Seeing as mainland Ireland is the largest island in the group shouldn't they now be renamed the Irish Isles or do you think they should remain the British Isles for the sake of tradition? YourPTR! 01:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well that is clearly not so and anyway we have to stick to common usage which is British Isles, SqueakBox 01:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I know we have to stick to common usage, it was just a suggestion to a possible future name for the islands. The fact is that mainland Great Britain has ceased to be an island since work on the Channel Tunnel got well under way and the main island of Ireland is now the largest island in the group whether we like it or not.YourPTR! 01:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"work on the Channel Tunnel got well under way" - where have you been for the last decade? The tunnel was completed years ago and has been in use for quite some time! Anyway, the tunnel doesn't change Great Britain's status as an island. Moreover, this is not a discussion forum about possible future names for the island, it's a talk page about the article itself. Since you say "I know we have to stick to common usage", I really can't see what you're trying to achieve other than disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Waggers 08:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An Island is a piece of land completely surrounded by water. Doesn't matter if it has bridges or tunnels connecting it to something else, Great Britain is still a piece of land completely surrounded by water. Ben W Bell talk 08:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:YourPTR! is a known troll. Please see his talk page before responding here. --sony-youth^talk 11:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Point is the people of Ireland do not want to be categorized as "British" they are not british, and here the term is usually "British and IRISH Isles" how would you like it if you bought a geography cateorizing your Island as Irish? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.232.1.50 (talk) 19:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:sony-youth recently removed the list of islands from this article without consensus. I've reverted that edit so that we can talk about it first. I agree that the list doesn't belong in this article (the article is already very long) but don't agree that it should be deleted outright. Note that the list originally lived at List of the British Isles which was merged with and redirected to this article in accordance with WP:MERGE (in other words, having been tagged for over a week and with no objections being raised). A similar length of time should be allowed for users to raise any objections to the un-merge.

My proposal is we move the list from this article to List of the British Isles. Caveats are that any introductory section to List of the British Isles should be kept as short as possible, as part of the problem we had before was that List of the British Isles almost became another article on the British Isles instead of a list of them.

Note also that the list in this article is ordered by location (clockwise from the North around Great Britain and Ireland). This makes it different from, say, List of the British Isles by area which is, as it says, ordered by size. Waggers 11:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to add: it's silly that List of the British Isles redirects here if this article doesn't contain a list. Waggers 11:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - and sorry didn't mean to cause harm when I cut it. I assumed the list was already out there, somewhere, when I took it out of there. --sony-youth^talk 11:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, thought that might be the case! Waggers 11:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with proposal to separate. But "List of British Isles" is begging for a revert war. You might get away with "List of islands in the British Isles". (I'd have preferred "Western Isles" myself, but that's been bagsed). --Red King 19:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe "List of islands in the British and Irish Isles".--padraig3uk 19:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

disagree - it does no harm where it is and it adds useful info to the article Abtract 23:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really care where you put it, on this page or on a separate one, so long as it's listed as "List of Atlantic Isles" or some such politically neutral term and not "british isles". Anarchocelt 06:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I recently did a survey with a large group of other people and asked over 300 people in every city what do they think of this term,98% of people do not agree with this saying that Ireland is in the British Isles as it implies we are British when we are not.A majority of people noted that they do not think the term should be used like Scandinavia as the term Scandinavia is not based of one area of the part of Europe but of all of it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikel-Fikel 82 (talk • contribs) 13:57, 18 April 2007 UTC (UTC)

Ah, that great news, so it is! Just hope Hugh doesn't wet himself with excitment when he hears about your work. Now, hurry up and get it published so we can use it here, will ya, like good man. --sony-youth^talk 15:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, three things. (1) Please sign your posts. (2) The article already covers the controversy over the name. (3) Please read our rules about original research. Thanks. Waggers 15:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May I just say I agree totally with User talk:Mikel-Fikel 82? Or will I be drowned out in sarcasm? (Sarah777 22:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

You agree that he did a survey? Were you there? It's still original research no matter how many people witnessed it. Waggers 07:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably going to invite a hell of a lot of trouble, but the post above got me thinking. In the absence of any other numbers, what is wrong with using the results of the boards.ie poll, so long as we don't make a big deal out of it? --sony-youth^talk 16:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be on the blink, so I'll just write the results:

"Do you recognise the term 'British Isles' in reference to Ireland?"

yes 159 (25.65%)

no 377 (60.81%)

i don't care 84 (13.55%)

For those unfamiliar with boards.ie, you can read the wiki article. --sony-youth^talk 16:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to say so because it would support my PoV, but I don't see that we can use this. It is a tiny, self selecting sample. Not statistically significant. --Red King 19:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it's easily significant (one variable, three levels, 620 samples - would be up there with a newspaper survey). The problem, as you say, is the self-selection - validity, specifically sampling bias - but do you think those who voted were so unrepresentative a sample of the broader Irish public so as to dismiss it? If it was included it would certainly have to come with the caveat of how and were it was selected. But you would see no problem from the point of view of validity of the source i.e. reporting an internet poll? --sony-youth^talk 19:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As some who lives in Ireland (aka RoI, especially by Wiki) I can attest that the suggestion that the aggressive iridescent culturally imperialist term "British Isles" is viewed as utterly repugnant by the overwhelming majority of Irish people (as distinct from British people living in the sundered six). "Overwhelming" here means 80% plus; if the survey was "self-selecting" it was because it attracted an excessive number of British moths to the flame. (Sarah777 22:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Well there you were "attesting" something and I waited with baited breath - and nah, you didn't provide a source. I could just as easily attest that the figure was 75%, or 60%, or 48.23% - and it would be equally invalid and meaningless. But to be honest I really doubt boards.ie attracts that many Brit users, apart from the odd tourist, maybe. User:Sony-youth - I'm not sure whether or not it could be used - are there guidelines anywhere specifically on internet polls? Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 22:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*In fact, least there be any residual confusion as to my stance on the issue, I suggest an infobox with this - File:Irish flag.gif - as the ONLY symbol.

* And Sony, quibbling over whether the repugnance is 80% or 60% is like one of those anti-Lancet Holocaust deniers on the Iraqi issue. Does "boards.ie" not attract British Unionists from the sundered six? maybe I'm too conservative with 80%? Heck. make that 90% (Sarah777 22:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Bastun, not Batsun, not Sony. Why not make it 98% like yer man in the section above? Sure may as well go for 100%! Fact is, until there's a reliable, non-self-selecting survey published by a reputable source, neither you nor I know what the figure is. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 23:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC) (Who, incidentally, watched a Galwegian interviewed on the Six-one news tonight protesting about the sludge from Mutton Island being dumped on farms, smelling the place out, and how "the Shannon - the longest river in the British Isles..." could get polluted - to approving nods from his fellow protestors).[reply]

Hmmm. Probably staged by RTE (aka Stickie Television). Obviously the water in Galway is starting to rot their frontal lobes. (Sarah777 00:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

An insult to the fine effluent of the watery Corrib.--Shtove 22:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[reduce indent] I don't think a discussion forum / message board is a reliable source. It's a source of dubious reliability because it relies heavily on personal opinion and isn't a reliable, independent research organisation. Wikipedia policy is that sources like this should only be used if:

• it is relevant to their notability;
• it is not contentious;
• it is not unduly self-serving;
• it does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject;
• there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it.

There are at least two criteria there that this source fails to meet. Waggers 07:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the kind of thing, I wanted to discuss - although the criteria above is for "Material from self-published sources in article about themselves [i.e. the author of the source]", not about sources generally. Is the issue the contentiousness? --sony-youth^talk 07:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are several issues to be worried about ...

1. The contentiousness
2. There's some doubt about who wrote it (presumably boards.ie is not immune from sockpuppetry so the voting could be skewed)
3. Presumably any registered user can still vote in the poll, so the result can still change, resulting in our cited source showing different information to what we put in the Wikipedia article (therefore by definition it's not reliable)
4. The source is arguably "self-serving"

Context is important here; we could use the results (as they currently stand) to illustrate the views of the users of boards.ie, but we cannot assume that this is indicative of the whole of Ireland, and it certainly isn't indicative of opinion anywhere outside of the Republic. I'm not dead against us using it in the article, but it must be worded very carefully to make sure it's clear that polls like this don't prove anything. Also, I think balance is important - we should really try to find a similar poll on a website aimed at a UK audience too. But as I said, poll like this aren't indicative at all and are easily manipulated.-- Waggers 11:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly what I mean. The wording would be a killer and we'd have to keep a hawks eye on it in case it every sunk down and got digested into everything else. A complientary site in the UK would also be nice. I agree with all of your points 100%. --sony-youth^talk 12:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Replied to User:84.68.93.126 on my talk page.) --sony-youth^talk 20:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)--sony-youth^talk 20:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting poll Sony-youth, thanks for telling us about it, personally I wouldn't object to it getting a mention in the article text and we seem to be getting nearer to someone doing a "proper" poll. Maybe one of us should ask Gallup! :-) MarkThomas 07:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From looking through this it seems only British people are the ones who insist that this terms if ok,People from the Republic of Ireland do not like this term and see it as a false one,People from a different country cannot claim something is right at one place when it;s not.# Mikel-Fikel 82 15:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So very true. But I can't really say that 'cos Ben will be on my case! (Sarah777 15:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

That's because in much of the UK, the term's usage is neither ambiguous or controversial. I've followed this rambling argument for months now and came to an informed conclusion a while ago that the real problem is that the group of islands has no other label (in English or many other languages) which most readers would realise referred to the isles. The potential for misinterpretation, and the obvious offence it causes to some, is well referenced, and is discussed in a separate article. Your statement that People from a different country cannot claim something is right at one place when it;s not. (sic) is unsupportable, though. For example, Taiwan claims its right to be a sovereign state whilst the People's Republic of China says that is wrong. Bazza 12:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think what # Mikel-Fikel 82 was saying was that a bunch of British Wiki-editors are not going to make Ireland a British Island - nor, indeed, can they make Taiwan non-Chinese. They can insist that Ireland be called a "British Isle" on Wiki; but that doesn't alter the fact that it isn't - it only further exposes Wiki's Anglo-American establishment bias and POV. (Sarah777 20:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Well if you'd like to tell the Irish senate, RTE and various Irish newspapers and news channels that the term can't be used to include Ireland then go ahead, as they seem quite willing to use it as has been proven many times in previous threads on this talk despite the total objection to the term that some seem to insist there is in Ireland. Ben W Bell talk 21:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ben, did I not explain the water-borne pathogen effect? And, we know there are Unionists in the Senate and the Oirish meeja is dominated by Stickies, anti-nationalists and crypto-Unionists. You'll never get a politician presenting for election in to the Dail using such a term???? (I rest my case)(Sarah777 21:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Historically the British Isles has always referred to Ireland as well as Great Britain (the larger of the two), SqueakBox 22:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In whose history? (Sarah777 22:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I am specifically referring to pre-1916 when it was the history of the British Isles as Ireland did not exist till this date as a sovereign nation, SqueakBox 22:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And how far back before 1916? Ireland wasn't part of 'Britain' until 1800.

So, for only 116 years out of the 10,000 years of human habitation it was (by the reckoning of the occupiers) part of 'Britain'? And not for nearly 100 years since then. Time to make the Wiki-name catch up with reality. China is no longer 'Cathay'; Thailand isn't Siam.

Ireland isn't British. (Sarah777 23:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Guys - please see Section 1 above. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 23:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as you can see Bastun, I'm only responding...but now that you've drawn my attention to Section 1 above - it says:

* Talk pages are not for general chatter; please keep discussions on talk pages on the topic of how to improve the associated article.

* Talk pages are not strictly a forum to argue different points of view about controversial issues. They are a forum to discuss how different points of view should be included in the article so that the end result is neutral.

Obviously BOTH these aims are defeated by including Ireland in something called the "British" Isles.

So, I am striving to rectify this abysmal situation. Some support would be appreciated. (Sarah777 23:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

"Abysmal situation" (Sarah777)? Not so. Wikipedia must aim to represent reality. The reality is that there is contention and confusion around this issue, plus a changing situation. In past Atlases, newspapers, etc, the islands including the island of Ireland were widely collectively known as the "British Isles" despite some disagreement with this term within Ireland. That has grown in recent years and it is clear that some modern atlases now no longer use that term, whilst others do. Some media sources in Ireland and others in Ireland also sometimes still use the term. It's also clear that internationally the term is under review by some, whilst still used by many others. I think the intro needs to try to reflect all this and doesn't do a bad job at it. The POV would be either (1) to claim it's all settled and Ireland is categorically regarded as no longer or not or never in the British Isles, which wouldn't be a fair representation of all that goes on, or (2) that the British Isles has always or does categorically incorporate the whole of the island of Ireland, which is also demonstrably not the case since there clearly is a growing controversy of, and partial rejection of, the use of the term in that way. If editors have another way of describing this situation that does not blatantly use the (1) and (2) POVs outlined, I for one would be happy to support it. As it is, some of the above discussion points are within the POV and therefore not suitable. MarkThomas 07:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bang on. We've been over this before. No need to descend into this particular pool of POV posturing once again. --sony-youth^pléigh 07:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No,Ireland has not been apart for just 116 years,Before the Plantations Ireland was not apart of Britain,It has only been with Britain for 800 years previouse to 1916.So when you said

So, for only 116 years out of the 10,000 years of human habitation it was part of Britain'?

You were wrong,Since the 10,000 years of Human habitation Ireland has only been appart of Britain for 800 or so of those years.If you going to comment here please see you history books on what old Britain did to Ireland.# Mikel-Fikel 82 17:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

10,000 years? You would have to source they were called the British Isles for even a frac tion of that time. I sense some POV pushing going on here. They are called isles because there are 2 of them, that is not UK pov pushing as it doesnt negate Ireland at all, SqueakBox 16:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

# Mikel-Fikel 82: It was occupied by the Normans; then the English. To call it British before the Act of Union is not accurate; until the mid-1600s the Crown of England didn't even control the whole country.

And, while we're being personal, if YOU are going to comment here I suggest you attend some adult literacy classes, or pay more attention at school (as applicable).

Squeak, I'm sure there is a point in there struggling to get out. Same advice to you. (Sarah777 20:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Typos are important in the article space not the talk space (often not worth straining the server fixing them). If you cant tell the difference between typos and literacy you probably need more experience in front of a keyboard. I actually find your personal attack re my literacy skills somewhat hilarious, but that is giving you the benefit of the doubt as attacks against real illiterate people would get short shop from me, SqueakBox 16:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On your user page Sarah777, it says you "used to be a troll" - are you sure it's past tense? Apart from anything else, your comments above are against the spirit of Wikipedia. Can you try backing off the fueding for a bit? Thanks. MarkThomas 14:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just call them the Atlantic Isles? That's what they are, after all, is islands in the Atlantic. it's a neutral term that has wide acceptance among the irish as well as independence-minded scots, welsh, cornish, and manx and is regularly used in publications by the Celtic league and others. There's no need to tie their name to any specific nationality since there are many nationalities living within them. Calling them the Brittish Isles because great britain is the largest nation-state is like calling north America the Canadian continent because canada is the state with the largest landmass on the continent. it's just plain silly. Anarchocelt 01:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - but its more than just silly; its the imposition of a politically motivated name by nationalistic British Editors, not on the basis of reason but by virtue of greater numbers of active editors. Maybe we need to get more American (as in USA) involved to get a more balanced view? (Sarah777 10:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

That's kind of the vibe i get from reading through this talk page Sarah, there seems to be a lot of that going on on wikipedia though, trotskeyists taking every chance they can to take a quote out of context and slur anarchists on the anarchism pages, anarchists doing the same thing to marxists, christians to muslims, mormons to anyone and everyone who dares to say anything even remotely critical of their church's explicitly white-supremecist history, and on and on. i've been a registered user for a little over a week after a couple years of reading and making the occasional anonymous edit and i'm about ready to hang it up already, there are reasons why none of my profs will accept wikipedia articles as credible sources. not to say that some of the articles aren't quite good, but it's the little things - the framing of debates & things like the name of this article - that are going to burn me out right quick. all ranting aside though, Atlantic Isles seems like a pretty obvious choice. It's the term i always use in my poli sci papers and the term I usually see used by people who are informed on current politics. several of the sources listed in the article already suggest "atlantic isles" or "atlantic archipeligo" as alternatives, so i know the information on alternative names has been part of this discussion for a while. given that, the heading of this talk section seems rather disingenuous. at the very minimum, a disambiguation-style sentence or two at the beginning of the article listing other commonly-used names would at least recognize that other names are commonly in use. That's a basic matter of accuracy and completeness that nobody but the most biased pro-british editor could object too. Anarchocelt 07:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't like Wikipedia policy, you can try and get it changed. Meanwhile, we all should abide by it, and that includes using the name that the majority of English speakers would most easily recognise - in this case, that's the British Isles. It isn't for us to decide what the article is called, that's determined by popular usage and Wikipedia policy. Whether we as individuals like the name or not is irrelevant. Waggers 08:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and what about what my suggestion/point that "a disambiguation-style sentence or two at the beginning of the article listing other commonly-used names would at least recognize that other names are commonly in use." ? there are other names in use. they are relevant. everyone admits that the name "British Isles" is controversial, and not just among contributers to wikipedia. so AT THE MINIMUM recognize the controversy & list a few of the other names. failing to do so is not a neutral position, it's a position that actively asserts that the one and only correct name is "british isles", thus asserting a POV. That may be the majority POV, but wiki guidelines also discourage the "Big Number" arguments so a simple (and unproveable) majority is not sufficient grounds to justify framing bias. this isn't a matter of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and i've had it up to my ears already with self-righteous ****** quoting rules that aren't even relevant. Besides, this thread was titled "what should the islands be called" and was started by a user saying that people who didn't like the name british isles should suggest alternatives, which is exactly what i did. Anarchocelt 08:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page is not for general discussion - that's made clear by WP:TALK and WP:NOT#FORUM. In my view, the original poster was wrong to start this discussion in that way - it was a clear breach of policy - but that's no excuse for everyone else to follow that wrong lead. We all have a responsibility to abide by the policies of the project; breaking them just because someone else led the way is not on. As far as mentioning the controversy is concerned, the other names are indeed mentioned in the introduction to the article. However, the BI article is about the British Isles themselves, not the naming thereof, so it would be wrong to draw more attention than is needed to the naming controversy - there's already another article dedicated to that subject. Waggers 09:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

actually waggers, you're dead wrong on that. this entire page is explicitly for the naming debate, scroll up to the top and take a look. it was seperated from the main talk page on the article for exactly that reason. so chill out why don't ye? also, having just gone and re-read the article, it most definately does not list other names in common usage in the english language anywhere near the top, which is all i'm asking for. so how about you take your nose out of your rulebook and pay attention to the real worlld for a couple minutes now and then, eh? grrr. Anarchocelt 20:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is quite true. I'll (attempt to) add some with references now. --sony-youth^pléigh 21:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a civil reminder. It's also worth remembering that this is an article about the islands commonly referred to as the British Isles, not the ambiguous terms British and Britain; I've read through it (again) and still can't find the claim that the bulk of Ireland is British which people keep alluding to. I will ask again a question I asked some time ago. If the article about the group of islands off the northwest coast of Europe is not to be called British Isles, despite that being a commonly recognized name for them, what should it be called? Bazza 12:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warning to other editors: I assume that you meant that as a rhetorical question, Bazza. And so, when Sarah777 seperated your post from its context by adding a subheading above it (which I have now striked out), it grossly misrepresented you post. I feel that making edits to this page so as to misrepresent another editors' posts in this way constitutes vandalism. I would welcome the opinion of others. --sony-youth^pléigh 13:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warning to other editors (2): You should really assume nothing except good faith Sony, on this issue Bazza was correct; he asked a simple question - I answered. The nature of my reply didn't especially trouble him, so, yet again, I ask you to CEASE reverting my edits in both Articles and now Talk Pages. Engaging in Edit-warring does you no credit.

Bazza, note the comments from the super-literate Mikel-Fikel below; any warnings for him? (Or only to my responses?)(Sarah777 14:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I had assumed it was done in good faith. It made no difference to me, the same as your strike-out. I've asked the question before and never really got an answer. If Sarah777 can provide some good references, then it would be reasonable to include the name as an alternative in the article. I suspect, though, that the article will retain its current title simply because it's well understood what it refers to. To tell the truth, I find this constant going-round-in-circles tiresome and had (foolishly) assumed that most editors would concentrate on the article's content rather than its name, especially as that now has its own article. Bazza 13:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bazza, they should be called the Islands of Britain and Ireland. (Sarah777 13:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Can you provide a reference for that name, or is it one you have made up? Bazza 13:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should have added: "Britain" is, as we all know, ambiguous; as is, although not to a similar extent, "Ireland". Bazza 13:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How do you mean "not to a similar extent"? Isn't the extent exactly the same; ie "Britain" refers either to the island of Great Britan or to the UK, and "Ireland" refers either to the island of Ireland or to the Republic? The only difference is that "Britain" is not the formal name for either of its meanings while "Ireland" is the formal name for both. Naomhain 14:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah777 I actualy logged out when I relised the mistake I made so shut up and don't inulst some one over a silly mistake.

And some one said there was a refrence to the Anglo Celtic Isles,maby it could be hcnaged to that.Mikel-Fikel 82 13:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't moving - there is a "British Isles" and Wikipedia needs to have an article on that. I think some of you need to move to Usenet, you are discussing your POV and not this article. To be blunt. MarkThomas 14:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bazza, "Britain and Ireland" is the way most folk (in Ireland) would describe the islands (though some refer to "these islands", thus avoiding a name). You asked me what the should be called:

They should be called "Britain and Ireland"; simple.

MarkThomas; thanks for your POV. You are wrong of course, the Isles are not british and are not recognised as 'The British Isles' by many inhabitants, who find the name offensive. As the article contains the offensive term, we are therefore discussing the article. To be blunt. (Sarah777 14:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Sarah, its nice to see you are as offensive on this page as you are on others. I guess here we go back down the hill to the name slinging and nationalist strutting that this page had been plagued with for so long and that many of us here had thought was behind us. I suppose it was too much to ask to contributors would behave in civil, mannered, rational, measured and sensitive manner. Its shameful. --sony-youth^pléigh 15:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the place for this discussion. This talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, not for general discussion about the subject matter itself. This has been made clear both in Wikipedia policy and at the top of this page. Waggers 15:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I note an English Administrator has closed off the debate. I would just like to say that Sony's comments above are outrageous, insulting, aggressive and a serious personal attack. (By no means the first such attack on me by someone whose entire contribution to Wiki consists of pushing his POV on a handful of Irish article). (Sarah777 15:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Doesnt matter where the admin came from. We dont discriminate against people based on nationality here at wikipedia, the international encyclopedia anyone can edit, SqueakBox 16:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such think as total objectivity in these matters; we are conditioned by our environment; they don't get a French referee to take charge of a match between France and Germany. Part of the problem with Wiki, and this article is a good example, is that the majority can just impose their will without addressing the arguments. Thus a valid claim that the CONTENT of the article cannot be divorced from the title chosen when that title is offensive to so many - is not addressed, but just brushed aside by those with the POWER to do so.

I make no secret of my views and perspectives; others who claim that, unlike me, they are free of BIAS are manifestly lacking self-awareness in several cases here. (Sarah777 16:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Admins never get it right, they always lock pages on the wrong version, etc, hence I will never become one myself. You are right there is no objectivity in these kind of issues but with NPOV we do the best we can, SqueakBox 16:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Sarah - the admin had no right to close the discussion. For the record I also agree with Sarah.--Vintagekits 22:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion was not about the article and has no place on this talk page. Where I come from or what my point of view is on what the islands should be called are irrelevant. Now please can we get back to making an encyclopaedia?! Waggers 10:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary - the discussion was about the article. My original question was If the article about the group of islands off the northwest coast of Europe is not to be called British Isles, despite that being a commonly recognised name for them, what should it be called? I accept that the heading, which was not added by me, is not ideal. Bazza 10:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, looking again at your post I can see that - it was the heading that made the section appear like a blatant policy infringement. In any case, the discussion turned into a suggestion box for alternative names and a discussion around them, rather than anything to do with improving the article. The name is contentious, we all know that - but unless there is clear evidence that another name is more widely used, there is nothing to be gained for the article from discussing the pros and cons of alternative names here. Waggers 10:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's like saying unless we have clear evidence of a more widely used term for American black people we must call them 'niggers'. The term BRITISH Isles, used to include Ireland, is extremely offensive to many people. And I read in some Wiki-policy regarding 'Usernames' that the offence is not for the user to adjudicate. (Sarah777 22:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

And to not include it is extremely offensive to people living in Ireland too, SqueakBox 23:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am so pleased you picked that example Sarah because it may help you to understand that we simply have to have an article called British Isles, however offensive, because it is the most widely used term for these islands ... yes nigger is unspeakably offensive in the modern enlightened world but there is still a Wikpedia article nigger because it was (and sadly still is in some quarters) a word in common usage.Abtract 23:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<reduce indent>But you'll find that the article on nigger discusses how and why the word is so offensive. It doesn't discuss [black people]. If you accept, Abtract, that British Isles is similar to nigger then you must also accept that we should change this article to discuss how and why the term is so offensive - but certainly not perpetuate its use by discussing the archipelago, in the same way that the nigger article does not discuss the race. (In any case, its not actually the term British Isles that's offensive, but the insinuation of being British - and I'm quite surprise to hear an English editor say that calling someone British is like calling them a nigger!) OK, only having some fun. --sony-youth^pléigh 23:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And here's me trying to be helpful ... I am off this article for a while now before I too get overinvolved.Abtract 00:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nigger is generally considered a racial slur whereas the British Isles, to the contrary, are a source of love, pride etc to many people, SqueakBox 00:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sony got there first! I was going to make the same point. As for the 'racial slur' - being called British may well be a source of pride if you are British; it isn't if you aren't! John may be flattered to be called manly; Jane will usually be rather offended. (Sarah777 00:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Where should the pros and cons of the name be dicussed of not here? If a better (more widely used) name for the article was to be found would that not improve the article? I know it's a fruitless task but, if we stifle debate, is that not a little close to censorship? This and similar debates have been going on here for some time (in my early days I got sucked in occasionally) and eventually each one settles down ... I agree it is a pity we can't spend our time more fruitfully but when editors have passionate beliefs they need an outlet and talkpages provide that, which is surely much better than them using the articles themselves. Despite all this seemingly wasted energy the article continues to improve slowly but surely. "Policy" is quoted several times above but does policy really prevent discussion about the name of the article?Abtract 11:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you to some extent Abtract, but surely Wikipedia is not in fact an "outlet for passionate beliefs" as you say, in fact, those would be better on a blog, and that is the mistake some of the editors are making in this discussion. As regards the actual title of the article, I agree this can be discussed, there is no censorship, just an appeal to reason, which is that clearly that is a very widely used entity name and needs explaining on Wikipedia. The dispute is referred to in the introduction, and that also does credit to Wikipedia. If people strongly disagree with the intro wording, suggest alternatives here so we can discuss them properly, rather than engaging in bitter (and essentially pointless) point-scoring style disputation. We do need to focus on the article and Waggers is right about that aspect. MarkThomas 11:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• "Where should the pros and cons of the name be dicussed of not here?" - Wikipedia is not a discussion forum.
• "If a better (more widely used) name for the article was to be found would that not improve the article?" - As I just said, if there's clear evidence that a more widely used term is available, of course it should be discussed here. But just listing possible alternative names without that evidence is not going to have any influence on the article and such discussion doesn't belong here.
• "when editors have passionate beliefs they need an outlet and talkpages provide that, which is surely much better than them using the articles themselves" - No. Neither the article space nor the talk space are for that purpose. We call such abuse vandalism and editors who persist in doing it get blocked.
• "Policy" is quoted several times above but does policy really prevent discussion about the name of the article? - Policy is that the most widely used (English language) name is what should be used for the article. Unless there is clear evidence that "British Isles" is not that name, there is no point in discussing alternatives here. Waggers 12:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for two thoughtful responses. I could not trace anything on WP:NOT that mentioned discussion forum, could you lead me to the place please? We surely need editors with passionate beliefs; I always assumed that one of the jobs of admins was to steer their passion not stifle it. Look, I absolutely agree that the debate about the name is going no-where and should be stopped - but stopped by the participants not by a passing admin. Abtract 12:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#FORUM is the specific bit about discussion forums, although admittedly it's mainly talking about the mainspace there. I'm not "a passing admin" - I've made several contributions to this page and discussions on this talk page before. The fact that I'm an admin has nothing to do with my actions here; I would have done exactly the same thing before I became an administrator. Waggers 14:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link but as you say it is not relevant to this case. I think I have misunderstood the action of "closing the debate" which I took to be an admin action. Presumably it could be reversed by an editor then ... I will try it and see, thanks for the help.Abtract 14:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I certainly understood the closure to be an Admin action. (I checked and Wagger is an Admin). Had I thought it was reversible by an ordinary plodding editor I'd have done so immediately. (Sarah777 00:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Just because an action is reversible, that's no reason to reverse it! I still stand by my actions, and have yet to see any reason why the discussion should have continued. It was nothing to do with improving the article, it was about the wider issue of what the islands should be called. That's not for us to decide - at least, not here. Waggers 08:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Thanks for the link but as you say it is not relevant to this case." No, that's not what I said. I said "it's mainly talking about the mainspace". If you read WP:TALK you'll see that "policies that apply to articles also apply to talk pages. Research and debate should meet the same standards of verification, neutral point of view and no original research. There is reasonable allowance for speculation, suggestion and personal knowledge with a view to prompting further investigation, but it is a serious misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements." Waggers 08:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a disambiguation page of British Isles leading to a choice of articles?

The currently named article would be one choice from the disambiguation page and then there could be other articles for those who believe the current article name is inherently offensive/not objective/whatever. Broadly I agree with MarkThomas's appeal to consider the utility of naming from our reader's point of view. I personally find few geographical terms offensive but when I do I still am interested to see (for example) if the Celtic Sea extends all the way to the German Bight and whether it is coterminous with the Irish Sea or not......Gaimhreadhan^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} • 02:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought disambiguation pages were only for use when there were two subjects which shared the same name. That is not the case here: "When a reader enters this term and pushes "Go", what article would they most likely be expecting to view as a result? ... When there is no risk of confusion, do not disambiguate or add a link to a disambiguation page.". I believe that anyone who enters "British Isles" in the search box and presses "Go" will get the article they are expecting: there is no other entity called by the same name. (They might, of course, type "British Islands" but that is a completely different subject, as it explains.) The offensiveness, or not, of the label "British Isles" is dealt with in a separate article anyway. It's quite a good article and is worth a read. Bazza 07:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, you're right of course Bazza; my suggestion was intended to try and forestall the continual edit warring rather than address reader's search needs....Gaimhreadhan^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} • 10:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is such a bad road to go down - not specifically having a disambiguation page, but to throw out some ideas for how to forstall edit warring. Could I suggest that we don't necessarily talk about guidelines and policies as yet (for the time being we could draw down on WP:IAR). We could discuss each of these by its merits.

An idea I have is to have a seperate subpage on this talk page for name issues. --sony-youth^pléigh 10:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you mention that, the same thought was going through my mind. If nothing else, it would stop this page being dominated by the continuous repeats of the same boring discussions that we're currently suffering. A note of caution, though. WP:IAR has a condition attached - "If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them." If the discussion does nothing to improve or maintain Wikipedia, it must be subject to the rules, including (and especially) WP:TALK. Waggers 10:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I meant invoking IAR only in the context of coming up with ideas for how to "forestall the continual edit warring." --sony-youth^pléigh 10:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, that sounds like improving/maintaining to me :) Waggers 13:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"the same boring discussions" - I never find discussions aimed at correcting error boring. Where is this "edit war" you guys speak of? I can't see it. (Sarah777 19:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

There is no error: "British Isles" is the most popular name in the English language for the British Isles, so it's not an error that the article is called "British Isles".-- Waggers 19:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A reader chiming in here - 'British Isles' is the most commonly used name for the archipelago, but the name shouldn't be politicised. Perhaps a sentence could be added along the lines of "despite controversy, the name does not reflect political alliegence, but simply names the archipelago of more than 6,000 islands after the largest single island in the group" ? That makes it clear that the name doesn't actually have anything to do with the United Kingdom. After all, they were named the British Isles long before there was any such thing as the UK.

Really? At their time, the Roman called the group the Britannias, the largest island was called Albion. Shortly after the Roman invasion, Britannia came to refer solely to the area under Roman juristiction, it was only later during the early middle ages the island started to become known as Britain. Albion on the other hand reduced to be the area not controlled by the Romans, roughly the area north of the modern-day English border - approximately modern-day Scotland, which is known in Celtic languages as Alba.

The OED puts the first use of phrase "British Isles" at 1621, two decades after the Union of the Crowns, the first time that England, Wales, Scotland, Ireland, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands came to be ruled by one monarch. He was the first monarch to adopt the style, King of Great Britain, known now as the British monarch. The author who coined the phrase openly explains that it was calqued from the Latin, dispite 1,500 years of disuse. His motivation? The importance of the Brythonic myth to constitutional matters of the day in England.

Today, as then, the name is politicised. A browse through the references [here] should shed some light on how it is. Or watch how carefully the phrase is avoided in political relations between the UK and Ireland. Desiring that "the name shouldn't be politicised", is a fine ambition, however, we are here to reflect the facts, and like it or not, it is. What motivation would there be to deny such an elemental fact? --sony-youth^pléigh 14:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo! I was born in India, went to university in Australia, moved to Canada with my husband and now reside in the United States (for the past 5 months) and for what it's worth, in all my globe hopping experience I've only ever heard them referred to as the British Isles. 65.69.81.2 21:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, and thus the name of the article is British Isles. I note, however, that you were born, educated and lived in countries with profound British influences. --sony-youth^pléigh 21:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The term "British Isles" exists and Wikipedia should explain it. Do you have a proposal for moving it, if so, what is it? MarkThomas 13:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, Wiki can certainly explain it, just not call Ireland and Briitain by that name. You ask a question which I have answered several times (perhaps you should read the full debate). It is The British Isles and Ireland; alternatively Britain and Ireland. (I think the "West Indies" redirect to Carribean is an excellent precedent for eliminating the POV that defaces this article. (Sarah777 20:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

"British Isles," for better or for worse, is the common name of the region. The common name should be used the title of the article. Objections to the term should be pointed out, but not in a way that distracts from the article or overburdens the reader. --sony-youth^pléigh 22:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. British Isles != British Islands. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 22:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. It isn't the common name in Ireland. Should we call "The Malvinas" the common name of the Falklands because 99% of South America uses that term? (Sarah777 23:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I never hear the term being used in my sphere, so it's certainly not common in my experience. Britain and Ireland is used. There is an editor who claims that "Britain & Ireland" means a completely different concept, but that is his point of view, and not mine. My belief is that British Isles ceased to exist as an entity in 1922, but the situation is that an atlas cannot update itself, and many old maps still hang about. The term British Isles, no matter what spin is put on it, had a political conception, and was nurtured in a political cradle. Gold♣heart 23:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then, Goldheart and Sarah, you may need to broaden your horizons. Its clear ye don't like it, but "British Isles" is used here. Here are over 34000 examples. Yes, there are more (nearly 54000) for "Britain and Ireland", but I think 34000 hits is enough of a proof that the term is used on both of the two largest islands of the British Isles. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 23:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, the entertainment of Googling: comments on this story show no complaints about "British Isles", but many complaints about the English term "henge" ... hope that doesn't become another controversy! ... 00:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Can I tell you something BaStun not BaTsun, I have travelled the world, I have seen all the great continents, and have stood on Mount Everest, but not the top, and I have never heard the British Isles being mentioned once. I usually come across the term in history books and on the BBC world service weather forecast. I hope you keep within the bounds of WP:NPA. Please do not personally attack other editors because you disagree with what they write. Please state your own objectives. Gold♣heart 00:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you keep within the bounds of WP:NPA too, Goldheart - and maybe have a quick read of WP:BEANS. Tell me where exactly have I made a personal attack against you? I note you haven't rebutted the existence of 34000+ uses of the British Isles term on Irish web pages. I doubt I'd hear the term used if I was standing on Everest, either, summit or basecamp. Why would you hear it when abroad? When I'm abroad and asked where I'm from, I say "Ireland", not the BI. I'd presume you would do the same. (In fact, depending on where I am, I'll usually try to introduce that fact early on in case I'm mistaken for English - service improves dramatically!) Regardless - the term is used in Britain, in Ireland, and in the rest of the world. As to my objective - simple: to prevent POV-pushing. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 00:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citing don't like it to another editor, can be viewed as a personal attack. Gold♣heart 00:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re renaming "Britain and Ireland": it's unacceptable because that term covers a different area and therefore has a different meaning. Re removing Ireland from the definition (the effect of "British Isles and Ireland"): that would be at best a highly original redefinition, incompatible with Wikipedia rules and at worse a downright lie, since the term, whether you like it or not, does include Ireland in all the definitions we have. I really don't understand why this keeps being suggested.--Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 00:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because they don't like it? Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 00:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I think someone needs to say what the objection to the current article name is and to word it very clearly in terms of a violation of a Wikipedia policy. As far as I'm concerned there's nothing in those rules that calls for the elimination of articles on well-referenced terms because people don't like them. "Because millions of Irish don't like it and don't want anything to do with the word British" isn't there I'm afraid.--Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 00:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well,I am out of this page. When the personal attacks begin, that's when it is time to go. Lo2u, I am not against the name BI. I honestly and sincerely stated my side of things, my "point of view", my POV. And that is what WP is all about. It's about many editors from differing points of view, sometimes arguing their point, and willing to differ. At all times we must assume good faith, and respect diverse opinion on any particular matter in question. It's the goodness and the honesty of the many editors on WP that makes it work. Once that is lost WP ceases to function. Gold♣heart 00:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Gold - despite the personal attacks on me by Bastun I ain't quitting. "Well I think someone needs to say what the objection to the current article name is". Did do not read the thousands of words of discussion over several years? You KNOW what the objections are. Your arrogance is breathtaking. So "millions of Irish" can object to an inaccurate, offensive term and that doesn't count because more people in Britain are happy to apply the name of their own country to a neighbouring island? So, what about the Malvinas then?

"Falkland Islands" is used in Britain so the name used by 500 million Latin Americans doesn't count? This isn't NPOV - this is a travesty. (Sarah777 01:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Sarah I know perfectly well what your objections are. Please quote the whole of my sentence and explain clearly what Wikipedia policy supports your renaming.--Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 01:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and no you're right - in my breathtaking arrogance I haven't had the time to read ten pages of archives covering several years. Best.--Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 01:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Millions of Irish don't like it." Prove it, this is one of the major problems people haven't grasped here. Wikipedia is based on verifiability, and no source has yet been provided to prove it isn't used in Ireland, and is hated and unused by the vast majority of people in Ireland. Verifiability. All dictionary terms provided include Ireland, all other encyclopaedias include it. A huge number of other languages use a translation of the term and include Ireland, and I haven't seen a decent verifiable source to say otherwise. Sarah777, Goldheart, your personal objections to the term are not enough to change things without providing some verifiable backup to your claims. Just remember one thing about all this, who is Wikipedia for. It's not for the editors, it's for the billions of readers out there in the world for whom the majority of languages and definitely English include the term, or a translation of the term. Ben W Bell talk 06:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah, yes the Falkland Islands are called the Falkland's on the English-language Wikipedia. GoldHeart, likewise I have never (ever!) heard anyone say the word Iberian Peninsula, yet I know it exists and that that is the common term for the area. If there is a more common terms for the place than "British Isles," it will be easy to demonstrate. Please cite a dictionary reference for "Britain and Ireland" letting us know exactly what it means. --sony-youth^pléigh 06:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sony, are you suggesting we should redirect the Falkland Islands to The Malvinas? I'd support that. (Sarah777 12:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I actually think that the Falkland Islands article should be renamed Falkland Islands (the Malvinas).--Vintagekits 13:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I've been looking at this article; in Spanish Wiki the article is called "Islas Malvinas" - and is somewhat DIFFERENT from the British version. This indicates a solution to the current situation of competing names. Perhaps I'll start an article called "The British Isles and Ireland" and write it without the POV that afflicts the current effort? (Sarah777 13:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

No more that I would suggest that we should redirect Ireland to Isla de Irlanda. Do you think we should? Weird. --sony-youth^pléigh 13:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not weird in the least. The names in South America and in the UK for the Falklands are different - the Spanish name isn't a translation of the English one. The names for Britain and Ireland are different in Britain and Ireland. And, as is evident from this dispute, the two sides don't speak what is nominally the same language. Words mean different things either side of the Irish Sea. (Sarah777 14:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Ah I see what you're saying, you're saying that the article for British Isles should be renamed on the Gaelic Wikipedia as it's called something different there. Go suggest it then. Ben W Bell talk 14:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is not what I'm saying. I never mentioned Gaelic Wiki. (Sarah777 15:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

No, but you're comparing the name of an article on English Wikipedia with the name of an article on Spanish Wikipedia as how they call it different things in English and Spanish. In English it's called the British Isles, I don't know what the Gaelic is but that seems to be what you are saying by bring foreign language Wikipedia's into it. Ben W Bell talk 15:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No Ben, I made the point that the Spanish version was different to the British version; not a translation of it - a completely Different name based on a different POV. Illustrating that in these matters there is no such thing as no POV, really. Just one POV v. another. So as the same words in English are obviously used to mean different things either side of the Irish Sea then we can solve this by having a different perspective on a roughly similar place; just like the Spanish/English versions do. The Irish perspective is being shut out by the fact that we don't have a separate language in wide use and so are been forced to accept a British slant, or POV, in matters such as this. I am proposing a solution to the problem. (Sarah777 16:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Wow. Talk about a giant discussion page based on a single issue that's far less controversial than it's being made out to be. That being said, to quote myself on the AfD, Google hits for "British Isles and Ireland" = 25,000. Google hits for "British Isles" alone = 35 million. One would think that Jimbo's rules concerning a fringe POV held by a tiny minority would prevail here. Be damned to whether this is an "imperialistic" turn of phrase, it happens to be the turn of phrase that is the overwhelmingly common one of choice in the English-speaking world. (Hell's bells, "British Isles" out-Googles "British Isles and Ireland" by 60:1 on the Irish Google, specifying websites solely carrying an .ie domain suffix, which should put to rest the nonsense that it is a "hated" and unused term in Ireland) If this AfD doesn't suffice to put this issue to rest, I strongly suggest filing a RfC.  RGTraynor  16:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah I suggest you take your problem with the names of the Falklands to that talk page (or else to the island's inhabitants...), rather than discussing it here. They'll no doubt tell you, as you've been told more times than I can count, that Wikipedia names reflect common English usage. Every other contributor whether British or Irish, can grasp this fact and accepts it. Also the term "British Isles and Ireland" must logically, as a consequence of the definition, cover a different area from simply the "British Isles". How can your proposals logically be justified when one can't possibly mean the same as the other? Finally, once again, are you able to state, in terms of a violation of Wikipedia policy, what is wrong with the name of this article? --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 17:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Lo, didn't spot this what with being banned by a selection of Anglo-American editors for annoying them. "Every other contributor whether British or Irish, can grasp this fact and accepts it." 'They most certainly do NOT!!! Can't you read?? They merely get fed up arguing or back-off at the threat of being censored (aka blocked)! What we need is more editors who will neither tire nor be intimidated. (Sarah777 15:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Quite off topic (if its assumed that the topic of this page is improving the article!), but on the issues of archipelagos without a name: what it the name of the archipelago containing Corsica and Sardinia? They clearly form an archipelago (see: satelite image), even in the strict sense of the word being an island chain, but is there any name for it? --sony-youth^pléigh 07:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, given the proximity of Gibraltar I think most editors in en:Wiki might reckon "The Southern British Isles" is the most neutral geographical term available. In the non-biased, NPV way they so congratulate themselves and one another on. (Sarah777 15:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Eh? (sorry, Canadian moment). Give us one editor who would think that? Sarah777 you appear to be trying to provoke with silly comments like that. Ben W Bell talk 15:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what a Canadian moment is. (Sarah777 16:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

See Eh#Canada. It's a common part of their vocabulary eh. Ben W Bell talk 17:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. You might even call it trolling. Waggers 10:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But if you did, that would be called a personal attack - or worse still CENSORSHIP! --sony-youth^pléigh 10:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh how I wish there were smileys we could add to talk pages :) Waggers 11:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not impossible, nice idea Waggers, is this a first!Gold♥ 19:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heck, I thought the FIRST thing you did when someone annoys you is to start flinging Wiki Policies at them. I learned everything I know from you guys. (Sarah777 15:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I guess it never occurred to any of the (censored) that the comment on the SBIs might just have been a joke? Eh? (Sarah777 15:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

WP:BRIT vs. WP:SARAH777? --sony-youth^pléigh 15:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

V droll! (Sarah777 16:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

User:Caomhan27 has edited all instances of 'British Isles' to read 'British and Irish Isles'. While I understand that this is a contentious issue and that some people have problems with 'British Isles', I haven't seen any reference to 'British and Irish' anywhere in the talk pages on the subject, and I haven't seen Caomhan27 discussing his changes on this page either. Hopefully this comment will provoke some discussion on these edits; until then, I'm reverting the article back to Sony-youth's latest edit. --Careless hx 01:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

it is at least a compromise and is a term used todayCaomhan27 09:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have never seen it used in any context ever. The main problem I had though was that the changes were made without attempting to discuss or even read the talk page and appeared to be a case of that editor imposing their own personal preference on a subject which has caused controversy in the past. Also, please sign your posts if you intend to be taken seriously --carelesshx _talk 15:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

just because you have not seen it or perhaps heard it used does not mean it is not in use, it happens to be a bourgening term as all terms were at one stage check out irish politics.ie and other sites you will see irish people using it

How do you know if i read the talk page or not?, are you omniscient, it happened to be my first few posts and i was unaware of all the little intricacies that are required if one is to be "taken seriously"Caomhan27 09:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While a handful of people might use the term "British and Irish Isles" as a synonym for "British Isles", the latter term is in far more common usage. This is an international encyclopaedia, not an Ireland-specific one; the popularity or otherwise of the term "British Isles" in Ireland does not outweigh its popularity elsewhere in the British Isles, nor indeed the world as a whole. Waggers 09:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

my reading of the regulations is that for the term to apply to ireland the local irish populace(when using english) is reqired to use the term

If for example tomorrow the german population was told to call germany and austria "great germany" and as a result the term was used by many germans who vastly outnumber their austrian counterparts who never use the term because they dont like it, should the article about the term in wikipaedia(which it would be as wikipedia does not mind the fact that it is offensive to austrians) include all relevant information on austria aswell as germany, or would you think just a austria heading with a link to the austria article itself would be they way the article should be approached and presented in wikipedia?

I would choose the latter but of course this is wikipedia's editors choice but i will outline why mainly because one heavily populated country should not arbitrarily create/manufacture a term then after creating it out of thin air, claim credence for the terms inclusion of a different country merley because that country has a much smaller population when looked at under the manufactured term

I am not disputing the fact that the term british isles is used in its country of origin heavily populated britain a lot and due to this fact a heading with ireland should be included despite it being offensive to many irish people but as with the austria germany "great germany" i think it should be handled with a modicum of sensitivity as i would the great germany article

this is done again with a ireland heading but only essential details together with a link to the british and irish isles or IONA

what do you think?Caomhan27 13:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first thing to say here is that the guidelines you refer to - presumably WP:PLACES and WP:NCGN - are conventions not hard-and-fast rules, and WP:IAR always takes priority where necessary in such instances. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy.

The second is that the guideline around the "majority of English speakers" is unqualified. In other words, the correct name for the article on Someplace is what the majority of all English speakers everywhere would recognise, not just those who live in Someplace, or even some part of Someplace. So you're right, if suddenly Austria is officially part of "Great Germany" but colloquially the majority of English speakers refer to it as Austria, then the article stays as Austria. Nevertheless, there would also be an article created on "Great Germany" which would include any information relating to that entity, including a description of the history and geography of the whole thing. Within that there would of course be links to the articles on Germany, Austria, the Alps, etc. The article would naturally also mention the history and controversy around the terminology.

The third thing is a somewhat off-topic question; why is it that every discussion on the British Isles name seems to end up with Irish editors making some reference to Nazi Germany, or Germany occupying other countries? Waggers 13:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the wikipedia policy/reasons for entering a the term

however i believe that this is not simply "a term" and should be looked at under slightly different criteria

firstly its offensive to most of the populace of ireland(roi) this is clearly demonstratably via the government of irelands view of the term and their request that the irish embassy in britain moniter the media there and object to its use, the fact that it is now not used in irish geography books, the fact that the british-irish council does not use the term, the fact that the british government avoids its use, the fact that it is now the british and irish lions etc etc its ludicrous to suggest that simply because their is no existing poll of which i know to actually show this that maybe its not true. the poll would be a waste of time and money as everyone(in general) in ireland(roi) would be like minded in their aversion to its use in the above context Its merely a reflection of reality it would be like asking for a poll in england as to if they would like to be included in the new irish isles silly

secondly and most importantly by wikipedia lending credence to the term in regards to its inclusion of ireland(roi) it is treading on very dangerous ground and goes far beyond the simply inclusion of a popluar term for various reasons(popular in its country of origin and some of its colonies)

the existance of the articles heading "british isles" is fine however through its content subsequently agreeing (bar the inclusion of controversial)with its contention that today ireland(roi) is part of that said title, it is lending credibilty to this contention regarding ireland(roi, therefore overiding the peoples and governments wishes of the democratic UN and EU sovereign member state of ireland,that they do not wish the term applied to them

this means that wikipedia is taking a political stance as stated the "term is not recognised in any legal or inter-governmental sense."

if the term is to be used it should be in a past tense regarding ireland(roi)and should not include statistical data etc on ireland(roi)today

it could possibly state that it was at one time forcibly included under the term during britains occupation of the island, and is sometimes is still mistakenly included by people in the much larger populated english speaking countries like britian (64 million) etc and is therefore utilised more than the the newer politically correct terms such as IONA etc Caomhan27 08:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At the bottom of every single page on the project, you'll find a links to "About Wikipedia" and our disclaimers, which includes Wikipedia:Content disclaimer. Please read WP:CENSOR, it really couldn't be more clear. Whether something is offensive or not is not a criterion for inclusion or otherwise in this encyclopaedia. Waggers 11:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

your totally missing the point the offensive part is just the lead in Caomhan27 21:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Every definition of the British Isles that I've ever seen in a reliable source includes Ireland. So if your objection is that Ireland should not be included in the British Isles article, you need to provide some reliable evidence that the term "British Isles" is defined as excluding Ireland more often than including it. Waggers 07:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

wikipedia's main article is on mumbai with a simple Bombay (disambiguation]at the top but this contains virtually nothing at all merely stating mumbai was once called this name etc all relevant information is on the mumbai article

this is exactly what i stated should be done regarding the british isles

it is a clear example of double standards bombay was/is clearly the more widely known term you claim that its common usage by pure numbers (not giving due consideration to the origin of population numbers)and that you dont care about the government/people wishes of that country

however this is a clear case of that not applying in some cases

This is total double standards and the situation regarding ireland and the british isles should be rectified immediatley Caomhan27 20:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mumbai and Bombay are the same places. There's no other term that's in popular use that refers to exactly the same entity as the British Isles. Moreover, both articles as they currently stand follow the Wikipedia guidelines, and both use the most popular local name. Nevertheless, Mumbai is a city, which is a different kind of entity to the British Isles; the relevant guidelines for cities is WP:PLACES while the British Isles falls under WP:NCGN. Waggers 07:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

actually this example is given in the Naming conventions (geographic names)

Bombay or Mumbai? Bombay officially changed its name to Mumbai in 1995; but this is not the basis for our choice of name. That depends on two claims: that usage in English by locals (and wider English usage as well, to some extent) has changed to commonly use Mumbai, although many local institutions do not, and that Indian English, as an official language, should be followed, in accordance with our policy on National varieties of English. Both were necessary.

so lets apply the same logic to british isles term including ireland

firstly it should depend on usage in english by locals as stated above

Ok in ireland basically no one uses the term british isles (and especially not in relation to ireland,it is not taught as such in irish schools and is not present in our geographic books

so first criteria is satisfied

the second criteria is wider english usage

with regards to mumbai the qualifing statement was "to some extent" this actually implies that it does not have to be the most common term in usage (which would have to be true for mumbai) in wider english but all that is required is that it is present to some extent

the term IONA its is used in wider english to some extent

second criteria is satisfied

i think it is quite clear from this example as to how the article british isles should be constructed in relation to ireland

the british isles article

should have just have relevant information on the british Isles excluding ireland

ireland should be mentioned under its own heading but under it there should be no relevant data but simply a short line stating the ireland was included in the this geographic title but today the term is IONA(disambiguation) is the more utilised term when including ireland in ireland itself and to some extent in wider english Caomhan27 09:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"firstly it should depend on usage in english by locals as stated above...Ok in ireland basically no one uses the term british isles" You write as if the only "locals" in the British Isles are those in the Republic of Ireland. You may be surprised to learn that most of the rest of the islands are populated too, including Great Britain. The most common term used for the islands by the people who live on them is British Isles.

that is a groundless arguement the entire problem is that ireland and its people do not recognise your inclusion of them in this entity you wish to call the british isles

this debate is strictly about irelands inclusion under the term nothing else(you can still use the term in reference to your own country and islands if you so wish) therefore when discussing irelands inclusion or exclusion using that term the local populace is irelands no one elses,

so like i said prior the first criteria is therefore satisfied in that the local populace do not use the term and in fact find it offensive

"the term IONA its is used in wider english to some extent" The term IONA ("Islands of the North Atlantic" is itself misleading. Taken at face value it would have to include Iceland, Greenland, the islands of the east coast of North America, and all islands off the west coast of mainland Europe, plus possibly some off of the west coast of northern Africa. Hardly the same entity as the British Isles. Secondly, IONA is nowhere near as commonly used, either worldwide or within the British Isles themselves, as the term "British Isles". Waggers 09:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the fact is that as shown in the mumbai case(bombay being the more world wide known term) IONA does not have to be more commonly used world wide than british isles it merely has to be used to some extent which IONA is

so again the two criteria are satisfied

the term IONA may not be perfect but it does not blanket a different culture and people and a sovereign state in a term i.e british used to describe another countries people and culture and so not only is it misleading it is also offensive

IONA does not imply being part of a particular country or culture and is therfore a neutral term

the british isles term can still have its article

this should have just have relevant information on the british Isles excluding ireland

but as stated above in reference to ireland

ireland should be mentioned under its own heading in the british isles page akin to the bombay mention

however there should be no relevant data but simply a short line stating the ireland was included in the this geographic title but today the term is IONA(disambiguation) is the more utilised term when including ireland in ireland itself and to some extent in wider english

i think i have proven the case as to how the british isles should be written under wikipedias own regulations and how ireland should be addressed in that article using a point in caseCaomhan27 10:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"the entire problem is that ireland and its people do not recognise your inclusion of them in this entity you wish to call the british isles"

1. There's no evidence to show that the entire population do not recognise the term "British Isles".
2. "your inclusion / you wish to call" - my wishes are irrelevant. The entity is called the British Isles, whether I wish it or not. The British Isles includes Ireland, whether I wish it or not. This is not a matter of personal opinion.

the british isles is simply a term what it refers to is not an absolute and it can easily change due to peoples and governments opinion of what it refers to

i said the entire problem not the entire population but like i said before there is no need for a money wasting poll its a reflection of reality that people in ireland and their government etc do not like the term "when it is used to include their country"

i never said it was a matter of personal opinion i showed the mumbai case as an example(which was outlined by wikipedia) of how ireland should be dealt within in the article under the term british isles

"this debate is strictly about irelands inclusion under the term nothing else(you can still use the term in reference to your own country and islands if you so wish) therefore when discussing irelands inclusion or exclusion using that term the local populace is irelands no one elses,"

Wikipedia does not need your permission to include anything in the encyclopaedia. The British Isles article should describe the British Isles, in the way that that term is most commonly used. That includes Ireland, every time.

who said anything about permission the crux of the issue in criteria number one is "the local populace" you deem this to

mean the population of britain ireland and the other nonchantly included islands in this arbitrarily created term

who gave your country permission to firstly define and create a term to describe these specific islands in question

and secondly attach to that term a name that defines your culture and people and why just beacuse your own countries

people use it does that give the term in relation to ireland any more credibility

britain etc is no more local to ireland than iceland etc different people different culture etc

in addition i see no need for a term that describes my country and islands in addition to yours and others but if a term

is to be created all independant countries that wish to be included in such a term should be consulted an a name agreed

upon by all

in the absence of this as is the case right now, the "local populace" refers to no particular conglomerate of islands

therefore irelands people rightly do not acknowlege use or accept a term that has been created in a different country by

a non local populace when no consensus regarding that term had been reached

"so like i said prior the first criteria is therefore satisfied in that the local populace do not use the term and in fact find it offensive"

Not true at all. The local populace includes the population of the UK, the Channel Islands, and the Isle of Man. "British Isles" is in common usage throughout all those areas. Overall, in the British Isles, "British Isles" is the most commonly used term for the entity.

again who gave your country permission to arbitrarily create a term to include ireland and then after creating it to

include certain countries outside your own with a smaller population, then claim credence for the their inclusion under

the term using the manufactured term itself as evidence together with its the usage in your heavily populated country

its beyond hipocrisy

your country could just of easily included iceland greenland etc in the created term and still claim credence for the

created term given that the "local populace" is then those who are described under the manufactured term

(which would still be mainly composed of britain)

its a complete sham

the manufactured termin one country should not be used to determine the local populace its akin to gerrymandring

"the fact is that as shown in the mumbai case(bombay being the more world wide known term) IONA does not have to be

more commonly used world wide than british isles it merely has to be used to some extent which IONA is"

No, that's not what the policy says. If I suddenly decided to call the British Isles "Fred", then "Fred" would be used to "some extent" and therefore, according to your argument, we'd have to move the BI article there if we want to include Ireland. It's ridiculous.

its not my qualifing criteria its wikipedia's its there in black and white

you bring up a relevant point so now can you explain to me exactly how many people have to use the term before

"to some extent" becomes viable in relation to a term?? hmmm

IONA is used as is British and Irish isles but pray tell how many people have to use these terms before it is given the

same treatment as mumbai

"IONA does not imply being part of a particular country or culture and is therfore a neutral term"

The same is true of "British Isles" - it's only your interpretation of the term that is causing you any offence. There's nothing inherently offensive about the term "British" - and even if there were, Wikipedia is not censored to avoid offending people.

you actually believe? that or are you not being truthful?

"The term "British" is often used to describe something unique to the UK, for example 'the British way of life' or 'the British weather'. Sometimes it is accidentally used to describe some English, though it is usually over looked because English is British"

you see no implication that through the use of that word the people who populate the countries included under

this manufactured arbitrarily created term might be misconstrued by others to be british??

"the british isles term can still have its article"

Well, thanks again, but as I said, we don't need your permission.

never said you did but i was suggesting in the interest of fairness that ireland be treated the same as bombay under that heading (that is no relevant data just a link to either IONA or british and irish isles

"this should have just have relevant information on the british Isles excluding ireland"

Why? The term "British Isles" always includes Ireland. It would be factually incorrect to exclude Ireland form the article on the British Isles.

i have expained above how ireland should be treated with regard to this article

ireland is mentioned alright not excluded but all relevant data of it in conjunction with the other areas should only be present in the IONA or a british and irish isles link like the bombay example

"ireland should be mentioned under its own heading in the british isles page akin to the bombay mention"

Why? The British Isles article describes the entity as a whole. There are already separate articles on the separate parts of it.

you really dont get what im saying it should be a simple one line link like bombay to IONA or british and irish isles

this can then include all relevant data with respect to ireland together with the other countries that fall under

that acceptable term

"however there should be no relevant data..."

This is an encyclopaedia. Why would we create an article with no relevant data to it's subject?

the data regarding ireland should only be present in the IONA or british and Irish isles link the same way there is no information regarding bombay until you go to mumbai

"but simply a short line stating the ireland was included in the this geographic title but today the term is IONA(disambiguation)"

We can't state that because it isn't true, and there are certainly no reliable sources to verify it (because it isn't true). "British Isles" includes Ireland today as much as it ever did.

well simply state that people in britain sometimes include ireland in reference to the british isle's (many don not) however this term is not accepted in ireland in reference to their country, then give the link to IONA or british and irish isles which will include the relevant data on all the countries simple

"IONA(disambiguation)

is the more utilised term when including ireland in ireland itself and to some extent in wider english"

Not true. "British Isles" is in much more common use than IONA.

true the british isles term is not acknowleged in ireland as having anything to do with ireland, the terms IONA and the british and irish isles are used more but again you nor i can quantify if it meets the "to some extent" criteria sufficiently

"i think i have proven the case as to how the british isles should be written under wikipedias own regulations and how ireland should be addressed in that article using a point in case"

All you have proven is that you don't understand Wikipedia policy, you keep making statements that are patently untrue and have no evidence to back them up, and you have yet to find what the Shift key on your keyboard is for.

Waggers 12:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

maybe this time you will actually read and comprehend the points i am trying to get across and thanks for the heads up

on the shift issue but i am newCaomhan27 02:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you left my comments in tact and responded to them in the way I did above - by copying any sections as applicable, I would be able to "actually read and comprehend the points you are trying to get across". As things stand, the above is a complete mess and I'm not going to waste my time trying to decypher who wrote what and what point you're trying to make. It seems pretty clear that you're simply trying to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point, and that point is based often on untrue statements. I have better and more constructive things to do with my time than feed the trolls. Waggers 08:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. "your inclusion / you wish to call" - my wishes are irrelevant. The entity is called the British Isles, whether I wish it or not. The British Isles includes Ireland, whether I wish it or not. This is not a matter of personal opinion.x

the british isles is simply a term what it refers to is not an absolute and it can easily change due to peoples and governments opinion of what it refers to

i said the entire problem not the entire population but like i said before there is no need for a money wasting poll its a reflection of reality that people in ireland and their government etc do not like the term "when it is used to include their country

i never said it was a matter of personal opinion i showed the mumbai case as an example(which was outlined by wikipedia) of how ireland should be dealt within in the article under the term british isles

Wikipedia does not need your permission to include anything in the encyclopaedia. The British Isles article should describe the British Isles, in the way that that term is most commonly used. That includes Ireland, every time.x

who said anything about permission the crux of the issue in criteria number one is "the local populace" you deem this to mean the population of britain ireland and the other nonchantly included islands in this arbitrarily created term

who gave your country permission to firstly define and create a term to describe these specific islands in question and secondly attach to that term a name that defines your culture and people and why just beacuse your own countries people use it does that give the term in relation to ireland any more credibility

britain etc is no more local to ireland than iceland etc different people different culture etc in addition i see no need for a term that describes my country and islands in addition to yours and others but if a term is to be created all independant countries that wish to be included in such a term should be consulted an a name agreed upon by all

in the absence of this as is the case right now, the "local populace" refers to no particular conglomerate of islands therefore irelands people rightly do not acknowlege use or accept a term that has been created in a different country by a non local populace when no consensus regarding that term had been reached

Not true at all. The local populace includes the population of the UK, the Channel Islands, and the Isle of Man. "British Isles" is in common usage throughout all those areas. Overall, in the British Isles, "British Isles" is the most commonly used term for the entity.x

again who gave your country permission to arbitrarily create a term to include ireland and then after creating it to include certain countries outside your own with a smaller population, then claim credence for the their inclusion under the term using the manufactured term itself as evidence together with its the usage in your heavily populated country its beyond hipocrisy

your country could just of easily included iceland greenland etc in the created term and still claim credence for the created term given that the "local populace" is then those who are described under the manufactured term (which would still be mainly composed of british people)

its a complete sham the manufactured term in one country should not be used to determine the local populace its akin to gerrymandring

No, that's not what the policy says. If I suddenly decided to call the British Isles "Fred", then "Fred" would be used to "some extent" and therefore, according to your argument, we'd have to move the BI article there if we want to include Ireland. It's ridiculous.x

its not my qualifing criteria its wikipedia's its there in black and white you bring up a relevant point so now can you explain to me exactly how many people have to use the term before "to some extent" becomes viable in relation to a term?? hmmm

IONA is used as is British and Irish isles but pray tell how many people have to use these terms before it is given the same treatment as mumbai

The same is true of "British Isles" - it's only your interpretation of the term that is causing you any offence. There's nothing inherently offensive about the term "British" - and even if there were, Wikipedia is not censored to avoid offending people.x

do you actually believe that? or are you not being truthful?

"The term "British" is often used to describe something unique to the UK, for example the British way of life or the British weather. Sometimes it is accidentally used to describe some English, though it is usually over looked because English is British"

you see no implication that through the use of that word the people who populate the countries included under this manufactured arbitrarily created term might be misconstrued by others to be british??

oh and i didnt say ireland should not be included because it causes offensive and strictly speaking ireland is included but only under a heading explaining why if you wish to see irelands information in full together with the other countries mentioned you should look under british and irish isles or IONA capice

thanks again, but as I said, we don't need your permission.x

never said you did but i was suggesting in the interest of fairness that ireland be treated the same as bombay under that heading(that is no relevant data just a link to either IONA or british and irish isles

Why? The term "British Isles" always includes Ireland. It would be factually incorrect to exclude Ireland form the article on the British Isles.x

i have expained above how ireland should be treated with regard to this article ireland is mentioned alright not excluded but all relevant data of it in conjunction with the other areas should only be present in the IONA or a british and irish isles link like the bombay example

Why? The British Isles article describes the entity as a whole. There are already separate articles on the separate parts of it.x

you really dont get what im saying it should be a simple one line link like bombay to IONA or british and irish isles this can then include all relevant data with respect to ireland together with the other countries that fall under that acceptable term

This is an encyclopaedia. Why would we create an article with no relevant data to it's subject? x

the data regarding ireland should only be present in the IONA or british and Irish isles link the same way there is no information regarding bombay until you go to mumbai

We can't state that because it isn't true, and there are certainly no reliable sources to verify it (because it isn't true). "British Isles" includes Ireland today as much as it ever did.x

well simply state that people in britain sometimes include ireland in reference to the british isle's (many do not) however this term is not accepted in ireland in reference to their country, then give the link to IONA or british and irish isles which will include the relevant data on all the countries simple

Not true. "British Isles" is in much more common use than IONA.x

the british isles term is not acknowleged in general in ireland as having anything to do with ireland,the terms IONA and the british and irish isles are used more but again you nor i can quantify if it meets the "to some extent" criteria sufficiently Caomhan27 09:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

well enough babying, i hope you can somehow manage to remember which parts are yours but just in case i put a little x beside your answers, hope that helps you remember what you wrote

As has been stated clearly elsewhere, the term "British" as in "British Isles" predates the UK, so your assertion that the term "British Isles" was somehow invented by the UK is bunkum. Secondly, you keep talking about Bombay as if there's an article called "Bombay" - there isn't. Bombay is a redirect to Mumbai. I strongly suggest that you take the time to familiarise yourself with both the issues at hand and the way Wikipedia works before making further comment here. Your views of "how Ireland should be treated" are your personal opinions and you're welcome to them, but they are not neutral and therefore not suitable for implementation here. Waggers 10:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

oh right so you are not going to give a retort to the above yes the british did invent the term "british isles" a couple of hundred years ago

not that it is even relevant there is considerable confusion and parapharsing about the early use of terms relating to these islands, there is no conclusive evidence of what name if any was generally applied and to what exact places, as regards the oldest greek names this vagueness encompasses terms that have been translated as (Pretanic Islands)

this would match with the fact that the romans had no collective name for the islands in the post-Roman period used the general term "oceani insulae", simply meaning "islands of the ocean Great Britain was called "Britannia" and Ireland was called "Hibernia" and also, between about the fifth and eleventh centuries, "Scotia". The Orkneys ("Orcades") and Isle of Man were typically also mentioned in descriptions of the islands. No specific collective term for the islands was used other than "islands of the ocean".

The term "British Isles" entered the English language in the seventeenth century no who do you suppose came up with that?

you keep talking about Bombay as if there's an article called "Bombay"

and why do you think that is?, when bombay is the most commonly known term?

once again

Bombay or Mumbai? Bombay officially changed its name to Mumbai in 1995; but this is not the basis for our choice of name. That depends on two claims: that usage in English by locals (and wider English usage as well, to some extent) has changed to commonly use Mumbai, although many local institutions do not, and that Indian English, as an official language, should be followed, in accordance with our policy on National varieties of English. Both were necessary.

Your views of "how Ireland should be treated" are your personal opinions

I do have my own POV but my views are based on the mumbai template which is shown as a wikipedia example shown above

the reason bombay has no article like you said is due to two criteria set out by wikipedia

1. local usage

for a term to apply to ireland i deem this to mean that the irish populace is reqired to use the term) why? because one heavily populated country can not arbitrarily create/manufacture a term then after creating it out of thin air, claim credence for the terms inclusion of a different country merley because that country has a much smaller population when looked at under the manufactured term

2. use in wider english "to some extent"

again can you explain to me exactly how many people have to use the term before "to some extent" becomes viable in relation to a term?? British and Irish isles for exampleCaomhan27 12:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've answered these points already. As far as (1) is concerned, I dare say there's a minority of people in Mumbai who prefer the term Bombay and don't like Mumbai, just as there's a minority of people in the British Isles who don't like the term British Isles. You keep on about this as if there's some kind of inconsistency; there isn't. With (2), the guidelines are pretty clear - use the most commonly used term. That is "British Isles", whether you like it or not. Beyond that, you're WP:TROLLing, WP:POINTing and WP:GAMEing, and I'm not playing. Waggers 12:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we may be losing sight of the purpose of this discussion here. The point of the article British Isles is to discuss the geographic/geological/whatever features of a particular group of islands. Culture and politics are amply covered in other articles and need not be restated here. The objections to the term 'British Isles' are cultural and political and therefore have no place in an article that pertains only to physical features. The term British Isles has always been taken to mean 'that group of islands to the north of mainland Europe comprising the British mainland, the Irish mainland and various smaller outlying islands'. The fact that mainland Britain is the largest island in the group can be used to justify the naming from a geographical perspective. Anyone objecting to the use of this term must be able to suggest an alternative term which is equally satisfactory in describing the islands from a geographical perspective. Terms suggested as alternative terms in British Isles and British Isles naming dispute include:

• These Isles or The Isles, as used in parts of the Good Friday Agreement. These terms provide no geographical information about what is being discussed are therefore useless in an article about geography
• Great Britain and Ireland. This describes political entities and does not include the Isle of Man and therefore does not adequately describe the geography of the area
• British Isles and Ireland. This would appear at first glance to be valid. However, it implies that the Irish isle is somehow separate, which, in a geological sense, it is not (it is still a part of the archipelago)
• UK and Ireland has the same problem as Great Britain and Ireland
• Islands of the North Atlantic (IONA). This term fails at the most basic level, in assuming that Iceland, Greenland, the Azores and so on are somehow not islands in the north Atlantic. Also, there is an island off the coast of Scotland called Iona.

It seems clear to me that the term British Isles should be used exclusively within this article until a suitable alternative term can be decided upon. In any case, the argument can be made that the word British as relating specifically to these islands dates all the way back to Ancient Greece, thus vastly predating the idea of Britain as a colonial power and any political baggage that this attaches (sorry for the horizontal line above, there is a lot of text up there and it can often be difficult to determine where a comment starts and ends. If it offends anyone, remove it) --carelesshx _talk 16:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No no, I'm only too happy to see a line drawn under the discussion above, both metaphorically and literally! I agree with all you say, except for the implication that it's up to WP editors to find an acceptable alternative name - that would effectively amount to original research. "British Isles" is the most commonly used English language name for the islands and until that changes (or WP policy changes), the name of the article shouldn't change either - even if (by some miracle) all the contributors agree on some alternative name. Waggers 21:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of other names: "IONA", "Anglo-Celtic Isles", "Britain and Ireland", my personal favourite, and apparantly the most popular althernative from looking around, is the "Atlantic Isles". (And, please, no more talk about these being inaccurate names - they are every bit as accurate as calling them the "British" isles.) Not to mention the euphamisms. What's strange is the apparant blockade against using these in the article. Of course, the article itself should remain at British Isles, but what is the big fuss about having to call it that when there are so many other names that it goes by? And so many references to people saying its (sometimes at least) better to use another. --sony-youth^pléigh 14:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In a word, consistency. It's fine to list the alternative names, but the article itself should be consistent. If an article reads, "In year1, event1 happened in placename1. In year2, event2 happened in placename2" if can make it hard for the reader to know that we're talking about the same place. Waggers 14:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good lord! How ever do they manage it over at Holland/Nethlands, Gdansk/Danzig, United States/America ... it must be hell! Hell, I tell you! Hell!! (Or maybe they just don't treat their readers as idiots and can write contextively.) Don't you have a WP:... to guide us through this? --sony-youth^pléigh 15:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Calm down, Sony. Waggers 09:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough :) But cases such as this are quite obvious moments in which to use alternatives since the organization in question does not use the term. --sony-youth^pléigh 10:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was wrong to make that change (although for slightly different reasons). Waggers 10:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@Careless&Waggers...a number of suitable alternatives have been decided on. Apparently they´re not yet used by everyone and some less aware people are still using the old term. For instance, my mother has a copy of the Readers Digest Motoring Atlas of the British Isles. It´s a 1980s copy. The same publication is today called the Readers Digest Complete Driver´s Atlas of Great Britain and Ireland. Michelin and others have done the same. Irish TV hardly ever uses BI. The Govts avoid it. British publishers are searching for a better term (although they´re still not sure that there is one) etc.,etc.,etc.. Meantime, the BI term is rejected/found objectinable/disliked/pick your verb by one of the main islands in the group. @Waggers, as for the purpose of the article being to describe the geography/history etc, of a particular group of islands, one has to wonder whether - since the "group" is a group created by politics (The Channel Islands are NOT in any sense part of the same island group as Ireland or Britain unless you look at politics as the defining definition), does the group change if the politics changes? I only ask.. Hughsheehy 11:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Wikipedia policy has long been to verify things according to what reliable sources say. I certainly agree with you that in pure physical geography, the Channel Islands aren't part of the British Isles. Nevertheless, there are several sources that say they are part of the British Isles. It's our role to report that in the article, and if the situation changes, yes we report that too. Waggers 13:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I object to the imperialism implied in the term "Britain". It harks back to the exploitative Roman occupation and demeans my nation. ;¬> Folks at 137 19:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

400 years of repression, eh? Not a bad idea - to reverse the lot. Give England back to the Welsh! --sony-youth^pléigh 07:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems Irish editors at Wikipedia, have issue with the term British Isles. I wunder if British Isles here should be descibed in past-tense? Just curious. GoodDay 20:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would imply that the British Isles no longer exist (false) or that the term is not currently in popular use (also false). Waggers 08:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The British Isles ceased to exist when Ireland won Independence. Sarah777 (talk) 02:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, the islands are still here and so is their name. Waggers (talk) 08:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The islands are still here and saving climate change and nuclear holocaust will for quite some time to come. However, literature on the subject reports that the name "British Isles" is considered to be less tenable following Irish independence. This is not just the "Irish" view on the matter, as is often suggested here, but reflects a global view of the situation, including both British authors and others worldwide. For example the British historian Norman Davies ("The Isles ceased to be British precisely fifty years ago when the Republic of Ireland left the Commonwealth, though few people in the British residue have yet cared to notice.") or the Spanish anthropologist Begoña Aretxaga ("Indeed, many feel that the 'British Isles' is no longer a viable term, given the imperialist associations with 'British'.") It is published sources that count, not our opinion. --sony-youth^pléigh 10:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't agree more. Incidentally, I haven't yet stated my opinion on this matter, but will do now: British Isles is a stupid name for the islands, it's misleading and causes confusion. Hopefully it will, in time, be replaced. But in the meantime, it is still the most commonly used English language name for the entity, and that's what Wikipedia should reflect. Waggers (talk) 10:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having just seen the truth suppressed yet again and British POV imposed on this article I wonder is it time to reconsider the name of the article? Sarah777 (talk) 01:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The name of the article is in accordance with policy, convention and consensus. A few contentious edits to the article itself have no bearing on the article's name. Waggers (talk) 12:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly not consensus; the name is utterly reject as an abomination by most Irish people. Not convention either. And the only "policy" being applied here is the tyranny of the superior numerical strength of British editors. It is merely a wiki-expression of British Imperialism. Sarah777 (talk) 21:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? Wikipedia's naming conventions, which have been decided by consensus, state that the most commonly used name - in this case, British Isles - should be used. If you choose to read anything else into the fact that this article complies with a project-wide naming convention, then that's your decision, but please keep all this anti-British nonsense to a minimum - you're skating on very thin ice. Thanks. Waggers (talk) 19:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not consensus; the name is utterly reject as an abomination by most Irish people. Not convention either. And the only "policy" being applied here is the tyranny of the superior numerical strength of British editors. Does that make the TRUTH any clearer for you Waggers?Sarah777 (talk) 20:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And btw; your comments here are a prime example of what I am talking about. Your smug assertion that the greater number of British over Irish editors equals consensus. It does not. Period. End of discussion. Thanks for the threats. Sarah777 (talk) 20:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stop trying to twist this into something it isn't. I was quite clear: the naming conventions were decided on by consensus. Do you deny that? The naming conventions say we should use the most common name. Do you deny that? The most common name for the British Isles is, like it or not, the British Isles. Do you deny that? There's no smugness going on here, nothing to do with editors' nationalities, and not even any threats (there were warnings, which I still advise you to heed). You really need to learn what "assume good faith" means and start applying it. Waggers (talk) 22:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The most common name for the British Isles is, like it or not, the British Isles. Do you deny that? Yes. And I couldn't care less what you call them so long as anything called "British" doesn't include Ireland. "British Isles" is not the most common name for any entity that includes Ireland. It is almost never used in Ireland, because the term is repulsive. Oh, and btw, stuff your threats and warnings where the sun don't shine. OK? Just reading some of your responses above. You are one of the most insufferably arrogant smug ******'s I've come across on Wiki. Just one example; you response to the Bombay question above is pure bull. Sarah777 (talk) 02:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great. So you keep harping on about "The Truth", bias and personal attacks and then in one post deny an established fact and engage in petty name calling. For goodness' sake, Sarah, grow up. Waggers (talk) 08:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]