Misplaced Pages

Talk:British Isles: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 03:00, 1 March 2011 editMiszaBot I (talk | contribs)234,552 editsm Archiving 1 thread(s) (older than 10d) to Talk:British Isles/Archive 38.← Previous edit Revision as of 02:23, 8 May 2011 edit undoSarah777 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers64,560 edits →Caching of changes: cNext edit →
Line 342: Line 342:
Is there an issue with caching or moderation of changes to this article. I ask because (which is the latest change) is not showing in the ] being presented to me? Any suggestions anyone? ] (]) 10:41, 28 February 2011 (UTC) Is there an issue with caching or moderation of changes to this article. I ask because (which is the latest change) is not showing in the ] being presented to me? Any suggestions anyone? ] (]) 10:41, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
:OK, it is now. Just ignore. ] (]) 10:42, 28 February 2011 (UTC) :OK, it is now. Just ignore. ] (]) 10:42, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

==British pov uder-alles?==

Is there ''still'' an article on Wiki called "'''British''' Isles" that includes the explicitly non-British sovereign country of Ireland? I don't believe it. ] (]) 02:22, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 02:23, 8 May 2011

Skip to table of contents
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the British Isles article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41Auto-archiving period: 10 days 
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Former good articleBritish Isles was one of the Geography and places good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 26, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
March 5, 2007Good article nomineeListed
October 16, 2008Good article reassessmentDelisted
July 5, 2010Peer reviewReviewed
Current status: Delisted good article

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the British Isles article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41Auto-archiving period: 10 days 
The term British IslesThe term British Isles is a contentious issue. In order to better facilitate discussion of this issue, without swamping other matters, there is a specific talk page for matters relating to the name of this article. Your cooperation with keeping name-related matters on that page would be appreciated by other editors. Also, please remember that article talk pages are provided only to facilitate improvements to the article. Editors uncertain about the use of talk pages should read WP:TALK and WP:NOT#FORUM. Inflammatory messages, personal attacks, and debate and discussion not specifically targetted to specific ways of improving the article may be removed and, in extreme cases, warnings issued to the editor who inserted them.
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Template:WP1.0 Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconIreland High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconUK geography High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article falls within the scope of WikiProject UK geography, a user-group dedicated to building a comprehensive and quality guide to places in the United Kingdom on Misplaced Pages. If you wish to participate, share ideas or merely get tips you can join us at the project page where there are resources, to do lists and guidelines on how to write about settlements.UK geographyWikipedia:WikiProject UK geographyTemplate:WikiProject UK geographyUK geography
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconScottish Islands High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Scottish Islands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of islands in Scotland on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Scottish IslandsWikipedia:WikiProject Scottish IslandsTemplate:WikiProject Scottish IslandsScottish Islands
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconGeography
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Geography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of geography on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GeographyWikipedia:WikiProject GeographyTemplate:WikiProject Geographygeography
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Geography To-do list:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
Media mentionThis article has been mentioned by a media organization:
ReferencesThe term British Isles is a contentious issue. Academic and other references concerning this controversy can be read here.

Re-inhabited?

The introduction says when the isles were re-inhabited but doesn't mention when they were first inhabited. Any info on this? Kernow (talk) 06:09, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but it's a bit complex so the introduction does not cover it in detail. When an informed person who knows a bit about early Pleistocene history checks in here they can update the article to factor in recent discoveries . Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:50, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Defining the use of the terms "British Isles" and "Britain and Ireland"

If the term "British Isles" is replaced with an alternative such as "Britain and Ireland", simply because a reference has been found that uses this as an alternative, it either leaves the status of the Isle of Man, Channel Islands and other smaller islands within the group unclear or ignores them entirely.

I would like views on the suggestions that:

the term "Britain and Ireland" does not equal British Isles.
the term "Great Britain and Ireland" does not equal British Isles.
the term "United Kingdom and Ireland" does not equal British Isles.

Further more, I suggest that

References using "Britain and Ireland" should not in themselves be sufficient reason to replace the term "British Isles".

And that we move towards establishing a manual or style or policy relating to this which can be used to resolve any disputes that arise in the future.

The common abbreviations used in this discussion are:

B = Britain
B+I = Britain and Ireland
BI = British Isles
CI = Channel Islands
IoM = Isle of Man islands
NI = Northern Ireland

Notes:

Legally, the Isle of Man, Channel Islands are not part of either Britain or Ireland
The terms Britain and Ireland are used to refer to a number of different historical and geographical entities.

Original proposer: LemonMonday Talk 11:49, 7 November 2010 (UTC).

