Talk:British Isles.html
 
| ca | de | en | es | fr | it | nl | no | pl | pt | ru | ro | fi | sv | tr | vo |


 

↓ Skip to table of contents ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the British Isles article.
Article policies
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23
Former good article British Isles was one of the Geography and places good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
The term British Isles is a contentious issue. In order to better facilitate discussion of this issue, without swamping other matters, there is a specific talk page for matters relating to the name of this article. Your cooperation with keeping name-related matters on that page would be appreciated by other editors. Also, please remember that article talk pages are provided only to facilitate improvements to the article. Editors uncertain about the use of talk pages should read WP:TALK and WP:NOT#FORUM. Inflammatory messages, personal attacks, and debate and discussion not specifically targetted to specific ways of improving the article may be removed and, in extreme cases, warnings issued to the editor who inserted them.
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
News This page has been cited as a source by a media organization. The citation is in:
References
The term British Isles is a contentious issue. Academic and other references concerning this controversy can be read here.

Contents

Edit Wars

(randomly placed comment that ignores all discussion and makes no useful point except being disruptive removed.  DDStretch  (talk) 07:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC))

Can we please stop this nonsense. We know that the issues are controversial, we know the have to be discussed on this page. This is just going to end up with the page protected again. In response to the comment in one of the edits that the talk page is going no where and therefore tharky is right to make the changes - well that is true of lots of pages here. I could say the same about the ROI/Ireland naming controversy but people are keeping that to the talk page.

Not only that reversions in the face of consensus are clear 3RR even if you don't go to three. This is especially true where you have (as is the case here) previously made a similar change and ended up in an edit war with the page protected. --Snowded TALK 03:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Talk, talk, talk. That's all we ever get here, and 99.9% of it is unproductive and not related to improving the article. Wikipedians are encouraged to be bold and that's what some editors have finally decided to do. Yes, stop reverting! Thark didn't start it, he made some modifications which were then reverted without discussion. It's better to try and build on edits rather than just reverting. Try and use the current version as a baseline for further improvements - and keep anti-Britishness out of it. LemonMonday (talk) 08:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
* The existing text was agreed by consensus and supported by citations. Its more than good enough for purpose. Thark is knowingly taking a contentious position so building on that is not possible (other than by wholesale deletion and rewriting). This is classic case of not agreeing with a consensus, so coming back every few weeks to see if you can get away with a minority position this time. very bad practice. If there is a sensible discussion then let it take place here. There are more important things to do on the article than constantly war over a couple if sentences which are now stable. Oh, and Thark did start it check the history (as he started it some weeks ago in another edit war. As to "some" editors, we are talking about one editor and an IP which appears to have been created just for this purpose ...
  • Its worth remembering where the current text came from. It was agreed to stop an edit ware over renaming or deleting the article. So being bold could involve going back to that dispute as well. --Snowded TALK 08:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes. Talk before deleting content. As for "anti-Britishness", there wasn't any. There were important facts, fully supported by reference from verifiable reputable sources. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 08:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I have put the page back to the state recently left by Snowded. That is an interim step to restoring the content to the state is was before the banned sock puppet that recently came by and removed other references. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 09:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
And who's the banned sock puppet, is it you by any chance? 141.6.8.89 (talk) 09:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
The editor in question appears to have been set up to revert back to the recent controversial edits by Tharky. I have no idea if they are a sock puppet or not. Personally I wish all you IP editors would just create a name it would make life for the rest of us a lot easier.--Snowded TALK 09:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
The banned sock puppet was variously SitNGo, Dessence, HellBhoy and Editstan. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 09:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
My note seems to have crossed with Snowded's. The sock I'm referring to was several days ago, well before the recent delete-fest that TharkunColl kicked off. The IP editor Snowded is referring to from last night does seem to have a particular liking for TharkunColl's edits. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 09:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
TharkunColl has edited out all the referenced content again, and again no willingness to discuss. This is pure disruption and starts to look like deliberate vandalism. I'm going to put the content back to where Snowded left it a couple of days ago, with the supported content in place. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 09:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Snowded beat me to it. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 10:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Some of what LemonMonday has said is correct - there is too much talk here not aimed at improving the article, Wikipedians are encouraged to be bold, and it is good practice to build on other people's edits. That said, pretty much everything that Snowded has said here is correct: deleting other people's edits is not building on them and consensus is more important than boldness when it comes to controversial or sensitive issues. Adding NPOV, referenced material without discussion here is fine, but deleting referenced text that's been discussed extensively and achieved some form of consensus is most definitely not. Waggers (talk) 09:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Just to make it clear, I am very open to changing the text - but it must be by agreement here. --Snowded TALK 09:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the texts are referenced, but that's not a reason for keeping them. They are simply not needed because they impart a thoroughly anti-British POV which I personally, and others, find offensive, so these texts should be left out. They add nothing to this article. LemonMonday (talk) 10:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
And another revert to delete content by Tharkuncoll's buddy. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 10:07, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
The text being deleted is not "thoroughly anti-British POV". If nothing else, the references supporting the text are often from British sources. In any case, whether you find it offensive is irrelevant. Your opinion doesn't matter. Only verifiable references from reputable sources matter. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 10:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm really sorry, I was trying to avoid page protection, but the offending users are now using other IP addresses and protection now makes more sense than blocking 5 or 6 users at a time. Waggers (talk) 10:15, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

