Talk:Names of the British Isles/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Article name

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.

---

This should be changed back to being a dispute. The Irish government literally disputes its use. 2001:BB6:502B:F600:D9C1:5810:E4E0:AF02 (talk) 09:49, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Agree HardCopy (talk) 12:06, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Agree --Lucky102 (talk) 14:38, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, the current title is completely nonsensical and provides no useful information to the reader from the title alone. Since the article is focused on a dispute over what to call the British Isles why would there ever be an issues naming it 'British Isles naming disupute'? As it currently stands the title could mean absolutely anything.Dubarr18 (talk) 15:03, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. The original purpose of the article was to highlight the issues of the term hence “British Isles Naming Dispute”. Removing “dispute” from the title doesn’t make sense and it appears those who did have a biased agenda. Skyifictionable (talk) 20:52, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

If this was a dispute wouldn't there be some details of it in the article? Who are the disputing parties? What meetings, conferences, or other 'get-togethers' have taken place, and are planned, to attempt to resolve it?

Without a dispute, the former title would fail the article naming conventions. See WP:NAME. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:43, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Agree. Mashtato (talk) 11:23, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

What is this "Agree" thing? Wikipedia content is not a democracy, there is no voting (hence use of "!vote"). Someone needs to start either a Requested Move or Request for Comment, where people can make their points according to cited policies - i.e., not just going "Agree" or "Disagree" - and an admin will eventually weigh up the relative merits expressed in the arguments put forward, and decide the issue. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:33, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Should there be a new page about this talk page called British Isles naming dispute dispute? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.91.18.92 (talk) 10:32, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

No, it is only rather recently moved to this name. Beside that, the article is about a geographical entity, not a political. And we follow the common use of a name for geographical entities, not a desired political name. The Banner talk 12:29, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

The name "British Isles" was coined when Ireland was under colonial rule. Since the Republic of Ireland is no longer under colonial rule, this name no longer applies.

As it was formed during a time if political repression, it will never be able to exist as just a geographical name.

The name is disputed by the Irish government and this is making a mockery of what Wikipedia is intended to be. 213.7.150.148 (talk) 14:15, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Please read the article and the history of the name and you'll see this isn't the case. Additionally if you wish it to no longer be used I suggest contacting the Irish government and ask them to stop their internal usage of it which is used by various departments in reports (and yes includes Ireland in that definition.) Just because a couple of politicians have said they don't use it, doesn't mean the entire government doesn't use it. Even RTE uses it. A lot of people complain that it's not used by the government or people in Ireland when it actually is. What they mean is they don't like it. Canterbury Tail talk 14:32, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

The article says the Irish government disputes the name. It says the term was formally disavowed by the government in 2005. I suspect the changing of the title of this article was politically motivated. 86.42.4.197 (talk) 15:15, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

If a significant portion of people don't like something, would one not expect it to be in dispute? Xx78900 (talk) 16:34, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

You would need a reliably sourced reference that a significant portion of people do not like it. Online posters, on any side of a discussion, do not represent the majority or a significant portion of people. Canterbury Tail talk 22:08, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Canterbury Tail - since when does one individual (you) get to infer that a "significant" number of people do like the term? If that's your belief in turn you need a reliably sourced reference that a significant portion of people do so.

It's a bizarre situation when those activly highlighting that the topic is indeed in dispute are being ignored by a few unilaterally claiming there's no dispute despite many many talk articles detailing just that. 109.78.219.54 (talk) 19:59, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Anyone can infer anything they like. Inference is a very personal thing and no one outside can alter what a person infers from something. You can't affect or gatekeep what someone infers. And I've never said I infer that in any case. In the case you misspoke I have never stated that the majority of people like the term. I have never claimed I believe a majority like the term. All I have ever said is there's no evidence a majority of people dislike the term. And much of the references that people claim make this assertation do not actually support it once looked at. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, with reliable sources things can be changed and stated, but until reliable sources are produced for this so called majority, the status quo name (that is even used by the Irish government as extensively proven) will remain. Canterbury Tail talk 20:05, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

And yet you are doing exactly that plus gatekeeping the entire topic. Your comments to date are not only disagenous but also evidently in bad faith. You continously demand proof whilst making claims that fail to stand up to the most basic scrutiny. 109.78.219.54 (talk) 20:32, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

You say:

"I have never stated that the majority of people like the term. I have never claimed I believe a majority like the term. All I have ever said is there's no evidence a majority of people dislike the term"

No that does not follow. If you keep insisting theres no evidence a majority of people dislike the term - then yes you are making a case for the opposing argument that the majority of like the term. So far, that has not be forthcoming.

you say

"Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, with reliable sources things can be changed and stated, but until reliable sources are produced for this so called majority, the status quo name (that is even used by the Irish government as extensively proven) will remain"

No reliable source has been provided to show the term is popular or even relevant. At best it is an archaic term of no official standing whatsoever in relation to the island of Ireland. And no the "Irish government" are not using the term. The term has been referenced occasionally in various contexts including by British visitors to the Dáil and reports which use the term to refer not to the island of Ireland but rather Britain etc. Therefore that is not the "status quo" name in use by the Irish government unless you can provide official proof that is the case. So far you have failed to do so 109.78.219.54 (talk) 20:44, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Much evidence has been proven to show that the Irish government does indeed use the term, there are links that prove it within this very thread topic and plenty in the talk page archives (and yes they are Irish authored and do include Ireland in the definition unless major parts of Ireland have been moved to Great Britain which would be an interesting topic), I cannot however make you read them. I have also never even stated my view on the term on whether I like it and use it or not, I just go by the reliable sources. There are many people, on both sides of this argument, that don't rely on sources to inform them and just go with their gut and their emotions. I am not one of them, I go by the sources and get frustrated by the people who make arguments without anything to back it up. I also will not reiterate things that have been proven, shown and mentioned multiple times in talk thread and archives and will not spend my time repeating things that are there for people to find. Canterbury Tail talk 20:59, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Incorrect. The proof of use so far offered is incidental to any official government usage as per

https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/question/2005-09-28/495/#pq-answers-495

What links have been produced as to usage so far posted include various references to the term by British visitors or other invitees to the dail, external reports making references to other sources or other references making external references. These are not relevant sources regardless.

It's quite unbelievable that this debate is been deliberately and consistently sidelined by a few in the face of overwhelming evidence that in relation to Ireland, the term is both archaic and of no official standing whatsoever. 109.78.219.54 (talk) 21:27, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

I'd like to direct you to the Irish government's stance on the term The minister of foreign affairs official statement. 213.7.150.148 (talk) 11:32, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Did you actually read that statement in its context? Someone asked a question and the minister answered the question. No law, no official declaration, just an answer on a question. The Banner talk 11:36, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

No, they did not read that statement in context. They quite possibly read a quote of it on Reddit, though (hi, PM_ME_HORRIBLE_JOKES! Dylanduke, takes one to know one!). It's presented there without any context, as if it was an official government decision that's somehow enforced or enforceable! (Hi Competitive_Ad_5515!) Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:35, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Of course I read the statement in context. If you had checked, you would have noticed that the website that answer is hosted on is the official government site for the Oireachtas which is the Irish Parliament.

The government is hosting that answer on its website, so it is hardly "just and answer on a question". The answer came from a minister of that parliament, how much of an official declaration would you like? What would fulfill your standards.

The name change of this article and your attitude do nothing but attempt to belittle the dispute. This change has been made purely out of political motivation. It is clearly a dispute and to deny that is to be willfully ignorant. 213.7.150.148 (talk) 16:56, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, 213.7.150.148, it is literally the answer to a question. That's what the particular section of the website is for - a verbatim report of everything said in the Dáil. But speaking of official government websites, you'd be amazed how often they do use the term "British Isles"; and "Republic of Ireland", for that matter, despite that not being the actual name of the state. And for what it's worth, I had nothing whatsoever to do with the page move. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:40, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

It is the answer to a question from a government representative on an official government website. There you are trying to belittle it again. Of it was from a random person on social media, that would make more sense but it isn't.

You keep stating that the Irish government use the term frequently but we sit here with bated breath waiting for a single other example other than what's in the article.

I've given you official proof, where's yours? 213.7.150.148 (talk) 19:56, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm belittling nothing. It's an official government website, yes. But you're aware it publishes literally everything that's uttered both in the Dáil and Seanad - you do know that, right? Something being included there doesn't make it the sermon on the mount or Moses bringing down the tablets. It records important speeches, debates, showboating, banalities and empty promises that end up being broken in short order. You have given me "official proof" of nothing, except of what Dermot Ahern said one day in the Dáil. As for examples - well, here's some. 2,700. All from gov.ie sites, and it looks like mostly geographical usage.. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:14, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

If you took even half a second to check the so called "proof" you were providing you would have seen that it is absolutely incorrect.

In the top 20 results of your Google search, most results referenced the same study which was of the ice sheets of the British Isles and Ireland.

Another was a reference to the British Isles by a retired English soldier.

Multiple others were referencing specific plant types, especially their origin.

So I still await for you to provide any actual proof that the Irish government is regularly refering to the Republic of Ireland as the British Isles.

Maybe something with more substance than a Google search.

An official answer from an official source in an official record and no correction in sight... looks like it might be official. Shame you're unable to see that.

And there's another attempt to belittle it by comparing it to the sermon on the mount and Moses bringing down the tablets. 213.7.150.148 (talk) 22:09, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, a geographical term is being used in geographical contexts, and being published on Irish government websites. I've shown you 2,700 results, you have a problem with 20 of them. Dermot Ahern says it isn't used officially by the government. That's reported in the same way that same site reports Michael Healy-Rae saying climate change doesn't exist and if it does, God will sort it out. /shrug. As you've been told - call an RfC or RM. Arguing with me about the nature of Dermot's pronouncement won't change anything, and the result of a check for consensus might surprise you. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:45, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

The geographical term is being used to refer to all the other islands, not the Republic of Ireland. You gave me 2,700 results and the first 20 did not support your argument.

It is possible for Irish governmental websites to refer to the UK and it's immediate territories as the British Isles but they also refer to Ireland separately, which is completely counter to your argument.

If you would prefer to hide behind your poorly attempted gish gallop and expect me to read through 2,700 websites when you clearly couldn't be bothered, be my guest. The burden of proof is on you, you're the one making claims that you have so far failed to prove. 213.7.150.148 (talk) 23:07, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Plenty of the results in the first couple of pages do not refer to the "Republic of Ireland and the British Isles", but nothing I say will satisfy you, will it. If you don't like 20-something of the 2,700 I linked you to, here's another near 400 results, taken only from Oireachtas and committee proceedings, seeing as you set so much store by them. Yes, some of the uses are from guests. Many aren't, and come from independent, opposition and government TDs and senators. Bottom line - some people in Ireland use the term. Some people in Ireland will continue to use the term. People in Northern Ireland that we want to agree to join a united Ireland absolutely do use the term. And as someone living on the island, rather than, say, an island in the Mediterranean, I'll be living with the outcome of that vote when it eventually happens. Now, I've pointed you at the solution to your "problem" - go do the RM or RfC. Or don't. No skin off my nose, you're the one with the chip on your shoulder, still exercised over the Brits, or something. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:03, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Having looked at the first few results in your 400 result search, it proves once again to not support your argument. From the first handful of results I looked at they all mention the British Isles in relation to all the other islands excluding Ireland. Some are comparing Ireland's services to comparable jurisdictions in the British isles, some are talking specifically about the UK. One is a unionist from Northern Ireland discussing the name.

I'd like to point out that I haven't mentioned NI specifically because it is still under British rule so it could be considered part of the British Isles. My point is that the Republic of Ireland isn't under British rule and the name used when it was no longer applies.

I'm still waiting for you to actually show me a single article where the Irish government to

refersthe Republic of Ireland alf as British Isles. As I said, you have failed to provide any proof to support your argument and rely on a gish gallop instead of an accurate reply.

Where I am right now does not make me any less Irish. You have no idea who I am and are attempting to make this personal which is an ad hominem fallacy. 3 fallacies and unable to support your argument with any proof... 213.7.150.148 (talk) 10:43, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, you're reading through a biased lens, there, deliberately not seeing the thing you refuse to acknowledge, that the term is in everyday use, in a geographical context, meaning both main islands and the little islands around them. You're also mixing the term up with British Islands, which is an entirely different thing. Neither Ireland nor the Republic of Ireland are "British Islands". Anyway, you opened this whole thing with hyperbole and ad hominem attacks. You've been given the solution - repeatedly. Time to shit, or get off the pot. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:13, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

You continue to argue in bad faith. I have looked at what you call "proof" fairly by looking at them in order from the start and not one of them refer to the Republic of Ireland as part of the British Isles. Not one. It is also clear that you don't know what ad hominem means since I have done nothing but be respectful to you, and by your constant use of fallacies and the language in your most recent reply, it is clear you are incapable of proving your point or being respectful in return. 213.7.150.148 (talk) 11:41, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

It would be a great point when you finally understand that you have the Republic of Ireland, located on the island of Ireland that is part of the island grouping British Isles. It has nothing to do with politics as the island grouping is a geographical term. Pop in your local library, ask for an atlas (I hope you know what that is) and check how they call the group of islands west of Belgium and the Netherlands. The Banner talk 11:26, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

It will be great when you finally understand that this is the dispute you are being selectively ignorant of.

The name British Isles is unavoidably political. The Britons never even settled on the island of Ireland. It is a name given to a group of islands by a controlling power during the duration of their control. That control has ended and is no longer applicable to all the islands said power applied it to.

To continue to say the Republic of Ireland is part of the British Isles is to go against the decision of the Irish and UK governments.

It is no longer applicable as a geographical term. I can't learn this for you. 213.7.150.148 (talk) 11:48, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

I am not arguing in bad faith in any way, 213. You're just moving the goalposts now. Your ad hominem attacks take place at 16:56, 2 September; 22:09, 2 September; 23:07, 2 September. Again - shit, or get off the pot. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:27, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

ok, please look into the meaning of ad hominem. Saying that you are trying to belittle my argument (which you were by employing faulty analogies to the proof I provided (another fallacy btw)) is not the same as using anything about you personally as a point of argument. I haven't used anything about how poorly you have presented your argument to argue back at you. In fact I am still asking you to provide actual proof and taking the time to explain why what you have provided doesn't apply.

You're clearly trolling and biased at this point. The fact this has gone on for so long and you have still not provided anything other than fallacies and refined search engine results is, frankly, astonishing.

Thank you for strengthening my argument by the sheer incapability of your own. 213.7.150.148 (talk) 15:15, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Shit. Or get off the pot. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:40, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Your words "shit or get off the pot"

Batsun - your replies on this topic are absolutely disgraceful. It would appear you are doing little more than trolling the topic at this juncture 109.78.219.54 (talk) 20:17, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

There was no political motivation, I can assure you. Didn't you read the move summary? It gives the exact reason: to Make shorter (WP:CONCISE, WP:PRECISE): There is no dispute discussed.

There is no dispute discussed in the article, so how can that name comply with the given guidelines? -- DeFacto (talk). 20:10, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

The dispute is discussed in the article, it just isn't labeled as such. It clearly states that there are issues with the name. By removing that it's disputed from the title, suggests that that is the correct name when it clearly isn't. The article needed correcting, not the title. 213.7.150.148 (talk) 22:12, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

All I can see are discussions about alternative names used by some. Perhaps 'Alternative names for the British Isles' would be better? -- DeFacto (talk). 22:19, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps you should reread the perspective of Ireland section. You'll see "...Use of the name "British Isles is often rejected in the Republic of Ireland..."

as well as

"Many political bodies, including the Irish government, avoid describing Ireland as being part of the British Isles".

That and the fact that it is being removed from school books etc is an unmissable indication to the dispute.

Again, the dispute exists and the article should reflect that stronger. The title should not just focus on the naming of the British Isles and Ireland as there is clearly a dispute. 213.7.150.148 (talk) 22:57, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

There is indeed some activism to remove the term "British Isles" completely. But unfortunately, the common use for this geographical entity is just "British Isles". Wikipedia follows the sources and the common use, not a few activists. The Banner talk 23:57, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

The "common use" you're talking about is outside of Ireland while in Ireland we use the British Isles to refer the isles excluding the Republic of Ireland. It is not common use in the Republic of Ireland because it is not the correct name.

The reason it's "common use" internationally is partially related to the history of the English empire combined with people not knowing that it is disputed. This is why removing "dispute" from the title is immediately misleading.

You claim there is no activism to remove it yet the entire Irish government has refused to use it to refer to the country the Republic of Ireland and the UK government no longer uses it either to refer to the same entity. There is no activism to remove it because it's already been removed from referring to the Republic of Ireland.

There is clearly activism to reinstate it which is abundantly evident by your and other's repeated efforts to ignore the dispute and support an incorrect change to the article's title. 213.7.150.148 (talk) 08:29, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

And who is "we"? And can you giver evidence of your claims? The Banner talk 10:54, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

See the above comments by Bastun. They have provided thousands of articles that clearly don't refer to the Republic of Ireland as being part of the British Isles.

Here is a link to the Irish minister of foreign affairs claiming the British Isles isn't used to refer to the Republic of Ireland.

Both the UK and Irish governments don't refer to Ireland as being in the British Isles. By we I clearly meant people and governments who understand that the name British Isles no longer includes the Republic of Ireland. 213.7.150.148 (talk) 11:59, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

No, not just an answer to a question. I mean real proof. Like a law or the likes. And you definition of "we" clearly proves that you have no clue what a geographical term mean and that you only have a desire to make it political. But an grouping of islands is not political. It is just soil. The Banner talk 13:21, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

You clearly have no understanding of what a dispute is. Or proof. You haven't provided anything to support your argument.

Oh the answer from a government minister who answered your question of where is the proof? Would you like me to spoon feed it to you?

What and absurdly reductive statement.

If it's just soil, why colonise it? Why kill or enslave the native people? Why try to eradicate their culture? Why do it all over the world?

If it's just soil, why worry about the Republic of Ireland not being part of the British Isles? Unless you're biased I guess. You're clearly not taking this seriously by your willingness to argue without providing a substantial argument. 213.7.150.148 (talk) 15:20, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

If give up. You clearly have no idea what the difference is between a country (political) and a group of islands (geographical). Please learn the difference. Ow, and it is funny to see that you use an IP from Cyprus. The Banner talk 15:52, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

For those asking for the page to be moved, feel free to open a Request move process for it. This will allow us to determine consensus for the title (not voting, consensus.) Canterbury Tail talk 15:15, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Was there a disscusion had when the page was originally moved? I have searched and found no record of it, what was the original rational for the change? Dubarr18 (talk) 15:19, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I believe the rationale was that the name is the topic of the article, not the dispute. The dispute and objections to the name represent only a small fraction of the article. Therefore the article is not about the dispute, just contains information on the dispute. I pass no judgement on whether the move was correct or not. Canterbury Tail talk 15:20, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

There is no "dispute" - except among individuals on Wikipedia, Reddit, and whatever Twitter is calling itself this week. If we were to rename it, then maybe "British Isles naming issue" would suffice. Otherwise - it's grand. There are far more important things in British-Irish relations to get het up about. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:22, 1 September 2023 (UTC) (Sorry, my addition was after an edit conflict - this was a reply to the 213. and 86. IPs, not Canterbury Tale).

I did some thorough scientific research about this issue (asking around in a bar) and the people I have asked did not care at all. The Banner talk 15:39, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Except among… people? The constant attacks of the term online and offline would suggest there is, in fact, a dispute.

Wherever the term is used, its use is disputed. From the Facebook comment section to government documents.

It is a disputed term. Those who deny this have an agenda. Skyifictionable (talk) 20:59, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Those who deny that it is an geographical term and try to make it a political term are the one with an agenda. The Banner talk 11:38, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Ah. So you admit the term is disputed.

Perfect. Skyifictionable (talk) 11:35, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

There is indeed a tiny minority of activists who objects to the term. And that is reflected in the article. What I have learned from normal conversations in the pub is that most people do not give a flying flip about the term. So naming it a dispute is far fetched and giving undue weight to that tiny minority. The Banner talk 11:47, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Its an archaic "geographical" term with absolutely no official standing whatsoever. 109.78.219.54 (talk) 20:22, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Just to add in response to the 86 IP: It says the term was formally disavowed by the government in 2005. Yeah, I've removed that, because it was incorrect. For the government to do that would require some sort of actual resolution, a vote, a statutory instrument, or, at the very least, an announcement of a cabinet decision. What actually happened was a minister made a speech in the Dáil - nothing more - and that's all that can be said in Wikivoice. Also, the URL used as the citation for the speech is dead, thanks to the amazing Oireachtas I.T. Unit, who seem to have a job description of making things as difficult as possible for the general public. Excuse the off-topic rant! Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:49, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Link revived. The Banner talk 16:09, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Cheers! Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:11, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

"a minister made a speech in the Dáil" So, a lot of empty words and minimum impact. Dimadick (talk) 16:50, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

You are incorrect. A statutory Instrument or similar would not be required. The term as it stands is an an archaic term without any official standing. A simple declaration as to style of term used is more than adequate. If you believe otherwise please cite the relevant government regulation which stipulates that a statutory Instrument would be necessary.

The strange thing is we have an editor denying the validity of the relevant Ministers statement statement. In effect setting themselves up as the only valid source. Truly and utterly bizarre position in the face of overwhelming evidence that the term is no longer relevant or valid

Btw the Ministers link is still very much active

https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/question/2005-09-28/495/#pq-answers-495 109.78.219.54 (talk) 21:04, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Note: The reason for a sudden rush of people coming into this talk page is that it is the subject of a Reddit thread. Canterbury Tail talk 22:15, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I may be kicking a dead horse but the bigger problem with the source is that it is never actually stated that the government disavowed the term. The minister states that it is "not an officially recognised term". The actual reasoning behind the lack of recognition is not given but assumed by the editor.

However, it is useful to put the quote in context. The statement further goes on that they monitor "abuse of the official terms as set out in the Constitution of Ireland and in legislation". The debate took place a few days before the final debate of the Interpretation Act 2005 [1] that set out officially recongnised terms and their meanings. The UK also has an equivalent in the Interpretation Act 1978. This also doesn't recognise the term British Isles. So are I we to imply that the British government also disavows the term.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Eckerslike (talk • contribs)

So, you gamble that the British government did not recognize the term? Or do you have evidence of that? The Banner talk 23:23, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that Law does not mention the term at all. See here. The Banner talk 23:30, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Why would it, though? It's an incredibly dry piece of administrivia. It doesn't list any geographic features as being recognised (or not) by the state. It's geographers, generally, who determine that, e.g., the Shannon is the longest river in the British Isles, or that Carrauntoohil is the tallest mountain in Ireland. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 00:11, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Just plain that the activists are dancing on quicksand. No real base at all. The Banner talk 00:31, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

How did the current title ever get past the first hurdle? Anyway, I suggest a complete rethink. This is not a dispute about the name, it is not even a dispute. It is about some people not wanting to use the name and the attention that generates. Therefore we need a new title, one without the word dispute. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 12:03, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

@Roger 8 Roger, please clarify what you mean "current title" as the current title, "British Isles naming", already does not have the word "dispute" in it. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:54, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

I meant this is not a dispute about the name, which is British Isles and cannot be changed, it is a dispute about whether to use the name. Subtle difference. The current title IMO is just odd and meaningless. Eg, the rugby issue - 'British and Irish Lions' does not change the term 'British Isleas', so the name is not disputed. What it does is call the team something else entirely. Therefore, the dispute is about whether to use the term, not about changing it. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:06, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Do you have evidence that the British Government do recognise the term? If so where is that evidence. 109.78.219.54 (talk) 20:27, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Why should the British Government recognize the name in common use of a geographical entity? The Banner talk 20:40, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Your previous comment

"So, you gamble that the British government did not recognize the term? Or do you have evidence of that?

Now you say

"Why should the British Government recognize the name in common use of a geographical entity?"

You are flip flopping from one position to the other and utterly failing to make an congruent argument for your position.

If you have evidence to support either of those provide it. Thanks 109.78.219.54 (talk) 21:15, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

No, I am not. I am constantly talking about the geographical entity. You keep trying to pull it into the political field.

But the common ground of your edits is that you have nothing serious or evidence-based to offer. So have fun talking to yourself. The Banner talk 21:43, 14 September 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.

Edit requests: "Hibernian Archipelago", "Atlantic Archipelago", Irish language, and illustrations

Abraham Ortelius's map of Ireland, published at Antwerp, 1575:

Eryn:
Hiberniae,
Britannicae
Insulæ, Nova
Descriptio
Irlandt

Ignazio Danti's map of the British Isles from the Florentine Palazzo Vecchio's Stanza delle Mappe geografiche, 1565:

Isole Britaniche
Lequalico tengano il regno di Inghilterra et di Scotia con l'Hibernia

Since the article is quite heavily text-based, I suggest enlivening it with some images. In his article, Ellis mentions Abraham Ortelius's 1573 map of Ireland (File:Ortelius - Eryn, Britannicae Insulae 2.jpg). I suggest Ignazio Danti's 1565 map of the Isole Britaniche (Egnazio Danti - British Isles - Google Art Project.jpg).

Please also add the following:
under "Alternative terms" add:

Hibernian Archipelago

Another suggestion is "Hibernian Archipelago". In the 2004 Brewer's Dictionary of Irish Phrase and Fable, Seán McMahon calls this title "cumbersome and inaccurate".

under "These Islands" add:

In Brewer's Dictionary of Irish Phrase and Fable, McMahon writes that this is "the phrase in most frequent use" but that it is "cute and unsatisfactory".

under "Atlantic Archipelago" add:

According to Steven G. Ellis, in 1996 professor of history at the National University of Ireland, Galway, "to rename the British Isles as 'the Atlantic archipelago' in deference to Irish nationalist sensibilities seems an extraordinary price to pay, particularly when many Irish historians have no difficulty with the more historical term."

under "Perspectives in Ireland" add:

The Collins Gem Irish Dictionary, edited by Séamus Mac Mathúna and Ailbhe Ó Corráin, lists Na hOileáin Bhriotanacha as the Irish translation of British Isles.

References

Since the article is locked, I cannot do this myself. The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 01:00, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

I have been able to make the changes I requested myself now, so I have removed the edit request. The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 21:18, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

"seemingly fell into disuse for over a millennium in these islands"?

Lately, I removed the claim that the name "seemingly fell into disuse for over a millennium in these islands, but remained in use elsewhere in Medieval Christendom, most especially Byzantium."[2]. Bastun has however restored it. [3] Bastun, I removed it not only because it had no citations to support it, but because it is unsubstantiated anywhere in the article. It is also obviously untrue. "The Britains" or "British Isles/Islands" was in continuous use throughout the western Middle Ages, including by writers from Great Britain and from Ireland. To name a few, Saint Patrick, the Venerable Bede, and Dicuil all used it, as did numerous writers of the later Middle Ages. I suggest removing this again; would you consider undoing your change? The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 23:18, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

The lede doesn't need citations, as it's supposed to be a summary of the body text. The "Names of the islands through the ages" section discusses the (apparent) lack of use of the term and its re-emergence, and is reasonably well referenced. If the likes of Saint Patrick and Bede were using the term, that should also be included in the article. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:20, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Bastun I know the citations don't need to appear in the introduction; I say this in the comment above. The point is, the body of the text doesn't back this up, and it's written in a strange way too ("seemingly"). The only discussion I can see of any lack of use of the term are the following claims:

• "Aside from Ancient use, the term "British" did not apply to Ireland until at least the late 16th century and onwards", but the citations that follow give a lengthy quote from John Morrill which flatly contradicts this ("Geographers may have formed the habit of referring to the archipelago consisting of Britain and Ireland as the Britannic isles"), then veers into irrelevances ("but there never had been a historical myth linking the islands") which is itself partly erroneous (Locrinus was Brutus of Troy's firstborn son and the etymnon of England (as pre-Saxon Logres/Welsh: Lloegyr), and not "Albion", as Morrill claims, and according to the same Geoffrey of Monmouth, King Arthur and various of his successors did indeed rule Ireland as well as all Britain). Morrill in fact confirms that British Isles was already in use, and after his mythological digression simply says that [Great] "Britain" on its own excludes Ireland, which is true but also irrelevant ("The term 'Britain' was widely understood and it excluded Ireland; there was no geopolitical term binding together the archipelago"). Morrill only tells us that Ireland was excluded from "Britain" (in singular), not from "the Britannic isles", or from "the Britains" (in plural). The grand claim about "the term "British" did not apply to Ireland until at least the late 16th century and onwards" is not substantiated at all. This leaves us with the quotation from Nicholas Canny ("I deliberately avoid the politically loaded phrase ‘the British Isles’ not least because this was not a normal usage in the political discourse of the time"), which, whatever its merits or demerits, does not come anything like close to the claim being made. Furthermore, Canny's own eventual successor in the chair of history at the National University of Ireland, Galway, Steven G. Ellis, contradicts his future predecessor on this exact point in his 1996 article ("... with regard to terminology, 'the British Isles', as any perusal of contemporary maps will show, was a widely accepted description of the archipelago long before the Union of the Crowns and the completion of the Tudor conquest of Ireland."). He goes on to cite the same map from the atlases of Abraham Ortelius as I recently added to the article and which appears on this talk page. Plenty of other maps show the same thing, as Ellis says and Morrill hints.
• "The Latin version of "British Isles" seemingly came to be used again in Western Europe with the translation of Ptolemy's Geographica (Geography) in the 14th century", but this claim too is nonsense, and the only citation attached to this paragraph doesn't say anything of the kind - the "British islands" are mentioned only in the context of a discussion on the presentation of different 14th-century maps in various manuscripts, without a word on the Latin West or anything "coming into use" with Latin translation. "Seemingly" appears to be the incorrect judgement of whoever wrote that on this Wikipedia page.

In all, no-one seems to support the expansive claims that are currently made in the Wikipedia page, which imply that "British Isles" or "the Britains" was somehow restricted to the classical period and which disappeared during the Middle Ages, only to be revived in the post-Renaissance. There is absolutely no justification for the idea that it "fell into disuse for over a millennium", even in such a backwater as the mediaeval north Atlantic. To cite just one example, the Irish geographer Dicuil, who in the gives us in the 9th century information about previous Irish monastic voyages to the uninhabited Faroe Islands, describing them as depopulated of hermits by the Vikings, and as accessible "a septentrionalibus Brittaniae insulis duorum dierum ac noctium recta navigatione" ("from the northern British Isles in a straight voyage of two days and nights"). These "insulis Brittaniae" ("islands of Britain") are the British Isles, and called as much. Dicuil obviously counts Ireland as one of them, since he says that the Irish hermits set out "ex nostra Scottia" ("from our Ireland").

