Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/British Isles naming dispute

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 86.44.22.65 (talk) at 12:28, 4 July 2009 (→‎British Isles naming dispute). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

British Isles naming dispute

British Isles naming dispute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This article is about a non-existent dispute. There are people and organisations who either don't like the term "British Isles" or who avoid its use. Such people and organisations are not however, in dispute with any other people or organisations. The absence of a dispute is clear from the fact that there are few, if any, references to it apart from on Wikipedia itself. The article serves as little more than a directory of people and organisations who object to the term. The article is, in essence, a POV fork from British Isles and British Isles (terminology). The article is being used as a vehicle to push a political POV. The dispute is imaginary, residing in the minds of Wikipedia editors. MidnightBlue (Talk) 19:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well considering there's 111 different sources and that you have a history of being a one purpose account supporting use of the term that is disputed, I don't think it is that article that is full of POV. Midnight Blue stands alone in this desire to delete the page, despite the consensus on the talk page and I fear the nomination was made just to disrupt wikipedia for the sake of making a point.MITH 19:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is stable and well sourced. There is consensus or even a proper discussion on the article's talk page for the deletion.MITH 20:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps this article should be deleted. It's not as though you hear about this dispute everyday on the news. In fact, most of the disputing over the name British Isles, occurs among Wikipedia editors. GoodDay (talk) 20:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is because the term is rarely used officially, now that international NGO's and governments have stopped using the term. You don't hear it on the news regularly because its only used colloquially. However the dispute over the term's use does come up every so often in the media from time to time. That hardly means the whole well referenced article should be deleted.MITH 21:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nay! this article (at the very least), could be re-named British Isles Wikipedia naming dispute. GoodDay (talk) 21:19, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So what you're saying is the dispute doesn't exist at all in the real world and the dispute was invented here on Wikipedia?MITH 21:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that's a fair assessment. MidnightBlue (Talk) 21:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Invented? no. Overblown? yes. Anyways, my opinon remains unchanged. GoodDay (talk) 22:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article has multiple references to the dispute, it can be improved but should not be deleted. The nominating editor has already placed a NPOV tag without providing any evidence on the talk page other than the sort of general and unsupported statements that characterise this nomination which looks to be disruptive. If articles were to be deleted on the grounds that there were not daily news items most of the wikipedia would disappear. --Snowded TALK 21:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note to the effect that assuming the RFD fails, I think there is a case to consider a move of the material to British Isles (terminology) and for some consolidation of material, hopefully with some conventions on use. --Snowded TALK 19:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As said by others above the article is very well referenced. Aside from that rational side of things I am Irish and I would now have no hesitation in taking somebody to task if they said my country is part of this "British Isles". Admittedly no Irish person has ever used the term to me, or in my presence. A few years ago, out of sheer politeness, I would have bit my tongue on the rare occasion that some non-Irish person used it in my presence, even though I would have have been just as offended. In hindsight that gave out the wrong signal. All the best. 78.16.42.63 (talk) 22:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Snowded's comments above. The article should be improved, not deleted. — FatalError 22:44, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I was going to say rename it, but having scanned through it I think Midnightblueman is quite correct to point out that there isn't a dispute. It is a widely used term - no-one disputes this. It is known that an unquantified number of Irish people find it offensive - no-one disputes this. But... where are the two opposing parties? English doesn't have an official language authority for anyone to argue with. This article is just a collection of random quotes weakly reinforced with background material from other articles. Unique content (if there is any) can be relocated to the appropriate articles and this opinionated synthesis can be deleted. Compare this article with the Macedonia naming dispute; that's a proper article with relevant sources, this... isn't. Wiki-Ed (talk) 23:44, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to British Isles (terminology). None of the sources seem to give the dispute the weight we give it. That some Irish people object to the use of "British Isles" is true. However, the article seems to me to be more of a synthesis of sources than anything. I suggest that the bulk of the article, most notably the "Alternative names" section, can be merged into the terminology article, giving general reasons for all of the names (i.e. Ireland is not part of the UK), or specific reasons. Sceptre (talk) 23:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I can't see any problems! Jeni (talk)(Jenuk1985) 23:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sure there a few issues with the article in terms of sourcing but thoseand issues of neutrality or original research are not reasons for deletion. There are enough sources here. --neon white talk 23:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to British Isles (terminology). There is no such dispute named "The British Isles Naming Dispute", at least none that a Google search turns up (all I see is millions of those annoying websites that programmatically scrape other websites and clutter search results). The "Names of the islands through the ages" is mostly irrelevant to the issue of Irish dislike of the name. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 00:12, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Snowded's and MITH comments above. The article is very well referenced and I can see scope for improvement, and further references being added. MidnightBlueMan's rational and reasoning lack merit, and keep. Tfz 01:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a stable, well-referenced article (although admittedly not perfect, if we deleted every article in this state we'd lose most of our content) that would overload any potential merge target. Even if it were smaller enough to merge, I just don't see that that would be benefit to either this topic or that of the destination, wherever that might be. Additionally, I couldn't see the NPOV problem with this article, nor has the tagger elucidated on the talk page beyond WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Thryduulf (talk) 07:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You couldn't see the NPOV problem? You were reading the right article were you? Even a cursory glance shows that it's about 95% rubbishing the term "British Isles" and only about 5% supporting it. The article is "stable" (whatever that means); so what? Please point us to any non-Wikipedia evidence that a dispute actually exists. That is the crux of the matter, 'cos if there is no dispute, there should be no article. Mister Flash (talk) 16:45, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - that is simply false. The problem some editors had there is the implied elevation of this issue to a recognized (in reliable sources) "Dispute". Noone has a problem mentioning the moves/recommendations from certain quarters to stop using the term. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 11:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No they wanted to get rid of it. There was a fight to keep that too. FF3000 · talk 15:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: There are around 30 archives over on the British Isles talkpage, there is a rejection of the term by the (democratically-elected) government of Ireland, there is avoidance of the term in all international agreements which the Irish state is party to and there are numerous references from academic and other sources confirming Irish resistance to the term "British Isles". It stretches all credibility to contend that this article, 'British Isles naming dispute', is simply an invention of wikipedia editors. 193.1.172.144 (talk) 13:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Naming dispute? What dispute? Articles such as this bring Wikipedia into disrepute! The idea of a dispute as described in the article is a complete falsehood. Sure there are people who object to the term, like there are people in Argentina who object to the term "Falkland Islands", but we don't have Falkland Islands naming dispute. Yes, the dispute does exist, but only here at Wikipedia. Mister Flash (talk) 16:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I suppose there's always a couple of people in denial. The fact that there's an article, and that Wikipedia has been subjected to edit wars about this term for, literally, years, shows that there is a dispute, and this article, while not brilliant, still meets notability guidelines. The article would be better with less edit-warring, but with blind reversions that delete references with edit summaries of Reverting dreadful edit which introduced unencyclopedic language (even if it was a quote) and blatant over-hyping of dislike of British Isles (by Mister Flash, above), it's hardly surprising the article is of poor quality. --HighKing (talk) 17:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well HighKing, you've hit the nail on the head good and proper, admitting that the dispute is here on Wikipedia. I challenge you to find any evidence of the dispute (that's dispute, not people disliking the term) outside of Wikipedia. You've got to admit it, if there's no such dispute then the article should be deleted. Mister Flash (talk) 18:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mister Flash, would you ever read the references on the page. The dispute does exist in Ireland, not in Britain, but this is unlike disputes like the Derry/Londonderry dispute, as in this case we just don't like a certain term rather than fighting over a name. Anyway, Mister Flash, how do you know that a naming dispute over the Falkland Islands doesn't exist when you don't live in Argentina? FF3000 · talk 20:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bit of a soapbox box then, this article, eh? Here we have a bunch of people who don't like something, so they go and write a Wikipedia article about it. Mister Flash (talk) 21:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but scrutinise the article very carefully for original research. In the event that after removing all the OR there isn't enough left to form an article, merge what's left into the article on the British Isles. Simply disagreeing with the opinion of a minority is not grounds for deletion. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 19:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC) Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 19:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just reading all the comments again, and not picking on yours in particular, but there's something I don't get here. None of those who want to keep the article have acknowledged that there is actually a dispute, far less offered any evidence of it, so why should the article be kept if it's a fiction? Can you explain? Mister Flash (talk) 19:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reference four shows this opinion over a diverse number of publications that qualify as reliable sources, so this opinion, however much a minority, it notable. If the overwhelming consensus is against this (hence the lack of any notable dispute), it should be mentioned in the article, but that does not warrant deletion of the the article altogether. WP:FRINGE is a good reference here. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 20:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bit of a soapbox box then, this article, eh? Here we have a bunch of people who don't like something, so they go and write a Wikipedia article about it. Mister Flash (talk) 21:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter what the motives of the article creators are - if it is an opinion that has been expressed in reliable sources outside of Wikipedia (and it has, whether you like it or not), it passes notability. If the article is biased, you can re-write it from a neutral point of view and nothing more. Oh, and for the record, I think that complaining about the name "British Isles" is stupid and petty, but that doesn't stop the opinion existing. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 21:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's plenty of opinion out there about how bad "British Isles" is, but as Mister Flash states, that does not constitute a "dispute". I've looked again using Google (not, scientific, I know) seaching for a combination of terms including "British Isles", "Dispute", "Disagreement" and so on. Everything I find has been derived from Wikipedia. Ask yourself the question, is that a good state of affairs? To me it is a strong indicator of the "dispute" being manufactured here at Wikipedia. In fact, that is almost certainly the case. The situation is completely at odds with the core values of Wikipedia, especially WP:OR. If the OR was stripped out of the article you would be left with a blank page. MidnightBlue (Talk) 22:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it doesn't count as a "dispute", all that proves is that the article needs renaming into a title that has a word other than dispute. The fact that you found nothing on Google doesn't matter - the references exist, in the text. By all means challenge any OR, but that can be done on the article talk page. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So what should we rename it to then - Irish dislike of British Isles perhaps? Mister Flash (talk) 09:35, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're the one with a problem with the term. The onus is on you to suggest something better. I suppose you could do Opposition to the use of the term "British Isles" if you don't mind a long title, but seeing as the only people objecting to the use of the word "dispute" are doing so in order to try to get the whole article deleted, I've really got better things to do. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 10:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "British Isles" Until 1949 a collective title for Great Britain, Ireland, and the numerous islands surrounding the two larger islands, including the Isle of Man. In 1949 the Republic of Ireland left the British Commonwealth and so could no longer be included in the title. (Reference: Concise Dictionary of World Place-Names. John Everett-Heath. Oxford University Press 2005). This article is about a non-existent dispute only if there is no dissent to this referenced "fact" - and it is clear to me that there is dissent. Þjóðólfr (talk) 21:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Its informative and well ref'd. The 'naming dispute' goes far beyond the narrow confines of Wikipedia, a fact which appears to be lost on some editors. Needs work, but what article here doesn't.RashersTierney (talk) 22:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The 'naming dispute' goes far beyond the narrow confines of Wikipedia". No. That's the problem. It doesn't. The naming dispute is wholly within the confines of Wikipedia. Mister Flash (talk) 22:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why would anyone even bother to post an "O no it isn't" response here. There are plenty of refs in the article that indicate otherwise. Really do not understand the dogged determination of some editors to have it deleted. RashersTierney (talk) 09:03, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They would bother for the same reason that you've bothered to offer your opinion on the matter. I can see I'm banging my head against a brick wall here, but one more try; ALL the references point to instances of dislike or avoidance of the term. NONE of the references point to a dispute. Why, because there is no dispute. There is a big difference between someone not liking something and there being a dispute about it. Mister Flash (talk) 09:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all salient material as proposed above by Red Hat -- although I think this is more of a tempest in a teapot than anything else. Collect (talk) 23:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:Tempest in a Teapot.  ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.82.44.253 (talk) 03:53, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, there is no dispute. British Isles = England, Scotland, Wales, the Isle of Man, the Bailiwick of Jersey, the Bailiwick of Guernsey, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. Ireland is an island divided into 32 counties, six of which form Northern Ireland and the other 26 form the Republic of Ireland, a situation which has existed since 1923. Mjroots (talk) 08:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Irish objections are very well referenced across academia, political life and journalism. Some people are clearly uncomfortable with this, but that should not be a reason to deny this dispute/delete this article. 86.44.22.65 (talk) 12:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/British_Isles_naming_dispute&oldid=300224129"