Talk:British Isles

Cornish language?

In the “Native Names” section Cornish is not there. Is there a name for the British Isles in Cornish? --Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 15:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Island is "ynys" so perhaps it's something close to the Welsh "Ynysoedd Prydain"? Perhaps one of our Cornish editors can help. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:07, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

"Enesow Bretenek", "Enesow Breten", or "Enesow Bretennek" would be the name in Cornish. Various names for islands have been used in the various orthographies of Cornish, including "ynysow" (sng. "ynys). However, with the new SWF, "enys" has been chosen as the "correct" way to spell the word, with its plural form rendered as "enesow". I'm not entirely sure how the SWF is now treating the adjective "Bretenek/Bretennek" - i.e. with a single or a double "n". --MacTire02 (talk) 21:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

This is useful - do you want to mention it at Talk:Cornish language as well MacTire02, as it sounds like maybe you could do with some discussion on it to clarify maybe? Thanks for your help with this. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:23, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

We should avoid using Cornish. A few individuals deciding how to describe things in recent years hardly really justifies being in a list of native names. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:24, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

If Manx and Norman French are in there, we can have Cornish BW - this isn't a matter of Wikipedia approving of something, it's just acknowledging the existence of a real-world and referencable phenomena as well as creating the depth of interest in the articles we all love when browsing something we know nothing about. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

But how can we be sure it is the "native name" if it is simply something agreed to by a group of people in the past few years as they have codified their revived language? Its questionable if all these other languages need to be there at all. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Why is Scots language not listed, there must be some other native languages too if we go far enough back. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:07, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Those are fair points BW - that's why I was suggesting further clarification. I also read that original Cornish forms are not known, as with Ogham, since no written form survived from earlier times, but perhaps I am wrong about that. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 22:11, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Looking at it Ulster Scots is also missing. I think we should restrict the list to the main languages.. Irish, English, Welsh, Manx, and (what ever is spoken in the channel islands today). BritishWatcher (talk) 22:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Channel Islanders speak English though a minority do speak Norman. I don't really see the point either - the whole thing can be put in a footnote or a section of its own in article. Mabuska ^(talk) 23:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

@James: Unfortunately I do not believe it could be discussed at the Cornish language talk page. Although a standard SWF spelling system was introduced, there remains considerable debate and anger over spelling issues. My level of Cornish is basic at best, and therefore I would not like to get bogged down in a debate over there, or indeed to create another flashpoint for that page. --MacTire02 (talk) 15:41, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

A while ago it was argued that Cornish could not be included because nobody could find a reference for "Enesow Bretennek". I have since found one: <ref>{{cite book |title=Gerlyver Sawsnek-Kernowek |last=Williams |first=Nicholas |authorlink=Nicholas Williams |publisher=Agan Tavas/Evertype |page=44 |year=2006 |isbn=978-1-904808-06-0}}</ref>, however it seems that the inclusion criteria have been changed, from languages of the British Isles to official languages of selected political divisions. So I'll just keep a note of it here for future reference. In response to some concerns here, regardless of whether or not the term "British Isles" was used in the 17th Century, the word "enesow" for islands is well attested in the traditional texts, and so is the adjective "bretennek" for British. That is the term it was/would have been then, and that is the term it is now. "Enesow Bretennek" is in the standard form used by the Council. --Joowwww (talk) 16:09, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not meaning to burst your bubble Joowwww, but the reference provided specifically states "[the] dictionary...utilizes Unified Cornish Revised orthography". That reference is fine for suggesting the translation as is the case in UCR, but not for suggesting the Council's preferred translation. The SWF may indeed use the translation as found in Williams dictionary, but we would need to back that up too. It might not be a bad idea to contact the Cornish Language Partnership itself and ask them if they have any references to it in any published material or online. --MacTire02 (talk) 16:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

But the reference isn't there to prove what the council uses, it's there to just prove what Cornish uses. The original issue was that nobody could find a reference for the Cornish for "British Isles". The current inclusion criteria (to which Cornish is not eligible) is official language, not official orthography. I doubt the CLP could help, since an SWF dictionary hasn't been published yet, and both the SWF glossary and the SWF specification don't have "British Isles" in them. --Joowwww (talk) 20:34, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

No but the reference doesn't show what "British Isles" is in Cornish either. For example, we know the Irish for "Isles" is "Oileáin" and the Irish for "British" is "Briotanach". Put them together and you get "Na hOileáin Bhriotanacha" (taking grammar into account). However that is not the Irish translation for the "British Isles". In other words, the reference must support the Cornish version of the "British Isles" - not the Cornish version of "British" and "Isles". Regarding CLP - I understand they have not produced an SWF dictionary or glossary, but surely they have produced some literature? What I am saying is maybe somewhere in that literature they have mentioned the British Isles by their Cornish name, in whole? --MacTire02 (talk) 13:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The reference I gave does include an entry for "British Isles". --Joowwww (talk) 23:43, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Britain and Ireland

We clearly need to figure this matter out one way or another and ensure it is clear in the article and terminology article and in other places too perhaps.

Is Britain and Ireland a group of islands off the northwest coast of continental Europe that include the islands of Great Britain and Ireland and over six thousand smaller islands. Including the Channel Islands and Isle of Man?

Or

Is Britain and Ireland just a term to completely avoid use of British Isles. A term that either refers to Great Britain and Ireland or United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland. Both of which do not include the Isle of Man and Channel Islands.

I have always believed it is the second and continue to. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Terminology of the British Isles looks like it requires an expansion on this term. It simply states that it is used as an alternative to British Isles. Information (even the source provided by HighKing) seems to point out that it is used by "nationalists". So it is, I suppose, a common alternative, if incorrect. Maybe just scrap the alternative from this article and link to the Terminology article? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

What source? Remind me please. BTW, I'm totally against using "Britain and Ireland" as a shorthand for "British Isles" and I agree with BW that it's not synonymous. --HighKing (talk) 17:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Since there is a traditional geographic term in Irish which translates roughly as Islands west of Europe, Britain and Ireland is a different term. It clearly excludes the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands, and arguably the Orkney and Shetland Islands as well. There are many contexts in which the term Britain and Ireland is entirely appropriate, but it is not a geographical equivalent for British Isles. AJRG (talk) 17:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

"Britain and Ireland" is really just shorthand for "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the Republic of Ireland". It's an easy way of linking two countries which are geographically adjacent and have much in common. That's how most people use it anyway. You might struggle to find a reference for this becuase it's really only on Wikipedia that anyone is that bothered about a precise definition. In fact, slowly but surely its definition is being created here! There's something not quite right with that. LevenBoy (talk) 18:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Fear not, Laven. One of the reference currently in this article testifies that "'Britain and Ireland' is becoming preferred usage" a year before Wikipedia was launched (2000). --RA (talk) 18:22, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

But does it define what "Britain and Ireland" actually is, notwithstanding its use as a synonym? I bet it doesn't. LevenBoy (talk) 18:28, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The problem with using the term "Britain and Ireland" is geographical in that it does not include IOM or the Channel Islands. However the Irish government has decided that that is the term that should be preferred in its official terminology. My personal belief is that that is partially based on ignorance. Many in Ireland who do not know any better consider the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands as mere parts of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in a manner similar to the way Shetland and Orkney are parts of Britain (like how foreigners contend that Wales and Scotland are part of England). What is happening is the usurpation of a colloquial (Irish) term to offically label the British Isles as Britain and Ireland. So technically speaking IOM and Channel Islands are not part of Britain and Ireland, but colloquially speaking, and now politically speaking (in Ireland at least), they are included. --MacTire02 (talk) 18:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Up to a point, but note that the comparison between counting "Wales as part of England" as a foreigner's misaprehension is not the same as counting "Orkney/Shetland as part of Britain" - the latter is technically, constitutionally and legally correct, regardless of the views of Orkey and Shetland people or political opinion. The former is not. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 11:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, it's usage. Though I don't see evidence for it being merely a "colloquial" or "Irish" term. The references we use, for example, are UK-based and academic but you will find it in publications, including maps, of all sorts. It is not perfect a perfect term either. As we are aware, problems exist with "British" Isles also.

@Laven, I've never seen it defined except that it is an equivalent to British Isles. I have seen examples that came tantalisingly close to it, but never quite. There are also plenty of cryptic references such as National Geographic Style-guide: "The plate in the National Geographic Atlas of the World once titled 'British Isles' now reads 'Britain and Ireland'." It would appear, as the sources in the text support, to be part of a trend from one (inaccurate) term to another.

