 | Software: Computing Unassessed | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
the following three archives contain information on the current debate
Note to all users
Note to all users - This is a talk page for the British Isles article. When using this page please remember Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. In paticular, a number of users have broken the following two guidelines on this page in the past; please make sure that you understand them:
- Talk pages are not for general chatter; please keep discussions on talk pages on the topic of how to improve the associated article.
- Talk pages are also not strictly a forum to argue different points of view about controversial issues. They are a forum to discuss how different points of view should be included in the article so that the end result is neutral
--Robdurbar 12:23, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
History
Having promised, I've now put rather more effort than intended into an outline of the shared history of the islands to replace the two existing sections. It should be noted that all the links in the History section are now included in the template boxes and italic top line, and that the new section also supersedes the Political history section which wandered excessively into national histories without clearly covering shared points. While constructive improvements will be welcome, any major changes or comments should be raised here first, and unexplained blanket reversions without discussion and consensus will be treated as vandalism. It's longer than I'd hoped, but in my opinion gives a necessary overview. If the priority is felt to be keeping this article short, the section could readily form the basis of a main article on the History of the British Isles with brief headings only on this page. Checking points has taken a fair bit of effort, and citations have been added for items most likely to be questioned: further citations can be added if required. ...dave souza, talk 18:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC) italicised amendment...dave souza, talk 19:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- I'm very tempted to respond in terms of how treating "blanket reversions [...] as vandalism" will itself be treated. Blanket reversions, however undesirable, are not vandalism (well, unless one happens to be deliberately reverting to a vandalised version), and please do not describe them as such, or treat them as such, either in prospect or in practice. A desire to avoid an edit war is all very commendable, but this is being needlessly confrontational about it (if not actually more likely to cause it), and indeed smacks of WP:OWN. Alai 18:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- OK, I don't think that's what dave meant; he was probably just hoping that this change would only be reverted after community discussion, rather than just out of hand. It's just an unfortunate turn of phrase I think. Let's discuss the content here; that is what everyone wants. --Robdurbar 18:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- My main comment would be that recent history needs expanding - a pragraph about 'the troubles' would be good. I'm no historian so as a section I can't really comment that much, but it does look very sparsely cited. --Robdurbar 18:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- I'm absolutely not suggesting it's what he meant; I just think it's (as you say) an unfortunate turn of phrase, that might have an (unintended) deleterious effect. I've no strong feelings on the content of the History section. What to include here is very much a judgement call: on the one hand it could be greatly reduced in size, to essentially just pointers to component articles; equally, it could be greatly expanded and possibly spun out in the way Dave mentions. I'll go with the flow either way. Alai 18:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- Anything in particular you see which needs a cite? Eventually we'll have a page like this for the article: Talk:Isaac Newton/Facts, but things are a bit fluent right now.EricR 21:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- My main comment would be that recent history needs expanding - a pragraph about 'the troubles' would be good. I'm no historian so as a section I can't really comment that much, but it does look very sparsely cited. --Robdurbar 18:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- OK, I don't think that's what dave meant; he was probably just hoping that this change would only be reverted after community discussion, rather than just out of hand. It's just an unfortunate turn of phrase I think. Let's discuss the content here; that is what everyone wants. --Robdurbar 18:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- Fair enough, I'm a bit tired and have seen too many unexplained reversions here to be happy about that happening to work put into the article, but welcome discussion, and if anyone wants to go back to the previous situation, that can be raised here. There's a sentence about the troubles now when there was no mention of it before: since that links to five other articles it seems enough to me, but opinions welcome. I'd just add that doing this has brought home how hard it can be to get an overview from nation based articles, and highlighted one or two areas where one nation has good coverage but more detail is needed for another. ...dave souza, talk 19:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- I still have issues with the "vandalism" characterisation, which implies to me "reverting back with admin rollback, or with summary "rvv", ignoring the 3RR in making such reversion, reporting to WP:VIP", and such like, which would not be appropriate. I think you're looking for a sentiment more along the lines of "anyone blanket reverting is being rude, ignoring all Dave's hard work, winding us all up (further), and generally being a complete muppet" -- that I'd fully endorse. :) Alai 19:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- I commend your work if it leads to a better article. To write a shared history of the islands is actually an exercise in 'point of view' in itself. There are a lot of bad parts left out. And how about the un-shared history, is that to be omitted? Needs to be examined very closely. Maybe they should be named The Paradise Islands! -MelForbes 19:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- Trust you've noted that the sharing includes massacres, brutality and famine. Paradise? ..dave souza, talk 19:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- Going into historical headings, could cause this article to expand exponentially, with editors adding sub-headings ad nauseum Also the BI is not supposed to be political, but advancing toward a broader history destroys that myth, and in reality the BI (as regarding Ireland) became de facto defunct in 1922. But we have gone through all of this before, Just see problems ahead. -MelForbes
- The synthesis of history is well done (especially 16th-17thcc.), but may be out of place. I've suggested a few times that the history section be reduced to links (like History of Britain) - these links are now contained in a box. But then again, the term BI is essentially political. Hmmm.--Shtove 20:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- Going into historical headings, could cause this article to expand exponentially, with editors adding sub-headings ad nauseum Also the BI is not supposed to be political, but advancing toward a broader history destroys that myth, and in reality the BI (as regarding Ireland) became de facto defunct in 1922. But we have gone through all of this before, Just see problems ahead. -MelForbes
- I still have issues with the "vandalism" characterisation, which implies to me "reverting back with admin rollback, or with summary "rvv", ignoring the 3RR in making such reversion, reporting to WP:VIP", and such like, which would not be appropriate. I think you're looking for a sentiment more along the lines of "anyone blanket reverting is being rude, ignoring all Dave's hard work, winding us all up (further), and generally being a complete muppet" -- that I'd fully endorse. :) Alai 19:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- There are some critics of what MelForbes is calling shared history—and there seems to be a bit of interest here on the talk page. The approach focuses on political rather than social history, views events as they fit the outline of English history, and forces an unnatural unit of study—giving undue weight to connections among the four nations and less than due those to the continent. It seems ridiculous to apply those critisism here. The simple response is to point out the amount of space allocated, or just {{sofixit}}.
