Talk:British Isles

Consensus Procedure

Hi - I've replaced the word "many" as there wasn't a consensus to remove it. I've checked the Talk page and the archives - if I'm wrong, please point me to the appropriate consensus-reaching discussion. --HighKing (talk) 19:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Bloody Hell.

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 22:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

What does the above comment, have to do with the discussion? GoodDay (talk) 14:38, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Jack pointed out this discussion and the latest edit summary to the article shows that the consensus appears to have been reached here, although judging by the subsequent discussions, many people object....  :-) --HighKing (talk) 14:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Excuse my pessemism, but I think many will object to this. Oh well. GoodDay (talk) 14:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

That was a joke! I even put a smiley in. While I missed the consensus, I'm happy that procedure was followed which is the only objection I had. --HighKing (talk) 17:00, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I object to the term "many" being readded, the current wording was agreed by the majority and arguments were given as to why "many" should not be readded before. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Let's close this. I'm not reopening the debate. A consensus was reached on the opening paragraph, it just wasn't clear from subsequent discussions, and I am most certainly not reopening the debate again. Apologies for making it seem like I was. --HighKing (talk) 16:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

"British" Isles

So, why do all the Irish articles such as Ireland, Republic of Ireland, Northern Ireland, and, well, all of the rest of them have no mention of what British wikipedians term the "British Isles"? Surely, the absense of the term does not reflect the "many" objections to this British nationalist term? Then again, maybe the British know fullwell that the term "British Isles" is entirely a product of their nationalist claims to Ireland and feel more comfortable denying this reality. The Irish, on the other hand, live in Ireland and know what the British are really about. Cue British censorship of the Irish! 86.42.96.251 (talk) 23:44, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, the term is Ancient Greek in origin. It has nothing to do with the British state. The reason why those articles have no mention of it is because of politically motivated censorship of an opposite nature to what you appear to be suggesting. ðarkuncoll 00:28, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Except of course that the term is not Ancient Greek in origin. It's a British invention. As the article itself says The term "British Isles" entered the English language in the seventeenth century as the description of Great Britain, Ireland and the surrounding islands, but was not in common use until the first half of the nineteenth century and, in general, the modern notion of "Britishness" only started to become common after the 1707 Act of Union. While it is probably the most common term used to describe the islands, use of this term is not universally accepted and is sometimes rejected in Ireland.. So give the "Ancient Greek" argument a rest, eh Tharky? --HighKing (talk) 01:42, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

The term had entered English by the 16th century at the latest (long before the English ever described themselves as British) probably through the writings of John Dee - who was merely Anglicising a Latin phrase that had been revived by European geographers (i.e. with no English axe to grind) from about the 1490s. This was a revival of a Classical term derived from Ancient Greek. So please stop trying to claim it was somehow invented out of thin air by the English. It is Ancient Greek. ðarkuncoll 08:55, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense. All Dee's biographers agree that he was motivated by a desire to create a new England called Britain which was inspired by the myths of King Arthur and other "British" legendary figures (as a quick search of "John Dee" and "imperialism" in Google Books confirms). It was Dee who coined the phrase "British Empire" as well as "British Isles". This is well established. If you read any of his work, or books about him, you would not say something as dishonest as he had 'no English axe to grind". And to say "British Isles" is a Greek term is about as accurate as saying the Swastika is simply a Hindu symbol of peace. You don't dispossess a people for centuries, strip them of their language, laws and culture - all in the name of the "British" - and then expect to have the natives accept the term "British Isles" on their land. Life doesn't work like that, much as it clearly annoys all you British jingoistic types. 78.16.116.115 (talk) 21:20, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Political cooperation -> Politics?

Perhaps the 'Political Cooperation' section would be better renamed 'Politics' (or something similar), and expanded somewhat? The political cooperation stuff is great, but the political history of the islands also includes its fair share of less cooperative episodes. Apologies if this has been discussed previously, I didn't fancy reading through 26 pages of archives. --hippo43 (talk) 04:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Given this is a geography article I think the whole section should go, possibly a new article on? --Snowded (talk) 07:29, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Very good point. Bin it. Personally, I don't see a need for another article - there are already plenty on British, Irish and British-Irish history and politics, as well as History of the British Isles etc. --hippo43 (talk) 08:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

If, as Snowded says, the article is [exclusively] a geography article, why do we have all that guff about how the Irish don't like the notion? MidnightBlue (Talk) 14:45, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Regretfully, this article will never be purely geographical. GoodDay (talk) 14:47, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. Anyway, I agree that the section should be renamed as suggested. MidnightBlue (Talk) 14:53, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

The "guff", old bean, is from all you British claiming that this term is another harmless apolitical term that holds no political claim. Just another "accident" of history without any connection to the past few centuries of British occupation, dispossession, sectarianism, and bigotry against the Irish people. Funny how all these "coincidences" seem to have the same British political agenda to assert control and ownership over Ireland. Whoops! 78.16.116.115 (talk) 21:27, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Your pathetic and offensive rant adds nothing to the debate about the article. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:59, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with BritishWatcher. Like any Irishman I have issues with the term 'British Isles' but the way you're going about your business means that there will be no positive changes to the article.MusicInTheHouse (talk) 23:08, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

More myopic ill-judged naïve nonsense. This "BritishWatcher" individual as with this "MidnightBlueMan" character are both by their own definitions rabid British nationalists - just have a look at their user pages and the Butcher's Apron that is flying on their respective pages. They speak of "offensive"? They, and all their blood-soaked British ilk who have stolen our lands, subjugated the Irish people, and continue to assert supremacy over Ireland via this "British isles" term are racist and offensive beyond words. No amount of British people in agreement with fellow members of their own tribe here in this discussion will detract from the putrid reality of these people. You people mistake the British nationalist majority for consensus on this article. There has never been consensus for the current version - never. The culture of that majority and its underlying anti-Irishness and anti-Catholicism is reprehensible from beginning to end. Oh, and spare me your sycophancy and its utter naivety about the nature of these people and the atavistic hatred which they collectively hold for the Irish. 78.16.116.115 (talk) 03:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello 78.16.116.115. It seems that you have appointed yourself the sole judge of what is "Irish". First of all, the Island of Ireland is where the Irish people live. Secondly, the Island of Great Britain is where the English, Welsh, Scottish people live. The British Isles are BOTH the Island of Ireland and the Island of Great Britain TAKEN TOGETHER, and the British people are the English, Welsh, Scottish, and Irish people all TAKEN TOGETHER ... as a group. ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 04:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I will be charitable and assume you have simply made a mistake above. British people can be used for the English, Welsh, Scotts and NORTHERN Irish (where they have not opted for citizenship of Ireland. --Snowded (talk) 05:22, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello Snowded. The Irish people are now divided into two groups, the Northern Irish, and the Republican Irish. The former live in the Province of Northern Ireland, whereas the latter live in the Republic of Ireland. BOTH the Province of Northern Ireland, and the Republic of Ireland are located upon the Island of Ireland. ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 05:36, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I think I and others know that, the problem is with your phrase: the British people are the English, Welsh, Scottish, and Irish people all TAKEN TOGETHER ... as a group which is not only false, but may also be considered provocative so I suggest you withdraw it. --Snowded (talk) 05:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello Snowded. How is "the British people are the English, Welsh, Scottish, and Irish people all TAKEN TOGETHER ... as a group"(i) in-error?

(ii). provocative? Why? ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 06:01, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Because a substantial number of the Irish people are not British (hence it is in error. If you want to know why it is provocative then look at the edit history above. I really can't believe I am having to explain this or constantly reformat your comments. Please learn to use indenting consistently and sign your comments without a carriage return. --Snowded (talk) 06:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello Snowded. (1). Do not give me advise on how to post. (2). The Republican Irish are no longer "British" ... fine. The Northern Irish are still "British", and the Northern Irish are still Irish, therefore the term "British" is still valid group term.ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 06:22, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Get your formatting right and there will be no need to give you advise, It is explained here . What you need to say is that the the British people are the English, Welsh, Scottish and NORTHERN Irish people. The use of Irish without the qualification is factually incorrect and provocative. --Snowded (talk) 06:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Snowded ... do not tell me how to post. I shall post in the style that I please. Read Set Theory. (i). Let "British" be a set containing the elements "English", "Welsh", "Scottish", and "Irish". (ii). Let "Irish" be a sub-set containg the elements "Northern-Irish", and "Republican-Irish". If the element "Republican-Irish" possesses a Cardinal-Value of the Null-Set, Ø, (i.e, the "empty-set") ... then the "British" group term is still has elements with NON-ZERO Cardinal-Values. ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 07:22, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not telling you, its Wikipedia practice, please learn it. Your proposition (i) is false and insulting, it also indicates that you have paid no attention to the debates on this page or to simple logic. After I have posted this I am deleted the entire sequence. --Snowded (talk) 07:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

If you delete it please make sure u remove the offensive crap from that IP user who started this dispute. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

"who started this dispute"? Well, as they say a dog does not give up his bone no matter how ill-gotten it is. And your particular bone is a few centuries old. And so it is with all three (at least) of our Union Jack flying British nationalist editors who have hijacked this article to advance their little Englander politics. As for your notion that people who live in Ireland are actually in reality "British", well that just shows the extent to which this article is under the control of an irredentist marginal subculture of British nationalism that is intent upon imposing their identity upon the Irish people. "Consensus"? You must be joking. 213.202.171.79 (talk) 13:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

If you don't like this article why don't you go here [1] and edit to your heart's content. MidnightBlue (Talk) 13:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Mandatory Registration, it's only a matter of time, folks. GoodDay (talk) 15:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

If Midnight Blue wants to keep British POV dominating this article maybe we need two "forks" - a British Version and an International Version? Sarah777 (talk) 16:13, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Some would argue, it's an Irish Version and an International Version. I see it as all three. GoodDay (talk) 16:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I can't be held responsible for the myopia of those "some". Sarah777 (talk) 16:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Why do I have a quizzy feeling? Must be something I ate. GoodDay (talk) 16:22, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

And I gotta say this particular incident seems to be a good argument for letting IPs in - in this case they are supporting WP:NPOV against attack from British Nationalism. Sarah777 (talk) 16:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

That's why I've got a quizzy feeling. GoodDay (talk) 16:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Edit Warring

Hiya folks, is this article gonna have to be protected again? GoodDay (talk) 16:06, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Would Snowded and other please stop editing warring here. There is no "consensus" for any particular wording and their certainly isn't any for reverting every non British POV that you don't like. Debate the issue; stop warring. I have restored the version that was subject to tag team reverting and I will continue to restore it untill the issue is fully debated. Sarah777 (talk) 16:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

The stable version should remain until it is debated - I am pro the change - but not pro it being forced on the article.MusicInTheHouse (talk) 16:11, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

You're a tough lady, Sarah. Here's hoping you'll settle this dispute, soon. GoodDay (talk) 16:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no "stable version". Sarah777 (talk) 16:13, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

And if a certain group of British editors cannot resist using their numerical strength to impose British POV in every nook and cranny of this article it will be time to propose a move of this article to "Great Britain and Ireland". I will not hesitate to do so if the warring continues. Sarah777 (talk) 16:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

For historical reasons: I'll always support this article's current title. GoodDay (talk) 16:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

For historical reasons: I'll always support the British subjugation of the Irish people. 213.202.171.79 (talk) 17:32, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I would love to see you try to justify such a stupid move Sarah, it is with out doubt pushing your own biased point of view. I am very sorry you can not accept the fact that the British Isles is where we all live, just because you do not like something doesnt mean you can change things as you wish.

We happen to live in Europe, there are millions of British people who hate that idea and would love for the UK to be removed from maps of Europe, but we can not change things by silly crying. Get over it. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't live in a place called "The British Isles" by anyone around here. I live in Dublin. The "Europe" situation is a ridiculous attempt as analogy. A real analogy would be German editors insisting Austria was part of a place called "Greater Germany". "silly crying" and "Get over it." breach WP:CIVIL. Take that as your first warning. Sarah777 (talk) 16:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Your claims that certain British editors are pushing a point of view simply by defending fact is hardly inline with the rules either. What ever happened to assume good faith? And i never accused you of silly crying. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Good faith rarely comes into British/Irish disputes. The vast majority on both sides vote along national lines. Sarah777 (talk) 17:01, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, with all due respect when I see an editor who defines his contributions on wikipedia with a massive Union Jack (praising an anti-Irish and anti-Catholic sectarian monarch, mind you) he has nailed his colours so strongly to the mast that all I see is the enemy of my people, the bigots and racists who stole and raped this land for centuries. Assumptions of goof faith do not withstand this reality. Lastly, to then claim that us Irish are really British (who have lost our way, apparently) just demonstrates how disconnected the poster is from historical, geographical, and political facts. 213.202.171.79 (talk) 17:32, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

lmao and clearly you have no bias on this matter im sure. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not even a Wikipedia editor, but in the last few days I've been reading up on various articles about... erm... let's call it "a number of islands to the north-west of France and the south-east of Iceland". And in every single one of those articles the discussion page is full of loud, but highly-polarised arguments by the same 2 or 3 people trying to justify their edit wars with emotive statements. If you really, honestly want to create a balanced and NPOV wikipedia, please remember to uphold the spirit of Wikipedia by citing anything that could be argued or misconstrued. If you believe Ireland is part of the British Isles, state it and post a credibly reference. If you believe it is not, state it and post a credible reference. Don't post insults, or state one or t'other simply because you "believe" it is true. If you want to start your own wiki that entirely embraces your view of the world, do what various groups have done and create one. - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.107.183.201 (talk) 21:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 21:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

As outlined in the procedures for a requested move which may be controversial I am setting up a section here for discussion.

I must be getting old or becoming a softy. I prefer the article to remain named British Isles for historical reasons. However, if it's to be re-named? Britain and Ireland would be acceptable (though my personal choice would be The Isles). GoodDay (talk) 16:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose - The British Isles is widely used to describe the Islands of Ireland and Great Britain which can be found on many maps and encyclopedias written in the English language. This is the English language wikipedia, i fail to see why we should attempt to rename something just because a couple of editors are unhappy with history. The article is correctly named and there are a huge list of sources available to justify it. Strongly oppose such a crazy move, Can i have the Europe article / title changed if i dont like the fact the UK is part of Europe? BritishWatcher (talk) 16:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

@G'Day: Britain and Ireland is more common and is the certainly the common usage in Ireland; I'm trying to allow for those who say the BI term is "only geographical" and then go on to include the Channel Isles or start arguing that Britain does not include NI. The "merely geographical" becomes very political when any alternative name is suggested. Sarah777 (talk) 16:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

@BritishWatcher (name makes my point above!) I have explained once already that the attempt to use Europe as analogous is simply stupid. Do you really need me to explain why? Sarah777 (talk) 17:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Politics & Geography tend to be intertwined, as we all know. GoodDay (talk) 17:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

From your point of view it may be Sarah, but you need to accept the fact that many people consider the British Isles just as much a location as they do Europe. Im sorry but i can not see how we can rename parts of the world just because we don't like something. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Europe is the name of a continent. There is no state called "Europe"; what many British object to is being in the EU - and you can leave that anytime you wish and nobody will force a name on you that suggests you are still part of the EU. We left Britain and the British (some of them) are still trying refer to Ireland as British. As I said, calling Austria part of Greater Germany on Wiki is an analogy. Europe/Britain is not. This is a matter of fact and logic, not opinion. Sarah777 (talk) 17:13, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

No Sarah its not just about the European Union. There are plenty of people here who do not consider themselves to be European, infact some would find that just as offensive as you might find being called British. The point is we can not change fact simply because we dont like it. "British Isles" can be found on many sources, and is used very regularly by the BBC which is a major source for wikipedia. British Isles is also mentioned on Canadas entry of the CIA world Fact Book as well as being found on other major news sources from Fox News to CNN. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:22, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

"BBC which is a major source for wikipedia." Part of the problem surely? You won't find it used on RTE. So The British Broadcasting Corporation, British State-owned TV station is used to support imposing British nationalist POV on Wiki! Irony so thick you could walk on it. Sarah777 (talk) 18:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, you do find RTE using it. here. Canterbury Tail talk 20:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

This argument has been done to death on numerous occasions. Best just to ignore the stupidity - again, unless the POV pushers are in danger of getting their way. MidnightBlue (Talk) 17:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

As things stand, the POV pushers have their way. And the "stupidity" is all yours I assure you. Sarah777 (talk) 18:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it has been done to death so many times that the evidence for widespread objection to this term is beyond contradiction. The sole reason this article remains under the name "British Isles" is because there is a vociferous and dedicated British nationalist clique of editors on this particular article who are determined to censor Irish objections and make claims that the Irish people are actually British. This article is about numbers; it has never been about consensus, in particular since the words 'term' and 'many' were removed in the past 6 weeks. Reason has long, long gone out the window here and anti-Irishness, the default position of Britishness since the latter identity was invented in the seventeenth century, is holding this article hostage. 213.202.171.79 (talk) 17:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• Irish nationalist here, saying oppose to the move. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 17:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Bastun, "nationalism" isn't the same as "nationality". And we are not voting (yet), we are discussing. You have contributed nothing to the discussion. Sarah777 (talk) 18:20, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I also oppose the move, Sarah. The British Isles is just a geographic term; I even asked my Fianna Fail-voting ex-husband and he considers it so. His family have been republicans for many generations!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:33, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Jeanne, we long ago established on this issue that "British Isles" is not simply a geographical term. Sarah777 (talk) 18:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm well aware of the difference between nationalism and nationality, Sarah, and seeing as you don't my politics, I don't think you're in any way qualified to suggest I used the wrong term. Nor is it your perogrative to decide whose views get counted here and whose don't. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 23:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

This article has long been at British Isles and I wouldn't advise moving it. I tend to stand with the belief that though the term is unfortunate and may be uncommon within Ireland itself, and particularly the Republic, there's no evidence to suggest that any alternative term either a. does the job of describing Great Britain, Ireland, their immediate islands, the Isle of Man, the Shetland and Orkney Islands and the Channel Islands or b. is used internationally more commonly than 'British Isles'. Whilst Great Britain and Ireland is clearly acceptable as an alternative most of the time, there are still situations where it might be inappropriate as a term, not least if you are trying to differentiate the two islands of Great Britain and Ireland form the other islands in the archipalego. The article should remain at this title and objectively describe the issues with the name in a considered and adult manner, as well as offering some of the alternative names used. 'The Isles' or 'These Isles' works fine in daily use but for obvious reasons it is not an actual toponym appropriate for an encycolpedia.Pretty Green (talk) 18:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. This discussion has been done to death, and I don't see a rationale provided for this most recent proposal. Rockpocket 18:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you not? Sarah777 (talk) 22:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

No, I do not. Would you care to provide one, or are you limiting yourself to "witty" repartee today? Rockpocket 22:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - "British Isles" and "Britain and Ireland" are not synonymous and don't mean the same thing. Canterbury Tail talk 20:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

True Ben. "British Isles" mean they are all British; Britain and Ireland means they are not. Well spotted. Daft vote though. Sarah777 (talk) 22:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

No, as you know the British doesn't imply ownership, any more than Irish implies ownership of Irish Sea, Indian for Indian Ocean etc. Britain and Ireland isn't the same as British Isles, they don't cover the same area, same islands etc. Britain and Ireland is less than British Isles. It's like the difference between Europe, and Continental Europe. Canterbury Tail talk 13:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

>>> Comment: I think you'll find that many British contributors here have said precisely the opposite to what you have just said, specifically that the Irish are British by virtue of the fact that they/we live in a place which the aforesaid contributors term the "British Isles". And that's just the British on this page. 86.42.96.251 (talk) 13:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Can you tell us how many British contributors have said all the people of Ireland are British? ive only seen one person make that claim but perhaps i missed something. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - The "British Isles" is the only term used and known by us "Colonials" in the Dominions that moved away from the "Home-Islands" (i.e., the decendents of the English, Welsh, Scottish, and Irish ... collectively known as group as the British ). ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 21:11, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, at least you are honest. Sarah777 (talk) 22:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - As far as I can tell, British Isles is the most commonly used term for the archipelago, so should be used per WP:UCN, irrespective of the obvious fact that some find the term offensive. I may be wrong, so I'm really open to discussion on this using references, but I believe 'British Isles' is the most common term. 'The isles' sounds a particularly dreadful alternative, as it is so rarely used. --hippo43 (talk) 23:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

There is clearly no support for such a silly move, can we end this process before more people have to waste their time just because Sarah is unhappy about the past 800 years of history. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Support. It's beyond belief that the current title has lasted this long. Just look at the politics of the people supporting it. Do rational, fair-minded and even somewhat liberal British people really want to be associated with those people? 86.42.96.251 (talk) 12:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Even liberal British people would know we all live in the British isles and the vast majority of them would not encourage or support renaming an article just because one or two people are unhappy with history. Get over it, we cant redraw the map. The BBC which is accused of a liberal bias by many even describe it as the British Isles. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Odd then that the BBC avoids using it and opts instead for talking about the UK on their weather forecasts. Maybe there is a BNP BBC that we don't get here in Ireland? Oh, and don't bother looking at all those international media outlets from National Geographic to Philips maps who have dropped the use of the term "British Isles" (I've just noticed all the sources testifying to organisations dropping the term have been removed from this article. My oh my, the politics and censorship in this article just gets better.) 86.42.96.251 (talk) 13:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Lmao the BBC say the British Isles all the time and plenty of other sources describe it as such as well. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Would you care to show us proof of the last time you heard your favourite term on the BBC weather forecast? It doesn't happen, or else you must be getting a different BBC (perhaps playbacks from the 1950s?) to the rest of us here in the European Union? 86.42.96.251 (talk) 14:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Well here is a quick example. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/uk/05/born_abroad/countries/html/overview.stm Ohhh look British Residence born abroad (Exluding Republic of Ireland) I wonder where the Republic of Ireland is? Ohhhh look its at the bottom in the table of British Residence born in the British Isles. I hear the BBC weatherman say British Isles all the time, this is pointless and considering the overwhelming opposition so far to a change we are all wasting our time. Thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 14:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's the most amazing BBC weather forecast that I have ever seen. Well done, BritishWatcher. I particularly liked the map of Britain on the top right-hand corner (above the heading "British Isles"). Much like this website, in fact: http://www.the-british-isles.com/ (oh, where's Ireland?) 14:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.96.251 (talk)

You wanted an example of where the BBC has used the term since 1960s, i found you one. If you are so obsessed with weather forecasts how is this by the met office - http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/uk/radar/tech.html . Oh look they show the British Isles and even go to the effort of getting data from the Republic of Ireland to put on their nice little map. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

===> Still waiting to hear that term on the BBC weather forecast, as originally requested ....86.42.96.251 (talk) 14:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

It's the 21st century, anonIP. Try their |website. Oh, what's that in the dropdown...? Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 15:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. For the reasons I've touted for years. British Isles has been the historical name. GoodDay (talk) 13:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, if somebody hadn't also censored that aspect of this article you would know that this archipelago historically has far more than one name, among which is Islands of Westerm Europe, which occurs in the English language before that John Dee neologism "British Isles" does. "The historical name" indeed. 86.42.96.251 (talk) 14:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

In point of fact Nicholas Throckmorton first used the term British Isle in 1560, but was referring to England and Scotland, not Ireland. Seeing as the Welsh Tudors reigned in England and the Scottish Stuarts were next in line to the throne, it behooved the English to begin to think in terms of British.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

It's apparent, this move request isn't gonna get a consensus. Perhaps, we should consider closing? GoodDay (talk) 14:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, this was all nonsense and a waste of time. There is clearly no majority support for a change, infact the clear majority is opposed to the suggestion.BritishWatcher (talk) 15:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - British Isles includes the offshore islands that are not either Great Britain or Ireland (Channel Islands, Isle of Man, even Lundy or Anglesey). As such, it is a useful geographic term. - fchd (talk) 17:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Requested move - process?

Um, aren't moves that are likely to be controversial or contested supposed to actually be listed at WP:RM by the person initiating the request? Cos I can't find anything there about this one. (Or should I instead just be asking for this RM to be closed because of WP:SNOW?) Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 15:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I reckon it has to be listed at RM (in fact, I assumed it was). GoodDay (talk) 15:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

As the box at the top says The proposed move should have been noted at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Presuming this is an honest mistake and as the discussion has been operating for just one day, I've listed it there. --Pretty Green (talk) 16:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Is a term/is a name for a....

I'm a bit ashamed of one or two of my fellow Irish editors here not being civil and attacking editors due to their nationality without making concrete points about the proposed edit at hand. I somewhat agree with the edit being made by the ip but I think it should gain consensus first after some discussion. So therefore I am making the below proposal to make a slight change the intro to the below instead of the current wording:

"The British Isles is a name for a group of islands off the northwest coast of.....

