Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Wikipedia vote: inserting "British Isles" into articles

Options
124

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    IIMII wrote: »
    Bad example, murky and controversial area

    Edit: Are you talking about soccer?

    Why does the 'island of Ireland' play as one team in soccer? :confused: I already said I was referring to rugby.


  • Options
    #93
    Rebelheart
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,077 ✭✭✭Rebelheart


    prinz wrote: »
    Care to explain the area known as New England?

    Or the West Indies.....?

    Try and stick to the point because you're sounding more specious by the post.


  • Options
    #94
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    IIMII wrote: »
    But in Ireland we call them Romans.............................................. Roman Islanders that is. And hell, who cares if they are offended


    No, but we do call Romania, ROMANia.


  • Options
    #95
    Executive Steve
    Registered Users Posts: 3,373 ✭✭✭Executive Steve


    IIMII wrote: »
    Hah? That's like saying something must be so in Galway because an Aborigine said so in Australia. Look, if we wanted to be known by that title, the state would recognise it.

    (Which it doesn't fyi)



    ...because it's not a political phrase, however much you wish it was.

    it's a geographical phrase.

    Even Great Britain is only called "Great Britain" because the Normans knew it as "Grand Bretagne" - "Bigger than Brittany"


  • Options
    #96
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    Rebelheart wrote: »
    Try and stick to the point because you're sounding more specious by the post.

    So you refuse to acknowledge or refer to examples then?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    IIMII
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,366 ✭✭✭IIMII


    [cm]tyranny wrote: »
    ...because it's not a political phrase, however much you wish it was.

    it's a geographical phrase.
    Which is why the State objects to it


  • Options
    #98
    IIMII
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,366 ✭✭✭IIMII


    prinz wrote: »
    No, but we do call Romania, ROMANia.
    Why can't they be called the Roman Isles though? Would it have to be decreed by Britain first for it to be so?


  • Options
    #99
    Rebelheart
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,077 ✭✭✭Rebelheart


    prinz wrote: »
    So you refuse to acknowledge or refer to examples then?

    Come back with something a bit more coherent and relevant. At the moment you're all over the place. Stay focused. If you have ADD I apolgise.


  • Options
    #100
    Executive Steve
    Registered Users Posts: 3,373 ✭✭✭Executive Steve


    IIMII wrote: »
    Which is why the State objects to it




    The state doesn't use it because states talk in political terms - geographers don't.


  • Options
    #101
    getz
    Registered Users Posts: 5,255 ✭✭✭getz


    all sounds a bit daft to me --northern ireland being in the british isles,yet the irish republic being in what ever,


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    partyguinness wrote: »
    ..because the British are like that..its more ignorant Little Englander than anything else. I have seen it many times before. I blame their education.

    Not so much "Little Englander" more "Christ almighty, is it really that big of a deal.

    look, i would be happy defining the british isles as 364.25 of the 365 islands off the north coast of France. Then everyone is happy.


  • Options
    #103
    partyguinness
    Registered Users Posts: 8,203 ✭✭✭partyguinness


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I'm not British, and I have no issue with the term. Why? Because it is a geographic term, and has no political overtones except those that people choose to give it.

    It has no political overtones, except those that people choose to give it. I disagree. In order to be offended by the term, it is necessary firstly to redefine it to mean something that it doesn't mean. The term "British Isles" doesn't refer to ownership or political control, and hasn't for as long as I've been using it. To be offended by it requires that you consciously attach such an interpretation to it, and then get offended at your interpretation.


    [Some] People find it offensive. Some dont. You dont find it offensive..fine.

    What is offensive, be it a term, word or expression, is entirely subjective and that is stating the obvious.

    I wonder would you apply to same logic to an African American who found the word N*gg*r offensive? After all the word n*gg*r is derived from the word "Negro" meaning "black"..on its own it makes sense but is highly offensive. Old people use the expression and see nothing wrong with it.

    I do not live in Britain and this is not a "British Isle" simple as that.


  • Options
    #104
    partyguinness
    Registered Users Posts: 8,203 ✭✭✭partyguinness


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    Not so much "Little Englander" more "Christ almighty, is it really that big of a deal.

    look, i would be happy defining the british isles as 364.25 of the 365 islands off the north coast of France. Then everyone is happy.


    Perhaps that is the difference here. You dont see it as a big deal. Some people do see it as a big deal.

    Britain is Britain and Ireland is Ireland. The Lions were called the "British Lions" up to 1997 and then changed to "British and Irish Lions" and the interest here has rocketed.

    Can you see why people found find the term offensive (not that you have to agree with it).


  • Options
    #105
    IIMII
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,366 ✭✭✭IIMII


    getz wrote: »
    all sounds a bit daft to me --northern ireland being in the british isles
    Ireland (including the six counties) is not part of the 'British Isles'. Jeez, get over yourselves. No more than Gibralter is a British Isle other than the fact you hold it.
    getz wrote: »
    yet the irish republic being in what ever,
    In Ireland?


  • Options
    #106
    Rebelheart
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,077 ✭✭✭Rebelheart


    getz viewpost.gif
    yet the irish republic being in what ever,
    IIMII wrote: »
    In Ireland?


    :)


  • Options
    #107
    nitrogen
    Closed Accounts Posts: 698 ✭✭✭nitrogen


    partyguinness wrote: »
    I had a similar problem with an English guy on YouTube.

    He had posted a video on the "British Lions" and I asked him to correct it.

    Cue...a fairly obnoxious set of replies back and forth with the general tone being that I was being "precious". And that was the more polite of the words used.

    How do I vote? Cant seem to make it out.

    Trying to have a discussion on YouTube - you'll get more coherent responses from traveller kids.


  • Options
    #108
    getz
    Registered Users Posts: 5,255 ✭✭✭getz


    IIMII wrote: »
    Ireland (including the six counties) is not part of the 'British Isles'. Jeez, get over yourselves. No more than Gibralter is a British Isle other than the fact you hold it.


    In Ireland?
    the people of gibralter like northern ireland have their own goverment and their own EU members of parliment they the gibralter citizens have been british far longer than the colony was ever was spanish,the people of northern ireland are also british, both countrys are british because they both wish to be so,they both can decide at any time to chose there own future, and i am sure being from the irish republic that you understand that it is important that the people decide for themselves ,if i sound a little mad about this is because my wife is from gib and if i ever called her spanish she would cut my balls off


  • Options
    #109
    partyguinness
    Registered Users Posts: 8,203 ✭✭✭partyguinness


    Gibralter is the biggest ****hole I have ever set foot in...:mad:

    Only the British could have managed to turn a nice sunny part of the mediterranian into something that resembles Doncaster.

    Being under British jurisdiction is not the same as being "British". Its only a temporary little arrangment.


  • Options
    #110
    IIMII
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,366 ✭✭✭IIMII


    getz wrote: »
    i am sure being from the irish republic that you understand that it is important that the people decide for themselves
    Oh being from Ireland I understand that people should decide for themselves. Being from Britain seems to signal the polar opposite, especially in deciding who is British, and when they are British, and how British


  • Options
    #111
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    Rebelheart wrote: »
    Come back with something a bit more coherent and relevant. At the moment you're all over the place. Stay focused. If you have ADD I apolgise.


    Actually it's very relevant, the West Indies are so called, yet have nothing to do with India. Do you find that equally offensive? New England was called New England by the original colonists, yet it is still called New England 200 plus years after independence, do you find that offensive?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    IIMII wrote: »
    Oh being from Ireland I understand that people should decide for themselves. Being from Britain seems to signal the polar opposite, especially in deciding who is British, and when they are British, and how British


    Didn't you a while ago ASSUME I was BRITISH, and refer to "ye"........ simply because I have a different opinion to you. Seems to me you have no qualms about deciding who is what and when.


  • Options
    #113
    partyguinness
    Registered Users Posts: 8,203 ✭✭✭partyguinness


    prinz wrote: »
    Actually it's very relevant, the West Indies are so called, yet have nothing to do with India. Do you find that equally offensive? New England was called New England colonists, yet it is still called New England 200 plus years after independence, do you find that offensive?


    You will have to ask the people of the West Indies and New England that question whether they find it offensive or not and what relevance has that to this discussion about the phrase "British Isles" in a forum full of Irish people in Ireland I have no idea...:confused:.