I think anyone would be mad to suggest, for example, that this page be moved to "Britain and Ireland" or to say that we should switch our prefered usage to it; but you would be on unsound footing to deny its existence or to say that it is not a common synonym for British Isles. Regardless of our opinion of it (inaccurate etc.), it evidently exists and is verifiably used as an synonym/equivalent/replacement for British Isles. --RA (talk) 18:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

That's a fair point. Yes, it does exist, and yes, "Britain and Ireland" is often used in some contexts instead of "British Isles". But it's not synonymous - i.e. to use "British Isles" when the subject matter is limited to UK&I or GB&I. --HighKing (talk) 18:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I just want to note that the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands aren't equivalent here. The Isle of Man is indisputably part of the British Isles; the Channel Islands are sometimes included, but are geographically distinct. john k (talk) 19:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Tectonically distinct but still considered part of the geographic region known as the British Isles? --HighKing (talk) 19:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Umm, didn't we have this conversation already? I distinctly remember arguing this point (about 'Britain and Ireland' not being synonymous with 'British Isles') in some detail to no effect and now you all come out and agree... sigh. Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

After several years of trying to improve Wikipedia in questions of Chemistry, History, and grammar, I have just done something I've never done before. I undid my four improvements to an article. After reading these pages of discussions, it became clear to me that this article is written in the POV of a larger population with only passing reference to the feelings of an unwilling minority. The accounting of the historical, natural, and political interactions between the British and Irish is really rather well done in the article and should stay. Now, find another name and respect neutrality. Speaking of which, did you notice that the English names for almost all Flemish cities were changed to the Flemish spellings? Even the Battle of the Dyle has become the Battle of the Dijle.Laburke (talk) 04:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that Laburke. On the Flemish stuff, if its still commonly known as Dyle in English usage it should remain as Dyle rather than Dijle unless it is now the accepted version. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

In English, the ij vowel-semivowel combination was replaced by the letter y in the circa 15th century.Laburke (talk) 05:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

"Now, find another name and respect neutrality." - We do not change names of things simply because a few people have a problem with it. So no. The silly concerns about the term are addressed within the introduction, in the body of the article and there is a whole article on the naming dispute. This article is neutral. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Please, BW, the usual practice is to put quotations in italics, not boldface, which would connote a much more vehement tone than I took. So no, you say. Well, I say language evolves. There are many terms that are no longer used because they are painful reminders to a few people of their subjection, conquest, and in some cases slavery. There are some in my country who call the dropping of painful terms, Political Correctness. I call it common decency and respect for others. When a neutral name can be found, I would like to contribute towards correcting the grammatical, chronological, and historical inaccuracies that I found in it.Laburke (talk) 05:11, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Going back to BW's original question above, I don't think it's really as clear-cut as those two alternatives you put forwards, BW. As we can see from the subsequent discussion, the precise meaning of the phrase "Britain and Ireland" is unagreed, poorly defined and shifts in complex ways, depending on who uses is, where, etc. So we can't obtain a defitive meaning here in WP by discussion as there will continue to be conflicting sources and real-world usages. The best we can hope for is generalism. If this is part of an MoS discussion then, it won't get very far. Personally I think precision matters more in most articles. There are lots of places where BI or B&I are being used as shorthands for things that would be better explaining more exactly. Just saying "BI" or "B&I" when you actually mean "parts of western Ireland, northern Scotland, but not the CI or Cornwall" for example. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 11:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it is a simple yes / no issue though. Is the isle of man in "Great Britain and Ireland"? The answer to that question is no, there for it is impossible for Great Britain and Ireland to accurately mean the area that the British Isles refers to. It is a completely different alternative term, not another way of describing the British Isles. and the intro needs to make this clear, the whole reason this debate started up was because someone said otherwise citing this article. Going into more detail is fine in some cases, although there is no reason not to state something like "Within the British Isles, particularly Cornwall and Wales...." BritishWatcher (talk) 11:43, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

If Britain and Ireland has no clear definition should we really be using it? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Well as far as im aware there are just two meanings, which both cover the same area anyway. United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland or Great Britain and Ireland. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The two wordings mentioned just then cover different areas. UK and ROI includes other islands such as the Shetlands and Orkneys. GB and I doesn't. Losing your touch on islands inclusion arguments BW? ;) {no offense intended} Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Although the term "Britain and Ireland" may appear to some to exclude the smaller islands, in my view that is not how the term is generally used. It is a convenient shorthand term used for the whole island group, including Orkney, Shetland, Hebrides and, in my view, the Isle of Man. Because those smaller islands are relatively small in terms of area and population, they are generally capable of being ignored by most users of the term. The fact that the term is not precisely accurate is not the only relevant factor - the encyclopedia clearly needs to explain that it is not accurate terminology, while also recognising that it is a widely used term. Most users of the term are not as careful with words as many WP editors on this page. So, I agree with Jamesinderbyshire. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

"Britain and Ireland" is, in fact, used as a synonym for "British Isles". That some here think this is not technically correct while claiming Ireland is a "British" isle is, quite frankly, laughable. 'Anything but the "British Isles"' is, in reality, abided by for by the majority of Ireland's population. Is anybody here, who lives in Ireland, claiming the term "British Isles" is commonly used in Ireland? 86.42.16.189 (talk) 17:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be very hard to prove the negative that a particular usage of the term Britain and Ireland was meant to exclude any/all of Isle of Man/Channel Islands/Shetland/Hebrides/Isle of Wight, blah blah blah etc. I think its most common usage is a less offensive synonym than the British Isles. BTW can anyone tell me what the constitutional differences are between the Crown Dependency of the Isle of Man and the devolved Scotland. In my humble opinion, both are part of Britain. Fmph (talk) 12:14, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The intro [edit] Disambiguation Links [/edit] should to refer to the naming dispute [page]

1) The title for this page is appropriate I believe as "British Isles". As others have stated - the page is about defining the term as it is used. (Therefore I post here and not on the "specific talk page for matters relating to the name of this article")

2) On the other hand, I quote: The Government of Ireland does not use the term[11] and its embassy in London discourages its use.[12]

Currently: in the British Isles page the term "British Isles" is defined in the first paragraph. Then come two paragraphs busy with very ancient geology and ancient history, and then (and only then) comes comes a paragraph about objections to the term including Nr.2 above. The naming dispute page is linked to with no comment in the start of the Etymology section and there are a couple of sentences on the subject at the end of that section.

The reason the Irish government takes this stance (Nr.2 above) is because they are reflecting the general lack of use of the term amongst the Irish population, and they know it's a popular stance to take.

Now, if there is dissent with this term at that level - from a government whose land is included in the term - I believe this should be referred to (indirectly at least) in the intro, specifically by including a link to the naming dispute page British Isles naming dispute
Adding a reference to the naming dispute page would:
a) make the situation clear, and
b) be respectful to the people who do object to use of the term

Two proposed changes:

• Intro (changes are in square brackets - I lifted the text from the intro to the naming dispute page):
  

This article is about the archipelago in north-western Europe. For the group of territories with constitutional links to the United Kingdom, see "British Islands". [For information about the disagreement and different views on using the term "British Isles", particularly in relation to Ireland, see "British Isles naming dispute"]

• Paragraph four, (starting: The term British Isles is controversial in relation to Ireland...) would be moved up to become the second paragraph (i.e. after the defining of the term and before the Geological & Historical paragraphs)
  

Tomosullivan (talk) 21:09, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Disagree. This has been discussed before and there in no concensus for change to suit biased PoV's. The Wikipedia convention on ledes put controversies at the end of a list of what should be in a lede and the controversy is at the end of the lede in this article. This article is about the British Isles a world-wide commonly used term. The naming dispute is also linked too in the lede (all those four paragraphs is the lede) - but if you read and checked through the lede you'd have seen that. Also the "Etymology" section clearly links to the dispute articles. Your porposed changes add nothing and only will cause more crap to be stirred and sputed out again as if we haven;t heard it all before. Mabuska ^(talk) 21:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm learning the terminology on the fly here - what I described as the Intro above, should, I believe (from link below), be called the Disambiguation Links (correct me if I'm wrong?). I edited the title of this section to hopefully clarify.

Thanks for your responses. I'm replying to all here as I presume the others agree with Mabuska's reasons for disagreeing as they didnt give any other. Mabuska, You use the term POV and the word 'biased' - in my post above I have stuck clearly to the facts mentioned in the article. There is far too much crap as you say involved in the naming debate, which is why I don't want to get involved in it - but it exists. As it has it's own Wikipedia page, I dont understand why it should not be included in the Disambiguation Links ?? It's illogical that it is not included there. Being worried about more crap being stirred up is a very subjective reason against, and really is an irrelevant (if understandable) reason. Personally I think if this got the recognition it deserved (here) there might actually be less off-topic posts flying around on these dicussion pages...
If anyone can refer me to where this suggestion (of including the link to naming dispute page in the Disambiguation Links) is discussed here, I'd be happy to read it - I couldn't find it but may have used the wrong search terms.
RE the lede, I didn't know wikipedia's convention's re that. I found this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lead_section#Elements_of_the_lead and it does not confirm (that I could find) what you say about controversies coming at the end.

Tomosullivan (talk) 12:47, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Disagree with Tom. GoodDay (talk) 21:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Disagree. Although paragraphs two and three could be significantly shortened as they're not really summaries. --HighKing (talk) 00:54, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I stopped reading after the first sentence. I am sure i oppose everything in your proposal thanks. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Be careful not to bite, everyone.

With regards to (1), I don't think it is worth discussing it any more, Tom. There's reams of discussion in the archives. The controversy piece has been up-down-and-everywhere in the introduction. Untimately, this article is about he islands and not the controversy. Although it is worth mentioning, it is not the numero uno thing about this topic: geography, history and habitation are central to the topic of the islands than a (relatively) minor spat about what to call them. IMHO, the lead is the best it has been in the years that I have been contributing to this article. Part of the reason for that is because the controversy is left to last so the real focus of this article is allowed to take centre stage.

With regards to (2), it's not a suggestion that hasn't got merit. I wouldn't altogether mind - strictly speaking though it is [edit]not[/edit] what dab links are for, so it might just stir up resentment among editors who already feel that the "controversy" is over-stated.

All that said though, none were altogether really bad ideas and don't let reaction here put you off suggesting more or from further contributing to the 'pedia. --RA (talk) 13:30, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Ehh, I used to get bitten alot at the Scotland article. GoodDay (talk) 14:01, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The article already has an entire paragraph in the introduction about the subject, so it doesn't need to raise notability of the topic any further. A different, but related issue is the use of atlantic archipelago - this is certainly not notable enough to be in there, as it's an abstract, academic phrasing and not in wide usage. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 14:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed about the Atlantic archipelago term. Im still concerned about the wording Britain and Ireland in that paragraph too. I still think it needs to be more clear it is a completely separate term, and not an alternative name for the exact area of the British Isles. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The wording with respect to "Britain and Ireland" is almost verbatim what appears in the supporting sources. WRT "Atlantic Archipelago" ... meh! These are alternative terms. It does no great harm to give even a fairly off-beat one such as "Atlantic Archipelago" as an example. --RA (talk) 14:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

It's a bit misleading as to notability putting it in the intro. It deserves a mention, but lower down in the main text. I had literally never heard the phrase before glancing at this article and I've been about a bit in these sacred islands of ours. :) Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 15:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

@RA, so you are open to the idea of including the link to naming dispute page in the top of the page. I'm confused when you say: strictly speaking though it is what dab links are for. (Did you see/read my response to Mabuska above?). The terminology is not clearly defined (I've read conflicting definitions of terms) so I'm struggling a bit... I would be very happy to see a disambiguation page - is that what you mean?

I know what the article is about & I have no interest in changing that, but for many the term is very offensive. I find it offensive & I am in no way "nationalistic". I think this should be briefly acknowledged by a link either in a disambiguation page or with a link in the top part in italic before the lead. Tomosullivan (talk) 16:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the fact that some find a particular term offensive is insufficient for it to be removed from Wikipedia. Therefore various other strategies for "explaining" it, knocking it, etc, must be deployed. :) This is old ground though Tom, so you will find everyone has been here hundreds of times before and there is very little to be done about the debate; British Isles exists in the real world and is staying put as a Wikipedia article. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

James, what are you talking about?!! I didn't request that anything be removed!! And I dont know what you're trying to persuade me of when you say British Isles exists in the real world and is staying put as a Wikipedia article because I agree with that statement and have said similar a couple of times already above, including in the post you replied to.
In my response to Mabuska above I requested a link: If anyone can refer me to where this suggestion (of including the link to naming dispute page in the Disambiguation Links) is discussed here, I'd be happy to read it - I couldn't find it but may have used the wrong search terms.
Again, in my response to Mabuska above , I ask: As [the naming dispute page] has it's own Wikipedia page, I dont understand why it should not be included in the Disambiguation Links ?? It's illogical that it is not included there. Can you answer me either of those questions? Tomosullivan (talk) 19:39, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

If ya wanna put it there, no probs. GoodDay (talk) 19:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation links are for when you reach an article you may not want to reach, say if two places have similar or identical names. Noone is looking for details about controversy over a term when they search for just that term. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 01:50, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I was wondering about a disambiguation page. Disambiguation is required whenever, for a given word or phrase on which a reader might search, there is more than one existing Wikipedia article to which that word or phrase might be expected to lead. There are actually multiple articles about and related to the British Isles -this list taken from Wikipedia:British Isles Terminology task force page:
Main articles
British Isles Terminology
British Isles
Botanical Society of the British Isles
Great Britain and Ireland
List of the British Isles by area
List of the British Isles by population
British Isles naming dispute
- so this could be a good solution. Tomosullivan (talk) 07:46, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

That would be more like a list page or something similar. Disambig is for the same phrase or word, not phrases that happen to include the word or words. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 08:07, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is for articles where the search term would be expected to lead. No-one would search "British Isles" and expect to get "British Isles terminology", "Botanical Society of the British Isles", "List of British Isles by area", "British Isles naming dispute", or "List of British Isles by population". "Great Britain and Ireland" is just a disambiguation page, and no-one would search "British Isles" and expect to get that page.

At any rate, going to all those would require a general disambiguation, rather than just a link to the dispute. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:23, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

@Tomosullivan - apologies, I left a vital "not" out of that post. Should have read: "...strictly speaking though it is notwhat dab links are for." --RA (talk) 10:22, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Replying here to Chipmunkdavis & Jamesinderbyshire as well (hope that okay). @RA, Yes, that was rather a vital "not" :-)

Re disambiguation links and pages: points taken. Another approach given on the dabs page is the "Rice" page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rice. I quote from the dabs page:
The page at Rice is about one usage, called the primary topic, and there is a hatnote guiding readers to Rice (disambiguation) to find the other uses. This would be more appropriate according to what Chipmunkdavis & Jamesinderbyshire say above as a search for British Isles would bring one directly to the British Isles page (as currently). It doesnt help me in terms of what I wanted, but I still think it would be a good idea in general.Tomosullivan (talk) 17:59, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Tom - you know, I know and all the Irish posters here and around the world know that this term is rejected in Ireland and that fact should have primacy in the article which is currently under this extremely controversial name. The fact that "many" Irish people object to it was removed, even though it was well referenced. The fact that John Dee, the first person credited with using the term (according to the Oxford English Dictionary), was referenced in many reputable places (including by Oxford's DNB) as an imperialist was also removed (they got really agitated about those references as it shows unequivocally the political origins of the term "British Isles"). Indeed, all objections to this title get further and further down this page, despite being in the first sentence of the first version of this article in 2001. Why? Because there is number of British nationalist posters here who have an agenda to remove all opposition to this name from this article. Look at the User Page of many of the people who oppose your idea - e.g. User:BritishWatcher - and you'll see a Union Jack; look at their edit history and you'll see their purpose on Wikipedia is to advance British nationalist articles like this one. The fact the the democratically-elected government of the state of Ireland rejects this term, that this term is avoided in *all* treaties and agreements between the government of Ireland and the United Kingdom, that maps from international publishers such as National Geographic have replaced the term "British Isles" with "British and Irish Isles" or the fact that, at the top of this page, we have a link to a wide variety of academics, Irish and British alike, attesting to the avoidance of this term by a huge number (at least) of Irish people is all neither here nor there. These references have been removed from this article numerous times. A more bigoted, anti-Irish group of editors you will not find in Wikipedia than those individuals who are trying to marginalise Irish objections to this title here on this article. Dunlavin Green (talk) 10:13, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh Dunlavin, i always enjoy reading your comments! :) lol. If i did not enjoy reading them id probably report you for your continued attacks on British editors, you are clearly breaking wikipedia rules. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:17, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't flatter yourself: attacks on British nationalist editors. You'd like to think all Brits are as anti-Irish and nationalistically "British" as you. I doubt any editor, other than a flag-waving John Bull one, would have sympathy for any claims you might make for "impartiality" given your User Page and edit history on Irish-related articles. Dunlavin Green (talk) 10:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

John Dee is directly quoted as the first user of the term a few paras down in the Etymology section - it is unlikely that he invented it, hence the feud over that particular point. It really doesn't help to raise these old issues - they have been very heavily discussed and I would always point people who are new to the debate to the archives as a starter for ten. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:23, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Nobody is saying he isn't quoted: what has been said, clearly, is that the fact that many reputable sources refer to him as an imperialist has been removed. It has been removed solely for political reasons: evidence that the earliest known user of the term was an English imperialist undermines the myth perpetrated here that the term is not political in its origin in the English language- and a very important point that is indeed. Dunlavin Green (talk) 10:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

If not, than adding that in here next to the fact he used British Isles would seem to be the WP:SYNTH that British Isles was invented as an imperialist term. Besides, back then imperialism was just nationalism, so I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:35, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

"John Dee (13 July 1527–1608 or 1609) was a noted mathematician,astronomer,astrologer, occultist, navigator, imperialist," Funny how you think it must say "imperialist" and not navigator for example which clearly has a connection. British Isles is not a political term, it is a geographical term. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:39, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

That's the problem with skimming a topic....take a look further down at the section on British Imperialist, and note the sentence that states He further argued that England exploit new lands through colonization and this vision could become reality through maritime supremacy. In making these arguments, Dee is credited with the earliest use in English of the terms Brytish Iles and Brytish Impire. --HighKing (talk) 10:47, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

That's text from a WP article, so not sourcable. The underlying sources in that section are (1) a National Maritine Museum blurb that does not mention the BI and (2) an OED reference which we can't easily check. That said, if there is good sourcing that says Dee invented the term BI as part of an imperialist view, I would be OK with that being included here. But from what I've read, it's not that clear-cut. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 11:48, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Getting back on the Disambiguation topic:
So far, no-one objected to this suggestion (my previous post has been edited into the 'Dee' section below so I repost here, yet again, so there's no confusion); GoodDay says: I've no probs with disambiguation links etc.. I presume more consensus than that would be needed??
Does no-one care about the idea? No offense, but is that because it doesn't further any agendas? - or because people think it's just a waste of time and will hardly be used? or something else? - too busy with the juicy details maybe :)
Repost:

Re disambiguation links and pages:
Another approach given on the dabs page is the "Rice" page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rice. I quote from the dabs page:
The page at Rice is about one usage, called the primary topic, and there is a hatnote guiding readers to Rice (disambiguation) to find the other uses. (my emphasis). This would be more appropriate according to what Chipmunkdavis & Jamesinderbyshire say above - as a search for British Isles would bring one directly to the British Isles page (as currently). This doesnt help me in terms of what I wanted, but I still think it would be a good idea in general. Logical inclusions would be all the pages with "British Isles" in the title - again shown here as listed in the Wikipedia:British Isles Terminology task force page:
British Isles Terminology
British Isles
Botanical Society of the British Isles
List of the British Isles by area
List of the British Isles by population
British Isles naming dispute
- [I see there is also a History of the British Isles page which wasnt listed on that page.]
Tomosullivan (talk) 08:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Dee and etymology

BW has given a partial part of the OED below, which to me seems to give a different message. Might not be 2008 version though. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:52, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Which is why I asked it as a question, now answered. Thank you. Nicely sourced too. So they were used in his arguments? I find that interesting, wish I had a copy of the OED around. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

"In making these arguments, Dee is credited..." Does the OED say that, or just wikipedia? BritishWatcher (talk) 11:03, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

All thats included in a cite on this page is.. " John Dee, 1577. 1577 J. Arte Navigation, p. 65 "The syncere Intent, and faythfull Aduise, of Georgius Gemistus Pletho, was, I could..frame and shape very much of Gemistus those his two Greek Orations..for our Brytish Iles, and in better and more allowable manner." From the OED, s.v. "British Isles"" BritishWatcher (talk) 11:07, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there isn't any new sourcing on this - we are just rehearsing arguments that have already been heavily investigated in the archives. Let's move on. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:28, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@James, that's not entirely correct (although partially true). I would say it's because the answer to such a precise query requires very in-depth knowledge of the subject (far beyond the scope of a Talk page). It's because the context of the phrase is within a period concerned with the rise of British imperialism - the causes, the people, the thinking at the time, trade competition, the rise of America, etc. He was well known as an scholar - but often in the guise of an imperialist scholar, able to construct arguments based on classical and legal texts to justify various positions on rights and claims to seas and lands. As one of the earliest geopolitical writers, he focused not on the centers of state power, but on the boundaries and limits, and laid claims for English sea sovereignty based on mare clausum and justified the use of force in its application. For scholars, the definition of a "British Isles" and "British Empire" within the context of Elizabethan imperialism and expansion is not disputed. While it's doubtful a source will explicitly state that "British Isles is a term invented to support Elizabethan imperialist claims", many books will state that the reason Dee fashioned these terms within the context of imperialism and for the reasons of addressing concerns about legitimacy and rights. --HighKing (talk) 13:37, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, as I said, if there's a good quality source from those books you mention that can be referenced NPOV-ishly, then we could have it in. Do you want to locate one and suggest it? Then we would have something concrete to discuss instead of vague assertions that the phrase is all an imperialist plot. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 13:54, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

OK - some bedside reading :-) For general background, take a look at The ideological origins of the British Empire By David Armitage, especially Chapter 4 dealing with maritime expansion. Then try John Dee: the politics of reading and writing in the English Renaissance By William Howard Sherman. Not an easy book to read in isolation (and not all available on Google Books, but you'll get the main gist). It sets the scene for what drove Dee, and the debates and arguments he constructed. Look at it along with Peter French's book (chapter on Antiquarianism especially). Oh - and bear in mind that Mary (then James VI) ruled Scotland, and the politics were very complex. More significantly, the Tudors weren't exactly "English" – they (re)invented British identity to reinforce their claim as descendants of Arthur to rule the island as a whole, and to form the basis of expansion. So into this situation, John Dee is advising Elizabeth on improving and expanding the economy, governing and defending, and uses the phrase "Brytish Iles" in "Arte Navigation" while putting forward an argument to exploit new lands from colonization through maritime supremacy. --HighKing (talk) 21:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the Armitage book, but I've glanced through the Sherman book on Dee - is there someplace in that where Sherman says the BI phrase was part of a British imperialist claim? As the current article sentence implies? If not, it's still synth. As regards the Tudors, being Welsh and English by descent, I should think it natural that they would evolve a British sensibility, if only to justify their replacement of the Yorkists. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 22:40, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I've missed something. I thought we are discussing firstly whether John Dee was an imperialist, and secondly if the context surrounding his first use of the phrase "British Isles" was in a geographical or political context. You appear to be asking if Sherman says the BI "phrase" was part of a British imperialist claim - that's a different question. Explicitly, I have seen no sources that deal with they etymology of the term "British Isles" in that context, and no sources that explicitly state John Dee coined the phrase as a political term. But then again, nor have I seen any WP articles making that claim either, so I'm not sure if I'm missing your point. You originally asked Was there a source relating his imperialism to the use of the term British Isles?. The sources I've provided shows this relationship. The OED quotation from "Arte Navigation" is The syncere Intent, and faythfull Aduise, of Georgius Gemistus Pletho, was, I could..frame and shape very much of Gemistus those his two Greek Orations..for our Brytish Iles, and in better and more allowable manner at this Day, for our People, than that his Plat (for Reformation of the State at those Dayes) could be found, for Peloponnesus avaylable. From Archive 19, User:Ras52 transcribed an interpretation (which I've replicated below) from Elizabeth as Astraea (page 47 of the journal), and the paragraph in question reads:

As is well-known, it was Gemistus Pletho who gave the impulse to those philosophical studies which, as devloped by Ficino and the Florentine Academy, had such a far-reaching influence on Renaissance thought. There was a political as well as a philosophical side to Gemistus Pletho. About the year 1415, he addressed two orations to the Emperor Manuel and to his son Theodore on the affairs of the Peloponnesus and on ways and means both of improving the economy of the Greek islands and of defending them.² A Latin translation of these orations had recently been published,³ and Dee is of the opinion that they would be of use "for our Brytish Iles, and in better and more allowable manner, at this Day, for our People, than that his Plat (for Reformation of the State at those Dayes) could be found, for Peloponnesus avaylable."⁴ In spite of the difficulties of Dee's style and punctuation his meaning is clear, a meaning which he repeats on subsequent pages, namely the advice given to the Byzantine Emperor by Pletho is good advice for Elizabeth, Empress of Britain. He therefore reprints at the end of his work the greater part of the first oration, and the whole of the second, with curious marginal notes.

[2] The orations are reprinted in Migne, Patr. graec., CLX, pp 822 ff [3] The orations, with a Latin translation by Gulielmus Canterus, were printed in the volume containing the Ecolgues of John Stobaeus, published at Antwerp by Plantin in 1575. [4] Op. cit., p. 63.

Therefore the link or relationship between his imperialistic writings and the coining of the phrase "Brytish Iles" appears to be supported. BTW, this debate is old, and it quickly chews up space on this Talk page. Perhaps we should archive a "John Dee" section somewhere? Also, don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing for any changes, etc, just trying to (helpfully) share some info which I find fascinating. --HighKing (talk) 00:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

It is fascinating and that's an interesting quote, thanks. I personally wouldn't mind seeing a reference to Dee and something well-worded against his "invention" of the term (not that we know that for sure, but it is anyway the first mention of it) in the Lede, as it's relevant and notable. I don't know how much weight we should give to academic interpretations of Dee's musings - after all, he was in many ways mildly bonkers although bonkers with a lot of influence in high places(!) - but certainly there's room in the main article text for refs as good as that one. I do think there could be something in the article about Dee's imperial proposals to QEI and a possible link between that and the BI term. Whilst we don't know if Dee "invented" it, the available evidence does somewhat point in that direction. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 08:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

That entire section on "British Imperialist" in the John Dee article is rather out of place. Early Life, Later life, Final Years, Personal life, yet a year ago a now indef blocked editor decided to add an entire Imperialist section in between them. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:20, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, there is no discussion in the talk pages about that. And it was added after featured article was given. Also if what you said about the OED wording is correct that the sentence is synth, and should be deleted. Either way, that's for that article. Deal there? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:28, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Do you have access to the OED BW? Or were quoting from the article ref in Wikipedia? On the Dee article, we should discuss it there, but if it's not borne out by the sources it should come out. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 13:32, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Sadly i dont, that was just all the citation posted on this page mentions. No idea what the OED actually says. Ive placed a neutrality tag on the section and mentioned my concern about the section as a whole. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I disagree - it should be discussed at the Dee Talk page surely? --HighKing (talk) 13:35, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Holy smokers, how'd this discussion's topic become John Dee? GoodDay (talk) 16:09, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

As no-one actually responded directly to my last disambiguation suggestion above, I take the liberty of reposting a slightly edited version of same here:

Re disambiguation links and pages:
Another approach given on the dabs page is the "Rice" page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rice. I quote from the dabs page:
The page at Rice is about one usage, called the primary topic, and there is a hatnote guiding readers to Rice (disambiguation) to find the other uses. (my emphasis). This would be more appropriate according to what Chipmunkdavis & Jamesinderbyshire say above - as a search for British Isles would bring one directly to the British Isles page (as currently). This doesnt help me in terms of what I wanted, but I still think it would be a good idea in general. Logical inclusions would be all the pages with "British Isles" in the title - again [edit] shown here [/edit] as listed in the Wikipedia:British Isles Terminology task force page:
British Isles Terminology
British Isles
Botanical Society of the British Isles
List of the British Isles by area
List of the British Isles by population
British Isles naming dispute
Tomosullivan (talk) 18:14, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The content of this article, doesn't actually keep me awake at nights. I've no probs with disambiguation links etc. GoodDay (talk) 19:16, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

John Dee stuff should go to that page, its not about the insertion of removal of BI as a term. --Snowded ^TALK 10:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

FYI - the Dee cite in the OED originated from discussions on this page. A contributor here came across an earlier example of use than the date the OED previously had. (This does not by the way make it WP:OR.)

I don't think the quote above demonstrates that Dee "coined" the term - nor does the OED cite support that he "coined" it. I don't think either that it is evidence for the imperialistic origin of the term in the English language. --RA (talk) 11:14, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I recall reading somewhere (maybe in the Sherman book?) that it's common usage prior to Dee can be inferred from the way Dee talks about it, but it does remain the earliest surviving written usage. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 11:18, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe that was a comment on a Talk page at Archive 9. It's not mentioned in any source I've come across... --HighKing (talk) 11:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

That would seem reasonable. But how "prior"? Earlier that morning? The week before? A year prior? A decade? Decades? A century? All that we know is that the earliest known use in English is in 1577 in a work by John Dee. --RA (talk) 11:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

It is the earliest recorded usage, but that doesn't mean he said it as a way of establishing an imperialist claim for his country over the whole area. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

@RA, The quote above is a comment on the usage within Arte Navigation, the book written by John Dee which is attributed as the first time the term was written. In other places, Dee uses other terms. It may very well be the case that Dee didn't "coin" the term - we don't know. But it is fair to say that the term was first written in the English language by John Dee, in the context of constructing an argument for British expansion. --HighKing (talk) 11:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

", in the context of constructing an argument for British expansion" - But are there neutral reliable sources saying that? BritishWatcher (talk) 11:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

In fact, it isn't even clear that the (interesting) sources HK cites above say that. They say that Gemistus Pletho "addressed two orations to the Emperor Manuel and to his son Theodore on the affairs of the Peloponnesus and on ways and means both of improving the economy of the Greek islands and of defending them" and that Dee thought this was an example for the BI. As I understand it, Pletho's main concern was attempting to persuade the Byzantines to reconcile the East–West Schism, so I'm not sure it proves anything about British or English imperialism. Unless, as has already been pointed out, you attempt to synth Dee's admiration for an imperial programme for the Queen with this quote. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 11:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmmmm - this is the bit where I point out that I said there isn't a simple answer because it all has to be put into context with everything that was going on at the time. No matter, the previous page states very baldly These sympathies with the Greek empire were used in a most curious way in connection with the nascent maritime ambitions of Elizabethan England by John Dee, the queen's leaned astrologer. Dee's "General and rare memorials pertayning to the Perfect Arte of Navigation" was the only one published (in 1577, he wrote it in 1576) of a series of volumes which he planned should be an exposition of, and plea for, Elizabethan imperialism. (The idea of the work as a whole was that it should be a "Hexameron or Plat Politicall of the Brytish Monarchie."). It goes on to talk about impassioned pleas for the establishment of a strong navy both to defend the country and to aid expansion, and of bringing historical arguments to bear upon the theme of maintaining and increasing the "Royall Maiesty and Imperiall Dignity of our Souerayn Lady Elizabeth" and the lands and seas to which she can lay claim. The Roman Pompey and the Greek Pericles are quoted with approval for their views on the importance of sea sovereignty, as well as the aforementioned Gemistus Pletho. It states The practical moral is that Britain is to seize Occasion by the ofrelock and grow strong at sea to strengthen Elizabeth's "Imperiall Monarchy". Anyway, this topic, while fascinating, is really out of place at this Talk page, but the point is that there is a relationship between use of "British Isles", since it came about in the middle of his arguments for British expansion. RA raises an interesting point below about why the use of "British Isles" at this point - that I believe is related to Dee's arguments to claim the rights to the sea based on the shores of "Britain". --HighKing (talk) 13:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

"But it is fair to say that the term was first written in the English language by John Dee..." The earliest known written use in the English language is with Dee. There's a difference.

Maybe it is worthwhile mentioning the book by name but we need to be careful not to tread on a synthesis here. Arte Navigation may have set forward an imperial vision but that does not mean that every word that appears inside it does.

TBH - I'd be more concerned with the jump between use the term Brittania, etc. by the by the ancient Greeks and Romans to refer to a group of islands and use of Brytish Iles by Dee to refer to the (same or similar-ish) group. There's a good 1,000-1,5000 years in the difference during which a very important etymological jump took place: Britain ceased to refer to a archipelago and came to refer to just one of the islands in group (known before then as Albion). Thus for a millennium to a millennium-and-a-half, there were no "islands of Britain" (plural) but only an "island of Britain" (singular). Important too is to point out that the Greek and Roman use is genitive not adjective, so "islands of Britain" (or "Britain Isles") not "British Isles". That's is a crucial change in meaning, particularly after the "Britain" itself changed in meaning. --RA (talk) 12:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

cognates

The sentence In this sense, ancient Greek and Roman writers used cognates of Britain to refer to the archipelago as a whole, rather than to any one island in the group. is an awkward round-about way of saying that "Britain" is derived from "Britannia". I had to look up "cognates". It doesn't make sense in the middle of the first paragraph dealing with ancient Latin and Greek terms either, especially when the second paragraph largely makes the same point. --HighKing (talk) 16:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I find the wording a bit confusing as well. Is this what the sources say? Wiki-Ed (talk) 18:10, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

One should be careful here not to confuse "cognates" with "loanwords". --MacTire02 (talk) 18:26, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

It's all pretty complicated stuff and I suspect well above the level of the "average" visitor, but then, there is no harm in sometimes having more sophisticated material. I am reluctant to have it changed before understanding precisely what it means in context myself. :) I think it may be quite an important point to do with what the term meant in ancient times and so is that why you need it changing HK? I suspect if it's changed it waters down the argument that various ancient terms applied to all of the islands, is that it? Just asking. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Fantastic cutting remark - I'm not impressed. So you've decided that I'm trying to what? Water down an argument? What argument? --HighKing (talk) 00:45, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Going by HighKings edit history, i'm highly dubious of his intentions here and agree with the last point made by Jamesinderbyshire. Personally i think there is no need for change:

The second paragraph does not as KighKing claims, well as far as i see looking at it, make the same points as the first paragraph. The second paragraph concerns individual islands and not the collective group as the first paragraph does - so that arguement is flawed.

Also to me the sentence does make sense, cognate means words of common etymological origin, thats how Wikipedia even puts its meaning, and they do share a common origin. Mabuska ^(talk) 19:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Going by HighKings edit history? Please take a read of WP:AGF, and produce here what exactly you mean by "edit history" here. And what point exactly does the first paragraph make that isn't made in the second? --HighKing (talk) 00:45, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

When it comes to this article, I'd be far, far more concerned with your British loyalist "edit history", User:Mabuska. 86.41.3.13 (talk) 21:22, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

What "British loyalist" edit history? Check through my edit history and you'll see that definately isn't true, or was it meant to be sarcasm? Mabuska ^(talk) 08:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I too would be concerned about potential changes, if wording is changed to make it easier to understand, the general point the sentences are making must not be lost. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:01, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

And those points are exactly? --HighKing (talk) 00:45, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

What exactly does the first paragraph say thats the same as the second paragraph HighKing? I see one paragraph on about the group of islands as a whole and the other paragraph about individual islands. On your edit-history, this appears like a spin-off from your attempts to remove the term BI from anything that might hint that Ireland is a part of it or the term covers it - that is why i believe your reasons for this whole topic is suspect - and rightly so. Mabuska ^(talk) 08:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The first paragraph is chronologically tracing the history and terminology of the archipelago. The second paragraph introduces the names of the individual islands. Fine, we all accept that. So what point exactly is being made with the using cognates of Britain to refer to the archipelago? It's simply a complicated way of simply stating that today's term "Britain" is derived from the Latin "Brittania". And please explain exactly how this is related to removing the term BI since the sentence doesn't even contain the term. Not only are you are taking paranoia to new levels, but you're in danger of believing the lies spread by the many hardcore disruptive editors here. If you can point out anywhere that I've stated or even hinted that Ireland isn't part of the British Isles, please do so. And when you've failed in that exercise, perhaps you'll learn to think for yourself. --HighKing (talk) 13:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

That it was not the British who first grouped the islands together giving them a name connected to the name of the largest island. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:29, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Afterall if the term didn't stretch beyond the main island of Great Britain, there'd be no need for the "Great" bit to be in the term "Great Britain" at all. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Since RA introduced this sentence here (and reverted my revert here), and since people agree that it is largely unintelligible, as per BRD I've removed the sentence. I believe the point can be made in simple English. --HighKing (talk) 13:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

So what simple english are we replacing it with. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:06, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Let's discuss below. I'd also like to hear from RA as to what he was trying to say exactly... --HighKing (talk) 14:33, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Also of interest to this discussion is Britain (name). --HighKing (talk) 14:04, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Britain was a name for the archipelago???

I changed After this, Britain became the more common-place name for the island we call Great Britain rather than for the archipelago as a whole. to drop the "archipelago as a whole" since this is incorrect as was just added by RA, as per WP:BRD. "Britain" was never known as a name for all the islands. I was reverted with the comment The above paragraph discusses this. It works chronologically. No discussion was opened. It is not discussed in the previous paragraph, and it is factually incorrect. My understanding was that this article is under a "don't revert a revert" ruling, which has been breached. There was no consensus for RA's changes. If we're going to start playing silly buggers, lets simply revert all of RA's changes and revert to the old system of discussing each potential change made until consensus. --HighKing (talk) 01:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Apologies, I did not know that the edit you made was a revert. RA's addition [1] claims that it was there before, and was removed, and he replaced it, so I'm assuming that insertion by him was also a revert. Quoting from the previous paragraph in that section, " In this sense, ancient Greek and Roman writers used cognates of Britain to refer to the archipelago as a whole, rather than to any one island in the group...The shift from the "P" of Pretannia to the "B" of Britannia by the Romans occurred during the time of Julius Caesar", so it is discussed there. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 01:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

That isn't the piece you reverted - that edit is being discussed in above in the preceding section, and your assumption is incorrect. [This edit by RA (as an IP) inserted the text and I reverted one part of it. You're also incorrect stating that the previous sentence discusses it. It makes a strangely incomprehensible sentence structure to state that "Britain" shares a similar lineage or root with other words which were used to describe the archipelago. Or in other words, "Britain" is derived from "Britannia". It does not say that "Britain" was a common-place name for the archipelago. --HighKing (talk) 01:32, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

What proof do you have HighKing that the term "Britain" never covered the archipelago? Mabuska ^(talk) 09:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it's the other way around. What proof is there that "Britain" ever covered the archipelago? I don't recall seeing this in the sources. We have to be careful how we explain this - I thought the existing text was fine. Wiki-Ed (talk) 09:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Im more confused with the text now than i was before. "In this sense, ancient Greek and Roman writers used cognates of Britain to refer to the archipelago as a whole, rather than to any one island in the group." is very very different to saying the archipelago was called Britain. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

This is some new special meaning of "name" that we are unfamiliar with is it BW? --Snowded ^TALK 09:33, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I dont understand your comment either.. but i have just woken up lol. Ive not seen anything that says Britain was the name of the archipelago, the Greeks and Romans using cognates of Britain (if i understand the word correctly from the wiki article) is completely different. The sentence needs to be changed back. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

If people refer to a group of islands Pretannia/Britannia then surely that is a name? --Snowded ^TALK 09:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I have to say I'm fairly lost now! I am going to lie down in a darkened room for a while. On my return, I will carefully deconstruct the various statements and attempt a logical analysis of what they mean in an attempt to see what's going on here. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes but my concern was it currently reads like "Britain" was used as a name for the archipelago, which ive not seen said before and is different from saying "used cognates of Britain ".. However i depend on wikipedia for my information so maybe it was. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Re your edit summary, I hope you are not implying that BW is in any way a Class M-3 Model B9 entity or that suspended animation tubes should be used for some of the editors here? --Snowded ^TALK 09:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Glad I'm not the only one around here who likes tacky sci-fi. On that note, I have to go spend some time with my Sylvester McCoy DVDs now. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:07, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

God, it's all about British Isles today! I've got a few refs for this and the above. Mark what you think needs reffing with {{cn}}, HK, and I'll put them in this evening. --RA (talk) 13:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh - the first sentence does mean (or want meant to mean) that to the ancient Greeks and Romans, Britain (and it equivalent in other languages) referred to the archipelago. I've merged these two discussions since they are about the same thing. I'll add refs tonight. --RA (talk) 13:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Let's just start by trying to understand what point you're trying to make or what facts you're trying to get across. Once we know what you're trying to say, we can deal with references. --HighKing (talk) 14:33, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The fact that was being brought across was that Britain (in its various languages) moved from a term for the whole archipelago (discussed in paragraph 1) to just the one island. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I read the point as meaning - Greeks and Roman writers had grouped the islands together and called it a name connected with the name they used for the largest island. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:30, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not George Burns, but yes, BI has become an intense topic again. 'Tis gottta be a September thing. GoodDay (talk) 13:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, at least its a break from the long scrolling involved in BISE! Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I read the use of cognate to mean words that derive from the same origin - not that they are the same in meaning. Mabuska ^(talk) 15:50, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Urgh. I motion to restore this article to the pre RA/HK edits and then figure out what the sources say before editing more. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Cognate vs. loanword

Please be careful when using "cognates" vs. "loanwords". In this article we see Britain, Britannia, Pretania being mentioned as cognates. Britain, Britannia, Pretania, etc. are not cognates. They are loanwords taken from a single source and adapted to fit their new host language, be it English, Latin, Greek, etc. English "four" and Russian "четыре" (chetyre) are examples of cognates, having evolved separately from each other but ultimately having a single root deep in the linguistic past. Another difference is that loanwords can only be borrowed from one language into another, whereas cognates can exist in the same language: for example English leach, leak and lake are all cognates with a common root in the PIE *leg'-. --MacTire02 (talk) 07:44, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The essence of what I want to get across is that, in the eariest records, words related to "Britain" (what I am calling cognates) referred to the archipelago. Later, around 325 BC when fresh contact was made with the inhabitants of these islands, words related to "Britain" came to refer to the larger island (which was previously been known by words related to "Albion"). However (rightly or wrongly), it remained the habit of classical writers to refer to the entire archipelago by words similar to "Britannic" or the "Britannias" even after this fact. I think it is worth noting too that over time the word "Britain" would shift in meaning again. During the Roman occupation it would take on imperialist tones and later again it would refer to the Kingdom of Great Britain and the United Kingdom, which again is not the same shape as either either the island previously known as Albion or the archipelago.

Going through these not only shows how these islands came to be called "Britannic" but shows the complexity of the word "Britain".

The sentences, I added (last night) were:

In the earliest known uses, ancient Greek and Roman writers used cognates of Britain to refer to the archipelago as a whole, rather than to any one island in the group.

List of refs 1

• Lillie Craik, George (1846), The Pictorial History of England: Being a History of the People as well as a History of the Kingdom, vol. Volume 2, London: Charles Knight and Co., p. 21, Albin, or Albion, appears to have been anciently the name of the whole island of Great Britain, and that by which it was first known to the Greeks and Romans. The writer of the geographic treatise ascribed to Aristotle, to which we have referred in a former page, says that the two British islands were called Albion and Ierne. Pliny intimates that, the whole group of islands being called Britannia, the former name of that then called Britannia was Albion. {{citation}}: |volume= has extra text (help)
• Milner, Thomas (1853), The History of England: From the Invasions of Julius Caesar to the Year AD 1852, London: The Religious Tract Society, p. 5, The most ancient name of the largest island, Albion, is interpreted to mean in Celtic the "fair or white island", alluding to the appearance of the chalk cliffs, which from the coast where the nearest approach is made to the continent; and Ierne, the name applied to the sister island, is supposed to be a relative designation, meaning the "western isle." The Romans dominated Albion Britannia, and included Ireland, the Monas, and every part of the archipelago, under the term, the Britannias. This name was no doubt derived from a word in use among the natives, but its origin and meaning are quite uncertain.
• Hughes, William; Maunder, Samuel (1860), The Treasury of Geography, Physical, Historical, Descriptive, and Political; Containing a Succinct Account of Every Country in the World, London: Longman, Green, Longman, and Roberts, p. 137, The first name by which the island was known to the Romans was Albion, a term which can be explained from the Gaelic, and which is still the only native name by which the island is known to the Gael of Scotland. The name by which the whole group of British Islands was known to the Romans was Britannia, which is also doubtless a Celtic term; afterwards Britannia was used as the name of the island now called Great Britain, of which Caledonia was the northern part.
• Island stories: Unravelling Britain, London: Verso, 1998, p. 45, ISBN 1-85984-965-2, To the classical geographers, as to Ptolemy in his AD 168 map, Britannia (sometimes rendered as Albion) was a portmanteau term for the archipelago of off-shore islands at the northernmost edge of Europe's trade routes. The Romans used it as a generic term for the provinces which they divided (around AD 197) into Britannia Superior and Britannia Inferior, later into Britannia Prima and Britannia Secunda. Roman Britain occasionally included parts of Scotland, but it never extended to the lands beyond the northern Firths. ... For Bede, Ireland was a completely separate country. His conception of Britain, writes Hunter Blaire, was a geographical one, of two large islands, Britannia and Hibernia, not four distinct counties, England, Wales and Scotland, Ireland. {{citation}}: |first1= missing |last1= (help); Text "Alison" ignored (help); Text "Light" ignored (help)</ref>

The name Albion appears to have fallen out of use among classical writers beginning around 325 BC, after which Britannia became the more common-place name for the island called Great Britain, rather than the archipelago as a whole. This was probably due as a result of contact between Greek travellers and natives of the island However, "it continued to be in the habit of writers, even long after this time, to treat Britain simply as one of a number of islands, to all of which they applied the adjective Britannic, or, according to their more accurate spelling, Bretannic." ... Great Britain and Britain would later come synonymous with the Kingdom of Great Britain and the United Kingdom.

List of refs 2

• Koch, John, Celtic culture: a Historical Encyclopedia, Santa Barbara, California, p. 38, ISBN 1-85109-440-7, Albion is the earliest attested name for the island of Britain. It is of Celtic derivation and was probably first learned by the Greeks c. 500 BC. According to Pliny's Natural History (4.16), written in the first century AD, Albion was already obsolete by that time. Britain is called insula Albionum (island of the Albiones) in the Ora Maritima of Avienus (112). The Ora Maritima is a relatively late Roman text, dating to the 4th century AD, but is likely to be based on a Greek itinerary of the western seaways 'Massaliote Periplus' ('The coastal itinerary of Massalia', modern Marseille) of the 6th or 5th century BC. … New terms for Britain based on the stem Prettan-/Brettan- began to replace the older name Albion at an early date, probably by c.325 BC, which is when Pythaes of Massalia is said to have sailed to and around Britain, according to the Greek historian Strabo (2.4.1, 2.5.8, &c.). Therefore, it has been concluded that Pytheas, during his voyage, heard the newer name that was to become Welsh Prydain, Latin Britannia, and Modern English Britain. … Albion survived as an archaic usage throughout classical literature (e.g. Pseudo-Aristotle, De Mundo 3). Albion is given as the former name of Britain in the Historia Ecclesiastica of Beda (I.I), a text of AD 731. {{citation}}: Text "ABC-CLIO" ignored (help)
• Rhys, John (1904), Celtic Britain, p. 200—203, The most ancient name known to have been given this island is that of Albion. It occurs in a treatise respecting the word, which used to be ascribed to Aristotle, but is now regarded as the work of a man who lived later. We then meet it after a long interval in the "Natural History" written by Pliny, who died in the year 79; and he only remarks that Albion was the name given this country when all the islands of our group were called Britanniae; but it continued to be in the habit of writers, even long after this time, to treat Britain simply as one of a number of islands, to all of which they applied the adjective Britannic, or, according to their more accurate spelling, Bretannic. … Even in the time of Pliny, Albion, as the name of the island, had fallen out of use with Latin authors; but not so with the Greeks, or with the Celts themselves, at any rate those of the Goidelic branch; for they are probably right who suppose that we have but the same word in Irish and Scotch Gaelic Alba, genitive Alban, the kingdom of Alban or Scotland beyond the Forth.
• Rhys, John (1904), Celtic Britain, p. 200—203, The most ancient name known to have been given this island is that of Albion. It occurs in a treatise respecting the word, which used to be ascribed to Aristotle, but is now regarded as the work of a man who lived later. We then meet it after a long interval in the "Natural History" written by Pliny, who died in the year 79; and he only remarks that Albion was the name given this country when all the islands of our group were called Britanniae; but continued to be in the habit of writers, even long after this time, to treat Britain simply as one of a number of islands, to all of which they applied the adjective Britannic, or, according to their more accurate spelling, Britannic. … Even in the time of Pliny, Albion, as the name of the island, had fallen out of use with Latin authors; but not so with the Greeks, or with the Celts themselves, at any rate those of the Goidelic branch; for they are probably right who suppose that we have but the same word in Irish and Scotch Gaelic Alba, genitive Alban, the kingdom of Alban or Scotland beyond the Forth.

--RA (talk) 09:13, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for providing the sources. However, while I'm not overly familiar with the historiography of this period, are some of the sources a bit dated now? Also they're saying "Albion" is the most ancient term, but only one of them (Koch) says it dates back as far as the Massaliote Periplus (6th century), which is where "Priteni" came from (apparently). I still think we need to be quite careful about being too specific here - the sources are speculative and, bearing in mind what Mactire said, we're talking about a word being loaned around quite a lot (from Celtic to Greek to Roman to English), with the meaning changing at various points in time. Are the sources reliable enough to chart the derivations and developments this accurately? Wiki-Ed (talk) 11:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

That's all fine RA but the fact remains the word cognate should not be used in this sense. It is inaccurate and misleading. To use the word cognate suggests the word "Pretannic" or some variation thereof existed in Greek or Latin or whatever prior to those societies ever knowing about the British Isles. Instead they adopted/borrowed the word (probably from the local inhabitants) and adapted it to suit their own linguistic structure. I am not arguing about who named what or how long "Britannic" or whatever variation has been in existence or by whom. I am simply stating that the word "cognate" needs to be changed to a word that accurately reflects what we are trying to say instead of misleading the reader. --MacTire02 (talk) 11:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Why not simply trace the term through history? It's far easier to understand...

Πρεττανικη (Prettanike) (Greek) <- Prettania (Latin) <- Brettania (Roman) Prettanic Isles (Greek) <- ???? <- Brytish Iles -> British Isles

There's probably a discussion or two around what is contained in the ???? section. --HighKing (talk) 11:38, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Or am I missing the point - and that the term can't be "derived" from one language to another (which is the point about "loanwords"? --HighKing (talk) 11:39, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

HighKing's proposal is interesting, and may prove a better way to write the section. I have another ???? though, which is the term for the largest island in the group.

Albion -> ???? ->Britain/Great Britain

When did the term for the isles move to the term for the island. Of course, the etymology for that doesn't need to go into long detail on this page, more for the Great Britain page. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

@Wiki-Ed - I don't know if the age of the sources is too great of a problem. Even "newer" would probably be based on older sources anyway. I also disagree that the sources are speculative. I don't see where they speculate too greatly (and they say when they do). You are right though in that we're talking about a word that is being bounced around between different languages and people. That needs to be cleared up. And that certainly would affect "precision" since we are talking about different people, in different places, at different times.

@MacTire - Sure. That was down to a misunderstanding of the word cognate on my part. I thought it meant having a common ancestry regardless of whether that was through a load word or how ever. It is "'Britannic' or whatever variation" that I want to say.

The main point, which is consistent between sources, is that this word (in various languages) drifts in meaning in classical writing from being an archipelago to being an island (and then changes again). But even after changing in meaning to referring to only one island, it remained a "habit" of classical writers to use it to refer to the archipelago in one sense or another. --RA (talk) 12:13, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

HighKing the ???? is answered easily. British is a word derived from Anglo-Saxon for Briton. Briton and Britannia are related in origin are they not? -ish which derives from -isc is an Anglo-Saxon suffix, just -annia is a Roman suffix. Mabuska ^(talk) 23:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if "Briton" fits in here - was that a term for the people, and not the island or archipelago? Did the archipelago get called anything between the time the Romans left, and John Dee? Do we also want to include other names for the archipelago? For example, Oceani Insulae (Saint Columba) and Insularum (Bede)? That would make the timeline look like:

Πρεττανικη (Prettanike) (Greek) <- Prettania (Latin) <- Brettania (Roman) Prettanic Isles (Greek) - (Oceani Insulae) - (Insularum) - Brytish Iles -> British Isles

I believe this is an easier way to highlight the derivation. --HighKing (talk) 18:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

It depends on what we are trying to say. Are we talking about the history of the names for these islands, or are we talking about the derivation of the words British Isles? If we use your timeline above then we are talking about the history of the names for these islands. If we want to talk about the derivation of the name British Isles then the above timeline doesn't work, as neither Oceani Insulae nor Insularum are part of that derivation. --MacTire02 (talk) 18:32, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Be careful HighKing those examples you gave back up claims that the ancients had one name for all the islands that we now know as the British Isles. The words Prettanike/Prettania/Bretannia/Pretannic/Briton/Britain/Brython/Brytisc/Breton/British are all terms that derive from a common ancestor - just some belong to different languages. There is no point in trying to form a timeline as various terms where no doubt used at the same time, especially as Latin was still used for a long time. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:14, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

But I'm certainly not arguing that there wasn't one term used at various periods in time for a group of islands including Great Britain and Ireland. I've also no doubt that various terms stemming from "Prettania - Brittania - etc" were at some point used as a collective noun. Although I doubt if the Channel Islands were included back in those days. I'm also not trying to somehow remove this from the article - I'm simply trying to explain it without having to refer to a dictionary to understand what point is being made, and since we've started tracing the various names used, I believe it's actually very useful especially in a timeline. I'm not sure the relevance of "different languages". I think it's relevant - I'm just not sure how relevant. For example, since the Greeks were the first to describe the islands, followed by the Romans, and since Latin was the language of scholars, I don't think we're straying to far to include those. Some scholars say the original "Prettania" term was derived from an older Celtic term, but I don't see any reference as to what that might be. There does appear to be a period of time where an overlap occurs, and there are a number of terms in different languages - not sure how to represent those properly or in context. Ideas welcome. --HighKing (talk) 00:11, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Highking - Priteni is the Celtic origin word referred to in this article. There's quite an amusing passage in Davies' The Isles where he suggests that the Greek explorers must have met with P-Celtic speakers: Q-Celtic would have provided a different name and subsequent transpositions could have led to "Cruts" instead of "Brits". :-) Wiki-Ed (talk) 15:51, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Cognate is hardly that obscure a word that its difficult to guess what it means. If a reader mightn't understand a term wikilink it to its Wikipedia article or Wikitonary article would do. The Channel Islands where probably not seeing as they where off the coast of Gaul, however looking at old Greek and Roman maps - you can never be sure where anywhere was at or what was included with what. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:35, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Cognate is certainly not an obscure word. But it is, however, one that is too often used in the wrong context. By using the word "cognate" in the original statement above we were misleading the reader. Not everyone who reads this article will click on every blue link to find the accurate meaning behind every word. Therefore we should try and reduce confusion as much as is possible. By leaving the word "cognate" in, as was originally proposed, would also lead those who do know what the word means (but who have no knowledge of the British Isles or its etymology) to conclude there was some original word in PIE from which the various other "translations" stemmed independently, which is not the case here. Whatever the original word was (which is not known for certainty), the Greek and Roman writers of the time simply translated or borrowed the word into their own vernaculars. This is a totally different linguistic phenomenon. To use an analogy, it would be like saying English "beef" and French "boeuf" are cognates - this is not the case, as the English word "beef" was directly borrowed from Norman French - there was no independent development of some root-word in the distant linguistic past that developed into English "beef", while at the same time developed into French "boeuf". --MacTire02 (talk) 11:52, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

What do you think might be a better phrasing, or a good way to represent the information? --HighKing (talk) 14:01, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Since we don't really seem to be arguing over the meat of the change, what is the right word that I was looking for? --RA (talk) 16:54, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

True, the information is good. What do you think of a timeline approach? I like that idea myself. --HighKing (talk) 17:56, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not anti it. The problem I see is that trying to get precise dates (if they even exist). Then there's the issue that different languages would likely have been using different terms at different times. I don't think it's possible and the ??? in your sketch is probably going to be very contentious, if the last time it was discussed (about three years ago) is anything to go by. --RA (talk) 18:09, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I think we have to generalise in the same way as the sources - the authors are confident that there is a timeline, but they are vague about the when and the why of it. (Also, to some extent as shown by the variety of alternative forms, they're not 100% sure about the exact names.) Wiki-Ed (talk) 23:48, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

It'd be impossible to prove when the first spoken instance of a term occurred. It'd be next to impossible to prove when the first written instance of a term occurred as not all literature and documents survive the passage of time. We may have the earliest references, but that doesn't mean that the term started with them. Mabuska ^(talk) 13:12, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

British Isles Meitheal

I posted the following to a handful of Wikiprojects. If anyone can think of more places to advertise it then please let that place know.

Obviously, much kudos to anyone already here that is willing to help out.

A while back the British Isles article underwent a peer review. Most of the suggestions coming out of it have been implemented and IMO the article is approaching GA standard. This is an article that had been dogged by POV issues and in-fighting amongst its editors so the achievement of getting it to the standard it is in admirable for all involved. However, one major sticking point is referencing, which are appallingly sparse. There is no way the article could achieve GA as it stands on account of the state of referencing.

The task of fixing it up isn't impossible. There are about 30 paragraphs that need referencing. With enough editors, we would only need to take two or thee paragraphs each to get the job done. To that end, I've set up a "meitheal" page. The idea is for anyone who is willing to help out to take a paragraph at a time and to references just that paragraph. If you can do more than one then great. Just come back and take another one.