- The other objection, and i think what MelForbes means by POV in itself is that it's an attempt to assert "the unity of a past that has been rejected at the political level" and "The rejection of the British state by a majority of the Irish makes the notion of a single narrative history of the British Isles particularly problematic." (Lambert 2004, p. 222) This also seems a bit overblown when applied to a wiki section, but i think you did come down squarely on one side of the debate in your historiographic introduction. Maybe this could be expanded a bit to introduce the old Whig histories and pose shared vs. comparative and national as an open question? Or would this just be a distraction?
- Anyway, good work, a big improvement to the article.EricR 21:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- Obivously, suggesting that there is a shared history will always be controversial as it will be seen by some as the first road down a route to suggesting that there should be a shared present. I think this page could develop well in the history section as a chronicalisation of British-Irish relations over times; as DS points out, national articles are often limited on such topics. I like the fact that the section has been summarised into one, from two, bits. --Robdurbar 21:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments: just a note to say that it's probably my background, but I find it difficult to visualise how histories are to be kept separate. Does Cromwell suddenly appear in Ireland with no mention of the Covenanters or the English civil war? To me it's annoying when English history downplays or ignores the Scottish dimension, and rather infuriating when it's claimed to be British history and does that. In researching for this some things surprised me, like Henry VIII making Ireland a kingdom because of his shift to Protestantism and falling out with the Pope. To me this is an opportunity to get each nation's history across to others, not an imposed conformity or hiding from uncomfortable truths. Thanks to all who are finding ways to improve this section, ...dave souza, talk 22:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand how anyone can deny that there is a shared history. The nature of this shared history is, I suppose, disputed (although probably most English people would not deny that Ireland was treated pretty shittily), but it's simply a fact that there's a lot of common history. It seems to me that it's worth having a discussion of this here, as there's no obvious place to do it. It's useful to have a place where, for instance, we can talk about the Viking invasions as they affected both islands, the Norman presence in all four nations and the similarities and difference among their involvement in each place, the complex relations among the three kingdoms in the 1640s, the influence of the growth of Irish nationalism on politics in Westminster in the 19th century, and so forth. john k 23:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
"Shared History?"
'Shared history of the islands'. Oh please, please spare us that patronising shite. I mean- for the love of God. "Sharing"? We shared the dispossession, eviction, suffering, institutionalised sectarianism, obliteration of our traditions and culture (...táim ag scriobh i mBéarla anseo....) - with ourselves. Meanwhile, your crowd, the always apolitical British whose names for where we live possess no political connotations whatsoever, just tried to help us. No, nothing about the British state's presence in Ireland is political. Nope. Listen lads: You are insulting us. Not a single Paddy here accepts your apolitical potestations when you designate Ireland as part of your "British Isles". To be British was to be in power; to be Irish was to be without power. Words take on enormous meaning, and there is not a point in the wide earthly world in you denying this process. All of you have, to date, denied it. I can only assume it is willful. Everything- every single thing- about the term "British Isles" has to do with British colonial rule over us. Cut the crap. Our nations can get on great together- there are. obviously, innumerable positive connections between us- but not while you people persist in making claims over us. Give it up. Let us live together with respect for each other. For all that the Irish people have lost there remains, in their heart of hearts, a deep immovable moral sense of right and wrong about British-Irish relations. Modern political scientists might refer to it as "latent republicanism", but it goes much deeper than that. The British state, and the people who have supported their policies, have impulses over their neighbours that has a history of being frighteningly fanatic. This is the sort of issue that accentuates that history. El Gringo 18:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- Gringo - I'm guessing you're probably not from Tunbridge Wells, eh? Relax, man. Don't forget, the Brits have been nasty to plenty of other people - Scottish Highlanders, Welsh, Yorkshiremen after the Norman Conquest, West Country people after the Pilgrimage of Grace, English Catholics 1540-1800, Non-Conformists, Jews at various times, witches, poor people always, women, lepers etc. And thats without even mentioning slavery, the British Empire etc. So don't take it personally. And it could have been worse, you know - ask the Poles about the Germans or the Russians. I do hope in this century we can concentrate on looking forward, rather than back. Sometimes its healthy to forget. Try to remember that when most Brits use the phrase BI - in a geography project about regions of Europe where stout and porter are produced, say - they do it because it is the only term they know to describe the archipelago, and they haven't the least idea that Irish people find it offensive. As for British claims over Ireland, I rather imagine that if the UK government could by some miracle persuade the Unionists in NI to vote for a 32 county republic, the champagne would be flowing in rivers down Downing Street, and the last helicopter would lift off from Hillsborough Castle in a trice.
- Tell me, how does this section help progress the article in any way? How does it indicate the best way to make Wikipedia an encyclopedia? It doesn't. Let's not dragged into debates about Birtish/Irish history. If you feel that British atrocities warrent a mention in the article - then fine. I agreee with you, it could well be worth inclusion. --Robdurbar 21:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- A bit of historical trivia re the above anonymous contribution. In the mid to late 1970s panic broke out among the leaders of the Irish government, opposition and the SDLP when some headbangers on the far left of the British Labour Party began pushing for British withdrawal from Northern Ireland. Irish Nationalists called it the doomsday scenario. The believed that British withdrawal would result in the "balkanisation of the Isles". Loyalists would massacre Nationalists on the east of Northern Ireland (where Nationalists were in a minority). Republicans would massacre Unionists in the west (where Unionists were in a minority). Hundreds of thousands would have to flee their homes (Unionists fleeing to the east, Nationalists fleeing to the west) as ethnic cleansing (a term created later) swept the North. Nationalists in the south would end up rallying to defend Nationalists in the North. Loyalists in Scotland would rally to defend Unionists. The result, Irish politicians believed, would be a civil war that would engulf much of the island of Ireland and Scotland, turning both into local Lebanons. Irish policy was aimed to stop British withdrawal at all costs because having created the mess though centuries of mis-rule, the fear was that the British were aiming to cut and run, leaving the rest to pick up the pieces in the resulting civil war. In the view of the planners, luckily the niave dreamers like Tony Benn never got a chance to put their simplistic theories into practice. The irony is, and this is openly admitted by political leaders on both side, the British would love to be rid of Northern Ireland, but the Republic doesn't want it. The South couldn't afford the cost of it while Britain would so love to be free of the accursed place. One Sinn Fein leader joked privately (I heard him say it) that if Britain turned around in the morning and said 'We are leaving. It is all yours' his response would be two words: 'oh shit.' Because suddenly he (and the other parties) would have to take responsibility rather than blaming 'the Brits' for everything. FearÉIREANN
\(caint) 21:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- A bit of historical trivia re the above anonymous contribution. In the mid to late 1970s panic broke out among the leaders of the Irish government, opposition and the SDLP when some headbangers on the far left of the British Labour Party began pushing for British withdrawal from Northern Ireland. Irish Nationalists called it the doomsday scenario. The believed that British withdrawal would result in the "balkanisation of the Isles". Loyalists would massacre Nationalists on the east of Northern Ireland (where Nationalists were in a minority). Republicans would massacre Unionists in the west (where Unionists were in a minority). Hundreds of thousands would have to flee their homes (Unionists fleeing to the east, Nationalists fleeing to the west) as ethnic cleansing (a term created later) swept the North. Nationalists in the south would end up rallying to defend Nationalists in the North. Loyalists in Scotland would rally to defend Unionists. The result, Irish politicians believed, would be a civil war that would engulf much of the island of Ireland and Scotland, turning both into local Lebanons. Irish policy was aimed to stop British withdrawal at all costs because having created the mess though centuries of mis-rule, the fear was that the British were aiming to cut and run, leaving the rest to pick up the pieces in the resulting civil war. In the view of the planners, luckily the niave dreamers like Tony Benn never got a chance to put their simplistic theories into practice. The irony is, and this is openly admitted by political leaders on both side, the British would love to be rid of Northern Ireland, but the Republic doesn't want it. The South couldn't afford the cost of it while Britain would so love to be free of the accursed place. One Sinn Fein leader joked privately (I heard him say it) that if Britain turned around in the morning and said 'We are leaving. It is all yours' his response would be two words: 'oh shit.' Because suddenly he (and the other parties) would have to take responsibility rather than blaming 'the Brits' for everything. FearÉIREANN
- I'm brand new on Wikipedia and so I apologise in advance if this text doesn't appear quite right.
- El Gringo, it seems to me that you are rather over-reacting here. Firstly, if I understand you correctly, what you are saying is that you "can only assume it is willful" that other posters have denied that the term "British Isles" is political. But perhaps that's simply what they believe. Anyway, the main thing I wanted to reply to was when you say "but not while you people persist in making claims over us". Who is making claims over Ireland (Republic of)?! And then you say "have impulses over their neighbours that has a history of being frighteningly fanatic". Who on earth has fanatical impulses over Ireland?! "The British Isles" is simply a geographical term. Nobody in Britain/UK has any claims to Ireland! Finally, by all means, call "The British Isles" whatever you want, but don't start being silly by talking about "impulses over their neighbours" as soon as someone else mentions that, to them, the term "British Isles" includes both the island of Great Britain, and the island of Ireland. Ojcookies 01:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Normans v. English
The Normans conquered the English in 1066. How come, therefore, the English get the blame for the subsequent Norman invasions of Ireland and Wales? Because we lost at Hastings? TharkunColl 23:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- Afraid it's because you got Norman rulers who were remarkably good at assimilating into the local (high) society and started calling themselves English (or Scots, or whatever) by the time of these invasions. We got De Brus a bit later. ..dave souza, talk 23:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, that's right. I just wondered why the English have been so universally hated by the other nations of the British Isles, when in fact it was we who were conquered first. Yes, okay, I can accept hatred based on the idea that we proved unable to defend the islands against the French and therefore let all of you down, but that, I feel, is not why we are disliked. It makes no sense to me at all. TharkunColl 23:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- It is because, later, the English had an unfortunate habit of invading other people's countries and brutalising them. One practically universal experience Irish people have (and many Scots seem to have also) is going abroad and being treated with a rather disgusted "You are British?" comment. Once one has gotten over the "No. No. We are Irish" (usually having to throw in references to Riverdance, Mary Robinson, 1916 and a couple of other things for them to recognise where it is you are from) the smiles break out and people begin explaining their anti-British attitudes ("We hate the Breetish here too") and how any supposed enemy of Britain is a friend of their's. Trying to explain how in the post Good Friday Agreement era Britain and Ireland are all lovey-dovey, and that President McAleese thinks Queen Elizabeth a "dote" (Hiberno-English for a "really lovely person) just washes over them. More often than not, particularly in the middle east they will then say "Oh Michael Collins" and grin (he was a hero to the founders of Israel!). When they start saying "IRA" you then quickly decide to get out of there and look for the nearest British (or Breeeetish) person in a bar to sit to and chat about Coronation Street and Camilla Parker Bowles. FearÉIREANN \(caint) 23:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- It is because, later, the English had an unfortunate habit of invading other people's countries and brutalising them. One practically universal experience Irish people have (and many Scots seem to have also) is going abroad and being treated with a rather disgusted "You are British?" comment. Once one has gotten over the "No. No. We are Irish" (usually having to throw in references to Riverdance, Mary Robinson, 1916 and a couple of other things for them to recognise where it is you are from) the smiles break out and people begin explaining their anti-British attitudes ("We hate the Breetish here too") and how any supposed enemy of Britain is a friend of their's. Trying to explain how in the post Good Friday Agreement era Britain and Ireland are all lovey-dovey, and that President McAleese thinks Queen Elizabeth a "dote" (Hiberno-English for a "really lovely person) just washes over them. More often than not, particularly in the middle east they will then say "Oh Michael Collins" and grin (he was a hero to the founders of Israel!). When they start saying "IRA" you then quickly decide to get out of there and look for the nearest British (or Breeeetish) person in a bar to sit to and chat about Coronation Street and Camilla Parker Bowles. FearÉIREANN
- I don't think the English need to feel ashamed about the British Empire, any more than the Italians need to feel ashamed about the Roman Empire. Brutality certainly happened in both cases, but its perpetrators are all long dead, and for every dose of brutality their was an equal dose of spreading civilisation and prosperity (the instigators of which are all long dead as well). In short, empires happen, and are a fact of history. Taking a more long term view, they are usually considered a "good thing". TharkunColl 07:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- BTW the Queen Mother was once asked what did she think of the English. She responded "Oh we Scots don't like them much. But remember the Queen is only half English. She is also half-Scots." That was one lady with a great ability for tongue-in-cheek soundbites. FearÉIREANN \(caint) 23:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- BTW the Queen Mother was once asked what did she think of the English. She responded "Oh we Scots don't like them much. But remember the Queen is only half English. She is also half-Scots." That was one lady with a great ability for tongue-in-cheek soundbites. FearÉIREANN
I think that in Ireland at least, it is the later English presence, beginning in the late 16th century, rather than the Norman presence, which is mostly resented. The Old English mostly assimilated to Irish Gaelic culture. My understanding of Norman nobility in lowland Scotland is similar. Wales might be a more fair instance of Tharkun's complaint, but I don't know enough to say. john k 01:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- It shouldn't be forgotten that the sins of the British Empire are not something for which the English should take all the blame. A high proportion of colonial administrators and soldiers were Scottish or Irish, probably because the empire afforded them career opportunities that were denied to them at home. Don't forget where Wellington was born...--Stonemad GB 13:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- 'I don't think the English need to feel ashamed about the British Empire'. Of course they don't, TharkunColl. And neither, I'm sure you'll agree, do the Germans need to feel ashamed about the Third Reich. ? El Gringo 17:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- Are you comparing the British Empire to the Third Reich? The British Empire brought peace, prosperity and civilisation to vast tracts of the world, and gave birth to many modern countries such as the USA, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, etc. The British Empire created what we now call the global economy, and gave the world a single, unifying language. This is precisely the sort of things that historians praise when referring to historical empires. What did the Third Reich do for the world? TharkunColl 18:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- As to the question, the answer is straightforward: the Normans assimiliated; the British didn't. The Normans became Irish and consolidated their power; the British chose not to for the same end. Norman and Gaeil became the Irish. The political system which supported Norman domination is gone as Gaeil and Normannaigh needed each other and consequently formed familial and communal unity; the British political system is still over 17% of Ireland precisely because it maintains the power structure for those in Ireland who describe themselves as British. Those of patrilineal Norman descent would take exception to having anything to do with the British system here. Moreover, the hostility between those of Norman and those of British descent was profound with the latter displacing the former from the second half of the sixteenth century. The former viewed the latter as uncouth, uncultured nouveau riche crooks. Those of Norman descent were the very first group in Ireland to oppose the British state, especially in religious terms. In short, it has been the political structure which has been opposed far more than it has been some nebulous ethnic identity. And the problematic political structure for the past few centuries has been the British one. El Gringo 17:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Can I just point out to everyone that this current page is over 187kb long? This makes the pages difficult to read for users with older computers and for some firefox users. I know I keep saying this, but talk pages are not for general discussion about the topic. As tempting as it may be to reply to controversial remarks or to correct inaccuracies in opinion pieces, all that happens is the talk page gets longer and longer without anyone doing anything to help improve the article. Can we PLEASE follow policy and guidelines and put a stop to this? --Robdurbar 18:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Two things: the page needs badly to be archived. Unfortunately I am on a crap internet link right now (it took seven saves to save something last night) so I dare not try doing it. But someone needs to. Secondly, as to this general discussion — actually I disagree Rob. One of the major problems with this original page was that Irish and English (people outside England who live in the UK have a less rose-tinted viewpoint on all all-encompassing gloriousness of Britishness) did not understand each other's perspectives. The hysterical reaction to efforts by moderate Irish users to mention that there are some problems with the British Isles evidenced just how wide the gulf was. I think this sort of discussion is immensely helpful both to the people here now and to future readers of the article in helping them understand the background to the differing viewpoints and how they shape perceptions. I have no doubt but that how Wikipedia dealt with as thorny an issue as a controversial term like British Isles will be analysed academically in years to come. And putting on my historian's hat for a moment, it is precisely these sort of discussions that reveal the underlying perspectives and reasoning. I would like to hear a more cohesively argued explanation for the British perspective on Britishness, given that it is the Britishness of the term and its interpreted meaning that makes it so controversial to non-British people. Unfortunately Tharuncoll hasn't gone beyond the occasional outburst of "Brits are great . . . Brits are cool . . . Brits saved the world"-toned statements where a more detailed analysis would be useful. Normally discussions on the issues of the day aren't useful on talk pages, but here, in exploring attitudes, I think the analysis is sensible, useful and informative. All sides, here now and in the future, will benefit from the insight provided. FearÉIREANN