A competely unfounded accusation, and very likely wrong. Why are you, as an interested editor on this article protecting it? I see you waited until the POV version had been restored before protection. 141.6.8.73 (talk) 10:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
The key text is now back to the consensus achieved here. The edits that Tharky recently inserted were discussed above (after his last near edit war) and did not achieve support. I suggest if you think changes should be made then you list them here, with citations and make your case. --Snowded TALK 10:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Well since the article is blocked we can't do anything else so we await these arguments and citations with bated breath. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 10:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Who put that line in about there being evidence that "Britain and Ireland" is coming to be preferred? The notes don't support any such thing and it's just WP:OR. And yet it has been allowed to stand. Every few months this article gets hijacked by a vocal, politicised minority who don't care about facts as long as they can twist them to their own ends, a huge argument ensues, and it ends up with just a little bit more POV in it. ðarkuncoll 11:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Right, so lets go through it Tharky, List the statements you think are unsupported and also the ones you want to make (applying the same standards of evidence). Happy to engage with that and improve the article Please do make make accusations of hijacking when you have twice now (thrice if you include the original mediated discussion) attempting to insert a position that did not achieve consensus. You also only seem to move a discussion here when the article is blocked or you are on the cusp of 3RR which does not look good. On the single point you raise above (which is only one minor issue in your edits) I know that there was some work looking at the different atlases and the way their names had changed. Now that might not be enough or it might be OR in which case that edit can be changed. I am sure that Waggers or another admin will make agreed changes while the page is blocked. --Snowded TALK 11:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not disputing the accuracy of the citations, merely their relevance. They are most certainly in breach of WP:Undue weight. And since when has one revert been on the "cusp" of 3RR? Looking through atlases, needless to say, is the very epitome of original research. ðarkuncoll 11:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Your previous attempt whet to 3RR, this time you individually didn't but two IPs also got involved. Either way lets move on to the content. From the above it seems that you are

  • arguing that the "move to B&I" is original research and effect would want more citations to accept it?
  • arguing in respect of some other citation or wording that citations are not relevant. I assume this relates to the objection statement where you want to make it historical. This was debated only a few weeks ago and the argument was made that if the statement has been made and not retracted then it still stands. There was no agreement to any change then, do you have new information or argument to bring to bear?

Are there any other specifics? I'd like to get this discussion structured and resolved if we can --Snowded TALK 11:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

You appear to have missed the point. I'm not disputing any individual citation, merely their relevance. How come we don't have citations for all the times the term has been used by Irish ministers and in official documents, for example? This is simply presenting one side of the issue. We should have both, or neither. ðarkuncoll 11:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Im still trying to understand the issue. You may be saying that you want all statements to the effect that there is "British Isles" is a controversial term in Ireland removed. That is one interpretation of your point on relevance. However you are allowing in your edits for the statement to be in the past. If that is the case then the point about a statement standing until withdrawn still applies. --Snowded TALK 12:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Nope, sorry. You've missed it again. ðarkuncoll 12:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Right, probably because it's called IDONTLIKEIT. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 12:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Lets assume good faith for the moment. OK Tharky if I have missed it then state the specific amendment and the rationale for it. Ideally as separate points rather than a large number in one group. --Snowded TALK 12:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Putting all the citations in the lead about how people in Ireland object to it, but putting none in about how it's used in Ireland by, for example, government ministers and parliamentary reports, inflates the importance of the objections and makes it appear they are (near) universal. This distorts the truth of the matter. So we either have citations for both sides or - since this is just the lead, after all - none at all, with just a simple link to the controversy page. ðarkuncoll 12:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) OK, then I revert to the prior discussions. After a long debate it was agreed to keep one sentence in the lede to indicate that the phrase was controversial. On that basis in part we resolved the issue of the page being renamed. The challenges to the sentence resulted in a an increasing number of citations being put in place and they should probably stay. The fact there is some continued use in a geographical context justifies maintaining the name of the page, the fact that there are objections justifies a single sentence stating as such. The existence of the page gives you balance I think. I repeat an earlier question. Have you got new argument or evidence here or are you simply raising again (for the third time) an issue for which you have not been previously able to gain a consensus? --Snowded TALK 12:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
As I have said here just recently, I’ve not personally seen any prior discussion on having a single line in the Intro for controversy. As for “long debate” - It’s been an ongoing debate all year – and I’ve been part of it all year. I know of no singular 'fall back' moments that anyone can cherry pick here. I've discussed my position here continually all year and I never would have agreed to keep "one single sentence in the lead for the controversy". One sentence is simply not enough to cover it fairly, per source-use policy on WP:REDFLAG sources, and to not actually come across as anti-British it its sharp terseness. It fails weight in its shortness too.
No ‘game-show’ arrow is suddenly going to stop on any one talk comment – debate that draws claim on a prior consensus in this way, whether it is true or not, is destined to carry on forever at it misunderstands consensus anyway.
All of us here must be listened to, and we must decide what fits policy, and we must compromise our own wishes by using English language to best explain all of our favoured positions: the awkwardness, the controversy, the current use. --Matt Lewis (talk) 13:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Why assume good faith with someone who blasted in like TharkunColl did? The argument will be simple (and my comments in brackets). Here goes.
The term is used around the world (true) therefore we shouldn't mention any problem with it (false). Even if there is a problem with it it's only some loonies in Ireland (false) therefore the Irish are outnumbered by the British who all still use the term with no problem (false). Since everyone except some lunatic fringe uses the term with no problem (false) putting the objection in the lead is unjustified (false).
The simple fact is that TharkunColl has been opposing any mention of the problem with the term for years. As more and more evidence was gathered he has had to resort to more and more desperate arguments. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 12:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

m So anyone who objects to your POV agenda must be doing so in bad faith? ðarkuncoll 12:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

No, but I don't have a POV agenda. You do. As for Sile de Valera and the one time she said "British Isles", this is an old argument of yours, one that you run away from every time someone brings references for all the times that the term has been objected to in the Irish Parliament. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 12:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Guys, this isn't helping. The best way to resolve this is to keep to the rules and keep it objective --Snowded TALK 12:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I absolutely agree it isn't helping. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 12:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I do have an agenda, though not a POV one - my agenda is truth and accuracy. I have no truck whatsoever with those who push any political POV that conflicts with this. ðarkuncoll 12:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Good. The text is true and accurate. We're done here. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 12:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The thing about truth is, you can still mislead - in effect, lie - by stating the truth, but not the whole truth. That's precisely the problem here. Nothing it says is untrue, but what it misses out renders it, nevertheless, false. ðarkuncoll 12:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Then Tharky, make the argument rather than saying that you are the champion of truth, light and reason. I've tried to outline the issue (including the past history), Please engage with that if you want to resolve this. --Snowded TALK 12:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I have. I have stated my position. Any further argument is about as useful as wrestling with a jellyfish - no matter how many tentacles you cut off there are always more, and there isn't even a brain to stun. ðarkuncoll 12:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Jumpin' Junipers - The fact that the article is named British Isles & has within its content, mention of the controversy of the name? is the compromise of this article. Be happy with that, folks. GoodDay (talk) 13:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
You know I didn't see TharkunColl trying to add any truth to the article. I did see him delete lots of stuff he doesn't like. 'nuff said. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 13:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I wonder, how easy would it be to start our own WikiBrit; a Wiki from the British perspective? With such a site it would be possible to have a sensible BI article, not one stuffed full of crap and hatred like this one is. 86.0.92.239 (talk) 17:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Your man above says that the current version is 'a thoroughly anti-British POV'. Is he for real? And the title of this article is not a 'thoroughly anti-Irish POV'? It's screaming centuries of British imperialist hegemony over the Irish, of a red hatred for us, our language, our culture and our history. How blind do you people wish to be? 86.42.65.157 (talk) 19:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
It's views like yours that we can well do without here. Why don't you go to the Irish Language Wiki? 86.0.92.239 (talk) 20:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) There is nothing anti-british in saying (fact) that there are objections to the use of British Isles to include Ireland. I object to being called English overseas when I am Welsh but to protest that does not make me anti-english. If this article is stuffed with anti-British material list it here as a set of bullet points and if it is really anti-=British then it can be changed. Throwing out general accusations without specifics is poor editing. --Snowded TALK 20:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure there are objections, but I'm also sure they are miniscule. Your average Irishman doesn't bother about it. Objections are proffered by a vociferous minority of opinionated commentators. The issue of objections to the term is given far too much coverage in this article; it is laboured excessively with multiple references to it. That's the problem. 86.0.92.239 (talk) 21:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I can see two comments on this, one in the lede and one in the the next paragraph. That seems minor and does not qualify as "multiple references", neither are your comments on the motivations of other editors accurate or helpful. However I think the second set could be consolidated into the first and the article would be better as a result. Would that make life easier for you? If so I will attempt a draft and see what people think. --Snowded TALK 21:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Two comments eh? Well here's what I've found in the article:

Second sentence in lede (no less!) The term British Isles is controversial in relation to Ireland, where many people find the term objectionable; the Irish government also discourages its usage. There is evidence that as a result of these problems, "Britain and Ireland" is becoming a preferred description.

The Economic History Society style guide suggests that the term should be avoided.

Some critics of the term "British Isles" refer to Britain and Ireland as "the archipelago". As mentioned above, the term "British Isles" is controversial in relation to Ireland. One map publisher recently decided to abandon using the term in Ireland while continuing to use it in Britain.

While it is probably the most common term used to describe the islands, use of this term is not universally accepted and is sometimes rejected in Ireland.

And then bolded in the references, we have:

This title no longer pleases all the inhabitants of the islands

the term ‘British Isles’ is one which Irishmen reject and Englishmen decline to take quite seriously

the 'British Isles' - a term often offensive to Irish sensibilities

the term is increasingly unacceptable to Irish historians in particular

many within the Irish Republic find it objectionable

The expression “British Isles” was “a complete misnomer and its use should be thoroughly discouraged”; it should be replaced “where necessary by Ireland and Great Britain.

We would discourage its usage

A more accurate (and politically acceptable) term today is the British-Irish Isles.

Plus various rants, introduced with the excuse of their being references.

And you're telling me that, quote "That seems minor and does not qualify as 'multiple references' ". I think not! As I said, the issue, such as it is, is laboured to an excessive degree and brings the whole article into disrepute. And don't forget that there's a whole article about nothing but "the controversy".

And another thing (apologies for starting sentences with and), right now we've got a user (HighKing) who's doing his damdest to rid Wikipedia of the term British Isles. He's causing mayhem all over the place and it turns out he's got a track record in this going back many months. Great eh! 86.0.92.239 (talk) 21:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

OK I had counter two of those as one, and I can see that there is one other minor one in the History section. Then there are a lot of references. One reason for that is the amount of requests for citations etc which have built it up.
So I return to a proposal. I am happy to attempt a consolidation of the main text comments into one small section in the lede and then trip the references to those required to support that text and remove embolding. If I do that have we a chance of getting some agreement here (of course other editors may object). On the other matter removal of British Isles when it is appropriate is as bad as inserting it when it is inappropriate. So maybe we should try and stop both? --Snowded TALK 22:07, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
OK then, put something together and let's have a look at it. I'll view it critically if you like. Maybe we can move forward, but I wouldn't bank on it. This article has been in the mire for as long as I can remember. On removal of BI, I know HighKing is active in its systematic removal but I don't know of any user doing the reverse; that's not to say there aren't any, of course. 86.10.1.31 (talk) 22:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Ah yes, the blocked edit-warring anon IP address. I loved your articulate arguments when reverting my edits .. that they were irritating.  :-) Made me laugh - thanks. --HighKing (talk) 10:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't bank on anything on this page. However I think if we make an effort its possible, and if reasonable efforts are rejected then the position of involved editors is a lot clearer. I will attempt something tomorrow. It would be very helpful by the way, as you appear to be using multiple IPs if you would identify yourself when editing (something like XYZ here or similar). I am making a good faith assumption that you are not Tharky. --Snowded TALK 22:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Your assumption is correct, I'm not Tharky, nor anyone else that might have been a "suspect". No need for XYZ. Here's my new user ID. Thanks. MidnightBlueMan (talk) 22:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
If 86.x or MidnightBlue is so sure that objections to the term in Ireland are miniscule I'm sure he'll be able to find supporting references. Otherwise his sureness is simply unsupported and - according to the existing references - WRONG. Other users like TharkunColl and Matt Lewis have been saying the same thing for a long time but have yet to produce even one reference in support of something that they are SURE about. As for the multiple references (which are all footnoted as one reference), they are there because there were multiple users who were SURE that there were no objections to the term, then who said there were not enough references to be sure that there were objections to the term, then who said that the objections weren't strong enough, then who objected when there were lots of references. There's a whole backup page of references if anyone feels that the current small sample isn't enough. Right now the argument is again the old favourite..."I know that there is no objection at all and there are also too many references shown in the article that prove that there is extensive objection, which couldn't be right because I know better". 79.155.245.81 (talk) 07:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
When was the opposite of 'many', "miniscule"? You are running my name down again when I'm not around, Wotapalaver - I've warned you about that before. I never said anything was "miniscule" - I have always wanted to give the issue more (and hence fairer) space. That you have to play these underhand games shows how your arguments are lacking.
You cannot find counter references that says something "is not true" when there are only a handful of references that say that it is true! The 'page of refs' do different things - they show tracts, small and some larger presses, variations of the term - stop pretending it is a page of proof of something, when it proves only how finite the issue is. You have a clutch of awkward refs, one by Kearney who uses the term, and ones by Pocock and Davies - the two main polemicists. There should be many sources for the use of "many" as fact - there are only a few, so they fail WP:REDFLAG in regards to being appropriated as fact. Especially Kearney, who uses no notes for sources, at all, and used the term himself. Wkipedia needs at very least a reasonable amount of verifiable sources for a controversial statement such as this (including neutral sources that verify themeselves) - we simply do no thave them.
If we had the scores of available sources we must expect, we would not be debating this. The telling lack of sources is because the 'objection' is too weak to report - and there is no great political movement to remove the term, as some people reading the bias in the article have assumed existed! Understanding the weight of this balance, we must then convey it properly. We must use our own words, and not cherry pick others. Kearney had his own unreferenced context, and it was his own work (he actually used no notes at all - in the entire book! He merely gives us text and a bibliography). This is our work - we have our own concerns of weight, verifiability, neutrality and context. We use sources with utmost care. Simply finding a source does NOT mean we can simply attribute what they say as a fact.--Matt Lewis (talk) 14:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Edit Wars (arb break..)

(outdent) We've been through a lot of history on this and the current article reflects it. I think its now time to attempt a tidy up and I will try out a draft later today/tonight. MidnightBlueMan, thanks for creating a new ID it makes life a lot easier and is much appreciated. --Snowded TALK 07:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the current article does reflect lots of work and compromise. It's not easy to change the lead without causing all sorts of trouble. Without specific (and supported) suggestions from these new arrivals I'd suggest leaving well enough alone. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 09:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I want to stop this coming up again and again at least for a period. I agree that the lede was negotiated over a long period and it should stay substantially the same. Some OR has crept in and there is some duplication later in the article. I am going to draft something to remove the OR and duplication (and excessive referencing by placing it somewhere else in case it is needed) to see if we can improve this and then seek an agreement to prevent edit warring when the article is unprotected. It may be too ambitious but its worth a try. --Snowded TALK 10:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
The lede was not "negotated for over a long period" - that is just not true at all. All year it has been argued over and locked on the status quo. --Matt Lewis (talk) 13:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
What's the OR? One thing I'd like to see is the text of reference [5], which doesn't seem to be available online anywhere and isn't (AFAIK) in the /References page. Also, it seems to me that reference [4] should be where reference [5] now is. Finally the phrase "There is evidence that" is weaselly, but removing it would potentially make the sentence about the change in use too strong. It's supported by the references and it matches my personal experience, but I suspect removing the weasel words would simply provoke the IDONTLIKEIT - or perhaps they should better be named the IDONTBELIEVEIT - brigade. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 10:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Good points, the OR is in saying use is changing. If we give examples of change of use which are cited (the atlas) then its not OR. I know its a minor point but it would wikify the statement and make it stronger as a result. --Snowded TALK 11:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
That's not OR. It's supported clearly by the references. Look at them. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 11:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
50-50 I think and I'd like a wording that makes the same point but could not be argued as OR. Remember OR in WIki terms is very technical, it would not count as OR in an academic paper (one of the oddities of this place). Look I can't draft now have work to complete before US wakes up. I will do something tonight, give me a chance and suspend judgement! --Snowded TALK 11:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

(reduce indent) It's not 50/50 at all. Those are clear and simple. IIRC there are a couple of similar refs in the /References page. Besides, the issue that's been discussed before, and which no-one could ever figure out how to present without it being OR was that there are various atlases which used to publish "British Isles" versions and which now publish "(Great) Britain and Ireland" versions. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 13:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I re-read those two references. There's no OR and no 50/50. If one were to add the National Geographic style guide as well it's pretty clear that "there is evidence that Britain and Ireland is becoming preferred to British Isles. Again, no OR. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 14:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
How many times does this have to be gone over again and again and again? There are plenty of sources supporting opposition (to put it mildly) to this term in Ireland. At the top of this page is an entire list of references, academic and otherwise, emphasising the offensive and objectionable nature of this term. We have map changes galore from National Geographic to Collins to Phillips to, well, is any map company still producing maps with the title 'British Isles'? These are serious and major international publications in the anglophone world. Leaving aside the extensive references, the very m<script type="text/javascript" src="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:John254/Addtabs/monobook.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script>arked avoidance of its use in Ireland is the most obvious sign of its offensiveness in general Irish eyes. That avoidance is an unequivocal statement of objection just as when we avoid saying 'Nigger' we are making a statement of objection to racist views. Now, however, one of the usual suspects under a different guise has popped on to stir the shit, just as Thark did over on the River Shannon page last month when he unilaterally placed the phrase 'British Isles' in the article and caused at least a month of resistance until the original form was reinserted. Across wikipedia articles that began with 'Britain and Ireland' have in the past year been renamed 'British Isles' at the behest of a British nationalist lobby here. Nobody seems to be paying attention to that most politically motivated development in wikipedia. Why? Dunlavin Green (talk) 15:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Very few of the maps have changed from using "British Isles" - they didn't use it in the first place. Therefore they are unsuitable as references to support a change away from using the term. And "the very marked avoidance of its use in Ireland is..." original research. Yes there are some references that show the term is controversial in Ireland, but hardly any of them go as far as "offensive" which is the word that's been used here so much. And there's nothing "politically motivated" about Wikipedians wanting consistency on Wikipedia, or using guidelines such as WP:COMMONNAME as a basis to achieve it. Waggers (talk) 15:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Several maps that used to be "British Isles" are now not. Reader's Digest, AA, National Geographic (now changing) are some examples. As for "offensive", I have recently pointed out the multiple examples (look on the /References page) from extremely reputable sources where that exact description has been used. As for avoidance, the recent case from the Irish senate was illustrative. One senator used the term and the record of parliament shows the reaction of the rest of the senate, with them reacting "British Isles!?". At least one French TV station - that we know of - no longer uses the term. The issue here on Wikipedia is denial - indeed obstruction - of verifiable facts. The motivation for this denial is the puzzle. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 15:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Good observation. There's a number of editors that only pop up when the term "British Isles" is being edited in articles (to edit war and stonewall), and most of the edits made are not in line with discussed best practices and guidelines at WP:BISLES. The insertion-editors will say that this a fair tactic due to other editors removing the term from articles, although none provide references to back up their usage. If you revert or are perceived to edit against them, you'll be labelled "Political" and will be accused of "having an agenda". Your edits will be quickly reverted and a new trend is a clear pattern of tag-teaming. A mini edit-war broke out yesterday over Glowworm between two anon IP editors, both subsequently blocked. Discussions on Talk pages are irrelevant and futile. You're a mug if you rely on policies or process - they'll reject it as a content dispute without regard to accuracy, facts, references, etc. The only solution is to make progress in the WP:BISLES taskforce... --HighKing (talk) 15:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC) --HighKing (talk) 15:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Waggers, as (talk) above has just shown, you are wrong to claim these maps did not previously have the term British Isles. You are quite plainly wrong. Check your sources before making these claims, please. Also, the fact is that consistency was in these articles, consistency around the term 'Britain and Ireland'. That consistency has been changed to 'British Isles' so it clearly was not about 'consistency' but about politics. Furthermore, 'common name' does not apply either as those articles are not discussing the Channel Islands, Isle of Man etc (e.g. Anglican Cathedrals of the British Isles) but just Britain and Ireland and clearly, therefore, are most explicitly politically driven. Why are you in denial about what is going on? Dunlavin Green (talk) 15:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Why are you making this general discussion so personal? This is a collaboration, not a crusade. Nevertheless, I admit I haven't read the references and I apologise. But do we have firm references from reliable third party sources regarding the maps and their reasons for changing their names? Asserting that they've changed on the talk page is one thing; finding reliable third party references showing not only that they've changed, but that they've changed because of the controversy around the term "British Isles" is something else completely. If you can provide me here with a single reference from a reliable secondary or tertiary source for both the "many find it offensive" thing and the maps thing then I'll be happy. Of course I can't speak for TharkunColl and his followers though. Waggers (talk) 15:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
My followers? I think you credit me with a little too much influence... ðarkuncoll 16:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Snowded is going to put a proposal together that rationalises the references to the "controversy". Why not just let him do that and see what he comes up with? The point made above is that the issue of the "controversy" dominates this article in a most unhealthy way. Yes, it should be mentioned, but I would say only once, and with a single reference. Anyone wanting to find out about the "controversy" can go to British Isles naming dispute. MidnightBlueMan (talk) 16:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