  • Options
    #114
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    partyguinness wrote: »
    Perhaps that is the difference here. You dont see it as a big deal. Some people do see it as a big deal.

    Britain is Britain and Ireland is Ireland. The Lions were called the "British Lions" up to 1997 and then changed to "British and Irish Lions" and the interest here has rocketed.

    Can you see why people found find the term offensive (not that you have to agree with it).

    I can see why people don't like it, as i said earlier, it's not ideal. I don't understand why people get offended about it though. If the name gets changed then fine, big deal. I just can't see "North Atlantic Archipalago off the north coast of europe, to the left of Norway but if you get to Iceland you've gone too far" catching on though.

    the thing is, once this is changed, what are people going to find to be offended about next.....:D


  • Options
    #115
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    partyguinness wrote: »
    You will have to ask the people of the West Indies and New England that question whether they find it offensive or not and what relevance has that to this discussion about the phrase "British Isles" in a forum full of Irish people in Ireland I have no idea...:confused:.

    Because finding offense in geographic terms is ridiculous, and the whole thing is spawned by latent anti-British sentiment, nothing more. Which is even more ridiculous.


  • Options
    #116
    getz
    Registered Users Posts: 5,255 ✭✭✭getz


    partyguinness wrote: »
    Gibralter is the biggest ****hole I have ever set foot in...:mad:

    Only the British could have managed to turn a nice sunny part of the mediterranian into something that resembles Doncaster.

    Being under British jurisdiction is not the same as being "British". Its only a temporary little arrangment.
    i take it you have never crossed the boarder into la lina ?hell hole yes like parts of dublin/cork/ manchester/ liverpool ect-people from gib are british citizens not british subjects-and you may find this strange, alot of the gibrater citizens were born in ireland during ww11


  • Options
    #117
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    the thing is, once this is changed, what are people going to find to be offended about next.....:D

    A campaign to change the lyrics of Rule Britannia, because Britannia doesn't rule our waves.

    Rule Britannia, Britannia rules the waves of the territorial waters and exclusion zone of the United Kingdom la la la

    Very catchy.


  • Options
    #118
    partyguinness
    Registered Users Posts: 8,203 ✭✭✭partyguinness


    getz wrote: »
    i take it you have never crossed the boarder into la lina ?hell hole yes like parts of dublin/cork/ manchester/ liverpool ect-people from gib are british citizens not british subjects-and you may find this strange, alot of the gibrater citizens were born in ireland during ww11

    Why would I find that strange?

    British citizens..yes whats the issue there? I dont recall saying anything to the contrary.


  • Options
    #119
    partyguinness
    Registered Users Posts: 8,203 ✭✭✭partyguinness


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    I can see why people don't like it, as i said earlier, it's not ideal. I don't understand why people get offended about it though. If the name gets changed then fine, big deal. I just can't see "North Atlantic Archipalago off the north coast of europe, to the left of Norway but if you get to Iceland you've gone too far" catching on though.

    the thing is, once this is changed, what are people going to find to be offended about next.....:D


    Of course that name is ridic...

    Here's a mad idea...why dont we call the islands excatly what they are....

    "Britain and Ireland "or "Ireland and Britain"...

    No confusion and nobody gets offended...:D


  • Options
    #120
    getz
    Registered Users Posts: 5,255 ✭✭✭getz


    prinz wrote: »
    A campaign to change the lyrics of Rule Britannia, because Britannia doesn't rule our waves.

    Rule Britannia, Britannia rules the waves of the territorial waters and exclusion zone of the United Kingdom la la la

    Very catchy.
    rule britannia is not a national anthem no more than republican/royalist battle songs are ,but the words of the irish republics anthem are


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    IIMII
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,366 ✭✭✭IIMII


    prinz wrote: »
    Didn't you a while ago ASSUME I was BRITISH, and refer to "ye"........ simply because I have a different opinion to you. Seems to me you have no qualms about deciding who is what and when.
    I did, and I apologised - you were waving the Union flag about so furiously that I presumed you were British rather than just an Irish Anglophile. Anyway, my mistake and I apologise again


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement