Wikipedia vote: inserting "British Isles" into articles

partyguinness

IIMII wrote: »

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

Note: Perhaps you "assumed" correctly?

prinz

partyguinness wrote: »

Note: Perhaps you "assumed" correctly?

As I pointed out at the time, I am in fact Irish. But I don't let geographic terms keep me awake at night due to some sort of inbred resentment of Britain.

IIMII

partyguinness wrote: »

Note: Perhaps you "assumed" correctly?

Did I???? I don't really mind, one way or another but... but... the cheek of that imposter...

prinz wrote: »

As I pointed out at the time, I am in fact Irish. But I don't let geographic terms keep me awake at night due to some sort of inbred resentment of Britain.

Who are you calling inbred?

prinz

IIMII wrote: »

Who are you calling inbred?

And you claim to have studied the English language? I didn't call anyone inbred.

mike65

Not sure what this is doing in politics, its got a flavour of AH to it now.

partyguinness

prinz wrote: »

As I pointed out at the time, I am in fact Irish. But I don't let geographic terms keep me awake at night due to some sort of inbred resentment of Britain.

I would be worried if it was keeping you awake at night. It is a geographical term with political overtones.

Wanting this island or country to be referred to by its correct legal and political title without a reference to another country is hardly a crime.

And yes you are prob right. It is resentful that some people try to (albeit a minority) lump us under the title "British Isles".....should it not be?

Peoples origin should have no bearing on here anyway.

IIMII

I didn't say I was any good at it though. One thing I did learn though was that the English really are Germans, slagging aside. But most of them don't really believe that at all, but English without the infusion of norman French, and once the bits and bobs of Greek and Latin are once stripped bare, English is German.

And you have to laugh at these johnny-come-latelys English that are only about a nod past a millenium-in-age after arriving from Germany, lecturing a nation of thousands of years on what how we should be known. Even quoting Greeks and Romans that existed before they were even a sail on the horizon. They are gas - we should never have taught them to read and write.

IIMII

mike65 wrote: »

Not sure what this is doing in politics, its got a flavour of AH to it now.

There should be a nationalism forum, where Irish nationalists and British imperialists can argue away

Fratton Fred

partyguinness wrote: »

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

and feck everyone else

partyguinness

IIMII wrote: »

I didn't say I was any good at it though. One thing I did learn though was that the English really are Germans, slagging aside. But most of them don't really believe that at all, but English without the infusion of norman French, and once the bits and bobs of Greek and Latin are once stripped bare, English is German.

And you have to laugh at these johnny-come-latelys English that are only about a nod past a millenium-in-age after arriving from Germany, lecturing a nation of thousands of years on what how we should be known. Even quoting Greeks and Romans that existed before they were even a sail on the horizon. They are gas - we should never have taught them to read and write.

LOL...thats it...we teach them how to read and write (and then built the place in the 19th Century) and basically save them from their own savagery and look at the thanks we get?:(

Did we even invoice them?

The British are like the ungrateful pupils in school..the ones smoking in the toilets...in time they will appreciate...

Scofflaw

IIMII wrote: »

There should be a nationalism forum, where Irish nationalists and British imperialists can argue away

The "Irreconcilable Differences" Forum, perhaps. Yes, this thread is beginning to go the way of all such threads - and when it does, it will go the way of all such threads, if you catch my meaning.

cordially,
Scofflaw

partyguinness

Yes its defo time to close this thread.

All has been said and done (until it starts off again in a few months time).

Rodgeb

Ireland is not a 'British Isle'. It is Irish.

Its not an offensive term. Its just incorrect and misleading.

prinz

IIMII wrote: »

And you have to laugh at these johnny-come-latelys English that are only about a nod past a millenium-in-age after arriving from Germany, lecturing a nation of thousands of years on what how we should be known. Even quoting Greeks and Romans that existed before they were even a sail on the horizon. They are gas - we should never have taught them to read and write.

LMAO, because what we are an ethnically pure nations thousands of years old? :pac:

Nodin

prinz wrote: »

LMAO, because what we are an ethnically pure nations thousands of years old? :pac:

....certainly we bear the distended belly and hairy arse that was the distinctive mark of our ancestors....

IIMII

prinz wrote: »

LMAO, because what we are an ethnically pure nations thousands of years old? :pac:

Because we are ethnically pure, absolutely not. But because we are a nation thousands of year old, yes definitely? If we have a national identity going back thousands of years, what right has a recent neighbour to try and impose a new identity? The US of A has it's own national identity contrary to what the British wanted it to (along with half the planet come to think of it) so on all counts why wouldn't we just be known as Ireland?

We don't need the help of the British or anyone else to define ourselves

IIMII

Nodin wrote: »

....certainly we bear the distended belly and hairy arse that was the distinctive mark of our ancestors....

Mainly in Offaly, Pullagh to be exact

Fratton Fred

Nodin wrote: »

....certainly we bear the distended belly and hairy arse that was the distinctive mark of our ancestors....

Proof indeed of the shared past these islands have:D

partyguinness

IIMII wrote: »

Because we are ethnically pure, absolutely not. But because we are a nation thousands of year old, yes definitely? If we have a national identity going back thousands of years, what right has a recent neighbour to try and impose a new identity? The US of A has it's own national identity contrary to what the British wanted it to (along with half the planet come to think of it) so on all counts why wouldn't we just be known as Ireland?

