Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2012 May 21

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

May 21

Copperhead Snakes

Do Copperhead snakes smell like cucumbers? I live in Kentucky. On some nights, I can smell the aroma of cucumbers. It isn't all the time, just intermittenly. The area I noticed the smell in has tall weeds, rocks, and next to a very small small stream. I have only noticed this smell during the night time hours. I am concerned, because this is at a location where a house remodel is taking place, and I'm afraid there could be several snakes around. I'm afraid that this could be a snake or snakes that are being disturbed at night, because no one can see them in the dark. If this is true, could it be the snakes way of saying that someone is too close? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gizmo1977 (talk • contribs) 06:44, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

You may find this article to be interesting. --Jayron32 15:55, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

The advice in that article to "suck out the venom quickly" and "apply a tournequet" does not agree with the advice provided by numerous other sources: [1]. [2]. [3]. Various sources agree that copperheads sometimes smell like cucumbers, especially "northern copperheads., [4]. Other sources say the cucumber smell comes from various types of snake. Other refs also report not having smelled the cucumber smell while near copperheads. Edison (talk) 19:32, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I grew up around the habitat of these snakes and caught an infant one once (until my parents realized what it was) and I've never heard that description of their scent before. Shadowjams (talk) 04:39, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

How much does a flight normally cost the airline?

I tried searching for answers online but failed to find good ones so here it goes. I've always wondered just how much does a single flight cost an airline. Does a flight cost as much as a new TV, a new car or a new house? The fuel probably costs a lot of money, while they also have to give pay the flight crew. Since I doubt that any airline discloses how much a flight costs them, estimates (in either US dollars or Philippine Pesos since I live in the Philippines) are welcome. This question includes both low-cost carriers and legacy carriers. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:15, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Specifying an aircraft type and the length of the flight would really help. There is a huge difference between a one hour flight with a British Aerospace Jetstream 41 and a 12 hour flight by an Airbus A380. Roger (talk) 09:38, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I think you can do quite well by quoting the cost per hour. It's fairly constant for any length of flight (fuel consumption is pretty much constant, staff costs are basically per hour, maintainance is generally based on number of hours flown, etc.). It will vary for different types of plane, though (increased efficiency is often one of the major selling points of new models). --Tango (talk) 12:00, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

One variable in cost analysis is do we imagine leaving one flight unflown. In that case we still need to pay for the idle aircraft, pay everyone's wages, advertise, etc. On the other hand we could permanently stop flying half the flights, and selling off half of the fleet and firing people - which gives a different cost-per-flight, essentially taking all the revenue of an airline and dividing it by the number of flights. Here is a quick breakdown of costs; googling for something like "airline cost structure" finds other breakdowns. Cost per flight is also different for a local carrier vs. long haul international carrier vs. a bush pilot with a Cessna. A ballpark estimate using numbers in the Delta Air Lines article (5000 flights per day for a revenue of 32 billion) an average flight runs $17,000 with all company expenses counted in. 88.114.124.228 (talk) 09:43, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I can't answer the question directly, but the article on Laker Airlines mentions that they needed to sell about half to two-thirds of seats on average to break even, but that this isn't as easy as it sounds due to the seasonal nature of demand. 130.88.172.34 (talk) 12:01, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

As others have noted, you can come up with wildly differing answers depending on how you choose to calculate the number. The full-on all-in number suggested by 88.114 (total airline expenditures divided by number of flights) will give you the biggest number, but it doesn't differentiate between short flights and long, small aircraft and large. Should the cost of a flight include the salary of the baggage handlers, the wage of the check-in counter attendants, the expenses of the airline HR department, and the cost of the first-class lounge at the airport?

If you just look at the cost of operating an airplane, do you include all of the aircrew, or just the pilot and first officer? Do you just count the fuel, or do you add in the maintenance?

