Talk:British Isles

Semi-Protect?

There seems to have been a resurgence again in the anon related POV vandalism on the article again. Do people think it's a good idea to semi-protect the article? I know it's been discussed before, but the results where inconclusive. Historically it has seemed that some people where socking on IP addresses to get around editing restrictions but that isn't happening here (that I can see), just some of the same IP ranges cropping up and doing the term and controversial thing again. So thoughts? Canterbury Tail talk 17:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. This article definitely needs semi-protecting. There has been too much edit-warring here and, personally, I don't feel that that has contributed positively to the article. We need a quality NPOV article. Anonymous IP sockpuppeting/editing/moving etc. is only detrimental to the improvement of the article. Any issues regarding naming etc. should be raised on the talk page as per wiki guidelines and not on the article itself. --MacTire02 (talk) 18:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

This article will always be prone to POVish IP edits (just as much as it is prone to POVish edits by registered users). What has been positive about the recent spate is that they have not led to edit warring. There has only been one or two incidents of actual vandalism (example).

We should not lock down the article just because a random readers adds that the term is controversial. We know that it is and we should expect that some readers will feel that that is not expressed strongly enough in the article. This article get 500-1000 readers per day. Some of those will edit it. That's a part of the wiki process. If the edit falls short of NPOV, we revert, cite the talk page and move on. We don't lock the article down because of it. This is a wiki and it needs to be editable. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

And this is why I opened up for a discussion. It has been suggested before. I'll leave it to the community to decide. Canterbury Tail talk 21:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

? - Indeed. That was my 2 euro cents. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

IMHO in each case where a Wikipedia article is merely a battleground for a larger "war" that is occurring elsewhere, the article is always an unstable contentious mess. Usually via the combatants using Wikipedia rules to fight the war. I don't think that current Wikipedia processes and rules are up to the challenge of handling those situations. As a result, what you see in this article is the inevitable result of the combatants being merely human under this set of rules (or lack thereof) rather than some unusually "bad behavior" that needs locking out. North8000 (talk) 04:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes indeed, permanent semi-protection is required. GoodDay (talk) 00:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Still trashing NPOV here?

"Are you sure you're really one of the Wild Geese or have you just been reading too much wikipedia? No self-respecting Irish person I have ever met has referred to Ireland as being part of the "British Isles" - a Victorian term which is avoided by the British and Irish governments as well as the dear old Guardian (although it is still much enjoyed by various Times-reading toffs, Tories in "empire denial" and the lesser-spotted West Briton)."

The Guardian makes the correct call. While Wiki remains in the grip of British editorial control. Sarah777 (talk) 00:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

And since when is Godwin's Law reason enough for a British editor to close a discussion about British pov in this article title? Sarah777 (talk) 00:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I wondered about this, but I didn't comment as I lack experience. I have searched and can't find anything about Godwin's Law justifying closing a debate in the Wikipedia policies. However, the discussion was closed on other grounds that do connect to a policy, so I suppose the Godwin's Law thing is not really a relevant remark. Sarah777, can you please put the correct Guardian reference in, your link doesn't seem to go to a Guardian article? Thanks. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 13:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Done! (If you search 'lesser-spotted' you'll find the quote). It appears the Guardian is conducting a debate on Irish Unity, oddly enough. Sarah777 (talk) 13:39, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

"Godwin's law" is no reason to close a debate. Presumably, the closing editor though it was a clever remark. The substantive reason to close that discussion was that Wikipedia is not a forum.

Sarah, the quote above is from the comments section, not The Guardian. The comments section on that page is a forum. Wikipedia (still) is not. -- RA (talk) 17:11, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Quite, that "correct call" is actually made by forum contributor malefeminist, a self-described "Irish Republican." As erudite as I'm sure malefeminist is (I find online forums to feature some serious heavyweight intellectuals, don't you?), I don't think he qualifies as a reliable source. Rockpocket 20:57, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

And this segment is related to improving the article how? Should probably be closed under the not a forum rules. Canterbury Tail talk 02:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I guess that Agressive Archiving is a part of the warfare occurring in this Article

Now I see that someone has a robot removing / archiving items for being over 14 days old. And previously someone removed / archived / closed a discussion citing "Goodwin's Law" which is a general (non-Wikipedia) comment, not a Wikipedia policy. 99.141.252.19 (talk) 10:27, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, the last time I suggested that comparing the British Empire to the Third Reich was unfair to the Germans I got in trouble. So I won't say it again. Sarah777 (talk) 12:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Sarah777, the British Empire in no-way, shape, or fashion, compares to the Greater German Reich under the leadership of the Furher. ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 02:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Your quite right, Don, and Sarah should know better than to make such a silly comparison. The Third Reich lasted only 12 years, whereas British rule in Ireland has continued for over 800 years. Those flakey, fly-by-night Germans were a mere blip in history: they just don't have anything near the persistence required to get anywhere close to the same repress-your-neighbours-league as the British. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello Brownhairedgirl.

If the (English-Welsh-Scottish) had wanted to "death-camp" the Roman-Catholic Irish out of existance, there would be none left. Simply put, the extermination of the German Jews does not compare to the treatment of the Roman-Catholic Irish. If we (i.e, the non Roman Catholic Irish) had wanted you (i.e., the Roman-Catholic Irish) gone ... you'd all be dead. And you-all are still there. Please do the "mental-math", eh. ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 03:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Interesting that you make assumptions about the religion of an editor who has not declared anywhere on wikipedia whether they adhere to any god-franchise, or none. Interesting, too, that you say "you-all are still there". Which Western European nation has a lower population now than in the 1840s? (Clue: there's only one). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The Irish are everywhere! I ran into one just earlier today. He got up and walked so I had to turn back. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Guys, please remember WP:TALKNO - this isn't the right place to air your political/historical grievances.--Pondle (talk) 13:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Are comments like that helping to improve the article in any way, shape or form? (Rhetorical question in case it wasn't blindingly obvious) waggers (talk) 13:46, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The archive bot has been in operation for some time now and is nothing new, certainly nothing "aggressive". waggers (talk) 14:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

It has been accepted for a long time that one week inactivity is enough to end any discussion for a long time but when the bot is coming along to delete everyting every month you do feel it to be fast. Though Wikipedia means fast encyclopaedia. I have been trying to suggest to the arbitration committee that runaway train-size arguements should be given their own project space where they can be worked on without clouding over the projects and articles they weigh down on usually. And also that those involved in such debates should be encouraged to produce an article in Wikipedia space detailing all the facts about the dispute for easy reference and input from impartial editors. I don't know how good an idea that is or if I have explained it to the very well but I put it at [[1]]. The Arbitrators do not seem to have understood it anyway. ~ R.T.G 13:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that you are right that when you have huge or difficult debates that something with more structure and longevity would be useful for resolving them. But I'm not sure that it would help in this case. I think that the nastiest of the stuff I see in this discussion is not aimed at influencing the content of the article. It's more like Wikipedia's role in that respect is just providing a meeting place for opponents in a larger "war" to do battle. 75.24.138.102 (talk) 13:46, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

It occurs more and more, why do they not call them something like "The Three Great Northern Islands of Europe". Maybe one of these days. ~ R.T.G 13:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

3? Mister Flash (talk) 20:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

What you see here in the talk page of British Isles and some other places appears to be the usual case of people in contentious articles who hold the most extreme views (generally a very small minority in the real world debate) seeking to tilt the article in their direction, whilst a number of less partial editors and admins attempt repeatedly to sooth the argument and keep the article impartial. In most of these articles I've observed, the end result is a rather shallow article, fluctuating content between one end and the other and lots of hard-working people getting more and more fed up and eventually throwing their hands up and quitting. It's a basic, basic weakness in the Wikipedia model that the persistent nature of the dogmatic will tend to win out over the well-meaning and sensible: result: a deceased article with little fizz or depth. Personally I don't believe this can ever be resolved in the Wikipedia model, no matter how much bureacracy is thrown at it. Clearly some other model will eventually emerge but it won't be the same as this one. In the meantime, editing or attempting to edit highly controversial articles appears to be a hobby for the time-rich! Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:50, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

How absolutely right and well said! Articles on acrimonious topics everywhere in Wikipedia are in a low quality eternal mess, and the best quality contributors give up and leave. But the Wikipedia model works well on the other 95% of articles. And so I think that smarter-written policies are in order rather than waiting for the whole Wikipedia to die and be replaced. But the method for policy changes itself needs to change, with a need for consensusing a bigger picture rather than just editing sentences. 99.141.252.19 (talk) 12:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Ambiguous use of 'Ireland'

The first two sentences of the article use the word 'Ireland' in two different senses.

"The British Isles are a group of islands off the northwest coast of continental Europe that include Great Britain, Ireland and over six-thousand smaller islands. There are two sovereign states located on the islands: the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and Ireland. "

The first meaning 'Island of Ireland', the second 'Republic of Ireland'. The links refer to the correct wiki pages but when the whole article is about the confusing and ambiguous meanings of the various words it seems a poor choice of words. I propose that the second use of 'Ireland' be changed to the name of the page it links to. ie 'Republic of Ireland' and maybe the the first is changed to 'Island of Ireland'. Chris97 (talk) 21:20, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Something like: "There are two sovereign states located on the islands: the United Kingdom, which occupies the entirety of the island of Great Britain and a north-eastern portion of the island of Ireland, and the Republic of Ireland, which occupies the remaining five sixths of the island of Ireland."? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rannpháirtí anaithnid (talk • contribs) 21:55, 11 April 2010

Some may not consider the word "occupies" to be neutral. How about "comprises", or "consists of..." ?Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:16, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I was just about to suggest comprises as it's not loaded with political inuendo like occupies.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:19, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

LOL! ... maybe "comprises" Great Britain and "occupies" the north east of Ireland? ;-P ... but seriously, yeah - didn't put much thought into that. "Comprises" is far better. --RA (talk) 10:45, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Could the capitalisation of the word island, (i.e., Island) be used so that the Island of Ireland and the Island of Great Britain would be listed? You see in North America there are islands known as Long Island, Island of Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, Vancouver Island, Channel Islands of California, etc. ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 02:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe that in this case "island" is a part of the name (either for Great Britian or for Ireland). --RA (talk) 07:56, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with RA; there is no such place as Island of Ireland or Island of Great Britain. While both are islands by definition, the word island does not form a part of either nation's official name.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:14, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The facts are that there are two islands, Ireland and Great Britain; and there are two sovereign states, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. There is no such state as "the Republic of Ireland" (which is merely a description of the constitutional status of Ireland, that it is a Republic, not a Monarchy). So that part of the text has to stay– you can regard it as a teaser trailer for the rest of the article. --Red King (talk) 10:19, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

This is the part that I find frustrating. The Island of Ireland does not exist. The Island of Great Britain does not exist. But the the Isle of Man, Channel Islands, Isle of Wight, Isles of Sicily do exist.

Heck ... the Frisian Islands do exist!

Frustrated Don ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 12:06, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I didn't name them, Don.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:48, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello Jeanne Boleyn.

It is possible that the term British Isles implicitly meant the Island of Great Britain (i.e., Isle of Great Britain), and the Island of Ireland (i.e., Isle of Ireland)? ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 15:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

My suggestion is The British Isles are a group of islands off the northwest coast of continental Europe that include the islands of Great Britain and Ireland, and over six thousand smaller islands.[7] There are two sovereign states located on the islands: the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the republic of Ireland. The absence of capitals for "islands" and "republic" mean that those two words are descriptive, rather than forming part of any name. (And remove the hyphen from six-thousand.) I recall this being discussed and resolved a while back, so I'm guessing that some edit has muddied the waters since. Bazza (talk) 13:05, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

In these situations, I prefer to avoid the pipe-links & stick with Ireland for the island & Republic of Ireland for the country (as that is the current name of those articles). The world will not come to an end, by avoiding the pipe-links. GoodDay (talk) 14:45, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. I don't have an issue with the Republic, but am aware that others do. Regardless, the original comment was that the text as it is is confusing and needs to be clearer, which I agree with. How about The British Isles are a group of islands off the northwest coast of continental Europe that include the islands of Great Britain and Ireland, and over six thousand smaller islands. There are two sovereign states located on the islands: the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the republic of Ireland. which seems to work just as well? Bazza (talk) 15:01, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Ireland (republic) is another possibility. GoodDay (talk) 15:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

That's another option, but does not read as well, I think. I've been bold and used my second suggestion. It will need re-linking should Republic of Ireland get renamed. Bazza (talk) 12:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I've amended it sligtly in place: using capital 'R' (no need to step toe around it), changed UKGBNI to UK, changed the note a little and clarified "Crown Dependencies". --RA (talk) 13:03, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't "step toeing" around anything. The name of the second sovereign state is "Ireland", and it is a republic, hence the small "r", similar to the small "i" for island in the preceding paragraph. The original poster to this thread asked for the distinction between the identically-named island and sovereign state to be made clearer, and I used the "island" and "republic" to do so. I think your amendment has made this less clear. Bazza (talk) 10:37, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Apologies. But there is no need for artificiality. A common and well understood means to differentiate the island from the state already exists. This was worked out (painfully) through an ArbCom process. See the second bullet point of the resulting MOS entry. --RA (talk) 12:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that last link. Nice and clear. Bazza (talk) 14:05, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The article should begin "The British Isles is a group of islands ..." rather than "The British Isles are a group of islands ...". I would make the change straight off, but any change to the lead should be agreed on the Talk page first. Cheers,Daicaregos (talk) 13:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

From memory, this has been discussed in the archive. (But there's no harm is discussing it again.)

I would say "are", not only because "Isles" is plural (and so the subject of the sentence is 3rd person plural), but because a "group" of anything is a plural (and in this case 3rd person plural).

Compare with: "The Beatles were are group from Liverpool", not "The Beatles was a group from Liverpool". Or "U2 are a group from Dublin", not "U2 is a group from Dublin." (However: "The Beatles was the name of a group from Liverpool" and "U2 is the name of a group from Dublin.") --RA (talk) 13:46, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:MOS does not seem to give any definitive guidance. This site suggests that it depends on whether the emphasis is on the "groupedness" of the islands, in which case it takes a singular verb (cf. "The Cabinet is united..."), or on the "separatedness" - ("The Cabinet are divided..."). Or, it could just be that it don't matter either way.  :-) Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:09, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Before Yoko, The Beatles "was" united? :-)

I think what the site means is that you can play on the collective plural ("group") but check with the "true plural" ("British Isles" or "Beatles") to see if it sound weird. So, talking about the Beatles, it is possible to say that, "Before Yoko, the group was united", and that, "After Yoko, the group were divided". But "the Beatles" at all times remains a plural (i.e. always "The Beatles were", never "the Beatles was"). --RA (talk) 14:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes. See Collective noun#Metonymic merging of grammatical number, and Synesis (of course!) Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:59, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

"Metonymic merging of grammatical number" !! - my mind(s) is(/are?) melted! :-P

OK, so is/are the "British Isles" one of these metonymic merging yokes? And which is most appropriate form for the lead sentence? Does it demonstrate a POV to use one form or another? Should we mix it up to demonstrate the "united" and "disunited" perspectives? Should we can add a footnote about these "metonymic" things? --RA (talk) 15:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

We did discuss this before, but we didn't get into this kind of detail :( First point - the article is written in British English, so there should be no assumption about it taking the singular verb forms as in American English. Secondly, from the perspective of the anti party, the article supposedly refers to a singular political entity and "is" would be the appropriate form. However, everyone else sees it as a geographic term for a disparate group of islands and "are" seems most appropriate. Not saying I watch how IPs edit articles or anything... Wiki-Ed (talk) 18:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

(1) No good reason to change existing wording. (2) It doesn't matter anyway. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:16, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

So its come down to this ...argueing grammar. Holy-Cow! The term archipelago means a group of islands. So the Maltese Islands are an archipelago of three islands off the coast of the Island of Sicily. The Ionian Islands are an archipelago off the coast of Mainland Greece. The Azores Islands are an archipelago off the coast of North Africa.

...so ... the British Isles are an archipelago located blah, blah, blah...

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 01:50, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not certain as to what you're going on about. Also, you're still not indenting properly (which I find to be annoying). GoodDay (talk) 15:04, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

British Isles: Naming Conventions of the Islands?

This article has not touched on the Naming conventions of the Islands within the archipelago itself, in question. All that we have been talking about is that some people do not like the term British Isles.

Now, upon review of the list below,

List of islands by area

one will note that it is common convention in the English language to have an "Island of" prefix, and/or an "Island" suffix in the Name of the geographic entity known as an Island. For example Island of Blah, or Blah Island is the common form of the Names of islands.

(Greek): Nesos

(Latin): Insula

(Italian): Isola

(French): Île

(Spanish): Isla

(Portuguese): Ilha

(English): Island, Isle

(Dutch): Eiland

(German): Insel

Question: Does the island Name of "just" Great Britain, and "just" Ireland make sense?

In other words: What grounds are there for excluding the Names of Island of Great Britain and Island of Ireland from being listed here in the British Isles article?

Addenda:

Please note the Welsh have the word Island (i.e., Ynys) in the Names too,

List of islands of Wales

So if the English and the Welsh can agree on this (i.e., adding Island to the Name) can we not do it here too?

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 03:53, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Some islands are known as "Isle of.." etc. (eg Isle of Wight), others are not (eg Lundy). Great Britain and Ireland are not commonly called "Isle of.." or "Island of..", so that is what WP reports. There is no consistency and WP cannot impose it. AVDL, before you start further debate on these pages, I again suggest that you format your comments appropriately, and recognise that your opinions are extremely fringe ones. (Note to others: we have been here many times before with this disruptive editor.) Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

There are lots of examples of island which do not have the word island in their title. North Uist, South Uist, Eigg, Islay..... So to answer your question What grounds are there for excluding the Names of.... There is not a precedent for ALWAYS having the word island or isle associated with the name of an island. Hope this answers your question. Bjmullan (talk) 07:30, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Now this is most interesting ... the Lordship of the Isles

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=%22Lordship+of+the+Isles%22+&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

you mentioned Islay it was apart of this!

http://lordshipoftheisles.webs.com/

The Scottish Gaelic word Eilean, and the Irish Gaelic word Oileán mean the English word Island. I'll bet my bottom-dollar that the -ay ending of Islay is some form of Old Norse for the English word of Island! (Note: the Islands of Norway show a pattern of an -øya ending ... this is definitely shaping up here!).