We don't need the help of the British or anyone else to define ourselves

Up to the 12th & 13th centuries and joking aside, Ireland was light years ahead of England in terms of culture, language, art, legal system, education before the Anglo-Norman "visitation". Of course the propaganda would have us believe that we were all living in the Dark Ages...no..the English were living in the Dark Ages.

And even then everything as fine..the Vikings and Normans had been integrated into irish society without much fuss...its when the Henry the VIII started thinking with his penis and throwing his (considerable) weight around that things started to go a bit soar for the Irish (to put it mildly). He wanted to bring us down to his level and then some...

But we are not bitter and have forgiven everything...:o

Dannyboy83

Honestly, I couldn't give a sh1te what people call it.
I say UK & Ireland, or UK'n'I for short, but if somebody said British Isles, it wouldn't make my blood itchy.

Typical Republicans tho, always b1tching and moaning about the current situation, but never, ever offering a viable alternative:D.
4 Long pages of nonsensical bickering, and I didn't see any suggestions, lol

Reminds me of the African Americans on Jerry Springer, seeking out implicit racism wherever possible, begging to be offended so they can have a good moan, bloody drama queens:p.
Seriously lads, go take a holiday, go to Florida or Thailand or something.

Anyway, if it hurts people so much, why not just make up a new word from Latin.

Septentrionalis Insulae/ SepInsulae / The Moaning Archipelago.

It can't be that hard to make a new word that everyone will agree on, can it?

oscarBravo

partyguinness wrote: »

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.

It's generally accepted, by black and white people alike, that the term "n*gger" is an offensive one. Accordingly, it is either used to be deliberately offensive, or politely avoided. "The British Isles" is a well-established geographical term used to refer to a group of islands off the northwest coast of the European mainland. The only reason it seems to be considered offensive is that some people have decided to re-interpret the phrase in a way that they can take offence to.

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

Again, redefining terms in order to arrive at something you can be offended at. I've never, ever heard the singular term "British Isle" used before this conversation.

jonsnow

The position that the British Isles is only a geographic term is rubbish.The Geographers that came up with that title were British Imperialists and that informed everything they did.It is antiquated and insulting.
Ultimately any title can carry political overtones and the British Isles is as loaded as it gets.Our State is against it and the majority of Irish people are against it.If you are Irish and you have no problem with it bully for you.But most of us do.If the new englanders and the West Indians are okay with their names bully for them.I,m Irish and I live off Europe on an Island called Ireland.Its near another Island called Britain.

LordSutch

Oh God No > not this old chestnut again
When I first posted on boards.ie in 2005 there were people back then trying to stir up some kind of nationalistic grievance re the perfectly good & descriptive geographiocal term 'British Isles'. Regarding Wiki, I thought it funny a few years ago when the then foreign minister 'Dermot Ahearn' decided that Ireland was no longer part of the British Isles (due to one complaint from a geography teacher), this was then conveyed to all media outlets including the Irish Times. two weeks later and Wiki picked-up the story > followed by the Irish Times again, which then quoted the Wiki reference that term was to be dropped from Folens Atlas.

Personally I have no problem with the term 'British Isles', its a perfectly good term that I might use if I wanted to talk about the climate of the British Isles in comparisson to say New Zealand or Canada, or wherever, it has nothing to do with political parties, or who you or I am descended from, (it also has zilch to do with the foundation of this State)!

The term British Isles is just a really good descriptive term that covers this little group of islands laying off the coast of Brittany, talking of which, the weather has been very good right across the British Isles lately, sadly with clouds to move in from the west, later this week

partyguinness

Oh great camelot is here...a bit late in the day it has to be said...please OscarB close this thread for the love of God....:(...I am begging you..

Yes it is geographical term loaded with political overtones and is factually incorrect and with no legal status or relevence....there is no more to be said here...the trenches are dug.

IIMII

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

I say UK & Ireland, or UK'n'I for short, but if somebody said British Isles, it wouldn't make my blood itchy.

Why say UK'n'I for short? We aren't one country? No more than UK'n'F, or UK'n'G for France and Germany?

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

Typical Republicans tho, always b1tching and moaning about the current situation, but never, ever offering a viable alternative:D. 4 Long pages of nonsensical bickering, and I didn't see any suggestions, lol

Eh, Ireland and Britain, the actual names of the islands?

LordSutch

IIMII wrote: »

Eh, Ireland and Britain, the actual names of the islands?

No > There are over six thousand islands in the British Isles, these include Britain, Ireland, the Isle of Man, the Orkneys, the Western Isles, the Scilly Isles, the isle of Wight, Rockall, etc, etc, etc ...............

Its not just Britain & Ireland, hence the Term!

You can relax Partyguinness, that's my last word.

IIMII

Camelot wrote: »

No > There are over six thousand islands in the British Isles

Yeah, 6000 islands and they are all yours... Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

I ain't no British Islander, though I take it you are, bless. You must really miss us over here

oscarBravo

Thread - inevitably - closed.