Are landing fees counted? (These fees are generally based on a formula that includes aircraft weight and sometimes the number of passengers. A large aircraft like a 747 can cost several thousand dollars to land at a major airport.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:03, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't have experience with anything bigger than a PA28, but here are the factors that I can think of off the top of my head (not ranked by any particular order):

1. Maintenance - this includes invariable costs (the plane will be inspected every so often as a matter of routine), predicted costs (for each hour of flight, we will require x dollars worth of maintenance for normal wear and tear), and unexpected costs (crap, that wasn't supposed to break!)
2. Administration
3. Fuel costs - usually measured by hour, and can be extremely expensive
4. Other direct operating expenses (oil, for example)
5. Insurance - I have no idea how this is done for the airlines
6. Ground costs - landing fees, parking fees, terminal rental fees, etc; as mentioned above, this can get expensive with the larger aircraft
7. Fees/taxes - depends on the government arrangements, but for example there is a Carbon tax for flights going into Europe, and security fees in the US
8. Flight/ground crew - there are a LOT of people involved, especially for the longer haul flights

I am sure that I am missing something; can anybody else think of anything? Anyway, if you can find all the factors, and the costs thereof, you can add them together and come up with an estimate. Falconus^{p t c} 23:03, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Use of Term 'British Isles'

Hi

The phrase 'British Isles' is often used in Wikipedia articles as a geographical term referring to Britain and Ireland and a number of smaller associated islands. The following link, chosen at random, gives an example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Tilston_Bright

Although still used in Britain, the term is considered deeply offensive by many Irish people (and others). The style guide for the Guardian, a British publication, suggests that ‘The phrase is best avoided, given its (understandable) unpopularity in the Irish Republic. Alternatives adopted by some publications are British and Irish Isles or simply Britain and Ireland.’ http://www.guardian.co.uk/styleguide/b

Wikipedia's own article on the term notes that, 'Britain and Ireland is becoming a preferred description, and Atlantic Archipelago is increasingly favoured in academia' with further discussion on this topic under Etymology. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Isles

I am wondering why Wikipedia is happy to use the term so widely? Would it be happy to allow other epithets with similar xenophobic undertones when reasonable alternatives exist?

Regards

Conor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.147.188 (talk) 10:47, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

This matter has been discussed rather deeply on Wikipedia. Wikipedia:British Isles Terminology task force may help. - 220 of ^Borg 11:23, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Many people don't bother to read Wikipedia style guides, just as they fail to read text saying that questions about editing Wikipedia should be posted at WP:Help Desk, not here. Most people using the phrase "British Isles" do not have xenophobic intentions. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:41, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

(e/c) This has been discussed in great depth, many, many times. Current practice reflects existing consensus, and practice in the real world - we write about the world as it is, not as we would like it to be. It is by no means generally agreed that the term has "xenophobic undertones". Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:45, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia generally uses the most commonly used term for things (see WP:COMMONNAME), and British Isles is still the most commonly used term, however much the Irish may wish it weren't. --Tango (talk) 12:03, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

As you say, the term is still widely used in the UK, and many of the editors writing about the region are British, so would use the phrase that they use in everyday speech. I had never heard that it was offensive to Irish people; now that I know, I'm not sure that I'll be mending my ways anytime soon. Although "Britain and Ireland" seems acceptable, "Atlantic Archipelago" is just rubbish - nobody here would know what it meant. Alansplodge (talk) 17:27, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

"Atlantic Archipelago" - that would be either the Azores or the Canary Islands, wouldn't it? --TammyMoet (talk) 19:06, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

"British Isles" is also widely used by Americans, who may not be aware of Irish sensitivities. Marco polo (talk) 17:43, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

@Alansplodge, I guess your answer 'to avoid upsetting them, changing the name of our islands is a step too far' neatly encapsulates a big part of the reason Irish people have a problem with the term.In the case of both the islands and the rugby team, 'our' refers to British and Irish people rather than British alone.

@Tango, I havent'a seen any sources showing that the British Isles is indeed the most commonly used term. A google search of "Britain and Ireland" yields 15.8m results, while "the British Isles" yields 15.3. I am sure there is a more scientific way than that! @Borg, thanks for the response. I read that link and am a little boggled at the decision Wikipedia has arrived at. It seems strange to ignore Irish Government/British Government/National Geographic/Guardian/The Times Atlas etc. The same logic could apply to justify the use of ethnic slurs, Rhodesia, Ceylon etc. Anyway, I don't see any point trying to re-ignite this debate here. Best of luck. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.147.188 (talk) 20:06, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Well yes, I removed that bit because it was a heat-of-the-moment remark. A more considered answer would be that you're barking up the wrong tree with your "xenophobia" allegation. When I said "our" I meant we, the people that live here. These islands have been called the British Isles for an awfully long time, long before Great Britain as a political entity was thought of. Thirty seconds of googling finds "Pytheas described Thule as the northernmost part of Πρεττανική (Prettanike) or Βρεττανίαι (Brettaniai), his term for the entire group of islands in the far north-west." (320 BC) "Diodorus in the 1st century BC introduced the form Πρεττανια Prettania, and Strabo has Βρεττανία Brettania. Marcian of Heraclea in his Periplus maris exteri describes αἱ Πρεττανικαὶ νῆσοι 'the Prettanic Isles'." Britain (placename) So please research your facts before you start casting nasturtiums. Alansplodge (talk) 23:19, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

And another thing; I get 42,100,000 Google results for "British Isles"[5]. Alansplodge (talk) 23:27, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

@Alansplodge, Cheers for the response. Modern day use of the British Isles dates from the late 16th Century (according to the OED) and it definitely did have political associations, it was re-coined by John Dee. In the meantime, other terms and none were applied. Aside from that, the meanings associated with words change over time. The word Scotland comes from the Latin word for the Irish but it would make little sense to insist on using Scoti for Irish now.

I didn’t mean to suggest that the Wikipedia editors are xenophobic, when I originally wrote my message I assumed that its use was merely a slip based on Ireland’s puniness relative to the world covered by Wikipedia. Much like how my grandparents’ generation might still refer to Rhodesia or use politically-incorrect terms for Chinese people without any malice attached. I didn’t imagine for a moment that it had been considered but Wikipedia had still decided to adopt the term. Now I am making a liar of myself and re-igniting this ‘debate’, so I will finish here. Best of luck. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.147.188 (talk) 08:36, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The thing is, it's closer to the name of the country being derived from the name of the isles, rather than the other way 'round. Once you're (somewhat bizarrely) calling them "the British and Irish Isles", you are saying the name is about who owns them, rather than simply their name. Once you're doing that, are you the erasing the Manx and Jersey, because they're puny? So then, would it have to be "the British and Irish and Manx and Jersey and Guernsey Isles"? I'm sure I've left someone out. You can see why government documents just go with "These Islands". It really isn't about oppression of the Irish. Incidentally, I would never rely on the Guardian for anything like this, as they never give me the impression that they understand Geography, History, Science, Maths, Religion, or complicated political combinations of the same. I get the (perhaps unfair) impression that most journalists and nearly all editors there took English Lit, Media Studies, maybe Art, and Journalism. They make their graphs look pretty, but they are too often rubbish in terms of data. 86.161.213.137 (talk) 10:43, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

@86.161.213.137 Residents of the Isle of Man carry passports entitled, 'British Islands - Isle of Man' labelling them as 'British citizens' so it seems they have accepted this designation. Many references suggest that the Channel Islands are not part of the 'British Isles'so it is not me erasing them, apart from which, it is difficult to argue that the BI is an apolitical term and also to include the Channel Isles in the definition. They are clearly outcrops of France.

The bulk of the references to BI on Wikipedia I have come across are arguably superfluous and look, imho, to be part of this on-going war on Wikipedia about the term (of which I was oblivious). For example, there is no particular clarity gained in the article on the Isle of Man by noting that it is located, 'between the islands of Great Britain and Ireland' and directly afterwards 'within the British Isles'. Whatever one's opinions on the term, what has most surprised me about this episode is that there has been no attempt to sidestep an extremely contentious term where its use doesn't improve brevity or understanding.

I think that the idea that the term "British and Irish Isles" is bizarre is purely a subjective opinion.

I referred to the Guardian as it is an influential paper in the country which appears to be so keen to retain a term which many, academics, geographers and others, find either unclear (as the debate on the Channel island shows) or offensive. ::

It seem I can't help myself. I do tend to agree with your general opinion on journalists, however! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.147.188 (talk) 12:13, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, my point was that citizens of the Isle of Man do indeed accept this designation, but I suspect would be much less happy with "British and Irish Isles" because it would appear to pointedly exclude them. If we reject "British Isles" for the whole group, because some Irish object, then how can we move to a term which appears to actively exclude other islands who consider themselves part of this wider group? That isn't actually a solution. Saying "Britain and Ireland" is even worse. If you want a term that offends nobody, it has to be "these islands", which is what the government uses because who has time for these petty disputes? But that doesn't work in an international encyclopedia. I'm not keen on shoehorning contentious terms in, although I suspect the Isle of Man example is actually a clumsy attempt to include an early link to the article about the islands in question, for wider context.

I would question how influential the Guardian is in Britain: its international readership (online) is much higher than its paper readership in this country, and the latter has been plummeting for years. It's become a London middle-class left-wing echo chamber: the sort who like the idea of the Church of England, as long as no actual belief is involved. The papers with more actual influence are precisely the sort that would just write "British Isles", and would possibly launch a questionable campaign should the term be discouraged in schools. 86.161.213.137 (talk) 15:06, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The point remains that the term is almost only used colloquially these days. Relatively few cartographers, geographers, academics, governments, historians or others use BI in contemporary publications and those that do tend to be English hold-outs. The English newspapers you refer to may well refer to French people as 'Frogs' or to Germans as 'Krauts' or 'the Hun' (and they often do) but that does not mean they are reasonable term`s for Wikipedia to use in every article relating to the French or Germans.

The Isle of Man objection is spurious. They are British citizens and the British monarch is their head of state and there is no suggestion that they have a problem with this. Your supposition that they are perfectly happy with British Isles but not British and Irish Isles is exactly that, a supposition. In fact, since they have been closely allied with Ireland, Scotland and England at various stages of their history, they may even welcome it! The other side to this is that the Isle of Man does not have an Irish-related history with episodes of mass starvation, sectarianism and massacres that Ireland has with Britain (however more complicated these issues are once historians pick them apart) so the level of offense is much greater.

Also, it most cases where BI is used on Wikipedia, including the original example of Charles Tilson Bright, it is not really the British Isles which is meant but Britain and Ireland. It doesn't appear that he carried out any work in the Isle of Man nor Channel Islands (although we aren;t sure if the CI should be included or not. So Wikipedia is deliberately using a term which many users find offensive and which reduces the clarity of many of its articles. I have always been a fan of Wikipedia and I am baffled that Wikipedia would continue to use the term BI (seemingly on the basis that 60m UK > 4m Ireland and they couldn't be bothered) rather than reflecting best current consensus internationally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.147.188 (talk) 16:39, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I heard "British Isles" on the BBC news the other day, in a description of the route the Olympic torch is taking. You should take this up with the BBC rather than with Wikipedia, because we take our lead from our sources. Certainly the BBC would change if they had an official request from the government of the Irish Republic. In the meantime, there are many cases where "Britain and Ireland" (or "Ireland and Britain") sounds fine and natural, and no reason not to use it. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:46, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The term "British Islands" as used on Manx (and, I believe, Jersey and Guernsey) passports is a legally completely separate concept from the "British Isles", and specifically refers to all the islands under the British Crown and excludes the Republic of Ireland. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 22:57, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Except that Northern Ireland is not an island, but is merely situated on one (one would never refer to Switzerland as a "continent", just because it's in a continent). Maybe they should use "British Lands". (And then they could group all lands, colonies and territories under the British Crown as "British Lands and Territories", or BLT. Mmm, I'm salivating already.) -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 23:51, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Thus reviving the dormant title, "Sandwich Islands". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:41, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

@Itsmejudith I am not sure why I should take something up with the BBC, it is based mainly in London and paid for by British citizens. Nor am I clear why the BBC should be given more weight on Wikipedia in relation to geographic terms than National Geographic (to choose one example). Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia which I respect and which I use regularly. I have a stake in Wikipedia that I do not have in the BBC. The quality and accuracy of the BBC is essentially none of my business, nor is their editorial process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.147.188 (talk) 11:17, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Not just with them, perhaps, but with all the major media outlets that use "British Isles". WP will follow general practice; it won't be in the forefront of a movement to change. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:07, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

An exception was apparently made here for the nation English-speakers call "Ivory Coast". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:40, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Not at all, Bugs. We all talk about Beijing and Mumbai and Thailand and Sri Lanka and St Petersburg and Zimbabwe these days - why? because the governments of those places changed their names and asked us to follow suit. Same with Côte d'Ivoire. Do some English speakers and organisations still call it "Ivory Coast"? Sure they do. This is covered at Etymology. We had to choose a name for the article. The official name, which the majority of anglo sources use, was chosen. If you’re still using Ivory Coast, you’re in a dwindling minority. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 12:01, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Those are places whose names actually changed or that we had it wrong all along. This is not the same thing. "Côte d'Ivoire" is simply the French for "Ivory Coast". Big deal. Anyone who says "Côte d'Ivoire" is actually saying "Ivory Coast". And vice versa. And just what is the proper English pronunciation of the words "Côte d'Ivoire" anyway? Considering how we butcher French in general, I'm guessing "coat divorce". Yeh, that's a big improvement on "Ivory Coast". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:20, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

So, have you been to any of these places lately: The Angels, The Bearded Ones, Black Mountain, Borderlands, Cloak, Depths, Eight Islands, The Equator, Flaming Water, Forest, Green Cape, Holy Centre, Holy Island, Home of the Free, House of Stones, Island [sic] of Hyraxes, Land, Land of the Angles, Land of the Blacks, another Land of the Blacks, Land of Foreigners, Land of Forty Tribes, Land of the Free (not to be confused with Home of the Free), Land of Honest Men, Lands of the Lover of Horses, Land of Many Waters, Land of the Red Sea, Land of Wood and Water, Light Stone, Lion City, Lion Mountains, Little Venice, Our Land, Rich Coast, Rich Port, Roman Realm, Saint Christopher and the Snows, Saint Francis, Saint Marinus, Saint Thomas and the Prince, The Saviour, Shrimp, Sun Coast, Sunday Island, Trinity and Tobacco, Village, Warrior King, White Russia or Wild Coast? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 01:51, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

When did they change their names to a different language and then expect the rest of the world to kiss up? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:24, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

That wasn't what happened. Quote: The region, and then the country, was originally known in English as "Ivory Coast". But in French, which is the country's sole official language, it has always been known as Côte d'Ivoire. Quote: In October 1985, the government officially asked that the name of the country be changed to Côte d'Ivoire in all languages. You're right, nobody gets to dictate how English organises itself, and the English version will always be Ivory Coast, just as the English version of Puerto Rico is Rich Coast and the English version of Deutschland is Germany. So, the English language ain't gonna change. But what we can do is use the French name, since they've been good enough to ask nicely. After all, we use the foreign language names of all those places I mentioned above, and everyone's OK about it. I'm sure if the Montenegrin government asked that we use the native name Crna Gora, rather than the Italian (!) version thereof, nobody would object too much. In Côte d'Ivoire's case, not everyone in the anglosphere has seen fit to switch to the French name. I don't really know why anyone's holding out. They're happy enough to refer to Burkina Faso rather than Upper Volta, so what's the big deal? At the end of the day it's your choice as to what you call it. But if your reason for sticking to Ivory Coast is because you're rebelling against what you regard as an expectation we'll all just "kiss up", then that's a pretty childish position to take. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 05:35, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

@Itsmejudith Again, my point has been that most 'major media outlets' no longer consciously use the term BI, although it may slip in (mainly by English journalists in my experience)from time to time. Thus my contention is that Wikipedia is lagging significantly behind educated consensus rather than being in the 'forefront of a movement to change.' Even if one accepted that there was a need to hold onto the term (and I personally don't), one would expect that the use for such a contentious term would be reserved for times when it was needed, and avoided when it added no additional clarity. On the contrary, the term BI is shoehorned into a huge number of articles. As someone who often refers to Wikipedia, it now worries me that similar biases, agendas (and I cannot escape the conclusion that this is the case here)and frankly inaccuracies are being imposed across other articles on topics on which I have less knowledge.

I suggest setting aside some time to really work your way through WP:LAME. Also, there's a reason we run under WP:NPOV rather than getting everything right. There is always bias, in everything. Wikipedia was a great tool in helping me see the bias inherent in every other source of information, and perhaps it will serve the same purpose for you.

Incidentally, if you want your point to be that "most 'major media outlets' no longer consciously use the term", you should perhaps look for more evidence than simply The Guardian, and probably should have engaged more fruitfully with the observation that the BBC uses the term (your reaction looked like classic POV-pushing, which I'm sure you did not intend). Combined with your suspicion of "agendas" on the part of people who disagree with you (If there was an acceptable alternative, do you really imagine the British and Irish governments wouldn't be happily using it in treaties?), you're not achieving much. Seriously, if you actually put together an accurate survey of the style guides and usage of all the major media outlets based in these islands, noted their geographical locations and readership, and put this in a table for everyone to read, you would either a) find that Wikipedia currently accurately represents the consensus or b) find that you have excellent referenced evidence to convince others to change the terminology on the encyclopedia. But, if you do that, you cannot exclude media outlets based on your personal preference: if you do that, other people will add them in and note that you excluded them, undermining your credibility. If you actually create such a survey, and it really does honestly support your assertion that Wikipedia isn't reflecting current usage in these islands, I'm sure other people on these desks would join me in happily supporting the change.

I hope this gives you somewhere to go with this. 109.155.32.126 (talk) 19:34, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

@109.155.32.126 Thanks for your response, did you read the posts above? The British and Irish governments does not use it in any treaties. The British government doesn't use it and the Irish government has actively protested against it. Secondly, I am being asked to prove that a 'geographical term'is not accepted use, surely those desiring to use such a contentious term could give some examples of current atlases using BI? The Associated Press Stylebook makes no mention of BI (positive or negative) but refers to National Geographic which does not use the term. It boggles my mind that Wikipedia is going against the governments of both relevant states, UK and Ireland, this is why the suggestion of agenda (however incendiary or unfortunate) has been raised.

Yes indeed, the British and Irish governments use "these islands" which is unsuitable for an international encyclopedia. If there were an acceptable, less euphemistic, term, they would be using it. You are indeed being asked to proved that a geographical term is not accepted use: this should be easy to do, if it really is so thoroughly deprecated. Wikipedia is not "going against the governments of both relevant states". If it were, then the BBC which you accused of being unusably biased in favour of the British government based on being funded by the British public, would also be going against the British government, which is just a flat mess of contradictions.

I suggested productive things you could do, which would help you understand and would also offer you a way to achieve your goal, if reasonable. Did you follow my links? If you aren't prepared to support your assertion that "most 'major media outlets' no longer consciously use the term" by digging up the data, then how can you expect us to ignore our own impressions of the media in favour of your assertion? WP:Verifiability, not Truth. 109.155.32.126 (talk) 14:01, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I will do this, if those shoe-horning in the term everywhere will provide a similar level of verification. It should be much easier to prove in favour rather than against. So far those who have consciously decided against the term include the Irish Government/British government/National Geographic (and by extension AP)/the Guardian/the Times Atlas/the Irish Times.... I will do some digging to see if others have laid out their policy on this. The most I have heard on the other side is that somebody heard someone on the BBC say it once or that their primary school used to teach that.

I never said that the BBC is, 'unusably biased in favour of the British government', I simply explained why I was contacting Wikipedia rather than the BBC. The BBC is the UK's national broadcaster whereas Wikipedia is becoming the world's encyclopedia.

In fact several different terms have been used by them and others including IONA, Britain and Ireland, British and Irish Isles, Western Islands, Atlantic Archipelago, the Pretanic Isles... This is even if you agree that a single term is required for these islands, which I personally don't. The Channel Islands are no more part of the same geographic archipelago as Ireland or Britain than Normandy is, however there are certain political connections. I think it would be better for all concerned if the places being discussed was clarified in each case.

The meaning of words change over time. There are terms for ethnic and racial groups once considered acceptable but now considered offensive. They may be still be used colloquially (very commonly unfortunately), they may be heard on television but wikipedia does not feel the need to use racist terms in every article on Pakistan or African-Americans. You could make most of the same arguments in favour of xenophobic slurs as you could for BI.

Those fighting so vociferously to use a single messy, inacurate and contentious moniker for a group of islands in the Atlantic should question why they feel the need to alienate and offend millions of their (unusually cordial) neighbours. I would be quite interested in hearing the response. I have been trying and failing to imagine a counter situation where someone from another country told me that a 'geographic' term I was using had changed or also carried politically sensitive associations. I cannot envisage insisting on using, nay propagating, that term.

You still haven't understood. There is currently a consensus. The presumption on Wikipedia is in favour of not changing from a consensus choice unless people give evidence which changes the consensus. As you are seeking to change the consensus position, the onus is on you to provide the evidence. If you wish people to consider you as aiming for WP:NPOV, you will need to survey an actually representative sample of the media, including those who disagree with you, and provide references that prove they actually do have a specific policy or naming convention. You should also look at WP:NAME.

I strongly recommend that you look at the pages I linked earlier, to help you avoid certain unhelpful patterns. If you had done so, you would actually have several examples of disputed geographic terms, which might help.

Finally, please drop the assumption of agendas, xenophobia, deliberate offence, whatever. My father was an immigrant from Ireland. My mother is English. Here I am with half my family from both sides, telling you that you need to step back and cool down. Have a cup of tea. I am fully aware of the history of anti-Irish and anti-Catholic sentiment in this country: to some extent, it lingers. But this is not one of those cases: this is a case of there not being another term that describes quite a useful concept. It doesn't matter that you don't understand why someone would want a single term to describe a group of islands with a shared history and shared culture (in that case, you should be nominating the article itself for deletion). Certainly, the British government avoids the term in treaties with Ireland, because why would you want to upset someone if you had an alternative? It's the same reason the Catholic Church lets itself be called "Roman Catholic" in British documentation: one side cares and the other doesn't. But on Wikipedia, we can't use the useful circumlocution.

You are going to achieve nothing by arguing here. If you follow my suggested action, you might possibly achieve something. 109.155.32.126 (talk) 19:34, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I must concur with 109.

Pace everybody's honorable, scholarly intentions, methinks this topic will, at best, result in a very long and unresolved discussion, or, at worst, devolve into a childish display of circular reasoning and ad hominem attacks.

As an anecdote, I recall that an Internet fan club, of which I was a member, tried to moot this very topic some years ago by referring to Britain and Ireland as "IONA." (Short for, "Islands Of the North Atlantic.) Apart from the obvious ambiguities that such a term would have created, I noted that it would need also apply to Iceland, Farøer, and Greenland. A side note: The Spanish wikipedia page for Côte d'Ivoire refers to it as "Costa de Marfil."  :)

If we so wanted, we could also discuss why Britain is often called "Great Britain."

Some claim that it simply relates to its status as the largest (or "greatest") of the British Isles *oops!* cf. "Gran Canaria," "Grande Miquelon," "Grand Cayman," and the "Greater Antilles." Others say that it originally referred to its rank as the larger homeland of the Celts (or "Britons") during the Dark Ages. (vis-à-vis "Lesser Britain,"—now "Brittany.") Or, maybe, people who've been there just tend to think of it as a "great" place!

In truth, whatever motivation our ancestors had for naming places remains, in this day and age, almost completely irrelevant. (As Jack of Oz illustrated in his own, unique way.)

Honestly, don't we have anything more productive to accomplish with our time? Pine (talk) 04:44, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I apologise for making insinuations on agendas etc. I do accept that the vast majority of contributors are giving their time in good faith and that Wikipedia has a tricky challenge to maintain this reliable yet democratic resource.

I have two separate residual issues on this (other than my own personal preferences).

Firstly is the oft-repeated claim that BI is the consensus term. Some here feel that it is the most common way of referring to our small, rainy patch of the world, my feeling is that it isn't. In support of my view I have named various authoriative sources (for example national Geographic) who have explicitly decided not to use the term, yet those claiming BI is the consensus haven't provided any supporting evidence from recent times. How then is such a consensus verified?

My second issue is with the use of the term where there is no need for it. Even if the term is accepted to be the consensus to refer top the archipelago, my experience is that it is being shoehorned into a huge number of articles referring to these isles even where its use is ambiguous and unhelpful. This may be part of ongoing tit for tat between those for and against the term (which I don't intend to join). Is there a reason Wikipedia wouldn't lay down clear guidelines on this even if they disagree with me on part one? This would be an easy way of reducing the offense caused (even if we think that Irish people are overly thin skinned).

On the RCC issue, however, the reason that the 'Roman' prefix is acceptable is part of the reason that many consider that modern use of the BI moniker unacceptable. The headquarters of the RCC is in the Vatican City in Rome, its leader is based there and there are smaller groups which consider themsleves Catholic but are not affiliated to the Bishop of Rome, i.e. the Pope. There was a time when the government of the whole island of Ireland was based in London (UK of GB and Ireland) but this has changed with the democratic support of the Irish people after a prolonged struggle.

On another side note, I don't think there are many with a genuine objection to Great Britain. In Irish and Scots Gaelic the idea of Wales being Smaller Britain and of the whole island being Big Britain is maintained, much the same way as one might refer to the Greater Dublin Area or the Greater London area. Alternatively as you say, maybe people do just think that GB is a special place and deserves additional celebration!

Now, I might go have that cup of tea!

P.S. on the guidelines the link on the BI Terminolgoy Taskforce did have proposed tables. I am not sure whether they were accepted or not but if they were I respectfully suggest they have not been implemented.

Issue one is dealt with by reading the page WP:CONSENSUS, which explains that we are talking about a consensus on Wikipedia. You can change the consensus on Wikipedia by presenting evidence showing the range of terms used off Wikipedia, and calm, sensible arguments, on the appropriate discussion page (not here), and by editing pages. The linked page has more details on how this works.

Issue two is dealt with by editing the pages in question so that they include the same link less clumsily (you can pipe links, so you won't necessarily have to include the phrase "British Isles" in the appropriate sentence), or in cases where it really isn't necessary (such as a page on an Irish person, where it has been clumsily inserted into a sentence about where they come from) you can simply delete the phrase and use a descriptive edit summary, explaining your reasoning without attributing motive to anyone.

I chose the Catholic example because it involves an exonym (the Church calls itself "the Catholic Church", and always has) with its origins in attempts to make the Church sound pagan (you still see people doing this, particularly those with strange theories about Constantine the Great), used by many people today who are unaware of these connotations and assume it's just a descriptive name based on geography. It's a name generally used in government documentation in this country, so the Church generally rolls with it, but continues to call itself "the Catholic Church" in its own documents. You could probably find many discussions on Wikipedia about which name should be used when. You might be interested in seeing how those went down, how they got derailed or made progress. 109.155.32.126 (talk) 22:30, 26 May 2012 (UTC)