\(caint) 22:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- I hope you are disappointed. Our readers may expect a well verified encyclopedia article at British Isles, not the growth from some petri dish where the concept of britishness can be examined.EricR 00:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- You still don't get it. It is the Britishness claim that is central to the controversy. You may not see a problem with that, but millions throughout the British Isles and Ireland do. If you don't understand the differing contexts and understandings of the term british then you cannot understand the competing political, historical, social and cultural meanings attached by people on both sides to the term "British Isles". Considering the appallingly inadequate state of this article earlier, to talk as though its POV-pushing of a largely English perspective on the ter, was either verifiable or encyclopaediac is a joke. The empire is dead. Get over it. FearÉIREANN \(caint) 01:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- Well, that may be because i'm not trying to get it. All i'm trying to do is make sure the claims of the article are backed up by reliable secondary sources. If you would like to examine britishness somewhere on wiki i'd suggest: Linda Colley Britons: Forging the Nation 1707-1837, Paul Ward Britishness since 1870, and Nicholas Canny Making Ireland British among others. Such a discussion is probably not appropriate for this article, but there is plenty of source material available. If you would like me to get something then simply provide a source, or point out a claim that needs verified and i'll go looking.EricR 16:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- You still don't get it. It is the Britishness claim that is central to the controversy. You may not see a problem with that, but millions throughout the British Isles and Ireland do. If you don't understand the differing contexts and understandings of the term british then you cannot understand the competing political, historical, social and cultural meanings attached by people on both sides to the term "British Isles". Considering the appallingly inadequate state of this article earlier, to talk as though its POV-pushing of a largely English perspective on the ter, was either verifiable or encyclopaediac is a joke. The empire is dead. Get over it. FearÉIREANN
As someone who has lived in Britain (specifically England) for a few years, perhaps I could try to provide a British perspective. The first thing to say is that terminology for the archipelago, and the various political units, is a complete mess, with many similar, overlapping terms, and only a tiny percentage of people knowing what they actually mean. As for the term British Isles, here it is not used that often, but it is used in situations where a geographic description of the archipelago is needed for which political units aren't relevant eg 'climate change in the British Isles', weather reports, or in atlases. In Great Britain this usage is not controversial (apart possibly for small numbers of Scottish and Welsh Nationalists). I have not seen any evidence that use of the term represents lingering nostalgia for imperialism, or a desire to piss off the Irish - it is simply the widely accepted, conventional term. I would disagree with Jtdirl's statement that the term is controversial to non-British people. I suspect you will find that to English-speaking people outside the archipelago (American tourists, Malaysian students etc), who do after all represent 95% of English speakers, this is a complete non-issue. You only have to look at foreign tourist websites about this part of the world, with their widespread conflation of England, Britain, UK, Ireland and British Isles, to see that they do not know, and they do not care.--Stonemad GB 09:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- Unfortunately Tharuncoll hasn't gone beyond the occasional outburst of "Brits are great . . . Brits are cool . . . Brits saved the world" That's rather unfair, and you have clearly not understood my arguments in any sense at all. I'll try and recap as succinctly as possible. The term British Isles has existed for at least two millennia and maybe more. It wasn't until the 17th century that the British state appropriated the term "British" for itself. Ireland is part of the British Isles because it always has been, and has nothing to do with its much later conquest by the self-styled British state. My comments about the British Empire earlier have no part in this argument, and were merely in response to some ridiculous anti-British statements made by ignorant posters. The fact is that the English/British may not have been the most peace-loving people in the world, but we are very far from being the worst offenders in history. One of our many usurpations, in my opinion, was our appropriation of the word "British", which originally had no political connotations whatsoever. It is interesting to note that it was the Scottish Stuarts who orginally coined the term in a political context, and it was for a very long time disliked by the English. TharkunColl 08:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- I was being firmly tongue-in-cheek, Thar. Chill. FearÉIREANN \(caint) 23:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- In response to some of Jtd's earlier comments - I appreciate that, particularly a few months ago, the whole concept of the British Isles and its use was the issue. I think, you would agree, that many of the comments in this section are irrelevant - talking about the virtues, or lack thereof, of the British Empire stands out as an example.
- I think that StoneMad's summary is a reasonable one - in Great Britain, 'British Isles' is a virtual non-issue (indeed Northern Ireland has dropped right off the political radar since 1997 over here) and the vast majority of people know or care little about the terminology. As for a more general summary on attidues to 'Britain', 'British' and the 'UK'... well there's a lot more variation on that. I think its fair to say that the majority of English people sub-consciously equate the UK and England, though they really mean nothing by this. That said, the West Lothian Question has been bubbling under for a while now and is slowly building a head of steam (its a regular point of discussion on the BBC's Daily Politics Show). Gordon Brown appears particularly worried by this - as a Scottish MP in a Scottish constituency, any English dissillusionment with the Union or with the role of non-English MP's would clearly damage his chances of becoming Prime Minister (one suspects that the Conservative party, the only parliamentary party who's potential next Prime Minister is from an English constituency, might quite enjoy this problem.) Another interesting thing is that some people claim that Andy Murray (or any non-English sportsman) is always described by the media as 'British' when he wins and 'Scottish' when he loses.
- In Scotland and Wales I think that opinion varies from the 'couldn't care less' end of the scale to one patriotic Scottish friend of mine who is getting an Irish passport (his dad, who is from Northern Ireland, holds one due to the fairly complex Irish/British nationality laws) so that people won't think he's English when he travels abroad! He would probably never say that he's from the 'British' Isles. However, I do think that this is a relatively rare viewpoint. Mostly, Britain is used without thought or controversy for the UK and British Isles is not really thought about either. --Robdurbar 13:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- Robdurbar, may I mirror what you have said. The term British Isles is not controversial in Ireland either. The fact is that hardly anyone uses the term. Usually it's just plain old "Britain and Ireland". As far as most Irish folk are concerned any validity for the term, as regarding Ireland, expired in 1922. Hope you don't take offence that Irish folks don't want to be called British. Well there is no offence intended and I can assure you that despite the "history", almost all Irish people have a warm and tender good wish for their 'British counterparts'. MelForbes 15:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- I agree that it is not controversial per say in Ireland in the sense that few use it. Most regard the term as as outdated as the Austro-Hungarian Empire or the Soviet Union. A small minority use it. On the rare times it is used it is always controversial. I know that on slow weeks and in the silly season where there is no major news and they are struggling to generate interest newspapers used to ask me to write articles that could include the term just to cause controversy. It works every time. There are a handful of topics guaranteed to cause a row if covered in the media: "British Isles", how George Bush is a Great Man of Our Time, how Sinn Féin are heroes/bastards/freedom fighters/murderers/nazis etc, and other topics. I know when I submitted an article to one of the mainstream broadsheets in the UK (I won't reveal which one because their policy on the term it is not publicly stated by them yet — they are afraid of a right wing backlash) I in passing used "British Isles" they edited it out, telling me afterwards that they thought it a rather old-fashioned term they were quitely fading out from their newspaper. A number of British newspapers who have different editions for England, Scotland and Ireland use British Isles in the English version while (except for the jingoist Mail and Express) ensure the term does not turn up in their Scottish and Irish editions. (Both the Sun and the Sunday Times got a bit of bashing when it slipped through into their Irish editions by accident once.) One of the funniest experiences I remember was of a gang of people (some Irish, 3 Scots, a couple of Welsh guys and a member of the Young Conservatives) at a political function. They were all discussing how different their countries are. Then the young tory pipped up "but we are all the same in one way. We are all from the British Isles". The Irish had an instant 'disgusted look' but kept quiet. But Sheena from Glasgow went ballastic using language about the term I wouldn't repeat here. Her boyfriend had to tell her to calm down. Of all the people there, bar the Tory, everyone there was either (i) indifferent to the term but found it irritating; (ii) found the term rather old-fashioned and annoying, (iii) offensive and derogatory. It was actually the Scottish, rather than the Irish, who seemed to find it the most annoying. FearÉIREANN \(caint) 23:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- Agree, controversial when it is used, that's why the term is so rarely used in Ireland! MelForbes 00:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
British-Irish Council
the "British Isles Council" is deliberately not used in favour of the British-Irish Council
Can the above statement be backed up by a citation. I realise that British-Irish Council is used but was the name British Isles Council even considered. As it is a political organisation it would make sense to name it after the two parties involved as opposed to naming it after a group of islands of which only one island (ireland) contains the participents. josh (talk) 14:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
- We could support "Council of the British Isles":
Mcgarry, John (2001). Northern Ireland and the Divided World: The Northern Ireland Conflict and the Good Friday Agreement in Comparative Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. p. 231.Ahead of the Good Friday Agreement, the idea of a Council of the British Isles was widely canvassed, and such a council is indeed an important element in the Agreement. However, in deference to nationalist opinion it is called the British-Irish Council
{{cite book}}:|pages=has extra text (help)EricR 15:35, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Removing OR
I've removed some original research from the Terminology and Attitudes in Ireland sections, there is more work to be done but this is probably a good time to stop and discuss.EricR 18:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
- I'm generally supportive of most of your changes - but can I question a few bits that were removed (I'm comparing to User:Neelmack's version of the page, btw)?
- the caveat in the first sentence. This has been discussed on a number of occaisions and consensus has appeared to support it. Though I can see its problems - its a bit wishy washy and not entirely encyclopedic or clear - it also stops people reacting violently to the article from just reading the first sentence.
- Similarly the the coments removed from the rest of the intro - I don't see what's wrong in claiming that the Irish media and government rarely use the term
- Do you mean the text removed in this edit? Not my IP, but i would say removing the <ref> was a good idea, and "This means that.." probably needs some rewording.EricR 19:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
- Ah yes, I was referring to that - I had spent about 5 minutes looking for where you'd removed it, makes sense now! I'll put the first paragraph bit straight in and have a go at rewording that next bit. --Robdurbar 19:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
- Some of your other changes I could question, but see your reasoning too - I found the removed Ahern quote interesting from its rather 'Big Brother' nature, if nothing else. --Robdurbar 19:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
- I left the mention of Dermot Ahern's statement in, was that what you're refering to? In later edits i removed the mention of the de Valera speech—i saw it as OR, trying to counter Ahern's statement—and a mention of Bertie Ahern's address to a 2005 conference. The latter edit removed the whole paragraph: "The different Irish attitudes towards the usage of the term British Isles can be gauged in a conference..."; we shouldn't be trying to gauge Irish attitudes, but should find someone else to do the work for us.
- I rolled back both those edits however, as they were mixed up with some other stuff and i probably made too many changes w/o discussion. If you think the whole series is too much or too confusing go ahead and revert further.EricR 20:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
- Well it all got a little confused, especially with Britannia Rules!'s edits, but no, I think you've helped improve the page. Oh yes, I hadn't noticed that that had been kept, sorry. That said, I think a summary of Irish attitudes would be useful in there - its a question of how to do it. --Robdurbar 20:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
- Good evening all. Noticed the removal of 'Official Irish government documents and the media there rarely use the term' and think that was definitely an edit too far. This very important and is fully verified...if the indisputable verification (Irish govt website) is removed, it needs to go back. Pconlon 22:20, 5 August 2006
- Do you mean the Dermot Ahern statement? That is still in the article. I've never seen a cite for "media there rarely use the term"; it would be nice to have something in hand, maybe for use in the Attitudes in Ireland section.EricR 22:14, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
- Good evening all. Noticed the removal of 'Official Irish government documents and the media there rarely use the term' and think that was definitely an edit too far. This very important and is fully verified...if the indisputable verification (Irish govt website) is removed, it needs to go back. Pconlon 22:20, 5 August 2006
- The Irish government uses the phrase quite a lot. But unfortunately, all the citations were edited out. Facts eh? TharkunColl 23:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
- I'm opposed to all the instances of searching the web for a particular name, then trying to make some general conclusion about that name's use. Isn't that original research? If your intention is to characterize the Irish government's usage of 'British Isles' as rare, some, or quite a lot then that's clearly OR. If on the other hand you are trying to discount the Ahern statement that's a tougher issue, but i still feel it would be OR. We shouldn't be in the business of trying to disprove what a politician says with google searches. We need to find a secondary source addressing the issue.
- If we are unlikely to find such a source, if no one would take the time to challenge the statement, then we shouldn't try to do that work ourselves. I'd take that as an indication that we may have strayed too far into discussing non-notable issues.EricR 02:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
To reply to TharkunColl; I think we had decided that the half dozen or so uses that could be found were only sufficient to show that some politicians used it occiaisionally - but that is still 'rare' and the Ahern statement later in the article supports this assertion. As for EricR's comments - I see no problem in using primary sources as evidence 'However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged' --Robdurbar 06:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
The basic problem, IMO, remains that despite the separate British Isles (terminology) article, we evidently have a number of editors who don't think this article should exist under this name (or perhaps at all), and a seemingly inexorable drift to a state with half a dozen separate disclaimers about its inaccuracy, offensiveness, etc, and a lengthy section that's essentially duplicative of said other article. IMO a sensible application of WP:SUMMARY would be to have: one mention of the terminology issues in the lead of this article, and one short section on terminology, being essentially similar to the lead of British Isles (terminology), and serving as a summary and cross-reference to same. (Also refactor contents of the other article as required to make sure that between the two, everything currently here is covered.) Alai 18:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Disagree totally. Apart from anything else the very name British Isles (terminology) presumes there is a clear British Isles and the only issue is a dispute over names. As Irish users ad nausaum keep pointing out (and obviously will have to do continually on this page indefinitely) the dispute is much more fundamental and the name of the article carries with it a presumption that most Irish people and many other people elsewhere reject and find offensive.
- As to Eric's nonsense about OR, he patently obviously doesn't know what OR means. Those of us who wrote that policy wrote it to cover academics and others who decide to place unpublished (and so unreviewed) information on Wikipedia. WP is not designed to be a primary source document, but to be a secondary one. OR does not mean published that source information cannot be used. Nor that it cannot be assembled. It means that unpublished source information cannot be used. If something is published then it can be used. Eric clearly doesn't know the difference. If Eric's wacky interpretation of OR was applied to WP then 98% of all history articles on WP would have to be removed as so-called OR. The entire set of articles on British history would have to be deleted. All the articles on Wikipedia about royalty would have to go. And all the political articles. It is a kooky interpretation of OR. At this stage any more of these nonsensical OR deletions will simply be reverted on sight. I am fed up having to clean up Eric's nutty interpretation of OR, and some people's screwed up spellings, mucked up footnotes, garbled sentences and the like all the time. FearÉIREANN \(caint) 19:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- As to Eric's nonsense about OR, he patently obviously doesn't know what OR means. Those of us who wrote that policy wrote it to cover academics and others who decide to place unpublished (and so unreviewed) information on Wikipedia. WP is not designed to be a primary source document, but to be a secondary one. OR does not mean published that source information cannot be used. Nor that it cannot be assembled. It means that unpublished source information cannot be used. If something is published then it can be used. Eric clearly doesn't know the difference. If Eric's wacky interpretation of OR was applied to WP then 98% of all history articles on WP would have to be removed as so-called OR. The entire set of articles on British history would have to be deleted. All the articles on Wikipedia about royalty would have to go. And all the political articles. It is a kooky interpretation of OR. At this stage any more of these nonsensical OR deletions will simply be reverted on sight. I am fed up having to clean up Eric's nutty interpretation of OR, and some people's screwed up spellings, mucked up footnotes, garbled sentences and the like all the time. FearÉIREANN
- Let's first of all attempt to be slow to label others' contributions as "nonsense", etc.; there's enough inherent scope for disagreement here without unnecessarily causing people go on the defensive (or indeed, offensive). For my money, there is indeed a clearly-definable such archipelago, and the only disagreement is about terminology: and that's precisely what keeps being added to the article -- in ever-increasing numbers -- witness 'The term "British Isles"[...]'; 'This use of this name [...]'; 'Irish media rarely use the term[...]' (emph. mine) -- all just from the term-deleted lead section. This is the "terminology" articles, writ large (and writ often). Nowhere is it suggested that Irish people, or indeed anyone else in particular, do not refer to the islands collectively at all -- even those many people somewhat hindered by not having a term they actually find acceptable, that makes sense outside of any given context, seem to manage one way or another. ("These islands" and "Britain and Ireland" (or even "Ireland and England", just to keep the need for terminological accuracy in perspective) being pretty popular usages, which are at any rate not intended to have a different scope or definition.) I don't see much in the way of geographical argument being introduced to suggest they're not a group of islands, but just an optical illusion, or that there's some completing geographical definition abroad. (What political and historical material it's wise to include here is, as I commented previously, another matter.) If you want to rename the "terminology" article, or to merge it back in here, that's another matter, but not one that's sensibly addressed just by adding the same content here, and leaving the other as-is. The trouble with the alleged need to "keep pointing out ad nauseam" is that what's being pointed out isn't really speaking to how to improve the article, but is really just addressing objections to the article's existence/title by displacement, and isn't ultimately going to be especially productive. Alai 21:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- First of all, Alai, I also disagree - I think the vast majority of editors have now accpeted the broad consensus that we have reached and that the debate has moved on to refining the article, rather than overhauling it.
- May I suggest that reality on OR lies somewhere between the positions of Jtdirl and Eric R here? OR does not just have the aim of stopping people publishing academic work here; it also acts to stop people from claiming 'I know x because I have experienced it'. Similalry, Jtdril is right that primary sources are fine to use, though 2ndary are better. When doing so, however, we have to make it clear how we are using sources.
- I think that EricR's changes have been broadly helpful in tidying the article, though I also think that the re-added bits by Jtdril make a useful and informative point too.
- Oh, and as for, 'I am fed up having to clean up....some people's screwed up spellings, mucked up footnotes, garbled sentences and the like all the time.' - as long as Wikpedia remains amatuer and run by volunteers, then grammar and spelling will remain crap. This is a downside of its otherwise good editor base and something that we have to cope with and not get too het up about. --Robdurbar 20:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that what I'm suggesting rises to the level of overhauling: but to be clear, are you suggesting that there be no reduction at all in the amount of discussion of the definition/terminology, while retaining the separate terminology article? Or just that my suggestion in that direction is over-zealous? Alai 21:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Yes but as I've pointed out many many times, British Isles (terminology) is not just a discussion of the term British Isles and its alternatives, but of all geographical terminology within the archipaleog as a whole. It's aim is to clarify for confused readers who don't know what Britain means, or why its wrong to call the UK 'England', or why people sometimes refer to England and Wales as a single unit. --Robdurbar 06:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Yes. On this issue, given its sensitivity, we have to have a large terminology section here. If there isn't, then you will have edit wars ad infinitum because various users or editors will interpret the absence of a large terminology section as indicative of bias (i.e., that the views of one set of people are reflected in the article and the views of millions of others shunted into another article). The way to avoid that is for the article to contain a full discussion of the topic. That is regularly done on WP in sensitive articles even where there is replication with some other article somewhere.
- Re OR — the central issue is whether there is independent verifiable documentary evidence or analysis available. The insistence of Eric that there must be discussion not statement is preposterous. There is no documentary discussion on the date of Elvis Presley's birthdate, just a statement of it in sources. Where things are so patiently obvious that they are not discussed, or where there is a complete consensus on something that it is not discussed, one simply refers to documents that state 'x' or 'y'. It is perfectly normal.
- Re spelling, I understand that point about amateurism completely. The problem however is a sentence is edited and replaced with mangled syntax, chronically bad spelling, etc. It isn't a mistaken new sentence but the rewriting of old correct sentence that produces a complete twisted mess. Or people who move a footnote and then completely screw it up. It is fixed and then they go back and do the same thing again, and again. When for the umptheenth time the exact same correct sentence and layout is replaced by a garbled mess, one cannot but help sighing, and muttering in Hiberno-English, "Oh, for the love of Jaysus. Not a-fucking-gain." FearÉIREANN \(caint) 22:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Re spelling, I understand that point about amateurism completely. The problem however is a sentence is edited and replaced with mangled syntax, chronically bad spelling, etc. It isn't a mistaken new sentence but the rewriting of old correct sentence that produces a complete twisted mess. Or people who move a footnote and then completely screw it up. It is fixed and then they go back and do the same thing again, and again. When for the umptheenth time the exact same correct sentence and layout is replaced by a garbled mess, one cannot but help sighing, and muttering in Hiberno-English, "Oh, for the love of Jaysus. Not a-fucking-gain." FearÉIREANN
Jtdirl, you are simply mischaracterizing my statements concerning original research. When discussing the use of neologism i have indeed said that the sources we use should discuss the term's usage, not simply use the term. This is straight out of WP:NEO. I have not applied this principle to the use of sources in general.
I would like to point out that wikipedia is a tertiary source, not as you say a secondary source. Perhaps that is the crux of our little disagreement here? If your intention is to provide commentary, analysis and criticism of other sources then you and i are definitely working at cross purposes here.
Isn't there maybe some way we can work together on this article? Reverting my edits on sight is, i have to admit, a very straight-forward solution. For various reasons i am currently opposed to such a course of action. Do you have any other suggestions? I am currently at a loss as to how to proceed.EricR 00:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I would be grateful if someone could clarify exactly what the dispute is about. Is it about 1) the definition of the 'British Isles' ie whether or not they include Ireland, southern and northern. Or is 2) that the term is agreed to include Ireland, but for this reason people from Ireland find its use unacceptable, as indicating an anachronistic and inaccurate British control over the archipelago as a whole. Because 1) and 2) are incompatible - one of them must be incorrect. If the Irish people do find the term unacceptable as indicating British control over their territory, it follows logically that they accept that the term does include Ireland in its definition.--Stonemad GB 18:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)