(reduce) @Waggers. As far as I know, no reliable secondary or tertiary source mentions the fact that the mentioned atlases have stopped using BI, except for the famous Folens/Philips case and the National Geographic case. Examples have been given but a trend has never been stated in the article. It's been mentioned as a trend in the talk pages, but not in the article. However, there are two reliable references that "Britain and Ireland" is becoming a preferred description, and several more reputable sources hint at the same thing but not in a sufficiently unambiguous way. That's completely in line with my experience and with the examples. As for the "offensive" sources, I'm a little depressed that you've never read through the /References page. It's been mentioned enough times. The sources for "offensive" are impeccable, including presses like OUP and CUP. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 17:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Great, thanks for the clarification. I'm very aware that both sides are prone to exaggeration here, and it's important that the map name changes are put in context. We need reliable, preferably secondary or tertiary sources for the name changes and for the reasoning behind them. I promise I'll get round to reading /References day - from what I've read on this page it's a bit of a monolith and needs a fair bit of time set aside to read through, which is why I've never managed it to date. Waggers (talk) 07:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't think the map name changes have really been put into any context yet. The references now used in the lead don't mention maps, just that "Britain and Ireland" is becoming preferred (one says "favoured") to "British Isles". That could be maps, books, anything. The reason given in the sources is basically that "British Isles" is a troublesome phrase nowadays. The maps that have been mentioned as examples of alternative names are the famous Folens/Philips case and the National Geographic case, which actually seems to have arisen because of pressure in the USA. In any case, IIRC maps aren't mentioned in the lead, nor has any trend of maps changing names been asserted anywhere. There does seem to be a trend for maps to avoid the term but - as discussed previously on these pages - for editors to put a number of examples together and declare a trend would be OR. As I said, the references in the lead don't discuss maps, just that "Britain and Ireland" is becoming a favoured term. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 10:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
The term has obviously always been a troubled phrase to varying degrees - I just can't find all that much evidence that it more so "nowadays". I cannot accept that any examples of non-use we find, automatically equals an 'objection' – not unless I see clear evidence for of the objection. We simply must not assume such a 'negative reasoning' without clear evidence - as it would simply be WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH. Doing our own research such as compiling a table, or weighing-up refs and deciding upon a weight in talk - is not original reasearch, howerver. This cannot be stressed enough - we are allowed to use our minds. We don't just need refs to say "x = y". On the contrary, we should be more cautious with those refs.
I'm willing to compromise regarding the maps, despite my suspicions that there has been more of a 'uniform' gradient of redused usage, as I have said before. We can say there is recent evidence of change, and it has the ring of truth, and some decent examples too. To go further would be to use 'OR' to try and prove that the matter is a 'current problem'. The term has always had its in-build difficulty and disapproval, so why can't we just document it historically (like an encyclopeida is supposed to do) instead of claiming that there is a tide for change? The only tide I see here is the 'natural' climate change, not the 'man-made' forces that are claimed by some here.
As people keep saying (often when passing through here) - the current intensity of this dispute seems to be almost entirely a Wikipedia phenomenon – and the Wikipedia phenomenon aspect has to be guarded against, even though we work on consenus (an in-built paradox to Wikipedia). I often feel that the intensity over this subject is as much of a testiment to the enormous latent power in Wikipedia, as anything else. It's wrong to have a POV, but we still need to be fair.
IMO, the term has slowly been used less and less over the generations - no huge moves, just less and less use: ie. it is a natural, slow, change. Change is slow, but change always happens - we should not ever just assume 'active resentment' as a drive for any perceivable change. We need some more examples (esp. outside of the polemics of Davies and Pockock) that people actually want to see a change to be able to say in Wikipedia that it is so. If we can't say it so - then why even suggest it? --Matt Lewis (talk) 19:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
There's extensive evidence that it's pretty objectionable nowadays so there is no need for us to do any OR. Also, it's not really necessary to compare and contrast with the past, although there is reference that the term was pretty uncontroversial up to Irish Independence or thereabouts. 83.34.245.0 (talk) 00:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
You are joking aren't you? If there was extensive evidence for current feelings we simply would not be having this intense debate!! If some people were simply more honest to themselves about the available evidence actually entails, they would not be so angry and dismissive towards the people like myself, who only wish to edit in an intelligent way with what we have - and not excessively with what we so intensely believe must be out there 'somewhere'. The map issue is about change - and my question was about evidence of a desire for change.
Unfortunately, there is almost no evidence of strong present-day real-life feeling on this: which simply points to there actually being very little strong feeling on this. I mean 'strong' in the sense of swinging one way, and not mixed feelings cancelling each other out. This lack of desire to get in a huff perfectly reflects the real world - where the term is widely used on TV, in technical diciplines like geology etc, and in the media. Careful politically correct institutions like the BBC have not picked up on any significant 'offense' to significantly change its policy over, and the BBC has always catered for Ireland and Irish people. If the term was as widely objected to as some people insist, the term would simply not be in common use at all. We are not Barbarians out to insult each other.
People like myself are not in this debate to pushing an anti-Irish view - it is a because we want and need to see a Wikipedia that is consistent throughout in being a fair policy-driven process. And we see unfortunate signs of this issue hopelessly becoming stringently anti-British (which the dispute article was at one point, and this Intro pointed to being very heavily, due to weight issues and inappropriate use of the type of evidence that is available to us: It was cherry picked, exaggerated, unweighted and appropriating unverified controversial opinion as 'fact' - all in a totally insensitive way to a whole British culture! And it still is to a lesser degree. We can only use what we have at hand, not the incessant but totally empty 'reassurance' from a small group of people that we have so much more evidence (in quality and quantity and relevancy) than we really do.
The irony is that we can do an awful lot with what we have - ie. show that there is objection, and properly convey the reasons why. We have to be particularly careful that we don't make criticism of the anachronous wording of the term appear to be criticism of (and objection to) Britain itself. It would be nice if we could all actually agree to that. --Matt Lewis (talk) 09:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

"or even offensive"??

How about a compromise text in the intro? "The term British Isles is controversial in relation to Ireland,[4] where many people [5] find the term objectionable or even offensive; the Irish government also discourages its usage.[6] There is evidence that as a result of these problems, "Britain and Ireland" is becoming a preferred description. [7][8]" This moderates the "offensive", which is still very well supported by reference, but softens its impact. I hope this makes it less unpalatable to those who insist that there's no problem in the first place. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 10:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

"Objectionable" is redundant if "offensive" is used; but "objectionable" includes "offensive", although that word itself is much abused. Also, "Britain and Ireland" is becoming "more common than it was before", not "a preferred description", nor "more common than British Isles". Alternatively, determine where it is becoming preferred and state that. Bazza (talk) 12:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
But the references say offensive more than they say objectionable, so if we pick a single word it should be "offensive". As for "a preferred description", that's to match the phrasing of the sources and to avoid arguments about that. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 13:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Besides, offensive and objectionable don't mean the same thing. Someone could find it objectionable without finding it offensive. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 13:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not just Irish, but also some Scots who find it offensive.--MacRusgail (talk) 23:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Can you supply some references to offended Scots? 79.155.245.81 (talk) 23:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Still pending data on offended Scots (which will be new to me!) Meantime, no coherent objection to my proposal, or suggestions. 79.155.154.185 (talk) 18:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
I guess there are small numbers of every nationality who, for perverse reasons, find it "offensive". As for the Irish, I know many Irish people and I've visited the country on numerous occasions and I've yet to find anyone who gives a FF about it. Of course there are many opinionated, loudmouthed, nationalistic author types, a number of whom seem to be attracted to Wikipedia, who really do find it offensive. However, as a percentage of the overall Irish population we're probably talking less than 1. Have I a reference for this? No; because the vast majority of Irishmen are not opinionated, loudmouthed, nationalistic author types who try to ram their views down everyone else's throats. MidnightBlue (Talk) 19:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Interesting point about Scottish independence: why is Sctotland still part of the Union? 'Cos the majority of Scots want to be. MidnightBlue (Talk) 19:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
"opinionated, loudmouthed, nationalistic author types who try to ram their views down everyone else's throats" Oh, the irony. Yours, Daicaregos (talk) 21:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Midnight Blue, kindly spare us good people your complete unadulterated shite regarding the views of the Irish people on this term. In fairness to yourself you do admit you are talking rubbish: "I've no references...". If you are so sure of Irish acceptance of the term "British Isles", maybe you could run for election in Ireland on your clearly preferred "Come now, Paddy, desist from this independence malarkey and rejoin the Empire, old bean" ticket? In the meantime, 1916 happened and the European Union happened: get over it for the love of sweet Jesus. Dunlavin Green (talk) 00:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Well if MidnightBlue had a reputable source to say that Irish were opinionated loudmouthed nationalistic author types we might have to take it seriously. He doesn't, any more than he has a reference for his percentages. Meantime the sources say that many Irish find the term offensive, and we have a cracking good diff to prove that MidnightBlueMan - as he might put it - doesn't give a FF about verifiability. Another one to join the list. 79.155.154.185 (talk) 07:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
So, ignoring MidnightBlueMan for a moment, any other comment? Is it an acceptable proposal? 79.155.154.185 (talk) 08:55, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
No it isn't. You clearly don't understand what "offensive" means. See my Talk page for a discussion on the matter. MidnightBlue (Talk) 14:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Once again, it matters not a jot whether you think it's offensive or not. Perhaps you are right and people ought not consider it offensive. However, it is verifiable fact that they do consider it offensive. So, once again, do you have sources to contradict the sources currently available? If not then we should disregard your views as unsupported and irrelevant. 79.155.154.185 (talk) 15:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
The references (on the refrences sub-page of this Talk page) which point to "offensiveness" are either weasel references, in which case they shouldn't be used, or qualify the nature of the offensiveness as applying only to Irish Nationalists. So if the word "offensive" should be included - and I don't believe it should be - then at the very least it should be qualified with details of precisely that group of people who do find the term offensive, i.e. Irish Nationalists. Are we sure they find it "offensive", as one would find the word nigger offensive, or is it just the case that they don't like it - I wonder? MidnightBlue (Talk) 17:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

(reduce indent) Can MidnightBlueMan please be specific WHICH references he thinks are weasel references? Otherwise he's just mimicking other editors whose argument is IDONTLIKEIT. If we start with the whole "nationalists" thing then we must include that since the great majority of Irish people are nationalist (and there's ref for that) therefore the great majority of Irish people find the term offensive. If that's the proposal then we can work on text to say that the great majority of Irish people find the term offensive. 79.155.154.185 (talk) 06:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Unless there is a reliable source which makes the inference or syllogism you are trying to make use of ("Nationalists (tend to, almost all, mostly - which one is it?) find the term "British Isles" offensive"; And "The great majority of Irish people are nationalist"; Therefore "The great majority of Irish people find the term offensive") could well be said to be WP:OR. In fact, unless we are sure what is being argued, the conclusion may not be guaranteed anyway on logical grounds: the arrangement of the Nationalists who find the term offensive (one of the premises) together with the arrangement of the great majority of Irish people who are nationalist (the other premise) may mean their intersection (the conclusion) is not guaranteed to be "a great mjority of Irish people". That assumes that the individual premises in the syllogism (the logical form used) are true anyway, which I imagine is not as clear-cut as you make out. So, I think this argument fails as the reasoning is not safe, and the conclusion is not guaranteed to be valid, and is arguably Original Research anyway.

79.155.154.185 asked me if I could comment on the verifiable sources used here on my talk page, and this must necessarily include the validity with which such verifiable sources are used. If I have the time and inclination, I can do this, but such comments will "cut both ways", and I also think it would be to everyone's advantage is less practice in personal accusations, and more practice on hard critical thinking and reasoning would help editors here be more objective and less likely to inflame matters by making use of faulty and otherwise inappropriate reasoning. Come on, guys, the criticism of this argument is elementary stuff in reasoned argument. I'm also don't want to single out 79.155.154.185 in this, as I think all sides are not being as rigorous in this area, but I do want to thank him for raising the issue, which is a good point to make, about the quality of the evidence and (hence) the reasoning used to arrange them together.  DDStretch  (talk) 08:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

The sources do not use all the modifiers that DDStretch is using to try to imply that there might be synthesis (tend to, almost all, mostly). If we go with the "nationalist" line, instead of the simple "many" and "often" then we have to explain to readers who these "nationalists" are. They are "the great majority". Text would have to be like "The term 'British Isles' is offensive to Irish nationalists, which make up the great majority of the Irish population. " No synthesis, no syllogisms. There may be lots of people who DONTLIKEIT, but this would not be synthesis. Still a lot easier to stick with the simpler text and not to get political. 79.155.154.185 (talk) 08:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Good, I asked for an elaboration to explain the argument you gave, and you have responded by giving one.

In which case, if it is as you say it is, then the modifier I asked about above would be an implicit "all", especially so, given what you write above.

I also note that you have apparently changed your position as well, since you are now omitting the sentence you put in the phrase I replied to: "The great majority of Irish people find the term offensive". This is a significant change for the good, as the absence of the conclusion removes the synthesis that drawing the conclusion would otherwise seem to make. There's nothing wrong with changing your position for good reasons, by the way. Indeed, it is the sign of a rational person to do so.

That still leaves the possibility that the reliable sources may not exactly allow us to state "The term 'British Isles' is offensive to Irish nationalists" and "[they] make up the great majority of the Irish population.", though I imagine some may think at least one of these statements is so obvious as to need no verificantion. These premises may themselves, if formed by particular interpretation of the reliable sources, be found to be synthetic in an undesirable way.

Remember, if you really feel that attention to the reliable sources, etc is required, and, hence, attention to the reasoning is important, then I am merely responding in ways that will help editors discover the better reasoning themselves, and so some of my comments may appear to be stupid. I am trying to get you to think about the arguments in more critical and rational ways. I remain open-minded about what is actually the case.  DDStretch  (talk) 09:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

(reduce indent) Oh for heaven's sake DDStretch, my point was and is still clear. The sources clearly say that it is a term which offensive to many Irish. Apart from the sources which mention nationalists there are several others which say things like "often offensive to Irish sensibilities", and so on, and others which don't mention nationalists but do say "many". Others describe the term as almost unsayable in Ireland. If people want to bring nationalists into it then we must also clarify for the passing reader who this means. According to survey it means the great majority of Irish people. If we are to apply reasoning to all these references - all together - then the conclusion is clear. If we avoid making the whole thing political then it's easiest to leave "nationalist" out of it and simply adopt the rational conclusion from the references, that the term is offensive to many Irish. My proposal is still to leave the phrase as "objectionable or even offensive" as a softener to try to win agreement from those who deny the references. 79.155.154.185 (talk) 10:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

