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.
Article milestones Date Process Result August 26, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted March 5, 2007 Good article nominee Listed October 16, 2008 Good article reassessment Delisted July 5, 2010 Peer review Reviewed Current status: Delisted good article

Template:WP1.0

This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Ireland B‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. UK geography B‑class High‑importance This article falls within the scope of WikiProject UK geography, a user-group dedicated to building a comprehensive and quality guide to places in the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you wish to participate, share ideas or merely get tips you can join us at the project page where there are resources, to do lists and guidelines on how to write about settlements.UK geographyWikipedia:WikiProject UK geographyTemplate:WikiProject UK geographyUK geography articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Scottish Islands B‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scottish Islands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of islands in Scotland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Scottish IslandsWikipedia:WikiProject Scottish IslandsTemplate:WikiProject Scottish IslandsScottish Islands articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Geography B‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of geography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GeographyWikipedia:WikiProject GeographyTemplate:WikiProject Geographygeography articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Geography To-do list: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : See Requested articles/Social sciences/Geography, cities, regions and named places and Missing articles about Locations Assess : Tag related article talk pages with {{WikiProject Geography}}. To help assess the quality and importance of geography articles, please see: Unassessed geography articles and Unknown-importance geography articles. Cleanup : See Geography articles needing attention Deletion sorting : Listed at Geographic related deletion discussions Geographical coordinates : See Articles missing geocoordinate data by country Infobox : See Geography articles needing infoboxes Map : See Wikipedia requested maps Notability : See Geography articles with topics of unclear notability Photo : See Wikipedia requested photographs of places Stubs : See Geography stubs

I posted the following to a handful of Wikiprojects. If anyone can think of more places to advertise it then please let that place know.

Obviously, much kudos to anyone already here that is willing to help out.

A while back the British Isles article underwent a peer review. Most of the suggestions coming out of it have been implemented and IMO the article is approaching GA standard. This is an article that had been dogged by POV issues and in-fighting amongst its editors so the achievement of getting it to the standard it is in admirable for all involved. However, one major sticking point is referencing, which are appallingly sparse. There is no way the article could achieve GA as it stands on account of the state of referencing.

The task of fixing it up isn't impossible. There are about 30 paragraphs that need referencing. With enough editors, we would only need to take two or thee paragraphs each to get the job done. To that end, I've set up a "meitheal" page. The idea is for anyone who is willing to help out to take a paragraph at a time and to references just that paragraph. If you can do more than one then great. Just come back and take another one.

The meitheal page is here: Talk:British Isles/Meitheal. If you're willing to help out, just dig in.

--RA (talk) 17:38, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ya may wanna make BI/M a sandbox. As an article, it'll get speedy deleted. GoodDay (talk) 17:48, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doh! Just got word of a speedy. Talkifying... --RA (talk) 17:51, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just used an online gaelic translator which gave me Na hOileáin bhriontanacha for British Isles. This isn't listed in the info-box, where the only translations would seem to relate British Isles to "Islands of Europe" or "Ireland and Britain". Can someone who speaks gaelic please advise on this matter. LevenBoy (talk) 11:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed, the term used is not a direct translation, rather it is the actual term that the isles are known by. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:02, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:British Isles/Archive 38. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:04, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I missed the debate. Having now skimmed it, it seems the current "translations" are nothing short of blatant lies. They do not reflect an actual translation but push the POV that Irish people use Britain and Ireland and not British Isles. LevenBoy (talk) 12:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They're not translations. They're the names used in other languages. For example, the English Channel is not called the English Channel in French, but "La Manche". Similarly in Gaelic the islands are usually called one of the two options given. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:23, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

La Manche is a direct translation of English Channel, and vice versa (try it with something like BabelFish), but you're right, they are not translations; I gave the translation above. I bet the versions in Welsh, Scottish etc are translations though, so why isn't the Irish one? Anyone reading that info box would assume "translation", but POV is dictating that in the case of Irish gaelic they're getting something different - misinformation. LevenBoy (talk) 12:38, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BabelFish is smart; Google not so much. Google offers "chaîne anglaise", the direct translation. TFOWR 12:43, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heh! French to English is "Quixotic" (sorry!): La Mancha. TFOWR 12:45, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, a proposal - we include the actual translation instead of the others. LevenBoy (talk) 12:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be more appropriate to use the "native name" field of the infobox for native names. I believe it's more useful for the reader to learn what the British Isles are really called in various languages, rather than what a literal translation might be. TFOWR 12:57, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

La Manche (say I with my limited French knowledge ;) ) basically means the sleeve, so that's not really a translation of english channel. We don't want translations in that box, we want native names. Unless you want to start calling China "Middle Country" and other such things... Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:18, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not POV by Irish speakers not to name these islands as na hOileáin Bhriotanacha. This term was coined by non-Irish speakers to "translate" the term "British Isles", where there already existed a perfectly good Irish translation. Remember, not every concept in English exists in every other language, and likewise, there are concepts in other languages that are not represented in English. I am from Ireland, and unlike most of the other Irish contributors on this page, I do use the term British Isles in English (just to qualify that sentence - I am constantly surrounded by other Irish people - one of the perks of living in Ireland I guess, and contrary to what you all may have been led to believe, not everyone in Ireland has abandoned the use of the term British Isles - in fact, not one of those I converse with uses any other term when speaking in English. When speaking in Irish, however, the situation changes, and all who can converse in Irish use the term Oileáin Iarthair Eorpa. But to emphasise, this is my own experience and not necessarily that of others). However, when I speak Irish I use the term Oileáin Iarthair Eorpa. This term is less confusing to speakers of Irish, as the term na hOileáin Bhriotanacha can be used to describe any British Isle. Hypothetically speaking, we could take an Irish speaker living in the Virgin Islands. This speaker could describe the British Virgin Islands, without referring to the Virgin part as that would already be implied, as na hOileáin Bhriotanacha in opposition to na hOileáin Mheiriceánacha (U.S. Virgin Islands). It was also noted above that the other "translations" do indeed translate the British Isles using their translations of "British" and "Isles" - not so I'm afraid. As a speaker of Manx I can assure you that the Manx term is not a direct translation. The Manx term ny h-Ellanyn Goaldagh (the hyphen is optional, but increasingly preferred in cases like this) actually translates as The Foreign/Gallic Isles, using the root word Goal (akin to Irish Gall c.f. Gaillimh, Dún na nGall, Galltacht, etc. and taken from the same root that gives us Gaul). The Manx word Goaldagh is now the preferred term for "British", but this has only occurred since the term ny h-Ellanyn Goaldagh came into being. The former word for British was Bretynagh or Bretnagh, with the former having since gone out of use, and the latter now used to mean "Welsh" exclusively. --MacTire02 (talk) 15:33, 22 September 2010(UTC)