As for Patrick and Bede, and many other western writers throughout the Middle Ages, one only has to look in their works for the plural forms of "Britannia" ("Britanniae", Britanniarum", "Britanniis", or "Britannias") to see that they clearly spoke of "the Britains" as a plural entity in exactly the way the Romans had. It would not be appropriate to fill the article with a list of every Latin author to mention the British Isles between the collapse of the western empire and the translation of Ptolemy into Latin, but there are many and its use in the West in the Middle Ages is not in any way dependent on Ptolemy or contact with the Greeks of Byzantium.

In short, it seems that the suggestion that the concept of the British Isles "did not apply to Ireland" and "fell into disuse" seems like a misreading (unintentional or not) of the sources cited, together with some tendentious weasel wording. I don't think these claims should appear in the article at all, still less in the introduction. The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 18:23, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

The article is a bit of a mess, really :-) I've reverted. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:03, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Bastun. I will have a go at realigning the Wikipedia page with the information that's actually in the sources cited. The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 14:28, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Material removed

I have removed the following claims as unsourced, or unsubstantiated by the sources given:

• "Some academics in the 1990s and early 2000s also used the term Northwest European archipelago": this was description used once in the article cited, which gave no indication that the author proposed it as an alternative to the normal name. NB: the name was not capitalized in the source. The article in fact discusses "Greater Britain", which is somewthing quite different. [4]
• "Bede's work does not have a collective term for the archipelago". This is false. In various places Bede uses the plural form: "the Britains", including in the work cited as the only source for this claim. [5]
• "Jordanes ... describes the islands (particularly in the Western Ocean) as "islands of the Ocean"; he named various islands in the North Atlantic, and believed Scandinavia to be one of them … He described Britain, but does not mention Ireland." This is irrelevant. Jordanes, like Bede, referred to "the Britains", including in Getica. [6]
• "Isidore ... similarly lists Britain ("Britannia"), Ireland ("Scotia" or "Hibernia"), Thule, and many other islands simply as "islands" or "islands of the Ocean" and uses no collective term." This too is irrelevant, and somewhat contradicted by the fact that Isidore specifies that the Orkneys are "intra Britanniam", which proves that for Isidore "Britannia" was not just Great Britain alone.[7]
• "In AD 43, various islands (including Britain, Ireland, and Thule) were referred to as Septemtrionalis Oceani Insulae ("islands of the Northern Ocean") by Pomponius Mela" This too is dubious. The Septemtrionalis Oceani Insulae is chapter heading in a 19th-century edition. It does not appear in the modern critical edition, nor does its equivalent appear in the 21st-century English translation. It is presumably not part of the original Latin text or the surviving manuscripts, but an insertion by a later editor, since removed.[8]

Should anyone object to these removals, I am happy to be corrected, but without any secondary source for these claims, and with the primary sources, where they are given at all, not substantiating them, I think it best to remove them. The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 01:48, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this analysis. Checking that sources actually say what Wikipedia articles claim they say can be tedious but it's really vital, especially on topics like this one. I support your decision to remove those claims. WaggersTALK 10:26, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello again Waggers. Please check over my removal of the following material, which I found to be misplaced, misinterpreted, or simply misrepresentative.

• [9] Aside from Ancient use, the term "British" did not apply to Ireland until at least the late 16th century This was not substantiated in anything cited and is untrue. (See above Talk:British Isles naming#"seemingly fell into disuse for over a millennium in these islands"?)
• [10] The Latin version of "British Isles" seemingly came to be used again in Western Europe with the translation of Ptolemy's Geographica (Geography) in the 14th century, but the work had remained available to scholars in Eastern Europe from the 2nd century to at least the 13th century with John Tzetzes in Constantinople and Eustathius of Thessalonica, who preserved the title of the treatise as Geographike Hyphegesis. This too was unsubstantiated and incorrect, with a misleading citation.
• [11] I removed three paragraphs which added nothing to the history or discussion of the name - they didn't even mention it.
• [12] I rewrote and expanded a vague comment on Jane Dawson's use of the term in her book, and her comments on it. The text claimed the book itself as evidence for the claim that although one study continues to use the term "for convenience", which is a misrepresentation of the evidence. (There is more than just "one study".) I also added Dawson's criticism that there is no convenient alternative.
• [13] Of John Dee's "Brytish Iles" it was claimed This appears to be the first use of a recognisable version of the modern term. which had no citation. "Appears" itself appears to be a speculative interpolation. (The fact that it is the earliest citation in the OED may or may not be significant, but it is not stated explicitly even there. It is sometimes stated that he was first to use "British Empire", but earlier instances have been found (https://www.jstor.org/stable/3817025).) I also removed an irrelevant map of the British Empire from the 19th century and changed Current scholarly opinion is generally that to reflect the nature of the source material. Ken MacMillan says this, but Ken MacMillan does not say "current scholarly opinion is generally".
• [14] In Irish, Éire agus an Bhreatain Mhór (literally "Ireland and Great Britain") is the more common term. This was not substantiated by the citation, which is only evidence that that source gives that translation; there is no comment on the commonness of that or any other name.
• [15] In 55 and 54 BC, Caesar's invasions of Britain brought firsthand knowledge; in his Commentarii de Bello Gallico, he introduced the term Britannia. It's not obvious what "firsthand knowledge" means (plenty of Greeks and Romans, not to mention Gauls and Germans, had certainly visited before Caesar) and Caesar certainly wasn't the first to use "Britannia" or "the Britains" (e.g. Catullus had already done so). In any case there was only the primary source cited to Caesar at Wikisource, where I only find evidence of Caesar using the singular, rather than the plural (unlike Catullus).

The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 17:14, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Those also look fine to me, and well justified. I'm pleased you've used {{cn}} tags in some cases where there's a possibility of a reference being found, as opposed to material that's demonstrably untrue. Would very much welcome other views of course as I think you and I come at this from a similar perspective and it's essential we maintain an overall neutral point of view while ensuring we accurately reflect what the reliable sources say. WaggersTALK 14:02, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

I've been watching these edits with interest and they all seem good to me. It's good to have a new participant in this article who is able to approach it from the perspective of what do the sources actually say and what is referencable. Keep up the good work. Canterbury Tail talk 14:23, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Lead and sources

My first impression when seeing this article was the messy plethora of citations in the lead. Ideally there shouldn't be any citations there, seeing as the lead summorises the article below, where the citations are used. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 06:25, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

@Roger 8 Roger I agree with this assessment. A lot of the the citations also contain quotations that would would be better placed in the article itself. In general, the introductory paragraphs put the horse behind the cart by launching into the problems with the name rather than defining and explaining the name and its history. After all, objection to the name is a very 20/21st century phenomenon, and as far as I can see is limited to the English language alone, whereas through time and across languages the British Isles has been the prevailing name with no dissent. The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 15:33, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Good rename

Thanks for doing the page move, @Defacto - as I've said above, "dispute" overstates the issue so I support what you've done. My concern now though is that, judging by titles alone, there's not much difference between this subject and Terminology of the British Isles. In content though, they are quite different.

The Terminology article is a mixed bag. It seems to start off as a "list of terms related to the British Isles" and turns into fully fledged prose later on.

My view is the prose bits from these two articles should be merged together, leaving a detailed long-form article and a simple, concise terminology list. WaggersTALK 09:37, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) It is a DISPUTE. A PhD in History (talk) 17:56, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

I guess you disagree? I have removed your personal attack because it is not helpful in the discussion. The Banner talk 18:17, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

On reflection I think the name should be "British Isles (name)" instead of "British Isles naming" but I'm loathe to light the blue touch paper with a requested move. WaggersTALK 07:59, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello Waggers. I think the name sounds awkward as it is. There are quite a few articles' names beginning "Name of …", "Names of …", or "Names for …" like Names for India, Names of China, Names of the Irish state, Name of the Czech Republic, Names of the Philippines, Names of the Greeks, and so on. To fit this pattern, this article should be either Name of the British Isles or Names of the British Isles, or potentially Names for the British Isles. I think the singular is best, since we're not talking about the names of all the different islands, but for the collective, and "British Isles" is by far the most common name of the past 2000 years. The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 20:18, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I'd happily support a move to "Name of the British Isles". I think that makes it more distinct from the Terminology of the British Isles article too, which is more to do with the names of related concepts. WaggersTALK 13:50, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

@The wisest fool in Christendom, yes, I like that, so I too support "Name of the British Isles". -- DeFacto (talk). 14:38, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

The disambiguator for this article currently reads his article is about the use of the English toponym "British Isles". For the confusion between different geopolitical terminology within the British Isles, see Terminology of the British Isles. and, frankly, there's not much of a distinction between the two articles. If anything is to happen, it should be a merge. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:05, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure about that. The terminology is confusing and has significant overlaps while not being related to the British Isles per se. The differences between England, Great Britain, and the UK are all routinely ignored or misunderstood in various languages, but that doesn't have all that much to do with the name of the islands as a whole. Quite a lot of Terminology of the British Isles might be better off at Britain (place name), or here, and there is certainly a lot of repetition between the articles. The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 23:09, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

I think the Terminology article should be converted to a pure list - "List of terms related to the British Isles" might be a better name. The "in detail" sections should be moved/merged to their specific articles; if people want to know why England is called England, they can do that at the England article.

It does seem sensible to tackle these changes in one place; not sure which place is right for that. Could be worth making it a proper RfC to get full community input/consensus. WaggersTALK 07:53, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

That's a good idea, Waggers - especially on a "contentious" area like this. It'd be difficult to frame, though. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:11, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

True. But I fear that we open a can of worms when we have that RFC. We have seen the activists before and they could easily disrupt the process when they go again to Reddit or social media. The Banner talk 09:29, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a big problem. But without an open discussion we run the risk of having a local consensus that the wider community doesn't endorse (see WP:CONLEVEL) and/or end up leaving these two articles in their current mess. We do need to be able to have a discussion about how we structure the information we're presenting on the subject of the British Isles without it descending into a debate about the name itself. Any discussion would need to have a statement to that effect made clearly at the outset. Perhaps I'll draft something in my user space for us to look at and agree on, and then we can take it to WP:VPR. WaggersTALK 10:07, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Reading WP:RFCBEFORE, I'm not convinced we do need an RfC as we have a rough consensus here already. I reckon if we place a notice at Talk:Terminology of the British Isles and formalise the proposal here, that should be sufficient, assuming the resulting discussion / !votes confirm the conversation above. So, watch this space... WaggersTALK 13:28, 10 October 2023 (UTC)