:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Drive By's

In the last 24 hours or so HighKing has attempted to remove several instances of so-called "drive-by" changes. I thought the first one at Workweek was such a change but on closer inspection it seems that HK is simply targeting all recent changes where the editor has had the temerity to introduce British Isles. Quite how he's identifying these changes I don't know, unless he's got one hell of a watch list, but in the light of what's now happening I just do not buy this business of drive-by. It's pure and simple remove all new occurrences of British Isles - without discussion or consideration as to its merits or otherwise. This is quite unacceptable so I've reverted the lot. Bring them here for discussion if you like, I don't really care. Mister Flash (talk) 20:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Mass reverts are not very helpful in these circumstances, but HighKing should be well aware that whenever he does a revert like this it should be brought here for discussion to establish whether we as a community agree with the revert or not. His actions here are very concerning - looking at his contributions it appears that several of the reverts he made may well be wrong.--Jackyd101 (talk) 20:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

It looks like "One rule for deletes, a different rule for inserts". When Mister Flash reverted lots of articles earlier in March, the commend by @Jackyd101 was all of those that are problematic need to be brought here for discussion and wider consensus. Until they are resolved, there should be no further reverts by anyone.. So only those that are problematic, and even then he didn't say Mister Flash was wrong to perform a mass revert. Even after that, Mister Flash didn't open any discussions anywhere, and I opened discussions after @Jackyd asked me to not revert. Well, in good faith, I did. And we're still discussing some of those edits today. It's pretty one-sided (and lop-sided at that) to now see a similar circumstance involving far less edits where I revert anon IP edits, and Jackyd comments that my actions here are very concerning - looking at his contributions it appears that several of the reverts he made may well be wrong. Even though it's obvious that most of the reverts by Mister Flash were wrong, that didn't seem to bother you at all. But for 3 reverts, you condemn my reverts? I'll remind you that this page is voluntary. There is nothing to state that edits should be brought here for discussion first. Especially since I appear to be the sole editor that brings articles here. Recently, I reported Mister Flash for a breach of 3RR. Nearly 24 hours later, no admins have commented, never mind warned or blocked. So, it is plain to me that:

• There are no admins that have the stomach to police this page
• This page does has not enough contributors to construct guidelines
• Most admins refuse to move against editors like Mister Flash and MidnightBlueMan (as opposed to the grief visited upon many editors attempting to actually collaborate)
• Most editors are happy to accept rude, stonewalling, aggressive and combative behaviour, and to hell with WP:CIVIL.

So why does no-one warn Mister Flash or MBM to bring articles here first? Why is it that Mister Flash can 4RR without reproach? Why is it that MBM can revert without reproach.

As such, this page serves no useful function any longer. Editors have allowed disruption and stonewalling to win. We're no nearer guidelines, and no serious discussion on guidelines have taken place. I'm no longer going to place my faith in this facade of a so-called collaborative process. From now on, let's just take it article-by-article at the relevant Talk page. --HighKing (talk) 21:56, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Quote HK "It looks like "One rule for deletes, a different rule for inserts". ". No. The vast majority of BI deletes will be OK, it's just the ones that you do which aren't. Similarly with additions, if I was to do one then you may have cause to complain, but I don't. You are picking up inserts by non-involved editors and reverting them without discussion and you are doing it on the basis of this latest "drive-by" excuse. It's rubbish! From what I can see every one of those edits that you've reverted on site have just been a normal edit by an IP. Mister Flash (talk) 23:04, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

All of the reverts of Mister Flash that I am aware of were made while the articles were under discussion at this page and as I made clear above, they were permissable as I understood it because they were both a) controversial and b) under discussion. The reverts you made were permissable as you considered the original changes to be controversial, but I was and remain seriously concerned by your failure to bring them here for discussion after making the revert, especially given that in articles like stout both "Great Britain and Ireland" and "British Isles" are perfectly correct and therefore there is an obvious need for discussion to determine which should be used. I also did criticise MF above over reverting your changes without discussing them here, so you wild accusations in that vein are nonsense. Note also that I attempted to start a discussion on guidelines here and you couldn't even be bothered to comment.

I am thoroughly disgusted with this entire debate and unless someone takes it upon themselves to interfere in articles I am working on or interested in I do not intend to contribute further - I've wasted quite enough time on this ridiculous fuss already. Mister Flash, you are combatative and disruptive and HighKing you are wilfully gaming the system in an absurd crusade to remove a perfectly acceptable term that you happen not to like. You are both as bad as each other and I have better things to do. Goodbye--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:18, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I had not even seen your attempts at guidelines until now - thanks for pointing them out (where?). But I'm equally thoroughly disgusted at your accusations of willfully gaming the system - an accusation that is untrue and just an example of the bias and dislike that you and others here have for even discussing changes. Not once have you actually condemned disruptive behaviour. But you're happy to state on record that I'm gaming the system? Up until today, I discussed everything here. But the casual way that MF and MBM can revert without discussion, and *supported* in their actions by *you* through a lack of condemnation, and the lack of a fair and even-handed admin intervention, is the final straw. While I accept you've occasionally tried to discuss and collaborate, you did so under protest, and you have never accepted that someone (like me) might have a different opinion. Most of the time you just ended up name-calling, just like above. You equate my behaviour with that of MBM and MF? That says more about you than me. --HighKing (talk) 23:29, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree that some admin or at least 'disinterested' input here is overdue before things get broken. RashersTierney (talk) 23:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Can we cool things down a bit. At the moment I think HighKing is right to argue that he has attempted to engage with other editors here, while Flash has just reverted and refused to engage. I can understand Jackd's reaction but I think its unfair, equally HighKing I think you are over reacting a bit. I'm getting very frustrated with working through multiple articles just to end up with a blind revert by flash and a refusal to do anything else but say "non" and then throw out multiple accusations against other editors. --Snowded ^TALK 09:13, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Slow down the pace

For your guys/gals sake, take about 1-month off from this topic. Then work at 1 article-at-a-time (having that article discussed at it's respective talkpage). Once a consensus is reached at the respective article? go to another article. GoodDay (talk) 00:22, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Deletions and Insertions

Some deletions and insertions of British Isles have taken place over the last few days. I've corrected one of the insertions and restored some deletions carried out by accounts set up with the sole purpose of removing British Isles. Other deletions and insertions have been carried out by normal editors, so I've left them alone. Hope this is all OK. MidnightBlue (Talk) 20:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Can we have them listed here? In the one I saw British Isles was proper, but it would make sense to check here --Snowded ^TALK 20:39, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The ones I've dealt with are in my edit history, or do you want the others? MidnightBlue (Talk) 20:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Well we are looking to assemble cases here so it would be useful if you have no objections? I can go through the edit history if needed but a simple list would help. --Snowded ^TALK 20:46, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Here's the complete list:

Deletions

• British Caledonian in the 1970s unlinking - (This is a totally good faith edit Fmph (talk) 21:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC))
  • This was just British Isles being de-linked. No issue.
• Isles Internationale Université - (Can someone provide a diff as I can't see the problematic one in the history Fmph (talk) 21:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC))
  • For this one you need to look at the redirected page.
• Language school (edit)
• List of most common surnames in Europe (edit)
• The Manor House Bishop Bridge (edit)
• Weisse Frauen (edit)
• Eyjafjallajökull

Insertions

• April 15
• Birch
• List of Lepidoptera that feed on Carpinus
• Newgate Clocks (edit)
• Pentecost
• Winter storms of 2009–2010

MidnightBlue (Talk) 20:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

OK thanks for that, some comments

• British Caledonian : I can't see the edit change

The term "British Isles" was de-wikilinked, but interestingly the reference doesn't support the statement anyway. The reference states "BUA brought with it experience of long-haul VC10 and

Britannia services to Africa, South America and across the North Atlantic." --HighKing (talk) 15:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

• Isles Internationale: Seems OK

Agree. --HighKing (talk) 15:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

• Language School : mixes regions and countries, should either be a list of countries or regions (Australasia, North America, British Isles)

Most of the article uses countries. --HighKing (talk) 15:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

• List of most common names: in context this one seems trivial, either formulation is OK

Except the reference used uses UK, so I'd stick with the reference and use UK. --HighKing (talk) 15:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

• The Manor House: well there is no citation support for the whole statement so it goes surely?

I agree, completely unsupported. Delete. --HighKing (talk) 15:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

You could have tried finding a supporting statement .. yes? MidnightBlue (Talk) 22:51, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

As could you which would have been the correct process to object to an edit. As it turns out, I did look but could only find reproductions of the Wikipedia article, and this article which doesn't make the same claim. --HighKing (talk) 14:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks to me like a copyvio too. --HighKing (talk) 14:08, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• Weisse Frauen: unsupported by citation and those legends are germanic not celtic. The main article references United Kingdom not BI, so it should be UK

Agree. --HighKing (talk) 15:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

• Eyjafjallajökul: I can't see a reference other than to Northern Europe which seems appropriate

Agree. --HighKing (talk) 15:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

• April 15: Should clearly be Northern Europe given the affected area

Agree. --HighKing (talk) 15:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

• Birches: can't see it but geographical so BI is fine

Disagree. This is Flora, the statement is not supported by the reference, and the reference is from the a website on British Trees which is funded by The Woodland Trust, the UK's leading woodland conservation charity. --HighKing (talk) 15:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

• List of Lepidoptera that feed on Carpinus: BI would be normal here if its a distribution and if its cited

I think this is OK too. I've asked a question before on the normal distribution area for Moths and Butterflys and didn't receive a reply, but I really don't see a problem since other fauna have British Isles as a distribution area. --HighKing (talk) 15:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

• Newgate Clocks: agree with you, UK is correct here

Agree. --HighKing (talk) 15:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

• Pentecost: looks like UK is OK

Agree. --HighKing (talk) 15:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

• Winter storms of 2009–2010: can't see the debate but article seems OK

Doesn't look like any major controversy here --Snowded ^TALK 21:48, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

It'd be nice if there was a reference cos the article Winter of 2009–2010 in the United Kingdom reads slightly different.

Are there any actions from this lot? MidnightBlue (Talk) 19:56, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, see above. Also, don't revert the articles and not AGF. Take it here, and if an article needs reverting, let's discuss. Better to AGF first. This behaviour has seen you blocked several times, and I anticipate will get you blocked in the future. So just to be clear - reverting as you have done in those articles without giving reasons other than "anti-BI editor" (for editors that look to be new to this topic too) and using this page as an excuse is not tolerable behaviour and is against policy. --HighKing (talk) 15:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

References? You're joshing aren't you? Why would we want references for something that's totally trivial in the articles. That's the biggest problem I've got with this whole stupid issue, requests for references to support trivia! I suggest all of the articles listed above are just left alone. If someone comes along and edits out British Isles without malice then fine. Not one of those articles seems to be "wrong" usage. Mister Flash (talk) 16:28, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Language school. I see a dodgy user has reverted this one. What the prob? Areas such as "Arab world", North Africa, North America are used with non-countries like Quebec and actual countries, so why not good old BI? I'm reverting this one, it's perfectly OK with BI, and it's yet another example of removing valuable information just to junk a term. Mister Flash (talk) 18:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Given that the discussion here says that either is applicable, and that most of the article uses countries, your only defense appears to label the editor as "dodgy". I'm reverting since the consensus is that there was nothing wrong with the edit (and we'll AGF). I'm also reverting The Manor House Bishop Bridge and Weisse Frauen as per discussions above. If other editors decide that Language school should revert to use "British Isles", I'll respect that, but as of this point in time, that doesn't appear to be the case. --HighKing (talk) 22:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Once again you claim consensus when you have none. Your idea of consensus equates just to your view, perhaps with the support of one other editor. This is not consensus. I cannot accept your arguments here - they are non-arguments. MidnightBlue (Talk) 22:54, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

While you're wagging your finger, who gave you the right to revert articles solely because the term "British Isles" has been affected, by editors not involved in this page, with no attempt to look for references or justify your opinion. Then you complain when the article is returned to the version prior to your revert, even after discussion here. At least it has more "consensus" than your feeble attempt at trying to impose a particular version. In fact, I'm still waiting to hear your argument against anything put forward above - it is just stonewalling to say you don't agree without putting forward reasons and getting involved in the discussions. And there are no minimum numbers for consensus forming, just reasoned arguments. So far, I've yet to see your reasoned arguments. In future, take the articles here *first*, before reverting because it's clear to me that your edits are solely based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --HighKing (talk) 12:17, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I went through all the examples and attempted to be objective and balance, based on some of the discussions above. Midnight, I'm not sure if you are just saying 'no change' or if you are happy with some and not with others? --Snowded ^TALK 11:10, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

MBM, in future please bring up one article at a time. GoodDay (talk) 14:45, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Midnight has not provided diffs. Just a simple list of articles allegedly affected by a variety of editors, some of whom are allegedly sole-purpose accounts. Its just a load of nonsense. All of those that I've inspected are good-faith edits. Yes, one editor has gone about removing instances of BI wherever he has found it. But it loks to me that he is an innocent objector, who happened upon poor and possibly POV usage, and correctly edited it out. I believe there is consensus to fix all the reverts as per HK's summary above. Fmph (talk) 14:52, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Just what is a load of nonsense? Of the articles affected and listed here only one of them was a definite error; Newgate Clocks, and I fixed it. The others were edited by people expressing their POV that British Isles is to be avoided. I have yet to see a single, concrete arguement that BI is wrong in any of the others. As usual, we are faced with the system-gaming attempts to justify removal; removal I might add, by obvious SPAs. As for good faith edits, you mean to tell me that these users, User:Popaice, User:Fionnghlas and User:84.19,169.162 are acting in good faith? Come on! MidnightBlue (Talk) 15:55, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Any deletions/additions by such SPAs should be reverted, always. GoodDay (talk) 16:03, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I've opened an ANI case concerning MBM for his current behaviour. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents --HighKing (talk) 20:13, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

ANI report has been closed. GoodDay (talk) 14:35, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Ref the ANI thread

I would have thought that the previous blocks for various editors here would have been sufficient to establish that this isn't how consensus is achieved. Clearly it wasn't, as more persistent edit-warring like this and [13] and [14] is still happening. As Ryan Postlethwaite isn't around, I have repeated his previous blocks for HighKing and MBM, and I will suggest that if there is any repeat of such edit-warring with these editors (or for that matter anyone else who's been previously involved) that topic bans from inserting or removing BI-related text are imposed. Black Kite (t) (c) 13:05, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Cowboy

Made an edit sometime ago at Cowboy to remove the use of BI when it was being mixed with two countries. This edit was reverted by midnightblue without any explanation. I don't want to get involved so would like the matter settled here. The edit diff is here [15]. Bjmullan (talk) 08:07, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Your edit was entirely correct by the general guidelines. In a list of places, they should generally all represent similar entities, i.e. countries, states, regions, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fmph (talk • contribs) 09:23, 21 May 2010

Just noticed another unexplained revert by midnightblue at Denis Mahon. My edit was for the same reason country and geographic mix. Bjmullan (talk) 08:25, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Under the guidelines proposed above that would be a example of mixing apples and pears. Either:

• "In the Australia, Ireland, New Zealand and the United Kingdom, cowboy is used as an adjective..."
• "In the British Isles and Australasia, cowboy is used as an adjective..." / "In Britain and Ireland and Australia and New Zealand, cowboy is used as an adjective..."

(Although personally, I thought it was a 'noun' not an 'adjective' and I would have imagined that it was a fairly common term throughout the English-speaking world, though I may be wrong.) --RA (talk) 08:27, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it can be both!Fmph (talk) 11:44, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

On Mahon, (i) unless there's reference then the sentence including BI could be challenged entirely, and (ii) unless he gave art to museums in Isle of Man and Channel Islands, then saying "Britain and Ireland" or "The UK and Ireland" would be more correct. Wotapalaver (talk) 13:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

On Cowboy, the assertion about the geographic distribution of the slang is unsupported by reference and in any case could easily be simplified by saying "cowboy" is often used as a term to describe someone operating without proper skills or licences, or something similar. Wotapalaver (talk) 13:43, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Sure, but the criticism of Cowboy and Mahon(i) is in the particular - they relate specifically these examples rather than the broader question of use/abuse British Isles in the 'pedia.

Regarding Mahon(ii), does that mean that a statement saying someone donated art to museums in Europe would be less correct if they had not donated art to a museum in *every* country in Europe? Why choose countries as the finest level of granularity? It is not just as less correct to say Ireland or the United Kingdom, if a donor has not donated art to a museum in every city in Ireland or the United Kingdom?

I'm not arguing with you but just thrashing it out BTW. My own opinion, like with Cowboy, is that it is mixing apples and pears. For example "Ireland, Italy and the United Kingdom" or (hypothetically) "the British Isles and southern Europe". I don't believe the latter is suitable though because, while Italy is in southern Europe, in this case we can get a little more specific than that without it becoming an unwieldy list. --RA (talk) 14:12, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Apart from the problematic nature of the term, the aim is to be as accurate and specific as possible, without becoming excessive. Since British Isles includes IoM and CI, then its use implies the inclusion of these areas. If gifts are given to museums in London and Edinburgh, this is Britain, or the UK. If to museums in London and Dublin, you could say so or say Britain and Ireland or the UK and Ireland. It's not the British Isles unless the gifts were geographically very widespread indeed, and unless the context is suitable - which gifts to state museums might not be. As for the cowboy article, references I found gave no indication of geographical limitation of the term to anywhere in particular, and not to BI in particular. It seems to be a widespread term in English langauge slang, making the inclusion of the BI term entirely made up. Wotapalaver (talk) 12:11, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Yikes! So we can't use British Isles unless the subject is represented in IoM, CI, IRE and GB. That's pretty much the biggest load of b/s I've come across in a long while. Why not go the whole hog and force an inclusion of Anglesey, Isle of Wight, Rockall and the rest? Mister Flash (talk) 15:48, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

The problem arises when deciding what Geographic area (and name) to use. For example, we could use increasingly larger areas - Western Europe, Europe, etc. But we then sarcrifice accuracy. That is why we say to use the smallest meaningful area. Emphasis on meaningful. So if the subject matter commonly uses British Isles even if some areas are not included, then fine. But if the subject matter does not, and if UK and Ireland or Great Britain and Ireland are accurate, then use the most accurate. --HighKing (talk) 17:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

<>In answer to Mr.Flash's remarks, the Isle of Wight and Anglesea are part of Britain, and Rockall is an uninhabited rock. But, yes, we should only really use terms like British Isles if the activity/event is relevant to the British Isles, otherwise we should use the appropriate smaller more exact and specific description. If something never happens or didn't happen either in Ireland, or in Britain, or in the Channel Islands, then it's not something that you can accurately say happens in the British Isles. Wotapalaver (talk) 12:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

That's your opinion. My opinion is it's rubbish. Mister Flash (talk) 19:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

So using that logic, you'd have no problem substituting British Isles for Europe in the "gifts to museums" example above then? --HighKing (talk) 00:16, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Can't help it eh! Must get rid eh! I'm reverting your change. Get rid of other unrefd stuff as well and most of the article would go. Mister Flash (talk) 18:14, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. There's no references, so I'll remove what doesn't have references in this section as per normal editing practice. --HighKing (talk) 18:43, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Noooo. Look for references. Mister Flash (talk) 18:53, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Fine. It's rewritten with references. --HighKing (talk) 19:05, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

You are gaming the system. You have rewritten a section of text with the express intention of removing British Isles. This is THE ONLY reason you have re-written this section. Is cowboy a term used in Ireland? Yes, of course it is. Is it used in Great Britain? Yes, and almost certainly in the IoM and CI as well (not that it matters about its use in those islands). It's perfectly valid to quote British Isles here but you have contrived to obtain references which don't happen to use the words British Isles, and then used that as an excuse to remove the words; clear gaming the system if ever I saw it. I am reverting your last edit, at the very least on the basis of WP:BRD. Funny how when you're not on the BI crusade all is well, but tehn out of the blue you're back again causing trouble. MidnightBlue (Talk) 20:07, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Without references, it is not valid. I was asked to find references, and I did. I could not find any references in any form that stated "cowboy" was a term for "shoddy" or "dodgy" exclusive to "British Isles". I believe I managed to find some material that stated along the lines of "In Britain, it means...", and "In England, it means", but mostly on blog sites or community postings of the New York Times or similar good quality sources. Rather than attacking editors (which you've been warned about previously, on many occasions) and stating opinion, why don't you simply find some quality references. You know how this page operates by now. --HighKing (talk) 22:03, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

So you are telling me that you didn't edit this article with the express intention of removing British Isles? As I said, you game the system. MidnightBlue (Talk) 22:25, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Please don't remove referenced material just because you don't like it.Bjmullan (talk) 20:11, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

You are rapidly taking over from HighKing as the major irritation when it comes to British Isles. I note your recent removal of the words in several articles this evening. MidnightBlue (Talk) 20:18, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Spotted. Fixed, cept one where he's right. Mister Flash (talk) 20:46, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

No I think you hold that position.Bjmullan (talk) 20:22, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Funny boy! Mister Flash (talk) 20:49, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Well Tex, looks like this article is caught in a shootout (edit spats). GoodDay (talk) 21:16, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

The citation tag was placed and no references were added to back up the statement. I rewrote the section using references, as requested by MF. If MF or MBM can find references as fast as they can revert, there wouldn't be a problem using British Isles. --HighKing (talk) 22:03, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

These guys always revert without reason and remove valid reference material just because they don't like it. I also believe that MBM has broken the 3RR. Bjmullan (talk) 22:32, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

It's a bit like you and HighKing trawling the "What links here" list at British Isles to find another target article. As for 3RR - no, I haven't. You game the system in the same way that HighKing does. MidnightBlue (Talk) 22:41, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Per prior discussions I have made it consistent by changing Australia and New Zealand to Australasia. Either all countries or all geographies. --Snowded ^TALK 22:45, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

That "negative associations" section is unreferenced. I've spent a bit of time today looking for references, and I rewrote it according to the best I could find. There is absolutely no reference that state it is used in Australasia in that manner, nor is there a reference to state it is used in the "British Isles". Your changes are WP:OR and fail WP:V. --HighKing (talk) 22:54, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Trolls just remove referred material because they don't like it and often without explanation for there edits. Very quick to revert not so quick to come forward with reference material. Bjmullan (talk) 23:00, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

If we were talking about something subject to academic scrutiny then claims abour OR and V might be valid. Regarding perjorative use of the word cowboy such claims verge on the laughable. MidnightBlue (Talk) 23:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Snowded, that seems fine. So from this we can take it that mixing apples and pears is inappropriate?

Discussion of whether the statement is factually accurate or referenced etc. should be taken to the relevant article's talk page. This is not the venue to discuss whether statements appearing in articles are properly referenced or not. --RA (talk) 23:42, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe that most editors (barring the obvious two) support this. But this article was already changed from "mixing apples and pears" to one where the terms were consistent. So why was that change rejected? Is there another mechanism for deciding whether apples or pears? --HighKing (talk) 10:42, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I guess because it was thought that you were being unfair by replacing both apple and pear with an orange. I'd don't mind either way but I will comment that our choices in this example are limited to either "apple" or "orange" since the "pear" option (Britain and Ireland vs. Australia and New Zealand) is now a dab page and thus should not be linked to ... but let's not grind that axe and further ;-) --RA (talk) 22:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Sure :-) but the original choice was UK and Ireland. Country names, not island names. --HighKing (talk) 01:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Denis Mahon

Hey, HK, what do think about the reference at Denis Mahon that Ham has bastardised? Mister Flash (talk) 20:51, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

It looks like he has made a choice to correctly describe the countries. --HighKing (talk) 22:03, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

But the ref states "British Isles", so ... British Isles it is, surely??? Mister Flash (talk) 22:20, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Do you confirm that references are to be used as the primary method to determine usage? Do you agree to abide by this method? --HighKing (talk) 22:41, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Sources are a very poor way to determine which terms to use. It just acts as cover for the underlying dispute and shift the "war" onto new territory. Sources should support statements, not determine them. --RA (talk) 23:29, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but unless there's sources/references, everything else can be accused of being WP:OR especially when the "war" as you call it, applies to usage of a particular term. I'm all for guidelines and MoS - groundrules are good and needed for disputes. Your generic statement about "Sources should support statements, not determine them" is all very well if nobody objects. When objections start, we need references. --HighKing (talk) 10:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

That's fine - but we don't need to replicate the words used in references. There are many ways of saying the same thing just because a reference says it one way does not mean that we have to use the same language. --RA (talk) 22:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Britain's Strongest Man

This article states Britain's Strongest Man (or "BSM") is an annual strongman event held to determine the strongest man in the British Isles. Can anyone throw some light on this competition. It seems incorrect to say it is a competition for the British Isles. Republic of Ireland has its own competition, but there's a dearth of references for this topic. --HighKing (talk) 22:10, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Given that in 2005 some guy from RoI came second, I'd say British Isles was about right here, but the main issue is the fact that we now seem to have another deletionist running riot across Wikipedia. MidnightBlue (Talk) 22:36, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

There's a difference between the nationality of the winners, and the stated aim of the competition. And for your own sake, you should refrain from attacking other editors, or calling them names like "deletionist". You've been warned (and blocked?) for this before. --HighKing (talk) 22:58, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

But I still can't find references for this competition. Anyone else have any luck? Even historic links or newspaper articles? --HighKing (talk) 23:03, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I expect you'll be PRODing it next. MidnightBlue (Talk) 23:08, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it needs to be. --HighKing (talk) 11:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I've raised an AfD --HighKing (talk) 17:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I assume that we are all in consensus that if ROI is excluded from a competition like this then "British Isles" is incorrect? In that case there is no need for further discussion here and discussion of the factual accuracy of the article in question should be taken to the relevant article's talk page. This is not an appropriate venue to discuss the ins-and-outs of miscellaneous strong-man competitions. --RA (talk) 23:38, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

That whole article is unreferenced. One might as well invent an article about "Belgium's Pre-eminent Poirot Expert" and it'd have as much verifiable content as that article. Wotapalaver (talk) 01:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

That's the problem. There isn't a reference to state that RoI is excluded. There isn't a reference to state what is included. There's no reference. --HighKing (talk) 11:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The guy who came second in 2005 is, strangely, actually a New Zealander. [16] There is a Republic of Ireland strongest man event from which the top five compete in Irelands strongest man where they can qualify for UK's strongest man. [17] UK's strongest man is a different competition from Britain's strongest man. Confused? Yeah, me too. Anyway, my main point is that there is no mention of qualifying for Britain's strongest man from the republic of Ireland competition, so representing Ireland in the competition seems unlikely. Jack forbes (talk) 13:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I've included references from archive.org that show the qualifiers are all in the UK (just click on More Info). The title is also, strictly speaking, open to anyone in the world. But the title is to determine the title of "Britain's strongest man", not to determine the "strongest man in the British Isles". I've changed the text to state "determine the strongest man in the UK", but I believe the best text is to state "Britain's Strongest Man (or "BSM") is an annual strongman event held in Britain" since there are zero references for anything other than that. --HighKing (talk) 21:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I think using the text "determine the strongest man in the UK" would be wrong, as I have pointed out above there is already a competition named UK's strongest man. Your second suggestion would be best. Jack forbes (talk) 21:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The contest is named after only the island of Great Britain (not including the island of Ireland). I see no problems in excluding British Isles from this article. GoodDay (talk) 21:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I see that MidnightBlue has reverted back to the previous version. I would like to see a reference that states that the Irish version feeds into the Britain's strongest man competition. Jack forbes (talk) 21:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreements?

I thought the general agreement was to tackle 1 article at a time? There's been atleast 3-articles that were simultaneously in the midst of edit wars. GoodDay (talk) 14:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Where was that agreed? But I did believe there was a general agreement to bring articles here before editing. I guess some editors don't agree. --HighKing (talk) 15:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, many have agreed to disagree. GoodDay (talk) 15:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok. --HighKing (talk) 17:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Serfdom

So what about this one? In various countries of Europe (the British Isles, Switzerland, France...), a 'cottier' referred... Bjmullan (talk) 20:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Like you could have done. MidnightBlue (Talk) 20:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Mixes apples and pears. --RA (talk) 20:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

So what? Just leave it to the people who know about the subject. You know what - I'm getting really pissed off with the likes of HighKing and Mullan just going through Wikipedia looking for links to British Isles then causing mayhem all over the place. MidnightBlue (Talk) 20:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I've hardly made a comment on this page, but the fact is, if it's wrong to use British Isles in a certain context then it's wrong. I don't understand why this would cause mayhem, or if it even does. Jack forbes (talk) 21:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

MBM as you discovered earlier I am actual trying to improve article and WP in general. This is an encyclopaedia after all. You on the other hand are a clear case of a WP:SPA. Bjmullan (talk) 21:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

You are pushing your own POV, like HighKing. MidnightBlue (Talk) 21:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I see no need to include British Isles in this article. Mentioning Europe seems to cover quite a bit. GoodDay (talk) 21:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

It's included as an example of various parts of Europe. It imparts some more information than would otherwise be the case. Tell me - do you think we would be arguing the point if it said (Scandinavia, France, Switzerland ...) ?

Likely not (since I've no knowledge of disputes over those terms). Here's a solution - use Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Finland, France, Switzerland, United Kingdom & Ireland. GoodDay (talk) 21:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As it happens I was about to post a message to the talk page (a 'cottier' in Ireland and England was not a type of serf and relates to later history). However, discussion of the accuracy of the article does not belong here - only use of the term.

Why not mix apples and pears? Because it is sloppy. In this particular instance, for example, it would lead a person to believe there was a consistency within medieval British Isles in the same way as there was within medieval France or medieval Switzerland. As a rule of thumb, it is always better to list like entities. Even saying, "France, Switzerland and the countries of the British Isles" would be better.

About HK and Mullen going through links, this page is for discussion of specific examples (presumably with a mind to going arriving at guidelines) but I do understand why you would find it vexing. --RA (talk) 21:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Cottars were in fact known throughout most of Europe. Wouldn't it be better to say that in the text rather than pick out certain countries? Jack forbes (talk) 21:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've changed it as you suggest, but I'm not sure it was really needed. MidnightBlue (Talk) 21:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Isn't there a problem with using countries of the British Isles? Wouldn't this exclude those parts which are not countries, such as the Isle of Man, which also had cottars? Jack forbes (talk) 22:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe. And then there were three - HighKing, Mullan and now Jack Forbes, all desperate to get rid of British Isles and apparently using every excuse in the book to do so. MidnightBlue (Talk) 22:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Since including 8 countries is a tad cumbersome (see my suggestion at 21:35), the sentence "..various parts of Europe" would be a simplier way. GoodDay (talk) 22:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I've raised on an issue relating to the accuracy of the article on the article's talk page. This isn't the place to discuss the accuracy or otherwise of the article. --RA (talk) 22:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Hang on, where's my Musketeers uniform. :) Jack forbes (talk) 22:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• Further archive at Wikipedia talk:British Isles Terminology task force/Specific Examples/Closed3. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:57, 19 July 2010 (UTC)