Refined and clarified after discussion: --LevenBoy (talk) 14:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

...between LevenBoy and LemonMonday, other editors were not involved in the change --Snowded 22:15, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

=> Comment: Far, far more than "a reference" has been found for "Britain and Ireland": a quick google reveals no less than 8,460,000 pages results for "Britain and Ireland". Your beloved "British Isles" receives a mere 3,050,000 results. Talk about your political preferences getting in the way of a rational evaluation of these inconvenient facts. The current name on this article is screaming British nationalist pov. It's a complete joke. Dunlavin Green (talk) 13:06, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The only joke is that some editors fail to understand why the word "and" makes a Google search utterly irrelevant. Wiki-Ed (talk) 10:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Imho, Britain and Ireland doesn't equate British Isles. If there are sources/references that contradict my opinon? my hands are tied. GoodDay (talk) 13:34, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
It cannot because it omits the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Not when I, and many others, use it! Fmph (talk) 18:11, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
As discussed here previously. Although the term "Britain and Ireland" may appear to exclude the smaller islands, that is not how the term is often used. In practice, it is a convenient shorthand term used for the whole island group, including Orkney, Shetland, Hebrides, and the Isle of Man. (The question of whether "Britain and Ireland", as the term is used, includes the Channel Islands is just as debatable - and no more so - as whether the term "British Isles" includes those islands.) Because those smaller islands are relatively small in terms of area and population, they are generally capable of being ignored by most users of the term. Many sources are not as precise as many WP editors. The fact that the term is not precisely accurate is not the only relevant factor - we should go with what the sources say. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:46, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Ghmyrtle is, once again, on the money. "Britain and Ireland" is "a convenient shorthand term for the whole group". This is obvious to anybody who has lived in Ireland and noted the deliberate avoidance of the politically-charged term "British Isles". This avoidance is clear to anybody - I repeat: anybody - just as are the eyes being raised on the rare occasion that the term is used in educated company. At any rate, it is deeply ironic that somebody above says "Britain and Ireland" is not "accurate" but calling Ireland a "British" isle is accurate. Jesus wept.Dunlavin Green (talk) 13:06, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
I have argued elsewhere along the same lines as Ghmyrtle, that the references establish that Britain and Ireland is an equivalent to British Isles (while Great Britain and Ireland excludes the IoM etc). Dunlavin Green, you really should retract those remarks they are unhelpful, unreasonable and generally foolish. --Snowded 14:06, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I just noted the sudden concern among the British Isles brigade for the supposed absence of the Channel Islands from "Britain and Ireland". Given that the current title on this article concedes that the Channel Islands are not even part of this "British Isles" delusion, except by British nationalist tradition, are they taking the piss? Fierce nonsense. Dunlavin Green (talk)
It seems we're all in agreement (except for maybe LemonMonday), that Britain and Ireland can be mentioned in this article as alternative to the term British Isles. GoodDay (talk) 14:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Sounds like a line from the chorus of an Opera Buffa, ...except for Lemon Monday --Snowded 14:34, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Giggle, giggle. GoodDay (talk) 14:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
I must repeat to Dunlavin Green that when I lived in Dublin nobody (educated or otherwise) was ever bothered the slightest whenever I happened to use British Isles in a geographical sense (never political, mind). You seem to imply that the Irish are keeping constant watch on anybody or anything that connects them to Britain.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Jeanne, what's the betting that whenever you said "British Isles" in the company of Irish people there was this sudden uneasiness, sigh, moving back and then a fake smile to your face? People in company generally are polite, and Irish people are polite in an "ara the poor ignorant Yank, let's overlook that and look for the positives in this lady's company". That's the way it works. Even I wouldn't take you to task in public but I'd give enough body language signals to people around me to get them laughing/make my feelings clear. Being quirky with all your royalist nonsense is fine online. It is sheer politeness, however, which ensures you don't receive true opinions in the company of ordinary Irish people. Dunlavin Green (talk) 20:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
I would have to disagree with you there Dunlavin. As an Irishman through and through, I can vouch for Jeanne's experiences. Although I can only speak for myself and those I know (some of whom, including within my own family, would be very staunch nationalists), Jeanne's experiences certainly resonate with me. In fact, when I was in Primary school we were always taught that Ireland was part of the British Isles (even though it was emphasized that this was geographical and not political). Our text books and teachers in Secondary School (and I went to a Diocesan school, not a state school) always mentioned British Isles and no other combination. In University it was always British Isles that was used, though admitedly I did not attend any Geography course there. In the pubs I frequented (including my local GAA club), again it was always British Isles that was used when comparing ourselves with the rest of Europe or the World - and these chats were certainly not along the academic line. It seems to me that it really depends on who you are discussing the topic with. So, while you and your friends and acquaintances may never use the British Isles as a term for these islands, I would prefer if you didn't lump everyone in Ireland into your category as you suggested above. I am not saying you are wrong in your opinion regarding terminology - it doesn't really bother me at all - but I guess it depends on your environment, even here in Ireland, what term you use. --MacTire02 (talk) 20:48, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Dunlavin, let me give you a specific example of a time I used the term British Isles in Ireland. This was back in the 1980s, and I was having a chat with two male friends of mine (both Dubliners-one from East Wall, the other from Clontarf). We were discussing the boot boy culture of the early 1970s, and I vividly recall saying that it was a "phenomenon in the British Isles, and basically nowhere else". Guess what happened, Dunlavin? There weren't any nudges, sighings, uneasiness, nor fake wee smiles; in fact, they both agreed with me!!!!!! As for my royalist quirkiness; my first husband (named Anto-what else?!), who was a relative of this guy here, bought me a book on the British Royal Family, which he obtained at the biggest bookshop on O'Connell Street. I dare not mention its name, lest I be accussed of spamming. I should add that Anto is an ordinary Irish person.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:12, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Same when I was younger, although I do have a fuzzy memory about one particular primary school teacher that was very ... republican I suppose ... and taught us history where the British were pointedly made out to be the bad guys. And one other Christian Brother later on. In fairness, we were clueless. It never stopped me or most others using "British Isles" in conversations, and we could still look at an atlas without getting offended. I suppose because of the heightened focus on the term here, I do mentally pause when I use the term in conversation these days (or hear the term), mentally checking the context. I would probably not use it in the context of Boot Boys or other cultural phenomenon (but that's just me) because political borders can have an impact on these matters. But there's a whole lot of stuff like flight paths of birds and planes, submarine patrols, spreading of diseases, etc, where it is the *correct* term to use. --HighKing (talk) 16:24, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I think we're getting sidetracked. The compound term is not used as an alternative to BI in the UK (apart from in the Guardian and a very small number of sources), although the two main islands may be referred to next to one another as "Britain" and "Ireland" and thus confuse certain people. The compound term may be used in Ireland and, although it is hard to verify, we include it as a compromise which has kept the article relatively stable for some months. I see no reason to keep discussing this - it just stirs up the old arguments - if the majority of editors accept the current wording then let's keep it as it is. Wiki-Ed (talk) 10:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

