Talk:Names of the British Isles/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions about Names of the British Isles. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

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.

"West European Isles"

We have a grand total of 51 hits in Google when searching for "West European Isles", and many of those hits are Wikipedia, mirrors of Wikipedia, blogs and the like. Seems like Wikipedia is trying to set the trend here - I'm going to delete this alternative unless someone comes up with a very good reason why it should stay. MidnightBlue (Talk) 18:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

It's a direct translation of the Irish term commonly used. --HighKing (talk) 09:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes I noticed that, later in the article. The question is, does anyone use it as an alternative term? I've removed it, but put it back if you think it is genuinely used as such. MidnightBlue (Talk) 16:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. Judging from the lack of responses, etc, I don't think so. --HighKing (talk) 11:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

But perhaps the fact that it is a translation of the Irish term is sufficiently notable for inclusion to demonstrate that there is no equivalent term in the language. --HighKing (talk) 11:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The North is one of the last redoubts of flunkeyism in these islands - the British Isles, as they are generally called - though the Department of External Affairs in Dublin tries to popularize the term "West European Islands". It doesn't matter a damn what they're called, they're entirely surrounded by water, and anyway the early Britons, like Boadicea, were Celts and their language was much closer to Irish than to English. —Brendan Behan, Brendan Behan's Island, 1962. 86.44.33.124 (talk) 09:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Silly Brendan, the "Ancient B's" were Ρρεττανοι, Priteni or Pretani, later calling themselves Brittannus or Britto, and they were only called Celts from Edward Lhuyd coining the usage in 1707 onwards due to his lumping together of Brythonic, to use a Welsh term, with the Celtae of continental Europe due to language similarities. Of course their language was similar to the related Irish (nobly refrains from using the Scots word for that language) and much further from the English of the invading Anglo-Saxons. Bloomin' obvious. . dave souza, talk 13:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Islands of the North Atlantic (or IONA)

Islands of the North Atlantic seems highly biased, since it excludes say Svalbard, Iceland, Greenland, some of the Candian Arctic Archipelago, lots of islands of North America, the Canary Islands, Gibraltar, etc ad infinitum. 70.29.213.241 (talk) 05:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

It's equally argued that "British Isles" is highly biased as it could be seen to lay claim to all territories as being British. So IONA is no more or less biased... --HighKing (talk) 09:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Rubbish, do the Irish claim ownership over the Irish sea? The British Isles is simply the name for our islands, im sorry some people cant accept that but we shouldnt have to redraw maps just because a couple of people are offended. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Rubbish yourself. The argument presented by Anon IP is that the term IONA could be viewed as biased because it is not inclusive of all of the islands that are in the North Atlantic. I merely pointed out that the same is true of the term "British Isles" in an opposite sense in that it includes territory that is not British. --HighKing (talk) 11:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

IONA is no more biased??? While the Crown of England once controlled all of the British Isles, it cannot be said of the rest of the North Atlantic. While the British Isles form an archipelago, it cannot be said that Ireland forms part of an archipelago with Bermuda. While the British Isles are part of Europe, it cannot be said that Cape Breton Island is part of Europe. While the British Isles are geographically close together, it cannot be said that they are close to Svalbard. 70.29.213.241 (talk) 11:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

What I acutally stated was that IONA is *no more or less biased*. I've outlined the reasons above. Also, this argument is sooooo old and has been done to death. The next inevitable phase is: British Isles form an archipelago? So why is Jersey included as it is not part of it physically? But I'm not playing anymore. Go read the previous discussion, save everyone some time. --HighKing (talk) 11:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

You forgot the bit where someone pops up to mention that British Islands != British Isles, and where someone else pops up to state that oh noes, WP:NPOV doesn't work when the British Imperialists form a majority on WP and are imposing their POV on everybody. (They know this because they've counted). Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 13:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, thanks Bastun. Perhaps we should create a table with points and counterpoints and categorize each point. On WP, it always seems that when a discussion is moving against an editor, we start to see arguments based on a unquantifiable "facts", emote-speak and name-calling (or a combination). --HighKing (talk) 13:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I would say IONA extends British imperialism to the United States, as it includes Martha's Vineyard as part of the British Isles, so it is more biased, more imperialistic, and more far reaching; and Greenland and Iceland... 70.29.213.241 (talk) 04:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Great point anon IP! Except you forgot to explain how IONA has anything to do with "British Imperialism"... --HighKing (talk) 09:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The crown of England has never controlled all of the British Isles (temporary and sporadic domination of Scotland notwithstanding); it was abolished in 1603 with the personal union of the crowns of England and Scotland. It can of course be said that the crown of Great Britain and Ireland once controlled all of the British Isles.