I believe this to be a more neutral opening, as after all the "British Isles" is just a name and by declaring it as such it will makes things more obvious to readers. This newer form I think will diminish the whole 'this article is trying to suggest Ireland is British' thing and will hopefully be a more NPOV and stable intro for everyone.MusicInTheHouse (talk) 17:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Music.. I think this suggestion has already been aired (I might be wrong) and it was rejected because every description of something is just a name, so why single out the British Isles? Copper is a name for a red metallic element etc.. It's just not needed. MidnightBlue (Talk) 17:56, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with MidnightBlue, "is a name" could be used to start almost all articles on wikipedia and considering the huge number of wikipedia sources that use the term somewhere i do not think its justified. However i admit "name" is more reasonable than "term" as some seem to want. The disagreements on the naming of the British isles is not overlooked. Its made clear in the second paragraph, its talked about on two other articles including one wholy for the naming dispute. In no way are British editors trying to censor people from Ireland or the fact some people are offended by the term. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:00, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

The reason we "single out" the "British" Isles is because the title is highly contentious, disputed and objectionable to most Irish people who are not British. It is also falling out of use despite the determination of a group of British Nationalist editors to preserve British POV across a whole raft of Ireland-related articles. Sarah777 (talk) 18:36, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I do not wish to single out this article, I just thought something as harmless as adding two words might make the article a bit more stable and more NPOV. Do you have any other reason for not using it other than 'its obvious that its name' and 'it just not needed'? Is saying 'that is could be used any other Wikipedia articles but isn't' really a valid reason for not including it? What exactly is the harm in using the two extra words? The proposed edit is not directly linked to the naming dispute but does make it more obvious it is just a name and therefore would give a better context for the reader to understand the information that comes afterwards.MusicInTheHouse (talk) 18:06, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

The best contribution you could make Music is to stop apologising on my behalf when no apology is due. And revert the edit warring you have indulged in. Sarah777 (talk) 18:36, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

The opening sentence if an article should answer "two questions for the nonspecialist reader: "What (or who) is the subject?" and "Why is this subject notable?" The subject is the Isles, not the name of the Isles. We already have (two!) articles about the name of the Isles (Terminology of the British Isles and British Isles naming dispute). The "harm" is that it is not an accurate description of the contents of the article. Rockpocket 18:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

That is a fair point.MusicInTheHouse (talk) 18:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Nah. Just avoiding the issue that current "rules" make WP:NPOV on Wiki a fraudulent notion. Sarah777 (talk) 22:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, by addressing the term "British Isles" in the lede, the article is dealing specifically with the 'who' because "British Isles" is a term, one term of many, for this archipelago. If the real subject of this article was a simple harmless apolitical discourse on a few rocks and grass but under other terms such as "Britain and Ireland" or the Atlantic Archipelago, do you think there would be 20+ archives of discussion/fighting/resistance/insistance? This article title is intentionally provocative, and stating a political claim - that the Irish are "British" - which is firmly refuted by the vast majority of the population of the island of Ireland, a vast majority who support Irish nationalist political parties which aspire to the freedom of all of Ireland from British rule. That demographic and democratic reality is evidently hard for certain traditional British mentalities to fathom. (who seem to be having their annual online convention here on a daily basis) 86.42.96.251 (talk) 12:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

IP.86, Do you think it is possible for you to discuss this in term of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, rather in terms of geopolitics? With every mention of nationalism, political imperialism and fighting for freedom you marginalize your input here further. The bottom line is that this article is about some islands. It is not about the name of those islands. There are lots of subjects that have multiple names, these are deal with by redirects to the primary title. Under that primary title, we address the subject. If you believe the primary title is incorrect then there is a mechanism for proposing change (see the half-assed attempt above as an example of how not to do it). But lawyering around the issue with "X is a term for Y" is not the way we deal with it. Rockpocket 16:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

British Isles is overwhelmingly the most common name for the islands, which is why it's the name of the article. The name of a place is what the majority of its inhabitants call it, and the UK population outnumbers that of the RoI by 15 to 1 (I'm simplifying of course, to make a point. Some people in the UK may not use the name, and some in the RoI undoubtedly do use it.) ðarkuncoll 16:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you have it right there as far as wikipedia is considered. Surely, if there were more good references to say British Isles is not the most common name and if more than half of those refs came from outside the UK and Ireland it would be considered valid. What for example if there were 100 million chinese English speaking people who called it Britain and Ireland. Would it be excluded? Wikipedia does not count opinions of the population, they rather look at all the references provided and decide from there. Jack forbes (talk) 17:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, in the case of Derry for example, the justification for using that name is because the majority of its inhabitants do - and I have no problem with that at all. Not all citations are of equal worth, and Wikipedia recognises this. ðarkuncoll 17:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Which is why I said wikipedia looks at all references provided. We certainly don't do a head count where there are far more heads in the UK than in Ireland. If that was the criteria there has been an awful waste of peoples time debating this subject. Jack forbes (talk) 17:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

It is an awful waste of time debating this subject. ðarkuncoll 17:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, now that you've told me that and my time is so precious, I shall stop debating it. ;) Jack forbes (talk) 17:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

It certainly is a waste of time, the best of it is Sarah who started this current attempt to move this article knew it would be strongly opposed by most people and so this whole excerise has been pointless. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Protected

Protected for a week, for obvious reasons. If all the edit-warring participants engage here I'll remove it. Black Kite 18:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

What took you so long! Some of the comments on this talk page genuinely scare me that such people actually exist. Who knew it would be the collective name for Britain and Ireland that would cause every nationalist from Connacht to Norfolk to come out of the woodwork? --89.240.35.87 (talk) 21:50, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Except it isn't the collective name; it is the name collectively used by the British. And if Connacht nationalists have emerged from the woodwork it is merely to protect WP:NPOV from Imperialist impositions. The elephant in the room here is British Nationalism, which most of it's adherents don't even recognise as nationalism. Sarah777 (talk) 22:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Good Lord, you're one of them!!! I'm getting the hell out of here before this gets worse. --89.240.35.87 (talk) 22:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

That's fine with me. Sarah777 (talk) 22:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't there an Arbcom ruling concerning Sarah's continued (ab)use of the "British Nationalist/Imperialist people are disagreeing with me, it's all a conspiracy" argument? I'm pretty sure there was. Yet Sarah continues to act as if she were the sole voice of Irish nationalism. It's pretty tiresome. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 23:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Bastun, while I realise you ain't the sharpest knife in the drawer I must try and explain the concept of "conflation" to you. "British Nationalist/Imperialist people are disagreeing with me", yes, largely accurate. "it's all a conspiracy" - complete nonsense. But your weaselly attempts to get me silenced are noted. Sarah777 (talk) 22:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

It is far more tiresome that certain people are in wilful denial about the blatant politics of this term (and have clearly not looked at the User Pages of the latest batch of British nationalist wikipedia editors here). 86.42.96.251 (talk) 11:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Since we are talking about the "issues" the British Isles brings up with the "Republican-Irish" i.e., they don't like it ... how about the "issues" the country of just Ireland brings up with the "Northern-Irish"? If you call your country the Republic of Ireland then you are showing respect to the people who live in the Province of Northern Ireland. Calling your country just Ireland is implicitly refusing to acknowledge the existence of the Province of Northern Ireland (within the United Kingdom). ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 03:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

"the province of Northern Ireland". Indeed. Such is the educational level of our British nationalist contributors that they don't even know that "Northern Ireland" is not now, and never has been, synonymous with Ulster. But there you have it. If they spent some more time educating themselves on things other than how to invade countries that don't belong to them/gas Kurds/massacre civil rights demonstrators they might finally have the class to stop reading those abysmal tabloids. 86.42.96.251 (talk) 11:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The Province of Northern Ireland (its 6 Counties) has a Governor. The Province of Northern Ireland is the remnant of the Kingdom of Ireland. The Kingdom of Ireland was the successor to the Lordship of Ireland. The Province of Ulster (its 3 Counties) is actually in the Republic of Ireland. Ironic isn't it eh.::::ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 12:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, as an aside - just noted an interesting assertion - you state that the Province of Northern Ireland is the remnant of the Kingdom of Ireland. There was a discussion about "What happened to the Kingdom of Ireland" somewhere previously (can't find it right not, doh!) and I can't recall this being pointed out. Could you point me to somewhere I can read a little about this? Thank you. --HighKing (talk) 00:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh well, then I suppose you are just going to have to educate all those Ulstermen in the occupied Six Counties that they are no longer Ulstermen because it doesn't suit you. Nice of you to drop by and tell the Irish who and what they are, though. 86.42.96.251 (talk) 12:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The name of the country is currently being discussed elsewhere under Arbcom mediation. --Snowded (talk) 07:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

ArmchairVDL, that's some stretch of logic. I'd remind you that the people of Ireland - nationalists and republicans included - voted overwhelmingly in favour of the Good Friday Agreement, resulting implicitly in the recognition of Northern Ireland. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 07:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

This issue regarding Northern Ireland and Ulster is a red herring. The provinces of Ireland have changed their boundaries in the past - indeed, I believe there used to be five of them - and Northern Ireland is clearly based on the province of Ulster as it existed until 1922. It is perfectly reasonable to call it Ulster, because politically, geographically and culturally it is a continuation of Ulster. That the RoI also has a "province" called Ulster, consisting of three counties, two of which are separated from the other, must be regarded as mere obscurantism. ðarkuncoll 16:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

hehe. Very funny, TharkunColl. You are making a parody of how ignorant the average British nationalist is about Ireland! Very good. Even I never thought of that "Northern Ireland is coterminous with the province of Ulster as it existed in 1922 and it's only those obscurantist Paddies who came along and invented another Ulster after 1922". Inspired! The Edmund Spenser award for English historical scholarship on Ireland is all yours this month. 86.42.96.251 (talk) 18:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The British Isles are not an archipelago

I've brought this up before, but it's worth repeating, because the article as it currently stands looks ill-informed and ignorant. The issue here is that archipelago doesn't simply mean "group of islands" - Wikipedia articles notwithstanding. There's a clue in the name, because the word actually means "chiefly sea" - in other words, an archipelago is a group of small islands separated by more sea than land. This is certainly not the case with the British Isles, which comprise two very large islands surrounded by lots of small ones. ðarkuncoll 16:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

What was that about obscurantism? ;) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

That the so-called "province", or region, of the RoI named Ulster serves no practical purpose. But "archipelago" is simply wrong, and makes Wikipedia look stupid. ðarkuncoll 17:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The "Ulster" comedy continues, and the acting improves. Great entertainment, TharkunColl. Who said the stage imperialists died when Britannia stopped ruling the waves? 86.42.96.251 (talk) 18:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I think your being overly faithful to the greek meaning. The OED defines archipelago as "an extensive group of islands". Encarta has no problem calling the British Isles an archipelago. Britannica doesn't use the term but they seem to boycot it altogether even with the Aegean Islands. Eckerslike (talk) 18:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The BBC Style guide which has been mentioned in previous debates also uses the term archipelago to describe the British Isles and that includes the Republic of Ireland for that IP going around saying the BBC never use the term any more. "http://www.bbctraining.com/pdfs/newsstyleguide.pdf BritishWatcher (talk) 19:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes! The British Broadcasting Corporation canard once again. Sarah777 (talk) 22:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

"Even the BBC don't use the term anymore!" "Yes, they do - see." "Ah, well they would, they're British!" *sigh* Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 23:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Talking to yourself are you? *sigh* Sarah777 (talk) 00:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)Well, if we're going to start accepting British guidelines....then The Permanent Committee on Geographical Names for British Official Use mandates the name of the state as Ireland. The PCGN is made up of among others - you guessed it - The BBC as well as other notable British government departments and British institutions. --HighKing (talk) 00:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

We are not talking about the name of the state we are talking about the British Isles which includes Britain, Ireland and all those little islands. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I know that. But it's funny that one the one hand, the BBC is used as a reason that the term "British Isles" is a valid name for the islands (and still in use today), but on the other hand, it's not good enough when we're debating that the name of the state is Ireland. Odd, huh? --HighKing (talk) 15:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Well we are going way off topic here but very few people dispute the true name of the state is Ireland, the debate on that matter is its ambigious and there for in a similar situation to Taiwan and China. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

So...let's try again, shall we?

It appears I got some procedural thingy wrong despite following the rules as I read them. OK. So Rock - could you list this for the move required? As you get upset about "half-assed" proposals maybe you'd try a "full-assed" one? Sarah777 (talk) 22:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

And Rock, the move required is to move the "British Isles" article to "Great Britain and Ireland". Sarah777 (talk) 22:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

To help this along and to remove any suspicion that I'm breaking any rules I hereby give the full extract on requesting potentially controversial moves: Sarah777 (talk) 22:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I suggest all rational editors just ignore this. It's nothing short of trolling. MidnightBlue (Talk) 22:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

That is not an argument and is a breach of WP:CIVIL. Sarah777 (talk) 22:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

For future reference the above user describes herself as a troll [2] so do not be intimidated by attempts to wave WP policy around in a threatening way. Wiki-Ed (talk) 23:10, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

No, I did not so describe myself. But to try an excavate a 2 year old joke and produce it as "evidence" must qualify as breach of WP:NPA. Sarah777 (talk) 23:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Sarah, following procedure correctly isn't the main issue (some one will inevitably fix that for you). The issue is that you need to provide a rationale for making the proposal, and this rationale should be based on our policies and guidelines. As far as I can tell you reason for proposing the move is punishment for a content dispute ("if a certain group of British editors cannot resist using their numerical strength to impose British POV in every nook and cranny of this article it will be time to propose a move of this article to "Great Britain and Ireland". I will not hesitate to do so if the warring continues.")

That is not an acceptable reason for moving an article. If you think it should be moved write a reasoned justification for the proposal, supported by the relevant policies, and lets have a reasonable discussion. Persistent proposals without justifications are simply going to be considered disruptive and closed. Rockpocket 22:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Rock, the name is in breach of WP:NPOV, period. What triggered my proposal at this precise time is irrelevant. I was perhaps prepared to live with a POV name for a while longer but seeing British editors using my forbearance (and that of others) to extend the imposition of British political POV throughout the article made the case for another attempt to eliminate this cancer on Wiki more urgent. To suggest that this is "without justifications" is outrageous and combined with "going to be considered disruptive and closed" is dictatorial and threatening and merely illustrates the nature of the threat to WP:NPOV that we see here. Sarah777 (talk) 22:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I think I have covered the technicalities now (so no easy excuse to 'close') - so any closing of this debate before a wider audience gets to have an input would be naked censorship and political imposition, IMHO. This is a serious issue Rock, and your facile comments must indicate that you may be partisan in relation to the issue - I know you aren't stupid. Let us have a full debate for a reasonable period of a week or so. If the POV folk still manage to maintain the status quo, then we let it sit for a few months. That is the reasonable way to proceed. Sarah777 (talk) 23:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Then I suggest you explain - at the top of the very top of discussion section - a detailed explanation of why this name is lacking under our neutrality policy (since throwing acronyms around doesn't tell us very much) and why your suggestion is an improvement. Justify why the current name isn't the common name and why your proposal is. You may see this is an issue of imperialism, but the rest of us see it as a naming issue to be dealt with by our policies. I'm not being facile, Sarah. If you want a proposal to be taken seriously, make a serious argument for it. If one is not forthcoming, then there is zero reason to support. Rockpocket 00:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not in the least bit reasonable. By your own admission you've just said that even if you fail you'll continue to keep rocking the boat. There is no point to this exercise, which seems to serve no purpose except to disrupt. Wiki-Ed (talk) 23:10, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

It is very reasonable. Are you suggesting that this issue must never be revisited? "Rocking the boat" is your term for trying to support WP:NPOV on Wiki?! Speaks volumes. Sarah777 (talk) 23:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

We shouldnt have to revisit something which we just finished talking about a couple of hours before with an overwhelming majority voting against the idea. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Nobody is asking you to revisit anything. A total electorate of 8 editors on a discussion (not vote) open for a few hours is hardly an overwhelming anything. Sarah777 (talk) 23:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

As you like waving beans around so much - isn't accusing everyone who disagrees with you of being "POV folk" a breach of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF? Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 23:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

No. I don't accuse everyone of that. Only the POV warriors. Sarah777 (talk) 23:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Discuss the move here

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to move, without prejudice against further discussion. I've closed this for a number of reasons, which I urge editors to consider seriously before issuing knee jerk accusations of censorship. Firstly, this isn't a proposal that can ever be enacted by due process, because there isn't a target title to be agreed on. Secondly, much of the discussion is thinly disguised soapboxing, and not about the relevant issues. Therefore it therefore clearly not going to result in a consensus for a move. What, for example, as those below actually supporting, because ? already has its own article.

If any editor wants to continue a discussion on a possible move, then this closure should not be interpreted as an attempt to repress that. However, I strongly urge you to make a new proposal only if you can address the following three issues (and desist from political soapboxing in the process):

• What, explicitly, is the proposed alternative. "British Isles → ?" is not an option anyone who values policy and process can actually support.
• Explain how and why that alternative is widely understood to have the same meaning as the title of the current article.
• Justify why that alternative is a better option, citing the relevant policies and guidelines in support balanced against the policies and guidelines that do not support (and by "citing" I don't mean and alphabet soup of acronyms, I mean cite the relevant text of the guideline or policy).

Thank you, and protests against this will be entertained here. Rockpocket 04:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposal: British Isles → ?

Support, as proposer. We need to get some Irish editors notified to balance the POV. How may I do that within the rules? Sarah777 (talk) 22:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

You can place it on any of the project working boards. However I think the issue here is problematic. The insistence on non-geographical use of the term is causing me to have second thoughts about continued use of the term, but denial of its geographical existence is another issue. I think this needs a different process from a page move --Snowded (talk) 23:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Support, as the term "is not" the name of the islands, and is a political. The term is avoided in Ireland, and by virtually all international governments and organisations. The term has no relevance in a modern world, and is a dinosaur term from the past. PurpleA (talk) 22:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• I must clarify my support. I will support a move to "Britain and Ireland", because that is the most used term, and it is in keeping with WP:COMMON stated policy. PurpleA (talk) 01:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• Isn't the island called Great Britain? (as opposed to lesser Britain, or Brittany) and what of the other British Isles that are neither Hibernia, nor GB? 76.66.193.69 (talk) 04:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• Reply; I never use the term "British Isles". Neither does anyone I ever converse with use the term. I too would be concerned about Great Britain not getting its proper title, and if I have offended anyone, my apologies for using the term "Britain & Ireland". But that's what I do call the "pair" when discussing relationships between the two countries . Other than that, I have no name whatsoever for the 'archipelago'. Maybe it's my POV, but many governments and organisations agree with me on that score. Can I turn you question around and ask you "why you would not be concerned that 'Hibernia' be called a "British isle" when clearly it is not the case". PurpleA (talk) 05:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Strong oppose - I thought we had already voted on this matter why the hell has the vote started again? The British Isles is the correct name for the location described in the article. A change of this articles name is as crazy as seeking to rename Europe. There are plenty or reliable sources to back this up. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I suggest all rational editors just ignore this. It's nothing short of trolling.MidnightBlue (Talk) 23:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Theres been so much nonsense on this page midnight if we all ignored it and there was just two supports then they would make the change in a couple of hours time. Safer just to vote again, although i dont see the point in going into the detail again which has been gone over and over and over again. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. I wonder if any Irish here can see the irony in continually trying to instigate a vote with slightly different wording until they get what they want (hint: Lisbon Treaty). ðarkuncoll 23:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The non-existence of any reasoning on the topic will. I assume, disqualify this "i-vote". Sarah777 (talk) 23:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

This whole page is a mess and i wouldnt be suprised if it caused the wiki crash awhile ago. If we do have to start the vote again (although i dont know why as someone should of simply undone the IP edit which ended the last one if they were unhappy) can it please be laid out properly. The proposal is miles up the page, also can someone contact all the people who voted before so they know this nonsense is being done again. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest contacting many of the editors who did not vote the last time is more important. Sarah777 (talk) 23:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I bet you would, but if u want this vote to be valid u need the people from the last vote to be informed. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow! An election is only valid if the same people vote as in the previous election! Thinking-outside-the-box or what?!!! Sarah777 (talk) 23:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Canvas all you want, it's still not happening. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 23:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Eh..what's not happening? Sarah777 (talk) 23:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose the existence of this RM - it's out of process. The last one was closed because of "no consensus" (should probably have been WP:SNOW, though), not because it was out of process. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 23:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• Note: I debated using WP:SNOW, but declined due to two editors very strongly holding a position in favor, vs. many opposed, and felt that no consensus was better. I believe there is a related ongoing Arbcom imposed mediation going on, but was not able to find it yet the somewhat related naming of Ireland project at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 04:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Figures. The British POV can tolerate no opposition. Sarah777 (talk) 23:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Grow up. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 23:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Sticks and stones. Sarah777 (talk) 00:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Isnt the phrase something like "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me". Considering the amount of fuss u have been making over the title of this article which are just words, i dont think u should use any part of that phrase thankyou. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Heh, was thinking exactly that - except the version I learned was "... names will never hurt me." :-) Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 00:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Sticks and stones, as I said. One wonders why a self-described "Irish nationalist" gets so worked-up about defending the term "British" as applied to Itreland,. I know very many Irish nationalists from the most extreme to the most moderate. The latter might be indifferent tio the term (though usually not) but I have never met an Irish "Nationalist" who gets all fired up about supporting the term "British Isles". Truely Bastun, you are either unique or...eh...economical with the truth. Sarah777 (talk) 00:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

<deindent>Users here are skating on very thin civil and PA grounds. Might I suggest everyone takes a deep breath before responding and think whether your post is really helpful or if it will just escalate things. --Narson ~ Talk • 00:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Good suggestion. (But I was provoked, insulted and attacked). However I will not return here for 20 hours, as per your advise. Sarah777 (talk) 00:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Not by me. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 00:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe not. But there were a few who I consider where on the verge of bullying. This is, in my opinion, one of the reasons why so many editors are leaving. Jack forbes (talk) 00:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Support: The term "British Isles" is blatantly in contravention of wikipedia NPOV and is a clear and unequivocal assertion of British hegemony over Ireland. It is rejected by the democratically elected government of Ireland, and is not used in official dealings between the British and Irish states. It is intentionally, explicitly, and openly avoided in all diplomatic contacts between these states, a fact which acknowledges the widespread Irish hostility to the term. The term is rarely if ever used in the Irish media, and its use in mainstream British media has declined in line with a greater awareness of these objections. It has been replaced with the term "Britain and Ireland" by numerous internationally respected academic and media outlets from TV5 in France to National Geographic in America, many of these changes and developments having been extensively referenced in this article before being unilaterally removed in an attempt to censor the many and frequent Irish objections to the current term. The present title is simply a reflection of British nationalist myths about the subservient position of the Irish people vis-à-vis the British. Shame on wikipedia and all fair-minded editors for dignifying those atavistic prejudices. 86.42.96.251 (talk) 00:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
• Ignoring all the flag waving, and unburdened by historic chips on shoulders, one can simply ask what does our policies and guidelines, such as Wikipedia:Naming conflict and Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Controversial names advise? A few things jump out: "If an article name has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should remain." So is there a good reason to change it? Maybe, but no-one in support of change has presented it yet, largely preferring to take geopolitical potshots instead. Ultimately, in the case of proper nouns, our guidelines tell us that article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize. I have yet to see any serious effort to demonstrate that the most easily recognized name is "Britain and Ireland" (or even that "Britain and Ireland" is an accurate descriptor of the subject of this article. I mean, read the first sentence replacing the proposed title for the old one, and tell me if it even makes sense. It doesn't, which should surely tell us something). In the face of ambiguity, "every wikipedian just decides for himself/herself which of the choices he/she most easily recognises." And so we are back to a numbers game. If the numbers are not stacking in your favor, it might be worth trying to convince us why this title should be changed, rather than simply tell us we are wrong (and you get bonus points if you can do so without using the words "nationalist" "imperialsm" or "hegemony"). Rockpocket 02:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. What, again? In most dialects of English, including my own, which is not from the subject of this article (Northwestern European Archipelago? whatever the supporters would like to call it this week), the normal, default, and unmarked name for these islands is the British Isles. If the inhabitants cannot agree, they should listen to the rest of us. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:UCN. It's not even clear what the proposed target is but I assume it's "Britain and Ireland" which seems to me to be a description of the two constituent states and not actually the name of a group of islands. I also don't quite understand the POV charge either. Is it that those who use "British Isles" somehow advocate or harbour longing for English domination of Ireland? Is that sentiment really that common in the UK? And what about usage outside of the isles themselves? — AjaxSmack 03:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Your confusion is understandable, given that the proposer didn't bother filling in a target on the WP:RM page and that (despite names obviously being extremely important to her) she got the name of one of the countries wrong in the text she added there. But it appears from the template on the top of this page that the intended target is (now, at least) "United Kingdom and Ireland". Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 08:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

• Neutral But I found a new 'BI' reference: It's from the king of BI history, Hugh F. Kearney. This is from a 2004 essay: "Histories organized on "Four Nations" lines involve taking as their starting line "The British Isles" (a term always to be used with quotation marks)..." Hmmm? I don't suppose quotation marks are permitted in Wiki titles, eh? Ahh, what fun we could have if they were? :-) Nuclare (talk) 05:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
• Strong oppose British Isles is the correct term, nothing else will do.--Rockybiggs (talk) 09:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose, per WP:UCN. This is what the rest of the world calls it, for better or worse. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: I wish people would read the wikipedia policies they cite in support of their opposition to the change. WP:UCN, for instance, 'In cases where the common name of a subject is misleading, then it is sometimes reasonable to fall back on a well-accepted alternative' and 'Also, some terms are in common usage but are regarded as offensive (Mormon Church, for example). In those cases use widely known alternatives (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints).' WP:UCN in other words provides much more support for this change than it does for maintaining the current title and its well-referenced offensiveness. 86.42.96.251 (talk) 11:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no other term to describe the British Isles which are commonly used for what this article talks about. Im sorry but the people who are obsessed with getting this articles name changed need to actually make the case for it, something that hasnt been done. Its simply been put to the vote twice in less than a week and both times the majority is against the silly proposal. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Now we are getting somewhere. You are making an "Anything but..." argument; one of the reasons people are opposing change is because no-one knows what it is being proposed we change to. So what is the "well accepted alternative" you are supporting? Rockpocket 16:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose This is the common name for these islandsIdreamofJeanie (talk) 13:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - British Isles is the most common name for the islands in English, worldwide. I have also to ask, why is there no rationale at the top of this proposal: "British Isles → ?" - is hardly a convincing argument. Have I missed it somewhere or did it never exist?--Jackyd101 (talk) 13:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Nobody is sure what exactly we are voting for, there was a vote yesterday which was closed to change the name to "Britain and Ireland" and the person who started this new vote claimed Britain and Ireland was most common and yet according to the tag at the top of the page we are voting to change it to United Kingdom and Ireland. The whole thing is a complete mess. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - The BI term is the historic term & the most internationally used. PS- I'm not sure how we got support/oppose votes in a section called Discuss the move here. GoodDay (talk) 15:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - For those newer editors that may not be aware, a British Isles Terminology Task Force was set up last year. As far as I remember, many participants of this task force decided to wait until the "Republic of Ireland" Task Force completes. Many of the arguments appear to be similar, even though it could be argued that the topics are different. My suggestion is that this RM is put on ice for now, since the topic is very complex and generates high emotions. When we make progress on the RoI Task Force, whatever that may be, I suggest we then open this task force and follow whatever process worked for RoI. Thoughts? --HighKing (talk) 16:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

That spreads the butter nicely on my bread. I'll go along with that. GoodDay (talk) 16:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Highking but there can be no sensible debate on this matter that a taskforce can resolve. The British Isles is the ONLY common name for what this article talks about, i have not heard ANY other name that fits it. UK+Ireland or Britain and Ireland doesnt include the other islands of the British Isles. Wikipedia can not rewrite history or rename things just because a couple of editors seek to cause trouble. BritishWatcher (talk) 07:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you're over-imagining what constitutes a sensible debate. Have you looked at what the Task Force has already discussed? If you look closely, you'll see that some very sensible discussions have already taken place. --HighKing (talk) 13:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Im sure the task force do a very good job and help resolve alot of matters but no taskforce on wikipedia is going to be able to change the fact that the most common term to describe what this article talks about is the British Isles. The term exists and has been used for a long long time, even if its no longer being used by a couple of groups it doesnt justify changing this articles title because there is simply nothing to change it to, United Kingdom and Ireland is incorrect, Britain and Ireland is incorrect, so there isnt much choice.

> On the other hand, no taskforce will change the fact that "British Isles" is the most offensive term for the archipleago that contains the United Kingdom and Ireland, a fact which makes any claims of "most common term" subservient and quite irrelevant according to wikipedia rules. It's odd how this very real fact (mentioned above and below) is overlooked in this discussion. Why? 86.42.96.251 (talk) 16:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

And this is the core problem and why we are all wasting our time. People including this IP are not seeking to change the name of this article because its incorrect, they want it changed because some people find it offensive. Sorry but the last time i checked we cant rename things because a few people are offended. There are tons of article which are deeply offensive to people, we can not change the name of a location sorry. This article goes out of its way to state its very offensive to some and theres a whole article on the naming dispute BritishWatcher (talk) 16:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The small number of individuals who have sparked this will never be happy unless this title is changed, best to simply show they are a small minority with foolish ideas and ignore them after this vote is closed. Although i welcome the debate on agreeing the content, which is a far more valid concern than the silly moaning over the title. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose no reasonable alternate name, no common alternate name, no popular alternate name, violates WP:COMMONNAME using another name. 76.66.193.69 (talk) 04:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - British Isles is the common name for this group of islands. PamD (talk) 08:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - "British" Isles is a blatantly political name, but "United Kingdom and Ireland" is worse, not only because it has the same implications, but because at least one chunk (IOM) is in neither.--MacRusgail (talk) 16:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
• Comment We'll probably have to wait another few years for a new term to come and replace 'BI' by being used commonly and regularly. For example I read in this Irish times today someone using the term 'these islands' but I've also other heard Britain and Ireland and other terms so there's no obvious alternative title to British Isles at the current moment in time.MusicInTheHouse (talk) 17:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

If the term is no longer used and a single alternative does emerge which is used more then ofcourse the article should be renamed. As you rightly say right now there is no common alternative and the ones suggested by those pushing for change are simply incorrect because they dont include everything in the British Isles, they limit it to Britain and Ireland. (the current rename is for a change to United Kingdom and Ireland) which is crazy. The only reason a few are seeking change is because they find the term offensive, theres no other justification. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The current name includes less of the "British" Isles than the proposed name. Sarah777 (talk) 21:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Sarah can u just confirm for me what name u want this article to be? coz the other day u said Britain and Ireland was the most common term and yet u want this changed to UK and Ireland? - However u are wrong the British Isles includes islands which are not part of the UK, not part of Britain and not part of Ireland. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose The most common term for the group of islands is British Isles. The present wording of the lead identifies that this is a contentious name and explains why, with citations. The proposed name change is factually inaccurate. The British Isles includes the Isle of Man, and is usually taken to include Jersey and Guernsey (and its dependancies) as well, though on a strictly geographical basis that is incorrect. The United Kingdom and Ireland does not include the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands. The earlier proposal of Britain and Ireland does not include Scotland either. Whilst I understand the desire of Irish nationalists to come up with a term which does not suggest Ireland's subservience to the United Kingdom, they should not seek to do this by trampling over the rights of smaller nationalities. Skinsmoke (talk) 22:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose It is an undeniable fact that the geographical name given to this group of islands is "British Isles". The Task Force has focused on documenting groundrules for usage, not the elimination of the term. I've no problem, whatsoever, with using the term in the correct geographical context. --HighKing (talk) 23:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose as strongly as possible The term people use is British Isles, I've never heard anyone use the PC term being suggested here. It's not meant as a dig to anyone, its just what its called. Mohummy (talk) 03:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Suggestion

I came across this list of editors nationalities voting in a straw poll at talk Greece. I believe it was compiled due to a perceived bias on the part of the Greek editors. The following discussion took part on the Admin noticeboard concerning the pros and cons of the list. I actually disagreed with using such a list, but as everyone knows there have been accusations of British/Irish bias on the polls here concerning the naming of the article. Do any editors here think it would be a good idea to compile such a list, which would perhaps prove or disprove any such notion? Jack forbes (talk) 11:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, so long as we realise that NI editors are 60% British and can sort them out! Sarah777 (talk) 22:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Id have no problem with such a list being created and there are many positives to showing whos who although i do not think its needed in this case. Im sorry but this is a simple matter to resolve. There is no reasonable or well known alternative to British Isles. As pointed out by someone above, "Britain and Ireland" does NOT fit with what this article talks about because it includes many smaller islands as well which are not Britain or Ireland and ive heard no other alternative "common name".

The whole debate on changing the name has been a complete waste of time, the original vote which was closed yesterday showed overwhelming opposition to the silly proposal. The new vote which has been awfully laid out with no clear proposal being included at the vote shows a clear majoirty against the change in name. That Greek talk page seems to be fairly split with a large number supporting and a large number opposing, that is not the case here. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I also don't think it's needed in this case. Whatever about the term being less common now than it was, it's still the most common term. What might actually be more useful and save us all some time and energy is to look at this, and a remedy that was already applied to a certain editor for disruptive and aggressive behaviour. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 12:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The list would also be pointless as it ignores that people might be of Irish descent but born in Britain. Or that you might have staunchly pro-British Irish and pro-Irish British. Additional divisive measures may seem like a good idea, to see where everyone lies, but in reality it merely becomes battlelines to be fought over. Lets stick to the guidelines and policies to be interpreted, not on nationalities. --Narson ~ Talk • 12:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Can't agree - it would show that the preponderance of voters against change are from the country after which they wish to name the isles. Sarah777 (talk) 22:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I have just noticed something else that i would like to point out. In the vote which was closed yesterday it was for a name change to Britain and Ireland. Sarah herself who started this new vote said "Britain and Ireland is more common and is the certainly the common usage in Ireland" and yet according to the tag at the top of the page the current rename debate is for changing it to "United Kingdom and Ireland". This would have huge implications (this is meant to be about a geographical location not two states) and cause huge confusion considering our country use to be called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. This whole process is a complete mess and those who are seeking change dont seem to care what it is changed to aslong as its anything other than "British Isles" and yet the only claim to justify a change is some other term is used more than British Isles. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It may have appeared strange that I came up with this proposal considering I was against using a list, as I said on the admin noticeboard. I did though think that putting the suggestion forward and leaving it up to the editors concerned would be a good idea. I was actually hoping that if it was agreed on then the list would perhaps put to bed the idea of national bias, then perhaps there would be no talk of someone's block history. I do think incidentally that Sarah is being goaded a little here, we can all respond to someones proposal with a little less mockery, just disagree with her and get on with it. Jack forbes (talk) 12:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Sarah is being goaded?!

* "If Midnight Blue wants to keep British POV dominating this article maybe we need two "forks""

* "I can't be held responsible for the myopia of those "some"."

* "in this case they are supporting WP:NPOV against attack from British Nationalism."

* "if a certain group of British editors cannot resist using their numerical strength to impose British POV in every nook and cranny of this article"

* "As things stand, the POV pushers have their way. And the "stupidity" is all yours I assure you."

* "It is also falling out of use despite the determination of a group of British Nationalist editors to preserve British POV across a whole raft of Ireland-related articles."

* "I realise you ain't the sharpest knife in the drawer"

* "Ah yes! The British Broadcasting Corporation canard once again." (This after someone - on Sarah's side! - had specifically requested a demonstration of the BBC's use of the term).

* "your facile comments must indicate that you may be partisan in relation to the issue"

* "The British POV can tolerate no opposition." (To a known Irish editor)

* "Truely Bastun, you are either unique or...eh...economical with the truth."

Yes, there is goading going on here but it's pretty clear who's doing it. As pointed out above, Sarah has already been sanctioned by Arbcom for precisely the same behaviour that she's now returned to. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Great_Irish_Famine#Findings_of_fact and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Great_Irish_Famine#Enforcement_2. She's still (supposed to be) on civility parole. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 13:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Virtually all of these were responses to goading, insults, sneers and personal attacks - including some from you Bastun. Plus, I don't "know" you are Irish; I can only judge by the improbability of anyone claiming to be ab "Irish Nationalist" getting so emotionally involved in defending the "British" Isles claims. You would be the very first in my extensive expierence. Sarah777 (talk) 22:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Jack I have not attacked or insulted Sarah however i have no problem saying i find this whole process a complete joke and waste of time. As i just mentioned the current tag at the top says we are voting for something different to what Sarah wanted yesterday. Its all a complete mess but what is very clear is there is no majority support for a change and theres been no attempt to justify a change. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, BW. looking at the first few posts before Sarah had much to say a couple of comments from two editors were as follow. "I suggest all rational editors just ignore this. It's nothing short of trolling". And, "For future reference the above user (Sarah) describes herself as a troll (a joke on her part) so do not be intimidated by attempts to wave WP policy in a threatening way". Not exactly words to begin a proposed move section. Like I said, disagree with her and move on, I know she is no shrinking violet but there is no need for anything more. Also, don't forget, the last poll lasted all of 2 days with very few editors involved. Could it be that she thought the vote was closed too soon? Jack forbes (talk) 13:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Like i said ive not attacked her, im not responsible for what others say although there has been a huge amount of abuse towards British editors by certain people. The vote may of been closed to soon, but someone should of undone the close by an IP if they thought that, not started it again. Especially as the vote yesterday was for "Britain and Ireland" and today we seem to be voting on changing it to "United Kingdom and Ireland". The whole things a complete joke. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I have blamed you for nothing BW. I only hope the discussion can continue in a more calm and civilized way. Jack forbes (talk) 14:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

• I come from a different angle on this, and have no problem with an article called "British Isles". Where I do have a problem is that the article is seemingly what is called a "pov-fork", and much of the content is a repeat of what is written in other articles. Some editors say it is the "common name", something which I doubt very much. I do agree that the term maybe used in the UK more often, and believe it or not, New Zealand, where I lived for some months. In my time in Australia, I never heard it being used in conversation at all. The article would best be about 10 lines in length, with links to the respective geographical areas, akin to Encyclopedia Britannica's historic treatment of the subject. To me, the term "British Isles" is a geo-political term, for that is how the term started out in life. That is an inalienable fact that not even Wikipedia can change. PurpleA (talk) 14:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

What was the geo-political motivation of the Ancient Greeks who invented it? ðarkuncoll 16:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

(yawn) Ancient Greeks didn't invent it. Read the article. --HighKing (talk) 16:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Is that a Support vote I detect there High King??? Sarah777 (talk) 22:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

(yawn more). They did. Please read the article. Just stating something over and over again that is so patently false doesn't make it true, you know. ðarkuncoll 21:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Tharky...is there a reference somewhere that the term was invented by the Ancient Greeks?...or did Ptolomey translate a Roman term into Greek only for it to be reinterpreted back into Latin by Jacobus Angelus and reinterpreted into English, before Union with Great Britain, as Brittanic Islands but after Union with Great Britain,as BI subtley blurring the distinction between Brittanic and British and Islands and Isles along the way? Lucian Sunday (talk) 16:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

What's the difference in meaning between "Britannic" and "British", and "Islands" and "Isles"? ðarkuncoll 21:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

British Isles British Islands Lucian Sunday (talk) 22:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

That's just a modern legal invention. It has no bearing on the meanings of the individual words. ðarkuncoll 22:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Are we debating individual words now? Really? --HighKing (talk) 23:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Call me a gambling man, but I'm betting that this latest RM proposal isn't being accepted. GoodDay (talk) 15:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I like PurpleA's suggestion. We make this a simple article with pipelinks to replicated material. --Snowded (talk) 16:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll go for that. GoodDay (talk) 16:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

There is a significant section that covers the natural history, geography and geology of the Isles. I see no good argument for removing these (though some could probably be extensively pruned, especially where there are daughter articles) as the term encapsulates a geographical entity that no other article does. The cultural, sport, demographics, transport, political co-operation and perhaps even languages could all probably go though, since they are all covered extensively in the articles about the incorporated states/countries/nations. Rockpocket 16:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree with that amendment Rockpocket, its then all geography and thus no issue. As you say the other material can be piplinked and referenced. This is then a pure geography article, it does not need qualification and hopefully ceases to be a unionist-republican battleground --Snowded (talk) 16:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. The article content forms a useful reference to those common areas of interest throughout the islands. The material is generally not duplicated to a large extent. We especially need to maintain the Political co-operation (rename to Politics) section, and those sections that deal with issues that cross national and international boundaries, all-Ireland sport, for example. On the other hand, we could easily lose the material about the so-called controversy of the name. That is duplicated elsewhere. MidnightBlue (Talk) 17:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like an attempt to make it political with all the associated issues. If you do that then you cannot loose the controversy on the name and there is a stronger case for renaming. Sport is well covered in Ireland and of the other material would be better there. This is a legacy Geography article. --Snowded (talk) 17:46, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

FWIW there is a - currently pretty crap - article on British-Irish relations that the political stuff can go to. I was going to add a hatnote in this article, but it is protected. Pfainuk talk 20:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with MidnightBlue - the islands are not just a geographical entity. There are obvious social/cultural/linguistic commonalities within them, and distinct from neighbouring continental areas. Those aspects should really be in this article, even if it means putting up with this sort of debate at times. --hippo43 (talk) 21:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. While the British Isles is an outmoded term for a geographical entity, there are too many obvious dissimilarities between Ireland and Britain to make sense of describing commonalities without essentially splitting the article. I agree with Snowded suggestion. --HighKing (talk) 23:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

So we should have an article about the islands, but not cover the people who live on them? We shouldn't discuss migration among these islands? Or mention that the people who live on them generally speak the same language, watch the same stuff on TV, support the same football teams... --hippo43 (talk) 00:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, as an alternative, we could talk about the people on Britain and Ireland if that's what you mean....would probably cover 95% of what needs to be said..... --HighKing (talk) 00:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Leaving the title issue aside, there is a group of islands which surely merits haveing a general article about them. The article should include sections about history, geography, people, flora/fauna blah blah blah. These sections should cover the similarities and differences across the islands, and also link to more detailed main articles (History of group of hypothetical islands, for example). This would be the case if the article was about 'Britain and Ireland', 'Balearic Islands', or 'nameless group of islands in the North Atlantic' Or am I missing something? --hippo43 (talk) 00:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes you are, the fact that the term is no longer a valid political one, the history of its use and various other things. Hence the suggest to make it purely geographical (indisputable but still not liked by some on one extreme) and reference the other material, or expand other articles which do not carry the historical baggage. That was with a bit of luck we reduce conflict and prevent the quarterly emergence of the naming dispute and other issues. --Snowded (talk) 01:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm well aware of those issues (though can't really coment on "various other things"), however, my view on this is not dependent on the term being a "valid political one". The islands form an obvious group which is worth covering across all these characteristics, whether the article is titled 'British Isles' or 'Irish Isles'. The desire to avoid annoying debates should not determine what areas an article covers. Those who dislike the name will not dislike it any less if it is only applied in a geographical sense. Moreover, if this article is to be about geography only, then it should be renamed 'Geography of the British Isles.' If not, it will quickly be expanded by editors who (justifiably) think it should contain info on history, culture, society etc. If it is renamed 'Geography of the British Isles', then very quickly an article called 'British Isles' will (justifiably) be started, and will cover these areas in the islands. Trying to control what subject areas this should cover or what articles should be in Wikipedia, in order to avoid future disagreement, will not work. We can't have an article titled 'British Isles' and at the same time insist that it only cover 'Geography of the British Isles'. --hippo43 (talk) 02:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you are missing the point. BI is a geographical not a political term. There are aspects of its history and current political co-operation that are already covered elsewhere and can be linked. It is NPOV to suggest that there is something special about the people who reside in the British Isles, or maybe we should have a Britain and Canada article as well? There is a clear minority agenda to assert a BI Identity over a UK/Ireland one and that should be no more encouraged than the extreme nationalist position that seeks to change historical names. --Snowded (talk) 03:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

<deindent>No, not missing the point, just disagreeing with your point. I am not looking to use BI as a political term, but I don't believe we can be prescriptive in its usage. The British Isles (or whatever) is a group of islands which has similarities and differences in various areas. If there is an article about the islands, it is legitimate to discuss any of those major areas, just as it would be in any group of islands. To pretend that Ireland, the UK, IOM etc are not more similar than, say, the UK and France is daft. Excluding that material, if it meets WP:NPOV, WP:OR and WP:V, is itself asserting a POV. Your Canada example is ridiculous. If Britain and Canada were neighbouring islands, within a group, with shared history, culture, language etc, then we would obviously, and correctly, have an article about them. We would probably also have an edit war over the name 'Canadian Isles'. --hippo43 (talk) 03:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I ever mentioned France and I am sorry you find my example of Canada ridiculous but will not take offense. I think what you are failing to properly acknowledge is that Ireland (the state) left the British Empire, and the Commonwealth. It is legitimate for the British Isles article to reference that history of the peoples of that article. It is not legitimate for the article to be used to perpetuate a political position that ended in the 1920s. The proposal above is a way to avoid those debates while being true to the principles of WIkipedia. I commend it to you. --Snowded (talk) 04:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Then we agree on some of this. You're right that this article shouldn't be perpetuating a political position which ended in the 1920s. The social and cultural links, and shared history znd language, however, did not end at the same time. I'm not sure that avoiding disagreement is really true to the principles of Wikipedia - this seems to be a mechanism to sidestep WP:UCN, as well as give undue weight to the view that 'British Isles' is an unacceptable name, contrary to WP:NPOV. Avoiding POV material can be achieved by applying policy to the article - we just don't need to restrict what areas of content can and can't be covered.

--hippo43 (talk) 05:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

How very honest, through the use of a most dishonest word. "Commonalities", my eye. How about a disquisition on the "commonalities" between master and slave in the southern states? Let me start the opening line of your "British Isles" "commonalities": 'The nice British came and civilised the barbarous wilde Irishe savages who violently opposed the glorious civilisation and started a bloody campaign of violence against the nice peaceful British settlers....' Oh yes, such is the basis of the "commonalities" which all our rightwing British editors love to speak of, without of course saying anything about why the Paddies might not exactly be endeared to the term "British Isles" or indeed the British people when they are claiming hegemony over Ireland. Fortunately for the control of this article, the British exercise a strict censorship that prevents the airing of Irish views here. It's all just "commonalities". How civilised indeed. The sad thing is that you people genuinely believe you are a force for advancement in Ireland. I really despise your tribalism dressed up as enlightenment. It's the pretensions of it all that gall me. I know I speak for very, very, very many Irish people with those last two sentences. 86.42.96.251 (talk) 21:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Could an admin please block the above user. Thanks. MidnightBlue (Talk) 22:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I have warned IP.86, for the second time, that such nationalistic rhetoric is unacceptable here. These sorts of comments leave editors skating on very thin ice indeed. Rockpocket 22:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

By "such" I take it you mean "Irish Nationalist rhetoric" Rock, because the British rhetoric here has failed to move you to any comment or warnings whatever. Sarah777 (talk) 22:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see other editors engaging in the same level of name-calling and soapboxing as as IP.86. If someone else does, they will get the same warnings. Rockpocket 02:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Im glad that the debate has moved on to article content and moved away from the silly Requested move, so can we please close that process now as its going to overwhelmingly fail so we can all focus just on content. Although i dont think much of the article text needs to be removed, i think its helpful to include content about political co operation within the islands. Just because this is about a geographic location doesnt mean we can not mention the people of these islands history and political co operation today. BritishWatcher (talk) 07:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: This article will never move beyond the title "British Isles" that is currently over it. To deny this twenty-six archives later is quite simply a case of having one's head in the sand. Britain will be forced into the eurozone and Irish objections to this title over their country will be as live as ever. Oh, and yes we all know very well that there is a direct connection between the rise of the EU and the greater use of this term among Eurosceptic British wikipedians as part of their battle to assert their separateness. 86.42.96.251 (talk) 13:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Fine rant although it was totally incorrect and has nothing to do with the current debate. Keep on topic please :) BritishWatcher (talk) 14:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

A few lines up you are saying how glad the discussion has moved on from the "silly" move request. Now you want to stay on topic. Sarah777 (talk) 22:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

IP 86, I can assure you that it isn't just the British who are Eurosceptic. Come to Italy where I live, and you will see large-scale Euroscepticism from all socio-economic groups.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The day when Italians are qualified to give lecture on politics (their governments change quicker than the seasons) and economy (rampant corruption and nepotism) is the day when Hell freezes over. Flamarande (talk) 12:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia naming policy

A comment was made on this page a little while ago by an IP which gets to the heart of the ongoing dispute. As it will be hard for some to find this is what was said..

"> On the other hand, no taskforce will change the fact that "British Isles" is the most offensive term for the archipleago that contains the United Kingdom and Ireland, a fact which makes any claims of "most common term" subservient and quite irrelevant according to wikipedia rules. It's odd how this very real fact (mentioned above and below) is overlooked in this discussion. Why? 86.42.96.251 (talk) 16:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)"

This is the reason that certain people are seeking to change the article name, it has nothing to do with British Isles no longer being a common term, its that some people find it the most offensive term. Now i have had a quick read through of the wikipedia policies on this matter but i cant see where it says the common name in English should be less important than if some people are offended. Am i missing something? BritishWatcher (talk) 16:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:UCN does say, Some terms are in common usage but are regarded as offensive. In those cases use widely known alternatives. When in doubt, check a mainstream reference work. A term can only be considered offensive if a verifiable, authoritative source can be quoted as citing it as such. However, despite a specific request, above, no-one has provided any justification for an appropriate and accurate "widely known alternative" that should and could be used instead. I doubt anyone argues that an unknown proportion of the (mainly Irish) population finds the term offensive. We should take that into consideration, but that in itself does not make every other consideration subservient. I'm sure the People's Republic of China, and its population of billions, finds the term Republic of China offensive too, that does not automatically make it a non acceptable term in Wikipedia. We need to get away from the nationalist perspectives and think objectively, sadly too many contributors appear wrapped up in geopolitical battles and thus the discussion that we should be having is being drowned out. Rockpocket 17:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Just as we see the increasing number of English speaking Indian editors now dictate Indian norms rather than British across a range of Indian related articles I imagine the Anglo-bias re China will be removed before too many years have passed. The Irish lack that numerical strength to oppose our country being saddled with offensive names that most English folk commonly use them. Rock, several of your comments here seem to indicate that you are in denial about the English/British nationalism on open display here. Sarah777 (talk) 22:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

You are the one spreading hate Sarah in almost every message you post on this matter, i can certainly understand why in the past you have had to be punished for your actions on wikipedia. Can you please tell us if you accept that ur attempt to change this articles title has been overwhelmingly opposed? If you do accept that then please close the process, if you dont please dont tell others they are in denial. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I think 86's 'removed rebuttal' here[3], though forceful, makes for a strong point, in that there is a long history of "name change", examples range from Windscale to Sellafield, and from Eire, to Irelandn and more. I am pretty certain that if, in the morning, the UK government said that Ireland was not in the BI's, Wikipedia would promptly follow suit by the afternoon. PurpleA (talk) 18:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

'86 made some excellent points which go to the heart of this issue. Why was he censored? Note the number of Irish editors who are blocked, banned or restricted from engaging on this issue if you look at many of the earlier debates; also note the calls on the British side of the debate for even more blocks. Sarah777 (talk) 22:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I think we all accept that if this term was no longer used and a new term was used to describe it then ofcourse there should be a renaming. But right now British Isles is used by many and there have been no serious suggestions to whats "more common". Sarah herself said the other day that "Britain and Ireland" is most common in Ireland, and yet she started a vote for changing this to "United Kingdom and Ireland". Nobody has given a common alternative to describe the British Isles.. Both the above mentioned are wrong because they exclude other parts of the British isles. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Both are common; Britain and Ireland is far the most common in Ireland but the UK and Ireland seems more common in the British media. I think either term is mpore common today that the "British" Isles. Sarah777 (talk) 22:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

You are talking rubbish, neither of the terms you say are common describe what this article talks about, as made clear by others on many occasions above. Britain and Ireland or United Kingdom and Ireland (which is not a geographic term) do not include the Isle of Man so should we just ignore them because they are small and have a tiny population? What was that u were saying before about us evil British outnumbering Irish people? BritishWatcher (talk) 22:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem is really that the term is, in fact, objectionable to many Irish people, because it inaccurately gives the impression that Ireland is British. That's it. The compromise worked out here in the past is that the term would be only used in a geographical context - so the new problem we face is that a number of editors (some deliberately mischievously) use the term outside of a geographical context. The Task Force is trying to lay down some ground rules over usage - what is considered geographical and what is not. At least that compromise will be agreed by most... --HighKing (talk) 21:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Im sorry but u seem to be blaming this on one side when it is infact several editors whos only goal appears to be to change this articles title with out having any real idea what it should be changed to. I see atleast one of the people seeking for this article to be renamed was involved in that taskforce which is no longer active, if after all that taskforce went through some people are unprepared to accept this title i fail to see what progress it will make on content. I see that was ended because it was awaiting the outcome of the on the Republic of Ireland naming dispute, well looking at that today nothing productive will come out of that process for months and i still think the Ireland naming dispute has nothing at all to do with this debate on the British Isles its a totally different matter.

Creating fancy taskforces and other pages to resolve this articles content problems is not needed. It should be done here. Im sure everyone is happy to engage in a proper debate about content but the silly attempts to change this article title have to be put to one side. I can see now why some people end up having to retire from wikipedia over these issues, things become so messed up at times. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

It cannot be done here because of the numerical strength of British Nationalism. How many times do I have to point that out? Sarah777 (talk) 22:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Sarah despite all that work done on the taskforce, we are here today with you trying to have this articles title changed. Clearly the process failed there so i fail to see why it will work if we move it somewhere else again. Sorry but it is not just British editors who have the commonsense to see what the correct title is on this article. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

"Correct" title? No such thing. There are competing titles, one of them extremely offensive to a significant minority of the people in the islands described. It needs to be changed to something more consistent with WP:NPOV. Sarah777 (talk) 23:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

We do not draw the maps, we dont name the locations, there is no competing title that comes close to British Isles and you know it. Thats why u have proposed two DIFFERENT title changes over the past few days. Goes to show there isnt a common second name for the British Isles. There are plenty of terms on wikipedia that are deeply offensive and could be given more moderate titles but it doesnt happen. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

It is quite obvious British Watcher that you will never agree to a change of name. I will ask you though, do you understand why some Irish people would be offended by the name? Jack forbes (talk) 23:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Jack i totally accept and i can totally understand why many Irish people are offended by the term "British Isles". I have no problem accepting a name change if it is really the case the term is not used anymore and there is something which is more commonly used to describe it. But right now that is just not the case, its still used often by many different sources (not just British ones) and people have failed to say what an alternative is that includes ALL the things the British Isles do. "Britain and Ireland" and "United Kingdom and Ireland" would simply be incorrect, and the second one very confusing considering its very similar to the former country name. We dont hide the fact many people are offended by the term, its in the second paragraph of the intro and theres a whole article on the naming dispute, but we cant change the name because a few people are unhappy on wikipedia. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree about "United Kingdom and...", but I think "Britain and Ireland" does, genuinely, get used as an alternative to British Isles. If you think about it, the "British" of "British Isles" is far less inclusive of all that it supposedly describes than "Britain" is in relation to "Britain and Ireland" when meant to mean the same as BI. In any event, "Britain" is such a vague and broadly used term that its not totally accurate to say that it can't mean, for example, the Isle of Man, which is both a crown territory of Britain's and where its people are citizens of Britain. I don't know what the people of IoM think of that, but I do believe they and the Channel Islanders combined don't match the non-British population of the island of Ireland. Given the multiple meanings possible with "Britain and Ireland," can it be confusing? Sure. But British Isles is confusing. I'd argue it's more confusing. I do still think this page needs to stay at BI (unfortunately!), but I also take issue with you using terms like silly and stupid in relation to the move. Nuclare (talk) 00:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree the UK one is even more incorrect, which is why i was stunned that the current Requested move proposed by Sarah is to United Kingdom and Ireland, despite her claiming a day or two ago that Britain and Ireland was most common. However you say "Given the multiple meanings possible with "Britain and Ireland," can it be confusing?", i think the fact it has multiple meanings is exactly why its confusing. There is not actually an article on wikipedia titled "Britain", we have Great Britain and that article makes very clear we are talking about a single island and it DOESNT include the Isle of Man. I have not heard ANYONE question what the British Isles is, we can define it very easily. The only confusion is some people think the term makes everyone in the isles British or people think its a single country, but we address all of those matters very clearly in the introduction.

I am glad you see the reason why it should stay at British Isles right now because there is no alternative, as i said before if it is really the case that British Isles falls out of use and another term replaces it then i will fully accept a name change, but the fact the same person has tried to change the name to two different things just proves there isnt a common alternative. Those seeking change have provided no solid argument, they all just go on a rant about evil British people. Some of their comments have been deeply offensive so i stand by my comment that this has been a silly and stupid process. We had a vote it was overwhelmingly rejected and then a new vote started to change it to a different name which isnt even clear in the voting section, all we get is a "?" which has also been overwhelmingly rejected and they knew it would be. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

What if it falls out of use and nothing fully replaces it? Keep it mind that not talking about the islands as a unit is actually in itself an alternative. ...Anyways, your comments on "Britain" being confusing don't change the fact that B&I *is* used as an alternative to BI. That Britain has multiple meanings doesn't mean that B&I can't be an alternative to BI. And I didn't say there is "no alternative." I simply think BI is still (unfortunately) too commonly used to be replaced.

You stated, I have not heard ANYONE question what the British Isles is, we can define it very easily. Well, not really. Just above there is a debate as to whether its geographical only or geocultural, etc. It's used sometimes to include the Channel Islands, sometimes not, which is actually a bigger deal than sometimes stated because it goes to the geographical vs. geopolitical point. And it's often used as a synonym for British Islands. You can say that such use is just wrong, but given that it has no statutory meaning and many Irish very much consciously want it to be used as a synonym for British Islands, usage is all that defines it. Nuclare (talk) 11:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm i accept theres different points of view when it comes to content and i dont have a problem with a debate on content being held but the Requested move simply distracts people from getting into detail about those issues. On geography the British Isles may be confused with British Islands (A term id never heard before looking at that wiki article several months ago) and some may dispute the inclusion of certain islands although we have plenty of solid sources to back up what is an isnt part of the British Isles, Unlike on "Britain" where that is only about the island of Britain and does not include the Isle of Man. The big problem is clearly content, British Isles is only a Geographical term but that doesnt mean we shouldnt talk about the shared history of the people on these islands and current cooperation. Just as the article on Europe doesnt ignore the fact there are sovereign states and been wars etc

If the term simply died out then this article title would remain because its part of history and wikipedia can not simply ignore that. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Then again, if one believes that a page is located at an offensive/objectionable name, moving the page is going to be far more important than content, so the page move requests are hardly surprising. Believe me, if England were located at 'Perfidious Albion,' no doubt most English editors would be far more concerned with moving the page than with content. It's easy when one doesn't find the name objectionable to dismiss such attempts--however much of a losing battle they may be--as silly and stupid. Nuclare (talk) 01:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Sarah, if you identify what that 'something' should be and give good reasons and references to why the new title should be used then you might get somewhere. British Isles is not the perfect title but'll editors will have to justify a new title for reasons other than the usual the name is offensive malarky. The Wikipedia naming policy is a good starting point for an argument/debate but good reasons will have to be made for any new title.MusicInTheHouse (talk) 23:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

MITH is absolutely spot on. Those editors most voraciously arguing for change are so wrapped up in the dislike for British Isles that they are missing the point of much of the opposition. It is not British nationalism that is causing many people to oppose, it is:

1. The lack of proposed alternative. "British Isles → ?" is not an option anyone who values policy and process can actually support.
2. The lack of an explanation of how that alternative is widely understood to have the same meaning as the current title.
3. The lack of a justification of why that alternative is a better option, citing the relevant policies and guidelines in support.

Once those are addressed and presented without geopolitical soapboxing or personal attacks, then, and only then, can a rational discussion about specifics be had. Until that time nothing will change in this article, because the relevant issue is not even being discussed. So the question is this, do any editors really want this article to change title, or are they looking for a forum to argue politics?

I am going to close the above !vote now for a number of reasons. Firstly is isn't a proposal that can ever be enacted by due process, because there isn't a target title that can be agreed on. Secondly, the discussion is not about the relevant issues and thus is distracting from having that discussion. Finally, its clearly not going to result in a consensus for a move. If any editor wants to continue a discussion on a possible move, feel free. However, I strongly urge you to make a new proposal only if you can address the three issues above and desist from political soapboxing in the process. Rockpocket 03:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Well said, totally agree. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Complete nonsense. I have provided two alternatives either of which are more appropriate. (1) "Anyone who values the policy" of WP:NPOV could not fail to support this move. (2) The last thing we need is an "alternative [which] is widely understood to have the same meaning as the current title" - the problem with the current title is precisely its meaning, (3) "citing the relevant policies and guidelines"; WP:NPOV and others already cited above. Sarah777 (talk) 20:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Really, Sarah. Let me quote what you wrote, opening this discussion:

Proposal: British Isles → ?

Support, as proposer. We need to get some Irish editors notified to balance the POV. How may I do that within the rules? Sarah777 (talk) 22:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

So what exactly are the two alternatives that you proposed and which of them are you supporting? Rockpocket 17:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Irony break: - I am dogged in these debates by calls that I be blocked and banned for using the terms "British Nationalist" or "British editors" as aggressive and offensive - yet we are supposed to then think "British Isles" applied to Ireland is policy! Truly, no writer of farce could invent this stuff!! Sarah777 (talk) 20:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

You are totally unprepared to address the very clear points raised and i dont think any of us should waste more time on the requested move proposal which has closed. The title must remain the same and the overwhelming majority / commonsense have spoken, if at some stage down the line Sarah you are prepared to be productive perhaps we could all address the content issues. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I have very clearly addressed the points raised. If you think you are wasting your time them I have some suggestions; and there is nothing "commonsense" in an offensive political POV title being used in a geographical article. As for productivity I won't take lectures from someone with 600 mainspace edits mostly on British lists and the British Empire. Sarah777 (talk) 21:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Assessment of References

In the section on Alternatives names we have this statement: The BBC style guide's entry on the subject of the British Isles remarks, "Confused already? Keep going."

Here is the entry from the Style Guide; it's in the section on devolution:

Devolution The greatest of all faults is to be conscious of none. Thomas Carlyle

The United Kingdom is made up of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Great Britain is England, Scotland and Wales (although many people from Northern Ireland regard themselves as British).The Isle of Man and the Channel Islands are not part of the UK.They are Crown dependencies with their own legislative systems.

The British Isles is not a political entity. It is a geographical unit, the archipelago off the west coast of continental Europe covering Scotland,Wales, England, Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands. Confused already? Keep going.

Devolution has made a complicated system even more complicated, and there are specialist sources available to guide you through the complexities: BBC guide to devolution, The Changing UK ...

It is very clear to me that the "confused already?" question is aimed at the the complexities of devolution and not at anything to do with the British Isles". To use such a extract to support the use of alternative names is at best misleading and is arguably disingenuous. I propose to remove this particular reference. Are there any other views on this? Yes, I know I've raised this issue before, but this is such a bad reference I feel it must go. MidnightBlue (Talk) 21:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

It says that devolution has made a complicated system more complicated, it does not say that the reference purely relates to devolution. It is not clear if you propose to remove the reference, or the text but I assume you are only making the reference point in order to remove the text so I for one oppose. --Snowded (talk) 21:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I suggest the removal of the extract from the reference - "Confused, keep going..", and therefore the reference as well. Apart from anything else it not good wording for an encyclopedia. However, I maintain that the reference is being misused here. What could possibly be confusing about the concept of the BI? People might not like it, but it's hardly confusing. MidnightBlue (Talk) 21:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Disagree, if the article was amended as suggested earlier I would be less concerned. However the clear political aspects require qualification and it is confusing in consequence. To be honest I am getting really fed up with the ritual of unionist editors proposing changes that remove or reduce anything that might imply Ireland left the Empire and nationalist editors wanting to expunge the name BI from history. --Snowded (talk) 21:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Well go and edit somewhere else then. I'm trying to have a perfectly reasonable discussion and yet again you, like others, take an aggressive stance. I am not a unionist. MidnightBlue (Talk) 21:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

"Well go and edit somewhere else then" sounds agressive to me. Sarah777 (talk) 22:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Midnightblue didnt sound aggressive to me, some of ur comments Sarah have been far more out of line and offensive. The point raised is a good one and totally correct, the BBC comment there is a general overview and not just talking about the British Isles. That silly statement on the wikipedia article does not put the "Confused already" into context and its just plain messy as well, stunned its been allowed to stay on there so long but i guess its no more than we can expect considering some peoples motives. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The grossly misleading statement should be removed soon unless serious objections are raised with an actual reason why it shouldnt be removed rather than a "i like the statement so dont want it to be removed" type response). Sorry but i dont know how anyone can honestly defend the current wording, people are assuming that the confusing situation is related to the British Isles term and yet in this article it states it as fact. Such bias should not be allowed to remain. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

By my reading of it, the style guide is suggesting that the subtle differences between the geographical and political - especially when the political uses geographical names - is confusing. Island names, a name for a group of islands, and the countries/states on those islands. Some of which are part of some groupings but not part of others. Remember that Venn diagram we used to have in the article as an explanation? (Whatever happened to that, anyway?) The reference therefore seems fine to me. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 23:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, this seems a very useful reference to me. The 'confused already' is meant to indicate that there are a number of similar terms which refer to different things. There are many cases where people get confused by the different overlapping terms. This is why we have the British Isles (terminology) article. Tell someone that British = of the UK but that British Isles does not mean 'Isles of the UK' - this is a pretty confusing situation. To say the terms are confusing is not necessarily to ally with an argument that they are wrong (also I'd second the retrieval of that Venn diagram). Perhaps a slight tweaking of the sentence before the reference would be beneficial ("the BBC style guide's entry on the subject of terminology related to the British Isles remarks on the confusing overlapping of terms"?) --Pretty Green (talk) 09:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem is the article currently makes it sound like the BBC style guide is saying "confused already" just about the description of the British Isles which is simply not true. This is misleading because it does not place it into the context of the whole page which first describes what Great Britain is and what the UK is. Then the paragraph on the British Isles is mentioned. Then theres the gap before "Confused already, keep going" and then it goes onto devolution makes matters worse.

The whole statement should be removed or atleast put into a correct context of all the different terms being mixed up and complicated (United Kingdom, Great Britain and British Isles) which makes it confusing, right now the article only says the British Isles is confusing which is a lie. Bastun and Pretty Green, i agree with you both that with all the different terms it is confusing and thats what the BBC style guide says, but the current wording in the article does not say that. It simply says the British Isles is confusing. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

It is perfectly clear that the BBC is talking about the various different names in the BI (that it had just described), and not simply the term BI itself. Having checked the article, the citation is indeed being used disingenuously - rather blatantly so, in fact - but somehow, this comes as no surprise. ðarkuncoll 12:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, when I read it, it seems to me that the style guide starts off by defining the UK and the people that identify as being British, and then remarks that the "British Isles" is made up of some places that aren't British at all. So the comment "Confused Already" refers to the usage of the term "British Isles" in relation to a geographical area that ... isn't British. Seems OK to me to use it in this context to be fair. I certain don't see what's blatently disingenuous about it... --HighKing (talk) 12:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Its blatently disingenuous because it puts it into no context at all. The current article simply says The BBC entry on the subject of the British Isles remarks" Confused already? Keep going.". It does not point out that the BBC style guide is saying there are many different terms ( United Kingdom, Great Britain, British Isles) and thats why its confusing. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

It's quite straightforward - the article currently asserts "The BBC style guide's entry on the subject of the British Isles remarks, "Confused already? Keep going." WRONG! The BBC style guide's entry on the subject of devolution remarks (on the names of various entities associated with the UK and Ireland) "Confused already? Keep going". The use of the reference to imply that "British Isles" is, or should be, avoided because it causes confusion is just a sneaky manipulation of the context. MidnightBlue (Talk) 13:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, although "sneaky manipulation of the context" is being rather generous. It is infact a grossly misleading and politically motivated statement which should be reworded or removed as soon as possible. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion

Although the first English use of the terms Brytish Iles and Brytish Impire were by John Dee, an advocate of imperial expansion; since Irish independence, the term British Isles is deprecated by some speakers while others regard BI as a geographical or territorial rather than political description. The BBC style guide's entry on the subject of devolution, in respect of the UK and the British Isles, remarks, "Confused already? Keep going." while the Economic History Society style guide suggests that the term should be avoided.

Maybe place this higher up in the introduction & expand on Irish objections a little lower down? Lucian Sunday (talk) 16:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The reference in question is included in the section Alternative names and descriptions, but the reference does not advocate an alternative, it merely draws attention to the confusion over the naming of parts of the UK and Ireland. If it belongs anywhere, it belongs in the British Isles terminology article. It is wholly misplaced at its current location, and quite frankly it is being abused. MidnightBlue (Talk) 17:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

MidnightBlue, not one person has given a valid reason for keeping the text about the BBC style guide the same. It is clearly misleading so when the protection is changed, please remove the incorrect text from the article. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:37, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Other references

Reference 11 is a deadlink and should either be removed or corrected.

Reference 27 points to a subscription website; highly unsatisfactory. MidnightBlue (Talk) 16:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Use of British Isles by Irish government ministers

Since the intro states that the Irish government discourages use of the term, in the interests of NPOV we need to counterbalance this with examples of the Irish government actually using it. As, for example, when it was used in a speech in 2002 by Síle de Valera, Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht & the Islands (and granddaughter of Éamon "I'm sorry Hitler's dead" de Valera). ðarkuncoll 12:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, and your Hitler comment is wholly inappropriate. There's a difference between an official government position and a speech made at the opening of a Drama festival. --HighKing (talk) 16:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

A brief mention is not the same as notoriety, and the same editor, as part of his argument, infers that they spoke 'queens English' in 'ancient Greece'. It's sad to see what motivates some of the editors on this mage, as above with opening comment. PurpleA (talk) 20:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the word you're looking for is "implies", rather then "infers". It's an easy mistake to make, I know, and most certainly doesn't imply illiteracy or stupidity - though others may infer such. And no, the people of Ancient Greece spoke (what we now call) Ancient Greek, which is the language in which the term British Isles first appears. ðarkuncoll 23:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

...who also tendered her resignation shortly thereafter (oops!). Better Dev any day than Winston "Let's gas those barbarous Kurds" Churchill, yes the same Winston of "Let's shoot those Paddies on sight" fame during the Irish War of Independence. Marvellous little racist altogether. 86.42.96.251 (talk) 13:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

This is quite entertaining stuff, folks. GoodDay (talk) 15:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes indeed, Mau Mau Uprising, and all that! Barack Obama sends bust of Winston Churchill on its way back to Britain. PurpleA (talk) 01:20, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd prefer to watch an old-fashioned medieval joust myself where the knights used more than words to strike down their opponents.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Was Ms de Valera's resignation anything to do with her use of BI in a speech? If not, Mr IP, then it has no bearing whatsoever. ðarkuncoll 15:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this article is far from a state of NPOV when it comes to detailing rejection or acceptance of "British Isles". There is much about its rejection but little or nothing about its acceptance, so yes, let's put in a reference to the speech by Síle de Valera. It's completely irrelevent where she made the comments. Also, there's a reasonbale comment made by David Norris at reference 28; we could include it in the interests of balance. MidnightBlue (Talk) 16:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. And I also notice in the same reference that the Irish education minister had received a grand total of one complaint about the use of BI. ðarkuncoll 17:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

One thing that bothers me is " One map publisher...." Perhaps it should say one Irish map publisher? BritishWatcher (talk) 17:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Guys we went round exactly the same arguments last time round and finally reached an agreement; the above or variants were all trotted out then. I dare say the same merry go round will start up again in the future. How about thinking and acting anew (to reference Lincoln) and looking at the ideas to make this a less controversial article with pipelinks to other material. --Snowded (talk) 23:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

It already has pipelinks to other material, at the head of each section. Just like Europe, for example. Pipelinks are fine, but removing the content of this article isn't. ðarkuncoll 23:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Snowded removing some material is not going to make the few people who are obsessed with having this articles title change move on and accept it. When Sarah and others want a serious debate about content, it should be had until then once the protection is removed we need to remove some of the misleading text. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:32, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Sectarian separatist filibustering

Look, we all know what's driving this article's page protection. Why insert politics into the mix? Shouldn't the very aim of the filibusters here, be seen as tendentious editing and POV pushing? Whether one believes in monarchy, a republic, or an empire, the British Isles were originally geopolitically inclusive, on the basis of the ease in grouping them all together, from a Greco-Roman perspective. The Romans did not deem southern Albion as merely Britannia, but that northern Caledonia and Hibernia were unconquered Britons. Agricola could have made it this way and even used an exiled Irish chief as client/puppet of Rome, in the context of Britannia. The Renaissance of centralised political authority and Enlightenment which drew upon Neoclassical traditions, simply tried to revive old aspirations, which the Medieval period threw into chaos and decay. Sure, say the political centralisation of the British Isles has been rather tragic. Blame it upon Protestantism if you wish, but never forget that it was the office of the Papacy which deeded Ireland to the English. If Irish Republican Catholicism was so important, then why hasn't the Pope ever been "Gaelic"? The truth is, in all of British Isles history, only the areas most Continentalised (aka England) have received the most partial relationship with the conventions Irish separatists supposedly cherish most of all. The English have decided to dispose of their easy come, easy go relationship with the Continent, but all the Irish separatists do, is try to use the EU against England. What irony, considering that the Belgians' ancient presence in these isles is with England herself, in the old capital of Winchester!

There are so many hateful hypocrisies thrown against the English by these culprits of discord. Take this however way you wish, but only the level-headed editors here probably will understand. I don't want this to be preaching to the choir, but it's probably what will happen. I grew up with the feeling that British people are all those "insulares" whose oldest connections to Europe lay in Armorica/Brittany (during the middle ages), that their greatest contribution has been to the United States in the modern era. Briton is a wholly inclusive term, that unfortunately gets used more often for non-insular tribespeople from various Commonwealth members around the world, but is rejected by sectarians in our own home. I really don't like bad memories of Anglophobic Irish while growing up, but then again, it was only those nativists who had the worst jingoism I've ever witnessed in person. I have not heard so many ad gentums by any other kind of people (apart from German neo-nazis), than those bigots who are also making a mess of Wikipedia here. I've got all kinds of these islands in my blood, but whereas I have tried time after time to be proud of the Irish in me, I must dispose of this sectarianism. Sorry, for all the beauty of Ireland, I feel ashamed of this behaviour.

I will close this statement by noting that only the separatists view the collectivity of this island archipelago as "controversial". There are Irish Catholic Unionists. Who would have thought that Protestant sectarianism and Cromwellian republicanism would trump the old guard Jacobitism. It's not Jacobitism which sets these people on a high moral ground. It is some kind of Jacobinism. Catterick (talk) 04:44, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Interesting (not), but who has being talking about religion until you came along? (I'll refrain from tackling the rant point by point as it is an incoherent mix of contradiction, unhistorical POV and is unrelated to the proposal it isn't addressing). Sarah777 (talk) 10:29, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Not forgetting the introduction of "blood" as a defining criterion for identity. It seems the "blood" of the "British Isles" has no connection to the "blood" of the rest of humanity. How separatist indeed. And of course all those who insist upon the existence of something called the "British Isles" are not doing so in an attempt to separate Britain and "her" territories from the European Union. Ahem! PS: I am an Irishman who happens to be 'Protestant' (and 'nationalist' if I must be further labelled) so I'm not quite sure what your point is (if indeed you have one). 213.202.184.122 (talk) 17:09, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Is this your set piece? Well, at least Mr. IP will have somone new to argue with. Nuclare (talk) 13:52, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

This article's discussion is becoming more entertaining with each passing day. GoodDay (talk) 15:46, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll drink to that!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the real fun will start when the protection is changed to the article and people start making edits again ;) BritishWatcher (talk) 16:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

The same old, same old goes on here. This is a cause of unproductive stalling and lack of development. As anybody could tell you from simply passing by these related articles, that this is unbelievable but we all know it's true. Yes, the IP address seems to fit the glass slipper of Cinderella. Can't people like you get over your Anglophobia? Protestant nationalism? Does this include Ulster Scot identity? Some kind of pan-Celticism that tries to see the English as foreigners? Please! I believe in an undivided Ireland which associates with other British Islanders, but not necessarily with all of that bureaucratic stuff which caused the separatism in the first place. If we could repeal so many historical abuses and live in harmony, it would make me very happy. It's a two way street though. Think about this, mister IP address. Only then may this and related articles about the British Isles experience peace, rather than the nonsense you put out here. Catterick (talk) 23:15, 4 April 2009 (UTC)