I don't know about gaelic speakers, so maybe if there's no references, or even if there is, in the interest of fairness and NPOV those "translations" should be removed. LevenBoy (talk) 18:29, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some interesting stuff (not rigorous I know, but interesting): Google counts come up with 6510 for "na hOileáin Bhriotanacha", 7616 for "Oileáin Iarthair Eorpa" and 7270 for "Éire agus an Bhreatain Mhór" of which the latter two will have far more Wikipedia sites and mirrors than the first. Maybe we should get rid of all of them - what thinks ye? LevenBoy (talk) 18:35, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those translations should not be removed. To do so is do remove information. Those translations provide the reader with more information. Or are we going to strip down the entire Wikipedia of anything that may be construed as POV? Do we remove the Repubic of China article? Do we remove the Ulster article (after all there are those that consider that 9 counties in the north of the island of Ireland are Ulster, while there are those that consider Ulster as contiguous to, and including only, Northern Ireland). Do we remove translations in all articles? At the end of the day consensus was reached on the inclusion of the translations in the infobox, but restricted to those languages with official status (which is why we do not see Jèrriais, Guernésiais, Sercquiais, Shelta, and Cornish are not represented). References have also been supplied regarding the translations (except for the French and Welsh translations). Regarding Google searches - I would be very wary of those. A search of "na hOileáin Bhriotanacha" also includes links to "Oileáin Bhriotanacha na Maighdean", otherwise known as the British Virgin Islands in English. "Oileáin Bhriotanacha" shows 6,570 results on my last check (21:29) whereas "oileáin bhriotanacha -maighdean" shows only 2,210 results (21:30). These results also appear to change daily, and may or may not include mirror sites, or blogs where the terms may be discussed on several pages, thereby yielding more results.--MacTire02 (talk) 20:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it funny that LB only concentrates on the Irish translation and not the French/Scots/etc...? I have no problems with any of the language names for the islands. If these languages use a direct translation then we use that otherwise we use the name the language uses.

Quite. It appears the language in question does use the direct translation, but it's just not listed here. So a compromise; we list the direct translation as well as the other three - unless someone can come up with evidence to invalidate it, and I've not seen anything yet. LevenBoy (talk) 21:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But the "direct translation" does not mean "these" British Isles exclusively. It means ANY British Isles as long as they are under the control of Britain, including islands in the Indian Ocean, the Atlantic Ocean, as well as our islands here in Europe. Putting that in the infobox is misleading as native speakers do not use it, it has NO official status, and is very disambiguous at best. We can not simply ignore aspects of other cultures simply to satisfy another culture. That is blatantly wrong (and in my mind smacks of "we will do it our way because we are superior to you"). If we are going to go down this route are we going to insert under the French heading "Les Isles de Grande-Bretagne"? How about "Les Isles de Grande-Bretagne et d'Irlande", or "Les Isles de la Royaume-Uni et de République d'Irlande"? How can we know for certain they are not used? The fact is that "na hOileáin Bhriotanacha" is the translation for "the British Isles", but not as a toponym which is what that section is reserved for. --MacTire02 (talk) 21:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not this again... whilst i prefer a direct translation, the infobox states "native names". If a native name is not a direct translation of British Isles then so be it. Mabuska ^(talk) 21:57, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So we have two "native names" but the third, direct translation isn't a native name, but according to MacTire it means ANY islands owned by Britain. lol! All the points he raises above seem to be carefully crafted to ensure there's no reference to "British" in the terms used - like NO official status, for example. LevenBoy (talk) 22:29, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The direct translation is not a native name. It's a direct translation. MacTire is probably correct (I can't personally verify), and there is really no point continuing this. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 23:38, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LevenBoy, I think it might be best if you leave this particular conversation. My points are not "carefully crafted to ensure no reference to British". You obviously have no interest in, or knowledge of, the Irish language, and your opinion on it should therefore be ignored. You obviously have not read what I have written before on this topic. Yes I am from the Republic of Ireland, but I do NOT describe myself as an Irish nationalist. I am a great admirer of the United Kingdom and I have a great interest in the Scots language of both Scotland and Ulster, as well as the various unionist traditions and customs. I am also interested in the other minority languages of the British Isles, having been raised through Irish. When speaking English, I ALWAYS use the term "British Isles". When speaking Irish I always use the term "Oileáin Iarthair Eorpa" or "Éire agus an Bhreatain Mhór", depending on context, but never "na hOileáin Bhriotanacha". Using an incorrect translation is just wrong. Plain and simple. There's nothing political in that. Or maybe you perceive every linguistic difference as political? Do you view the French naming of the English Channel as La Manche as an affront to your British identity? Perhaps you also view the Latin Mare Germanicum as insulting - after all there's nothing purely German about the North Sea - Britain, Denmark and Norway also share that large body of water. Perhaps some people would be insulted by the Manx name for the Atlantic Ocean (y Keayn Sheear or the "Western Ocean") - what's Western about it? It's south of Greenland, east of Canada and the USA, south of Nigeria, north of Guyana, etc. Yet the Manx still call it the "Western Ocean" in their vernacular. Each language has its own peculiarities. In the case of Irish, the lack of a direct translation being used for the British Isles as a native name just so happens to be one of them, the reasons for which I have already discussed on the talk pages to this article - perhaps you should check out those reasons. Again I will say this: I couldn't care less about politics. --MacTire02 (talk) 08:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just as an addition. The term "Oileáin Iarthair Eorpa" is attested as a translation for the British Isles in Irish in the following historical sources:

• Foras Feasa ar Éirinn (University College Cork (UCC)) (c.1634 AD) ...bhronn Constantinus impir iar ngabháil bhaiste dhó oiléin iarthair Eorpa do Shilbhester Pápa... (note. oiléin in this instance is in the nominative plural)
• Foras Feasa ar Éirinn (An Sean-Ghinealeach) (c.1634) ...táinig ar teitheadh go hoiléanaibh iarthair Eorpa... (note. oiléanaibh in this instance is in the dative plural case).
• Foras Feasa ar Éirinn (UCC) (c.1634) ...óir do bhí cur ar oiléanaibh iarthair Eorpa aige...
• Annals of the Four Masters (1584 AD) ...fer foglamtha i m-bérlaibh & i t-tengtoibh oilén Iarthair Eorpa esidhe... (note. oilén in this instance is in the genitive plural)

--MacTire02 (talk) 17:37, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Dineen's authoratative Irish-English dictionary (1927: p.812) gives Oileain [sic] Iarthair Eorpa (Dineen's dictionary online) --MacTire02 (talk) 17:48, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oileáin Iarthair Eorpa literally means Western Europe Islands, dosen't really cut it does it. Try Oileáin na Breataine which does mean British Isles. --80.229.120.30 (talk) 09:52, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read any of the above? Any of it? It is beyond question that Oileáin Iarthair Eorpa is the authentic, historically-verified name in Irish for what British nationalists term the "British Isles". The references supporting this range from a sixteenth-century manuscript to a 1927 dictionary. 'Oileáin na Breataine' is a neologism created by you, unless you are referring to the Irish name for the British Virgin Islands (a quick Google would have saved this embarrassment) 86.42.19.155 (talk) 07:34, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it cuts it. It's a different language. Perhaps you should open your eyes and realise that not everything has to have an exact identical English language translation, and that English is not the centre of the Universe. Different languages have different means and methods for viewing the world, and it is this difference which shapes vocabulary. "na hOileáin Bhriotanacha", used to identify the British Isles, literally means everything about the islands in question is British, including people, languages, cultures, politics, etc. which is why it's not used. It is also unambiguous in nature and can refer to any island group in the world with a British connection. "Oileáin na Breataine" literally means Islands of Britain, and not British Isles. This is a valid term but excludes all of Ireland, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. --MacTire02 (talk) 13:04, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I live in Ireland since a couple of years. The Irish people don't like being called part of the "British Isles", because of they patriotism and history. Instead of "British Isles", here in Dublin they are called the "Anglo-Celtic Isles".

Is the name "Anglo-Celtic Isles" worth being mentioned in the wikipedia? --Abacos (talk) 16:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love to know what part of Dublin you are in because I can assure you that the term "Anglo-Celtic Isles" is not popular, either in Ireland or in the United Kingdom. Regarding its inclusion - the term has already been mentioned in the British Isles naming dispute page. Such a rare term does not deserve inclusion here, in my opinion. Although I do stand to be corrected. --MacTire02 (talk) 16:23, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What you don't like and what is actual are two different things Abacos. The Irish people may not like being part of the British Isles but unfortunately it is part of their heritage, like it or hate it. You cannot rewrite history just because some people don't like it!! I could think of a few names we in the real Ireland call those in Dublin but that's another argument. --80.229.120.30 (talk) 09:39, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good points by the IP, like it or lump it from the looks of it. Though "Anglo-Celtic Isles"? Never heard of it ever. It'd be a silly neologism as well seeing as the islands are more non Anglo-Celtic than they would have been 500 years ago or so. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly off-topic, but it is not such a neologism. For example from 1914:

The United Anglo-Celtic Isles
Will e'er be blessed by Freedoms smiles
No tyrant can our homes subdue
While Britons to the Celts are true.

The false may clamour to betray
The brave will still uphold our sway
The triple-sacred flag as yet
Supreme, its sun shall never set

- Southern Unionist Ballad (Ennis Unionist, 1914)

More off-topic, is 19th century use of "Anglo-Celtic" as a term that encompasses the folk of these islands, akin to "British". For example:

"Even the English are rather Anglo-Celts than Anglo-Saxons; and still more certainly is Anglo-Celtic a more accurate term than Anglo-Saxon, not only for that British nationality that includes the Scots, the Irish, and the Welsh; but also for that Britannic race, chief elements in the formation of which have been Welsh, Scottish, and Irish immigrants." - Arthurian Localities, John S. Stuart-Glennie, 1869

And of course, there the The Anglo-Celt, up near your neck of the woods, Mabuska. Founded in 1846.

About Anglo-Celtic Isles, it's not entirely unheard of. It does no harm to mention it in the etymology section. --RA (talk) 20:27, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--RA (talk) 20:27, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding, this edit, the naming convention is to bold common alternatives. Normally these occur in the first lines but that is not always the case:

"It is Wikipedia convention to emphasize alternate names at first use, normally in the first line. It is customary to bold the article title name, and its frequently used English-language synonyms, and to italicize foreign or historic names represented in Roman script. ... If this produces a garish first paragraph, consider moving the discussion of names to a separate section, or deemphasizing some of them."

Compare with Zion National Park, for example, which is an FA.

Regarding, undue weight, one of these terms (at least) is what RS describe as "becoming preferred usage" or "is the more favoured expression". Thus (one at least) deserves highlighting as a common alternative. --RA (talk) 22:36, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Extra bolding never hurt anyone. GoodDay (talk) 22:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The use of italics in the 4th para is clearly wrong, and the two alternative names referenced there should be bolded - but I don't think there's any need to move them to the first para (don't know if that was being suggested). Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:02, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with both the bold and that either of them are "becoming preferred usage" or "is the more favoured expression" outside a very small group, namely the government of ROI and people wishing to remain politically correct - if asked, the vast majority English speaking population of the planet outside the British Isles would not have a clue what either term was referencing. Codf1977 (talk) 17:30, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the vast majority English speaking population of the planet outside the British Isles don't even know what the British Isles actually are, and regularly mix up UK, Britain, Great Britian, British Isles, etc. So that's probably a better known term, but equally proportionally misunderstood. --HighKing (talk) 11:16, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While this is true, the sources do not add this caveat and are being treated as factual. Personally I view this as wrong, but since some editors refuse to recognise this I added the second alternative in order to illustrate the absurdity of the first. Wiki-Ed (talk) 18:53, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The introduction says when the isles were re-inhabited but doesn't mention when they were first inhabited. Any info on this? Kernow (talk) 06:09, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it's a bit complex so the introduction does not cover it in detail. When an informed person who knows a bit about early Pleistocene history checks in here they can update the article to factor in recent discoveries [1]. Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:50, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the term "British Isles" is replaced with an alternative such as "Britain and Ireland" simply because a reference has been found that uses this alternative, it leaves the status of the Isle of Man, Channel Islands and other islands within the group unclear. I would like views on the suggestion that B+I (or indeed GB+I or UK+I) does not equal BI and references using B+I should not in themselves be sufficient reason to replace BI. LemonMonday Talk 11:49, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]