Even if that is the case then it does not matter, wikipedia is meant to report, not to judge. And this is an alternative term that, as it has stated, has been used by the UK and ROI governments to refer to the "british isles"Kungfukats2 (talk) 17:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Sources for 'Anglo-Celtic Isles'

I boldy removed this, but it was reverted. My concern is that the sources are uses of the term, and there aren't that many of them. (The notable exceptions, alas, are republished versions of this page). I think the text "Anglo-Celtic Isles has been used in academia for the isles" is an accurate reflection of reality, but we don't have a source for that, other than a google books search. Does anybody have something better? (p.s. the Liverpool stuff is irrelevant, right?) shellac (talk) 13:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, the google book search throws up a number of books that all use the term as a name or term, enough to show that it is a term that people use (albeit not a very common term). For example the 1st 3 references on the 1st search page:

Studies in northern coinages of the eleventh century - By Carl Johan Becker
Celtic geographies - By David Harvey
Viking Age York and the north - By R. A. Hall

--HighKing (talk) 19:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Original Research

I've added an OR tag. There is little or no evidence, outside Wikipedia of a dispute. The words British Isles are disliked by some people, there are alternatives and the words are avoided in some quarters, but is there a "dispute"? MidnightBlue (Talk) 10:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

No, there is no dispute. Having an article on it makes it seem like the Macedonia naming dispute, which is a real one involving governments etc. This one isn't. ðarkun coll 10:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes there is a dispute. The fact that nobody is shooting anyone does not make it any less a dispute. Just as there is also a dispute about applying the term "Republic of Ireland" to the sovereign country called Ireland. Sarah777 (talk) 11:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The point is though there's no official i.e. governmental dispute. A dispute between Wikipedia editors and a couple of people who have written letters to newspapers doesn't count. ðarkun coll 11:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The Irish Government "discourages its use" - that's close to an official dispute. Sarah777 (talk) 11:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Hardly. ðarkun coll 11:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see an article about Republic of Ireland naming dispute or Ireland naming dispute. MidnightBlue (Talk) 11:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

We need something somewhere that can be referenced by other articles as necessary. Its not a dispute at the level of Macedonia, but it is a dispute never the less. I suggest we try and resolve the valid use of the name which is taking place elsewhere (linked to the Ireland naming dispute) then look at the necessity or otherwise of the article itself. --Snowded ^TALK 11:54, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

At the risk of starting a dispute over the naming of the dispute, I'd be happy for the article to be retitled as a "controversy" rather than a "dispute". I don't question in any way the need for an article on the subject - there are clearly reliable references for the fact that it is a real issue in the outside world - but I wonder whether some of its content would be better developed and expanded as an editorial guideline. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Howabout, the British Isles naming dispute on Wikipedia, for an article name? GoodDay (talk) 12:22, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Lmao id support that GoodDay. I also agree with the OR tag being added. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello folkes.

As the "wanna-bee" Nomenclator of Rome, I fully support the Name (i.e., Nomem) of the British Isles naming dispute on Wikipedia. The only reason we are talking about is the the Good Friday Agreement (1998) terminology. We as the public are NOT bound by it. We do not have to respect the terminology.

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 18:31, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I know I am going to regret asking this, but what as the GFA got to do with this question? --Snowded ^TALK 20:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello Snowded.

The Good Friday Agreement (1998) was specifically created to replace the Government of Ireland Act (1920). The Anglo-Irish Treaty (1921) was the legislative instrument that enacted the Partition of Ireland.

Quoted from this Article

There is dispute and disagreement over the term British Isles, particularly in relation to Ireland. The term is defined in dictionaries as "Great Britain and Ireland and adjacent islands".^[1] However, the association of the term "British" with the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,^[2] as well as its association with the island of Great Britain, causes the term to be regarded as objectionable or inappropriate to many Irish people^[3]^[4]. Alternative terms suggested include common terms like "Britain and Ireland", 'the British and Irish Isles', "these islands" or "these isles" and rarer terms like "Anglo-Celtic Isles", "The Anglo-Celtic Archipelago", "Islands of the North Atlantic" (IONA), "Northwest European Archipelago" or "The Celtic Archipelago".

The dispute is partly semantic: to some readers the term is a value-free geographic one, while to others the term can be a value-laden political one. That the British Isles were all, with the exception of the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, included in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland until 1922, when most of Ireland left, is also highly relevant to some. Although early variants of the term date back to Ancient Greek times, the term fell into disuse for over a millennium and was introduced into English in the late 16th or early 17th centuries by English and Welsh writers whose writings have been described as propaganda and politicized^[5]^[6]^[7]. The term was not in wide use in Britain before at least the second half of the 17th century. The term was widely accepted from the late 18th century to at least the early 20th and problems with the term date mostly to the period after Irish independence.

Quoted from the Partition of Ireland Article

The partition of Ireland between the north-eastern six counties and the rest of Ireland took place on 3 May 1921 under the Government of Ireland Act 1920.^[8] The entire island of Ireland provisionally became the Irish Free State on 6 December 1922. However, the Parliament of Northern Ireland exercised its right to opt out of the new Dominion the following day.

Partition created two territories on the island of Ireland: Northern Ireland and Southern Ireland. Today the former is still known as Northern Ireland while the latter is known as Ireland (or, if differentiation between the state and the whole island is required, the state can be referred to as the Republic of Ireland). Northern Ireland remains part of the United Kingdom, while the remainder of Ireland is a sovereign state.

Therefore, at present the Government of Ireland Act 1920 has been repealed (unfortunately, and foolishly, I might add). This puts the Anglo-Irish Treaty (1921) and the Partition of Ireland in Constitutional Limbo.

The invention of these "New Names" for the British Isles will be the death of the Union of the Province of Northern Ireland with the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Thank former PM Tony Blair, the Labour Party, the Good Friday Agreement (1998) for that!! The Good Friday Agreement (1998) is the basis for the future "Constitutional Existance" of the Province of Northern Ireland (i.e., not being annexed to the state legally-described as the Republic of Ireland).

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 20:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Its OK no need for more (please, please). I and other authors are more than capable of reading existing material. I'll let your opening summary stand as it is without reply ... --Snowded ^TALK 21:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Okkie dookie. ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 21:22, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Page creation?

Looks like user User:TharkunColl set up the page a couple of years ago [1]. Will have a look tomorrow to discover under what circumstance it was setup. Maybe he would like to comment? Tfz 23:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

He already has in the section above, and doesn't appear to support its current content. Rockpocket 01:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

TharkunColl, it would save a lot of time to know why the page was set up, as it is well referenced from the beginning. Was it a cut and paste, or is it entirely your own composition? Tfz 11:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

There are extensive archives of relevant discussions at Talk:British Isles - I suggest people look there, if they haven't done so already. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the lead. A cut and paste from British Isles, here [2]. Tfz 12:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The content of the article does indeed seem to be duplicated, or triplicated. There would be a good case for merging the contents - if there is any unique material - into the Terminology article. LevenBoy (talk) 13:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The contents of this page were taken from the British Isles article because it had become overloaded with all this political POV. Much of it was sneakily put back though, in the form of article-length footnotes, for example. This whole page could be deleted with no loss at all. ðarkun coll 14:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

If this article is removed while the dispute is ongoing then obviously the contents will need to be restored to the so-called "British" Isles article. Sarah777 (talk) 14:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

They already have been. ðarkun coll 14:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

All on them? Including the 113 references to the "non-existent" dispute? Sarah777 (talk) 15:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

What 113 references? Most of the notes at the bottom refer to things other than the so-called dispute. ðarkun coll 15:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The article is very well based, at best leave as is, or merge back into the BI article. Some very important and valuable references included. Tfz 15:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

This article is a POV-pushers' paradise. The next step should be assessment by an uninvolved editor or group to determine whether or not it should be deleted. What's the mechanism for this? MidnightBlue (Talk) 16:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:AfD? Rockpocket 16:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

As this article is, as I said earlier, a POV-pushers paradise - it's all about what's bad about British Isles and there's little or no mention about the other side of the "dispute" - I'm adding a NPOV banner to it. MidnightBlue (Talk) 18:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

⬅You have to be a bit more specific than that if you tag it Midnight. --Snowded ^TALK 19:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll put some more detail here as soon as I can. MidnightBlue (Talk) 19:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The article consists almost entirely of the argument against the British Isles. There is just one mention of how the term is generally uncontroversial in the UK. The rest of the article seeks to denigrate the usage, even going so far as to highlight certain elements of references which suppport the points against (this bolding policy was deemed unsuitable at British Isles). In a nutshell then, the article speaks for itself as a peice of non-neutral original research. I will put it to AfD. MidnightBlue (Talk) 18:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I thought you were going to be specific? This is yet another general statement--Snowded ^TALK 18:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

What do you want me to do - copy and paste large chunks of the article here to use as examples? It's there for all to see - the biased account of an imaginary dispute. MidnightBlue (Talk) 19:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Nothing to stop you putting in references to balance any percieved one-sidedness. Your argument is a classic case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --HighKing (talk) 21:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Well you could just go for AFD but I think you know there would be significant opposition and it would not succeed. Given that if you think something lacks neutrality then maybe tackle editing some of those sections, ideally with the odd reference. So far you had added a banner, but not elaborated on why it is NPOV. If you fail to do that then the banner goes --Snowded ^TALK 05:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I've submitted it for deletion. I would like to attract the views of non-involved editors at the AfD log page. MidnightBlue (Talk) 20:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

To be clear, you've nominated the article for deletion, not the banner. GoodDay (talk) 20:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Highking reversion

Highking made an - in my opinion unwarranted - reversion of my edit [3].

The article said:"Issues with the term British Isles in relation to Ireland have been recognized in the UK"
The reference says:"AN internal document circulated to British officials ahead of the EU presidency...which has been seen by the Irish Examiner...advises UK officials...to avoid (using) words such as...British Isles

Quite clearly, the claim that issues with the term have been "recognized in the UK" is a much stronger one than the reference is making, and given that the source is alleging that it has seen the primary source, I changed the wording to be:

~~"Irish sensitivities over the term British Isles were allegedly recognized in a British Embassy briefing"~~
"Irish sensitivities over the term British Isles were recognized in a British Embassy briefing that an Irish newspaper alleged to have seen"

I see absolutely no reason why this was reverted by HighKing. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 10:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

OK... misunderstanding cleared up on his talk page. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 11:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Mister Flash, your summary of Reverting dreadful edit which introduced unencyclopedic language (even if it was a quote) and blatant over-hyping of dislike of British Isles is blatently in breach of WP:AGF, is your personal opinion, and your revert also removed another reference that I added. It's also in breach of WP:NPOV and an example of WP:SYNTH that your edit choses to state that Irish sensitivities over the term "British Isles" was recognized in a British Embassy briefing which is *not* supported by the reference. The reference does not state that Irish sensitivities were recognized over British Isles. It says In a section on 'Irish sensitivities', officials are warned to "never take the Mick" and not to crack jokes about potatoes (makes me wonder why they'd need to be warned at all...), nor does it mention a British Embassy briefing.

The edit I made keeps closely to the two references (you deleted one, remember?), and I have not blatently over-hyped anything.

Rather than start an edit war, I'd prefer another editor to weigh in with a 3rd opinion. --HighKing (talk) 17:45, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Look, I've no problem with you putting more references in, but come on! "No, no's"! Even as part of a quote it's just a childish thing to put in an encyclopedia article. There are literally thousands of newspaper articles (99.9999% from Ireland) where someone is bleating on about the British Isles. This article is just becoming a link farm to it all. Yes, we know; some people in Ireland don't like the term. What other point are you trying to make? Mister Flash (talk) 18:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Please be civil. If you want to accuse anyone of being childish, I suggest you direct it at the people who used the term in the brief to the British officials. It's part of a quote, so rather than be accused of synthesing, I believe it's better to stick close to the terms used in the references. And the reason to include another reference was to show that the term 'A list of no-nos' has weight, as it's used in both references. Feel free to find another reference if you can that discusses the brief, but I was unable to find one. I didn't pick out a 2nd reference because it was Irish, but that appears to be what's available.

Despite your accusation, I'm not trying to make a point - my edit is factual and based on references. You appear to want to remove references because what? They're from Irish sources? They make a point you don't like?

Whatever. Hopefully another editor will be able to see that the current version isn't supported by references. --HighKing (talk) 18:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Alarics

I have opened this thread out of respect to User:Alarics whom, believing I know his path to this article, I can, I hope, describe him as a disinterested party with a valid view. I also have respect for User:HighKing. I have not considered the matter further than I have discussed and do not intend to further revert this edit Þjóðólfr (talk) 16:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The reason for my reversion is that the article title uses the term "dispute", and as per MOS:BEGIN, the page title should be the subject of the first sentence. Please revert. --HighKing (talk) 17:17, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I repeat I am happy for you to revert. I will not oppose that revert, but I'm not inclined to self-revert. Þjóðólfr (talk) 17:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

If the reason we can't amend the opening sentence (I have just had another go at it) is that the article title uses the term "dispute", why not let's change the article title. It could be called "Irish dislike of the phrase 'British Isles'". (If people refuse to contemplate changing the name of the article, we could start a new article entitled "'British Isles naming dispute' naming dispute"). Alarics (talk) 18:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

While you're filing the request to rename, please put the article text back to the way it was. As per WP:BRD, to avoid edit warring it is better if we don't start a revert/revert war. --HighKing (talk) 18:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Several weeks ago I did suggest "British Isles naming controversy". Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

"British Isles naming controversy" would be supported by WP:RS Encyclopedia Britannica: Although the term British Isles has a long history of common usage, it has become increasingly controversial. Þjóðólfr (talk) 21:53, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Irish sea?

Interesting how the people who oppose the term 'British Isles' don't oppose the term 'Irish Sea'. Logically they really should. But try telling them that.Angrybeerman (talk) 11:18, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Logically? Let the inhabitants of the Irish Sea object to being labelled "Irish" if they like... --HighKing (talk) 18:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, Angrybeerman. Both terms (British Isles & Irish Sea), should be equally controversial 'or' non-controversial. GoodDay (talk) 22:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Inclusion of crown dependencies within United Kingdom

The article claims: "...the United Kingdom is often interpreted, in some cases legally, as including the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands."

Is there any evidence of this? And even if the interpretation is sometimes made (perhaps loosely or mistakenly), is there any evidence that this interpretation is "often" applied? Or that it is ever used in a legal context?

— Richardguk (talk) 16:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

For some purposes. For example for nationality law the UK includes the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. For VAT purposes the Isle of Man is a part of the UK also. There are some other senses also I believe. See definition of UK here.

With respect to the word "often", it seems like a contradiction to say that anything "is often interpreted, in some cases..." -- RA (talk) 22:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the constructive response and source.

You citation is helpful ("United Kingdom: The United Kingdom includes England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. The Channel Islands and the Isle of Man are considered as part of the United Kingdom for nationality purposes, but have their own immigration laws and policies. The Channel Islands are not treated as part of the United Kingdom for value added tax (VAT) purposes.") but that webpage does caution "These are simple explanations, rather than complete, legal definitions."

Looking at relevant UK primary legislation (emphasis added):

General: "In any Act, unless the contrary intention appears, words and expressions listed in Schedule 1 to this Act are to be construed according to that Schedule....
'British Islands' means the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. [1889] ...
'United Kingdom' means Great Britain and Northern Ireland. [12th April 1927] ....
paragraphs of Schedule 1 at the end of which a year or date is specified or described apply, so far as applicable, to Acts passed on or after the date, or after the year, so specified or described....
The definition of 'British Islands', in its application to Acts passed after the establishment of the Irish Free State but before the commencement of this Act, includes the Republic of Ireland."
— Interpretation Act 1978 section 5; schedule 1; paragraph 4(1)(a) and (2) of schedule 2
Nationality: "In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires ...
'the Islands' means the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man; ...
'the United Kingdom' means Great Britain, Northern Ireland and the Islands, taken together; ..."
— British Nationality Act 1981 section 50
Ireland: "In this Act 'the United Kingdom' includes the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man."
— Ireland Act 1949 section 7(2) (as substituted by the British Nationality Act 1981)
VAT: "For the purpose of giving effect to any Agreement between the government of the United Kingdom and the government of the Isle of Man whereby both countries are to be treated as a single area for the purposes of value added tax charged under the Value Added Tax Act 1994 and value added tax charged under the corresponding Act of Tynwald, Her Majesty may by Order in Council make provision for securing that tax is charged under the Act of 1994 as if all or any of the references in it to the United Kingdom included both the United Kingdom and the Isle of Man but so that tax is not charged under both Acts in respect of the same transaction."
— Isle of Man Act 1979 section 6(1)

The explicit exceptions prove the existence of the underlying rule: "UK = GB + NI". But your point clearly has a basis in law.

Even so, redefinition within specific acts, and especially redefinition "as if" "UK" means "UK and IoM", may be a useful shorthand for legislators, but does not cause the term "UK" in itself to have a different underlying meaning. If another act were passed relating to VAT or nationality, it would have to include its own redefinition to perpetuate the usage. In fact, the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 does not appear to use the broader 1981 definition, except to the extent that it amends earlier acts.

Non-statutory usage in these legal fields is ambiguous, since it will not always be clear whether someone is implicitly importing the statutory redefinition or using the term with its innate meaning.

I suggest, then, that while you have a fair point, it is overstated in the article, which should refer to "sometimes" rather than "often" and should limit the legal point to specific cases, namely that "UK" in UK VAT law generally means "UK + IoM", and that "UK" in UK nationality law generally means "UK + IoM + CI".

— Richardguk (talk) 00:25, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I removed CI because of my misunderstanding that this was about naming the archipelago, (to which it would be quite a stretch to make them belong). However of course it's about ""British Isles" which "traditionally" includes them, fair enough. As far as IOM is concerned I just don't think that what is there makes much sense. Surely what we want to say is, we could use 'UK and ROI', but that would exclude IOM and CI which are not normally considered part of the UK except in a couple of specific legal senses? I've had a go at this, revert if not agreed. Mcewan (talk) 19:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Discussion about use of the term on Wikipedia's main page

Please see Talk:Main Page/Archive_150#"British Isles"?. __meco (talk) 09:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Updated link as the discussion has been archived. __meco (talk) 06:08, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

NI Life & Times Survey

Hi Sean, I am finding the figures and layout of the NI Life & Times Survey a bit confusing so I did a bit of digging. Tell me if this makes sense. 2008 figures are out and there is two question relating to being British etc. Q1: Do you think of yourself as British/Irish/Ulster/Northern Irish? Answer: British 37%, Irish 26%, NI 29 .... See here [4] Q2: How important it is to you that you are British/Irish/etc? Answer: Bit more complex so see here [5]

I think that the figure that should be quoted in the article (if any) is 37%. I cannot find anything in the latest data to say that 78% or anything near that say they are British, but I could be wrong and that is why I brought it here rather than getting into an edit war.Bjmullan (talk) 20:44, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The short answer is that the Wikipedia article is quoting the response to the question in the 2007 survey, whereas in the 2008 survey asked a different question. Here's the 2007 question -- http://www.ark.ac.uk/nilt/2007/Community_Relations/BRITISH.html -- "And thinking about EACH of these national identities IN TURN, how strongly do you feel yourself to be....?"

The 2007 question gave the interviewees got three options for replying -- Very Strongly, Not Very Strongly, Not At All -- and 22% replied Not At All, as you know. Now if your interpretation here were correct, those 22% started off by labelled themselves as British in preference to labeling themselves as Northern Irish and then they turned around when asked how strongly they felt about it and said "Not At All" in preference to "Not Very Strongly". That can make no sense, I hope you can agree.

The 2008 question appears to be beside the point w.r.t. the British Isles naming dispute, whereas the 2007 question is directly on target, quantifying that 78% of the NI population label themselves as British. I hope you can agree. Seanwal111111 (talk) 22:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Sean, it looks like the question you're referring to ("...how strongly do you feel...") was only run in 2007 and was replaced by the one Bjmullan links above.

In any event, I don't see what is relevant about it to this article. Unless, NILT start running a question on what people think is the name of these islands I don't see how any of their survey questions inform this article except maybe - very briefly - to explain the two community identifies in NI for an international readership in the "Perspectives in Northern Ireland" section. --RA (talk) 23:02, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Concur --Snowded ^TALK 23:08, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The dispute is about whether the word British includes Irish, or may include it in many contexts. Those of us who argue in the affirmive, British does include Irish, wish to present the reader with the hard fact that 78% of the NI population label themselves as British. If you guys on the other side of the argument are not going to let us present such a fact for our case then the page would be a travesty. Seanwal111111 (talk) 00:03, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

The issue here is to accurately report on a dispute about the use of "British Isles". The use of British to include Northern Ireland has some examples like the last olympics for example. That is now the same issues as to how people self-identify which is what the surveys are about. As RA said it belongs elsewhere, and even then there would be issues. Its not about two sides presenting their cases - please read up on WP:NPOV --Snowded ^TALK 03:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Article Clean Up

Several good points have been raised by BritishWatcher concerning the poor referencing in this article. The article is a mess in places. The lede is too long. I propose that the list of "alternative terms" can be moved out of the lede altogether - there's a section dealing with them below. A brief mention of "common alternatives" will suffice. Most of the other paragraphs can be edited/shortened. Unreferenced statements should be removed (unless a good reference can be found). --HighKing (talk) 15:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

What about a sandbox to "rewrite" the lede? It might help to overhaul a number of issues in one go.. Anybody have any opinions on where to create one? Off a users page? Here? --HighKing (talk) 15:12, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, we should try to address all the main issues with this article and a sandbox to redo the lead would be good, ive never read through the whole of this article before or taken a major interest in it knowing the tags were there to warn people of the problems, but if we are going to address the problems then im ok with them being removed. Best to do it here. If not here maybe on a separate BI taskforce page. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:21, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I've done a first chop at User Talk:HighKing/BritishIsles - feel free to move it somewhere else. I was very brutal, but tried to explain things clearly and concisely. --HighKing (talk) 15:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Something like this is the way to go. --Snowded ^TALK 08:46, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed with the general point of moving the alternates out of the lede and shortening it. Part of my problem with the article is that it currently "gives an impression" of being more notable than it really is - lede length is part of this. I'm not saying Snowded that it's utterly un-notable as per the discussion below, just that it's not as notable as it claims. On the alternates, I wonder if we should go to BISE with the list and knock them around? They are being given at British Isles as well (and other places?), so they affect more than one article. Some are certainly not very notable, sourcing issues aside. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:20, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, cut it down, make the minor alternatives clearly minor and use it as a neutral statement that can be referenced as needed. --Snowded ^TALK 09:30, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Article length on WP generally is wholly unrelated to the importance of the topic. See lengthy articles on dead basketball players, pop stars, obscure US settlements, etc etc etc. There are pertinent issues relating to the length of this article, in terms of speed of upload, and the inclusion of some material that is unreferenced or of pretty marginal relevance. However, I think that much of the material in it is both meaningful and relevant, and - importantly - serves to explain the summary information that is in the introduction. So, while I understand the view that the article is too long, and I would certainly support some pruning, I would caution against removing material that would then be likely to re-emerge, perhaps in a less balanced or nuanced way, over time. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Provided of course it is (a) notable and (b) quality-sourced. The problems here are about material that is dubious against both guidelines. Agree that length does not equal notability but the true position, POVs aside, is that right now the really notable elements of this article could easily be elsewhere. I am willing to avoid protracted afd battling with some mods. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:46, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Embarassing

I can see this has been gone through before, but honestly - the existence of this article is embarassing. Are we going to have an article for every pet topic of every opinion columnist? If this was a genuine dispute worthy of attention there'd be evidence of its widespread use in actual use outside the context of political posturing. What we have is a few sporadic references to people consciously dismissing the term because they're trying to dissociate themselves from Britain, and some random hearsay that "some people" get offended by it. Khendon (talk) 20:06, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Posts like yours are embarrassing. It demonstrates an appalling lack of wit and wisdom to post your ignorance on a topic you obviously haven't researched for the world to see. And Talk pages aren't forums. If you haven't any concrete ideas of improving the article, or suggestions that might benefit readers, you'd be best served by keeping your opinions on a personal blog. --HighKing (talk) 20:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I think you're reading a different comment to the one I typed - your reply seems appropriate for a comment along the lines of "Of course the British Isles are called the British Isles, you're clearly all idiots". My comments don't involve personal abuse (unlike yours!). They're about the article, not the issue itself. My very concrete idea for improvement is deletion for non-notability. As for research, it was (correctly) carried out on the article itself, which despite a lot of effort doesn't have any evidence of a genuine dispute. - Khendon (talk) 04:26, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Your language wasn't particularly helpful Khendon and it is pretty obvious that you did not read the references related to the dispute here or on British Isles. Given that one of the "non-use" sources is the Irish Government and some of the "heresay" results in Atlas publishers changing the name I don't think you can dismiss it so easily. --Snowded ^TALK 04:34, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Those of us who've been around these disputes for a while are wearily familiar with all the arguments Khendon, but I have to say, they don't really stack up as notable enough for the existence of this article in particular, which is really more a rescitation of those Wikipedian's debating points who feel motivated around this than a reflection of real-world notability. In answer to Snowded's point, the key references stack up to some rather obscure academics, a couple of parliamentary written answers in the Dail from some years ago and a lot of Irish newspapers, some of them decidedly tabloid. I have to ask you in all objectivity Snowded, if the aforementioned list of refs were to justify the existence of a big article like this on some other subject, would you still support it's existence? Perhaps not methings. And I am by nature inclusionist! The simple fact remains that this whole thing is much, much more an issue in en-WP than it is elsewhere, due to the determined POVs at work. Not to mention the other rather depressing reality that it is a complete non-issue in all the non en-WPs who routinely use the translated forms of BI without controversy. I would certainly actively support an afd effort on this one should you choose to kick that off Khendon. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 08:31, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I have restored the OR tag. It was removed by HighKing without any discussion and he then had the gall to remove it again following a restore and to claim BRD in doing so. The fact that it was put in place by a user who is now known to be a sock is totally irrelevant, but the main reason for putting it back is that this article is total, 100% OR. There is no comparable treatment of this "dispute" anywhere else. All we've got are a few people, groups and organisations who sometimes complain about the term and don't use it. We have no demonstrations in the streets about it, no campaign groups exist, You don't see posters anywhere denouncing the term. There is just nothing, other than some random opinions. This whole article is a complete fabrication. It could almost be regarded as a hoax article. It is here simply to promote anti-British Isles POV. We might as well have an article about the dispute as to whether curry or fish and chips is the national dish of England. Such an article would not last long, even though I'm sure we could find loads of references and opinion pieces on the matter. Conflicting opinions do not equal a dispute. Could someone please put it forward for deletion, I'm not sure how to do this. LemonMonday Talk 12:48, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

This article exists to house information that otherwise would be at British Isles & thus bloating that article. This article is acceptable as a branch off the other. GoodDay (talk) 13:40, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

If ya feel the article should be deleted? go the AfD route. GoodDay (talk) 13:36, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree with GoodDay here, the article serves a purpose. Otherwise in response to James I disagree, Irish government statements stand and usage is changing. I don't see how a POV tag is justified as the article reports a dispute but does not take a position on the validity of that dispute. If people want to delete the article then put it forwards for deletion.--Snowded ^TALK 08:45, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

At present it does not report the whole thing in a neutral way. For example it still gives undue weight to unknown alternative terms and it also fails to explain that some of them are not alternative terms for the archipelago, simply an alternative term to avoid mentioning the archipelago in North West Europe. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:51, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I think your "avoid" is a bit pejorative there. At the moment common use in respect of the archipelago would support BI, but over time it may be OK so the the A of B&I, but that is for another day. What is clear is that B&I is a valid alternative to BI in some contexts, as a stand alone term. If we look at the alternative terms then only B&I has any real currency so making it clear that the others have been "variously suggested" or similar would be OK. I still like High Kings suggestion to drastically reduce the article in size --Snowded ^TALK 09:28, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I fully accept B+I is a term used often instead of British Isles. It is certainly more used than any other alternative term/name. But there is a huge difference between being a valid alternative to use instead of talking about the archipelago, and being an alternative name for the archipelago. Ive yet to see any sources to convince me that "Britain and Ireland is an archipelago in north west europe" or.. "The Archipelago of Britain and Ireland are a group of islands in north west europe". Instead it is simply.. "Instead of mentioning the archipelago in north west europe known as the British Isles, some organisations and groups prefer terms such as Britain and Ireland to avoid causing contention." I also agree that the article needs trimming and a clean up. Until that is all resolved though the tags should stay and people should be careful about removing them, as they may be accused of "tag team edit warring". BritishWatcher (talk) 09:53, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

It is semantic word play. Yes, "B+I is a term used often instead of British Isles." But the problem is, "B+I is also a term often used erroneously instead of British Isles." No, we cannot sustain errors just because we can find an erroneous citation. --LevenBoy (talk) 16:42, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

These Isles

Much of this topic is unbelievable, e.g. "These Islands or these Isles" section. That should go straight away. It is a literary device not a geographical term. You can only use "these Islands" or "these Isles" if you have introduced which islands you are speaking about in whatever publication it is first. It is elementary. I mean, think about it; "Scandinavia, Mediterrean, Middle East, These Islands", does it really sound right?

Does anyone object if I remove it? --LevenBoy (talk) 16:41, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I posted a list of these "alternates" above, including "These Isles" asking for comments and after some discussion, it appears the best thing is to take the list across to BISE as a whole and work through them. I want us to achieve an unarguable consensus on this and all of the other alternates for all BI-related articles if possible, not just this one. Therefore I'm opposed to removing any of them right now as it will presumably just end up with an edit war, either now or later. So yes, I do object. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 16:56, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

About "these islands", there's a great quote I read somewhere but can't find right now about how that phrase may be useful for those from "those islands", but imminently useless for everybody else. Conversely, there also the view given in (Stevenson:2003): "It may seem at first bizarre and evasive, but it may be that within a generation or two 'These Islands' will be boldly emblazoned on maps where 'British Isles' once stood."

About removing these terms, the entire article needs reworking. TBH between the sources we have here and at British Isles, this article could be a short GA but an prune/great reworking would be needed (not only to the section being discussed here).

I don't think BSIE is needed - the contributors to this article are well aware of the issues and discussion about the choice of what to include and remove from this article belongs here.

About presuming that any edits will end in an edit war, we can't let that dictate whether we work on an article or not - though of course I don't mean that as a license to avoid discussion or to dismiss the views of others. --RA (talk) 17:41, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Can we move to a removal then? If the Agreement needs referencing, it can be done in a single sentence. I spent some time reading it over and it is clear that "these islands" are only a reference to already defined entities within the document and are not being proposed as a name. There is a further problem. It is not even clearly state that it refers to all the islands, e.g. CI and IoM. --LevenBoy (talk) 00:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Merger proposal

As per previous deletion discussion. Reduce and merge with Terminology of the British Isles.

There has been no further progress on this topic. Although it is an important issue, there are no scholarly publications or books directly matching this title and so it and suffers from WP:OR and WP:BIAS. As above, there is stuff in there that is just plain wrong or fantasy. However, the topic subject is undisputed and deserves a mention but in scale it is really only a minor issue for the Terminology and other pages to cover.

Merge with what? What's the proposal? --HighKing (talk) 00:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I assume he wants to merge it with the Terminology of the British Isles article. GoodDay (talk) 00:31, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Unless there is a more coherence proposal which supports some of its wilder statements, or says what the merge proposal is. Improperly articulated proposals like this just waste people's time. --Snowded ^TALK 00:26, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

It is all on the topic page. It has always been on the topic page. The reasons have been on the topic page for a long time.

Thank you for proving that individuals do not even read what they are voting or comment about but just instead rehash their usual position.

(Hint: It is at the little box with arrows at the very top.) --LevenBoy (talk) 05:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Borderline civility again LemonBoy. You make a proposal then you make the proposal clear and pipelink if necessary. I'm not going hunting over your myriad contributions as an SPA on this subject --Snowded ^TALK 11:21, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Support

As proposer. In my opinion, the topic's purpose is really just to support a wider renaming campaign on the Wikipedia. --LevenBoy (talk) 03:37, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Please use an argument based on policy to support your position. It's also noteworthy that this article was moved here by British editors to keep it away from the British Isles article. Finally, if this is a merger proposal, you should really mention which article it is to be merged with. --HighKing (talk) 13:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
This is a POV article that should by rights be deleted, but in the absence of any agreement to delete the next best thing would be to merge it as suggested. Policy? it contravenes the basic policy that articles should be written from a NPOV. The article is nothing more than a random collection of opinions. LemonMonday Talk 20:21, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
WP:CFORK. This should be merged as both an invalid content fork and a POV fork. This article represents 70kB of verbiage on a dispute that nobody has ever written a single book in it's own right, most of which is actualy already included elsewhere, in more appropriate locations. The selection, presentation, and balancing of those sources that do actualy say anything on the topic, is the same C-grade stuff you see in most of the other articles that share the few regular defenders/editors this one attracts. Anyone who wants to claim this is a fantastic article, a beacon of NPOV writing that should not be merged into articles that truly neutral people do actualy edit from time to time, and that do get peer reviewed from time to time, should put their money where their mouths are and try and make this one an FA, if they can, or at least ask the folks at the NPOV noticeboard for a neutral peer review. I'm off now to go flying pig shooting. MickMacNee (talk) 21:27, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

This article was created to take undo-weight from British Isles concerning the naming dispute. GoodDay (talk) 03:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
This is a well referenced article covering a current topic and it's way to large to be merged with any article. Bjmullan (talk) 21:18, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it's way too large, and that says something. I guarantee you won't find the subject of this article documented to the extent it is here, anywhere else. That suggests OR to me; just one of the problems this article suffers from. LemonMonday Talk 21:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Oppose, let's keep the dispute away from other articles. --HighKing (talk) 00:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Try look at the topic page then. --LevenBoy (talk) 05:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
You mean the article page, thanks LB. But let's keep the "dispute" out of other articles as much as possible. If this article doesn't exist, then I predict that the "dispute" will find its way into every related article. --HighKing (talk) 16:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Oppose for the moment until Lemon Monday/LevinBoy gets their act together --Snowded ^TALK 11:21, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Oppose, for reasons already outlined; it'll swamp the other article. That said im also slightly concerned by the sentiments already expressed regarding the importance or lack thereof of this issue. I don't doubt people who contribute to this article feel very strongly about it but there doesn't seem to have been any significant work done outside of Wiki on the issue. This entry is essentially acting like a fine sieve bringing together various floatsam that exist regarding the matter, but which individually amount to little more than a sentence.Zaq12wsx (talk) 19:11, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Oppose. This subject is sufficiently important and referenced to have it's own article. Bjmullan (talk) 22:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Oppose. This naming dispute is certainly a topic worthy of its own article. This article does an admirable job of objectively bringing together the range of views on an issue that is deeply felt by many (primarily Ireland-resident) people. All naming disputes should be thoroughly presented in their own dedicated articles and referenced appropriately elsewhere - those who want to delve into the substance of the issue can click on the link if they wish. pconlon 10:47, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Alternative solutions

Delete. It's just a soapbox. LemonMonday Talk 21:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Keep. Better to have this article, then have British Isles article dominated with this article's content. GoodDay (talk) 22:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

That was never a suggestion, so now you have had the merge pointed out to you, do you want to strike or take a position. --LevenBoy (talk) 05:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I've already opposed the merger. GoodDay (talk) 15:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Delete. There's a large percentage of both OR and POV in this article. I've just been searching for similar material in news sources as an example and can only find material that either references this page (!) or discusses it a brief, chatty way. I can see a good deal of material in here that belongs either on a blog or a talk page. I don't buy the argument that articles are "needed to prevent spillage" into other articles of material that truly does not belong in Wikipedia. This article just reflects the determination of the anti-BI nationalist camp within Wikipedia and not (as is so often the case in Wikipedia) genuine reportage of a notable real-world phenomenon. I might accept a merger as discussed above, but the suggested target article for the merge proposal is actually pretty good and accurate and does not really need all this material. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC)