Talk:British Isles/Archive 40

Archive 35

←

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

The map “Subdivisions of the British Isles” and headed “Terminology of the British Isles”

The map “Subdivisions of the British Isles” and headed “Terminology of the British Isles” is potentially a very good visual representation of some occasionally not obvious concepts. Unfortunately it appears to include omissions, errors and confuse geographic and political names.

1. There used to exist a “Kingdom of Great Britain” in the 18th century but it there is no such thing any more. The term “Great Britain” is now only a geographic term being the geographic name for the largest island of the archipelago. As such it does not include any surrounding islands such as the Hebrides, Orkney and Shetland, Anglesey or the Isle of Wight. The area described by the red line marked “Great Britain” is neither a political nor a geographic entity. It is an incorrect use of the name of a real but other geographic entity.

2. There is a name “United Kingdom” underlined in yellow which correctly corresponds to the area enclosed by the yellow line. The Isle of Man and Channel Islands are also correctly encircled. There is a name “Republic of Ireland” underlined in green with no corresponding green boundary line. Finally, there is an off-green-purple coloured line enclosing the entire island of Ireland with no corresponding name. Is this two errors, a single erroneous conflation of politics and geography, a political aspiration or something else? As I understand it, none of these things belong on these pages.

3. The name “British Isles” at the top is confusing. It is coloured mid-blue but is not associated with a corresponding boundary. It is also coloured similarly to other political entities on the map while it is not a political entity but a geographic name on a political map. I note that it was originally associated with a corresponding boundary on an earlier version of this map.

This map contains factually inaccuracies and is additionally confusing. PeterColdridge (talk) 16:09, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

4. The two most prominently named areas are identified as “Great Britain” and “Ireland”. Neither of these areas exist as jurisdictions. The island of Ireland is divided between two jurisdictions. The Republic of Ireland's jurisdiction does not extend into Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland's jurisdiction does not extend into the Republic of Ireland. There is simply no such jurisdiction defined, even loosely, by the island of Great Britain or the area of the 18th century Kingdom of Great Britain or the area within the red line. It does not exist.

5. As a matter of clarity, it is not clear why, alongside these prominently named areas, that are not jurisdictions, are the entities of “United Kingdom” and “Republic of Ireland” that are jurisdictions, but are identified in half sized fonts. Other real jurisdictions, the Isle of Man and the Channel Island jurisdictions are allocated even smaller fonts. This is confusing.

6. On a more serious note, actual and important jurisdictions are entirely missed out. The Scottish Parliament, the devolved national legislature of Scotland has legislative competence over Scotland. Why is this jurisdiction of 5.3 million people not identified on the map? The National Assembly for Wales is the devolved assembly with power to make legislation in Wales. Why is this jurisdiction of 3.1 million people not identified on the map? The Northern Ireland Assembly is the devolved legislature of Northern Ireland and has power to legislate over the Northern Ireland. Why is this jurisdiction of 1.9 million people not identified on the map? The London Assembly alongside the Mayor of London has devolved legislative jurisdiction over London. This jurisdiction of 8 million people does not even exist on this map. One may point out, as a matter of fact, that these omissions compare with the maximum prominence offered the Republic of Ireland, a jurisdiction of 4.6 million people. There appears to be a question of balance here.

I recognise and respect the need for moderation in these pages but I feel I must express the opinion that on the basis of the facts contained in this map, this map contains serious factually inaccuracies, serious omissions, is misleading, is questionably balanced and is additionally confusing.

PeterColdridge (talk) 22:42, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

1. The term "Great Britain" is now not "only a geographic term". It is also a political term, meaning England + Scotland + Wales, including their surrounding islands (I of Wight, Shetland, Anglesey, etc.) Hence, "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". So, the map is correct.
2. The grey line encircles the island of Ireland - that is, the republic + Northern Ireland. I do not see what is confusing in that.
3. The title at the top refers to all the entities on the map. Again, I do not see what is confusing.

Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:35, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

1. There are those who conceive or advocate the concept of a “political term” of a “Great Britain” meaning the UK minus Northern Ireland. There are those who conceive or advocate a Republic of Ireland having jurisdictional control of all of the island of Ireland. Such an aspiration may be so noted as a matter of fact and may also be visually described on such as this map. What is not to be expected is that every nation that has a territorial claim made against it is obliged to create a judicial entity that mirrors every territorial claim made against it. Imagine the South China Sea. It would be laughable. The UK has not created a political entity called “Great Britain”. It does not exist. As for the name it is the standard convention to accept the endonym. The UK endonym “Great Britain” means the largest island of the archipelago. You might advocate changing this standard convention. You might for instance berate the Italians for the temerity of calling their city Firenze. Otherwise you accept the endonym. The endonym is the name of the island. I repeat. In the UK there is no political entity called “Great Britain”. There is no concept of a “Great Britain” as anything other than an island. It does not exist. If you want to note on the map the territorial claim do so. But do not try to pretend there is a political entity called “Great Britain”.

Your assertions suggest that a name, in this case, "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" defines or describes the geographical area claimed by the state. This is clearly untrue. Do you think that by calling their state the “United Stares of America” they are claiming all of the continents of North and South America? Do you thing that they are defining the continent as the area under the state's jurisdiction? Manifestly untrue. Do you expect the UK to call itself the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Hebrides and the Orkney Isles and the Shetland Isles and Anglesey and the Isle of Wight and … and …"? A state can call itself anything it likes. The UK calls itself the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". It's a name. It is not an inclusive definition of a territorial claim.

2. There is no line that circumscribes the jurisdiction of the Republic of Ireland. Why not? This is a serious error. You assert that “the map is correct” after I have pointed out the errors. Do you seriously think that, after careful consideration, the jurisdiction of the Republic of Ireland either does not exist or does not deserve to be identified?

You say “I do not see what is confusing”. The name of a jurisdiction, the “Republic of Ireland”, is placed inside a line enclosing a geographic entity over which it does not have jurisdiction. I am sure if you have another think you will see why this is confusing. PeterColdridge (talk) 23:05, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Your first point, from which most of your other concerns seem to stem, is, quite simply, factually wrong. The term "Great Britain" means, in one definition, the combined area of England, Scotland and Wales, including their surrounding islands. It was created in 1707 by the union of England (then including Wales, and surrounding islands) and Scotland (including its surrounding islands), and subsequent legislation has not changed that basic fact. Here are two clear definitions - [1], [2]. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:32, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Great Britain and Terminology of the British Isles disagree with you. "Great Britain" refers only to the main island. Peter Coldridge's criticisms are correct. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:22, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Great Britain does not only refer to the island. It has two very similar but slightly distinct meanings: (1) the main island; (2) the combination of England, Scotland and Wales. The name "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" clearly does not exclude those small islands close to the main island, such as the Isle of Wight, Anglesey, and Shetland. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:51, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Source? Your repeated argument using the name "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" is fallacious, as the name is just conventional and it would be cumbersome to enumerate all those islands; it is cumbersome enough already. As pointed out somewhere before, countries can call themselves whatever they want, regardless of whether it is strictly correct or satisfying to geography pedants. Clearly, you've never heard of "pars pro toto". --Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:24, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Whilst the map is by on largely unproblematic, it isn't clear enough on what line means what. You have large writing for the names Ireland and Great Britain, both directly attached to their respective line, however have no names attached directly for the other lines. Are people meant to guess? Like what is the purple line for for those who know little? Mabuska ^(talk) 21:32, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

1. Not sure I agree with Ghmyrtle on 1. This could be confusing. Technically the red line does capture political entities that would be attached to 'Great Britain', but only in contrast to 'Northern Ireland' in the title of the UK. I can't think of any other reason one would want to differentiate. Given that this is a geographical article I think it would be more helpful to the uninformed reader if the red line matched the coast line of the island of Great Britain. The yellow line already captures the constituent parts of the UK.
2. Agree with Ghmyrtle. The colours don't quite match, but I'm sure that could be corrected quite easily - presumably to emerald rather than grey... And as Mabuska says, the other lines should be attached to the titles to which they correspond.

Wiki-Ed, may I invite you to read my point 2 above dated 23:05, 20 October 2015. PeterColdridge (talk) 07:59, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

1. Agree with Ghmyrtle. The map displays political and geographical entities.

HOWEVER, answer me this: why are Yell and Unst part of the British Islands, but not the United Kingdom? What have they done to deserve this? Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:48, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

It's schematic. What about Rockall? (Don't answer that....) Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:09, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the name of the Kingdom, it is in fact the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acorn897 (talk • contribs) 20:54, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

There is a purple or lilac line, implied (by the colour link to the name) to be "British Islands" which includes the Isle of Man, the Channel Islands, and Northern Ireland. This is a complete nonsense, never used in any reputable source, and obviously meant to exclude the whole (i.e. entire, rather than just the Northern Ireland bit) island of Ireland from being considered part of the British Isles, which it is part of, in the same way that Portugal is part of the Iberian Peninsula though it is not Spanish. 79.65.235.11 (talk) 23:49, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I suggest you read the article on British Islands, and the sources to which it links. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:14, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Where is the Republic of Ireland?

Republic of Ireland is a description of the state that has jurisdiction over 26 of the counties of the island of Ireland. It is not the name of that state. The name of the state is "Éire, or in the English language Ireland". 2602:301:77C6:8E80:494:634B:298E:AA96 (talk) 06:46, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Agree with you, but this has been done to death in the past and there is no consensus to change the name. We should use Ireland ----Snowded ^TALK 08:52, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I also agree, but this is not the place to discuss it. The right place used to be (still useful as a reference) Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Ireland-related articles/Ireland disambiguation task force and is now WP:IECOLL / WT:IECOLL. WaggersTALK 13:56, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Ireland is an island split between two countries. To use the word "Ireland" for the republic, formerly "Southern Ireland" is misleading. I know that the former term is preferred by those who aspire to join the island into a single country but until then, it is incorrect. The "Republic of Ireland" or "Eire" is more accurate in discerning between the actual nations. Acorn897 (talk) 19:15, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

It's not more accurate, Ireland is indeed the official English name of the state. It is however clearer when we're talking in an article about Ireland (as an island) and Ireland (as a state) and they're not synonymous. See WP:IMOS. Canterbury Tail talk 19:50, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

British Isles vs British Islands

I think the difference between British Isles and British Islands should be made much more prominent, in the lede and also as a disambig "not to be confused with" note. Right now the difference is subtly implied in an image and it's left as an exercise for the reader in the "See also" section. 160.83.42.136 (talk) 15:40, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I think it is OK left in the see also, as a rarely used term it certainly doesnt merit a mention in the lead. MilborneOne (talk) 18:34, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on British Isles. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130522082521/http://www.gro-scotland.gov.uk/files2/stats/population-estimates/special-area/settlements-localities2010/2010-settlements-table2.pdf to http://www.gro-scotland.gov.uk/files2/stats/population-estimates/special-area/settlements-localities2010/2010-settlements-table2.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100925081145/http://www.gov.im:80/cso/externalrelations/eu.xml to http://www.gov.im/cso/externalrelations/eu.xml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:33, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

The Channel Islands

Are these islands really part of the British Isles geographically? I mean, I know the Republic of Ireland isn't British nationally, but it's still part of the British Isles in a geographical sense. The Channel Islands are the opposite. Culturally British as crown dependencies, but, Geographically, is it accurate to lump them in with the same island chain as Great Britain, Ireland, et al.? 73.194.85.220 (talk) 14:53, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps not, but conventionally they are included. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:24, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1f/British_Isles_Euler_Diagram_13.svg

Google Books n-gram viewer

Google n-grams shows no occurrence before the 1720s, then a first small pic, and then a huge pic in the 1760s, followed by several smaller pics in the 1780, 1810s and 1830.

See: https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=British+isles&year_start=1500&year_end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2CBritish%20isles%3B%2Cc0

Now, it may be possible that these occurrences are related to the geological and physical study of these isles, but I find it quite remarquable that before the end of the Jacobite risings and the act of Union between the kingdom of Ireland and that of Great-Britain, the term « British Isles » was seldom used in English literature, if not inexistant.

And this is why Wikipedia has a no original research rule. Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:25, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

The n-gram Viewer shows how a searched phrase has occurred in a corpus of published books. So the expression « British Isles » hasn't really been used in reliable published sources before the 1720s. That's not my opinion, that's a fact.

As for the reason why, I don’t know but maybe someone else does, which is why I am using talk pages. Buidheag (talk) 17:17, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I doubt the Google is a reliable source for such a claim, refer to the Etymology section for more information. MilborneOne (talk) 16:29, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Etymology tells you when a word or expression first appeared in a given language and where it comes from, but it does not give you any clue on its actual recurrence in the language use.

Personally, I have little doubt that Google Books is a corpus of published books. Buidheag (talk) 17:50 23 June 2017 (UTC)

It is your interpretation of a source, therefore it is your opinion, not a fact, and has no place in the article. That you fail to see the limitations of the source - not a reliable source - and/or the logic you are using to interpret it, illustrates exactly why Wikipedia had a no original research policy. And your understanding of the word 'etymology' is wrong; I'd suggest starting there. In this case it explains a lot. Wiki-Ed (talk) 18:54, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I’m only questioning the bit that states « British Isles is still the most widely accepted term for the archipelago », which is supported by just one quoted source. If you check that source, you will see that it simply says « The word British Isles remains the only generally accepted term for the archipelago off the northwestern coast of mainland Europe », without any kind of data to substantiate it. So all we can do is take Clive Carpenter's word for granted. I observe and question that reliability, that's all. Buidheag (talk) 17:50 23 June 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Francophone de France (talk • contribs)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on British Isles. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121006211200/http://www.oireachtas-debates.gov.ie/D/0606/D.0606.200509280360.html to http://www.oireachtas-debates.gov.ie/D/0606/D.0606.200509280360.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130605151000/http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/about-ons/what-we-do/publication-scheme/published-ad-hoc-data/population/august-2012/mid-2010-urban-area-syoa-ests-england-and-wales.xls to http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/about-ons/what-we-do/publication-scheme/published-ad-hoc-data/population/august-2012/mid-2010-urban-area-syoa-ests-england-and-wales.xls
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gov.im/cso/externalrelations/eu.xml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:22, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 November 2017

In the third sentence, change the phrase "Ireland (which covers roughly five-sixths of the island with the same name)" to "the Republic of Ireland (which covers roughly five-sixths of the island of Ireland)". As it stands, this sentence is factually incorrect. The country is officially called the Republic of Ireland, not Ireland. Ireland describes the geographical island.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Ireland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ireland Bojo Skankins (talk) 17:03, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

The geographical Ireland is what is being described in that sentence, so no. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 17:09, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

@Bojo Skankins and Roxy the dog: Now there's a fun edit conflict. I just fulfilled this edit request and added a link to the island to differentiate, mostly because the use of the nine-word phrase "the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" in that sentence means stylistically, this prefers full names. By using the country of Ireland's full name, we're also clearly differentiating between the country and the island. I'm open to discussion on this, though. CityOfSilver 17:15, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

The country of Ireland's full name is Ireland. "The Republic of Ireland" is the official description of the state, but is not its name. Please revert. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:19, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

@Bastun: I don't dispute this but am I wrong to worry that just using "Ireland" to refer to the state isn't helping a reader differentiate between the island and the country, which of course are two separate entities? CityOfSilver 17:31, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Having looked again at the Wiki article for ROI and a couple of other sources, I realise that I may be wrong about the country not being officially called Ireland, but there will be much less confusion if the term Republic of Ireland is used. I stand by my initial edit request. My motivitations were out of a concern for clarity and I was not politically motivated.

I agree with all of CityOfSilver's remarks. Bojo Skankins (talk) 18:37, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Also note that the sentence was describing the island before partition. so yes, please revert. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 17:21, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I've misread all this. I withdraw my comments. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 17:24, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Well WP:IRE-IRL applies here. Normally we'd use Republic of Ireland to avoid the confusion, but the name of the state and the state are very significant in this sentence so Ireland should be used. Canterbury Tail talk 17:49, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

The first bullet point in that article you linked seems to imply that "Republic of Ireland" should be used in this instance. I quote:

"Use "Ireland" for the state except where the island of Ireland or Northern Ireland is being discussed in the same context. In such circumstances use "Republic of Ireland" (e.g. "Strabane is at the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland")."

Since both the island of Ireland and Northern Ireland are being discussed in the same context as the state in this sentence, it seems that using ROI would be the correct thing to do according to the guidelines. Bojo Skankins (talk) 18:37, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

More appropriate is the next line. "An exception is where the state forms a major component of the topic (e.g. on articles relating to states, politics or governance) where "Ireland" should be preferred and the island should be referred to as the "island of Ireland" or similar (e.g. "Ireland is a state in Europe occupying most of the island of Ireland")." Canterbury Tail talk 20:45, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with the guidelines in this instance, then. I think that the third sentence of the British Isles article needs to say ROI for clarity. The article does refer to the state as Ireland further down the article (in the Politics section), where it elaborates about this topic (it says "Ireland, sometimes called the Republic of Ireland"), which I think is fine to be left as it is since it goes into more detail. Since at the top of the article it is mentioning the state in passing, in my opinion it should be referred to in that instance as the Republic of Ireland, to eliminate any uncertainty about what is being referred to. I must add, I find it ironic that the use of "Ireland" is enforced (in this instance) when the article for the state is itself called Republic of Ireland. Maybe then that article should be called Ireland, and the article for the island should be called Ireland (island), since Ireland is the official* (and colloquial) name for the state?

*According to the constitution. And yes, I have changed my view on this since I filed the edit request. But if it's according to the constitution, it must surely be the correct title? Bojo Skankins (talk) 23:08, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

The name of the country is at Republic of Ireland because Ireland as an island is the primary subject and existed way longer than the state. Anyway the place for that discussion is on the Republic of Ireland talk page, but it's been done kinda to death. Canterbury Tail talk 01:58, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Are the Shetlands geographically a part of this contentiously named archipelago?

I'm finding it difficult to find clear definitions of why any particular island or group of islands should be considered a part of an archipelago or not. If the Channel Islands are not a part of the archipelago, then why are the similarly isolated Shetlands? If the Shetlands are a part of it, then why not the Faroes or Iceland? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:DC08:9000:81A9:1467:5DB4:F57C (talk) 08:14, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

'British Island' term not recognised by Ireland

Ireland dose not recognise this term please note this in your opening paragraph explaining the Irish Governments official stand Irish Foreign Minister Dermot Ahern said "The British Isles is not an officially recognised term in any legal or inter-governmental sense. It is without any official status. The Government, including the Department of Foreign Affairs, does not use this term."[42][43] Please also cite page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Isles_naming_dispute to provide readers a comprehensive knowledge of this term — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scamallach (talk • contribs) 23:35, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

If you read all of the article's lede you will see that the information you requested already has a paragraph all to itself. Bazza (talk) 13:07, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I doubt if the opinion of a government is relevant to an article on geography. Dimadick (talk) 18:48, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

The term 'British Isles' is not geographic, its political - that's what drives Irish opposition to its use. Fergananim (talk) 17:33, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Except it's not: it's a geographical term that has been co-opted for parochial political purposes. Wikipedia isn't that battleground. Acroterion (talk) 17:51, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Agree in its entirety. Geography not politics. Mabuska ^(talk) 18:04, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Then explain how the island of Ireland is British? And why the phrase was not in common use till after 1801? Fergananim (talk) 17:11, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Of course "British Isles" is political, as it has been since its first recorded use in the English language by John Dee in a tract in 1577 claiming Ireland for the English imperialist monarch. The contention that Britain and the British can invade Ireland, dispossess the natives for centuries, impose their language and culture upon the Irish and rule over them for centuries and that after all this the term "British Isles" does not have massive political connotations for the Irish is simply preposterous. You can't just deny that past explicitly political British colonisation of Ireland and claim in 2017 that the term "British Isles" is merely a harmless geographical term when it claims Ireland. It's nothing of the sort, and you don't need a PhD in Irish history to understand why the term is resisted by the Irish, including by their democratically elected government. But sure what could be more British than imposing something else on the Irish people against their will. Roll on Brexit! 80.111.140.140 (talk) 22:47, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

The term has a political side to it but it is still a geographical term. Of course politics, geography and history often all get mixed up over the centuries. I'll put it this way - The UK is a part of Europe insofar as it is part of the European continent. The British largely don't see themselevs as Europeans, they have voted to leave the EU, but ultimately they can't change geography; whether an indepenent nation or in the EU, the UK is in Europe as far as georgraphy goes. And the same applies here. Ireland is a aprt of the British Isles as far as geography goes. Nothing the Irish PM or any politican says can change that any more than Nigel Farage can change that Britain is part of Europe. So yes there are political arguments but ultimately they are irrelevant. If anything I feel we have given them too much prominence by putting them in the opening paragraphs - the political arguments are of very minor interest and of absoltuely zero relevance to the term as a term of geography and I would favour them being moved to a less prominent part of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:2385:9400:7820:C482:C062:F697 (talk) 22:01, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

The Indian Subcontinent includes Pakistan and Bangladesh. The Malayan Archipelago includes Indonesia and the Philippines. The region known as de Nederlanden includes Belgium, Luxembourg and parts of France and Germany. All are considered largely uncontroversial terms today, despite their imperialistic past, and despite tensions between all these countries and their neighbours. Nobody thinks that the use of such terms implies any territorial claims on the part of the country which they're named after, so why would it be different with British Isles?

Moreover, the term British Isles was in use long before the Irish, or the English, or the Scots or Welsh existed as identifiable nations, let alone before the modern states existed. I would say that's enough to qualify it as a purely geographical term, with no political significance implied. 94.13.29.206 (talk) 22:24, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

No, that is not enough to qualify its current usage as purely geographical (and, for that matter, I'm not sure what "purely" geographical even means; for example, geographical terms are most often very naturally used as labels for the people of a geographical area--what's the "purely geographical" implication of that, relative to Ireland/British Isles?). My own objection to the language of this Wiki page is to the wording that locates the objections to the term British Isles as only physically "in Ireland" (as opposed to in relation to Ireland). Scholars who write about Ireland/Irish subjects (not necessary always "in Ireland") are just as likely to dislike and avoid the term British Isles as people who are always and only "in Ireland". And I also question the wording that describes all these objections as "nationalist". The footnote provided (#17) doesn't establish that the objections can all be labeled as "nationalist". While there are nationalist objections to the term (those are the ones one tends to hear in very vocal ways on internet Talk pages), I think Wiki's wording of "nationalist" over-simplifies the issue. Nuclare (talk) 17:16, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Ireland is Not Part Of The British Isles

I am so tired of making this correction. By implying that Ireland is part of the British Isles, is implying that Ireland belongs to Britain, Well I have news for you. Ireland is an Independent state, and an sovereign member of the UN, and the E.U. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itsmeletschatnow (talk • contribs) 09:08, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

That isn't news. We know that Ireland is an Independent state, and an sovereign member of the UN, and the E.U., but the last time I checked on Google Earth, five minutes ago, the island of Ireland was still there, amongst the British Isles and RTE has not reported any significant geographical changes in the location. Where would it go? -Roxy, the dog. barcus 09:35, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Multiple previous discussions have concluded that the "British Isles" is a geographical, not a political term. See the box at the top of this page, and see also British Columbia - equally, not a part of Britain. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:46, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

The Irish Sea should have its name changed too, seeing as it mostly washes onto the shores of Great Britain. GoodDay (talk) 09:52, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Nor are New Hampshire, New Britain, New Caledonia, New York, New Jersey, New England, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, New South Wales, and Queensland associated with the UK. It may be news that New Ireland is not related to Ireland, nor is New Mexico part of Mexico. Baja California isn't part of California. Virginia is not composed entirely of virgins. Acroterion (talk) 14:53, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, there goes my vacation plans. Canterbury Tail talk 17:33, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

There's always the British Virgin Isles. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 17:43, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but each of those places could change their name if they so choose. Ireland, despite overwhelmingly disfavouring the term 'British Isles', would appear unable to do anything about it as the Irish are continually told they belong to the 'British' Isles - effectively a form of cultural imperialism. The fact that it is contentious makes it a political term, or at the very least discredited as a geographical term. RKernan (talk) 14:14, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I've not been able to find anything which says that the Irish belong to the British Isles. Nor have I been able to find anything which says that the English, Scots, or Welsh (or indeed anyone else who lives on the island of Great Britain) belong to the British Isles. Bazza (talk) 14:49, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

There isn't an island of Great Britain, and the Irish belong to themselves. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 16:36, 15 March 2018 (UTC) -Roxy, the dog. barcus 16:35, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Great Britain, also known as Britain, is a large island in the north Atlantic Ocean off the northwest coast of continental Europe. Bazza (talk) 17:10, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps its an education thing, British Columbia dont think they are owned by the British. MilborneOne (talk) 19:32, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

And the Virgin Islands aren't populated by you know what. No one thinks the Irish Sea belongs to Ireland, the English Channel to England, the Black Sea isn't black, Sea of Japan isn't Japanese, New South Wales isn't part of Wales. We could go on. Canterbury Tail talk 19:54, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

...and the German Sea isn't German - ooer wait they changed a purely "geographic term" in WWI. Why?? JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 19:40, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Bodies of water are not analogous to British Isles. Stop pretending you don't know that. Even names like "New England" etc aren't analogous, for one thing because of the qualifiers ("New" etc) which are there precisely to differentiate. Nuclare (talk) 00:33, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 November 2018

change 2,700 million years old to 2.7 million years old 8.45.160.20 (talk) 19:11, 28 November 2018 (UTC)Sierra

 Not done. The rocks are indeed 2,700 million years old (see Geology of Scotland), but that is better expressed as 2.7 billion years old - a wording change I have now made. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:53, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Population density map

The map used for population density is incorrect. It shows Belfast correctly but at the other end of the country it shows a similar sized city Cork as having a population density between 50-100 people per km2 when in fact it actually has 3,367.88 people per km2. The map used should either be accurate for the whole of the British Isles or not used at all. Tcla75 (talk) 18:36, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Inhabitation date for Ireland is outdated.

Date of human habitation of Ireland has been pushed back since this article was written. See https://irisharchaeology.ie/2016/03/new-discovery-pushes-back-date-of-human-existence-in-ireland-by-2500-years/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.70.240.133 (talk) 11:06, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Duplicate/Overlinks

I don't have time to finish all of it right now, but my goal is to clean up all the duplicate and overlinks so I can remove the overlink tag from the top of the article. I'm almost half-way finished now, and can finish up the rest later. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 13:12, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

OK, I've done a good enough job cleaning up the links to remove the maintenance tag, but I'm sure I missed a few here and there. Feel free to catch any I missed, or to put any back in that might have been material to the context of the content. (I was extra careful to leave them in if they were significantly material to the context of the content.) My main concern was to remove enough to be able to justify getting rid of the overlink tag and I think I've done that. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 03:59, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

City of London

The City of London is not the largest city in the United Kingdom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.94.142 (talk) 22:57, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Channel Islands

The term British Isles is geographical, and refers to the islands linked geographically to Great Britain. The Channel Islands are linked geographically to mainland Europe. This seems to be the best place to raise this glaring oversight that exists in many articles. Can we remove the Channel Islands from the list? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 12:20, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Only once they’ve actually left the British Isles, not before. Roxy, the dog. wooF 12:30, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

The Channel Islands are conventionally and generally considered part of the British Isles, irrespective of whether anyone considers that to be appropriate in "geographical" (definition?) terms. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:38, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

We use what reliable sources use, we don't make these decisions ourselves. Canterbury Tail talk 12:50, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Alas, Canterbury Tail has a point: another reason perhaps for not using Wikipedia as a reliable source. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 13:28, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not and never has been a reliable source. That's not why it exists. It's a good starting point for further research, though. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:46, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

It is simply wrong to imply that “British Isles” is a neutral term

The Irish Government and most Irish people object to the use of the term “British Isles”. It is NOT a neutral term (obviously). https://www.thejournal.ie/is-ireland-british-isles-northern-ireland-europe-islands-1140112-Oct2013/ Murtagh1585 (talk) 13:32, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Bit like the Welsh objecting to the Irish Sea which is not a neutral term. MilborneOne (talk) 13:35, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

For a government that objects to it, they sure do like to use it, https://www.google.com/search?q=%22British+Isles%22+site%3Agov.ie Canterbury Tail talk 13:38, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Disrespectful to people in Ireland

So the Government and people living in the place can have no say over this issue. Just you alone. That is crazy and unfair. Murtagh1585 (talk) 13:53, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Governments do not decide on Geography. Nor do we. Roxy, the dog. wooF 13:58, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

More particularly, people living in a particular place do not determine how a wider area is known globally. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:02, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Why choose the problematic word when you have a choice?

You have a choice between using “Britain and Ireland” or “British Isles” you consciously choose “British Isles” even though they refer to the same thing and “Britain and Ireland” is not problematic. Why? Please explain. Murtagh1585 (talk) 14:03, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Who is "you"? Wikipedia does not have its own voice, other than simply reporting the terminology that is used in reliable sources. This whole issue has been discussed multiple times, so it might be worthwhile you checking the archived discussions. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:05, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

You is the person who has stopped me from changing “British Isles” to the neutral term “Britain and Ireland”. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Murtagh1585 (talk • contribs) 14:10, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Technically the reliable sources that show that British Isles is in common usage and not Britain and Ireland are what stopped you from changing it. We don't interpret, we don't put our preferences, we only show what reliable sources and evidence is stating. Canterbury Tail talk 14:29, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I have shown you sources demonstrating that this is a problematic term. Your pretense that you are not ‘interpreting’ is consequently wrong. You have chosen to ignore my point and interpret the issue your way. Again you choose to see the term “Britain and Ireland” as unorthodox and unacceptable(!). You are making these choices consciously. There is nothing ‘technical’ about it. I am entitled to contest your interpretations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Murtagh1585 (talk • contribs) 14:36, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Murtagh1585. You're new. So - in no particular order - please read the archives of the talk page of this article; the talk page and archive pages of British Isles naming dispute; and the main Wikipedia policy pages, particularly WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. When you've done that, you'll have caught up with the rest of us and will be aware that this discussion has been had, over and over, and that sure, while some don't like the term, many have no problem using it and it's in common usage (in Ireland as well as outside Ireland). Also note that Wikipedia is not a forum, so no, you're not entitled to contest interpretations if all that means is objecting to the use of the term because some people don't like it. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:54, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

(e/c) "We" know it's not a universally accepted term. But it's not "our" choice - it's determined by the term's use in reliable published sources, globally. The debate over using the term is mentioned in the fourth paragraph of the lead, and there is an entire article about it. That doesn't mean that this article needs to be changed in that respect. The point is that you're not really arguing against "us" - you're arguing against encyclopedia compilers, newspapers, etc., worldwide, who use a term that you dislike. We report what they do. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:59, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Some people object to British and Irish Lions being used rather than British Lions. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:17, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

You haven’t answered my question. Why use the problematic word when you have a choice? And, may I add, why punish those who make small edits that involve using the neutral term? Reciting Wikipedia’s mission statement is not an answer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Murtagh1585 (talk • contribs) 07:43, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

I think it has already been explained that "British Isles" is the common name and is the name of the article, you are welcome to start a formal discussion on the article name. It may be that any move discussion has to be at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration but I am sure somebody will let you know if you start a move discussion in the wrong place. MilborneOne (talk) 08:37, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Please answer my question! Let me make it simple: is the term “Britain and Ireland” or “Ireland and Britain” banned on Wikipedia? If not then my edits have been legitimate and I did not deserve the censure I received. Please deal with this specific case. Do not obfuscate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Murtagh1585 (talk • contribs) 09:28, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

It's not banned: There's an article on it if you'd bothered looking. But that term is not directly analogous (it only refers to the two biggest islands in the group) nor is it the primary term as used generally in reliable sources (covered by others above). So your assertion that there is a choice is incorrect. Wiki-Ed (talk) 10:02, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

FYI, this is how article titles are decided. "Article titles are based on how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject. There is often more than one appropriate title for an article. In that case, editors choose the best title by consensus based on the considerations that this page explains...." - etc. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:34, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

I believe Murtagh1585 is referring to the fact that they were making multiple edits over the project to alter references to British Isles to read Britain and Ireland, and were subsequently reverted multiple times by myself and others. These were pointed edits, of poor quality anyway, and appeared to solely be to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS while half the time breaking links and misspelling, such as this edit and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Danelaw&type=revision&diff=914087526&oldid=913851027 these ones]. Canterbury Tail talk 01:21, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Intro could be more compact

A four paragraph intro seems excessive. Paragraph 1 defines the extent of the British Isles and paragraph 4 highlights that this term is contentious. I suggest that these two paragraphs alone are sufficient.

The middle two paragraphs include fine grained detail (e.g. where the oldest rocks are) and I would suggest that they could be absorbed into relevant later sections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.2.21.221 (talk) 13:26, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

WP:LEAD says that the intro should summarise the key points in the body, like the abstract for a journal article. Maybe it is the first and last paragraphs that are redundant but we have to have them because the argument over terminology. --Red King (talk) 18:25, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

It takes WP LEAD literally. The four paragraphs follow the formula set out in this line: "[the intro] should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." The article has been relatively stable for a long time as a result of concerted efforts to find comparatively neutral wording in this section. That wording does not need to be changed. Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:43, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

British Isles / British Islands hat note

Yesterday, I added a template:about that says that this article is about the archipelago, for the similarly named administrative entity, see British Islands. Such a note would, IMO, go a long way to reducing the perennial IP edits that say that Ireland is not British. Many articles have this sort of hat note that tells readers that this article is about X, for the topic with a very similar name, see Y.

Bazza 7 changed the (arguably awkward) text of the hat note, which I understand. Wiki-Ed deleted it completely, which I don't. So before we can discuss the wording of the hat note, it seems that we first have to have a discussion as to what makes this topic so exceptional that it can't have such a hat note like many other articles. Please explain the reasons for your changes as the edit notes were rather terse. --Red King (talk) 13:47, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

For comparison, see hatnote at Ireland. --Red King (talk) 14:45, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree with having a hatnote, but disagree that it'll stop the IP vandalism. Canterbury Tail talk 14:33, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I also agree with having a hatnote. Agree with Canterbury Tail, too, it's unlikely to stop the vandalism. I disagree with Wiki-Ed's removal and their edit summary - it is exactly what the article is about. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:37, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Mea culpa. The syntax in the edit summary is different to the text it displayss, in this case appearing to suggest the article was about islands under British sovereigny. In general I don't have a problem with hatnotes like this, but as others have said, in this case it's unlikely to make a difference. The IP editors know exactly what they're doing.Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:03, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Dont have a problem with the hatnote although it would do nothing to stop vandalism, one comment is that nobody I know has heard of or uses "British Islands" and would probably think it is a typo. MilborneOne (talk) 15:40, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

But it (British Islands) does have a meaning in British law, and if it is given explicitly in the hat note, I doubt that anyone will think it is a typo and they may even be educated (which is why we are here). No, I'm not so optimistic as to believe that it will stop the IP vandalism but if it goes some way towards reducing it, it will be worth it. I believe that it will provide an escape valve for those who come here intent on being offended. But let's see. --Red King (talk) 17:05, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Does it (British Islands) have any meaning or use outside that very narrow legal usage? -Roxy, the dog. wooF 17:15, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I suspect that the only place that "the public" would encounter it is on Channel Islands passports which say "British Islands - [name of island]" (see British Islands#Passports). Is that the sort of thing you mean? --Red King (talk)

Consensus for hat note

I have inferred a consensus from the discussion above that principle of a hat note for the article is not disputed, but my first version of it needed improvement. Accordingly I have restored the version as last edited by Bazza 7. --Red King (talk) 10:22, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

We should delete the entire Administration section from the infobox & all its content.

British Isles/Archive 40

Other native names Breetish Isles (Scots) Ynysoedd Prydain (Welsh) Enesow Bretennek (Cornish) Éire agus an Bhreatain Mhór (Irish) Eileanan Bhreatainn (Scottish Gaelic) Ny h-Ellanyn Goaldagh (Manx) Îles Britanniques (French)
Satellite image, excluding Shetland and the Channel Islands (out of frame)
Geography
Location	North-western Europe
Coordinates	54°N 4°W
Adjacent to	Atlantic Ocean
Total islands	6,000+
Area	315,159 km2 (121,684 sq mi)
Highest elevation	1,345 m (4413 ft)
Highest point	Ben Nevis
Demographics
Population	71,891,524 (2019)
Pop. density	216/km2 (559/sq mi)
Languages	English, Scots, Ulster‑Scots, Welsh, Cornish, Irish, Scottish Gaelic, Manx, French, Jèrriais, Guernésiais, Sercquiais, Auregnais
Additional information
Time zone	Greenwich Mean Time / Western European Time (UTC)
• Summer (DST)	Western European Summer Time[a] (UTC+1)
Drives on the	left
^ Irish Standard Time in the Republic of Ireland, British Summer Time in the United Kingdom and associated territories.

On multiple occasions, the article has been defended from challenges that it should not include Ireland, on the basis that it is about Geography and Geology, not politics. So why have we got administrative stuff in the infobox? GoodDay proposed (above) deleting these sections: this new section is to open an explicit discussion on the proposal. --Red King (talk) 13:12, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

There will be a good home for most of this information at British Islands, which currently lacks an infobox. --Red King (talk) 16:08, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Not against it, but I think the infobox needs some ways of indicating what countries/states are inside it's area. The way it currently is is overkill and I see the point for removing it. Unfortunately on Infobox Islands this is the only way of displaying the constituent countries. Maybe we need to use a different infobox. Continents does it well but not an appropriate infobox for this purpose, and I don't see any other geographic infobox that would be appropriate or useful. Perhaps we need a specific infobox. Canterbury Tail talk 13:29, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Suggestions anyone? There must be some geography or geology infobox somewhere as it would be a pain to reinvent the wheel. If all else fails, there is no obligation to complete every option in the infobox. --Red King (talk) 16:08, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Looking at South America, template:Continent looks good enough to me. It's not perfect but is pretty close. What essential information would be less easy to find? --Red King (talk) 16:17, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

(Scrubbed my replies above for the moment. Best to determine first if there is a consensus that change is needed, and only then start work on how to make it happen). --Red King (talk) 19:25, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

But there isn’t an Administration section to delete! Roxy, the dog. wooF 15:31, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

(Above comment was written before the title of this section was changed to clarify that it refers to the infobox, not the article. My blind spot. --Red King (talk) 16:11, 29 October 2019 (UTC))

There is, in the infobox. Given that the purpose of an infobox is "to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article" - and that there is, rightly, no Administration section in the text (though it is covered, to some extent, in the section headed "Politics") - it should be removed from the infobox. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:59, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

See Hispaniola, Borneo, Ireland, Saint Martin, New Guinea and no doubt others. What's so special about the British Isles and its article in this respect? 5.81.164.76 (talk) 20:58, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

What is different about those articles is that they combine physical and political geography. This article is only defensible for as long as it sticks exclusively to physical geography: it is soundly sourced on that basis. There are plenty of other articles for the politics. --Red King (talk) 10:51, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Fair point. Especially with Ireland on that list. Canterbury Tail talk 21:09, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. BTW, could someone reverse this out-of-policy edit at Ireland: [3] 5.81.164.76 (talk) 21:18, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Please make any requests for a page edit on that article's talk page, it would be inappropriate to do so here. Canterbury Tail talk 21:21, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks. 5.81.164.76 (talk) 21:24, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

The infobox is unbalanced. Unless there is a simple and very short way to incorporate the main admin/govt entities then we should leave them out. Better that than to use a template that invites certain editors to add all sorts of detail that has no bearing at all to the geography of the island group. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:36, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

To include them in any way whatever takes us back into the political geography tar-pit. --Red King (talk) 10:51, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Agree with leaving them out if we can't just list them concisely. We don't need to know the "capital and largest settlement" of Guernsey, for example, as long as Guernsey is listed. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:30, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

All the islands listed by 5.81.164.76 are divided between two or at most three administrations. The British Isles are different because, as well as the two sovereign states, there are several small dependencies which are needed for completeness, but which unbalance the infobox as a whole. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:38, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

And, as I've said above, those articles include political and economic geography as well as physical: by design this one does not. --Red King (talk) 10:51, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes it does. There's a Politics section in the article. As for the division of the listed islands, in the Borneo article there are some small territories listed as well, one of which of is Channel Islands dimensions. I cannot see how the current InfoBox is "unbalanced". It's there to convey useful information, which it does. It's obvious that political, administrative and related information is relevant to an article like British Isles, as it is the other islands and territories. Why should this material be removed? 5.81.164.76 (talk) 11:53, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Minimally. The perennial problem with this article is that editors come in good faith to delete Ireland because [most of] it is not a British island. It is possible to reject those edits on the basis that the article is primarily about the physical geography of the islands, that there are plenty of other articles about the political and economic geography. The proposal is not so much to remove the political material as to relocate it to where it more properly belongs: at British Islands (and Ireland, where it already exists. There are "see also"s in this article to that information.

Your challenge is essentially one that opposes the principal guiding principle of this article, that the politics are incidental and should be as low key as possible. If you want to do that, best start a new subsection to see if you can get consensus. --Red King (talk) 17:23, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Just delete the whole infobox

• I Propose we delete the ifnobox from this article. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 23:45, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
• Retain the infobox. I get you don't like them, and this one isn't perfect, but in general they're useful and seem to have widespread support. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:30, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
• Retain the infobox -----Snowded ^TALK 10:53, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
• Retain the current infobox. No changes. 5.81.164.76 (talk) 11:53, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
• Retain infobox with polities removed, per discussion above. Infoboxes are useful to give an 'at a glance' list of essential data on the subject. --Red King (talk) 17:40, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
• Retain dont see anything wrong with it, we shouldnt remove stuff just because some people dont like it. MilborneOne (talk) 18:24, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I note that a retainer above say's that these boxes are useful. What for? the info should be in the article anyway, it's only there for people who dont have a proper computer. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 18:33, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

• Delete Unless we reduce the size considerably, and remove off-topic and minor detail, which seems impossible, better to have nothing. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:34, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
• Neutral - If we keep the infobox, then delete the administration info. This is a geography based article. GoodDay (talk) 23:43, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't matter that it's a geography article. Have a look at the comparable articles I listed above. 5.81.164.76 (talk) 00:19, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

• Retain But use a simplified version without political details. Although human geography should remain. Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:42, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Sample infobox without the admin information

I have inserted a version of the standard island infobox above with no polities, so that we can see what we might be talking about. --Red King (talk) 11:08, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

It's an improvement, vastly, but we could do better. There is no requirement in policy for an ifnobox. See above. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 11:37, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Remove the administration bit, indeed. GoodDay (talk) 23:45, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Despite the CI being included, by custom it seems, they are not geographically part of the BIs. (Geographically Calais has a greater claim to inclusion.) Their insertion, even if accepted by us, causes an imbalance greater than their relative size. What possible justification do we have for allowing Auregnais, or in fact any languages, to take up any infobox space? This is the inevitable problem with this template in the hands of eager button pushing editors. Why not create a new template specific to these islands? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 04:23, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Sounds sensible to me. Language takes us into human geography which is heavily entangled with the issues of identity and nationality that make this article disputed so often. Could you create a sandbox template along those lines? I don't see a consensus for no infobox but there seems to be a good consensus for a much reduced one. (In each case, only one editor opposed). So the question now is 'reduced by how much'? --Red King (talk) 16:26, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Not wedded to languages, but we shouldn't be excluding human geography because it might be linked to politics. It was the identity of the tribes that inhabited these islands that led to the name in the first place. Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:45, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Conclusion

Recognising the words of Mandy Rice Davies, "well he would, wouldn't he", but I conclude from the discussions above that there is a consensus (a) that the article should have an infobox; (b) that information relating to polities should not be included; (c) a new infobox template would be nice to stop repopulation but is not essential.

I shall therefore WP:BEBOLD and replace the infobox currently in the article with the one above. --Red King (talk) 23:04, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

The original infobox, excepting only the information relating to the Republic of Ireland, is to be found at British Islands. --Red King (talk) 23:08, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Consensus? Not really. 31.52.161.147 (talk) 23:53, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

To have that list of languages in the infobox is, to put it mildly, quite bemusing. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 00:49, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Consensus: There was just one editor who favoured deleting the infobox outright: that equals broad consensus by our usual standards. There was just one editor who opposed removal of the political section: that also equals broad consensus by our usual standards. There was no obvious consensus on the languages, so I let them stand. Roger 8 Roger, feel free to open a new discussion if you think that the discussion above didn't really address it adequately. --Red King (talk) 21:50, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

There are four editors whose assumed preference is 'do nothing': Batsun, Snowded, me (5.81 and 31.52) and MilborneOne. Apart from me, these editors simply stated that the InfoBox should be retained, or words to that effect. To use the fact that these editors didn't explicitly object to removing the political material, as justification for doing just that, is stretching it a little. Maybe the aforementioned editors are happy with the removal, maybe they aren't; it's unclear. 5.81.164.70 (talk) 10:49, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Let's try again:

Keep or Remove political information from the InfoBox

• Keep 5.81.164.70 (talk) 10:49, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete as this is a geography article. GoodDay (talk) 00:37, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
• Keep the basic administrative information - that is, the existence of several polities, with an indication of their sizes. This is much more fundamental information than, for example, a list of languages that includes several that are, at best, of local interest only. Note: this question relates to administrative information - the term "political information" could be easily misunderstood. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:43, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete because the article is defensible against political challenge provided it sticks to physical geography and keeps out of political and economic geography. Additionally because the extent of the administrative information is wildly disproportionate: Sark has a smaller population than an average town in Great Britain or Ireland but still gets the same precedence as England. (I agree that the languages section is off the scale too but that needs a separate discussion), --Red King (talk) 13:16, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

References

Diagram

Subdivisions of the British Isles
See also diagrammatic version

This diagram which featuers in the article should be removed. It is 1. – poorly laid out, and 2. (more importantly) it is inaccurate! Great Britain does not include ANY of the islands within the red circle EXCEPT for the island of Great Britain. This means it excludes Anglesey, Isle of Man, Isle of White, and so on. I see no reason to keep it. – Dyolf87 (talk) 00:11, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Anglesea not in Great Britain? Really? -----Snowded ^TALK 00:21, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Anglesey (check your spelling) is an island of the British Isles and is a part of Wales and the UK, but Great Britain is a single island - the mainland. Therefore, no island off the mainland is a part of Great Britain, Anglesey included. It is a geographical, not political, location. – Dyolf87 (talk) 00:25, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Spell-checker! I could change it to Môn if that would make you happy]. Give me a reference which excludes it and supports your proposition and we can then look at it -----Snowded ^TALK 00:28, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Defnyddiwch Anglesey. Dydy hyn ddim yn Wicipedia Cymraeg. – Dyolf87 (talk) 00:34, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Does that mean Angelsey is not part of the Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Island? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 01:20, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

From the article on Great Britain: "Great Britain refers geographically to the island of Great Britain. It is also often used to refer politically to the whole of England, Scotland and Wales, including their smaller off shore islands.[27] While it is sometimes used to refer to the whole of the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland, this is not correct.[28][29] Similarly, Britain can refer to either all islands in Great Britain, the largest island, or the political grouping of countries.[30] There is no clear distinction, even in government documents: the UK government yearbooks have used both Britain[31] and United Kingdom.[32]" All sourced, as you can see. No need to change this. Wiki-Ed (talk) 09:45, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

The term "Great Britain" has two meanings, which are slightly different from each other. (1) The combination of England, Scotland and Wales, including those smaller offshore islands (Anglesey, Shetland, Wight, etc.) that are part of those three countries. (2) The large island itself as a geographical feature, which excludes those offshore islands. As most of the other definitions used here are administrative or political, rather than referring to physical geography, the diagram should use the first definition - which it does. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:47, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Ireland in the infobox

Is it not appropriate to use the official name of the country in the infobox, specifically in the section listing states, rather than the description? The question of confusion between the island and the state isn't going to arise in that case. Ping Canterbury Tail, Snowded. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:19, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Perfectly willing to discuss. I'm not so convinced its that clear. Even the first line of the article references Ireland as the island not a state, when the infobox mentions it as a state and is talking about a different area. Don't underestimate how confusing the entire Ireland/Northern Ireland/Republic of Ireland/British Isles/Britain/etc situation is to people who are not from Ireland. Even though I don't live in the isles anymore I'm constantly trying to explain the differences to people. It's pretty common that the majority of the world has no idea there even is any difference and it causes a lot of confusion. Any means we have of reducing that confusion should be taken. I know WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a good one, but the island article lists RoI and NI, not Ireland and NI. That being said it's just a singular item and the rest of the article avoids the confusion. I've no idea if this would actually cause confusion, since perfectly aware of the situations, so I cannot fully put myself in someone else's shoes here, and it is linked correctly. Canterbury Tail talk 11:42, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

It is two countries in one geography. The resolution was to use Republic of Ireland not Ireland for the state (I disagreed with that) but it was so resolved so we should stick with it. -----Snowded ^TALK 11:57, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

That was for the article on the state. The guidance from IMOS is what should apply in this instance - it can be found at WP:IRE-IRL. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:08, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Since this is a geography article. I'd have no objections to removing the two countries from the infobox. GoodDay (talk) 20:25, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

I think it is slightly confusing as it is now because it uses geographical terms and political terms together in the same infobox. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:33, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

We should delete the entire Administration section & all its content. GoodDay (talk) 20:36, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

The correct and universally acceptable name for these islands is Great Britain and Ireland OR The UK and Ireland. There is no confusion in this case. The insistence by some anglo-centricists on using the archaic colonial term 'The British Isles' is all that creates confusion. Ireland can not be called British in any way, any more than Poland and France can be called parts of Greater Germany. It is just as offensive to Irish people. The term is not used the by British and Irish governments for good reason. Do we have a peace process or not? If so, then call your neighbour by their correct name and show some respect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JAMurph (talk • contribs) 12:55, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

This is a geography article -----Snowded ^TALK 13:04, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

And your claim that the Irish and British governments don't use it has been proven wrong on multiple occasions. Canterbury Tail talk 13:05, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

And what about all the smaller islands in the group that are not part of Great Britain or Ireland? Mtpaley (talk) 15:47, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

The UK is a state, not an island. Plenty of Irish people use the perfectly fine "British Isles" geographical term, and they're not West Brits either. Don't presume to speak for the Irish. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 20:35, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Irish Demographics Map

The map under the heading 'Demographics' has chosen completely arbitrary regions by which to divide Ireland, with some counties which contain cities being grouped in with comparatively less populated counties (e.g. Cork and Kerry), meanwhile, Northen Ireland has a region of just Belfast city, whereas all of Dublin County is counted as one area, as opposed to separating the city. I can't speak on the division of Great Britain etc. as I'm unfamiliar with its various counties. Should this map be changed to more accurately show Irish population density? Xx78900 (talk) 13:58, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Protection

Should we just semi protect this page? Almost every edit is just the same old vandalism and disruptive editing. Canterbury Tail talk 00:57, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

IIRC aren't you an administrator... so yes please. Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:00, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but I was interested in people'e opinion rather than just going for it. We have a lot of eyes on the article so disruption doesn't last long. Canterbury Tail talk 20:25, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Oppose protection. The recent IP has rightly been blocked, and I don't think the pattern of vandalism justifies protection. It will simply be interpreted as an established coterie of editors seeking to maintain the status quo. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:53, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Order of languages

Someone just moved the language list from alphabetic order to some mixed order, with no explanation. Surely it should be either alphabetic order or order of speaker count (which would be English, Welsh, Irish, Scots Gaelic, Shelta, Scots - hardly spoken, with Manx and Cornish having died and just about been revived, or something like that)? 51.171.243.35 (talk) 00:09, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

French as a native language?

French is not a native language of anywhere in the British isles. The high rate of some level of french literacy does not make the language native to the islands.

I agree, it could perhaps be a reach for Breton, spoken in Brittany, but being Celtic doesn't make it part of the British Isles? Xx78900 (talk) 13:59, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

French is a native language of the Channel Islands, part of the archipelago Tumericiangovernment (talk) 20:38, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Name dispute

Would the paragraph in the lead not be better suited to be under 'Etymology' (or a revised section incorporating the etymology and a summary of the modern dispute of the name) rather than in the lead, since it is not directly related to the topic of the article, which is geography of the archipelago, not the name. There could be a footnote attached to the name in the lead that highlights its controversy and links to the relevant article? Tumericiangovernment (talk) 20:53, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

While normally I'd agree, and we have a separate article completely for that, however that would indeed prove to be controversial. Having it where it is was the result of a lot of back and forth to reach a consensus. I think it's okay in this instance to mention it at the end of the lead as, while it's not what the article is about, it is mentioned and there would be an expectation of its mention. Canterbury Tail talk 22:09, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 April 2021

Ireland is not to be considered part of the British Isles. It is highly offensive and as a so-called geographical area which was only created after the oppressive and genocidal invasion of Ireland by the English. Please remove Ireland out of this list. 176.61.30.92 (talk) 18:56, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Look at the discussion above, and gain consensus for this change before opening an edit request. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:02, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 May 2021

The Republic of Ireland is not British. It is a sovereign nation and this article promotes the incorrect assumption that Ireland is a part of Britain. I request that the name "British Isles" be converted to "British and Irish Isles" or "British Isles and Ireland" or "British Isles and the Republic of Ireland" wherever it appears through the article. 2001:BB6:43D8:6558:C951:C607:E80E:3B0F (talk) 12:44, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 12:52, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

or Britain and Ireland

Given that Britain and Ireland is used instead of term British Isles in Ireland and that the term British Isles is controversial in Ireland, can I suggest putting "or Britain and Ireland" in the first sentence? This would follow the same convention as "Continental or mainland Europe" in that page. I'd like to wait for feedback here to avoid potential disruptive editing. Ballystrahan (talk) 16:48, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

No thanks. -Roxy the effin dog . wooF 16:50, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Britain and Ireland is usually used to refer to the governments rather than the geographic islands. Canterbury Tail talk 17:17, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

According to Maynooth University's Dept of Geography: insisting that British Isles is a geographic rather than political term claims an unwarranted innocence. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 16:32, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi Canterbury Tail, I agree. However, your point is not incompatible with my point. It is commonly used in the UK but not in Ireland and the UK is bigger than Ireland so it is almost certainly more frequently used. However, the term Britain and Ireland is instead mostly used in Ireland and should be taken into account. My suggestion would be consistent with the rest of this article and would make this article more consistent with the British Isles naming dispute article. However, if you feel unconvinced about my reasoning, I am happy to leave it at that. Cheers, --Ballystrahan (talk) 21:57, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm afraid they are incompatible. As Canterbury Tail says, 'Britain and Ireland' is political terminology. Britain is either shorthand for the island of Great Britain only, which would then exclude all the other islands that this article refers to, or it is shorthand for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in which case it is a political term which excludes the Crown Dependencies. The Euler diagram illustrates the complexity. Wiki-Ed (talk) 10:45, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, I see what you mean. Thank you for the clarification. While I find the current term unsatisfactory, the alternative that I am proposing would also be unsatisfactory to others! Ballystrahan (talk) 10:16, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

'Britain and Ireland' is an invalid name since this article includes the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man which are part of neither. British Isles is the most commonly accepted (and really only accepted apart from "these isles") name for the grouping comprising these five jurisdictions. Tumericiangovernment (talk) 20:41, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Firstly, thanks to my English master, Canterbury Tail, for allowing me to talk again. At His suggestion, I have read the above talk. Having done so, I and any reasonable reader must conclude that the entire exchange is a concoction designed to create the impression that the Paddies have received a fair hearing. Canterbury Tail, your lack of affection for my country has been noted previously. So, in order to save you the trouble of locking this Paddy out, I will edit British Isles errors without logging in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lordlugus (talk • contribs) 22:09, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Oh I ain't English, and I actually find the claim that I am rather insulting for the same reason you would. Canterbury Tail talk 00:35, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

You aint British either.
Canadian? Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 12:22, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I am many things. Who says I ain't British? Canterbury Tail talk 12:52, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, but the continued use of the colonial term 'British Isles' by Britons and there being no reference to the anachronistic nature of the term on this page MUST be addressed. Ireland is not and never has been 'British'. 'Britain and Ireland' covers the geography and 'UK and Ireland' covers the politics. Reference https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Isles_naming_dispute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A PhD in History (talk • contribs) 11:04, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

This question is addressed in the fourth paragraph of the lead. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:42, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Why is mention of the dispute relegated to the fourth paragraph? That's a lot of prose to wade through before any inkling that the term is considered offensive or controversial among the majority of the inhabitants of one of the two major islands of the archipelago Cros13 (talk) 23:52, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

90% of 40 pages of talk archive and the edits of the oldest revisions of this article being related to the dispute, a well sourced article on the dispute itself at British_Isles_naming_dispute and the end result is an article that can't even acknowledge the existence of a controversy in the first 500+ words and three paragraphs. Something is seriously wrong here Cros13 (talk) 00:17, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Presumably you didn't read any of those 40 pages or you'd know that we've followed the Manual of Style closely: The lead "should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." Which is what we've done, in that order. You may think that the controversy is the most important thing, other disagree and wouldn't have it mentioned in the introduction at all. We've found a compromise. Wiki-Ed (talk) 12:08, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

If so, it's a prime example of the manual of style failing the reader. If those are the objectives, the lead simply has too much verbiage. The MoS itself says the lead "should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic" and compose of "an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents". Frankly the middle two paragraphs in the lead are full of detail about geology and history that belongs under their respective sections and not in the lead. I'm struggling to see what purpose it serves beyond burying mention of the controversy nearly 600 words down the lead. Cros13 (talk) 20:16, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry but if you think that information about the geography of the area (for a geographic term) and then talk of the people and history that live there are not important for the subject, then I have a hard time believing you're debating in good faith. The modern minor controversy being mentioned at all in the lead is already plenty of weight, but it definitely does not deserve to be above information about the geography, people and history of the lands that the article is covering. Canterbury Tail talk 20:36, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Hardly a "minor" controversy. And whether this is a geographic or political term is at the heart of the dispute. Thanks for inserting your opinion that I'm being disingenuous. That's very helpful to the discussion, particularly from an admin. Cros13 (talk) 21:15, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

We should always remember that this is not something that wikipedia gets to decide regardless of the rights or wrongs. Wikipedia needs to show the impartisan global view on this topic like all others. On what that view is I will leave for further debate but always remember that we do not get to make statement - just a description. Mtpaley (talk) 22:11, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Just a thought... Would anyone think it might be preferable, instead of having the fourth paragraph in the lead, having it instead as a WP:FOOTNOTE linked from the opening sentence? Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:07, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Would making it a footnote give it less prominence (or be perceived to) than it deserves? Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:17, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

It would be an explanatory footnote - Help:Explanatory notes - which I think is what is required here. The arguments about the name are important, but they are not directly relevant to the content of the article, which is about the geography of the islands. It's an alternative approach to the current structure, which may perhaps help address the issue of whether the nomenclature question is sufficiently important to be mentioned in the opening paragraph. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:06, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the concept of separating mention of the dispute from the content, I don't think that there's any reasonable objection to (as is currently the case) the content of this article being focused on the use of British Isles as a geographic term. The detail of the dispute is well covered at British Isles naming dispute and the current text of the fourth paragraph of the lead covers the issue sufficiently. I just feel that one of the key points a reader should encounter pretty early on is that the term is controversial to a not insubstantial group of people living on that archipelago. Some may choose to go down the rabbit hole to the page on the dispute, and most will read the first few lines of the lead and then hit the index for demographics or history or whatever their specific interest is. Cros13 (talk) 01:29, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

In 2012, the members of Botanical Society of the British Isles voted to be renamed as the Botanical Society of Britain & Ireland in recognition of "the important contribution that our Irish members make to the society".(Name_change_press_release, 1 October 2013). Is there actually any dispute? JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 14:17, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes. The term is widely used around the world, but some find its use contentious. Hence, there is a "dispute" or controversy, which has been addressed in multiple past discussions and in several separate articles as noted at the top of this page. Very obviously, you know that. The position taken by one (fairly minor) organisation eight years ago represents a very small part of the debate not deserving of specific mention. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:31, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Are there any groups in the United Kingdom complaining about the name Irish Sea, btw? GoodDay (talk) 14:36, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

No, I think they are complaining about the Irish Sea border but see below. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 14:55, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

The Gender Fluid Dogs Of North East England, (GFDONEE), think it should be called the British Sea. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 14:42, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

There is a precedent for patriotic renaming in that the German Sea was renamed during WWI. I'm a cismale squirrel btw. Ironically the Spanish indefinite article for many masculine animals is actually feminine JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 14:55, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

And should that happen, it would be addressed in the article. Until then, though, all of the comments post Ghmyrtle's are falling foul of WP:NOTFORUM. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:29, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia BSBI is the largest organisation devoted to botany in Britain and Ireland. The academic publisher Boydell & Brewer have been known to discourage overuse of the term (The Early Medieval ‘British Isles’) and Prof. Howard M. R. Williams states ‘Britain and Ireland’ and ‘British Isles’ both have loaded political connotations within modern nationalist political discourse. Michael F. Fay chose to use 'scare quotes' (Ref); as did Professor Gerard Carruthers. Francis Hutcheson Chair of Scottish Literature (Ref). Dispute is too strong; Discourse about right. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 15:32, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/British Isles/archive1

• To do list.
• Some how split out of Reference section into seperate Notes section JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 17:52, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Attribution: content in this article was copied from St Kilda, Scotland on d July 2021. Please see the history of that page for full attribution

Botanical Society of the British Isles

In 2012, the members of Botanical Society of the British Isles voted to be renamed as the Botanical Society of Britain & Ireland in recognition of "the important contribution that our Irish members make to the society".(BSBI Name change press release, 1 October 2013) JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 19:19, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

That is not what the source says. In 2012, they voted to be renamed but the source does not explain why they did that. The source says: "BSBI members voted last year to adopt the name Botanical Society of Britain & Ireland. Ian said: “This also flags up the important contribution that our Irish members make to the society”." (my emphasis). We do not know that the two things were connected - that is simply your interpretation. Please stop making things up to suit your own, quite obvious, agenda. And, the BSBI is, in the overall scheme of things, a minor organisation of no great significance. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:36, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

OK so you are invoking Exceptional claims require exceptional sources? JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 19:40, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

I've looked at your words several times and have no idea what you are trying to say. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:43, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

I do not believe it is an exceptional claim, We know they are connected because it is after all the Name change press release (Name_change_press_release_01_10_2013_LM_JH-3) I am trying to say In 2012, the members of Botanical Society of the British Isles voted to be renamed as the Botanical Society of Britain & Ireland in recognition of "the important contribution that our Irish members make to the society" JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 19:47, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

There is no evidence that the name change was "in recognition" of anything. The name change could have been for any number of reasons - we don't know. The reference to the important contributions of Irish members could have been entirely unrelated. You are guessing they were connected, but guessing is not allowed. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:54, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

In 2012, the members of Botanical Society of the British Isles voted to be renamed as the Botanical Society of Britain & Ireland flagging "the important contribution that our Irish members make to the society"? JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 19:56, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

That makes even less sense. You are still linking two statements, without having any reliable source for doing so. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:07, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

No they linked them by including them in the same press release JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 20:11, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

That is simply your interpretation - not good enough. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:24, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

What is not good enough? JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 20:28, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

You are making assumptions, rather than following what the source actually says. Not good enough. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:39, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

How would you amend it? The biggest change to anyone outside BSBI has been a change to our name from the Botanical Society of the British Isles to the Botanical Society of Britain and Ireland – a subtle change but an important one that reflects our geographic coverage in a more appropriate way? JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 20:44, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

I would remove any mention of it. The BSBI is not of sufficient stature to merit any mention at all in this article, other than possibly as an example of an organisation that has changed its name. "More appropriate" is very vague reasoning. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:26, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Ain't saying so, but. If there's some kinda anti-British Isles agenda thing going on here? That could end bad. We've already had (and still have) a few editors banned from the topic British Isles. GoodDay (talk) 20:04, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm not banned. I live in the British Isles, I quite like them. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 20:10, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Take care that you don't end up banned. This topic can easily stir up emotions. GoodDay (talk)

ty JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 20:22, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

British Isles#History

This section has been Unreferenced section since January 2011. If no one can be arsed to improve it, it should be deleted. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 19:29, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

It's probably not referenced because it's simply a summary of the main article linked in the section which is well referenced on all those points. Canterbury Tail talk 20:53, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

"Unsourced material may be challenged and removed". What part of the text are you challenging as inaccurate? Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:10, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I am challenging this as unsourced. While working on my taraxacology I noted BSBI Handbook number 9, Dandelions of the British Isles (Dudman & Richards 1997) has been renamed Dandelions of Great Britain and Ireland. The Botanical Society of the British Isles itself was renamed in 2013 as the Botanical Society of Britain and Ireland, a fact I would expect this article to mention. You guys were "probably" (ie I can't be arsed to check) involved with this article in 2013 and possibly as far back as when the boiler plate was added. I don't see much improvement in this article- no mention of the Irish Sea border. Do you not think it is time to step up or step back? JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 09:32, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

As stated at the top of this talk page, there is a dedicated talk page on the nomenclature issue at Talk:British Isles/name debate, and there are separate articles at British Isles naming dispute and Terminology of the British Isles. It's disappointing that you "can't be arsed to check" the history of this article, or indeed improve the referencing yourself. But, I agree that it would be appropriate to mention the Irish Sea border issue, briefly, under the Politics section of this article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:59, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

The Revision of 20:40, 15 July 2006 is preferable being a list. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 13:25, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

??? Canterbury Tail talk 13:56, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

The section had been unreferenced section since January 2011. The reference point above is at exactly 1,000 edits so should be easy to locate for all. By 2 000 edits The History section actually had references! JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 14:33, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

I repeat - which aspects of the text - the content of the text - are you challenging? And why? As another editor said, it is a summary of another - sourced - article, linked to it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:48, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

The unreferenced content. The other editor said probably. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 14:54, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

You misunderstand me. What aspects of the (allegedly) unreferenced content are you challenging? Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:04, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

If I am misunderstanding it is not apparant to me. The unreferenced content - that part of the section that is unreferenced. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 15:15, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

JorgeLaArdilla, The question Ghmyrtle is trying to ask, is , simply, what statement in the article are you claiming is untrue? IdreamofJeanie (talk) 15:29, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

I am not claiming it is untrue, I am claiming it is unreferenced. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 15:31, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

We know that. But, before removing it, you need to challenge its accuracy, not simply state that it is unreferenced. And, you are edit-warring (as you have been told). Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:34, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia describes multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context rather than as "the truth" (WP:5 Pillars). The references determine the accuracy. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 15:56, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes. So? And if you believe that the Isle of Man and Orkney are parts of Ireland, your contributions are conspicuously detracting from human knowledge, rather than adding to it. Would it not be simpler to retain the old text and add some references yourself? They clearly exist, the facts are uncontentious, and everyone would be grateful if you added a few. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:41, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

I am not opposing the addition of references. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 19:08, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

So... just do it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:30, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

The onus is on the editor who adds content. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 19:48, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Obv, but that clearly hasn't happened and it's quite likely that none of those who added most of the content are still around. So, Plan B is for the only editor who objects to it to do the work themselves, instead of simply removing information that is (A) accurate and (B) useful to readers - who are the people that we (you) are supposed to be here to help. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:40, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Presumably Plan A is WP:5P: "All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources, especially when the topic is controversial" JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 21:02, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Indeed they should. But you have still not identified what is controversial about that section? Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:09, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

It states "especially when", not "only when". JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 21:15, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

You really should try to get a consensus for whatever it is, you're attempting to do. GoodDay (talk) 10:50, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus" JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 11:17, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

If you continue on your current course of action, it may lead to your getting a block for edit-warring. Recommend you get a consensus here, before you attempt any more huge content deletions. GoodDay (talk) 11:22, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

The Consensus is WP:5 Pillars and my edits are in accordance with that. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 11:27, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

@Johnbod: I notice your involvement at Alfred_Jewel. Do you have any easy references to hand? JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 12:55, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

• Saw the edit war and looked at the content. In the one area I do know a moderate amount about (Welsh history), the summary is "the Principality of Wales ... was slowly being annexed into the Kingdom of England by a series of laws" – err... nope? My best guess is someone got confused with Henry VIII's Laws in Wales Acts 1535 and 1542, because the conquest of Wales turned into a stalemate of back-and-forth warring until one major military campaign cleaned up, and the legal annexation came much later and relatively quickly. Basically, almost everything about that statement is very wrong. And that's the only bit I know enough about to call out without resorting to secondary sources. It doesn't fill me with confidence about the rest, which looks an equally sketchy summary written by a non-expert who was summarising without referring to secondary sources. I'm happy to add this to the long list of things I want rewrite, but I can't promise I'll get round to it soon since I'd need to do a lot of reading to make sure all the important bits get appropriately summarised. In the meantime, I'd be supportive of nuking it down to just a {{main article}} link to avoid the risk of factual inaccuracies like the one I pointed out. Alternatively, is there a similar article we can pinch a historical summary from? Jr8825 • Talk 00:19, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

References

I tend to agree - looking at the actual content this section and the History of the British Isles, the claims that the section is a summary of that article don't really ring true - and although the article itself has some references, there are several unreferenced sections in there. So a thorough review of both seems in order. However I don't support just removing stuff because it needs to be updated/checked - it's already tagged for maintenance and that's sufficient for readers to know to be slightly wary of the information presented while we work - together - to verify the content and provide references as appropriate. WaggersTALK 12:30, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Inclusion of French in the list of languages

There is a little back-and-forth on this. I removed it (and I was not not the first editor to do so) from the infobox, as at that time, it was not in the body text, and, more importantly, over many years, it has been my experience that foreign languages are only mentioned in infobox (or lede) if they are overwhelmingly present, or have special status. Otherwise the UK, for example, would have Polish (>500k native speakers, far more than French), as well as Urdu, Bengali, Punjabi, Arabic, (some of the latter four also appear to have more native / regular speakers than French), plus French, German, Dutch, and many other languages, listed (none are, though Cornish, which wholly died, and has been part-recovered, with <0.01% speakers, is), Sweden would have Arabic among others (it does not, though that language has far more speakers than some of the old native tongues which are mentioned), Germany would have Turkish (millions of home users), etc. This issue was also discussed for Ireland some months back, and it was decided to stick with only local languages - there was an interesting debate about local sign languages and cants. Anyway, a mention was then added that French is spoken by some in the Channel Islands, and another editor countered that that is Norman, not modern French. So, best place to settle this, calmly, is here.

It goes without saying that if it is included anywhere, this requires referencing. Coming back to this, there are at least two other points / questions, if the basis for including French is a claim of usage in the Channel Islands:

* It is not clear that the Channel Islands are part of the British Isles at all (some geography texts say they are not, as they are physically part of the mainland continental structure, not the GB/Ireland archipelago - which does include the Isle of Man, Orkneys, etc.)

* We'd need solid evidence that French is used as a native language - not the local dialects (three surviving) descended from Norman - and this, on a quick search, I did not find. SeoR (talk) 07:30, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Well, I have worked there, and on the first, the Channel Islands are NOT part of the British Isles, but are part of the British Islands, and there's a law which covers this, an Interpretation Act. On the second, it is not, here's one recent summary:

> English is the language you will hear most of the time in Jersey, but many of the inhabitants can speak Jèrriais, a descended form of Norman (a separate Latin-derived language close to French). In Guernsey, Guernésiais, also a modern version of Norman, is actually widely spoken. There were at least two other Norman-linked languages in the past.

> French has some official recognition in Jersey, which is odd, as it is not much in use, but may be a diplomatic thing, or a nod to the many Jersey folk who are of close French ancestry.

195.91.214.78 (talk) 08:24, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

So, the two points above appeared near-contradictary but on checking the French point (gathered at Jersey Legal French), all is actually pretty clear, and it is not recently in use by people at large, indeed:

Jersey Legal French, also known as Jersey French (French: français de Jersey), was [emphasis added] the official dialect of French used administratively in Jersey. Since the anglicisation of the island, it survives as a written language for some laws, contracts, and other documents. ... the current use of French in the States of Jersey is generally restricted to certain limited official state functions and formalities (prayers, ceremonies, formulæ). By common custom and usage, the sole official language of Jersey in present times is the English language.

SeoR (talk) 09:12, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

The Interperation Act of 1978 defines the term "British Islands" as including the Channel Islands but does not define the term "British Isles" at all, and certainly does not say that "the Channel Islands are NOT part of the British Isles" as claimed above. In fact the constitution of Guernsey says "Guernsey is a part of the British Isles but not the United Kingdom" and the Jersey government's "Facts about Jersey" web page says "Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man are part of the British Isles."

As a reminder, it is not our role as Wikipedians to decide what the facts are, but merely to report what reliable sources say about the subject. WaggersTALK 12:32, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

In the past I too have queried having the Channel Islands as part of the British Isles. That act and the other CI sources do not really help, Should we not be clear what this article is about, the geographical BIs or the political BIs? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:38, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

This isn't about availability of sources, it's about weighting. WP:N, not WP:V. What should we be telling readers? At the moment the article presents a number of languages as though they were commonly spoken in the British Isles. One of them has 4 native speakers, another has 57. Some have a few hundred. This is undue weight and misleading. If all of the listed languages were legally recognised or had some sort of privileged official status then maybe one could argue to retain them, but that's not the case. I'd suggest we either only list official languages or we list in descending order by number of speakers (with sources). Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:07, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't believe it should be either official languages or a descending list by number of speakers with, presumably, some arbitrary cut-off point. The defining feature surely is languages that originate in the British Isles, as English, Cornish, Welsh et al do, and as French and Polish and Gujarati do not. Captainllama (talk) 23:01, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

The infobox is a very, very, brief summary of the most important points made in the body. That means an awful lot of detail from the body is not included because it is impossivle to do so in one or two words without giving a false impression of what the body text says. Infoboxes are commonly misused and every now and then need a culling. This is one of those times. All that is needed, IMO, in the language section is English, probably Welsh, and possibly Scots Gaillic. Cornish - no: it is extinct and its revived version is not a community language. All those CI languages - no, the speakers are far too few, even if you include the CIs as part of the BIs. We should not forget that certain editors love lists and will rummage around to find the slightest excuse to add detail to a list, ignoring weighting, relevance, importance or even simple common sense. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 23:18, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree with both Captainllama as to the concept, and Roger 8 Roger on the need to keep it brief - I would indeed say English, Welsh, Irish and Gaidhlig. I am sympathetic to the other traditional languages, and all should be mentioned in the body text but indeed all can't reasonably go in the Infobox. And then a following paragraph could tackle the acquired languages. And another the massively present non-local languages. That leaves Shelta, Gammon, and other travelling people languages, etc. SeoR (talk) 08:00, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Demonym

I hesitate to ask, out of trepidation for opening another lengthy debate, but are there any demonyms widely used to refer collectively to inhabitants of the British Isles? Would that be another (distinct, yet potentially ambiguous) meaning of Briton/British (like Ireland can refer to an island or a country), or would it be British Islander (readily misunderstood as applying instead to the British Islands), or something else? Surprisingly there is nothing mentioned in either this article or Terminology of the British Isles.
At first one might think that there needn't be a demonym for the geographical region: that they are only needed for politically defined places. But we do have demonyms for the (geographical) continent of Africa, for instance. —DIV (194.193.139.240 (talk) 01:17, 11 January 2022 (UTC))
Support good-faith IP editors: insist that Wikipedia's administrators adhere to Wikipedia's own policies on keeping range-blocks as a last resort, with minimal breadth and duration, in order to reduce adverse collateral effects; support more precisely targeted restrictions such as protecting only articles themselves, not associated Talk pages, or presenting pages as semi-protected when viewed from designated IP ranges.

Having observed many of the outraged complaints about geography on this talkpage, it's an interesting question. However, compared to geography, I think it's pretty clear that common usage would indicate that "British" people inhabit the island of Britain, and "Irish" people live or originate from on the island of Ireland (don't read too much into my awkward semantics, it's a narrow needle to thread). This might break down for some in Northern Ireland (who might claim both), but I think it's clear that there's no widely used or accepted common demonym for the collective inhabitants of the British Isles in the English language. And given how sensitive the topic can be for geographic Ireland, I wouldn't blame anybody for being outraged if some common demonym was attempted to be applied. Language isn't consistent, and can be contradictory. I've never seen a scholarly discussion on the topic of that distinction in usage. Perhaps it provides some insight into why the geographical term can seem so loaded. Thank you for asking the question. Acroterion (talk) 01:37, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

And Manx people the Isle of Man, etc. And no, there is no generally used term, nor ever was. At one time, more than a century back, “British” was used to reference the subject status of people across the UK but even then it would not have been considered a “British Isles” term but a polity or imperial thing. As noted above, any attempt to apply some term now would cause outrage; the term for the islands itself causes outrage or concern for many but is in established usage. SeoR (talk) 07:02, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

The larger island is not 'Britain' it is Great Britain, because it's the greater (larger) of the two islands of the British Islands. Important distinction, considering the overwrought animosity to basic geographical names. It's also significant from a cultural and population perspective because Northern Ireland and the majority of its people, culturally and politically consider themselves British. it would be more accurate to say that the people of the Republic of Ireland, on the Island of Ireland, are considered to be Irish, while everywhere else in the British Isles is considered to be British. Metalmunki (talk) Metalmunki (talk) 13:44, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

It's also Great Britain to distinguish it from Lesser Britain. See both articles. Britain is an ambiguous term best avoided. Your other assertions about "British" and "Irish" suggest you are confused about physical terminologies and demonyms, and if in a article would require some hefty decent references to back them up. Bazza (talk) 14:02, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Using your own analogy, "European" seems to be the closest you'll get to cover both islands. (I stress that that is "European" in the geographical sense, not in the narrower political one. Bazza (talk) 11:13, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM reminder, folks... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:23, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 October 2022

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The name "British Isles" should not be listed as a fact as this is disputed and the more widely used name, outside of one country, is the "Atlantic Archipelago". This need to be changed and the use of British Isles is deeply offensive to the entire country of Ireland. 217.41.12.192 (talk) 21:19, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Do you have references to support A) that Atlantic Archipelago is the more common term (and not the meaning of it that is the Bahamas or any other island groups for which it is occasionally used) and B) it's deeply offensive to the entire country of Ireland despite the fact of its use inside the country by both academics and government? Canterbury Tail talk 21:42, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Do you have references to support A) the idea that "British Isles" is still the more common term when including Ireland? and B) ignoring the fact that there are more than enough references listed on this page to show that the term is controversial and not used in Ireland, do you have references to show otherwise? Bugfingers (talk) 06:35, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

The burden of proof is on those who want to change the status quo. Just because a term is controversial doesn't mean it should be changed. There is an extensive article about the controversy British Isles naming dispute. There a references there. Robynthehode (talk) 07:49, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree, though I think that views of what the status quo is in this situation differ. "British Isles" when including Ireland is in declining usage, which is why so many ip addresses end up here complaining. From the 'usage' section of British Isles in Collins: "The Irish government does not accept the term British Isles as it believes it implies political supremacy of Britain over Ireland. Many people in the Republic of Ireland (and in the Republican community in Northern Ireland) prefer to talk of Britain and Ireland or The United Kingdom and Ireland." I disagree that "Atlantic Archipelago" should be used, rather "Britain and Ireland" (https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/british-isles) Bugfingers (talk) 10:03, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:13, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rip the bandage off

As a US-based editor who came here from WP:NPOV/N to see how WP:NPOVNAME titles are handled in the lede, I found this a particularly bad example. Obviously endless war has left a scorched earth that resulted in what reads as a mealy-mouthed disclaimer at the end--talk about burying the lede! I think a more direct approach to the disputed name produces a much clearer article for the reader, which is what this Encyclopedia is supposed to be about. I've gone ahead and WP:BOLDly edited the first two sections to tackle the dispute up front, so the explanatory text can be moved down to the Etymology section.

Just to be clear, I'm not trying to re-open a RM discussion. I think there is a reasonable case to be made that the title passes WP:NPOVNAME, and we need to call it something, so the most widely used name is optimal; and I'm not advocating for or against that. But assuming that is true, then WP:NPOV still applies to the body text, including the lead-in to the names. By cowardly pushing the dispute off, it looks like Wikipedia is taking sides by minimizing it. Addressing it right up-front makes it clear to the reader (remember that's whose opinion actually matters) that we acknowledge the dispute so we are not picking a side.

I expect that this change may be auto-reverted by a virtual-bot, so to avoid that appearance, if you revert, you need to articulate an actionable objection here to move the process back to consensus. Dhaluza (talk) 23:09, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Respectfully disagree. The edit you made, which avoids using the term as much as possible until late in the lead, implies more strength to the dispute than this article contains. The dispute has its own article. By putting it so up front and ignoring using the term is not summarizing this article, but bring more attention to a topic that this article is not about.

The other problem with it is that your edit implied that the term British Isles is not used in the Republic of a Ireland which has been proven and shown on so many occasions to be incorrect. It’s even used by the government. The opposition to the term is more of a vocal minority than a term not used at all and objected to by all. Not dismissing their views, but it’s been shown it’s not that clear cut as a claim that it’s not used in the RoI. Canterbury Tail talk 23:36, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

What I got from the refs is that "British Isles" is not recognized by the RoI government, and they prefer "Britian and Ireland", but saying it is preferred there does not imply is it used exclusively. That sounds like more than a vocal minority objection. Dhaluza (talk) 00:17, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

It also really looks like a crusade to ensure that the term 'British Isles' is not known to be disputed. It ignores the heavy political weight the term has for one of the Islands that has been subjugated and oppressed by the terms namesake. Why is it the same editors again and again pushing for the controversy to be obscured? The term 'British Isles' itself is inherently pretty unimportant in the scheme of things so why is it so important to keep it as sacrosanct? When the entirety of the talk page and and entire separate article are focused on the controversy, why can't it be admitted that the controversy is actually a hugely important facet of the article and address that so the readers (more important than the editors) understand that Bringob (talk) 08:47, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

It isn't wikipedia's role to name things, but to report what things are named. We have no power to change the name, no matter how badly some people want to change it. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 09:00, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

The naming of the islands is according to the preponderance/vast majority of sources. There is controversy but this is clearly acknowledged in the lede with a link to the debate about the controversy. It is factually incorrect to state that the controversy is being obscured and this article does not need to repeat that which is shown in the accompanying article on the controversy. This article is about the islands (whatever they are called): the geography, the history, the culture etc. Presumably those advocating a change want the controversy to be disproportinately a much larger part of this article. No the controversy article is precisely there for this purpose - acknowledging the controversy and showing the debate in detail supported by reliable sources. Robynthehode (talk) 13:41, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I know that this is leaping into a fire pit but here is a suggestion. Lets consider being very explicit and strict on the geographical meaning of the name and moving everything else to linked articles. If it is rocks/lakes/climate/flora/fauna/area etc leave it here (British Isles), for countries/language/demographics etc create or link to different articles (UK/ROI/...). A explicit split like this would fend of many future edit wars and I think it would actually result in a better article. Just a partially thought out idea (where do demographics go?) but it might be a way forward. Comments? Mtpaley (talk) 19:34, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Ridiculous. You want to turn the article into a useless stub. What next, a proposal to delete it? Dimadick (talk) 20:27, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

No - just make the article explicitly about the islands and not who lives on them. These can go into links. Mtpaley (talk) 21:44, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

The name should be changed simply for the fact that it is incorrect. Ireland is not "British" and term "British Isles" when referring to Ireland is not only hurtful and damaging, but simply not correct geographicaly, culturaly, or politically. Bugfingers (talk) 10:45, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Does that mean people in Vancouver should live in C, not BC? It is incorrect only in your opinion which, on the article page, doesn't count. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 11:29, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

"Biritsh Columbia" is not a collective term. Bugfingers (talk) 11:41, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

If it's incorrect only in my opinion, then it wouldn't be a notable issue with its own article. This article should clearly and logically be renamed to "Britain and Ireland", or else written in the past tense. Bugfingers (talk) 12:00, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Apologies for multiple replies, but I think it's fair to say that the title of this article is incorrect by means of Fallacies of definition. Bugfingers (talk) 12:13, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Anyone who finds the term "hurtful and damaging" should raise their concerns with the people who produce atlases and geography textbooks, for instance, not us - we just report what others do. Using an adjective like British does not necessarily imply possession in any sense. Not all the Samoan Islands are in Samoa, for example. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:15, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I wrote "not only" hurtful and damaging. My main point was that the term "British Isles" is incorrect when refferring to Ireland. If the title isn't changed now, it will just be a matter of time. Bugfingers (talk) 12:54, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Stop wasting time complaining about the geographical term. It isn't our place to correct the geography, and the politics behind this discussion are not pertinant to the article. I'm pretty certain that this matter is covered in the political coverage we have. -Roxy the dog 14:05, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

"The Channel Islands, off the north coast of France, are sometimes taken to be part of the British Isles, even though they do not form part of the archipelago." It's not just about geography. Bugfingers (talk) 14:06, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I have corrected your indenting. My response to your response? So what! -Roxy the dog 14:09, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Wasting time complaining? Isn't that what talk pages are for? The term "British Isles" is incorrect and has no place in an encylopedia. It's not even used in any official way anywhere. This article needs to be written in the past tense, or merged with British Islands. Bugfingers (talk) 14:09, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Pleased learn to indent your posts correctly. I have corrected you again. Thanks. -Roxy the dog 14:13, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

No, talk pages are not for "wasting time complaining". You have made your opinions clear, but that is all they are - opinions. I suggest you read the article carefully, and especially note that whether you like it or not, the usage "British Isles" is widespread, more so than any other term that defines the same entity. If you'd like to continue expressing opinions, I'm sure Reddit, Twitter and various other social media platforms would welcome such contributions. Wikipedia is not the place for them. WaggersTALK 11:13, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. "Reddit, Twitter, and other various social media" have nothing to do with this encyclopedia. This issue is at once very minor and very important. The international reputation of Ireland's soveriegnty is under attack. The term "British Isles" perpetuates a culture of the supression of Irish identity. Changing the name of this Wiki article would further help illuminate that Ireland is in no way part of Britian, therefore properly educating the world. I disagree that "British Isles" is in widespread use, it was 20 years ago, but things change. I will reference this recent article from Pitchfork: https://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/gilla-band-most-normal/ which refers to the archipelago as the "British and Irish Isles", a much more common and politically neutral, as well as CORRECT, designation. My whole original post was not about opinion or feelings, but mainly that the title of this article is incorrect by definition and thus should be changed. Bugfingers (talk) 08:04, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Some more references that prove "British Isles" is no longer in widespread use:

• Geological History of Britain and Ireland, N. H. Woodcock, R. A. Strachan, First published:12 April 2012 Print ISBN:9781405193825 |Online ISBN:9781118274064 |DOI:10.1002/9781118274064
• Contextualizing Secession: Normative Studies in Comparative Perspective, Chapter 5, Britain and Ireland: Towards a Post-nationalist Archipelago, Richard Kearney https://doi.org/10.1093/0199258716.003.0005 Pages 97–111 Published: July 2003
• Complex politics or simple geography: Is Ireland part of the British Isles? Jounral.ie https://www.thejournal.ie/is-ireland-british-isles-northern-ireland-europe-islands-1140112-Oct2013/
• wikitravel.org, https://wikitravel.org/en/Britain_and_Ireland
• An Essay on the Rise and Progress of Geography in Great-Britain and Ireland. Illustrated With Specimens of our Oldest Maps, Richard Gough, 23 April 2018, EAN 9781385403433

• Ecologies of the Atlantic Archipelago, Sean Hewwit, Anna Pilz, Nineteenth-Century Contexts An Interdisciplinary Journal Volume 43, 2021 - Issue 3: Ecologies of the Atlantic Archipelago, Pages 259-271 | Published online: 29 Apr 2021, https://doi.org/10.1080/08905495.2021.1920348

Bugfingers (talk) 09:15, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

A non-academic reference to show that "British Isles" is in common use. Bazza (talk) 10:56, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

It is certainly still in use, but not when referring to the island of Ireland. That's the issue here. Bugfingers (talk) 12:26, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

This article is in no way an attack page, and makes it abundantly clear from the very second sentence that Ireland is a sovereign state. If you can find any statement in the article that even hints otherwise then it should of course be corrected.

Anecdotally, I do think the usage of the term "British Isles" to describe this island group is declining, but I've yet to see any conclusive evidence that it has declined to the point where any other collective term has overtaken it as the most common name.

If and when that happens, I fear the name will remain "controversial" with nationalists on both sides of the Irish Sea pushing their agenda, just as they do now. As a Wikipedian I seek to follow the WP:COMMONNAME policy and for now that means the name of the article is what it is. Whatever our personal opinions and backgrounds, our task is to put emotions and politics aside and contribute objectively and dispassionately.

Lists of references that do or don't use the term "British Isles" aren't really helpful. What we could really do with is an up to date set of reliable, peer-reviewed studies into the widespread usage of the various collective terms for the archipelago over time, but unfortunately as far as I'm aware such a thing does not exist. WaggersTALK 12:27, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the detalied response. I am not the first person to suggest that the name "British Isles" is and of itself an attack on Ireland's international reputation. The Irish government actively discourage and monitor its use. I also won't be the last Wikiepdian to give my two cents on the naming of this article, so this will likely be an ongoing issue until the editors here can agree that the name is indeed an issue. Of course wikipedians must report facts, but there is also an ethical duty. Given the weight of contention and recent sources referring to the archipelago as "Britain and Ireland", changing the name would make more sense than not. However, I respect your views here, and look forward to the day peer-reviewed studies confirm that the name is in declining usage thanks to our modern day propensity for being politically correct. Bugfingers (talk) 14:32, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

These Irish government claims always fascinate me. Yes there is a statement from a politician that this happens, however there is no evidence that they do. It’s not like what a politician says has ever been wrong. But since the term is indeed used inside the Irish government documents and reports, evidence suggests it’s just political talking points and not actually policy or process. Canterbury Tail talk 14:55, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for your reply. The 'claims' which you mention are indeed true. Burden of proof is on you there.

I've decided that as I'm not actually interested in this article, just the title, I've headed over to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:British_Isles/name_debate#Britain_and_Ireland,_simple.

to compile a list of sources that debunked the myth that "British Isles" is still common common usage. Bugfingers (talk) 15:55, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Here you go. https://www.google.com/search?q=%22British+Isles%22+site%3Agov.ie Now the burden of evidence that the Irish government does in fact monitor and discourage its use other than a politician or two saying it’s true is up for grabs. There actually doesn’t appear to be any reliable sources to indicate that they do do what a couple of ministers have claimed, which doesn’t actually matter that much as they are reliable sources. However the evidence that their own government does in fact use the term suggests that they are not entirely truthful. Canterbury Tail talk 17:58, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

That is just the search result page for "British Isles" on the Irish Government website. Many of those results contain the term "Ireland and the "British Isles". Bugfingers (talk) 20:17, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Actually if you look at the documents linked you’ll note the vast majority are using British Isles as it’s normal common definition. Canterbury Tail talk 20:55, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

But it is just a random list of all the instances of "British Isles" from the assetts of the Irish Government website, these include public comments and outdated texts. Also many, many, many repeat results. I'm not sure what kind of conspiratorial point you're trying to make, or if you're just trying to poke holes in one of my points to undermine the entire legitamcy of the naming dispute on political, academic, and cultural levels. An abundance of references for opposition to the term is already available here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Isles_naming_dispute

There's really no point in arguing about the legitmacy of the namng dispute, rather accept that it exists and that the term "British Isles" is falling out of common usage, and to decide when the appropriate time to change the name of this article is. Bugfingers (talk) 21:34, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Nobody denies that the name is "an issue". It is not our role as an encyclopaedia to reflect anything other than the world as it is. Currently the most used name for the archipelago is "the British Isles" and as much as we might not want that to be the case, that's what it is and that's all there is to it. Believe me, I'd love for the islands to have an inclusive, uncontroversial name too, but my opinion on the matter doesn't matter... and neither does yours. We have to leave our opinions and desires behind on this project. We're not here to change the world, just to write about it. WaggersTALK 14:57, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

(See also: WP:CENSORED) WaggersTALK 14:58, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

And thankfully, the world we are writing about is changing. Just a matter of time until the title of this article does too. Bugfingers (talk) 15:05, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

I believe so too, and I look forward to it. WaggersTALK 15:14, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

It's interesting that people keep saying "the most used name" is the British Isles.

The term British Isles got added to the OED in 1971. Twasonasummersmorn (talk) 10:14, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Ireland is not in the British Isles

If you're including Ireland in this, then it needs to be the British and Irish Isles. 92.177.175.214 (talk) 07:06, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

No it doesn't. Read the plethora of discussions on this including the one above. It's best to avoid starting a new discussion when one already exists on the same topic.You could also read a geography book, which might help allay your fears. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 07:31, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Did they move it? Clever buggers those Irish. -Roxy the dog 09:35, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

The archipelago exists. The term is deprecated in Ireland. And that's relevant. Twasonasummersmorn (talk) 17:45, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

I recommend going to the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:British_Isles/name_debate and stating your argument there. The editors of this page seemingly get immense joy out of perpetrating the lie that "British Isles" is still common usage and will use you as target practice. David vs Goliath scenario. Nobody here will listen to you no matter how many reputable sources or coherent ideas you throw at them. Bugfingers (talk) 10:27, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm going to propose that that "name debate" page be deleted. Twasonasummersmorn (talk) 10:05, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Why? Because it does not suit your opinion? The Banner talk 10:23, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Because such a thing does not exist in any way that merits an article on Wikipedia. Twasonasummersmorn (talk) 12:51, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Okay great so there's no more discussion over the name being anything other than British Isles or being disliked by anyone. One more thing though, the rest of your edits are against this claim that there is no dispute. Which is it? There is no dispute over the name or there is? Right now talking about deleting the dispute page makes it real hard for anyone to assume good faith with your edits. Canterbury Tail talk 13:24, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

The edits you have reverted were backed by reference. So I don't see how I can assume good faith on your part. Why should I? Twasonasummersmorn (talk) 13:30, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

You clearly didn't read my edit summary for reverting, or any of the discussions here or on your talk page. Again the controversy being in the fourth paragraph in the lead is part of a long standing consensus on these talk pages and is in line with WP:LEAD and WP:UNDUE. The controversy is not the subject of this article, so putting it so prominently in the lead and expanding it is against policy and also has the effect of pretending to the reader that that is what the article is about which it is not. Again it is incumbent on your to obtain WP:CONSENSUS for your changes that you boldly made and have been reverted on with many comments around why. If you wish people to Wp:AGF for your edits, you need to discuss them calmly and obtain consensus as is policy instead of attacking other editors, presuming politics on them, and edit warring. Canterbury Tail talk 13:38, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

I have read the talk page. And I'm aware of the context that a few hard core editors (including you) repeatedly claim consensus when what you actually have is a few hard core editors denying reference and blocking an accurate article. The references i added are serious and academic and you've just deleted them because you don't like them. Twasonasummersmorn (talk) 13:50, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Again it seems that you haven't read things or have only seen what you want to see. I only originally objected to your references because they were being erroneously used to support the Atlantic archipelago claim when they never even discussed that term or anything around it. All the other reverts have been around your increasing the prominence of the controversy in the lead when that's not the subject of the article, nothing more. Canterbury Tail talk 14:03, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

And as I mentioned in that discussion, I was in the middle of inserting them properly. Meantime, the change I made a few minutes ago has been reverted by the Banner, despite it not increasing the prominence of the problem with the name. He (and presumably you) just don't like the content of the references. That's POV editing. Stop it. Twasonasummersmorn (talk) 14:06, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Once again, the Banner is trying to avoid explaining his deletion of good references by trying to hide the discussion on my talk page. He has deleted several good references on the spurious grounds that one of them is a blog. In reality, it's an article on the blog of the Maynooth University Geography Department. An article written by Gerry Kearns, a professor in the Geography Department at Maynooth University. And if he had a problem with just that reference, he could have deleted just that reference. But he didn't. He deleted all of them, including one to the Collins Dictionary. As if more evidence was needed that we have POV editing going on here, he provided it. Twasonasummersmorn (talk) 15:02, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Four talk page sections active? Jebus, man - stop resurrecting multiple old threads! Pick one, or open one new one! Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:50, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

A blog is not a reliable source. Roxy the dog 16:58, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

It can be. This one is. Twasonasummersmorn (talk) 20:20, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Again... WP:NOTFORUM. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:32, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

I notice that my good change, with good references, has again been reverted with no excuse other than Goebbels-esque accusations of edit warring. The references are good. They include reference from an acutal distionary. There is no basis other than POV to revert the changes. I will add more references and invite anyone to address the references in an actual engagement and not just with POV reversions. Of good references. Twasonasummersmorn (talk) 22:19, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Try posting these references here and getting consensus for proposed changes on Talk first. Because your attitude to date is leading me, and probably others, to doubt good faith efforts at building an encyclopedia here. There is absolutely no need to have four separate talk page sections open! Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:39, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't have to bring my references here for your approval. And in terms of good faith, I'm not the one making Goebbels-esque accusations and then deleting good references. I just added another good reference. Which I expect one of the POV warriors on here will delete, again. Twasonasummersmorn (talk) 22:42, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

In fact you already did delete the addition of a good reference. And you want to be taken as if you're editing in good faith! Twasonasummersmorn (talk) 22:43, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Plus, if you had an actual opinion on the references, you could offer it. Which neither you nor any of the other POV-pushers have done. You just don't like them. Twasonasummersmorn (talk) 22:44, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Accusing editors who disagree with your edits of being Nazis is a personal attack of the most serious kind. Cut it out and grow up. And please read WP:CONSENSUS. Yes, you do need to get it for your edits. You are being reverted because this article is not the appropriate place to rehash the "OMG the Brits are at it again! 800 years!" arguments over the Terminology of the British Isles. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:47, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I haven't said anything like "OMG the Brits are at it again". And it does not seem possible to build consensus with people (like you) who delete scholarly references with no excuse. Which you have done multiple times now. And I did not accuse anyone of being a Nazi. I said they were using Goebbels-esque tactics. Which they are. It's a quite different accusation. And quite true. Twasonasummersmorn (talk) 22:50, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

And again - address the actual references. I note that no-one has bothered. Maybe because they're good references. You just don't like them. Twasonasummersmorn (talk) 22:52, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Nope. They're on the wrong article page. This is not the article to discuss "OMG the Brits are at it again by using the term British Isles which implies they're claiming ownership of the islands!" which you've already introduced on this page. The article you're looking for is British Isles naming dispute. Anything more on this article is WP:UNDUE. Certainly a 4k addition to what's already here is. Others have already said as much to you, you just don't want to listen. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:58, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

They're not undue. They're perfectly due. Address the references, which even include dictionaries - not to mind scholarly journals. And I'll listen to supported argument. Your POV is not interesting, or relevant. Twasonasummersmorn (talk) 23:14, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Shall we re-name the Irish Sea, as it's between the islands of Ireland & Great Britain? Of course not. Nor will we change the name of this page. GoodDay (talk) 12:05, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Your references includes one dictionary, which - while it acknowledges that the British Isles is "a group of islands in W Europe, consisting of Great Britain, Ireland, the Isle of Man, Orkney, Shetland, the Channel Islands belonging to Great Britain, and the islands adjacent to these" - then goes on to make an editorial statement about the Irish government. Seeing as Collins seems to think islands can "belong" to another island (as opposed to a state or polity), I wouldn't set much store by them. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:47, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 November 2022

I think the use of the term British Isles cannot be said to be wisely accepted. The reference used to demonstrate this is from an English author. From many other points of view there would be references which do not accept this term. I believe the use of the term should be removed and the Isles called the islands of Great Britain and Ireland out possibly the Anglo Celtic Isles. The term British Isles is divisive and associated with previous colonial rule. 84.203.11.165 (talk) 20:05, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

See the previous discussion. And the one before that. And the one before that. And the one before that. And the one before that. Etc. etc. If people (and reliable sources) in most of the world (and remember that Ireland has 0.06% of the world's population) call the grouping the "British Isles", so should this global encyclopedia. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:13, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

What the people who live in a place call the place is what's relevant. Twasonasummersmorn (talk) 17:46, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

I even dispute the claim that most Irish people don't use the term. Anecdotal I know but I've heard it used before in Ireland in formal settings. 0123Qwerty3210 (talk) 03:33, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that's anecdotal. Have you got references? Twasonasummersmorn (talk) 17:46, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Do you have references that most people don't use the term and it's unused? Canterbury Tail talk 17:49, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes Twasonasummersmorn (talk) 18:25, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Then that would help solve a lot of problems on this article, can you provide them please. Canterbury Tail talk 18:26, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Working on it. Twasonasummersmorn (talk) 18:30, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

None of those references support what you are using them to reference. 1 was even a blog. Not a single one mentioned Atlantic archipelago. Canterbury Tail talk 18:39, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Not wanting to wade into a very contentious subject, but I'm supporting Canterbury Tail's position here. Sources are of utmost importance, but before I came to this page I had never heard the phrase Atlantic archipelago, and have commonly heard the term British Isles used in Ireland, not that long ago some beekeepers used to use the term native British Isles bee! However I am aware that in Northern Ireland using the term British Isles has become a politicized phrase, and therefore somewhat contentious! Bibby (talk) 00:04, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

In fact, I only know the term "Atlantic archipelago" from the use here on Wikipedia in relation to Ireland. Not from actual use. The Banner talk 09:46, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

We've included these examples to illustrate that there are alternative terms, but they're only used by a small minority (hence your reactions). WP:WEIGHT would suggest we shouldn't even include the "Atlantic Archipelago" ("If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true, or you can prove it"), but I think it's helpful because it provides a sense of perspective / contrast. NB The other alternatives suggested by User:Twasonasummersmorn have even weaker support, hence not even being listed. Wiki-Ed (talk) 12:21, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Continuing on from your, "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia..", I did a Web Search for "Atlantic archipelago". The first appeared to be a music / artistic invented name thing, it listed the "countries" of the "Atlantic archipelago" and notably omitted Northern Ireland (presumably incorrectly included in the country of Ireland) but yet England, Scotland, Wales and the Isle of Man were all included! - suggesting a politic interpretation? The second only referenced places like the Azores, etc. and the third was Wiki which does list the British Isles (not the "Atlantic archipelago") but does so in a manner to merely group actual archipelagos together for ease of reference, such as the Shetland Islands, etc. Which is now making me come around to the viewpoint that the phrase "Atlantic archipelago" should be removed. A viewpoint of one, is a very minority viewpoint. Bibby (talk) 13:10, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

I find in searches that Atlantic archipelago is very inconsistently used. Sometimes it's for the British Isles, but often it's for Bermuda or the Azores or other island groups in the Atlantic. And even when it's used in conjunction with Ireland and Great Britain it's not always used as a proper noun and frequently in the wording style of "the Atlantic archipelago of Britain and Ireland" or the like purely as a descriptor and not as a name. So we have to be careful to filter out those kind of mentions from references. Canterbury Tail talk 13:27, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

It is a very well known viewpoint. I think Canterbury Tail will recall that there used to be a great deal more content in this article dealing with the naming dispute which seems to have been moved to a child article. In that context it is very useful to the reader to introduce the term with some explanation. Trying to evaluate 'Atlantic Archipelago' as a commonly used term outside academia (or imply such to the reader) is probably inappropriate. I don't think should redirect here or be bolded as if it were an alternate name in common usage. But it is very valuable to introduce the term within the naming dispute. fiveby(zero) 14:54, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

I think it should be included on this page, just as a brief mention as we already have. As mentioned Atlantic archipelago has been used by some academics even if it's never really enter common general usage. And it's bolded in line with WP:R#PLA. Canterbury Tail talk 13:43, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

I was in the middle of adding the references to the right place when the change got reverted. I'll put them in the right place now. They're from professors of geography, talking about how the term is not acceptable (using their own language). And that "child" article will shortly get a request for deletion. Twasonasummersmorn (talk) 10:07, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

And - for Canterbury Tail - the 'blog' you refer to was and is an article by a professor of Geography. Twasonasummersmorn (talk) 10:13, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

see here. - Roxy the dog 17:00, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Okay, so they're a professor of geography, so what. I missed the point where it's shown that they're a renowned expert in cultural anthropology and a known and respected source on naming and the impacts of naming on a local populace. A geography professor is not a reliable source for some people in a country disliking a name. Canterbury Tail talk 17:13, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Did we miss the explanation of your credentials? The guy is a professor of geography who has written extensively on Britain and Ireland. https://www.maynoothuniversity.ie/people/gerry-kearns#3

And references from dictionaries were also reverted. Without any such excuse. Since there is none. Twasonasummersmorn (talk) 20:23, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Roxy the dog, WP:BLOGS may be a reliable source: Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. - Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:53, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

My goodness, clear politically motivated POV being pushed here. "Atlantic Archipelago" is clearly a clunky euphemism of no topographical value. "Britain and Ireland" is also problematic as it only describes the two largest islands of the chain by using short forms of the names of the two sovereign states. Nobody in their right mind would say that the United Kingdom is not in Europe (as in, the geographical feature), even though the EU is often referred to as "Europe". Petty jingoism and political footballs should have no influence on an encyclopaedia. CorwenAv (talk) 00:23, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

... or Geography. - Roxy the dog 13:24, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Fully agreed. There are similar situations elsewhere, such as New Guinea. Macedonia, the Malay Archipelago and even America. One speaks of "the Americas" without meaning the United States or asserting US hegemony over the continent. The British Isles are a readily identifiable geographical and geological formation that have been known by that name since before any of the present day polities on the archipelago even existed. CorwenAv (talk) 17:34, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

And no, they were not known by that name since before the present day politics on the archipeago even existed. Twasonasummersmorn (talk) 20:33, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

The earliest known use of the phrase in English, as cited in the article, is by John Dee in the 16th century. The United Kingdom was established in 1801 and the Republic of Ireland in 1949, thus hundreds of years before the present day sovereign states. CorwenAv (talk) 21:44, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

The earliest known useage was in the middle of the Tudor conquest of Ireland and in the middle of the political project to create an idea of "Britishness". That is clearly still an evolving project. Twasonasummersmorn (talk) 22:20, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Spinning conspiracy theories will not help your case and just reinforces the view that this opinion of yours is worthless petty ideology. Will you also be deleting all references to the UK being part of Europe because it left the EU? CorwenAv (talk) 00:03, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

No. I will not be deleting references to the UK being part of Europe because it left the EU. I will be mentioning - using serious references - that the definition of British Isles is not stable nor is the inclusion of Ireland in the term generally accepted. The archipelago exists. And the name of the archipelago is problematic. I will add further references which I suspect will not align with some editors' POV. Which they shamelessly push, despite good references. Twasonasummersmorn (talk) 00:37, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

This is a clear political POV you are pushing, and is entirely unacceptable in an article primarily about hard facts and not political ideology. CorwenAv (talk) 00:55, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

It's not a clear political POV that I'm pushing. I'm putting in serious references, which you don't seem to like. If you think it's POV then which of the serious references I've put in are not good references? Or - like others - do you just resort to saying "POV" when someone has references you don't like? Twasonasummersmorn (talk) 00:59, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

You have cherrypicked the handful of references you were able to find in order to push a POV rooted in ideology. This is not a political article, and your obvious political motivations are not valid reason for you to push it. CorwenAv (talk) 01:04, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

"The archipelago exists. And the name of the archipelago is problematic." Indeed so, and the article already reflects that very clearly. I'm not seeing a case for substantial changes to the lead paragraphs since that is already covered with due weight. Let's remember this article is about the group of islands, not about the name of the group of islands. The defining characteristics - location, topography, climate, natural history, human population, recognised sovereign states - rightly come before any discussion of the name. WaggersTALK 14:15, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

On what basis does anyone say that POV is being pushed? The text and the references align. Twasonasummersmorn (talk) 20:21, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Shall we re-name the Irish Sea? as it's surrounded by Ireland & Great Britain. GoodDay (talk) 12:11, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 January 2023

2600:1700:F820:BC0:80CD:35C4:BC3B:90D4 (talk) 03:46, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

The Republic of Ireland does not recognize being part of the British Isles and therefore should be removed as part of the British Isles.

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. See frequent discussion above and in talk page archives. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 03:51, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Legal meaning

An act of interpretations in 1889 defined what 'British Islands' meant. It included the Channel Islands, (and the island of Ireland). This might be the origin of including the Channel Islands in the definition even though they are separate geographically. [4] (s18) Roger 8 Roger (talk) 06:15, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

See British Islands - not "British Isles". Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:51, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I should have checked properly before jumping to conclusions! Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:57, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Correct, "British Islands" is a political term, "British Isles" is a purely geographical one. CorwenAv (talk) 17:35, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

References say otherwise. Twasonasummersmorn (talk) 20:23, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Your personal cherrypicked references that agree with your fringe viewpoint rooted in 20th century ideology instead of centuries of historical. geographical, geological, and biological literature. CorwenAv (talk) 00:58, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree entirely. 2600:8800:52AB:6900:ED07:7BF9:9C9F:CAD (talk) 17:57, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 February 2023

Change "British Isles" to "British and Irish Isles" Caoimhin23 (talk) 20:36, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Not done: Not the common name in sources, and per significant discussion above, there is no consensus for this. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:40, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Section stating that the Irish government does not recognise the term British Isles should be at the beginning of the article.

Section stating that the Irish government does not recognise the term British Isles should be at the beginning of the article. 80.233.62.6 (talk) 15:43, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

No. That's not how Wikipedia articles are constructed. Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:59, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

If it's that important about a term, it should be. Twasonasummersmorn (talk) 17:44, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, very strange that that such a controversial term should be stated as true with barely a mention that it is a colonial term rejected by an entire country. Wikipedia needs to do better. 212.129.80.128 (talk) 17:55, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes strange you make sweeping assertions that everyone in Ireland rejects the term. Simply not true. You need to support such assertions with evidence. Bet you don't. Robynthehode (talk) 19:43, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Meantime, users are reverting my change without comment or talk. I'll put in some additional reference about how controversial/unacceptable the term is. And that it's not a "geographical term". Twasonasummersmorn (talk) 18:24, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm going to add the references I put in before, and some additional ones. Don't revert them without addressing them seriously. They're serious references. Twasonasummersmorn (talk) 11:43, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

I note that my changes have again been reverted. And while I'm being lectured on my talk page about discussion, I have been discussing. All some other editors are doing is reverting changes and references they don't like. Twasonasummersmorn (talk) 13:35, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

With contentious issues like this one it's always wise to try and get consensus for any changes that might be considered controversial on the talk page before making them on the article. Consensus doesn't just mean mentioning it, but actually discussing it, perhaps even beginning a request for comment to ensure widespread involvement and genuine community consensus. WaggersTALK 13:44, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

No, it's not. And the people referring to consensus clearly don't have it. And they're reverting good references because - and only because - they don't lile them. Twasonasummersmorn (talk) 20:20, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Shall we complain about the name "Irish Sea"? GoodDay (talk) 12:13, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Problem is now solved with an ArbCom-topic ban plus a two-week block. The Banner talk 12:21, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

no, that works 2600:8800:52AB:6900:ED07:7BF9:9C9F:CAD (talk) 17:56, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Newcastle upon Tyne?? Missing from list

Is Newcastle missing from the list of urban areas? Thingos (talk) 12:34, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, ignore me. I see it is included under Tyneside. Yet the populations numbers could be updated to 2022 sense data. Thingos (talk) 12:38, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Not all of the 2021 census data has been published yet. The decision at Talk:United Kingdom was to hold fire on updating until it can be done for the whole country, but of course the UK and Ireland censuses will rarely be 100% synchronised so it might make sense to take a different approach here. It does run the risk of producing sets of figures that shouldn't be compared to one another within the same article though. WaggersTALK 12:51, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Channel Islands

Does anybody know if source (11) actually supports that claim that the Channel Islands are "normally included". The Encyclopaedia Britannica, for example, excludes them. The geology excludes them. And certainly I was taught at school that they were not included. Nealokelly (talk) 11:35, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

The quote from the source itself is included in the reference. According to that, the source actually says "traditionally included" as opposed to "normally included", so I think the article wording should reflect that. There's no reason why we have to pin down a single definition - it's fine to have a "traditional" definition and a "geological" one if that's what the reliable sources indicate, but of course it's not always clear which one people are referring to. WaggersTALK 12:58, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

List of British Isles or List of islands of the British Isles

Although the article states that there are over 6,000 British Isles, there are two list of some of them on Wikipedia. I propose that these two lists be properly cited within this article.

It is to be noted that Wikipedia does, however, have a List of islands of the British Isles.

Wikipedia also has: List of islands of the United Kingdom. But the opening paragraph of this article has no link to it. This article mere says in the opening paragraph as follows:

"... consisting of the islands of Great Britain, Ireland, the Isle of Man, the Inner and Outer Hebrides, the Northern Isles, and over six thousand smaller islands.[8]" And the footnote merely refers to the Encyclopaedia Britannica with no volume or page citation.

1) a "list of British Isles" makes no real contextual sense and is massively open to interpretation, which is why the article is "List of islands of the British Isles" which already exists. It is also linked in the See also section correctly. If you wish to expand the list article with citations, knock yourself out.

2) Encyclopaedia Britannica is fine as a reference as you simply pull out a copy of the encyclopaedia and look up the entry on British Isles as you would on any encyclopaedia. It doesn't need to be clarified any further. Canterbury Tail talk 17:11, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Native names

"Breetish Isles" is given here, unsourced, as a Scots language name for the British Isles. Nonsense I think. As a native Scot, I have never encountered that usage, and suggest that it should be removed unless a reliable source can be found.Plantsurfer 10:46, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree, I suspect it was some so-and-so's idea of a joke. WaggersTALK 14:17, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Yup. Names should always be sourced, if it can't be sourced it should be removed. Canterbury Tail talk 14:18, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 June 2023

Remove Ireland. No longer politically affiliated with the British Isles. Appriicity (talk) 22:07, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done True. But this is not claimed in the article, which is about a geographical feature. You may be confusing the British Isles (two main islands and hundreds of smaller ones) with the United Kingdom, a grouping of states. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:10, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

It IS totally falsely claimed in the article. The people of Ireland and our government do not accept that our island is British. 194.125.62.21 (talk) 15:39, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

It is not so claimed, and of course Ireland the country is not British, and no one disputes that. The old archipelago name does not these days imply ownership or "Britishness" - this is just an old geographic term. We can all wish something else existed, and maybe it will some day - but this is an encyclopedia, not a policy-making body, and the BI term is in use for centuries, and is still used in Irish materials (newspapers but also official reports, whether it should be so or not) every week. SeoR (talk) 15:47, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Of course it is totally falsely claimed, starting with the article's very first sentence - “The British Isles are a group of islands in the North Atlantic Ocean off the north-western coast of continental Europe, consisting of the islands of Great Britain, Ireland …” 194.125.62.21 (talk) 15:59, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

The Republic of Ireland is indeed independent and not at all British. Unfortunately, the group of islands is still mentioned as "British Isles". Please note that the group of islands is an geographical feature and has nothing to do with statehood. And the islands contain two different states. The Banner talk 16:03, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

The island of Ireland is not British. And this article does, for exanple, claim its entire population - including myself - is in a "British" island:

“They have a total area of 315,159 km2 (121,684 sq mi) and a combined population of almost 72 million, and include two sovereign states, the Republic of Ireland … and the United Kingdom”.

That is hugely disgusting and disgraceful. EditoringFalse (talk) 16:19, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

What is? Nobody is claiming that the island of Ireland is British. The article certainly does not do so. If you genuinely think the article is stating what you write above, then the problem is either your reading comprehension, or you are deliberately perceiving a slight where none exists. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:53, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

The term British in this context literally means "of Britain". It is utterly disingenuous to suggest that colonial era British terminology was ever solely "geographical" and utterly childish to suggest otherwise.

The ongoing fanatacism of a tiny handful of anglophile Wikipedia editors aside, it's timely that this archaic and anachroistic terminology is removed from articles relating to Ireland on Wikipedia. 51.37.20.61 (talk) 09:38, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

If you're taking "Britain" to mean the United Kingdom, then no, "British Isles" absolutely does not mean that, as explained at length both in this article and British Isles naming. The "British" in British Isles is nothing to do with the UK, politics or colonialism; the islands were referred to as "British" or historical variants of the term long before the UK came into existence.

Regardless of whether or not we like the term or what we think it means, it is still the most common name for the group of islands it describes; there is no alternative term that means the same thing and comes anywhere close to satisfying the five criteria in Wikipedia's article naming policy.

Understanding and acknowledging those two very simple, straightforward and uncontroversial facts is essential in any discussion on this subject. WaggersTALK 10:08, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Changing the Name (Move) of the article to - British Isles (Atlantic Archipelago)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Due to the controversial nature of the term "British Isles" I suggest renaming the article to British Isles (Atlantic Archipelago) as a compromise.

I've added edits to the article itself wherever the term "British Isles" is used I've added the addition of "(Atlantic Archipelago)"

As the terminology is used to describe a geographic area and not a political one I think this is a fair compromise.

Let me know what you think.

MRWH359 (talk) MRWH359 (talk) 19:55, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Strong, strong oppose The "controversial nature" is mostly an invention of political activists. What you suggest is giving in to political pressure, not following the common name at present and the sources. The Banner talk 20:48, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Not really as an Irishman I don't know a single Irish person who likes or ever used the term "British Isles" it's not just a political issue but a social terminology issue, generally we use "these islands" but a true geographic term would be the North Atlantic Archipelago. The term "British Isles" has not been in common usage in Ireland since we gained our independence over 100 years ago.

Kind regards,

MRWH359 (talk) MRWH359 (talk) 03:11, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

As an Irish wannabee, I have never met anybody in real life who did care about the name of the island group. Not at work, not in the pub, not at any other activity I do. The Banner talk 08:45, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Completely oppose Absurd. What makes you think the British Isles deserves to claim the ambiguous title "Atlantic Archipelago" when there are several other island groups in the Atlantic? It is no part of Wikipedia's remit to make decisions of this kind that have far-reaching implications. Where is the international consensus for this, and where is the reliable source.Plantsurfer 20:57, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Your response seems to be purely emotional what I suggest is a compromise not a complete scrubbing away with the term which is what many would want.

Then if you want to be more specific why not North Atlantic Archipelago.

It wouldn't really have any far reaching consequences it's a change on Wikipedia not a change to the history books, the fact it is a controversial term is mentioned in the article already and the alternate names are provided so why not add one in addition to the term British Isles, I'm sure your aware the island of Ireland is not British it's Irish. A comprise seems fair and I don't understand your push back on this.

Imagine if you by chance are British and they were called the Irish Isles and our historical roles were reversed 1 to 1 would you not understand the reason for our dislike of the term?

What is your actual reason for not wanting a slight addition?

Kind regards,

MRWH359 (talk) MRWH359 (talk) 03:20, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia article names use parentheticals for disambiguation, parentheticals are not used for WP:OTHERNAMES. Other names are expected to be included elsewhere in the article. CMD (talk) 03:56, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose per WP:NPOVNAME. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:05, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose - we only use parentheses in article titles for disambiguation purposes; that isn't needed here, and per WP:CENSOR we do not shy away from controversy. "Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia." WaggersTALK 08:31, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.