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. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
British Isles#History
This section has been Unreferenced section since January 2011. If no one can be arsed to improve it, it should be deleted. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 19:29, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
- It's probably not referenced because it's simply a summary of the main article linked in the section which is well referenced on all those points. Canterbury Tail talk 20:53, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
- "Unsourced material may be challenged and removed". What part of the text are you challenging as inaccurate? Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:10, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
- I am challenging this as unsourced. While working on my taraxacology I noted BSBI Handbook number 9, Dandelions of the British Isles (Dudman & Richards 1997) has been renamed Dandelions of Great Britain and Ireland. The Botanical Society of the British Isles itself was renamed in 2013 as the Botanical Society of Britain and Ireland, a fact I would expect this article to mention. You guys were "probably" (ie I can't be arsed to check) involved with this article in 2013 and possibly as far back as when the boiler plate was added. I don't see much improvement in this article- no mention of the Irish Sea border. Do you not think it is time to step up or step back? JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 09:32, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
- As stated at the top of this talk page, there is a dedicated talk page on the nomenclature issue at Talk:British Isles/name debate, and there are separate articles at British Isles naming dispute and Terminology of the British Isles. It's disappointing that you "can't be arsed to check" the history of this article, or indeed improve the referencing yourself. But, I agree that it would be appropriate to mention the Irish Sea border issue, briefly, under the Politics section of this article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:59, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
- The Revision of 20:40, 15 July 2006 is preferable being a list. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 13:25, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
- ??? Canterbury Tail talk 13:56, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
- The section had been unreferenced section since January 2011. The reference point above is at exactly 1,000 edits so should be easy to locate for all. By 2 000 edits The History section actually had references! JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 14:33, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
- ??? Canterbury Tail talk 13:56, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
- The Revision of 20:40, 15 July 2006 is preferable being a list. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 13:25, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
- As stated at the top of this talk page, there is a dedicated talk page on the nomenclature issue at Talk:British Isles/name debate, and there are separate articles at British Isles naming dispute and Terminology of the British Isles. It's disappointing that you "can't be arsed to check" the history of this article, or indeed improve the referencing yourself. But, I agree that it would be appropriate to mention the Irish Sea border issue, briefly, under the Politics section of this article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:59, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
- I repeat - which aspects of the text - the content of the text - are you challenging? And why? As another editor said, it is a summary of another - sourced - article, linked to it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:48, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
- The unreferenced content. The other editor said probably. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 14:54, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
- You misunderstand me. What aspects of the (allegedly) unreferenced content are you challenging? Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:04, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
- If I am misunderstanding it is not apparant to me. The unreferenced content - that part of the section that is unreferenced. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 15:15, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
- JorgeLaArdilla, The question Ghmyrtle is trying to ask, is , simply, what statement in the article are you claiming is untrue? IdreamofJeanie (talk) 15:29, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
- I am not claiming it is untrue, I am claiming it is unreferenced. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 15:31, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
- We know that. But, before removing it, you need to challenge its accuracy, not simply state that it is unreferenced. And, you are edit-warring (as you have been told). Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:34, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
- Wikipedia describes multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context rather than as "the truth" (WP:5 Pillars). The references determine the accuracy. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 15:56, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
- Yes. So? And if you believe that the Isle of Man and Orkney are parts of Ireland, your contributions are conspicuously detracting from human knowledge, rather than adding to it. Would it not be simpler to retain the old text and add some references yourself? They clearly exist, the facts are uncontentious, and everyone would be grateful if you added a few. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:41, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
- I am not opposing the addition of references. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 19:08, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
- So... just do it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:30, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
- The onus is on the editor who adds content. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 19:48, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
- Obv, but that clearly hasn't happened and it's quite likely that none of those who added most of the content are still around. So, Plan B is for the only editor who objects to it to do the work themselves, instead of simply removing information that is (A) accurate and (B) useful to readers - who are the people that we (you) are supposed to be here to help. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:40, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
- Presumably Plan A is WP:5P: "All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources, especially when the topic is controversial" JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 21:02, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
- Indeed they should. But you have still not identified what is controversial about that section? Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:09, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
- It states "especially when", not "only when". JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 21:15, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