No need to appear impatient: remember, some things which are obvious to some will not appear to be obviosu to others, and there are many different reasons how this can arise. If the sources say that it is a term which is offensive to many Irish, then all right: the debate can then go into whether those sources are reliable and accurate or not. I haven't read them, and don't intend to, as that is your (the bulk of editors concerned with the actual content on here) main job, and I'm only commenting and intend to comment on the quality of argument here. I'm doing this to try to avoid being unduly partisan here. Remember it is up to you to justify the conclusions you want to draw against reasonable alternative explanations that are offered, and it is not the job for others to prove you wrong. It is an issue of burden of proof and the nature of alternative explanations in this kind of debate: The burden of proof is on those advancing a case to show that reasonable alternative explanations are not valid, whereas the obligation on those offering up alternative explanations is only to show that they could apply. Finaqlly, a minor point, but it is best dealt with, as being accurate is a key to avoiding drama here. You wrote: "If people want to bring nationalists into it then we must also clarify for the passing reader who this means. According to survey it means the great majority of Irish people." Does it? I am sure if your position is accurate, it will only be strenthened and rendered immune from undermining alternative explanations if you can provide some evidence for this (it should be fairly easy, I think.)  DDStretch  (talk) 11:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
As an extra comment, I just glanced at The talk sub-page giving references It is not as well-organised as it could be to take the discussion forward. Thus, I think some thought may be given to re-arranging the references in an easier to see form that would show which references say what about the term "British Isles", and which ones say who thinks what about the term "British Isles". It can be done by adding a table similar to the solution done on Countries of the United Kingdom about the terms that should be used to describe England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales. I would have thought that anyone interested in sticking more closely to what the references state might see that as a good move.  DDStretch  (talk) 11:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
I already mentioned one reference about nationalists in Ireland. See the discussion in the archive. [1]. I have no doubt that there are many more. 79.155.154.185 (talk) 11:35, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent reply to 79.155.154.185) Good! Then you could make a start on constructing an informative table on the talk sub-page giving references. I really think doing so would be informative and a useful way of encouraging people to become more focussed on the reliable sources and the deployment of them. Try to design a table so that the information it shows supplies information about both "sides" in this dispute, and people will then be able to more accurately see just what the literature says.  DDStretch  (talk) 11:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Part of the problem in constructing an informative table is (i) I have no idea how to make tables in a Wiki and (ii) tables often imply that the text gets very summarized. As for "both sides", I have not found a second side. I've looked and I've repeatedly asked the editors arguing against inclusion of the material about the offensiveness of the term for evidence of another "side" and none has ever been produced. 79.155.154.185 (talk) 11:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Ok, two problems, and they can be tackled in turn. For the first one, you can take a look at Help:Table. Additionally, looking at tables as used in other articles (I've given some pointers to similar tables, above), can yield clues about creating tables in wikipedia. For the second point, if you personally don't know of any other side, and don't know where to find any, then just concentrate on adding the information you do know about. I hope that all who dispute the content would then begin to make points and supply information that could be added to a "counter" section of the table in some way. In terms of what to include, then there are already pointers in what has already been said: (a) "Most Irish are nationalists" (could include evidence in favour of this, and a column for evidence against it. This evidence could be in the form of criticisms about the quality of any sources, for example) (b) Nationalists find the term "British Isles" offensive" (without the qualification of "most"), (c) the same as (b), but with the addition of "most".

Remember that a good policy to have in the back of your mind comes from a major proponent of Critical Rationalism, the philosopher Karl Popper. He wrote (I can find the exact quote if anyone is interested enough) "I may be wrong, and you may be right, and by an effort we can get closer to the truth", though we need to modify the idea of "truth" to fit in more with wikipedia's criteria.  DDStretch  (talk) 12:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

(reduce indent again) And on Wikipedia truth is verifiability, i.e. reputable sources. 79.155.154.185 (talk) 12:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you are right: the accurate description of verified, reliable sources, that can be cited can be used in place of "truth" in the above quote, and that will make the quote fit much more with Wikipedia's criteria.  DDStretch  (talk) 13:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Can I just remind everyone who is contributing here to review and consider their comments in the light of WP:TALK? Some comments that have been made in the past in this section would have been clearly in contravention of WP:TALK and a number of policies, and warnings and blocks might have then ensued. The most recent comments here are just about all right, but we could do with them being made even less directed at people and more directed at the arguments the people have advanced.  DDStretch  (talk) 16:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

And I'd like to remind everyone of [2], [3], and [4], respectively Reliable Sources, Verifiability and No Original Research. It would be nice if people paid a little attention to them. 79.155.154.185 (talk) 08:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, you are correct; especially of note is the the synthesis bit on the No Original Research page. Coupled with all of these, I think the issue of using good quality critical thinking and reasoning to assemble the evidence is also important. If people paid more attention to these aspects, then I imagine their work would be such that there would be less time available to spend on inappropriate personalised arguments and comments.  DDStretch  (talk) 08:35, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
There is no synthesis involved in the way the sources are currently used. Nor are they "weasel" references. 79.155.154.185 (talk) 08:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

(reduce) So, does anyone have any referenced objection to the phrase "objectionable or even offensive" or can we go with it? 79.155.154.185 (talk) 12:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The New British History Page 86, point 7. It states "There is and never has been a geopolitical term covering Britain and Ireland; and although from the Roman period and throughout the Renaissance period, European scholars and mapmakers had a clear notion of the Insulae Britannicae and Britons subsequently had no difficulty with the geographical term 'The British Isles', that term has been and is resisted and resented by the majority population of the island of Ireland...." --HighKing (talk) 14:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Appropriate. Is that John Morrill? I can't see the preview page.—eric 18:23, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it's Morrill. --HighKing (talk) 13:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that's him. I take it he must have done a survey to arrive at his conclusion