BINGO!!! Here we are. The Norse-Gaels are believed to have migrated from the Islands of Northern Scotland to the Faroe Islands. The List of islands of the Faroe Islands and the Regions of the Faroe Islands show clearly that Sandoy in the Faroe Islands, and Sanday in the Orkney Islands, are both Sand Island. So Lundey, in the Old Norse language (i.e., Lundoy, or Lunday) translates to Lund Island (i.e., Puffin Island) in the English language.

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 10:55, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any proposal for a change to the article? --Snowded ^TALK 12:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes ... Island of Great Britain and Island of Ireland be listed not just Great Britain, and just Ireland. ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 13:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Better to say "The British Isles are a group of islands off the northwest coast of continental Europe that includes Great Britain and Ireland, and over six thousand smaller islands. There is no need to two "islands" in the same sentence. All the stuff above Armchair is not really relevant to that proposal and would you please learn to format you comments, I've lost count of how many times multiple editors have asked you to follow convention. --Snowded ^TALK 13:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Island of Great Britain and Island of Ireland? I fail to see the purpose of this request. GoodDay (talk) 14:59, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Especially seeing as neither place exists by those names. I think this discussion is rather pointless and suggest that we close it.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:55, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello Jeanne Boleyn.

Is it Prince Edward, or Prince Edward Island? In all of the Islands of the Canadian Arctic archipelago the word Island is explicitly indicated. Why not indicate it here for the Island of Great Britain, and the Island of Ireland were the whole convension started? ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 16:19, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Because Great Britain and Ireland do not have Island as part of their official name, whereas the others do. I really think to prolong this discussion is pointless because what you propose is OR and will not be implemented on either article.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello Jeanne Boleyn.

If the official Names are "just" Great Britain, and "just" Ireland where did the convension of adding Island into the Name come from? Why is it done if the original Home Islands did not do it? How do we really know the Names are not Island of Great Britain, and Island of Ireland? ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 16:45, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

if no other editors engage with this then I think its over ArmChair --Snowded ^TALK 17:25, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

It's Great Britain and Ireland, not Britain and Ireland

In geographical terms it is the island of Great Britain and the island of Ireland. Britain and Ireland implies Britain is one country, composed of the island of Great Britain, and Ireland is another country composed of the island of Ireland because Britain is the common name for the United Kingdom and Ireland is the common name for the Republic of Ireland. However the United Kingdom is composed of the island of Great Britain plus Northern Ireland, whereas the Republic of Ireland excludes Northern Ireland. In short, it appears as though it is refering to the countries of Britain and Ireland, rather than the islands and so confusing the two. I see no reason why the link to the article Great Britain and Ireland needs to be changed to Britain and Ireland. This seems to be POV to make Ireland the country appear to comprise of all the island of Ireland and Britain or the United Kingdom appear to comprise only of the island of Great Britain. 88.106.69.154 (talk) 22:29, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

You will find a fair amount of Atlases use :Britain and Ireland, in the sense that those are the two islands. There is also citation to support one island being Great Britain. I've never liked the latter form as the addition of "great" was more political than geographical. Given that Britain has never been a country I'm not sure what is meant by your first paragraph. --Snowded ^TALK 22:43, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi 88.106.69.154, reverting another editor's revert is a breach of the 1RR rule in effect. It would be best if you undid your revert and discuss matters here. --Footyfanatic3000 ^{(talk  · contribs)} 23:17, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

No, the island is called Great Britain for historical geographical reasons spanning back centuries to distinguish it from Brittany, and most atlases use the term British Isles or Great Britain and Ireland, just as the article it links to is called. Britain is/has been a country, it is the common name given to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, as America is to the United States of America, and Britain was a country comprised of the island of Great Britain called the Kingdom of Great Britain from 1707-1801. Your own personal dislike of the term Great Britain merely because of the association of the word Great with Britain is no excuse to change the name. Please refrain from imposing your personal political views onto the article. 88.106.119.194 (talk) 01:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)