- Indeed they should. But you have still not identified what is controversial about that section? Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:09, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
- Presumably Plan A is WP:5P: "All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources, especially when the topic is controversial" JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 21:02, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
- Obv, but that clearly hasn't happened and it's quite likely that none of those who added most of the content are still around. So, Plan B is for the only editor who objects to it to do the work themselves, instead of simply removing information that is (A) accurate and (B) useful to readers - who are the people that we (you) are supposed to be here to help. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:40, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
- The onus is on the editor who adds content. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 19:48, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
- So... just do it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:30, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
- I am not opposing the addition of references. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 19:08, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
- Yes. So? And if you believe that the Isle of Man and Orkney are parts of Ireland, your contributions are conspicuously detracting from human knowledge, rather than adding to it. Would it not be simpler to retain the old text and add some references yourself? They clearly exist, the facts are uncontentious, and everyone would be grateful if you added a few. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:41, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
- Wikipedia describes multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context rather than as "the truth" (WP:5 Pillars). The references determine the accuracy. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 15:56, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
- We know that. But, before removing it, you need to challenge its accuracy, not simply state that it is unreferenced. And, you are edit-warring (as you have been told). Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:34, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
- I am not claiming it is untrue, I am claiming it is unreferenced. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 15:31, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
- JorgeLaArdilla, The question Ghmyrtle is trying to ask, is , simply, what statement in the article are you claiming is untrue? IdreamofJeanie (talk) 15:29, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
- If I am misunderstanding it is not apparant to me. The unreferenced content - that part of the section that is unreferenced. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 15:15, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
- You misunderstand me. What aspects of the (allegedly) unreferenced content are you challenging? Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:04, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
- The unreferenced content. The other editor said probably. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 14:54, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
- I am challenging this as unsourced. While working on my taraxacology I noted BSBI Handbook number 9, Dandelions of the British Isles (Dudman & Richards 1997) has been renamed Dandelions of Great Britain and Ireland. The Botanical Society of the British Isles itself was renamed in 2013 as the Botanical Society of Britain and Ireland, a fact I would expect this article to mention. You guys were "probably" (ie I can't be arsed to check) involved with this article in 2013 and possibly as far back as when the boiler plate was added. I don't see much improvement in this article- no mention of the Irish Sea border. Do you not think it is time to step up or step back? JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 09:32, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
You really should try to get a consensus for whatever it is, you're attempting to do. GoodDay (talk) 10:50, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus" JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 11:17, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
- If you continue on your current course of action, it may lead to your getting a block for edit-warring. Recommend you get a consensus here, before you attempt any more huge content deletions. GoodDay (talk) 11:22, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
- The Consensus is WP:5 Pillars and my edits are in accordance with that. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 11:27, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Johnbod: I notice your involvement at Alfred_Jewel. Do you have any easy references to hand? JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 12:55, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
- The Consensus is WP:5 Pillars and my edits are in accordance with that. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 11:27, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
- If you continue on your current course of action, it may lead to your getting a block for edit-warring. Recommend you get a consensus here, before you attempt any more huge content deletions. GoodDay (talk) 11:22, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
- Saw the edit war and looked at the content. In the one area I do know a moderate amount about (Welsh history), the summary is
"the Principality of Wales ... was slowly being annexed into the Kingdom of England by a series of laws"
– err... nope? My best guess is someone got confused with Henry VIII's Laws in Wales Acts 1535 and 1542, because the conquest of Wales turned into a stalemate of back-and-forth warring until one major military campaign cleaned up, and the legal annexation came much later and relatively quickly.[1] Basically, almost everything about that statement is very wrong. And that's the only bit I know enough about to call out without resorting to secondary sources. It doesn't fill me with confidence about the rest, which looks an equally sketchy summary written by a non-expert who was summarising without referring to secondary sources. I'm happy to add this to the long list of things I want rewrite, but I can't promise I'll get round to it soon since I'd need to do a lot of reading to make sure all the important bits get appropriately summarised. In the meantime, I'd be supportive of nuking it down to just a {{main article}} link to avoid the risk of factual inaccuracies like the one I pointed out. Alternatively, is there a similar article we can pinch a historical summary from? Jr8825 • Talk 00:19, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
References
- ^ The Normans almost conquered the entire thing, then were largely pushed back. Then the Crown left the frontier to a group of Anglo-Norman barons who conquered and settled the south, militarised the border, and then settled into a pattern of constantly bickering with the independent Welsh princes, who also bickered among themselves and occasionally raided England, until Edward I came along and crushed the main Welsh kingdom in one fell swoop, then built a series of massive castles to make sure it stayed that way. And although at that point Wales was militarily annexed, it was held as an independent title and not legally annexed until Henry VIII.
- I tend to agree - looking at the actual content this section and the History of the British Isles, the claims that the section is a summary of that article don't really ring true - and although the article itself has some references, there are several unreferenced sections in there. So a thorough review of both seems in order. However I don't support just removing stuff because it needs to be updated/checked - it's already tagged for maintenance and that's sufficient for readers to know to be slightly wary of the information presented while we work - together - to verify the content and provide references as appropriate. WaggersTALK 12:30, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Botanical Society of the British Isles
In 2012, the members of Botanical Society of the British Isles voted to be renamed as the Botanical Society of Britain & Ireland in recognition of "the important contribution that our Irish members make to the society".(BSBI Name change press release, 1 October 2013) JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 19:19, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
- That is not what the source says. In 2012, they voted to be renamed but the source does not explain why they did that. The source says: "BSBI members voted last year to adopt the name Botanical Society of Britain & Ireland. Ian said: “This also flags up the important contribution that our Irish members make to the society”." (my emphasis). We do not know that the two things were connected - that is simply your interpretation. Please stop making things up to suit your own, quite obvious, agenda. And, the BSBI is, in the overall scheme of things, a minor organisation of no great significance. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:36, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
- OK so you are invoking Exceptional claims require exceptional sources? JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 19:40, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
- I've looked at your words several times and have no idea what you are trying to say. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:43, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
- I do not believe it is an exceptional claim, We know they are connected because it is after all the Name change press release (Name_change_press_release_01_10_2013_LM_JH-3) I am trying to say In 2012, the members of Botanical Society of the British Isles voted to be renamed as the Botanical Society of Britain & Ireland in recognition of "the important contribution that our Irish members make to the society" JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 19:47, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
- There is no evidence that the name change was "in recognition" of anything. The name change could have been for any number of reasons - we don't know. The reference to the important contributions of Irish members could have been entirely unrelated. You are guessing they were connected, but guessing is not allowed. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:54, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
- In 2012, the members of Botanical Society of the British Isles voted to be renamed as the Botanical Society of Britain & Ireland flagging "the important contribution that our Irish members make to the society"? JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 19:56, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
- That makes even less sense. You are still linking two statements, without having any reliable source for doing so. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:07, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
- No they linked them by including them in the same press release JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 20:11, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
- That is simply your interpretation - not good enough. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:24, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
- What is not good enough? JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 20:28, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
- You are making assumptions, rather than following what the source actually says. Not good enough. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:39, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
- How would you amend it? The biggest change to anyone outside BSBI has been a change to our name from the Botanical Society of the British Isles to the Botanical Society of Britain and Ireland – a subtle change but an important one that reflects our geographic coverage in a more appropriate way? JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 20:44, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
- You are making assumptions, rather than following what the source actually says. Not good enough. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:39, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
- What is not good enough? JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 20:28, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
- That is simply your interpretation - not good enough. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:24, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
- No they linked them by including them in the same press release JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 20:11, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
- That makes even less sense. You are still linking two statements, without having any reliable source for doing so. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:07, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
- In 2012, the members of Botanical Society of the British Isles voted to be renamed as the Botanical Society of Britain & Ireland flagging "the important contribution that our Irish members make to the society"? JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 19:56, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
- There is no evidence that the name change was "in recognition" of anything. The name change could have been for any number of reasons - we don't know. The reference to the important contributions of Irish members could have been entirely unrelated. You are guessing they were connected, but guessing is not allowed. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:54, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
- I do not believe it is an exceptional claim, We know they are connected because it is after all the Name change press release (Name_change_press_release_01_10_2013_LM_JH-3) I am trying to say In 2012, the members of Botanical Society of the British Isles voted to be renamed as the Botanical Society of Britain & Ireland in recognition of "the important contribution that our Irish members make to the society" JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 19:47, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
- I've looked at your words several times and have no idea what you are trying to say. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:43, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
- OK so you are invoking Exceptional claims require exceptional sources? JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 19:40, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
- Ain't saying so, but. If there's some kinda anti-British Isles agenda thing going on here? That could end bad. We've already had (and still have) a few editors banned from the topic British Isles. GoodDay (talk) 20:04, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not banned. I live in the British Isles, I quite like them. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 20:10, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
- Take care that you don't end up banned. This topic can easily stir up emotions. GoodDay (talk)
- ty JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 20:22, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
- Take care that you don't end up banned. This topic can easily stir up emotions. GoodDay (talk)
- I'm not banned. I live in the British Isles, I quite like them. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 20:10, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Rip the bandage off
As a US-based editor who came here from WP:NPOV/N to see how WP:NPOVNAME titles are handled in the lede, I found this a particularly bad example. Obviously endless war has left a scorched earth that resulted in what reads as a mealy-mouthed disclaimer at the end--talk about burying the lede! I think a more direct approach to the disputed name produces a much clearer article for the reader, which is what this Encyclopedia is supposed to be about. I've gone ahead and WP:BOLDly edited the first two sections to tackle the dispute up front, so the explanatory text can be moved down to the Etymology section.
Just to be clear, I'm not trying to re-open a RM discussion. I think there is a reasonable case to be made that the title passes WP:NPOVNAME, and we need to call it something, so the most widely used name is optimal; and I'm not advocating for or against that. But assuming that is true, then WP:NPOV still applies to the body text, including the lead-in to the names. By cowardly pushing the dispute off, it looks like Wikipedia is taking sides by minimizing it. Addressing it right up-front makes it clear to the reader (remember that's whose opinion actually matters) that we acknowledge the dispute so we are not picking a side.
I expect that this change may be auto-reverted by a virtual-bot, so to avoid that appearance, if you revert, you need to articulate an actionable objection here to move the process back to consensus. Dhaluza (talk) 23:09, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- Respectfully disagree. The edit you made, which avoids using the term as much as possible until late in the lead, implies more strength to the dispute than this article contains. The dispute has its own article. By putting it so up front and ignoring using the term is not summarizing this article, but bring more attention to a topic that this article is not about.
- The other problem with it is that your edit implied that the term British Isles is not used in the Republic of a Ireland which has been proven and shown on so many occasions to be incorrect. It’s even used by the government. The opposition to the term is more of a vocal minority than a term not used at all and objected to by all. Not dismissing their views, but it’s been shown it’s not that clear cut as a claim that it’s not used in the RoI. Canterbury Tail talk 23:36, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- What I got from the refs is that "British Isles" is not recognized by the RoI government, and they prefer "Britian and Ireland", but saying it is preferred there does not imply is it used exclusively. That sounds like more than a vocal minority objection. Dhaluza (talk) 00:17, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
- It also really looks like a crusade to ensure that the term 'British Isles' is not known to be disputed. It ignores the heavy political weight the term has for one of the Islands that has been subjugated and oppressed by the terms namesake. Why is it the same editors again and again pushing for the controversy to be obscured? The term 'British Isles' itself is inherently pretty unimportant in the scheme of things so why is it so important to keep it as sacrosanct? When the entirety of the talk page and and entire separate article are focused on the controversy, why can't it be admitted that the controversy is actually a hugely important facet of the article and address that so the readers (more important than the editors) understand that Bringob (talk) 08:47, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
- It isn't wikipedia's role to name things, but to report what things are named. We have no power to change the name, no matter how badly some people want to change it. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 09:00, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
- The naming of the islands is according to the preponderance/vast majority of sources. There is controversy but this is clearly acknowledged in the lede with a link to the debate about the controversy. It is factually incorrect to state that the controversy is being obscured and this article does not need to repeat that which is shown in the accompanying article on the controversy. This article is about the islands (whatever they are called): the geography, the history, the culture etc. Presumably those advocating a change want the controversy to be disproportinately a much larger part of this article. No the controversy article is precisely there for this purpose - acknowledging the controversy and showing the debate in detail supported by reliable sources. Robynthehode (talk) 13:41, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
- It isn't wikipedia's role to name things, but to report what things are named. We have no power to change the name, no matter how badly some people want to change it. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 09:00, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
I know that this is leaping into a fire pit but here is a suggestion. Lets consider being very explicit and strict on the geographical meaning of the name and moving everything else to linked articles. If it is rocks/lakes/climate/flora/fauna/area etc leave it here (British Isles), for countries/language/demographics etc create or link to different articles (UK/ROI/...). A explicit split like this would fend of many future edit wars and I think it would actually result in a better article. Just a partially thought out idea (where do demographics go?) but it might be a way forward. Comments? Mtpaley (talk) 19:34, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- Ridiculous. You want to turn the article into a useless stub. What next, a proposal to delete it? Dimadick (talk) 20:27, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Inclusion of French in the list of languages
There is a little back-and-forth on this. I removed it (and I was not not the first editor to do so) from the infobox, as at that time, it was not in the body text, and, more importantly, over many years, it has been my experience that foreign languages are only mentioned in infobox (or lede) if they are overwhelmingly present, or have special status. Otherwise the UK, for example, would have Polish (>500k native speakers, far more than French), as well as Urdu, Bengali, Punjabi, Arabic, (some of the latter four also appear to have more native / regular speakers than French), plus French, German, Dutch, and many other languages, listed (none are, though Cornish, which wholly died, and has been part-recovered, with <0.01% speakers, is), Sweden would have Arabic among others (it does not, though that language has far more speakers than some of the old native tongues which are mentioned), Germany would have Turkish (millions of home users), etc. This issue was also discussed for Ireland some months back, and it was decided to stick with only local languages - there was an interesting debate about local sign languages and cants. Anyway, a mention was then added that French is spoken by some in the Channel Islands, and another editor countered that that is Norman, not modern French. So, best place to settle this, calmly, is here.
- It goes without saying that if it is included anywhere, this requires referencing. Coming back to this, there are at least two other points / questions, if the basis for including French is a claim of usage in the Channel Islands:
- * It is not clear that the Channel Islands are part of the British Isles at all (some geography texts say they are not, as they are physically part of the mainland continental structure, not the GB/Ireland archipelago - which does include the Isle of Man, Orkneys, etc.)
- * We'd need solid evidence that French is used as a native language - not the local dialects (three surviving) descended from Norman - and this, on a quick search, I did not find. SeoR (talk) 07:30, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- Well, I have worked there, and on the first, the Channel Islands are NOT part of the British Isles, but are part of the British Islands, and there's a law which covers this, an Interpretation Act. On the second, it is not, here's one recent summary:
- > English is the language you will hear most of the time in Jersey, but many of the inhabitants can speak Jèrriais, a descended form of Norman (a separate Latin-derived language close to French). In Guernsey, Guernésiais, also a modern version of Norman, is actually widely spoken. There were at least two other Norman-linked languages in the past.
- > French has some official recognition in Jersey, which is odd, as it is not much in use, but may be a diplomatic thing, or a nod to the many Jersey folk who are of close French ancestry.
- 195.91.214.78 (talk) 08:24, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- So, the two points above appeared near-contradictary but on checking the French point (gathered at Jersey Legal French), all is actually pretty clear, and it is not recently in use by people at large, indeed:
- Jersey Legal French, also known as Jersey French (French: français de Jersey), was [emphasis added] the official dialect of French used administratively in Jersey. Since the anglicisation of the island, it survives as a written language for some laws, contracts, and other documents. ... the current use of French in the States of Jersey is generally restricted to certain limited official state functions and formalities (prayers, ceremonies, formulæ). By common custom and usage, the sole official language of Jersey in present times is the English language.
- SeoR (talk) 09:12, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- The Interperation Act of 1978 defines the term "British Islands" as including the Channel Islands but does not define the term "British Isles" at all, and certainly does not say that "the Channel Islands are NOT part of the British Isles" as claimed above. In fact the constitution of Guernsey says "Guernsey is a part of the British Isles but not the United Kingdom" and the Jersey government's "Facts about Jersey" web page says "Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man are part of the British Isles."
- As a reminder, it is not our role as Wikipedians to decide what the facts are, but merely to report what reliable sources say about the subject. WaggersTALK 12:32, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- In the past I too have queried having the Channel Islands as part of the British Isles. That act and the other CI sources do not really help, Should we not be clear what this article is about, the geographical BIs or the political BIs? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:38, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- This isn't about availability of sources, it's about weighting. WP:N, not WP:V. What should we be telling readers? At the moment the article presents a number of languages as though they were commonly spoken in the British Isles. One of them has 4 native speakers, another has 57. Some have a few hundred. This is undue weight and misleading. If all of the listed languages were legally recognised or had some sort of privileged official status then maybe one could argue to retain them, but that's not the case. I'd suggest we either only list official languages or we list in descending order by number of speakers (with sources). Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:07, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- In the past I too have queried having the Channel Islands as part of the British Isles. That act and the other CI sources do not really help, Should we not be clear what this article is about, the geographical BIs or the political BIs? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:38, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
I don't believe it should be either official languages or a descending list by number of speakers with, presumably, some arbitrary cut-off point. The defining feature surely is languages that originate in the British Isles, as English, Cornish, Welsh et al do, and as French and Polish and Gujarati do not. Captainllama (talk) 23:01, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- The infobox is a very, very, brief summary of the most important points made in the body. That means an awful lot of detail from the body is not included because it is impossivle to do so in one or two words without giving a false impression of what the body text says. Infoboxes are commonly misused and every now and then need a culling. This is one of those times. All that is needed, IMO, in the language section is English, probably Welsh, and possibly Scots Gaillic. Cornish - no: it is extinct and its revived version is not a community language. All those CI languages - no, the speakers are far too few, even if you include the CIs as part of the BIs. We should not forget that certain editors love lists and will rummage around to find the slightest excuse to add detail to a list, ignoring weighting, relevance, importance or even simple common sense. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 23:18, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- I agree with both Captainllama as to the concept, and Roger 8 Roger on the need to keep it brief - I would indeed say English, Welsh, Irish and Gaidhlig. I am sympathetic to the other traditional languages, and all should be mentioned in the body text but indeed all can't reasonably go in the Infobox. And then a following paragraph could tackle the acquired languages. And another the massively present non-local languages. That leaves Shelta, Gammon, and other travelling people languages, etc. SeoR (talk) 08:00, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Demonym
I hesitate to ask, out of trepidation for opening another lengthy debate, but are there any demonyms widely used to refer collectively to inhabitants of the British Isles? Would that be another (distinct, yet potentially ambiguous) meaning of Briton/British (like Ireland can refer to an island or a country), or would it be British Islander (readily misunderstood as applying instead to the British Islands), or something else? Surprisingly there is nothing mentioned in either this article or Terminology of the British Isles.
At first one might think that there needn't be a demonym for the geographical region: that they are only needed for politically defined places. But we do have demonyms for the (geographical) continent of Africa, for instance.
—DIV (194.193.139.240 (talk) 01:17, 11 January 2022 (UTC))
Support good-faith IP editors: insist that Wikipedia's administrators adhere to Wikipedia's own policies on keeping range-blocks as a last resort, with minimal breadth and duration, in order to reduce adverse collateral effects; support more precisely targeted restrictions such as protecting only articles themselves, not associated Talk pages, or presenting pages as semi-protected when viewed from designated IP ranges.
- Having observed many of the outraged complaints about geography on this talkpage, it's an interesting question. However, compared to geography, I think it's pretty clear that common usage would indicate that "British" people inhabit the island of Britain, and "Irish" people live or originate from on the island of Ireland (don't read too much into my awkward semantics, it's a narrow needle to thread). This might break down for some in Northern Ireland (who might claim both), but I think it's clear that there's no widely used or accepted common demonym for the collective inhabitants of the British Isles in the English language. And given how sensitive the topic can be for geographic Ireland, I wouldn't blame anybody for being outraged if some common demonym was attempted to be applied. Language isn't consistent, and can be contradictory. I've never seen a scholarly discussion on the topic of that distinction in usage. Perhaps it provides some insight into why the geographical term can seem so loaded. Thank you for asking the question. Acroterion (talk) 01:37, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
- And Manx people the Isle of Man, etc. And no, there is no generally used term, nor ever was. At one time, more than a century back, “British” was used to reference the subject status of people across the UK but even then it would not have been considered a “British Isles” term but a polity or imperial thing. As noted above, any attempt to apply some term now would cause outrage; the term for the islands itself causes outrage or concern for many but is in established usage. SeoR (talk) 07:02, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
- The larger island is not 'Britain' it is Great Britain, because it's the greater (larger) of the two islands of the British Islands. Important distinction, considering the overwrought animosity to basic geographical names. It's also significant from a cultural and population perspective because Northern Ireland and the majority of its people, culturally and politically consider themselves British. it would be more accurate to say that the people of the Republic of Ireland, on the Island of Ireland, are considered to be Irish, while everywhere else in the British Isles is considered to be British. Metalmunki (talk) Metalmunki (talk) 13:44, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- It's also Great Britain to distinguish it from Lesser Britain. See both articles. Britain is an ambiguous term best avoided. Your other assertions about "British" and "Irish" suggest you are confused about physical terminologies and demonyms, and if in a article would require some hefty decent references to back them up. Bazza (talk) 14:02, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- Using your own analogy, "European" seems to be the closest you'll get to cover both islands. (I stress that that is "European" in the geographical sense, not in the narrower political one. Bazza (talk) 11:13, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
WP:NOTFORUM reminder, folks... BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:23, 11 January 2022 (UTC)