The meitheal page is here: Talk:British Isles/Meitheal. If you're willing to help out, just dig in.

--RA (talk) 17:38, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Ya may wanna make BI/M a sandbox. As an article, it'll get speedy deleted. GoodDay (talk) 17:48, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Doh! Just got word of a speedy. Talkifying... --RA (talk) 17:51, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Irish translation of "British Isles"

I just used an online gaelic translator which gave me Na hOileáin bhriontanacha for British Isles. This isn't listed in the info-box, where the only translations would seem to relate British Isles to "Islands of Europe" or "Ireland and Britain". Can someone who speaks gaelic please advise on this matter. LevenBoy (talk) 11:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

This has been discussed, the term used is not a direct translation, rather it is the actual term that the isles are known by. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:02, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

See Talk:British Isles/Archive 38. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:04, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I missed the debate. Having now skimmed it, it seems the current "translations" are nothing short of blatant lies. They do not reflect an actual translation but push the POV that Irish people use Britain and Ireland and not British Isles. LevenBoy (talk) 12:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

They're not translations. They're the names used in other languages. For example, the English Channel is not called the English Channel in French, but "La Manche". Similarly in Gaelic the islands are usually called one of the two options given. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:23, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

La Manche is a direct translation of English Channel, and vice versa (try it with something like BabelFish), but you're right, they are not translations; I gave the translation above. I bet the versions in Welsh, Scottish etc are translations though, so why isn't the Irish one? Anyone reading that info box would assume "translation", but POV is dictating that in the case of Irish gaelic they're getting something different - misinformation. LevenBoy (talk) 12:38, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

BabelFish is smart; Google not so much. Google offers "chaîne anglaise", the direct translation. TFOWR 12:43, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Heh! French to English is "Quixotic" (sorry!): La Mancha. TFOWR 12:45, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, a proposal - we include the actual translation instead of the others. LevenBoy (talk) 12:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be more appropriate to use the "native name" field of the infobox for native names. I believe it's more useful for the reader to learn what the British Isles are really called in various languages, rather than what a literal translation might be. TFOWR 12:57, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

La Manche (say I with my limited French knowledge ;) ) basically means the sleeve, so that's not really a translation of english channel. We don't want translations in that box, we want native names. Unless you want to start calling China "Middle Country" and other such things... Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:18, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

It is not POV by Irish speakers not to name these islands as na hOileáin Bhriotanacha. This term was coined by non-Irish speakers to "translate" the term "British Isles", where there already existed a perfectly good Irish translation. Remember, not every concept in English exists in every other language, and likewise, there are concepts in other languages that are not represented in English. I am from Ireland, and unlike most of the other Irish contributors on this page, I do use the term British Isles in English (just to qualify that sentence - I am constantly surrounded by other Irish people - one of the perks of living in Ireland I guess, and contrary to what you all may have been led to believe, not everyone in Ireland has abandoned the use of the term British Isles - in fact, not one of those I converse with uses any other term when speaking in English. When speaking in Irish, however, the situation changes, and all who can converse in Irish use the term Oileáin Iarthair Eorpa. But to emphasise, this is my own experience and not necessarily that of others). However, when I speak Irish I use the term Oileáin Iarthair Eorpa. This term is less confusing to speakers of Irish, as the term na hOileáin Bhriotanacha can be used to describe any British Isle. Hypothetically speaking, we could take an Irish speaker living in the Virgin Islands. This speaker could describe the British Virgin Islands, without referring to the Virgin part as that would already be implied, as na hOileáin Bhriotanacha in opposition to na hOileáin Mheiriceánacha (U.S. Virgin Islands). It was also noted above that the other "translations" do indeed translate the British Isles using their translations of "British" and "Isles" - not so I'm afraid. As a speaker of Manx I can assure you that the Manx term is not a direct translation. The Manx term ny h-Ellanyn Goaldagh (the hyphen is optional, but increasingly preferred in cases like this) actually translates as The Foreign/Gallic Isles, using the root word Goal (akin to Irish Gall c.f. Gaillimh, Dún na nGall, Galltacht, etc. and taken from the same root that gives us Gaul). The Manx word Goaldagh is now the preferred term for "British", but this has only occurred since the term ny h-Ellanyn Goaldagh came into being. The former word for British was Bretynagh or Bretnagh, with the former having since gone out of use, and the latter now used to mean "Welsh" exclusively. --MacTire02 (talk) 15:33, 22 September 2010(UTC)

I don't know about gaelic speakers, so maybe if there's no references, or even if there is, in the interest of fairness and NPOV those "translations" should be removed. LevenBoy (talk) 18:29, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Here's some interesting stuff (not rigorous I know, but interesting): Google counts come up with 6510 for "na hOileáin Bhriotanacha", 7616 for "Oileáin Iarthair Eorpa" and 7270 for "Éire agus an Bhreatain Mhór" of which the latter two will have far more Wikipedia sites and mirrors than the first. Maybe we should get rid of all of them - what thinks ye? LevenBoy (talk) 18:35, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Those translations should not be removed. To do so is do remove information. Those translations provide the reader with more information. Or are we going to strip down the entire Wikipedia of anything that may be construed as POV? Do we remove the Repubic of China article? Do we remove the Ulster article (after all there are those that consider that 9 counties in the north of the island of Ireland are Ulster, while there are those that consider Ulster as contiguous to, and including only, Northern Ireland). Do we remove translations in all articles? At the end of the day consensus was reached on the inclusion of the translations in the infobox, but restricted to those languages with official status (which is why we do not see Jèrriais, Guernésiais, Sercquiais, Shelta, and Cornish are not represented). References have also been supplied regarding the translations (except for the French and Welsh translations). Regarding Google searches - I would be very wary of those. A search of "na hOileáin Bhriotanacha" also includes links to "Oileáin Bhriotanacha na Maighdean", otherwise known as the British Virgin Islands in English. "Oileáin Bhriotanacha" shows 6,570 results on my last check (21:29) whereas "oileáin bhriotanacha -maighdean" shows only 2,210 results (21:30). These results also appear to change daily, and may or may not include mirror sites, or blogs where the terms may be discussed on several pages, thereby yielding more results.--MacTire02 (talk) 20:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Isn't it funny that LB only concentrates on the Irish translation and not the French/Scots/etc...? I have no problems with any of the language names for the islands. If these languages use a direct translation then we use that otherwise we use the name the language uses.

Quite. It appears the language in question does use the direct translation, but it's just not listed here. So a compromise; we list the direct translation as well as the other three - unless someone can come up with evidence to invalidate it, and I've not seen anything yet. LevenBoy (talk) 21:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

But the "direct translation" does not mean "these" British Isles exclusively. It means ANY British Isles as long as they are under the control of Britain, including islands in the Indian Ocean, the Atlantic Ocean, as well as our islands here in Europe. Putting that in the infobox is misleading as native speakers do not use it, it has NO official status, and is very disambiguous at best. We can not simply ignore aspects of other cultures simply to satisfy another culture. That is blatantly wrong (and in my mind smacks of "we will do it our way because we are superior to you"). If we are going to go down this route are we going to insert under the French heading "Les Isles de Grande-Bretagne"? How about "Les Isles de Grande-Bretagne et d'Irlande", or "Les Isles de la Royaume-Uni et de République d'Irlande"? How can we know for certain they are not used? The fact is that "na hOileáin Bhriotanacha" is the translation for "the British Isles", but not as a toponym which is what that section is reserved for. --MacTire02 (talk) 21:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Not this again... whilst i prefer a direct translation, the infobox states "native names". If a native name is not a direct translation of British Isles then so be it. Mabuska ^(talk) 21:57, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

So we have two "native names" but the third, direct translation isn't a native name, but according to MacTire it means ANY islands owned by Britain. lol! All the points he raises above seem to be carefully crafted to ensure there's no reference to "British" in the terms used - like NO official status, for example. LevenBoy (talk) 22:29, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

The direct translation is not a native name. It's a direct translation. MacTire is probably correct (I can't personally verify), and there is really no point continuing this. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 23:38, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

LevenBoy, I think it might be best if you leave this particular conversation. My points are not "carefully crafted to ensure no reference to British". You obviously have no interest in, or knowledge of, the Irish language, and your opinion on it should therefore be ignored. You obviously have not read what I have written before on this topic. Yes I am from the Republic of Ireland, but I do NOT describe myself as an Irish nationalist. I am a great admirer of the United Kingdom and I have a great interest in the Scots language of both Scotland and Ulster, as well as the various unionist traditions and customs. I am also interested in the other minority languages of the British Isles, having been raised through Irish. When speaking English, I ALWAYS use the term "British Isles". When speaking Irish I always use the term "Oileáin Iarthair Eorpa" or "Éire agus an Bhreatain Mhór", depending on context, but never "na hOileáin Bhriotanacha". Using an incorrect translation is just wrong. Plain and simple. There's nothing political in that. Or maybe you perceive every linguistic difference as political? Do you view the French naming of the English Channel as La Manche as an affront to your British identity? Perhaps you also view the Latin Mare Germanicum as insulting - after all there's nothing purely German about the North Sea - Britain, Denmark and Norway also share that large body of water. Perhaps some people would be insulted by the Manx name for the Atlantic Ocean (y Keayn Sheear or the "Western Ocean") - what's Western about it? It's south of Greenland, east of Canada and the USA, south of Nigeria, north of Guyana, etc. Yet the Manx still call it the "Western Ocean" in their vernacular. Each language has its own peculiarities. In the case of Irish, the lack of a direct translation being used for the British Isles as a native name just so happens to be one of them, the reasons for which I have already discussed on the talk pages to this article - perhaps you should check out those reasons. Again I will say this: I couldn't care less about politics. --MacTire02 (talk) 08:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)