Talk:British Isles

Should half the lead be about the etymology?
Can we move it to the etymology section? Tikaboo (talk) 18:55, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * No. Why would we do that? Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:41, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Tikaboo, @Wiki-Ed: The lead should mention some aspects of the etymology, but I agree that it's currently too much weighted towards etymology, in particular the naming controversy (which has its own article).
 * As it stands:
 * The etymology part of the lead is around 90 words, summarising around 450 words from the main article (1:5).
 * The "controversial" aspect of the name takes three-quarters of the lead's etymology content, and just under a quarter of the etymology section in the main article.
 * The non-etymology part of the lead is around 100 words, summarising 5000 or so non-etymology words from the main article (1:50).
 * This suggests that the current lead content gives WP:UNDUE emphasis to the naming controversy, and insufficiently reflects the content of the main article.
 * Substantially increasing the size of the first half of the lead, and moving some parts of the naming controversy from the lead to the main article, would provide a better-balanced lead to the article. Bazza (talk) 21:43, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * No, seeing how many people start jumping up and down about the term "British Isles" it is absolutely necessary. But some tweaking is possible. The Banner  talk 00:27, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The lead should be tweaked. The third and fifth sentences of the second paragraph could be removed and placed in later sections, but the main thrust of the paragraph should be retained in the lead.   Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:33, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The main problem is that the lead has two paragraphs. Four would be better, with new second and third ones summarising the large number of aspects of the main article which are currently absent; and the fourth (currently second) shortened as @Ghmyrtle suggests. Bazza (talk) 09:50, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah. I thought something looked off. Someone removed a significant block of information here. The reason we've had four paragraphs for as long as we have is to follow - fairly literally - the MOS guide on leads. In particular we tried to balance (a) four paragraphs, (b) relative emphasis, and (c) prominent controversies. It took a long time to agree relative emphasis and it's clear that those who feel strongly about the controversy still feel strongly because they keep trying to expand the text. It's reasonable to assume that cutting it back would make them unhappy and restart the edit warring. But equally... removing two paragraphs for spurious reasons has changed the balance and it now looks disproportionate.
 * So, I've restored the version of 2 November. Most of the intermediate edits were by the same person who made the flawed changed in the first place. Given they've already wasted our time with this, I'm not going to waste my time reviewing any of their other edits - if any of them are valid they can restore them manually - and should probably seek consensus first.
 * I propose that if we're going to review the longstanding consensus version of the text then we should do so with said consensus version in front of us. And I'd also propose that we give people who feel strongly about the controversy time to respond to any proposal to cut back text they have fought to maintain. Wiki-Ed (talk) 12:08, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello,
 * I appreciate the necessity to keep the lead brief. However, we should acknowledge two things in the lead. 1) The term is pretty much exclusively used in Britain, and not used at all by Irish people in Ireland, if we're to consider the two largest islands in this apparent group. 2) There is no consensus on whether it's a geographical term, or a politically-coloured term.
 * Outside of the lead, the average non-Irish/non-British reader would have no idea there's a controversy, besides the one sentence in the lead. Should we not have at the least a brief section summarising the controversy, and directing the inquisitive reader to the other page? Wikiejd2 (talk) 14:50, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Regarding to your concerns, do you have any evidence of it? The Banner  talk 14:56, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * So the term is "pretty much used exclusively in [Great] Britain" and the people in Great Britain use it as a geographic term. And it is "not used at all by Irish people in Ireland" - either as a geographic or political term - in which case does that not mean it is used exclusively as a geographic term because the only people using the term do so in that way? And why do we need a brief section when (a) we already have a brief section and (b) there's a whole article on the controversy? Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * There really isn't much of a controversy anyway, outside of Wikipedia talk pages. For most people in daily life it simply isn't a topic that crops up, wherever they live and whatever their nationality. It's hugely overblown here and we need to be very wary of giving it undue weight. We can see from the discussion above that there are people who think there's too much etymology in the lead and others who think it should go into more detail. On balance I'd say we've got it about right as it is. Waggers<small  style="color:#080">TALK  12:06, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It's hardly undue weight. Where are you talking about when you say "here"?
 * Simply put, this page takes entirely the British position. It doesn't reflect the Irish position. That hardly seems fair and balanced. Wikiejd2 (talk) 11:15, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The word "here" does not appear in the message you've replied to. The article reflects the balance of the reliable sources on a global scale, not the perspective of any individual country. <b style="color:#98F">W</b><b style="color:#97E">a</b><b style="color:#86D">g</b><b style="color:#75C">ge</b><b style="color:#83C">r</b><b  style="color:#728">s</b><small  style="color:#080">TALK  11:58, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I've spotted the "here". "Here" means right here, on this talk page. <b style="color:#98F">W</b><b style="color:#97E">a</b><b style="color:#86D">g</b><b style="color:#75C">ge</b><b style="color:#83C">r</b><b  style="color:#728">s</b><small  style="color:#080">TALK  12:00, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi Wiki-Ed, would you agree with my point that a casual reader coming across this page would think that Ireland and Britain are part of a group called "The British Isles"? And can you also stretch the imagination to believe that the uninformed would believe that they are a political group?
 * This is exactly why we need a clear section on this page. I note you removed lines stating the the Irish govt discourages this contested term's usage. Your reason was "No. Let's keep the way it has been for several years". Why should we keep it that way? The term has not been in usage by the Irish government for about a hundred years. Why trample over the facts? Wikiejd2 (talk) 11:22, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The introduction is very clear that the subject is a group of islands. There's no implication of any political grouping and yes I think it would be quite a stretch of wilful misunderstanding to arrive at such a conclusion. <b style="color:#98F">W</b><b style="color:#97E">a</b><b style="color:#86D">g</b><b style="color:#75C">ge</b><b style="color:#83C">r</b><b  style="color:#728">s</b><small  style="color:#080">TALK  12:01, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Please see the page about the controversy if you are unfamiliar with the evidence. My point is about this page. Wikiejd2 (talk) 11:15, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi The Banner. I note that you removed my citation required tag for the sentence "As a term, "British Isles" is a geographical name and not a political unit".
 * What evidence do you have for your claims? It is a contested term, as you well know. What source are you basing that claim on, and why should it be the accepted authority? Wikiejd2 (talk) 11:19, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * As the whole article is about the group of islands. The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 12:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * How do people feel about cutting a few extraneous words in the lead?
 * As a term, "British Isles" is a geographical name and not a political unit. In Ireland, the term is controversial, and there are objections to its usage. The Government of Ireland does not officially recognise the term, and its embassy in London discourages its use. "Britain and Ireland" is used as an alternative description, and "Atlantic Archipelago" has also seen limited use in academia. In official documents created jointly by Ireland and the United Kingdom, such as the Good Friday Agreement, the term "these islands" is used.
 * replaced with
 * As a term, "British Isles" is a geographical name and not a political unit. In Ireland, the term is controversial and the Irish government does not officially recognise the term. "Britain and Ireland" is used as an alternative description, and "Atlantic Archipelago" has also seen limited use in academia. In official documents created jointly by Ireland and the United Kingdom, such as the Good Friday Agreement, the term "these islands" is used.
 * Tikaboo (talk) 15:14, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Seems like a good change to me. <b style="color:#98F">W</b><b style="color:#97E">a</b><b style="color:#86D">g</b><b style="color:#75C">ge</b><b style="color:#83C">r</b><b  style="color:#728">s</b><small  style="color:#080">TALK  10:33, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Maybe I misunderstand something: is the old text referring to the Irish embassy in London? The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 13:38, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, new text would cut the embassy bit. Tikaboo (talk) 14:48, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * If it is about the Irish embassy in London, I agree with the change. The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 16:27, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I would also remove the "Atlantic Archipelago" bit. It's seen really minor use in academia, and a search returns results for me that includes fiction and books such as the tautologically titled "The Atlantic Archipelago: Political History of the British Isles". Undue for the lede. <span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:26, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Regardless of whether users consider the presentational change better or worse, the longstanding version was carefully sourced. Clumsy editing has removed sourced material, moved clauses away from the sources that supported them, or left sources hanging without the clause they were supporting. I'm not going to waste my time cleaning up after lazy editing, especially for such spurious reasons. Wiki-Ed (talk) 19:32, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, we've used the references to the Irish Embassy to maintain balance for those who feel strongly about this term being used at all, and the reference to the Atlantic Archipelago is reductio ad absurdum for those who feel equally strongly the other way. Wiki-Ed (talk) 19:34, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't necessarily think the amount of attention on the controversy in the lead should be reduced. It's just that the embassy thing is a bit of a random tidbit. And I don't think it's even relayed correctly. Is there a history of the embassy discouraging its usage? It looks like an embassy staffer was randomly asked about the term and they responded "we would discourage its use". But the embassy has never actually done so. If there's some other notable details we could include in the lead about the controversy then that would be better than the embassy thing. And mb about the editing. Tikaboo (talk) 22:53, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You may well be right about the embassy point, but there are some editors - who have so far remained quiet - with strong views that the example illustrates there is some sort of official reluctance to use the term. Whether or not it's a good exampple (or even representative), this article went through a long period of instability as different sides sought to emphasise their view before it reached a mostly-stable balance. This is a compromise position in which neither side is happy, but also not sufficiently unhappy to engage in further editing warring (bar occasional IP edits). If you have a better and sourced alternative then please feel free to switch that in, but otherwise I think it's better to let sleeping dogs lie. Wiki-Ed (talk) 09:59, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that works with reliable sources. But strong feelings by a group of silent editors is not cutting the cake here. The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 14:18, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 February 2024
Change population of Greater Dublin to 2,125,000 as that is the Census 2022 population . 86.44.233.172 (talk) 19:51, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Your claim also seems to conflict with the information in the Dublin article. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 22:50, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Scottish Gaelic name
Why is the Scottish Gaelic for British Isles, Eileanan Bhreatainn when the Irish is Éire agus an Bhreatain Mhór. Eileanan Bhreatainn is a direct translation of British Isles just as Oileáin Briotanach would be for Irish. Would the Scottish Gaelic for British isles not resemble something more similar to the Irish language as they are so close. Probably something like Éirinn agus Breatainn Mhór. 109.79.4.140 (talk) 23:38, 7 March 2024 (UTC)


 * The Irish for the British Isles isn't "Éire agus an Bhreatain Mhór" - that translates as "Ireland and Great Britain". The Irish for "the British Isles" is "na hOileáin Bhriotanacha", but presumably a keyboard warrior has removed that from somewhere, with an edit summary along the lines of "No true Irishman uses that phrase!"? <span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:01, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It's a question for the Irish language Wikipedia, not something we can deal with here. <b style="color:#98F">W</b><b style="color:#97E">a</b><b style="color:#86D">g</b><b style="color:#75C">ge</b><b style="color:#83C">r</b><b  style="color:#728">s</b><small  style="color:#080">TALK  11:16, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * My issue is not with the Irish as that is what these islands are referred to and is the terminology used. But rather that why isn’t the Scottish Gaelic following similarly to the Irish 109.79.4.140 (talk) 17:39, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Your issue might not be with the Irish, but the Manx (also with a similar language) might take issue with it. But in any case, you don't translate a language based on how another and different language translates it. Not even if they are related. Now, where did I put my handshoes? I need to go out in the cold. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:53, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 May 2024
46.208.141.146 (talk) 13:37, 26 May 2024 (UTC)Ireland is not part of the brittish isles
 * Malformed request. Many, many, many times discussed before that this is a geographical term, not a political one. The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 13:45, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Irrelevant archaic colonial era terminology
Seriously guys wtf? Today the term British isles is no more than an archaic colonial era "geographical" term which has no relevance today and belongs in the dustbin of history

The earliest known use of the phrase Brytish Iles in the English language is dated 1577 in a work by John Dee, who used it to promote the colonisation of Ireland. Dee also the same individual who came up with the term the "British  Empire"

It's really little wonder that  Wikipedia  is considered a totally unreliable source of information,  when articles like this try to legitimise  bs colonial  era "geographical" terminology 31.187.2.224 (talk) 10:03, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Seriously? Are you unable to recognise the difference between geography and politics? We use the terms that are in common use, not a desired political motivated wish. The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 10:25, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * And are seriously unable to comprehend  that it's by definition an archaic  geopolitical  term, first used in the English  language  by a noted Elizabethan propagandist who advocated for the colonisation of Ireland. Or indeed that the term today has no official  standing  and when used online  or otherwise can be invariably be traced back to British and or Anglophile sources regardless of where it turns up. The only political shenanigans  are those who continue  to insist otherwise. Time Wikipedia  woke up to the overt politicised machinations of some of it's  editors 31.187.2.87 (talk) 14:06, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * an archaic geopolitical term. Thank you, but we are talking here about geography, not politics or geopolitics. The term is not archaic but in common use. And yes, there is discussion about the term but we follow the sources. We do not invent or promote other names. We just follow the sources. Only when the common name of the archipelago changes, the article will reflect that.  The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 14:38, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * As detailed the term is certainly not simply geographical,but is as detailed  an archaic  colonial  era geopolitical term. A word btw which means the combination of political and geographic factors relating to something (such as a state or particular resources) such as the first use of the term Brytish Isles by the noted  Elizabethan propagandist John Dee in 1577
 * Btw there is no common name for the "archipelago" other than a singular archaic colonial geopolitical term which has no official standing and where found online or otherwise can be invariably be traced back to British and or Anglophile sources regardless of where it turns up
 * Its time the relevant Wikipedia articles reflected that and the small number of Wikipedia  editors ring fencing the issue be removed from doing so 31.187.2.22 (talk) 15:11, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is well know that a small number of editors take offence of the term. But unfortunately, we use the common name for this geographical entity. Not someone's personal preference. The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 15:25, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * A "common name" according to a small number of  Wikipedia editors  who have inexplicably  been allowed to ring fence the issue for years
 * It remains it is an archaic geopolitical term that has no relevance other than in the history  section  of any Wikipedia article 31.187.2.22 (talk) 15:35, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * A common name in the sources about the archipelago. That it not suits your opinion is entirely up to you. The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 11:12, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It is not an archaic "geopolitical" term no matter how many times you repeat that phrase. It is the primary name for the archipelago and is in common use. GhostOfNoMeme (talk) 21:53, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It's simply not true that the first known use dates from John Dee, as a quick glance at the History section of Names of the British Isles will tell anyone who's genuinely interested in the subject. <b style="color:#98F">W</b><b style="color:#97E">a</b><b style="color:#86D">g</b><b style="color:#75C">ge</b><b style="color:#83C">r</b><b  style="color:#728">s</b><small  style="color:#080">TALK  12:28, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * please read what was written -
 * The earliest known use of the phrase Brytish Iles in the English language is dated 1577 in a work by John Dee. And that based on a hillarious  theory from Geoffrey of Mommouth writings that King of Arthur allegedly invaded Ireland. Prior to that some ancient  Greek and Latin references to the Pretannic isles had laid buried and unused  for the best part of a a millenia until one wiley Elizabethan propagandist  decided that a bit of geopolitical chicanery was the order of the day in order to promote  the Elizabethan colonisation  of Ireland 31.187.2.87 (talk) 14:17, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think it's probably time to make up an FAQ that we can point to for these perennial comments, incorporating a link to the naming controversy article.  Acroterion   (talk)   14:41, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think it's high time that the use of archaic geopolitical colonial era terminology masqueraded as being legitimate be stopped once and for all. Wikipedia as a source has become a laughing stock exactly because of this type of editing 31.187.2.22 (talk) 14:56, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for illustrating my point. Wikipedia's discussions of geography are not determined by Irish/British (note the distinction, relevant politically) nationalist politics, any more than they are by Japanese/Korean politics, Indo-Pakistani politics, or Iranian/Saudi politics. Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia, which will follow global usage if and when it changes. And see the edit notice at the top of this page.  Acroterion   (talk)   15:09, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for missing the point altogether - where the usage of the term in Wikipedia is evidently overtly politicacised regardless of protestations by the same editors otherwise. It remains the term is an archaic  colonial  era  geopolitical term which belongs in the dustbin  of history..Time Wikipedia  content reflected that reality 31.187.2.22 (talk) 15:15, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, I get your point. You want Wikipedia to be a means of effecting a change in global usage. That isn't Wikipedia's purpose, and Wikipedia isn't a tool for such purposes. And read the notice at the top of this page.  Acroterion   (talk)   15:18, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * o font think you do. Just as there are no wikipedia content discussing Albion as an extant geographical entity, the same should apply to the archaic colonial era term  "British Isles".
 * The term has no official standing  nor does it have any defined "global use" outside that claimed by a small number of Wikipedia  editors  who cite sources which the absolute  majority can be traced back to British and or Anglophile sources regardless of where it turns up 31.187.2.22 (talk) 15:30, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * If you want the term to be no longer used, then you have to stop its usage. Wikipedia isn't here to dictate usage or lead, we're here as an encyclopaedia. Wikipedia doesn't have a say in if it's used or not, we just deal with the reliable sources that clearly show it's being used. Once people in Ireland stop using the term (including the government (yes they use it as simple searches show), news sites and other usages) and then the rest of the world stop using it, then we'll stop using it. You need to direct your ire at the term outside of Wikipedia and then we'll reflect it, until then referencable real world usage and sourcing will prevail. Wikipedia isn't the cause here, it's purely a symptom. You need to actually stop it in the real world, then it will be stopped here. We don't get to choose if it's used, usage does that. We're not a leader in these things, we're a trailing indicator. <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 15:38, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Wrong - its usage is being specifically pushed in Wikipedia  by a small number  of editors. Outside  of that it remains an archaic colonial era geopolitical term  which has no official  standing and correctly belongs as a historical reference  only.
 * There are plenty of references to similar archaic terms such as Albion and Germania which  are  also found in common  usage on the Internet  and elsewhere but are not being inexplicably being pushed as somehow relevant despite this issue being repeatedly highlighted by countless contributors and editors. It remains  the terms usage exemplifies the ugly face of Wikipedia content which relies on a politicised ring fencing such as the invariable  pretence that the term is solely a "geographical" term and other shenanigans
 * Wikipedia needs to sort this issue and not allow a tiny muber of editors  to ring fence the use of such terms   - exactly  what is happening  hers 31.187.2.22 (talk) 16:17, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You're entitled to your beliefs. I'm not going to post again the multitude of links that show it in active use in Ireland, including within the Irish government. They're all in the archives for you to peruse at your leisure. However the term is in common use despite your denials. <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 17:03, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Incorrect - these are facts not "beliefs". The wikipedia archives you cite are full of the exact same ring fencing of this issue.  I have already detailed that this stance is being maintained  by a tiny number of editors in the face of the facts including  that the "Irish government"  have already  made a very clear statement  that the term has no official  recognition or indeed that the absolute  majority of occurances on various Irish government  websites can be traced back to various British and or Anglophone sources from citations and other third party references
 * Again Wikipedia has unfortunately become a laughing  stock because  of overt politicised behaviour from a tiny number of editors- the same few editors who again  and again trot out the same arguments,  none of which stand up to even basic scrutiny.
 * Time this issue went to independent arbritation by Wikipedia once and for all 31.187.2.161 (talk) 10:39, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Independent doesn't mean "agrees with you". We are all independent on this talk page. The arbitration is what you are getting. Time to drop the stick on this one. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:55, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * A FAQ is a nice idea, but sadly certain people don't bother reading them. I mean, look at all the notices at the top of this page that the IP just ignored and waded in with their forum-y post about the name on the wrong talk page. <b style="color:#98F">W</b><b style="color:#97E">a</b><b style="color:#86D">g</b><b style="color:#75C">ge</b><b style="color:#83C">r</b><b  style="color:#728">s</b><small  style="color:#080">TALK  12:44, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * FAQs never solve the issue, but they at least make it possible to say "read the FAQ at the top of the page" and hat the 4836th discussion. The FAQ on Talk:Nazism hasn't closed down perennial arguments that they were socialists and therefore of the Left, and people still try to argue with them, but it at least allows a quick response.  Acroterion   (talk)   13:07, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * True. Anything to save this talk page from being filled up with threads like this one - there's plenty of other stuff we need to address here! Anyone fancy drafting some FAQs? <b style="color:#98F">W</b><b style="color:#97E">a</b><b style="color:#86D">g</b><b style="color:#75C">ge</b><b style="color:#83C">r</b><b  style="color:#728">s</b><small  style="color:#080">TALK  13:20, 12 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Can we include in the FAQ the fact that the "irrelevant archaic colonial era terminology" of "British Isles" is used in almost 180,000 Irish web pages, and that includes over 1,000 uses in just the the past year alone? And obviously that's not including print and broadcast media... <span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:07, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It supports the "Wikipedia follows, it doesn't lead" response. Acroterion   (talk)   14:19, 12 July 2024 (UTC)