Talk:British Isles/name debate

message: - 'British' is a 'racial' as well as a political term (Ancient Brits being our ancestors) - how about 'Celtic Isles' to keep to the 'racial' unity of the Isles? Maccoby (talk) 21:07, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well that is clearly not so and anyway we have to stick to common usage which is British Isles, SqueakBox 01:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: "work on the Channel Tunnel got well under way" - where have you been for the last decade?  The tunnel was completed years ago and has been in use for quite some time!  Anyway, the tunnel doesn't change Great Britain's status as an island.  Moreover, this is not a discussion forum about possible future names for the island, it's a talk page about the article itself.  Since you say "I know we have to stick to common usage", I really can't see what you're trying to achieve other than disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Waggers 08:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An Island is a piece of land completely surrounded by water. Doesn't matter if it has bridges or tunnels connecting it to something else, Great Britain is still a piece of land completely surrounded by water. Ben W Bell talk 08:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Irish Isles 

message: User:sony-youth recently removed the list of islands from this article without consensus.  I've reverted that edit so that we can talk about it first.  I agree that the list doesn't belong in this article (the article is already very long) but don't agree that it should be deleted outright.  Note that the list originally lived at List of the British Isles which was merged with and redirected to this article in accordance with WP:MERGE (in other words, having been tagged for over a week and with no objections being raised).  A similar length of time should be allowed for users to raise any objections to the un-merge.
My proposal is we move the list from this article to List of the British Isles.  Caveats are that any introductory section to List of the British Isles should be kept as short as possible, as part of the problem we had before was that List of the British Isles almost became another article on the British Isles instead of a list of them.
Note also that the list in this article is ordered by location (clockwise from the North around Great Britain and Ireland).  This makes it different from, say, List of the British Isles by area which is, as it says, ordered by size. Waggers 11:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Forgot to add: it's silly that List of the British Isles redirects here if this article doesn't contain a list. Waggers 11:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree - and sorry didn't mean to cause harm when I cut it. I assumed the list was already out there, somewhere, when I took it out of there. --sony-youthtalk 11:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No worries, thought that might be the case! Waggers 11:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with proposal to separate.  But "List of British Isles" is begging for a revert war.  You might get away with "List of islands in the British Isles".  (I'd have preferred "Western Isles" myself, but that's been bagsed).  --Red King 19:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe "List of islands in the British and Irish Isles".--padraig3uk 19:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: disagree - it does no harm where it is and it adds useful info to the article Abtract 23:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really care where you put it, on this page or on a separate one, so long as it's listed as "List of Atlantic Isles" or some such politically neutral term and not "british isles".  Anarchocelt 06:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Move list back to separate article?

message: I recently did a survey with a large group of other people and asked over 300 people in every city what do they think of this term,98% of people do not agree with this saying that Ireland is in the British Isles as it implies we are British when we are not.A majority of people noted that they do not think the term should be used like Scandinavia as the term Scandinavia is not based of one area of the part of Europe but of all of it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikel-Fikel 82 (talk • contribs) 13:57, 18 April 2007 UTC
:Ah, that great news, so it is! Just hope Hugh doesn't wet himself with excitment when he hears about your work. Now, hurry up and get it published so we can use it here, will ya, like good man. --sony-youthtalk 15:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, three things.  (1) Please sign your posts.  (2) The article already covers the controversy over the name.  (3) Please read our rules about original research.  Thanks. Waggers 15:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: You agree that he did a survey?  Were you there?  It's still original research no matter how many people witnessed it. Waggers 07:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Citizens of the Republic of Ireland do not like this term

message: Quite off topic (if its assumed that the topic of this page is improving the article!), but on the issues of archipelagos without a name: what it the name of the archipelago containing Corsica and Sardinia? They clearly form an archipelago (see: satelite image), even in the strict sense of the word being an island chain, but is there any name for it? --sony-youthpléigh 07:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, given the proximity of Gibraltar I think most editors in en:Wiki might reckon "The Southern British Isles" is the most neutral geographical term available. In the non-biased, NPV way they so congratulate themselves and one another on. (Sarah777 15:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh? (sorry, Canadian moment). Give us one editor who would think that? Sarah777 you appear to be trying to provoke with silly comments like that. Ben W Bell talk 15:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't know what a Canadian moment is. (Sarah777 16:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See Eh#Canada. It's a common part of their vocabulary eh. Ben W Bell talk 17:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Indeed.  You might even call it trolling. Waggers 10:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But if you did, that would be called a personal attack - or worse still CENSORSHIP! --sony-youthpléigh 10:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh how I wish there were smileys we could add to talk pages :) Waggers 11:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not impossible, nice idea Waggers, is this a first!Gold♥ 19:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Heck, I thought the FIRST thing you did when someone annoys you is to start flinging Wiki Policies at them. I learned everything I know from you guys. (Sarah777 15:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess it never occurred to any of the (censored) that the comment on the SBIs might just have been a joke? Eh? (Sarah777 15:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

text: WP:BRIT vs. WP:SARAH777? --sony-youthpléigh 15:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: V droll! (Sarah777 16:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nameless archipelago 

message: I understand the wikipedia policy/reasons for entering a the term
however i believe that this is not simply "a term" and should be looked at under slightly different criteria
firstly its offensive to most of the populace of ireland(roi) this is clearly demonstratably via the government of irelands view of the term and their request that the irish embassy in britain moniter the media there and object to its use, the fact that it is now not used in irish geography books, the fact that the british-irish council does not use the term, the fact that the british government avoids its use, the fact that it is now the british and irish lions etc etc
its ludicrous to suggest that simply because their is no existing poll of which i know to actually show this that maybe its not true.
the poll would be a waste of time and money as everyone(in general) in ireland(roi) would be like minded in their aversion to its use in the above context
Its merely a reflection of reality
it would be like asking for a poll in england as to if they would like to be included in the new irish isles silly 
secondly and most importantly by wikipedia lending credence to the term in regards to its inclusion of ireland(roi) it is treading on very dangerous ground and goes far beyond the simply inclusion of a popluar term for various reasons(popular in its country of origin and some of its colonies)
the existance of the articles heading "british isles" is fine however through its content subsequently agreeing (bar the inclusion of controversial)with its contention that today ireland(roi) is part of that said title, it is lending credibilty to this contention regarding ireland(roi, therefore overiding the peoples and governments wishes of the democratic UN and EU sovereign member state of ireland,that they do not wish the term applied to them 
this means that wikipedia is taking a political stance as stated the "term is not recognised in any legal or inter-governmental sense."
if the term is to be used it should be in a past tense regarding ireland(roi)and should not include statistical data etc on ireland(roi)today
 
it could possibly state that it was at one time forcibly included under the term during britains occupation of the island, and is sometimes is still mistakenly included by people in the much larger populated english speaking countries like britian (64 million) etc and is therefore utilised more than the the newer politically correct terms such as IONA etc Caomhan27 08:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At the bottom of every single page on the project, you'll find a links to "About Wikipedia" and our disclaimers, which includes Wikipedia:Content disclaimer.  Please read WP:CENSOR, it really couldn't be more clear.  Whether something is offensive or not is not a criterion for inclusion or otherwise in this encyclopaedia.  Waggers 11:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

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

message: Personally, I object to the imperialism implied in the term "Britain". It harks back to the exploitative Roman occupation and demeans my nation. ;¬> Folks at 137 19:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 400 years of repression, eh? Not a bad idea - to reverse the lot. Give England back to the Welsh! --sony-youthpléigh 07:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Roman imperialism

message: Having just seen the truth suppressed yet again and British POV imposed on this article I wonder is it time to reconsider the name of the article? Sarah777 (talk) 01:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The name of the article is in accordance with policy, convention and consensus.   A few contentious edits to the article itself have no bearing on the article's name. Waggers (talk) 12:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly not consensus; the name is utterly reject as an abomination by most Irish people. Not convention either. And the only "policy" being applied here is the tyranny of the superior numerical strength of British editors. It is merely a wiki-expression of British Imperialism. Sarah777 (talk) 21:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh?  Wikipedia's naming conventions, which have been decided by consensus, state that the most commonly used name - in this case, British Isles - should be used.  If you choose to read anything else into the fact that this article complies with a project-wide naming convention, then that's your decision, but please keep all this anti-British nonsense to a minimum - you're skating on very thin ice.  Thanks. Waggers (talk) 19:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not consensus; the name is utterly reject as an abomination by most Irish people. Not convention either. And the only "policy" being applied here is the tyranny of the superior numerical strength of British editors. Does that make the TRUTH any clearer for you Waggers?Sarah777 (talk) 20:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And btw; your comments here are a prime example of what I am talking about. Your smug assertion that the greater number of British over Irish editors equals consensus. It does not. Period. End of discussion. Thanks for the threats. Sarah777 (talk) 20:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Stop trying to twist this into something it isn't.  I was quite clear: the naming conventions were decided on by consensus.  Do you deny that?  The naming conventions say we should use the most common name.  Do you deny that?  The most common name for the British Isles is, like it or not, the British Isles.  Do you deny that?  There's no smugness going on here, nothing to do with editors' nationalities, and not even any threats (there were warnings, which I still advise you to heed).  You really need to learn what "assume good faith" means and start applying it. Waggers (talk) 22:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The most common name for the British Isles is, like it or not, the British Isles.  Do you deny that? Yes. And I couldn't care less what you call them so long as anything called "British" doesn't include Ireland.  "British Isles" is not the most common name for any entity that includes Ireland. It is almost never used in Ireland, because the term is repulsive. Oh, and btw, stuff your threats and warnings where the sun don't shine. OK? Just reading some of your responses above. You are one of the most insufferably arrogant smug ******'s I've come across on Wiki. Just one example; you response to the Bombay question above is pure bull. Sarah777 (talk) 02:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Great.  So you keep harping on about "The Truth", bias and personal attacks and then in one post deny an established fact and engage in petty name calling.  For goodness' sake, Sarah, grow up. Waggers (talk) 08:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Time to change the name?

message: This page is for discussing the name of the British Isles article, not for general discussion of the subject itself.  The above discussion has gone on long enough and doesn't seem to be achieving anything (or even attempting to).  Can we leave it now?  Please?! Waggers (talk) 12:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely they are one and the same? As an admin, shouldn't you 'assume good faith' regarding editors intent? There has certainly been relevant debate above - and the use of "British Isles" on Wikipedia effects other articles too. --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have on my watchlist British Isles/name debate ; now a red-link as you can see. What happened to it? Agree totally with Matt Lewis, I don't see any possibility of stability regarding this naming issue as there is a clear imposition of a political name on a country which detests it. Sarah777 (talk) 21:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm in agreement with Waggers on this discussion. These protestations are getting boring. GoodDay (talk) 21:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

text: PS- I don't know who deleted the article? but I agree with it's deletion. GoodDay (talk) 22:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I don't find them the least bit boring so therefore "boring" must be in the eye of the beholder. You agree with the deletion - why? Was the mere existence of the article threatening to those whose certainties are being challenged?   Sarah777 (talk) 22:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Also I would have thought that editors involved in the article British Isles/name debate should as a matter of courtesy and good practice, have been informed of the AfD. Don't you? Sarah777 (talk) 22:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Why boring? personal opinon. Why support deletion? The page was a political lightning rod for both sides - But, you're correct, we shouldn't been notified of an Afd (assuming the article had an Afd). GoodDay (talk) 22:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Also the deletion of British Isles/name debate leaves this talkpage as the only available forum to discuss the misnomer issue. The fact that some pro-"British Isles" editors find such discussion unproductuve or whatever is not a reason to remove/cease such discussion I humbly suggest. I would regard that as a rather arrogant approach, frankly. Sarah777 (talk) 22:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And how can an article be removed without an AfD??! Please tell me that can be done and I'll immediately remove "List of massacres" Sarah777 (talk) 22:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure how it's done. Also, when are you gonna visit/post at my talk page? GoodDay (talk) 22:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I'm guessing the article was prodded. GoodDay (talk) 22:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Prodded???? Sarah777 (talk) 23:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

text: That's my guess, but I'm not certain & I'm not sure how to find out. GoodDay (talk) 23:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I mean...what does prodded mean?? I am unfamiliar with the term. Sarah777 (talk) 00:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's wiki-slang for an article that was deleted through proposed deletion. Waggers (talk) 14:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I'd suggest you ask an Administrator. To avoid possible political frictions (seeing as you're not pleased with some Admins), I'd recommend you ask my fellow Canadian: Administrator Nat. He could explain it. GoodDay (talk) 00:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: British Isles/name debate never existed.  This talk page was created as a fork of Talk:British Isles, nothing more. Waggers (talk) 14:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

text: It certainly did exist - it was on my watchlist. So far as I recall it was created specifically to try and avoid having the naming issue discussed here . I am getting curiouser and curiuouser about this case. Who took the unilateral decision to delete it? And how are you supposed to find this page if it isn't already on your watchlist? Sarah777 (talk) 12:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How do people find this? There's a notice at the top of Talk:British Isles links here and one at Talk:History of the British Isles as well. Let me satisfy your curiosity: nobody took a unilateral decision to delete anything because there was never anything to delete,  never existed. If it did, it would not be a "sub page" of British Isles but a completely unrelated page, see Wikipedia:Subpages for the ghastly detail. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 19:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

text: When you add a talk page such as this one to your watchlist, the wiki software will conveniently add the corresponding mainspace title as well, irregardless of whether that title exists or not.—eric 23:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

text: So I have now figured out. I tell you this - for us members of the Paranoid Association that is not a bit convienient. Sarah777 (talk) 11:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Enough!

message: Jeez , people of Britain and Ireland - can't we keep the title and write the article to clearly educate people why the name is potentially confusing and out-of-favour for various reasons?
Its irresponsible to use Wikipedia to gloss our histories like this - we should write *about* the term, including current attitudes to it and suggested uses (or not) of it.
Currently as I write this the title reads 'British Isles', the content discusses the usage and controversies but the summary states ..[archipelago in north-western Europe not including ireland].
[BTW, Ireland has a capital 'I', whoever wrote that].
But the article DOES imply that the term "British Isles" DOES include Ireland (although it notes throughout, that this is not a universally accepted term).
 
Can't we say right at the top, something like 'In Ireland the term is no generally accepted' and 'still in common usage in the UK' or something ?
At a certain level (not to trivialise the history here), this is like the term 'American' being used (in both the USA and outside) to mean a citizen of the USA, even though Canadians and Mexicans (and South Americans) could be included - or like when people say 'Europe' to mean 'mainland Europe'.
Monowiki (talk) 21:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The "not including Ireland" thing was vandalism that hadn't been spotted - I've now reverted it. waggers (talk) 09:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: post by User:Monowiki

message: Please excuse my ignorance if I have blundered anywhere in this post.  
If you exclude those with opinions at the most extreme ends of the spectrum, it seems most would acknowledge that the term is mostly historic, but has a small amount of current usefulness and usage as a description of isles in a certain geographic area, with some common roots. 
So, folks who would want to wipe the term off of the face of the earth (or erase it from Wikipedia) are not correct.  
But, for example, trying to "cover" current Ireland in an article about the "British Isles" would be like trying to "Cover" the current USA in an article about the 1750's British Empire. And to me it appears that the "British Isles" article tries to do this for the included territories.   (This analogy is only useful regarding coverage, due to huge differences in elapsed time, the situation is very psychologically different.)  So, besides such coverage being out of place, it would tend to imply much more current relevancy of the term, and somewhat imply that all of Ireland is "British", which would get many folks justifiably angry. 
Why not change the "British Isles" article to about a one page article which gives it's historical definition, has a map and that nice venn diagram, acknowledges that it is largely a historical term, but has a small amount of current usage & usefulness.  Move all of the other coverage to the articles on the countries, and include links or references to the articles about those countries (or other most-relevant current divisions) to learn about them.       
Sincerely, 
75.24.138.102 (talk) 17:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You appear to believe that "British Isles" is a political term, analogous to "British Empire". In fact it's a geographical term dating back to the Ancient Greeks, so Ireland is still very much part of the definition, despite the attempts of a handful of people to politicise the issue. In the phrase "British Isles", "British" does not refer to the state (UK), and predates it by some two millennia (indeed, the state was named after the geographical entity, and not the other way round). It would be like the people of Canada or Brazil, say, objecting to being described as being part of "America", since that term is nowadays very often used for the state (USA). ðarkuncoll 17:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably too hard to get one's voice heard here to bother with this. But isn't the problem that like it or not the term British Isles is political. The existence of this page shows it. SO why not use instead--or at least refer to-- the purely geographical, non-political term, which is at the same time completely familiar, completely transparent, and completely correct. The archipelago consists of two principal islands, Britain and Ireland. SO just call it that. Since most people think of Britain and Ireland first as the British Isles, this probably has to stay, but a clear discussion of the neutral geographical terminology seems appropriate. Obviously the group cannot be called the Atlantic Islands because the term is not regularly used by anyone, and it is ambiguous (the inhabitants of Iceland, the Faroes,  Azore, Canaries, Cape Verde Islands etc etc etc might object.  This is evidently not the case if we stick with the correct geographical designation.  Dala-Freyr (talk) 09:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. User ðarkuncoll, no one that I've seen is disputing the fact that the term (and its etymological antecedents) are nothing new and did not originally have any kind of political connotation.  What you are not acknowledging is that "British Isles" presently and for at least a century or so very much is a political term in Modern English, for many speakers/writers and hearers/readers of the term, sometimes regardless of their own intention or reference, and no matter what the Ancient Greeks had in mind with their version.  I haven't looked at this page in years, but the debate has not abated one tiny bit.  It is clear that the the content on this page needs to move (there are numerous suggestions, but as Dala-Freyr and various others point out, Britain and Ireland is simple and accurate), and British Isles reduced to something very short, explaining that it is a collective term, used by some and avoided by others, for the islands of Britain and Ireland and smaller islands like the Channel Islands and Isle of Man, and conclude with a cross-reference to wherever the article content moves to.  The entire British Isles page can be one paragraph. Basically, WP:COMMONNAME has to be moderated with WP:COMMONSENSE. And, frankly, the espousers of the far extremes of the politics of the issue need to just shut it, and quit using WP as a WP:SOAPBOX. This isn't your personal blog, any of you, and it isn't Usenet, either. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 08:48, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion from an outsider across the pond 

message: Ireland has fought for 4 centuries to achieve a different head of state, a different currency, a different flag, a different postal system, a different phone system, a different car registration system, a different military, a different parliament, a different foreign policy, and so on, all of which are in place today.  
As a result, Ireland does not come under any form of umbrella label that uses the word "British", be it in sport, in the UN, in the WTO, in the EU, or any other legal, social, political  or cultural context or international body whatsoever.. 
Therefore only viable name for this group of islands is The British and Irish Isles" or a derogation thereof.
To do otherwise is equivalent to referring Asia as "the China region" because its the biggest country in the region. Its a nonsense because no such overarching geographic union exists.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by DiscoveryMode (talk • contribs) 06:06, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  The British and Irish Isles 

message: I dispute the use of the title "British Isles" as a description for these islands. On of the islands in question does not recognise the term and find it offensive and upsetting that the islands continue to be called the British Isles. 
In Ireland, they are called the "Islands of Great Britain and Ireland" by all citizens. This is more than mere pickiness on the part of Irish citizens, the Irish Government do not recognise the term and it is not taught, even as a geographical term, in Ireland. I request that the moderator of the page does not perpetuate continued colonialist attitudes as it is a huge factor contributing to the 'knowledge gap' present in the British people regarding the geographical facts of the UK and Ireland.Vickylou —Preceding undated comment added 19:40, 15 March 2019
:Let's not forget that the British Isles are named after the Britons, many of whom fled to Ireland when the Saxons invaded. If we stop using the term British Isles, we'd better stop using the names like "Irish Sea", "Northern Ireland", "English Channel", etc., as well. Meanwhile let's stop making political points and being offended by stuff that was never intended to offend. Britain and Ireland have more in common than divides them and I speak as someone with ancestors on both sides of the water and both sides of the Irish (no offence given or taken) border. Bermicourt (talk) 12:33, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Islands of Great Britain and Ireland