And that's about the size of it. The majority of editors have accepted this usage, we should move on. --HighKing (talk) 16:24, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
I disagree completely. "Britain and Ireland" cannot be mentioned as alternative to the term "British Isles". I am sorry HighKing but in reality the "majority of editors" are just not interested at all. Many are just tired of the campaigning, blocked or intimidated away. Only a tiny minority of editors, literally 3 or 4 out of 10,000s are motivated to go about renaming the British Isles.
Britain and Ireland means Britain and Ireland. We are all agreed with that. We are also all agreed that Britain and Ireland does not legally include the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. There is no room for "opinion". That is a fact. This is not a conversation in a bar. We are writing an encyclopedia. If some Irish feel it is an insult to be included in the term British Isles, then those of Manx and the Channel Islands have every right to be offended at being erased by those Irish. If we cannot "insult" the Irish, then we cannot insult the Manx and the Channel Islanders. It is as simple as that.
As it has been said before, companies and individuals may have well use the term Britain and Ireland to include the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands but so what? Uniformed people make mistakes all the time. Countless sources use the term England to mean Britain. That does not make it right. It is also wrong. The problem then arises of what does the Misplaced Pages do when the references are wrong? What is the Misplaced Pages policy and where is such a problem addressed?
Yes, there is a long standing political campaign in the real world to stop or attack the use of the non-political use of the term British Isles and it has found its way onto the Misplaced Pages but that is a problem to be dealt with in the real world. At present, until there is a real world international agreement, we cannot use the term Britain and Ireland as a substitute for British Isles nor to include the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands. I can only encourage those that feel strongly about the issue to contact their members of parliament etc to argue their case for them legally but it is not something we can fix or accept on the Misplaced Pages.
HighKing, in all of this I have never seen you argue positive once for the equal rights of the Isle of Man and Channel Islands I am becoming shocked by you peoples' disregard for them. I only wish you could get it into your heads that the use of the term British in British Isles really has nothing to do with British as in "Brits out of Ireland". It happens a lot in English; one word, two different meanings. --LevenBoy (talk) 23:17, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
That's 2 against, now. GoodDay (talk) 23:28, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm, I'll just weigh in and say irrespective of whether it is accurate or not, it is used sometimes and therefore deserves a mention in articles like Terminology at the very least. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 23:30, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
The numbers aren't really the issue. It is a question of what is legally correct, not WP:IDONTLIKEIT or WP:HOWMANYMATESCANIFINDTOAGREEWITHME. Having spent some time catching up on discussions, I see Dunlavin Green makes exactly the type of mistake I was talking about, confusing the alleged "English Imperialism" of Dee with British Isles. By the way, why is John Dee listed as English when he was as Welsh as Snowded is? Shouldn't he be British? --LevenBoy (talk) 23:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Though I use IoM & CI as part of whether I accept/object BI usage elswhere? I've chosen to accpet Britain and Ireland mentioned on this article as an alternate term. I've no choice but to accept, as there's sources for it. GoodDay (talk) 23:59, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Can you or anyone show us one reference that specifically report a factual or legal opinion that "the Isle of Man and Channel Islands are part of Britain"? You cannot because it is not true. The only response to that would be that "facts or legalities are not important on the Misplaced Pages".
That is why I ask, what is Misplaced Pages policy when sources are wrong? Where do we go to get a final decision?
It is impossible for us to know what or why an individual (real world published) author used a specific term with doing WP:OR. It could be laziness, it could be stupidness, it could be chauvinism, it could just be fashion or habit but the facts remain. It is the fact we should be dealing with. --LevenBoy (talk) 00:14, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
As I understand it, IoM & CI are 'somehow' included under Britain and Ireland. You'll have to ask others for more concrete evidence. GoodDay (talk) 00:20, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Tendentiousness LevinBoy, there are references on the main article which show that B&I is used an alternative to BI. There is no requirement for IoM of the Channel Islands to be a part of Britain for that to be the case. Its simply common use --Snowded 03:15, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
No, Snowded. With all respect, it is a question of accuracy versus semantics. You are ignoring my question. What do we do when we know the sources are wrong (or outdated)?
As we have discussed, English is widely used for what is clearly British and is also wrong. There are no sources that state CI + IoM 'is' part of the UK/B because they are not. That is what we are discussing.
Mystical, magical 'somehows' do not an encyclopedia make. There are a lot more concrete 'some why not at alls'.
I gave you the reasons why up above. GoodDay. There are more, e.g. in the magazine we covered 442 it was merely because they shared the same distribution networks. That does not make them part of the UK.
One of the few incidents where you could argue that the terms B+I is used, is if you were to use the common Irish Gaelic rendition (although some older dictionaries use a more literal translation) so the question we would have to ask of those Irish (real world published) sources, as we need to ask the Irish editors here, is why they neglect or ignore the status of the IoM and the CI. But, this is the English language Misplaced Pages and so English language terms should be used.
The fact remains, it is still wrong. We all know that. --LevenBoy (talk) 03:46, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
(please sign your comments) Meaning and language change over time, which is why we rely on references. Those clearly show that B&I is used as an alternative to BI. IoM and CI just get caught up in that I am afraid. You can have all the technical discussions you want but when it comes down to it, common use and references are what count. --Snowded 03:55, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
The problem with that logic is that we are not dealing with a change over time in this instances. (I did sign the comment).
The problem we are faced with resolving is what to do when we discover references we know to be inaccurate.
We all know and agree that CI and IoM are not part of the United Kingdom nor Ireland.
Therefore, we cannot accept references that apparently suggest they are. Geography is a science. It should be accurate. I can think of 100s of cases where "common terms" would not be acceptable and are not used.
You avoid providing any reference which suggest B&I "is" an accurate alternative to BI. You admit that it "is used" inaccurately. Two different matters. I am afraid I cannot accept inaccuracies being knowing inserted into the Misplaced Pages on a case by case basis. --LevenBoy (talk) 12:19, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Tedious LevinBoy, I did not avoid providing references I pointed you to those which exist in the main article. It is not inaccurate its is common use and established as such. --Snowded 12:37, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Would you accept Levenboy, that it's another name for the same area that is covered by the British Isles, if not a direct alternate wording for British Isles? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:30, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
LevenBoy, ya mentioned that people from IoM and/or CI, would be upset with the term Britain and Ireland. Wouldn't they also be upset with the term British Isles? as both terms cover those islands over. GoodDay (talk) 15:33, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
What Constitutes the British Isles? Very good question LevenBoy. Why the hell is the Channel Islands included? It is not part of the archipelago but by tradition it is included. What tradition, who's tradition? Maybe we could say by tradition when you see the term "Britian and Ireland" that it also includes IoM, CI and all the other islands. Bjmullan (talk) 16:54, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
I am not being insulting here Bjmullan but your comment really only identifies what you, personally, do not know or understand and this is part of the problem here. Moreso with some other editors who come on making what are basically racist insults. If you knew, you would understand.
I am perfectly willing to accept people make honest mistakes based on what they do not know or understand and be patient but I am not sure what responsibility we or the Misplaced Pages has to educating people or how far that responsibility goes. (Educating goes much further than present facts).
A question like "Why the hell is the Channel Islands included?" only betrays a vast lack of knowledge or historical understanding. For example, one of the bigger problems we have around these topics are individuals lack of understanding about the term Britishness or British culture, both of which the Irish have contributed to hugely.
It has often been said here, if the Irish care so much about their rights and being "equal" or not included in British Isles, why do they not care for the rights of the Manx and Channel Islanders? Please answer this directly. --LevenBoy (talk) 23:46, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
My assumption is the British Isles is made of Great Britain, Ireland, Isle of Man & Channel Islands. GoodDay (talk) 23:50, 14 November 2010 (UTC)


It is more than your assumption. In 'The British Isles: a history of four nations', Hugh Kearney defines all of this problem when he wrote that to concentrate upon a 'nationalist point of view history ... "is to run the risk of being imprisoned within a cage of partial assumptions which lead to the perpetuation of ethnocentric myths and ideologies. Typically, the book in Kearney's Misplaced Pages article went from "acclaimed for adopting a multi-nation 'Britannic approach'" to being "controversial" on the basis of an anonymous and referenceless edit from an Irish IP. Is this someone here editing while logged out or part of the same range as the recent trolling? Presumably this same editor 84.44.44.148. I'll wait for Bjmullan's response to my question above. --LevenBoy (talk) 00:44, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Defining the use of the terms "British Isles" and "Britain and Ireland" (Clarified)

**Please note that the original question was changed at this point by LevinBoy, comments above were made before that change ** --Snowded 22:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


LevenBoy I have noticed that on a number of occasions you have used the term "legal" with respect to the status of the term British Isles. Perhaps you could direct us all to the specific piece of international legislation that states this.... Bjmullan (talk) 23:15, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
And I'm still waiting for the answer to my question LevenBoy.... Bjmullan (talk) 14:41, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


the term "Britain and Ireland" does not equal British Isles.
the term "Great Britain and Ireland" does not equal British Isles.
the term "United Kingdom and Ireland" does not equal British Isles.
None equal British Isles as they ignore other islands that make up the island group that aren't part of either state. This essentially revolves around anti-British attitudes and removing anything that ties Ireland to anything with Britain/British mentioned. Mabuska 21:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Pity about the sources which say Britain and Ireland is used as an equivalent phrase --Snowded 22:12, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


Are there lots of reliable sources clearly stating Britain and Ireland is an archipelago in north west Europe? The answer to that question is no. Britain = an island called Great Britain or is a short name for the United Kingdom. Ireland = an island or the country. None of these include the Isle of Man or the Channel islands there for the area that is the British Isles is not Britain and Ireland. Whilst some may use the term instead of talking about the archipelago, it does not make Britain and Ireland an archipelago. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:52, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Fully agree that you would not say the Britain and Ireland Archipelago. However people do use Britain and Ireland rather than British Isles. --Snowded 01:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Bjmullan, I have never stated that British Isles is legally defined. The component parts clearly all are. No argument.
Snowded, again, it is question of whether 'is it an equivalent' not whether 'it is used as an equivalent'. Other publications have varying standards of accuracy and their own editorial slants. You are intelligent enough to know the difference.
How many publication state "Britain and Ireland is used as an equivalent phrase" and how many 'use' Britain and Ireland as an equivalent phrase erroneously?
I would be interested to know but I do not receive any direct references in Google Scholar for that exact phrase. "Fuck" and "shag" are commonly used, with plenty of reliable sources, for sexual intercourse but we use sexual intercourse on the Misplaced Pages.
However, it really does not matter because we are working to define the Misplaced Pages's editorial position. Therefore, can we move on?--LevenBoy (talk) 01:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
I am also "intelligent enough" (careful LevenBoy that is borderline incivility) to read and understand Misplaced Pages rules. If a reliable sources says that B&I is increasingly used instead of BI then that is the case. Your opinion (or mine) as to whether it is accurate or not has no relevance whatsoever to determining common use. --Snowded 01:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
"Intelligent" is genuine praise. Some people do not get and use the subtlety of language. I believe that you do and are using it knowingly.
There are two issues here. We have a conflict between real world opinions/sources and facts; and we deciding on our manual of style. It may be true that "Britain & Ireland is increasingly used instead of British Isle" but "increasingly used" does not mean it is anywhere near a majority position. 3% from 1% is an increase but it does not create a consensus nor a majority position. There are far stronger arguments for the use of British Isles.
It is too early for us to tell if the real world Irish nationalism that sought to rename the British Isles was a passing fad or will stick as a standard or whether something else will. But that is for some real world authority to decide. My guess is that they just did not consider the IoM and CI problem. Yes, I agree. If the sources say so we can discuss changes in use over time and place and their political aspects in the terminology topics but we also have to decide on our manual of style for general use, topic titles etc.
The term "Britain & Ireland" is fraught with confusion and misunderstanding. British Isles is clearly understood and defined, even if certain people don't like it (WP:IDONTLIKEIT). It is not right to use the Misplaced Pages to push a nationalist political agenda. --LevenBoy (talk) 02:22, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
As the various debates show British Isles is not without its own confusion. Misplaced Pages reflects common use, and in that context Britain and Ireland is increasingly used. Its not exclusively used so I for one am nor proposing that it should be universally substituted, but it is a valid use based on the references. Fully agree that its not right to use Misplaced Pages to push a nationalist agenda (including British Nationalism) or a Unionist one for that matter. I hope you are not suggesting that is the case in this argument. --Snowded 13:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Legal fact, the government of the United Kingdom in Westminster (Britain) has no legal duty or responsibility with respect to the administration or running of Channel Islands and Isle of Man islands except where agreed by international treaty. They are independent of Britain and Ireland. --LevenBoy (talk) 02:34, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Thats not the way I read it. "External relations and defence are the responsibility of the British Crown which retains ultimate responsibility for overseeing ‘good governance’ in the Island". Now, you may see a subtle difference between "the British Crown" and "the government of the United Kingdom in Westminster", but the rest of the world doesn't. WP:WORLDVIEW Fmph (talk) 09:00, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
If Her Majesty's Government says the Isle of Man and Channel Islands are not part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, then they simply are not part of it. That is the world view. We do not treat Crown dependencies or British overseas territories as part of the United Kingdom, as far as im aware the United Kingdom does not border Spain. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:03, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Just to show this is not just a British point of view. CIA world Fact Book
Isle of Man is a British crown dependency but is not part of the UK or of the European Union. However, the UK Government remains constitutionally responsible for its defense and international representation.
There is a big difference between having the UK responsible for its defence and international representation like other British overseas territories and being part of the United Kingdom. The CIA world factbook recognises this, which is why you do not find England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland in their factbook list but you do find the IOM/CI and British overseas territories. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:10, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
A list of non-countries that the CIA Fact Book also 'recognises'.
Fmph (talk) 13:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Snowded.. I agree people use Britain and Ireland rather than British Isles. In the same way people may just say Europe rather than saying the European Union. The two things definitions remain very different though. The problem at the moment in my opinion (and has been for some time) is the way the introduction words this matter. It simply says... "As a result, Britain and Ireland is becoming a preferred description" That makes it sound like B+I is a preferred description OF the British Isles. It should be more clear that it is a preferred description to avoid mentioning the archipelago known as the British Isles. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:03, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
How about: "As a result, the term Britain and Ireland is increasingly preferred to describe the archipelago." Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
I like the use of the word "describe" there. Doesn't state its totally equivalent. The only quibble I see is the "increasingly preferred". Should it state preferred in Ireland? Or somewhere else? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
But "preferred to describe the archipelago" makes it sound even more like we are saying Britain and Ireland is an archipelago in north west europe which is not backed up by sources. It should say something like the term Britain and Ireland is increasingly preferred to avoid use of the archipelago known as the British Isles, although "Atlantic Archipelago" is increasingly favoured in academia," How notable ""Atlantic Archipelago" is though is another matter, i dont know if its used enough to make it notable for the introduction. It was not even mentioned on the British Isles naming dispute page until recently i seem to recall. I also agree with the increasingly preferred bit perhaps needing clarification. But my primary concern is the fact the introduction makes people think Britain and Ireland is a valid name for an archipelago in north west europe.. which simply is not the case. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
How do you "use" an archipelago? "Britain and Ireland" is a term used to avoid use of the term "British Isles," not to avoid use of the archipelago, which doesn't make any sense. john k (talk) 15:26, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
What is your definition of 'valid' in this context? Is it whatever you decide? Or something else? Given that I use it rather a lot, you some to be saying that my usage is somehow 'invalid' ... which is simply not the case. Fmph (talk) 11:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
...or, "As a result, Britain and Ireland is an increasingly preferred term." Which is true, and avoids any question of precisely what is being described - which is often unclear and unstated. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:15, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
LevenBoy you may not have directly said that BI is a legal term but you certainly have implied it by saying the B+I is not legal and you seem to like using the word without providing any RS. See your edits here, here, here and here. Next time you suggest the B+I is not a legal term (whatever that might be) I suggest you back up your claim with a RS. Bjmullan (talk) 12:54, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
And a small point. It's odd to use a "legal" argument (as is happening above), but to have the same people dismiss "British Islands" as a term on the grounds that its a legal term. --HighKing (talk) 13:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
I do enjoy reading Dunlavin (aka 86.44). His invective never fails to brighten a dull day, but I digress. I've read above and elsewhere about use of British Isles in general conversation (Jeanne Boleyn and others). Well, I've been around a bit you know, and I'm reasonably well travelled, well educated and I mix in good circles. I'm also well versed in the art of conversation (as you can see). I've also visited Ireland many times and know many Irish people, but guess what? Never yet, in all the countless thousands of conversations I've ever had, have I ever heard the term British Isles used, nor for that matter have I ever heard any of the alternatives used, nor have I ever had to use the terms myself. It just isn't something that crops up in normal conversation. And yet ... apparently there's "dispute and disagreement" about the term. Bullshit! LemonMonday Talk 21:03, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Your reported experiences and views as your conversational ability have no place here. The references show that it is in use and that are disputes. --Snowded 00:30, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

The questions then are, "is used for what?" and "is used accurately or inaccurately?" Where there is confusion or dispute, we have to accept accuracy, not an immeasurable "common use". When we say "is used increasingly", increasingly in comparison to when or what?

Linux is being "used increasingly". It has experience huge increase in use for PCs thanks to its evangelists. But it is still has less than 2% of the market. "PC" is a term used commonly for a Windows OS computer. There are countless references for "Mac and PC" (despite Apple have the better claim for championing the term "Personal Computer"). It does not make it right. In fact, it is wrong.

When real world authors write "Britain and Ireland" what do they mean? "The United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland" or "Great Britain and Ireland (Islands)", "British Islands and "Irish Islands" or "British Isles"? We don't know. They are inaccurate and confusing. How can we say or use them to include the Isle of Man and Channel Islands? We can't. They don't. The only term which reliably does include the Isle of Man and Channel Islands is British Isles. You may not like that for whatever reason you wish but you can see the logic of it. To continue on the metaphor, British Isles remains the Windows OS amongst the terms, and the only one that is inclusive.

Just so others can appreciate the significance of this. The Isle of Man and Channel Islands are independent of Britain and the United Kingdom, and Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. The only areas they cooperate are areas defined by international treaty, e.g. defence for which they pay a fee not taxes. International mean inter-nations.

We have to decide what we mean here and use it consistently for the sakes of our readers. I am against the use of the term "Britain and Ireland" because it is chauvinist, confusing and inaccurate. Its use is fraught with problems and will cause us no end of problems. At the point in history when the real world finally decides, we can accept that decision but at present British Isles is still the only term we can use accurately and consistently. When we use "Britain and Ireland", it should mean only Britain and Ireland, that is, excluding the other island groups. --LevenBoy (talk) 09:22, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

The references say otherwise LevinBoy and I doubt if most people using "British Isles" are fully aware of its convoluted history and meaning. Technically if it is used as geographical name it should exclude the Channel Islands by the way, but in practice and common use it doesn't some of the time. The same is true of Britain and Ireland. Regardless of its minority status it is still a valid term. --Snowded 11:37, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
We have had this discussion before. The problem is that some editors have found a small number of sources which state explicitly that "Britain and Ireland" is an "incresingly preferred" alternative to "British Isles" (the sentence in question is paraphrasing one of those sources). Regardless of whether it is confusing / inaccurate it satisfies the criteria for verifiability. The question is whether it is neutral and proportionately reflects the views held by reliable sources. We've seen flawed research from Google and heard some personal perspectives from well travelled editors, but this does not provide a solution. Therefore we came to a compromise whereby we mention the 'controversy' and alternative term in the intro (which follows the MOS) and we also include another alternative term which meets WP:VER, but quite blatantly doesn't carry much weight. The discerning reader will realise that "Britain and Ireland" is not increasingly preferred at all and that editors have been gaming the verifiability rules. Wiki-Ed (talk) 11:43, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
I think I have made it very clear that there is no case to mass substitute Britain and Ireland for British Isles, but it does not follow from that that the use of Britain and Ireland is invalid. Aside from the reference (if it is verifiable it is hardly gaming) the most common example are the atlases that use Britain and Ireland. We will have to see what happens over time as language is mutable. For the moment arguments to eliminate "Britain and Ireland" are as invalid as arguments to replace "British Isles" with "Britain and Ireland". In wikipedia we work from sources not arguments about what should or should not be considered accurate. --Snowded 11:49, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
The question of accuracy is dealt with all the time on the Misplaced Pages, e.g. DOBs etc. We have two sources with conflicting facts, we find more and work out which one is the most accurate or correct. New historical information emerges, old topics are reviewed etc. We also have MOSes and other forms of deciding where there are conflicting opinions, and policies evolve. If an Encyclopedia is not accurate, there is no point it. If what you say is true, it is a question of WP:WEIGHT then and there is certainly not sufficient weight to warrant the waste of time and energy on it we do.
Atlas of Britain and Ireland generally have a bigger area of France on the same page than the combined areas of the Crown Dependencies. Atlas are not saying "it is the term for". They say Britain and Ireland and yet they have the North Sea and Atlantic in them, Would you argue that the North Sea and Atlantic are part of Britain and Ireland. Atlases of Italy have San Marino and the Vatican City in them, Atlases of France have Monaco and so on. That is a non-argument.
Mostly, I realise I am portrayed as a campaigner for British Isles. That is not true. I am a campaigner for accuracy and the term Britain and Ireland to include IoM and CI too inaccurate and then there is the aspect of consistency. An encyclopedia should be consistent. Real ones are.
Snowded, I have to ask you the question again, a valid name by Wikipedian standards for what and when (i.e. context)? You have still not given me one reference that say it 'is' a replacement term, only that it 'is used as'.--LevenBoy (talk) 13:53, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
And I will tell you again - look at the references in the main article and stop wasting time here with spurious requests, not to mention convoluted arguments and protestations as to your motives. Its very very simple here, if its referenced its valid. B&I is a valid alternative term to BI per references and common use. It does not mean that BI should be replaced with B&I as a standard. You also completely miss the atlas point. The relevant fact is taht Atlases used to be called "An Atlas of the British Isles" and are now called "An Atlas of Britain and Ireland" --Snowded 20:46, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
LB's request is, I think quite valid. Do we have a reference which states B&I is a possible "replacement" for BI? For me the issue is one of accuracy and the need to remove ambiguity. British Isles is accurate and unambiguous whereas B&I is a wishy-washy term that reeks of ambiguity. For these reasons it should be avoided whenever possible. LemonMonday Talk 21:14, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, we do have references that say exactly that - the source is even quoted (ref 11). However, Snowded is incorrect to assert that "if its referenced its valid"; it is not that simple because referenced material has to be weighted correctly. That's a more tricky problem, but I believe the current wording achieves the correct balance. The fact that the article reached a stable position and the talk page quietened down after years of arguing should speak volumes. Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:18, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Of course weight comes into it, and the majority of cases we will see British Isles in the supporting references and it can be properly used. However if Britain and Ireland is used then the same applies, it is simply not valid to exclude it on the basis you don't like it. --Snowded 23:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
I thought this was talked through a long time ago and it was decided to follow the reference. That is, if it uses Britain and Ireland then we use it. If not, then we don't. Am I mistaken? Jack forbes (talk) 23:24, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
You have it right but LemonBoy or LevinMonday (deliberate this time ....) are seeking to change that --Snowded 23:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
When we use references for articles and the authors are using the term Britain and Ireland it's not because they don't know that an alternative term is British Isles. If the`author uses it, we use it. Jack forbes (talk) 23:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Is there a (another) consensus that we should stick to this policy? Jack forbes (talk) 00:13, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any consensus forming in favour of deleting or modifing the entry of Britain and Ireland in this article. Is there a time-table for this Rfc? GoodDay (talk) 07:52, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the quote is misspelt and I raise questions about its credibility, least of all because it sounds like a sociologist and we are talking geography. I doubt its credibility because I have never heard, read ir seen any references to "the archipelago" as a trend ever. I will read over it later. The question remains, used for what? --LevenBoy (talk) 06:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I took the time to read reference 11 over. In the first place, it is talking about English literature, specifically from the Scottish, Irish and Welsh point of view. Siobhán Kilfeather was a forthright champion of Irish women writers who was notable for her interest in fist-fucking in the 18th century. She should really have a page in the Misplaced Pages.

The full context is, "I place emphasis on the tension, awkwardness and embarrassment that Irish, Scottish and Welsh peple experience with the English language ... It is difficult to find neutral descriptions even of territory. Many of the Irish dislike the 'British' in 'British Isles', while the Welsh and Scottish are not keen on 'Great Britain' ... In response to these difficulties, 'Britain and Ireland' is becoming preferred usage although there is a growing trend amounts some critics to refer to Britain and Ireland as 'the archipelago'." She is talking about writers and their critics, with a strong POV baked by The Troubles it says. They could only use the term in a piece literature after it was already defined. The book also use British Isles 2 more times, including Siobhán herself, to mean British Isles WP:WEIGHTWP:BIASWP:NPOVetc

The problem with atlases is that the name of an atlas does not define its geography. An Atlas of Italy includes the Vatican City and San Marino. An Atlas of France included Monaco, Pantelleria is 100 km southwest of Sicily and 70 km east of the Tunisia but is Italy and so on. Just because the name is "Atlas of ..." means nothing. I don't see you arguing Monaco is France or the Most Serene Republic of San Marino is Italy, just because your RAC road map says so, Snowded. I don't see you arguing Pantelleria should be Tunisian.

No references say "Britain and Ireland" is a term for "Britain, Ireland, and the independent Channel Islands and Isle of Man". Britain and Ireland means Britain and Ireland. --LevenBoy (talk) 12:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

When I use it, it means the same as what you mean when you say "British Isles". Fmph (talk) 18:24, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Congratulations but you know that carries no weight on the Misplaced Pages. Just out of interest, where do you consider the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands fit? In Britain or Ireland? Or do you think they have no rights?
I suppose we could standardise to Britain and Ireland (Islands) and Britain and Ireland (States) where topics relate to only the Britain and Ireland but that still leaves out Isle of Man and the Channel Islands. Unfortunately, there is only one term to date that has found common use to include the whole.--LevenBoy (talk) 06:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Where does one consider the IoM & CI fit in 'British Isles', for that matter? since neither of those are British, just like neither of those are British and Irish. GoodDay (talk) 13:23, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Then why do people from IOM and CI have British passports? Fmph (talk) 14:03, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Wowsers, I didn't know that. Would they happen to have Irish passports too? GoodDay (talk) 14:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
People from the IOM and CI have British passports as they are Crown dependancies. Difference being they are not part of the United Kingdom and can't be easily brushed into that category just to exert nationalistic desires to get rid of the term British Isles. Mabuska 14:23, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
I reckon I'll stick to my criteria for adding/deleting British Isles. If both IoM & CI are excluded? then avoid BI usage. GoodDay (talk) 14:27, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
I'd agree that they shouldn't be brushed into the category for that reason, but they could be for the simple reason of WP:COMMON. Fmph (talk) 15:36, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

As far as defining the terms goes, the British Isles refers to the archipelago of islands to the northwest of Europe (ie, the Great British island, the Irish island, and various other islands within the archipelago). Obviously, Britain and Ireland refers to the country of Britain (the United Kingdom, in other words), and the Republic of Ireland. Those are the facts, at least, and on an encyclopedic basis, that's how they should be presented. --JeevanJones (talk) 09:44, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it's not obvious at all. For instance when I - and many other sources - use the term Britain and Ireland, we don't use it in the sense that you feel is obvious. Whilst I recognise your usage as valid and legitimate, you need to accept that there are other valid and legitimate usages out there. Fmph (talk) 17:47, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Nice Freudian slip there, Fmph. Thank you. The problem is, you are not a "source" as defined by the Misplaced Pages. Yours is only a POV. Your POV is neither valid nor legitimate as a source. The gentleman is, of course, correct. --LevenBoy (talk) 15:46, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

  • British Isles. There's a lot of text here and frankly I didn't read it, but responding to the original RfC: British Isles is the preferred term without a doubt, as this is the common terminology used in the English-speaking world, period. Why is this even in contention? (On the other hand, "Britain and Ireland" can surely be taken as shorthand for "Britain and Ireland and the various small islands, shoals, and pinnacles etc. lying close by and traditionally associated with them", so the contention that these are not included in "Britain and Ireland" is not at all a cogent objection to using "Britain and Ireland". But that "Britain and Ireland" is nonstandard is.) Herostratus (talk) 01:49, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Next time, you'd be better served by reading the text (and the fact that there's a lot should be an indicator that there are opposing views, but perhaps each view has some merit) rather than simply voicing your own opinion. Just a thought... --HighKing (talk) 15:29, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Include lesser used names in lede This is often done where articles have multiple possible titles: you co≤uld put like British Isles (also known as Britain and Ireland or Atlantic Archipelago). Munci (talk) 10:34, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

propose close

The normal arguments are being recycled by the normal editors. There is not going to be a resolution around the original proposal. We come back to the existing text, use of terms in reliable sources and the task force when there is a dispute. --Snowded 20:45, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

In agreement. Also, the editor who opened this Rfc, seems to have lost interest in it. GoodDay (talk) 21:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Oppose. If you are not interest Snowded, just move along and get back to editing elsewhere. --LevenBoy (talk) 15:46, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Agree, please close. --HighKing (talk) 21:56, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


Informal Vote: Official Status of Welsh

Please see Talk:United_Kingdom#Informal_Vote:_Official_Status_of_Welsh where an informal vote is taking place on displaying the Welsh translation of "United Kingdom" at the top of the United Kingdom infobox. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:36, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

NUTS 1 and NUTS 3 Regions on map

As the article to which it is linked now makes clear, like is not being compared with like on the population density map. The regions shown for England are top-level, NUTS 1 Regions, whereas those for Ireland, Scotland and Wales are NUTS 3 Regions, which in England correspond to counties. ðarkuncoll 12:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Caching of changes

Is there an issue with caching or moderation of changes to this article. I ask because my recent change (which is the latest change) is not showing in the current version being presented to me? Any suggestions anyone? Fmph (talk) 10:41, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, it is now. Just ignore. Fmph (talk) 10:42, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

British pov uder-alles?

Is there still an article on Wiki called "British Isles" that includes the explicitly non-British sovereign country of Ireland? I don't believe it. Sarah777 (talk) 02:22, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Categories: