Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/British Isles naming dispute


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   keep. ( X! ·  talk )  · @504  · 11:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

British Isles naming dispute

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article is about a non-existent dispute. There are people and organisations who either don't like the term "British Isles" or who avoid its use. Such people and organisations are not however, in dispute with any other people or organisations. The absence of a dispute is clear from the fact that there are few, if any, references to it apart from on Wikipedia itself. The article serves as little more than a directory of people and organisations who object to the term. The article is, in essence, a POV fork from British Isles and British Isles (terminology). The article is being used as a vehicle to push a political POV. The dispute is imaginary, residing in the minds of Wikipedia editors. MidnightBlue  (Talk)  19:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, as per my comments above. MidnightBlue   (Talk)  21:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Well considering there's 111 different sources and that you have a history of being a one purpose account supporting use of the term that is disputed, I don't think it is that article that is full of POV. Midnight Blue stands alone in this desire to delete the page, despite the consensus on the talk page and I fear the nomination was made just to disrupt wikipedia for the sake of making a point.  M I T H  19:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep The article is stable and well sourced. There is consensus or even a proper discussion on the article's talk page for the deletion.  M I T H  20:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps this article should be deleted. It's not as though you hear about this dispute everyday on the news. In fact, most of the disputing over the name British Isles, occurs among Wikipedia editors. GoodDay (talk) 20:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That is because the term is rarely used officially, now that international NGO's and governments have stopped using the term. You don't hear it on the news regularly because its only used colloquially. However the dispute over the term's use does come up every so often in the media from time to time. That hardly means the whole well referenced article should be deleted.  M I T H  21:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Nay! this article (at the very least), could be re-named British Isles Wikipedia naming dispute. GoodDay (talk) 21:19, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * So what you're saying is the dispute doesn't exist at all in the real world and the dispute was invented here on Wikipedia?  M I T H  21:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I would say that's a fair assessment. MidnightBlue   (Talk)  21:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Invented? no. Overblown? yes. Anyways, my opinon remains unchanged. GoodDay (talk) 22:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete, as per my above comments. GoodDay (talk) 20:29, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep The article has multiple references to the dispute, it can be improved but should not be deleted. The nominating editor has already placed a NPOV tag without providing any evidence on the talk page other than the sort of general and unsupported statements that characterise this nomination which looks to be disruptive.  If articles were to be deleted on the grounds that there were not daily news items most of the wikipedia would disappear.  -- Snowded  TALK  21:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Just a note to the effect that assuming the RFD fails, I think there is a case to consider a move of the material to British Isles (terminology) and for some consolidation of material, hopefully with some conventions on use. -- Snowded  TALK  19:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep As said by others above the article is very well referenced. Aside from that rational side of things I am Irish and I would now have no hesitation in taking somebody to task if they said my country is part of this "British Isles". Admittedly no Irish person has ever used the term to me, or in my presence. A few years ago, out of sheer politeness, I would have bit my tongue on the rare occasion that some non-Irish person used it in my presence, even though I would have have been just as offended. In hindsight that gave out the wrong signal. All the best. 78.16.42.63 (talk) 22:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep as per Snowded's comments above. The article should be improved, not deleted. — Fatal Error 22:44, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I was going to say rename it, but having scanned through it I think Midnightblueman is quite correct to point out that there isn't a dispute. It is a widely used term - no-one disputes this. It is known that an unquantified number of Irish people find it offensive - no-one disputes this. But... where are the two opposing parties? English doesn't have an official language authority for anyone to argue with. This article is just a collection of random quotes weakly reinforced with background material from other articles. Unique content (if there is any) can be relocated to the appropriate articles and this opinionated synthesis can be deleted. Compare this article with the Macedonia naming dispute; that's a proper article with relevant sources, this... isn't. Wiki-Ed (talk) 23:44, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to British Isles (terminology). None of the sources seem to give the dispute the weight we give it. That some Irish people object to the use of "British Isles" is true. However, the article seems to me to be more of a synthesis of sources than anything. I suggest that the bulk of the article, most notably the "Alternative names" section, can be merged into the terminology article, giving general reasons for all of the names (i.e. Ireland is not part of the UK), or specific reasons. Sceptre (talk) 23:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - I can't see any problems! Jeni  ( talk )(Jenuk1985) 23:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Sure there a few issues with the article in terms of sourcing but thoseand issues of neutrality or original research are not reasons for deletion. There are enough sources here. --neon white talk 23:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to British Isles (terminology). There is no such dispute named "The British Isles Naming Dispute", at least none that a Google search turns up (all I see is millions of those annoying websites that programmatically scrape other websites and clutter search results).  The "Names of the islands through the ages" is mostly irrelevant to the issue of Irish dislike of the name.  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 00:12, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Snowded's and MITH comments above. The article is very well referenced and I can see scope for improvement, and further references being added. MidnightBlueMan's rational and reasoning lack merit, and keep. Tfz     01:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a stable, well-referenced article (although admittedly not perfect, if we deleted every article in this state we'd lose most of our content) that would overload any potential merge target. Even if it were smaller enough to merge, I just don't see that that would be benefit to either this topic or that of the destination, wherever that might be. Additionally, I couldn't see the NPOV problem with this article, nor has the tagger elucidated on the talk page beyond WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Thryduulf (talk) 07:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You couldn't see the NPOV problem? You were reading the right article were you? Even a cursory glance shows that it's about 95% rubbishing the term "British Isles" and only about 5% supporting it. The article is "stable" (whatever that means); so what? Please point us to any non-Wikipedia evidence that a dispute actually exists. That is the crux of the matter, 'cos if there is no dispute, there should be no article. Mister Flash (talk) 16:45, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions.  —Thryduulf (talk) 07:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions.  —Thryduulf (talk) 07:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - The term is controversial in Ireland and this article highlights it. We can't have a brigade of users going around trying to wipe away evidence of the dispute (they think it doesn't exist, but in fact it does exist in Ireland. They also wanted to remove the explanation of the dispute from the main British Isles article. FF3000  ·   talk  10:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - that is simply false. The problem some editors had there is the implied elevation of this issue to a recognized (in reliable sources) "Dispute".  Noone has a problem mentioning the moves/recommendations from certain quarters to stop using the term.  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 11:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No they wanted to get rid of it. There was a fight to keep that too. FF3000  ·   talk  15:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep: There are around 30 archives over on the British Isles talkpage, there is a rejection of the term by the (democratically-elected) government of Ireland, there is avoidance of the term in all international agreements which the Irish state is party to and there are numerous references from academic and other sources confirming Irish resistance to the term "British Isles". It stretches all credibility to contend that this article, 'British Isles naming dispute', is simply an invention of wikipedia editors. 193.1.172.144 (talk) 13:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Naming dispute? What dispute? Articles such as this bring Wikipedia into disrepute! The idea of a dispute as described in the article is a complete falsehood. Sure there are people who object to the term, like there are people in Argentina who object to the term "Falkland Islands", but we don't have Falkland Islands naming dispute. Yes, the dispute does exist, but only here at Wikipedia. Mister Flash (talk) 16:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - I suppose there's always a couple of people in denial. The fact that there's an article, and that Wikipedia has been subjected to edit wars about this term for, literally, years, shows that there is a dispute, and this article, while not brilliant, still meets notability guidelines.  The article would be better with less edit-warring, but with blind reversions that delete references with edit summaries of Reverting dreadful edit which introduced unencyclopedic language (even if it was a quote) and blatant over-hyping of dislike of British Isles (by Mister Flash, above), it's hardly surprising the article is of poor quality.  --HighKing (talk) 17:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well HighKing, you've hit the nail on the head good and proper, admitting that the dispute is here on Wikipedia. I challenge you to find any evidence of the dispute (that's dispute, not people disliking the term) outside of Wikipedia. You've got to admit it, if there's no such dispute then the article should be deleted. Mister Flash (talk) 18:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Mister Flash, would you ever read the references on the page. The dispute does exist in Ireland, not in Britain, but this is unlike disputes like the Derry/Londonderry name dispute, as in this case we just don't like a certain term rather than fighting over a name. Anyway, Mister Flash, how do you know that a naming dispute over the Falkland Islands doesn't exist when you don't live in Argentina? FF3000  ·   talk  20:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Bit of a soapbox box then, this article, eh? Here we have a bunch of people who don't like something, so they go and write a Wikipedia article about it. Mister Flash (talk) 21:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, Mister Flash, if the term covers two countries, and most citizens from one of the countries dislike the term, well then it is major (112 references on the page to prove it). May not be major to you, but it is to other people. -- FF3000 ·   talk  14:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep but scrutinise the article very carefully for original research. In the event that after removing all the OR there isn't enough left to form an article, merge what's left into the article on the British Isles. Simply disagreeing with the opinion of a minority is not grounds for deletion. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 19:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC) Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 19:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Just reading all the comments again, and not picking on yours in particular, but there's something I don't get here. None of those who want to keep the article have acknowledged that there is actually a dispute, far less offered any evidence of it, so why should the article be kept if it's a fiction? Can you explain? Mister Flash (talk) 19:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Reference four shows this opinion over a diverse number of publications that qualify as reliable sources, so this opinion, however much a minority, it notable. If the overwhelming consensus is against this (hence the lack of any notable dispute), it should be mentioned in the article, but that does not warrant deletion of the the article altogether. WP:FRINGE is a good reference here. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 20:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Bit of a soapbox box then, this article, eh? Here we have a bunch of people who don't like something, so they go and write a Wikipedia article about it. Mister Flash (talk) 21:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, Mister Flash, if the term covers two countries, and most citizens from one of the countries dislike the term, well then it is major (112 references on the page to prove it). May not be major to you, but it is to other people. -- FF3000 ·   talk  14:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter what the motives of the article creators are - if it is an opinion that has been expressed in reliable sources outside of Wikipedia (and it has, whether you like it or not), it passes notability. If the article is biased, you can re-write it from a neutral point of view and nothing more. Oh, and for the record, I think that complaining about the name "British Isles" is stupid and petty, but that doesn't stop the opinion existing. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 21:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There's plenty of opinion out there about how bad "British Isles" is, but as Mister Flash states, that does not constitute a "dispute". I've looked again using Google (not, scientific, I know) seaching for a combination of terms including "British Isles", "Dispute", "Disagreement" and so on. Everything I find has been derived from Wikipedia. Ask yourself the question, is that a good state of affairs? To me it is a strong indicator of the "dispute" being manufactured here at Wikipedia. In fact, that is almost certainly the case. The situation is completely at odds with the core values of Wikipedia, especially WP:OR. If the OR was stripped out of the article you would be left with a blank page. MidnightBlue   (Talk)  22:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If it doesn't count as a "dispute", all that proves is that the article needs renaming into a title that has a word other than dispute. The fact that you found nothing on Google doesn't matter - the references exist, in the text. By all means challenge any OR, but that can be done on the article talk page. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * So what should we rename it to then - Irish dislike of British Isles perhaps? Mister Flash (talk) 09:35, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You're the one with a problem with the term. The onus is on you to suggest something better. I suppose you could do Opposition to the use of the term "British Isles" if you don't mind a long title, but seeing as the only people objecting to the use of the word "dispute" are doing so in order to try to get the whole article deleted, I've really got better things to do. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 10:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Or what about the original title, British Isles (controversy)? FF3000  ·   talk  14:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep "British Isles" Until 1949 a collective title for Great Britain, Ireland, and the numerous islands surrounding the two larger islands, including the Isle of Man. In 1949 the Republic of Ireland left the British Commonwealth and so could no longer be included in the title. (Reference: Concise Dictionary of World Place-Names. John Everett-Heath. Oxford University Press 2005). This article is about a non-existent dispute only if there is no dissent to this referenced "fact" - and it is clear to me that there is dissent. Þjóðólfr (talk) 21:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Its informative and well ref'd. The 'naming dispute' goes far beyond the narrow confines of Wikipedia, a fact which appears to be lost on some editors. Needs work, but what article here doesn't.RashersTierney (talk) 22:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "The 'naming dispute' goes far beyond the narrow confines of Wikipedia". No. That's the problem. It doesn't. The naming dispute is wholly within the confines of Wikipedia. Mister Flash (talk) 22:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Why would anyone even bother to post an "O no it isn't" response here. There are plenty of refs in the article that indicate otherwise. Really do not understand the dogged determination of some editors to have it deleted. RashersTierney (talk) 09:03, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * They would bother for the same reason that you've bothered to offer your opinion on the matter. I can see I'm banging my head against a brick wall here, but one more try; ALL the references point to instances of dislike or avoidance of the term. NONE of the references point to a dispute. Why, because there is no dispute. There is a big difference between someone not liking something and there being a dispute about it. Mister Flash (talk) 09:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge all salient material as proposed above by Red Hat -- although I think this is more of a tempest in a teapot than anything else. Collect (talk) 23:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:Tempest in a Teapot. ;)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.82.44.253 (talk) 03:53, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, there is no dispute. British Isles = England, Scotland, Wales, the Isle of Man, the Bailiwick of Jersey, the Bailiwick of Guernsey, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. Ireland is an island divided into 32 counties, six of which form Northern Ireland and the other 26 form the Republic of Ireland, a situation which has existed since 1923. Mjroots (talk) 08:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Irish objections are very well referenced across academia, political life and journalism. Some people are clearly uncomfortable with this, but that should not be a reason to deny this dispute/delete this article. 86.44.22.65 (talk) 12:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep This article was developed partly to keep the naming discussion from dominating the main article. If it is deleted all the content will have to be added to the "British" Isles article. Much drama ensuing. Sarah777 (talk) 23:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge into Terminology of the British Isles. I don't see why we need two articles on the same essential topic (the use of the phrase 'British Isles', and other terms used to refer to the same or similar concepts). Moreover, this article contains a worrying amount of original research - taking information directly from primary sources and forming them into a synthesis, rather than referencing secondary sources about the dispute. Robofish (talk) 22:22, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Because there is actually resistance to the term "British Isles" covering Ireland. The term is not accepted by even a significant minority in Ireland. It is, in fact, rejected at both a diplomatic (through government statements) and a popular level (through avoidance of the term). This is well referenced in the British Isles article itself. Ergo, attempting to reduce this resistance, this dispute, to a mere part of the "Terminology of the British Isles" article is an attempt to bestow a legitimacy on that term which it has never earned except through the barrel of the British colonial war machine in Ireland, the land of the Irish people (a fact which is still patently difficult for many Britons to accept in 2009). 86.44.18.40 (talk) 03:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Arguing for keeping or deleting an article is acceptable. Insinuating that people who disagree with your point of view are collaborators in a "colonial war machine" is not. No personal attacks. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 06:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. The notability of the dispute is established by reliable sources. What more do we want? Jafeluv (talk) 12:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to terminology article; very closely related but I see no reason for a split of the topic. Powers T 15:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - I don't see any problem either; not a common dispute today, but sounds familiar. Google seaches are useless here. Bearian (talk) 16:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per others' statements. If there existed any (justified) guidance that the term "dispute" in this context should only be used for inter-governmental disputes, I would support a renaming to "British Isles naming controversy" - but I'm not aware that any such guidance exists.  I also endorse Snowded's comments above that "there is a case to consider a move of the material to British Isles (terminology) and for some consolidation of material, hopefully with some conventions on use."  Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to terminology article. There is no dispute. The number of references is not immediately relevant as many are concerned with why the name was used in the first place. Melcombe (talk) 15:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to British Isles (terminology) or delete as POV fork. Artw (talk) 22:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to British Isles (terminology), it should be noted that some of the above who have voted to keep said they see a case for a merger, as soon as this AFD fails, someone should probably propose a merger and see what happens. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep There is clearly and obviously a dispute, one which is patently well referenced in the article. 78.16.184.214 (talk) 00:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Is it time to close this discussion? There is a clear consensus for keeping the article. I do agree, however, that the title needs to be changed. I think that the original title, British Isles (controversy), is the best option. FF3000  ·   talk  14:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm not sure it's exactly a "clear consensus". Minus the IPs and combining the delete/merge it was 16:12 last time I checked. However, renaming to something like "British Isles controversy in Ireland" and sorting out the content so it's focused on this topic would probably satisfy most. Wiki-Ed (talk) 17:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * (conflict)Comment. As the originator of the deletion proposal I can see that the majority opinion, though not the consensus, is to keep this disgusting article. However, if someone now wants to propose a merge to British Isles (terminology) I would support it. Overall, as Wiki-Ed notes, the merge/delete option comes a close second to the keep option, and many of the "keepers" were concerned about the quality of the article. There is much replication between this article, terminology and British Isles, so as a first step to sorting it all out maybe a merge is the way forward. I'm happy for the current discussion to be closed. MidnightBlue   (Talk)  20:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. It's not a controversy about the islands themselves, or indeed a disambiguation point - which is what British Isles (controversy) would imply.  The article is about the terminology used to describe the islands.  So, if there is to be a renaming, I'd suggest British Isles naming controversy or British Isles terminology controversy .  Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Well it would perhaps maake sense for the merge I suggested? British Isles terminology controversy is surely just a section of the wider British Isles terminology? MidnightBlue   (Talk)  20:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ghmyrtle. British Isles terminology controversy is a good suggestion for a new name. There isn't consensus for a merging. FF3000  ·   talk  21:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Im not to keen on that name, i think there is enough support on this page to try a merger proposal once this AFD is over, several people who voted KEEP said they thought it should be merged or that there was some justification for a merger. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.