Wikipedia:British Isles Terminology task force/Manual of Style

The following was been suggested as a manual of style entry for use of the term British Isles:


 * The British Isles are Great Britain, Ireland, the Isle of Man, Orkney, Shetland and, by tradition, the Channel Islands. Use on Wikipedia may or may not include the Channel Islands.
 * Use of British Isles is not prescribed in any context (i.e. there is no context in which British Isles has to be used).
 * Use of British Isles is appropriate in geographic contexts and (scientific) contexts related to geography such as distribution of flora and fauna, geology, weather patterns and archeology.
 * Don't mix "apples" and "pears" (e.g. if content lists states then list states, if content lists geographical units then list geographical units).
 * Use of British Isles in political contexts should be avoided after 1922.
 * Use of British Isles on articles that relate particularly to the Republic of Ireland or to the island of Ireland (including their geographic features) should be avoided except where the article relates more particularly to Northern Ireland.

Editors should respect verifiability and differences in terminology that appear in reliable sources where appropriate. Edit warring over use or non-use of British Isles is discouraged.

The above has been discussed as part of the work of the British Isles Terminology task force and was broadly accepted. A poll on the wider community is invited on whether to add this entry to the Manual of Style.

Straw poll

 * Support Sensible and fair. --RA (talk) 21:09, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Support I think that it pretty much covers the main points with balance.-- SabreBD  (talk)  21:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose (for the moment). I wish to discuss this on the talk page. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:32, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Well done RA, this has been a long time coming. Clear guideline are essential in this controversial area. Bjmullan (talk) 21:43, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Broadly Support, but the very last point requires some modification. The Shannon is the longest river in the British Isles, and there will be times when it is not inappropriate to say this, even though the Shannon is in the Irish Republic. One would not avoid saying "The Amazon is the longest river in South America" because the countries it passes through take a dim view of the USA - and really this is the same issue. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:55, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose in current form. The last clause seems to defeat the purpose as it is currently worded, and I can imagine it leading to future drama. As stated, the term applies to Ireland as well as the other isles. It follows that the term should not be avoided in articles discussing the island of Ireland. If the word "particularly" is being use in a precise or legal fashion, a different word should be chosen at the very least. S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 21:59, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The last two points are a classic violation of NPOV, and make the all too common mistake of assuming Irish articles need to reflect the Irish World View. This is not NPOV, not in a million years. 'you Britishers are allowed to use your British terms on your British articles, but stay away from our Irish articles'. What an utter and complete intellectual abuse that really is, what a contemptuous way to treat a cornerstone principle like NPOV. I don't know if there are examples of such articles in such categories which can justifiably use the term, but I am not one of these obsessive POV pushers that have been systematically looking for it either, using the special investigations page. I am willing to leave it to good faith discussion on talk pages, most especially for those pages, not less, where there is less likely to be two split camps of vested interests, rather than deploy an ignorant and blunt instrument like this on unsuspecting editors minding their own business writing good articles that make sense to any reader from any country, and have no interest in using Wikipedia for mass social engineering because they think they have the right to shape this pedia to their world view. And the basic shop talk of verifiability is likely to be gamed in the exact same way as has been seen in the Demonyms of Northerh Irleand bullshit - where a single primary source is now being used to assert the utter fantasy that the only two terms that exist for calling people from the entire locality of Northern Ireland are Northern Irish and Irish. Frankly, based on experience, if it's RA talking about RS's, I now have zero faith in any proposal put forward. He has no idea what he is talking about when it comes to basic policy issues like verifiability and neutrality, and the ways he can mix and match disparate sources to create an entirely new re-imagination of the world has to be seen to be believed. Go and read the 'Descriptions of Northern Ireland' section if you doubt me. What a really creative but wholly policy violating piece of writing that is. MickMacNee (talk) 22:07, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Infact, I'm probably doing a disservice to many Irish editors by implying they all support this extermination project on the defined categories of Irish articles. It is always funny when the perrennial ROI issue pops up into the general editor sphere with yet another social engineering proposal, and a few Irish editors then rock up and declare they have absolutely zero issue with use of the description Republic of Ireland where necessary, to the clear disgust of those attempting to pretend that having written sentences of the form 'Ireland is on Ireland', even on the 'British Isles' article funnily enough, is not the height of stupidity if one is seriously wishing to educate people with brand new information, rather than push a POV. MickMacNee (talk) 22:27, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Premature No objections per se, but there are some other issues which need to be covered. Also each rule needs example cases so that people are clear about what they are buying into. If you check back on the project page you will see other suggestions and issues.  We also have the ANI case in place which is not yet resolved.  -- Snowded  TALK  22:36, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * oppose as written. There needs to be an additional rule: do not change multiple uses in an established article without prior consensus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 01:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose - the last statement in the list is a straightforward and obvious violation of NPOV. The nub of the problem is that a group of editors find the term offensive. Sadly, this is not a valid reason in Wikipedia to delete a term. Imagine by analogy that the vegetarians would like to get rid of all mention of meat from all food sections that any vegetarian might read. This is a fairly precise analogue to what is being argued here. There are article-by-article merits sometimes to the use or otherwise of British Isles but the slate being proposed here is also a license to get back into campaigning for widespread deletion of the term, something which is also being specifically challenged on a blocking basis by admins at present on the ANI list. I don't see any progress being made on this subject within Wikipedia rules until (a) all editors accept that there can be no mass-deletion campaign and (b) we also stop trying to introduce sitewide rules that violate NPOV as above. Once these two points are agreed, we can move on to a more careful approach. Sadly, so far at any rate, there seems little chance of this - witness this straw poll as just another example - ANI process is talking about blocking sitewide deletion and here we are dicussing rules for it right away, no pause for thought! Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 05:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose that last one is a definate violation of NPOV and not to mention that if this is passed it would seem like a violation of WP:COMMONNAME and WP:UCN as the British Isles are often refered to as that. The C of E.          God Save The Queen! (talk) 07:24, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Use of "Celtic Isles" after 1922 instead would be best I think.Jembana (talk) 07:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose The last statement is an obvious violation of NPOV. Qwerta369 (talk) 07:58, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose the islands are called the British Isles. It would be equivalent to Hugo Chávez, the President of Venezuela, trying find a different name for the Americas because the name America implies that it belongs to the United States of America. If a subject is talking about these islands then British Isles would be appropriate. If they are talking about one of the islands it is better to refer to that island than the whole archipelago. This is a policy that is currently in use. -- Phoenix (talk) 08:08, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Support - rational, obvious, and designed to promote stability. Well done RA Fmph (talk) 08:52, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose - pending further amendments. The first few points seem fine. Wiki-Ed (talk) 09:18, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. Bulletpoint 1 - "BI" includes other small islands not listed - Hebrides etc.  Bulletpoint 3 - "geography"/"geographical" needs to be defined, carefully - many aspects of geography fall within human geography - if they are to be excluded, an alternative term should be used.  Similarly, bulletpoint 5, the term "political contexts" needs to be defined carefully if this is to work.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:58, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting human geography should not be included? Wiki-Ed (talk) 10:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting anything - I'm seeking clarification. "Distribution of flora and fauna, geology, weather patterns" certainly fall outside "human geography", but archaeology is a different matter. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose The whole idea of guidelines to this level of detail is a nonsense. I wish people would stop talking of this "controversy". There isn't one in the wider world, just here at Wikipedia. LevenBoy (talk) 11:07, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is just un-necessary and could leed to a ratchiting up of edit-wars over the term. The British Isles refers to the group of islands - they are what they are it is NOT a political statement; those who take offence at the phrase do so for there own reasons and it is not for WP to try and keep them happy. As LevenBoy said above other than here and in University Debating it is not an issue for the vast majority of the pepole who live in the islands. Most editors are able to use the phrase correctly with out the need for MOS guidelines. Codf1977 (talk) 11:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Support - A good attempt at resolving the controversy. Is definitely worth trying. -- Footyfanatic3000 ( talk  · &#32;  contribs )  14:40, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose As noted, the final point makes no sense. If "British Isles" is correct in reference to Great Britain, Ireland, the Isle of Man, Orkney, Shetland and, by tradition, the Channel Islands in a scientific or geographic context then it must be correct in the context of the island of Ireland after 1922. It's perfectly possible that an article to do with flora, fauna or georgraphy of the British Isles might have more to say about the island of Ireland rather than the island of Great Britain (ie, that it could be seen to relate particularly to Ireland) and that it might focus on the present day.Hobson (talk) 23:07, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Support - finally some sign of compromise, though I expect the British nationalist majority will beat this move towards WP:NPOV down - as usual . Sarah777 (talk) 23:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Discussion: Use in relation to Ireland/Republic of Ireland
The last point would appear to be the sticking point. In reply to Sheffield Steel first, what is meant by "particularly", I suppose, is better expressed as "primarily" or "wholly".

I can appreciate how editors would see this as a breach of NPOV but (a) (rightly or wrongly) this is consensus right now and (b) other turns of phrase (including synonyms for British Isles) can express the same thing.

In other publications authors often deliberately avoid the term (particular in relation to Ireland) and are explicit in their reasons why. They often use other terms when they do. Most commonly, in my experience, this is simply Britain and Ireland or a variation (which is a dab page here). We don't ordinarily use other terms here on Wikipedia because of the perception that using terms other than British Isles demonstrates a lack of NPOV. I think that is a contradictory approach (i.e. 'we have to use this term because there is conflict over it and using another term would express a position on that conflict').

I do think however that the points expressed above to follow consensus rather than setting site-wide ban or otherwise on use of a term is a better approach.

How about the following:


 * Use of British Isles on articles that relate particularly to the Republic of Ireland or to the island of Ireland (including their geographic features) should be avoided except where the article relates more particularly to Northern Ireland.
 * Editors should not trivially add, remove or change use of British Isles (or a synonymous turn of phrase) in an established article without first gaining consensus on the relevant talk page.
 * Greater consideration should be given before adding British Isles to an article that relates primarily to the Republic of Ireland or to the island of Ireland (including their geographic features) except where the article relates more particularly to Northern Ireland.
 * Synonymous turns of phrase, such as Britain and Ireland, can be used where appropriate but should not be considered to be a preferred over British Isles in any general sense.
 * Synonymous turns of phrase, such as Britain and Ireland, can be used where appropriate but should not be considered to be a preferred over British Isles in any general sense.

--RA (talk) 08:58, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose Thank you for attempting to address the concerns of those who oppose, however I do not agree with the second of your three new points above. Qwerta369 (talk) 09:08, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * What I intended was simply that editors would approach those pages with a little more caution that they otherwise might but not to "ban" use of the term on those pages outright (as the previous suggestion more or less would have). Those pages in particular are a hotspot for conflict over this time. If it's in, then it's in, consensus would be needed to remove it, but don't add it causally. Honestly, I don't see what can be opposed about that? --RA (talk) 09:21, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

- Is the last sentence in this saying that "Britain and Ireland" could be written but linked to the British Isles article? or was that just a mistake? BritishWatcher (talk) 09:14, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Not a mistake. --RA (talk) 09:21, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

*Neutral That's a bit better but I'm not sure about the consensus bit. Could you elaborate? I am willing to be pursuaded one way or another. The C of E.          God Save The Queen! (talk) 09:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose Wow, erm I was going to wait for more opinions but the point brought up by Wiki-Ed raises a good point and can't really be ignored. The C of E.          God Save The Queen! (talk) 09:22, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose on the third point. As you know, "Britain and Ireland" is not synonymous with "British Isles". The former covers two islands, the latter covers all 6000. To say that sources using the former mean the latter (unless they explicitly say so) is synthesis, as discussed at length on the British Isles talk page. Also, your counter argument about use of the term British Isles being contradictory is not supported by WP:NPOV (re weighting). Wiki-Ed (talk) 09:17, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This surely has been put to bed by the refs at British Isles that explicitly say another turn of phrase for the same thing? This line of argument is the ying to the yang of those who say that Ireland cannot be in the British Isles because Ireland is not British. --RA (talk) 09:21, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Like I said, a weighting issue. There are a very small number of sources (5?) directly supporting that POV. Wiki-Ed (talk) 09:25, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Can we please put this issue to rest: "The 'British Isles', however, does include the island of Ireland, although the adjective 'British' used in this context is often found offensive by Irish nationalists. Norman Davies and J.G.A. Pocock have suggested alternatives ('The Isles' and the 'Atlantic Archipelago' respective), although neither has proved popular and it is as simple either to refer to 'Britain and Ireland' or to recognise that the term 'British Isles' was in common and widely accepted usage during the period considered by this chapter [the 19th century]." - What is a nation?: Europe 1789-1914, Timothy Baycroft and Mark Hewitson --RA (talk) 09:37, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't changing it just because some Irish nationalists find it offensive be a violation of WP:NOTCENSORED? The C of E.          God Save The Queen! (talk) 09:40, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Removing instances of British Isles solely because it is "offenseive" would be unacceptable. Equally, insisting on the use one phrase (British Isles) over another is unacceptable. We can get hung up on the idea of having to defend against perceived "censorship". Pragmatically, these islands are called by a number of turns of phrase. All that is said above is that other turns are fine but should not be considered to be "preferred" (for the reason that Wikipedia is not "censored" as you point to above). --RA (talk) 10:10, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. When an article is in fact referring to Britain and Ireland rather than all the British Isles, which I imagine must happen quite a lot, it seems to me that editors should be willing to use the term which won't cause offence to anyone - as long as it is accurate in context - for the sake of harmony, which shouldn't be underrated:).Hobson (talk) 23:24, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. Not happy about "trivially" - should that word simply be replaced by "normally" - that is, editors may WP:BRD, but still be expected to discuss any changes?  Also, "synonymous" - that in itself could be contentious if they are not seen as exactly synonymous - how about the broader word "alternative"?  Haven't yet commented on the main thread because I'm not sure over some of the principles.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:25, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I didnt like the "trivially" bit either. There is nothing trivial about a clear campaign to remove British Isles from wikipedia. Normally would be better there. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose "Britain and Ireland" should not be written in an article and link to the British Isles article. Either British Isles is used in the text or its not used. Pipelinks would cause even more confusion. (If i am following the final point correctly) BritishWatcher (talk) 09:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I find this better especially the newly added second point, but I believe that the original 5th point ("Use of British Isles in political contexts should be avoided after 1922.") should also be struck out as even after the RoI was created they are still known as the British Isles. -- Phoenix (talk) 09:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

But the policy proposed would appear to perpetuate that misunderstanding, which is not what Wikipedia should do.Hobson (talk) 23:17, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. ireland should have no special treatment in this matter. LevenBoy (talk) 11:07, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose This isn't really any better - in fact I'd say it is worse. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:33, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose The phrasing suggested still implies that "British Isles" has a political implication which is simply wrong. Personally I'd prefer simply not to use the phrase than this. I think there is agreement here that it is a misunderstanding to think the term is political - ie "British Isles" is a geographic term and would still be the British Isles if England, Scotland and Wales became independent countries and Britain, the political entity, ceased to exist. The island of Ireland is part of the British Isles regardless of political arrangements.
 * Support - as Ireland is manifestly not part of any "British" Isles this is a no-brainer. Time to eradicate the cancer of British Nationalism that is making a sick joke of WP:NPOV. Sarah777 (talk) 23:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Discussion: Adressing concerns
Well that new one by RA seemed to be a bit better to me than the original but the points raised by Wiki-Ed and BritishWatcher cannot be ignored, so I'd propose we use this: * Synonymous turns of phrase, such as Britain and Ireland, can be used where appropriate but should not be considered to be a preferred over British Isles in any general sense. Is that a better idea as it is adressing their concerns? The C of E.          God Save The Queen! (talk) 09:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Use of British Isles on articles that relate particularly to the Republic of Ireland or to the island of Ireland (including their geographic features) should be avoided except where the article relates more particularly to Northern Ireland.
 * Editors should not add, remove or change use of British Isles (or a synonymous turn of phrase) in an established article without first gaining consensus on the relevant talk page.
 * Greater consideration should be given before adding British Isles to an article that relates primarily to the Republic of Ireland or to the island of Ireland (including their geographic features) except where the article relates more particularly to Northern Ireland.
 * Greater consideration should be given before adding British Isles to an article that relates primarily to the Republic of Ireland or to the island of Ireland (including their geographic features) except where the article relates more particularly to Northern Ireland.
 * Comment Define trivially. --HighKing (talk) 09:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing it means without reason or because of a personal agenda. I'm not entirely sure. I didn't write this, I mearly copied it over with alterations, I think the original author was RA so you'd best ask him. The C of E.           God Save The Queen! (talk) 09:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * is it in fact needed? the sentence reads just the same without it - basicly it is saying don't remove British Isles without first gaining consensus. Codf1977 (talk) 09:52, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, Codf1977. It's just unessecary baggage on a line that would read the same without it. I'll remove it from my proposal. The C of E.          God Save The Queen! (talk)
 * I suppose what I'm trying to get to here, is that there's already lots of examples at WT:BISE where usage was discussed, and we've recognized a range of articles where British Isles is in a grey area of usage. For some, this isn't "trivial".  Unless we use examples and even get down to specifics where required, something this loosely worded will result in just more drama.  --HighKing (talk) 09:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Neutral(ish) The points raised were that Britain and Ireland is not a common synonym. That is contradicted by reliable sources that explicitly give it as a synonym in the context of the exact issue that we are facing. I don't mind not listing it as a synonym, if that is a problem for some, my intention really was to point out that there's more than one way to skin a cat. Other turns of phrase that express the same thing shouldn't be avoided just to use "British Isles" where that prhase is causing a problem. --RA (talk) 09:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Verifiability is all good and well, but you can find sources to say anything. They have to be weighted and balanced against other sources. If you have 5 sources saying one thing and several hundred thousand others saying something else then it is not correct to suggest the former has much weight. I think the solution here is to strike out the last point. WP:NPOV compliant guidance should not suggest "synonymous turns of phrase" which are always going to express a point of view. That's not to say that your point about skinning a cat is wrong, but I think that it in all cases it should be context-specific. Wiki-Ed (talk) 10:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * We'll have to agree to differ on the weighting issue. It can be decided on individual article talk as appropriate to each topic. How about this:
 * "Synonyms of British Isles or other turns of phrase that impart the same information can be used where appropriate and where there is consensus on relevant talk pages. Use of synonyms or other turns of phrases however should not be considered to be preferred over British Isles in any general sense. (See Wikipedia is not censored.)"
 * --RA (talk) 10:24, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Better, but I think that "other turns of phrase that impart the same information" could be taken by some to suggest that phrases like "Atlantic archipelago" could be used, when in fact they are not widely used in the real world, or understandable to readers. Does "where appropriate" cover that, or does it need further clarification?  Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:31, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "Common synonyms and turns of phrase..."? I think that would cover Britain and Ireland and UK and Ireland, where those are appropriate and where there is consensus on the relevent talk page, but would rule out Atlantic Archipelago and the likes. --RA (talk) 10:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think this is a sensible compromise insofar as it does not prescribe what should be used. However, I worry that interpretation of what is "widely used in the real world" will come back to bite in the future. Perhaps that is best left to individual talk pages. Wiki-Ed (talk) 10:58, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * These things do change over time, but (usually) very slowly. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:10, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Just to point out, the current proposals pretty much capture the way things were *before* the WT:BISE page was set up in order to centralize discussions. Looks like we've come full circle.  --HighKing (talk) 10:17, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. I like this revision. It gets rid of the word "trivial" (it's clearly not a trivial issue), it deals succintly with the bulk deletion/add edit wars and it asks editors to think more in the Ireland/Northern Ireland contexts. On the sourcing issue, what are we sourcing? There are bags of sources to support any given view in this issue but it always comes back to common sense approaches to how to deal with a deeply felt conflict of opinion within Wikipedia without allowing that to spill out into article reality in a manner that either (a) ignores NPOV or (b) gives a distorted view of reality to casual readers that is based on Wikipedian difficulties, not real world difficulties. The dispute does exist in the real world and so do the British Isles. Wikipedia should report both fully and referencably. I like where this is heading though and good work by all concerned. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:20, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This whole dialogue seems to be desinged to deflect attention from the matter in hand, namely how to deal with an editor who continues to push ant-British Isles POV across Wikipedia. LevenBoy (talk) 11:12, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Still does not go far enough to address certain problems that i have raised on the talk page. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:56, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose - established articles are blighted with British Nationalism contra WP:NPOV. There should be no areas on Wiki that have some special immunity from policy. Sarah777 (talk) 23:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Combined threads
Combining the above threads is the following broadly acceptable and reflective of consensus or moving towards it?


 * The British Isles are Great Britain, Ireland, the Isle of Man, Orkney, Shetland and, by tradition, the Channel Islands. Use on Wikipedia may or may not include the Channel Islands.
 * Use of British Isles is not prescribed in any context (i.e. there is no context in which British Isles has to be used).
 * Use of British Isles is appropriate in geographic contexts and (scientific) contexts related to geography such as distribution of flora and fauna, geology, weather patterns and archeology.
 * Don't mix "apples" and "pears" (e.g. if content lists states then list states, if content lists geographical units then list geographical units).
 * Use of British Isles in political contexts should be avoided after 1922.
 * Editors should not add, remove or change use of British Isles (or a synonymous turn of phrase) in an established article without first gaining consensus on the relevant talk page.
 * Greater consideration should be given before adding British Isles to an article that relates primarily to the Republic of Ireland or to the island of Ireland (including their geographic features) except where the article relates more particularly to Northern Ireland.
 * Common synonyms of British Isles or turns of phrase that impart the same information can be used where appropriate and where there is consensus on relevant talk pages. Use of synonyms or other turns of phrase however should not be considered to be preferred over British Isles in any general sense. (See Wikipedia is not censored.)

Editors should respect verifiability and differences in terminology that appear in reliable sources where appropriate. Edit warring over use or non-use of British Isles is discouraged.

--RA (talk) 11:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Minor oppose The 1922 one doesn't really specify what you should use instead. Since the Irish Free State was still under the control of the British sovereign until 1949, it would possibly be better if the date was moved toward the more appropriate historical context. The C of E.          God Save The Queen! (talk) 11:21, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I was thinking about at that and the word "avoided" in the same setence. Like others pointed out above, that is a bit prescriptive and a hard date probably isn't suitable for all contexts. How about saying if it is used then it should be used with care in political contexts since 1922 and avoided in contemporary political contexts? --RA (talk) 11:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Guidelines are not needed and will inevitably be used as an excuse for further removals. Also I disagree with special consideration for Ireland or the state of the same name. LevenBoy (talk) 11:25, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Close to Support. I'd like to see an emphasis on existing policies such as WP:V. Also, scientifically, British Isles is not treated as a unit for Flora.  IoM and GB are one unit, Ireland is another, and the CI are considered as part of France.   And should we consider a form of 1RR for a period of time, say 3 months, and then review?  --HighKing (talk) 11:31, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose - still too many outstanding issues. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:33, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - my points above about other islands within the "BI" (eg Hebrides), the term "geography", and the term "political contexts" haven't yet ben addressed. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think "geographical contexts" is only physical geogrpahy. I don't know what the deal is with "archeology" (I copied and pasted it from another editor). Archeology doesn't fit in there IMHO and I'd remove it. I think political contexts is obvious political contexts i.e. matters relating to the affairs of states (including economies). Political concepts and parties, I think, should be judged on their own merits and terms. About the Hebrides and other islands, we can add them or say something like "and adjacent islands commonly included in the group". --RA (talk) 12:08, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Clearer definitions of Geographical / political contexts are needed. See the example i posted last night on the talk page that high king wanted removed because it was a mix of geographical/geopolitical matters. Having a MOS is pointless if its easily open to interpretations. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:14, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with BW. (Excuse me while I re-read that. Several times.  And decide what I Must Do.)  Archaeology is interesting, because for one thing Ireland was physically separated from GB before GB separated from continental Europe.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The convention to use British Isles for geography should be applied as loosely as it is by reliable sources. History, archaeology, anthropology etc are all subjects which use the term. We are trying to avoid using it where it is politically contentious, not restrict usage to where it fits into narrow academic categories. As such it might be better only to state where it should not be used; not where it is permissable. Wiki-Ed (talk) 12:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose - as per my comments above this could well act as a catalyst for un-necessary and incorrect changes under the banner of "MOS says so". This is just un-necessary. Codf1977 (talk) 11:55, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The other way around. Unnecessary and incorrect changes were the catalyst for this. A note warning editors against Wiki-lawyering a MOS of this kind wouldn't be a bad idea though. --RA (talk) 12:08, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that the reason for the proposal was that unnecessary and incorrect changes were being made, however I think doing this will make the situation worse - it just needs to be as simple as "Editors should not add, remove or change use of British Isles (or a synonymous turn of phrase) in an existing article section without first gaining consensus on the relevant talk page.". As for a new section or new article, let the author decide how best to start and if there is a consensus to change then change it. Codf1977 (talk) 12:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, we're back full circle - but article Talk pages were getting clogged up with needless nationalistic posturing, and ignoring references and sources. Also, define "unnecessary"?  Who decides that?  How can it be decided?  On a case-by-case basis?  --HighKing (talk) 13:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Worse than the first one, and that takes some doing. MickMacNee (talk) 13:20, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Largely due to point 7.  I agree 100% with Phoenix who said, "the islands are called the British Isles. It would be equivalent to Hugo Chávez, the President of Venezuela, trying find a different name for the Americas because the name America implies that it belongs to the United States of America. If a subject is talking about these islands then British Isles would be appropriate. If they are talking about one of the islands it is better to refer to that island than the whole archipelago. This is a policy that is currently in use.". Qwerta369 (talk) 13:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hear Hear! The C of E.          God Save The Queen! (talk) 13:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * ;-) Phoenix (talk) 21:01, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose. This one is even worse - see comments above by Phoenix and Qwerta369. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:56, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose - political use of the term "British Isles" should be banned as in breach of WP:NPOV. Period. End of. Sarah777 (talk) 23:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Actually, I support Sweden.  I don't quite agree with "The British Isles are Great Britain, Ireland, the Isle of Man, Orkney, Shetland and, by tradition, the Channel Islands. Use on Wikipedia may or may not include the Channel Islands."  We are not God.  It would be better to say "The current Wikipedia usage is that the British Isles are Great Britain, Ireland, the Isle of Man, Orkney, Shetland and, by tradition, the Channel Islands. Use on Wikipedia may or may not include the Channel Islands."  Also, usages should be verified by WP:V Princess Mary of Sweden (talk) 01:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

How about

 * The British Isles are Great Britain, Ireland, the Isle of Man, Orkney, Shetland and, by tradition, the Channel Islands. Use on Wikipedia may or may not include the Channel Islands.
 * Note that while the term British Isles has a long history, there is no point throughout that history where the whole of the islands of Britain have been been ruled by one government (monarchial or elected). It is therefore necessary to exercise caution when using the term in a political context, and to avoid using it in all instances where what is properly meant is one of the political realms of the British Isles.
 * Use of British Isles is not prescribed in any context (i.e. there is no context in which British Isles has to be used), but use of British Isles is most appropriate in geographic contexts and scientific contexts related to geography such as distribution of flora and fauna, geology, weather patterns and archeology.
 * Don't mix "apples" and "pears" (e.g. if content lists states then list states, if content lists geographical units then list geographical units).
 * Use of British Isles on articles that relate particularly to the Republic of Ireland or to the island of Ireland may need greater care to accurately reflect the status of the Republic of Ireland as independent from the United Kingdom.
 * DO NOT CHANGE an article to either include or remove the term British Isles without discussing it first and providing verifiable reasons that appear in reliable sources where appropriate. Edit warring over use or non-use of British Isles is discouraged.

NB I have struck the 'don't mix apples and pears line'. I'm not quite sure what its saying, but it may be saying something necessary so I haven't removed it. If someone has better words, then these should be used.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:17, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Support obviously. The 1922 thing is an utter red herring.  There is no time, going back to the Romans, where the whole of the British Isles has been under one government of any kind.  Even when Ireland was governed as part of the United Kingdom, the outer islands had their own governments.  The term British Isles should never be used where what is meant is one of the political realms - although one can correctly speak of the political realms of the British Isles (an example of how it can be used in a political context, and where 'Britain and Ireland' would be wrong unless one specifically wished to exclude the political structures of the outer islands, in which case one ought to spell it out anyway).--Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment What are these "islands of Britain" you refer to? Scientific contexts don't include flora (I've commented on this above).  The "Don't mix apples and pears" relates specifically to articles that have lists like "France, Spain, and the British Isles".  It could also be extended for articles that state "Northern Europe and the British Isles" or "Western Europe and the British Isles".  I like the last point's emphasis on policies, but the wording appears to provide "special" privilidges to "British Isles" as a term, and I disagree with that.  What about Editors should only add, remove or change use of British Isles (or a synonymous turn of phrase) in an established article after providing verifiable reasons that appear in reliable sources.  Strict WP:BRD applies, and if the change is reverted, is must not be reapplied until a consensus emerges after discussion.  --HighKing (talk) 15:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * HighKing, may I direct you to the Botanical Society of the British Isles. THEY refer constantly to the flora of the British Isles this is the list of places that they cover in their data collection and publication scheme. So let's have no more nonsense about not being able to talk about the flora of the British Isles. In other news, your suggestion about edit warring risks favouring the position of the reverter a little too much for my taste. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:20, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There are international standards. Take a look at this PDF.
 * Again disagree that this whole thing is needed, but if we are going this route lets make it water tight and give "British Isles" protected status - change it only after you get a consensus, the bit about "after providing verifiable reasons that appear in reliable sources" is IMO a bit over proscriptive and could lead to wikilawyering if it is not relevant given the circumstances. Codf1977 (talk) 16:09, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - still think it just unnecessary; however if it has to be then I do think some of the wording needs fine tuning. The last one should I think read :
 * DO NOT CHANGE an existing article or section to either include or remove the term British Isles without first gaining consensus on the relevant talk page. Edit warring over use or non-use of British Isles is never acceptable.
 * Codf1977 (talk) 16:01, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose, for the reasons already given; main one being these guidelines are not needed since there is no problem to speak of in the use of British Isles. The only problem is that the words attract POV pushing, which I hope is being dealt with elsewhere. LevenBoy (talk) 16:09, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

If we really do want a new MOS for use of British Isles, perhaps we need to go right back to the drawing board of the discussions which led to the original wording we keep adding or altering. That final sentence about do not change BI is an improvement, if Codf1977s wording is reflected in that. But i still feel it leaves blackholes. The expanded point on political use is better, but may not go far enough. I would also like to see some clear examples within the agreed MOS to show clear missuse of BI and occasions when BI is perfectly acceptable and does not need removing. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I too am not happy with using the MOS to achieve this, I agree with your point about blackholes, but also see the dangers with being over proscriptive with this (maybe that is why I am not happy with using the MOS to fix what is in essence a POV issue). Also agree with you on the need to provide examples of acceptable and not acceptable uses. Codf1977 (talk) 16:33, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The MOS just needs to make the point that the term DOES include all the islands, and DOES NOT refer to any of the political divisions.


 * The British Isles are Great Britain, Ireland, the Isle of Man, Orkney, Shetland and, by tradition, the Channel Islands. Use on Wikipedia may or may not include the Channel Islands. Note that while the term British Isles has a long history, there is no point throughout that history where the whole of the area covered by the term has been been ruled by one government. It is therefore necessary to exercise caution when using the term in a political context, and to avoid using it in all instances where what is properly meant is one of the political realms of the British Isles. In particular, care should be taken to  accurately reflect the status of the Republic of Ireland as independent from the United Kingdom.
 * DO NOT CHANGE an article to either include or remove the term British Isles or change existing text to British Isles without gaining consensus on the relevant talkpage. Edit warring over use or non-use of British Isles is never acceptable.
 * Examples can be added to this as required. I have left flora in, as the most straightforward evidence ( the BSBI, the several 'Flora of the British Isles' which I happen to own) does not support the contention that the term British Isles can never be used in the context of flora. If it is a particular issue for a particular flower, it can be discussed on the talkpage. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Could almost support that - I would say that I think it should be made clearer that, it is acceptable for a editor to add either a new article or new section to an existing one without needing to get consensus first about the use of the term otherwise we may find a catch 22 situation (to make myself clear when I say NEW I mean a totally section or article). To do that perhaps change the last line to something like "DO NOT CHANGE existing article text to either substitute or remove the term..." (not happy with that wording and more than open to other examples that better express the meaning) Codf1977 (talk) 17:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll have a look at the text for UK/US english - that might help as its the same revert rule.Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If consensus is (and I think it is) that something needs to be added that works for me (may be with the word "include" in between "..text to" and "British Isles.." - but that may be being picky). Codf1977 (talk) 21:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Don't oppose Food for thought but I think they give too much commentary around the points, particularly politics. Per a comment in one of the discussion above, I'm beginning to agree that the geography part is unnecessary. I think we all broadly in agreement on the substance though. I've put another interation below. --RA (talk) 21:43, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Adds: one reason however that I would stick roughly with the list we started with however is that it is based on the experience of the British Isles task force. Particularly, the specific examples page. Thus, it refers to particular points of contention on the issue. --RA (talk) 21:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Support - despite the inclusion of some bias I'd support this as a first step towards a compromise. Sarah777 (talk) 23:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Moving away for "prescription" to "reflection"
OK, another iteration, this time pulling back form "prescribing" use but more simply "reflecting" on what we can broadly agree on. Also builds in comments around "geography" and reference to Ireland/Republic of Ireland and tries to fence off potential for Wiki-lawyering.

Issues around the use and non-use of the term British Isles have led to conflict between editors and disruption to the encyclopedia. Wikipedia does not take any position on the appropriateness or otherwise of the term. These "guidelines" are thus not instructions on when to use or not to use the term. Instead, they reflect the common experience of editors in working together on this issue.

In deciding to use or not to use the term British Isles or a synonymous turn of phrase, editors may refer to these guidelines and be informed by them. However, the choice and reason to use or not to use the term in any context should not rely excessively on them. Editors should instead work together in a spirit of collegialism to reach a decision through consensus on individual talk pages. Editors should never engage in Wiki-lawyering over these guidelines.

Editors should respect verifiability and differences in terminology that appear in reliable sources where appropriate. Edit warring over use or non-use of British Isles is discouraged. Systematic addition or removal of British Isles to content, or edit warring over it, may result in a topic ban.
 * The British Isles are Great Britain, Ireland, the Isle of Man, Orkney, Shetland, the Hebrides, other smaller islands in close proximity to the main islands and, by tradition, the Channel Islands. Use on Wikipedia may or may not include the Channel Islands.
 * Use of British Isles is not prescribed in any context (i.e. there is no context in which British Isles has to be used).
 * British Isles is a geographical term; use in political contexts and listing the British Isles alongside political entities should be avoided.
 * Editors should not add, remove or change use of British Isles (or a synonymous turn of phrase) in an established article without first gaining consensus on the relevant talk page. In particular, seek consensus before making changes to an article that relates primarily to the Republic of Ireland or to the island of Ireland as the term is often most contentious on those articles.
 * Common synonyms of British Isles or turns of phrase that impart the same information can be used where appropriate and where there is consensus on relevant talk pages.
 * Use of synonyms or other turns of phrase should not be considered to be preferred over British Isles in any general sense. (See Wikipedia is not censored.)


 * I think you missed out a "not" in the first line (!) And my mention of the Hebrides was simply an example - there are many small islands, off the coasts of both of the main islands, which are considered part of the island group.  How about: "...Great Britain, Ireland, the Isle of Man, Orkney, Shetland, the Hebrides, other smaller islands in close proximity to the main islands, and, by tradition, the Channel Islands..."  Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm always missing important "nots" like that :-). Added it and your suggestion. --RA (talk) 21:56, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Support - (I'll put my comment here since some contributors (below) don't seem to understand how to use section breaks). Aside from a few tweaks I think this version pretty much covers all the bases and provides us with a neutral basis for going forward. Wiki-Ed (talk) 10:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. This is pretty good RA and thanks for all the work you are putting into it. I still have reservations about the political exclusion, purely because it second-guesses future local article situations - how do we know a British Isles "political situation" is never going to arise? However, I could probably accept the above even with that in, so this is good progress. I am still uneasy about the "first gaining consensus on the relevant talk page" sentence - great idea, but in practise, won't mass-deletists simply add a standard discussion template to every article they auto-wipe British Isles from? And if there isn't much comment, claim this represents "consensus"? The whole problem is that local article editors are often either indifferent or befuddled by the out of the blue change, as indeed, at first, I was - I only twigged the depth of it by browsing around quite a bit and discovering the huge quantities of disputation on it. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "...how do we know a British Isles 'political situation' is never going to arise?" - A British Isles "political situation" does exist: the British-Irish Council and British Irish Parliamentary Assembly. Neither article uses the phrase, mainly because the bodies themselves avoid it so studiously. In general it's messy because "British", in political terms, refers to the UK. Sure, "British" Isles is a geographic terms but for the sake of clarity alone, is it not best avoided? In most cases is just means listing the two states in involved, if not (and if "British Isles" is the better option) it can be sorted out on individual articles as to what is best in any given circumstance.
 * "...in practise, won't mass-deletists simply add a standard discussion template to every article they auto-wipe British Isles from?" Topic ban them per ANI. With all due respect to HighKing, who I don't believe is a "evil doer", working one's way through the encyclopedia fixing these things is not a good idea. There is also the specific examples page. There's too much bad blood. In fairness too, I think the advice to seek talk page consensus goes a little to far for most circumstances that are purely "correctional". WP:BRD and then discuss would be normal practice but best to err on the side of caution. --RA (talk) 22:13, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose. It still buys into this fantasy idea that NPOV is about saying something one way on the articles written for and by Irish editors, and saying it another way on the articles written for and by British editors. If that perception of how NPOV works has developed in the little participated in special examples proving page, then it probably shows what a bad idea all reound that really was for getting true perspective on the issue, rather than self-reinforcing the already flawed 'First Principles'. Infact, this exercise is getting bizarre all round. Since when did the MoS become the place where editors are reminded not to be tendentious editors? If there is to be an MoS guidance for this term, then it actually has to be able to say something useful in terms of content, not behaviour, and thus far, the only thing I've seen that's remotely useful in that regard is the basic clarification of what islands are and aren't in it, and that mixing it up with country names is not a good idea. That is the sort of sensible advice, for the benefit of readers, that the MoS is about, not a do's and dont's cheat sheet for idelogical edit warriors, who frankly, know full well what the pertinant rules already are. And frankly, the proposed 'advice' that 'British Isles' doesn't have to be used anywhere in the pedia, is out and out wrongness, and pretty much unprecedented I would have thought. Even the language of WP:TERRORIST does not dare to be so obviously screwy as that. And this page is truly getting daft also when I can't finish commenting on one version I've only just seen before the next one springs up. MickMacNee (talk) 23:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Sorry but it is now just over wordy, it needs to be kept simple and direct and pray tell when is Edit warring ever acceptable. I think that the work that Elen of the Roads and others have done in the section above is a better starting point so how about :

Issues around the use and non-use of the term British Isles have led to conflict between editors and disruption to the encyclopedia. Wikipedia does not take any position on the appropriateness or otherwise of the term. In these "guidelines" the term British Isles also includes any and all synonymous turn of phrases.

Editors should never engage in Wiki-lawyering over these guidelines, and remember that Edit warring over use or non-use of British Isles is never acceptable.


 * The British Isles are Great Britain, Ireland, the Isle of Man, Orkney, Shetland and, by tradition, the Channel Islands. Use on Wikipedia may or may not include the Channel Islands. Note that while the term British Isles has a long history, there is no point throughout that history where the whole of the area covered by the term has been been ruled by one government. It is therefore necessary to exercise caution when using the term in a political context, and to avoid using it in all instances where what is properly meant is one of the political realms of the British Isles. In particular, care should be taken to  accurately reflect the status of the Republic of Ireland as independent from the United Kingdom.
 * DO NOT remove the term British Isles or change existing text to include British Isles without gaining consensus on the relevant talkpage.
 * it is kept simple. I do accept the point above that "to seek talk page consensus goes a little to far for most circumstances that are purely "correctional"" however in this case I fear that one persons correction could so easily be another persons POV pushing. Codf1977 (talk) 22:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Drop all the frankly unecessary behavioural advice re. lawyering and edit warring, and the singling out of ROI as needing special care per everything I've said above, and you are probably there as far as I'm concerned. The second point on consensus can probably be toned down aswell, people are more than free to try and remove/add it without local consensus, especially if they think they are making uncontroversial corrections, and they will just have to answer for it in the usual manner if it's found to be happening as part of a campaign of the likes HighKing has been doing. MickMacNee (talk) 23:22, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose The comments and multiple rewritings on this page highlight the reasons why the WT:BISE page tries to use examples to understand where usage is uncontested, and where it is contested. Over-simplification won't work - if it did, then existing policies would be all that was necessary.  Despite what some might believe, this topic is far from trivial.  --HighKing (talk) 23:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose - We must question why Wiki can tolerate agressive pushing of Nationalist POV from the likes of M MacNee. Hardly helping to improve the project. Sarah777 (talk) 23:53, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The term isn't nationalist (even the term Britain is celtic). The problem is that certain people have decided that the use of a historical and widely understood term is somehow nationalist POV pushing.Elen of the Roads (talk) 07:29, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Advice: just ignore those certain people. They hardly help to improve the project. Wiki-Ed (talk) 10:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - I'm a bit concerned that one of the key participants succumbed to the surely tongue in cheek suggestion to include the Hebrides. This suggests perhaps a lack of knowledge of how the definition came to exist in its current format (answers on a postcard please). I'll reiterate my opinion - anything in the MOS need only say that the term DOES include all the islands in the list, but DOES NOT stand for any of the political realms, so don't mix 'em up.  And don't edit war.Elen of the Roads (talk) 07:24, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Why do you think it was tongue in cheek? The island group includes many smaller islands - not just the three islands of GB, Ireland and IOM.  I was (am) just seeking clarity.  I'm sure I do have a "lack of knowledge of how the definition came to exist in its current format" - so would 99.99% of WP readers.  That's (partly) the point.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I thought you might be Hebridean. I will explain.  The current definition of 'British Isles' features the islands occupied by what were once the Kingdoms of Scotland, Ireland, Wales and England, plus a set of island groups that were once (or in some cases are still) under different government. Despite the local joke that the Western Islands belong to Caledonian MacBrayne, the truth is that the Hebrides and the other inner islands were part of Scotland from the point where that realm emerged as a single identity, hence came to be defined as part of 'Great Britain', rather than getting listings for themselves.  The Orkney and Shetland islands, on the other hand, were not part of Scotland until 1468, when the King of Norway sold them to James III, and the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands still have separate governance arrangements.  Hope this helps.Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:46, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, but my point is simply that GB is, geographically, an island, and there are lots of other smaller islands within the group other than Shetland and Orkney. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You're quite right of course. There are about 6000 islands in all.  However, mainland Britain and all the inner islands (AFAIK the ones that lie within the 3 mile coastal perimiter) are inclusively referred to as 'Great Britain', so if you say 'Great Britain' you don't also need to say 'and the Hebrides, and the Western Isles, and Anglesey and The Isle of Wight' etc etc.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You're using a different definition of Great Britain. This thread, so far as I know, is using the one at the Great Britain article, which says "Great Britain is an island..."   Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Gosh, yes I am, aren't I. Hadn't noticed that. Well, that's something that definitely needs to be sorted out before we get down to arguing about usage in relation to the Irish Republic. We need a proper definition of 'British Isles'--Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Elen and Codf1977, in fairness, I've been involved in this conflict for years now. Don't ever assume anything about it is "tongue in cheek". Some of the lines of argument over whether to use or not to use (or must use or must not use) the term have been bizarre. That is why I suggest sticking with the longer list, even if it is more wordy and has what appears like redundancy, than reducing it to a "common sense" statement. "Common sense" doesn't exist in this realm.
 * I appreciate your suggestions but, if you haven't been involved in the conflict over this issue, I'd suggest sitting back and saying what you can agree to or can not agree to rather than suggesting what would resolve it or not. It is through the looking glass stuff. And unless you have been through that looking glass, you really can't appreciate the mad world that lies beyond. --RA (talk) 08:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I tend to the "simpler may be better" camp on reflection. You can see how it quickly descends with the best intentions into farcially long lists. Should we include the Faroes (I'm sure there are historically yes and no camps on that one), what are the precise limits of the BI, the "is the CI in the BI" dispute etc, etc ad nauseam. Not saying of course that I don't respect the cultural and seperate histories of places such as Orkney, etc. So on reflection I am coming down on the second of the two examples above as it is clearer and simpler on the edit warring points, etc. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * @RA In a word, no. I think the whole problem is that a very small number of people have gone round in circles over this, and the very last thing that is needed is the discussion restricting to only those people.  If something that 99% of Wikipedians agree on (a fantastical possibility, I realise), then that constitutes consensus.  A discussion involving less than 1% (there appears to be less than two dozen people involved) cannot make consensus. Somewhere in between has to be what we are aiming at. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:52, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * My point is not that you don't have anything of value to add but that you would appear to underestimate the range of sources of conflict over this subject and the details that editors are in dispute over. --RA (talk) 11:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: Would "...to accurately reflect the existence of two sovereign states, Ireland and the United Kingdom" be preferable to "...to accurately reflect the status of the Republic of Ireland as independent from the United Kingdom." ?  Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:42, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If that would be more acceptable to all concerned, then we should use that. It does appear a better way of putting it.Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:48, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Shorter version does not cover all the bases but somehow manages to add unnecessary fluff. And I would suggest editors put new edits in new sections so other editors can clearly indicate what they oppose/support. I would also suggest discussing points of dissent instead of proliferating variations that bear little similarity to one another - we'll never reach consensus this way. Wiki-Ed (talk) 10:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The fluff in particular is what I find problematic about the shorter version. I don't mind taking things out of the list but the fluff in the shorter version (as well intentioned as it is) misses the point. --RA (talk) 11:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment there has now been more than 6 proposals, all seem to get opposition. We are going round and round in circles, It would be better if we accept there is going to be no agreement at present on this and take it back to a conversation on the basics of what rules we want included, if we think its worth continuing, rather than all these changing proposals that we keep having to vote on. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:27, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I actually think we are pretty much in agreement. There are supportive comments above from editors who I though could never share common ground on this issue. Rather than tinkering over the entire thing, I suggest we break it down in to dividual points and judge each one as a statement on its own merits. --RA (talk) 11:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Time to clear the board and start a new section then. Go for it if it looks like it might work (I'll go for anything that might work at this stage) Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:21, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I wish i had your optimism, all i can see above is endless oppose lol. I do agree that it would be best to look at a sentence at a time, rather than a block of sentences that everyone has different concerns about. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed, let's try it line by line. In general, I see a good tone in the comments here, so it appears that editors are genuinely trying to make progress and come to consensus - nothing in these debates is easy or trivial, so we should be relaxed about it taking time and having to be meticulous and serious. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 11:41, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I agreed with Jamesinderbyshire that there is a genuine attempt to make this work by all and I also like the idea of breaking it down to the individual points. Bjmullan (talk) 12:04, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Line by line
I believe that we are in broad agreement but a wavering over details. It is difficult to see the wood from the trees above so I've split the developed points to date into individual sections below. Rather than assuming that silence is consensus, can those watching express support or concerns over individual points. If a points has broad agreement, we can accept that it is OK. If there are specific concerns, those can be addressed individually in further iterations. There will probably be "package" concerns (i.e. 'I only support X is Y is in') but we can see how that pans out. --RA (talk) 12:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Scope of the British Isles

 * The British Isles are Great Britain, Ireland, the Isle of Man, Orkney, Shetland, the Hebrides, other smaller islands in close proximity to the main islands and, by tradition, the Channel Islands. Use on Wikipedia may or may not include the Channel Islands.

Agree

 * --RA (talk) 12:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Subject to the suggestion by Elen below. Wiki-Ed (talk) 13:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * --HighKing (talk) 13:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * BritishWatcher (talk) 15:21, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Bjmullan (talk) 19:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:32, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds correct -- Phoenix (talk) 22:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course. This is an example of the sort of advice an MoS should be providing to editors seeking style guidance. It goes downhill from here on though it seems. MickMacNee (talk) 20:11, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Red Hurley (talk) 09:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Disagree
There is an abundance of sources which specifically exclude Ireland from the "British Isles". A simple google of "British Isles and Ireland" has more than 284,000 results here. Why is this being ignored by British editors? 109.78.80.50 (talk) 14:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Specific concerns

 * prefer 'all the smaller islands within the coastal waters of the larger islands'. In any case, prefer 'all' to 'other', as there are not any smaller islands within that range that are not part of the British Isles (AFAIK - although several have attempted UDI at one time or another :))--Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:29, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Prescription to use British Isles

 * Use of British Isles is not prescribed in any context (i.e. there is no context in which British Isles has to be used).

Agree

 * --RA (talk) 12:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Fmph (talk) 12:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Wiki-Ed (talk) 13:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * --HighKing (talk) 13:21, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * BritishWatcher (talk) 15:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Bjmullan (talk) 19:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:54, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Red Hurley (talk) 09:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Specific concerns

 * Minor syntactical point: instead of "... has to be used....", wouldn't it be slightly more accessible as "... must be used...."? Fmph (talk) 12:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC)q?


 * It's not true. If the Lesser Spotted Twitcher is found on Jersey, the Isle of Man and in the Burren, it's found in the British Isles.  Any other way of describing it would be tortuous. You can't refer to  the political realms of Britain and Ireland and have it include Man or the Channel Islands. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't describe  ... is found on Jersey, the Isle of Man and in The Burren, ... as tortuous. Fmph (talk) 12:48, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You could say that it is found "on Jersey, the Isle of Man and in the Burren" :-) The point here is in the past editors were "correcting" benign ways of saying the same thing to say British Isles - or adding it where it never was before (apparantly) just as a wind up. That was needlessly vexatious. If an article says the same thing through another turn of phrase then there is no need "correct" it to say British Isles - and there is no need to say that X is in the British Isles, solely because it is. --RA (talk) 12:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Key word is "prescribed". It's not saying the term should not be used where it is the most sensible option (subject to RS etc). Wiki-Ed (talk) 13:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly. --RA (talk) 13:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Moving to support--Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Wholly opposed. For an MoS guide, this statement is just nonsense. For settling a dispute on Wikipedia in general, it is absurd. It is both an exercise in begging the question, and improperly undermines NOT CENSORED without actually stating it. Of all the proposals, this is probably the one that would and could be gamed to infinity, and would just look stupid to people who don't know the backstory. It has no place in an MoS, and I would be amazed if there exists any other statement like this in any other MoS page. It seems to show that these proposals are not grounded in any kind of Wiki-reality at all, but are being proposed in the 'Irish issues' wikibubble. MickMacNee (talk) 20:19, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't follow your point about censorship. It's simply stating the obvious fact that there is no rule saying we must use BI in certain contexts. It does not say that we should not use it where it is appropriate. That is covered later. Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:16, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * And the point of stating that is what exactly? There's no answer to that question that does not undermine NOTCENSORED. MickMacNee (talk) 14:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Apples and pears

 * Don't mix "apples" and "pears" (e.g. if content lists states then list states, if content lists geographical units then list geographical units).

Agree

 * Fmph (talk) 12:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * HighKing (talk) 13:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Wiki-Ed (talk) 13:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * BritishWatcher (talk) 15:30, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Bjmullan (talk) 19:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Support, for what is says, and only what it says. Any creative or implied interpretation, or extension to imply that this bars use of the term from anything but geography topics, will absolutely be the end of this one. The e.g. could be expanded to include page titles and category naming for completeness. MickMacNee (talk) 20:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Red Hurley (talk) 09:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Specific concerns

 * I think the points of this didn't come across to those weren't participants in the WP:BISE discussions. The points was British Isles shouldn't be listed alongside states and other political entities: either list purely geographic regions or spell out the states (usually only UK and Ireland). --RA (talk) 12:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think this is one of they key points and is better expressed in this latest iteration (apples and pears is perhaps a little idiomatic). Wiki-Ed (talk) 13:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

This does work both ways though. If there is a page that lists geographical regions, providing its not strictly about continents, then use of British isles is justified. AN example of where its justified was raised over at the BISE; I will find the specific example. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:32, 14 July 2010 (UTC) This was the one List_of_extinct_states. British Isles remain used there as a geographical grouping and makes sense considering the shared history when it comes to former states. If it was just listing countries it couldnt be used, but it lists areas like "Nordic countries" and "Spain+Portugal" together. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:40, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * In that circumstance, I'd change it. The others list counties (e.g. "...what is now France/Germany/Belgium/Netherlands"). I'd say "...what is now the United Kingdom and Ireland". The "Nordic counties" example is out of the norm and even it refers to "counties". --RA (talk) 22:29, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Remeber the "British Isles, Australia and New Zealand" example? Any of these were fine IIRC:
 * Ireland, United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand
 * British Isles and Australasia
 * Britian and Ireland and Australia and New Zealand
 * --RA (talk) 15:43, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Just a quick question - is this how the line will appear, eg, in the final "release", would this get explained? It's quite a subtle issue. Not sure who should answer my question - RA? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:52, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think think so. I don't think editors who were not part of the earlier discussion understand what is meant by it. It seems to have support from those who do, could you offer a rewrite? --RA (talk) 22:29, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that this might cause some confusion and more unnecessary debate in the future. -- Phoenix (talk) 22:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't disagree with the concept, but the statement needs to be much clearer.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:11, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Post 1922

 * Use of British Isles in political contexts should be avoided after 1922.

Specific concerns

 * I think the broader geographic/political context divide is better. --RA (talk) 12:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have concerns about such a draconian cut off point and how exactly we define "political contexts". This needs greater detail because what highking considers a political context, others may not. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:43, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This implies that British Isles may be appropriate in a political context before 1922. There may indeed be occasions when the geographic term British Isles could be substituted for the relevant political term (probably United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland). But to avoid any confusion about the actual meaning of British Isles it may be better to suggest to editors that the political term should be used whenever possible in a political context, whether discussing events before or after 1922.Hobson (talk) 17:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It isn't specific enough about the range of the prohibition and what "political" means. Winston Churchill, 1940: "We are told that Herr Hitler has a plan for invading the British Isles" (May 1940). Will we greenlight the mass editing-out of legitimate references to well known speeches, etc, with this? He is by no means the only politician who did not cease using the term after 1922. I would say either we remove this sentence or give a list of specific dos and don'ts. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Excellent point. The idea is to be "sensitive" - there's no problem including a quote from Churchill where he makes that statement - but equally that has to be balanced by the facts. Operation Sea Lion was a plan to invade Britain. Operation Green was a plan to invade Ireland. There was no plan to carry out both operations at the same time, and there was no plan to invade the British Isles. So how best to convey that information? --HighKing (talk) 22:38, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * No. This is VERY problematic as the British Isles are still the correct term for this group of islands. -- Phoenix (talk) 22:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Disagree. Very problematic - the creation of the Irish Free State did not alter the location of the island of Ireland.  Editors should always take care not to confuse the geographical and political terms, and take particular care not to accidentally imply that the Republic of Ireland is part of the United Kingdom, but this stricture as it stands is not appropriate. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Wholly oppose. It's nonsense for all the reasons people have given many times. How did it even make the cut? MickMacNee (talk) 20:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree, but, as well as Ireland, let's not forget Scottish devolution happening in the background, the Welsh Assembly and the self-governing Isle of Man etc. BI is geographical; it's just too vague as a political statement, unless all the political entities were e.g. in agreement on something regarding the rest of Europe. Which is unlikely.Red Hurley (talk) 09:25, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Geographic not political

 * British Isles is a geographical term; use in political contexts and listing the British Isles alongside political entities should be avoided.

Agree

 * --RA (talk) 12:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Fmph (talk) 12:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * HighKing (talk) 13:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Bjmullan (talk) 19:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Red Hurley (talk) 09:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Specific concerns
I have big concerns about this one.

"listing the British Isles alongside political entities should be avoided." This is already partly covered by the apples and pears.

"British Isles is a geographical term; use in political contexts.(...the above point...).should be avoided" - One of the previous sentences said avoid political contexts after 1922, this one is telling people to always avoid them.

Again how political context is defined i am uncomfortable with. British Isles is a geographical term and should obviously only be used as such but it depends how people interpret it.

The British Isles declared war on Germany is clearly an inaccurate use of term.

Germany invaded the British Isles - is perfectly fine, its simply saying they invaded a geographical location, you could say Europe, Asia etc so why not British Isles.

One example mentioned on the talk page was something like "People celebrated the Queens Golden Jubilee throughout the British Isles". If ROI was a commonwealth realm like Canada then that phrasing would be justified. Clearly as its not UK is more appropriate.

But i do think we need to go into this whole "political context" issue in greater detail. Its this which is one of my biggest concerns. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:52, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The Germany one is a very good example. IMHO it depends on the context and the words that are around it. It's hard to know in isolation. How about adding a new guidelines:
 * "Where there is overlap between geographical and political contexts, or potential for confusion, choose words carefully so as to make the distinction clear. Never re-write a sentence solely to use or not to use the phrase British Isles in any context."
 * --RA (talk) 17:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Are you saying that politicians do not or have not talked about the British Isles? -- Phoenix (talk) 22:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm at least saying that the British Isles did not join the EC in 1973. --RA (talk) 22:40, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * LOL! I think we are worried about extremes on both sides ;-) -- Phoenix (talk) 22:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Let's be specuific about the problem. It's not using both terms in one sentence - one can perfectly legitimately speak of the political realms of the British Isles. The issue is that editors should always take care not to confuse the geographical and political terms, and take particular care not to accidentally imply that the Republic of Ireland is part of the United Kingdom.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:18, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Wholly opposed. The second part of this is wholly redundant to the Apples and Pears principle, and the 'cannot be used in political contexts' is problematic not only for being simply a ban, and one which uses totally vague criteria no less, the decision depends wholly on the context of usage in each case. Thus, this should be left to local talk pages, to lessen the risk that 'corrections' or attempts to otherwise interpret what is being meant on a particular page, does not result in edits that produce garbage, no matter how well meaning or apparently correct the garbage appears to those who are offended by the term. MickMacNee (talk) 20:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The key word is "should", but it might need additional emphasis to offset concerns expressed above. For example, the much-debated second sentence of the article on British Isles itself would run into trouble with this one. Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Avoid

 * Use of British Isles on articles that relate particularly to the Republic of Ireland or to the island of Ireland (including their geographic features) should be avoided except where the article relates more particularly to Northern Ireland.

Specific concerns

 * A total ban is not appropriate to NPOV, but greater consideration should be bourne in mind. --RA (talk) 12:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I can not support this one. There is nothing wrong with using British Isles when talking about geography on an Ireland related article. So if a river that runs only through the ROI is the biggest in the British Isles, there is no reason not to say so, just as we would certainly say if it was the biggest in Europe. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think they key word here is "should". If it said "must" then I might agree with you, but phrased as it is I think it is simply suggesting a way to write articles in such a way as to avoid getting embroiled in debates. The Shannon article says its the longest in the British Isles, is a sensible statement in that context and is sourced - even User:Highking hasn't tried to change that one. Wiki-Ed (talk) 19:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll take that as "slagging" :-) Actually if I recall, I disagreed at the time with removing British Isles ... although it's a convenient factoid to "forget" for most editors...  --HighKing (talk) 22:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with the idea but I think that the wording needs to be reworked. -- Phoenix (talk) 22:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, the issue is with editors giving the impression that the ROI is part of the UK. Editors should be aware that the ROI is a sovereign state, and avoid giving the impression that it is part of the UK.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:20, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Wholly opposed. This is not, and never will be, the correct application of NPOV. NPOV applies everywhere, NPOV does not sanction the differential usage, let alone banning, of terms in different topic areas relating to who or who not might be reading, and thus offended by a term, whether that offence is real and legitimate, or being puffed up and unduly heightened using Wikipedia. You will not find a similar situation for other disputed terms, you will still find for example the words Kosovo (and independent) in Serbian topic pages, and this is no different. If the people who are spending their wiki-lives wholly pushing for change in this single dispute are thinking this is remotely how NPOV works on the pedia, you are wasting your time, you are doomed to failure through your own misconceptions. This sort of misguided thinking is why so many of these proposals which even might seem to have local consensus among active participants, especially among the people who genuinely want to find a 'compromise', are effectively doomed to be stillborn when they emerge, blinking, into the sunshine of exposure to uninvolved editors for appraisal. This misguided thinking is the same as believing NPOV means that the word Ireland can just be assumed as meaning the sovereign state if the readers of a page are likely to be Irish, or the page is a 100% ROI topic. It's balls, put simply. MickMacNee (talk) 20:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * This is a bit too vague.Red Hurley (talk) 09:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

"Greater consideration"

 * Greater consideration should be given before adding British Isles to an article that relates primarily to the Republic of Ireland or to the island of Ireland (including their geographic features) except where the article relates more particularly to Northern Ireland.

Agree

 * --RA (talk) 12:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * --HighKing (talk) 13:40, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Bjmullan (talk) 19:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:11, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Red Hurley (talk) 09:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Specific concerns
* This one has been irksome in the past for a number of people (me included) where "British Isles" is used perfectly find in a geographic context (e.g. River Shannon). Unless we're observing and respecting "Local" consensus on individual articles, a blanket statement like this might be overkill. --HighKing (talk) 13:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC) So long as "Greater consideration" doesn't translate to a blanket ban  --HighKing (talk) 13:42, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "Greater consideration" is more reasonable than the previous point, but it basically encourages to think again about including British Isles in the text. It is not for wikipedia to try and discourage usage of a certain term. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:05, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * So can you support it? --RA (talk) 17:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I am leaning on agreeing to this one. -- Phoenix (talk) 22:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Still think it is more honest to make it clearer what the issue is. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The issue is manifold. The point is: stop, think. --RA (talk) 08:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Opposed. Per the above reasoning for the mote strident wording. Unless or until anyone comes up with a reason why this statement belongs in an MoS other than 'BI is offensive to Irish readers and thus we should use something else on article they read', then sorry, you are barking up the wrong tree in terms of attempting to adhere to NPOV. The fact that this proposed MoS might exist at all will detail why 'great consideration' should be given to using the term, but that applies everywhere, not just to where Irish readers might be hanging out in blissfull ignorance that their world view may or may not be distorted. Although I am liking the inference in it that, as long as you aren't working an area that is primarily about ROI, you can be as careless with the term as you like. The terminology just buys into this whole battle/ownership mentality that takes over many Irish editors, that, when it gets to the stage of arbitration, is a behaviour that is rightly stamped on from on high as not belonging anywhere on Wikipedia, precisely because it discourages adherence to NPOV. MickMacNee (talk) 21:00, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Can be used

 * Common synonyms of British Isles or turns of phrase that impart the same information can be used where appropriate and where there is consensus on relevant talk pages.

Agree

 * --RA (talk) 12:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Non-prescriptive = good. Wiki-Ed (talk) 13:29, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * --HighKing (talk) 14:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Bjmullan (talk) 19:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Specific concerns

 * How do we define "where appropriate". This seems like a point which result in the ability to continue to push for changes that are not needed, where BI is used in an acceptable way but someone wants a different term just for the sake of it. More stricter guidelines are needed than that. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:09, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Not convinced this is necessary or helpful. Alternative terms may not be seen by all concerned as "synonymous", or "imparting the same information".  If there is consensus, fine, but that is covered by other points anyway.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:29, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't want to hand anyone beans to push up their nose but, for example, on the United Kingdom page Lough Neagh is described as "the largest body of water in the UK and Ireland". The Guinness article says, "The production of all Guinness sold in the UK and Ireland was switched to St. James's Gate Brewery, Dublin." Either of these could be changed to British Isles by a zealous editor for no good reason. The steak sauce page uses both "British Isles" and "UK and Ireland". Should that be "fixed" to say British Isles only?
 * Should Strength athletics in the United Kingdom and Ireland be moved? What about March 2006 in Britain and Ireland (indeed what about the entire series)? Trees of Britain and Ireland, Slavery in Britain and Ireland or Gravity anomalies of Britain and Ireland. Should they be renamed? I don't think so. They are just fine as they are.
 * Not everyone sees these other turns of phrase as "synonymous" but in many circumstance they are just fine (which is what I would take "appropriate" as meaning). The purpose here (which I see going hand in hand with the point below) is to rule out the line that, "British Isles is the proper word", as an argument for changing these turns of phrase (often accompanied by the follow up that if it isn't changed, it is because Wikipedia is being "censored" by nationalists). If what is there imparts the same information, or is seen as synonymous, then leave it be. --RA (talk) 22:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The Lough Neagh example relates to the island group, as a so-called "geographical" entity - the fact that any geographical feature is the largest within any set of two political administrations is, in itself, fairly trivial and unencyclopaedic. (That is, for example, you wouldn't think to have a statement that "X is the largest lake in Germany and Poland" - because, although they are neighbouring countries, taken together they do not form a significant natural geographical unit.) The Guinness example refers to a commercial operation which is set within the context of two different sovereign administrations. I'm not necessarily opposing the proposal, just pointing out that it may not have been thought through in those cases where the contexts of the phrases used can be identified fairly straightforwardly. Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:59, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I think we are at cross purposes. Do you think that the UK article, for example, requires "correction" and should be "fixed" to say British Isles? Or that the articles linked above need to me moved to reflect the "proper" term? My view is that they don't and it would be wiser to just leave well enough alone. The converse, editors changing instances of British Isles to other turns of phrase because "it's offensive" etc., in my view would be covered off by the point below.
 * Do you think this point would be an "anti-British Isles" charter? Or as opening the door to those who would push synonyms and alternative turns of phrase? I see this point as stopping those who would needlessly push British Isles where another turn of phrase is already imparting the required information just fine. (We can niggle over words, sure, but the essential facts are there and the absence of ancillary facts isn't going to lead any lasting deprivation.) I see the point below as stopping those who would needlessly remove British Isles and replace it with synonyms or alternative turns of phrase for equally surious reasons. The point being to stop both sets of people when what is there is fine as it is.
 * Or am I missing your point altogether? --RA (talk) 09:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The point that I was making is that it is notable that LN is the largest lake in the UK; it is notable that it is the largest lake in the island of Ireland; and it is notable that it is the largest lake in the archipelago, the physical grouping of islands. But it is not notable that it is the largest lake within two sovereign states that happen to share a border.  Where the context is of natural features, it is preferable that the terminology of those natural features is used.  Where the context is modern human society or economics, it is preferable that the terminology of the administrations is used.  Of course, in this case, the problem is that there is no consensus over the terminology of the natural features.  And, indeed, it may often be, in practice, best to leave existing wordings well alone.  But the point still applies that the terms are not necessarily synonymous - they may, arguably, relate to the same (or very similar) areas, but the contexts in which their use should be preferred vary.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:06, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * "But it is not notable that it is the largest lake within two sovereign states that happen to share a border. " I think the heart of the problem Ghmyrtle is that this is not the only thing the British Isles is. It is a whole group of islands plus a whole long shared history, widely known as the BI around the world. It is not just two modern sovereign states plus some bits, even for modern political and geographical purposes, but most especially not for geographical purposes. This latter point (modern geography) has been argued over a lot and most have come down on it being "acceptable" in this context. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think we agree that "it's complicated". Essentially, I was just trying to make the point that "synonymous" may not mean "identical".  But usages that are "acceptable", if that is taken to mean "having been accepted by consensus", are fine.   Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Those are fair points. Maybe attach a rider emphasising that not all will see "synonyms" and "turns of phrase" as being exactly the same and that these also have similar problems to British Isles (try "Britain and Ireland" in a political context where you meant the geographic for example)? --RA (talk) 10:51, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * (I wrote the following before I saw the two posts above.) I believe the Ireland being referred to in the UK example is the island of Ireland ("...it is not notable that it is the largest lake within two sovereign states that happen to share a border").
 * "Where the context is of natural features, it is preferable that the terminology of those natural features is used." - That terminology is contested, which is a nub of why we are here. But in the context in the UK example, the state and (since a part of the territory of that state happens to be on the island of Ireland) the island of island are relevent contexts. It could be changed to say British Isles (aside from the article being about a state the context is more geographical than political) but what would be the benefit?
 * WRT to "synonyms", there two things going on IMO (a) synonyms or other turns of phrase are not necessarily exactly identical in meaning, it is the essential facts that are surely more important and (b) "Britain and Ireland", just as an example of one, to my ears (and others) is the same in meaning as "British Isles" (others disagree and that's fine). Why change it if it is already existant (as in for example the Gravity anomalies of Britain and Ireland article)?
 * Is it your concern that turns of phrase would be pushed? And/or that they would be used inappropriately or without due attention to the context? Can you think of a better wording? (Also, am I understanding you right?) --RA (talk) 10:47, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Is this needed? -- Phoenix (talk) 22:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I really think it is. The problem is not only editors removing British Isles but also editors inserting it. We need to be clear that where a (common) turn of phrase appears in an article and imparts the same thing that it is just fine as it is. (Likewise, we need to be clear that where British Isles is used that it doesn't need to be changed solely to use another term either.) --RA (talk) 22:54, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Wholly opposed. Per Ghmyrtle frankly. It's inherently POV in of itself, in that it, as an MoS entry, just implies that there even are common synonyms for BI (and again, this is an improper example of begging the question to editors anyway, another basic no no). For this to even be considered as an entry, this assertion needs proving and including, and with a bit better and more rigourous scientific method than just pointing to usage in a Michelin Guide, as I've seen someone somewhere try before. The only even plausible common alternative, 'Britain and Ireland', is of course not going to be applicable in many cases, and so it becomes a case of local context, in which case, there's no need for such unhlepfull 'advice' in the MoS beyond the part that already talks about local consensus. MickMacNee (talk) 21:13, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Not preferred

 * Use of synonyms or other turns of phrase however should not be considered to be preferred over British Isles in any general sense. (See Wikipedia is not censored.)

Agree

 * --RA (talk) 12:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The BBC uses the term Union Jack not Union Flag to avoid confusion. I think that this is the same idea. -- Phoenix (talk) 22:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Specific concerns

 * I do agree with the basic point of this one, im not convinced on the wording though. I dont like "turn of phrase" or "in any general sense" BritishWatcher (talk) 16:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm neutral on this - and who will remember all these stipulations?Red Hurley (talk) 09:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Get consensus

 * Editors should not add, remove or change use of British Isles (or a synonymous turn of phrase) in an established article without first gaining consensus on the relevant talk page.

Agree

 * --RA (talk) 12:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Bjmullan (talk) 19:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I am only agreeing to this as an MoS appropriate statement for the benefit of newcomers reading what is after all just a style guide, (even though I'm pretty sure its redundant to several standard policies already, if people are being onest), or when directed there if they are unknowingly being disruptive (or I hesitate to say, new socks). However, the expression of consenus must be positive, not silent, which actually benefits everybody in areas of dispute. Use as a charter by already involved parties for systematic slo-mo change with cookie cutter notifications and 'silence is consensus' outcomes, will be replied to with a petition for a topic ban as surely as if they were breaching the new systematic change probation. Apart from that, all the usual policies about how systematic change occurs on Wikipedia apply, people should know what they are by now. If not, ask your local admin. MickMacNee (talk) 21:35, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Specific concerns

 * Ireland-related topics are a particular source of contention. If a specific line about Ireland-related topics is not in the list then the combined version of this and advising greater consideration for Ireland topics should be used. --RA (talk) 12:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Not-untypical scenario 1: I come across the use of BI on a relatively obscure page, in an obviously wrong context. I post a message to the talk page. No one replies. 3 weeks later I return and remove BI. I find myself up at WP:ANI because 'there was no consensus'.
 * Not-untypical scenario 2: I come across the use of BI on a relatively obscure page, in an obviously wrong context. I post a message to the BI Specific Examples Page. Snowded and HK reply confirming my diagnosis. No other contributions made. 1 week later I return and remove BI. I find myself up at WP:ANI because 'there was no consensus'.
 * The procedure and process need to be crystal clear here.
 * —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fmph (talk • contribs) 12:44, 14 July 2010
 * Yea, there's got to be at least BRD for most pages. You can't be expected to post a message to any random talk to get the OK to fix an obvious (most likely purely innocent) error. I think Ireland-related articles should come with a warning, though, to always at least post a message on the talk first. Silence is consensus, though. If a posted comments gets no feedback then go ahead and change it. --RA (talk) 22:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Dont know whos post is above this one.


 * Getting consensus on the talk page is not enough for any involved editors in this dispute. There actions should always be declared at a central location so we can keep track of what is happening. Only incorrect uses of the British Isles should be altered by those involved in the dispute, not "oh we could use this term instead of BI". BritishWatcher (talk) 16:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Surely, we are trying to move away from the SE page? But in the beginning members of the task force should maybe feedback into the SE page (not least to see if guidelines work)? --RA (talk) 22:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Defining "incorrect" is subjective. Hopefully though, editors won't be intolerant of AGF discussions until an "area" has been hashed out - I believe that's the main function of the SE page, and hopefully one day, it'll no longer be active.  --HighKing (talk) 22:55, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Get consensus + particularly in relation to IRE/ROI

 * Editors should not add, remove or change use of British Isles (or a synonymous turn of phrase) in an established article without first gaining consensus on the relevant talk page. In particular, seek consensus before making changes to an article that relates primarily to the Republic of Ireland or to the island of Ireland as the term is often most contentious on those articles.

Agree

 * --RA (talk) 12:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * ...and also may offend some in Scotland, Wales, Man etc.Red Hurley (talk) 09:40, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Specific concerns

 * Only necessary if a specific Ireland-related bullet points is not in the list. --RA (talk) 12:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * First half of the point says get consensus on the talk page before adding / removing or changing things. Second half simply says exactly the same thing. Are we basically saying we need "less of a consensus for non Ireland related articles"? BritishWatcher (talk) 16:21, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This one was a combination of the "greater consideration" and the "get consensus" points. The purpose of it was to tone down the Ireland-related point by bringing it into the general "get consensus" point. The text is a bit sloppy. If the "greater consideration" point and the "get consensus" points are agreed to separately then there would be no need for this.
 * How about: "Editors should not add, remove or change use of British Isles (or a synonymous turn of phrase) in an established article without first gaining consensus on the relevant talk page . In particular, seek consensus before making changes to an article that relates primarily to the Republic of Ireland or to the island of Ireland as the term is often most contentious on those articles."
 * That would, in my reading, open BRD for most article but get consensus first on ones that are most likely to be contentious. --RA (talk) 17:09, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Wholly oppose. Seems redundant, and contains the non NPOV assumptions I've alluded to in above comments. MickMacNee (talk) 21:37, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:V WP:RS

 * Editors should respect verifiability and differences in terminology that appear in reliable sources where appropriate.

Agree

 * --RA (talk) 12:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Bjmullan (talk) 19:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Specific concerns

 * This is the only bit I have a slight concern over. We're covering WP:NPOV (the bullet points) and WP:V (this point). However, I think there needs to be something else about weighting and WP:NOR. This guidance needs to make it clear that writing articles on Wikipedia requires finding reliable sources, interpreting those sources in context and balancing them to achieve neutrality. Wiki-Ed (talk) 13:42, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I have concerns about this one with regards the reliable sources. We need to be clear you do not have to provide a source saying British Isles in the exact context. So if someone spent a holiday travelling through, England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland, it should be ok to say British isles there without needing a source specifically saying British Isles. Saying BI in such a case is not Original Research. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree with you both in principle. These are the reasons I say to leave these ancillary points out of the list of guidelines. These points are already covered by relevant policy and we should only re-state them here as reminders. Policy trumps any set of guidelines and is documented more extensively elsewhere.
 * Also, I don't think there is any need to have a source that says "British Isles" in order to use "British Isles" in our text. (Or to have it use another turn of phrase in order to use that turn of phrase.) That's not how I read WP:V and WP:NOR. So long as it is verifiable, it is verifiable. --RA (talk) 17:09, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * So how would that work in practice if, let's say an editor brings up usage in an article, and the reference provided uses "UK" or "Britain", but the text says "British Isles"? I'm thinking specifically about some of the largest/smallest comparison articles we've come across.  --HighKing (talk) 17:29, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If the ref only says "UK" or "Britain" then "British Isles" is not WP:V'ed. Guidelines or no guidelines, that's just how it is.
 * Mind you, don't be dick. Don't ask for refs just to ask people to prove every instance of BI. It might be that only one part of the BIs is referenced for a reason. Take this hypothetical example: "Germany planned invade the British Isles in 1940." That Germany would have plans to invade the UK (including the IOM) would hardly be surprising. They actually did invade the CIs. However, that they also had plans to invade neutral Ireland might be a source of surprise. Some might have asked for a source for it (just Ireland) in the past. So, it might be that in that circumstance that only Ireland is referenced. However, per WP:V, the whole lot should be referencable. --RA (talk) 21:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The don't be dick comment, naturally, swings both ways. That Germany had a seperate plan to invade Ireland doesn't mean they "planned to invade the British Isles" (Churchill quote), nor does it mean that statements like "Germany planned to invade the British Isles in 1940" correct in some contexts.  In many articles, it specifically discusses Operation Sealion and not Churchill's quote, and the context is relative to the UK and not an abstract description of world dominance starting with the British Isles.  --HighKing (talk) 07:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * This is redundant. Interpretion of what this phrase means in specific disputes goes way beyond the purpose of an MoS guide. Yes, people are indeed dicks if they want citations for the obvious, or play even worse games off the back of it as we see in the NI demonym issue. Per basic principle, this easily gamed and often micro-focused statement being in or out of an MoS is not going to stop me or anyone else calling them dicks or pointing them to other relevant policies or wiki axioms when they try to use it to support whatever they are trying to push. This phrase might only be usefull if it is expanded to refer to a theoretical dispute between two sources using two different terms, in the same specific article context, which I've never seen happen yet in BI issues I don't think, although others might recall one. MickMacNee (talk) 21:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring

 * Edit warring over use or non-use of British Isles is discouraged.

Agree

 * --RA (talk) 12:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * --HighKing (talk) 13:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:46, 14 July 2010 (UTC)- but also agree that it could be strengthened, per BW's comment below.
 * Bjmullan (talk) 19:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Specific concerns
Edit warring is always discouraged". This one is far too soft. Edit warring is strictly prohibited, anyone caught engaging in an edit war over the use of British Isles could find themselves facing sanctions. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:42, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree with BW here. "Edit-warring is discouraged" is against WP policy - edit-warring is prohibited! Not sure we even need this sentence and anyway it looks like the ANI people are coming down particularly on edit wars in the BI space. I propose we delete this sentence. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 08:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Redundant. It probably gets you into more trouble than ordinary edit warring thanks to the campaign, but it is discouraged prohibited anyway in any context (and this knowledge can just be assumed in anyone reading or quoting an MoS). MickMacNee (talk) 21:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Topic ban

 * Systematic addition or removal of British Isles to content, or edit warring over it, may result in a topic ban.

Agree

 * --RA (talk) 12:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh yes. Wiki-Ed (talk) 13:45, 14 July 2010 (UTC
 * --HighKing (talk) 13:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:55, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * BritishWatcher (talk) 16:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Bjmullan (talk) 19:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Phoenix (talk) 22:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 08:00, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Specific concerns
Id rather it say "will result in a topic ban or other sanction". But i certainly agree with the general point. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:32, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * My concern is comments like "only articles that are obviously incorrect" might start appearing, followed by the accusation that attempts to discuss articles are a "systematic campaign". --HighKing (talk) 07:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * This should await closure of current ANI proposal for systematic change sanctions. MickMacNee (talk) 22:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Intro
Issues around the use and non-use of the term British Isles have led to conflict between editors and disruption to the encyclopedia. Wikipedia does not take any position on the appropriateness or otherwise of the term. These "guidelines" are thus not instructions on when to use or not to use the term. Instead, they reflect the common experience of editors in working together on this issue.

In deciding to use or not to use the term British Isles or a synonymous turn of phrase, editors may refer to these guidelines and be informed by them. However, the choice and reason to use or not to use the term in any context should not rely excessively on them. Editors should instead work together in a spirit of collegialism to reach a decision through consensus on individual talk pages. Editors should never engage in Wiki-lawyering over these guidelines.

Agree

 * --RA (talk) 12:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * First paragraph only. Second is rather redundant/rambling. MickMacNee (talk) 21:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Specific concerns

 * One of the ideas that was discussed previously was a list of subjects where "British Isles" is used outside of the general guidelines above. For editors not familiar with the minutae of this topic, it would be helpful to list the topics, perhaps as an addendum to the guidelines?  Topics on the list would indicate a high level of general acceptence of usage.  And it shouldn't be interpreted that topics not found on the list are not acceptable.  --HighKing (talk) 13:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * One persons wiki-lawyering is another's request for references... --HighKing (talk) 13:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmmm not sure about this introduction. I thought we were going to insist that editors follow this MOS, not tell them this is just a general guideline and they can do what they like. It seems a bit wishy-washy. The statement needs to be more blunt and threatening that any editor caught with an agenda of adding / removing British Isles could get into trouble and following the guidelines are in the editors own interests. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:40, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with BritishWatcher on this one. Bjmullan (talk) 19:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

History

 * Note that while the term British Isles has a long history, there is no point throughout that history where the whole of the area covered by the term has been been ruled by one government. It is therefore necessary to exercise caution when using the term in a political context, and to avoid using it in all instances where what is properly meant is one of the political realms of the British Isles. In particular, care should be taken to accurately reflect the status of the Republic of Ireland as independent from the United Kingdom.

Agree

 * I like it. I'm not Simon Schama so I don't know if it holds true when you get to the point where 'government' = 'king/chief'. But I still like it. MickMacNee (talk) 22:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The BI have been islands for 9,000 years, and "king/chief" has been the style of government across the BI for most of that time.Red Hurley (talk) 09:49, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Specific concerns

 * Unnecessary fluff. Distracts from the points being made. Wiki-Ed (talk) 09:21, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Is the first line true? I thought the British crown laid claim to the whole lot during most of the 18th and 19th centuries for example - even if this was contested by people in Ireland, Scotland, etc, it was still a reality. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:32, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * No, it's not true for the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll rephrase that truly confusing statement. The Isle of Man and the Channel Islands have never been part of the UK, are not governed from Westminster and do not send representatives to the UK parliament. Ergo the first line of the statement is true - they have not ever all been under the same government.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:11, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Elen, we won't make this a long debate - clearly at various point, for example during WW2, I of M was ruthlessly controlled from London and in the heydey of the British Empire, I doubt the sultan mandarins of the FO gave a tinker's cuss for the concept of local self-government - they probably viewed I of M and the CIs as little British dots. :-) Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 16:30, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I see your point re WWII, but I think you are seriously overstating it re CIs. Still, I'm not wedded to the text - it can be changed to suit. I think something needs to be said to explain WHY British Isles is an issue - since I'll bet a lot of folks out there would not realise that it's NOT the same as the United Kingdom. You'd think this can't be true (given all the history of the Troubles etc etc) but I think we ought to allow for it. Any statement that makes it clear that British Isles is not now and never has been a political entity will do.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I concur about the explanation - casual readers/editors may well be mystified as the depth of feeling on the issue. People from the US in particular frequently struggle with the shaded meanings and values behind phrases we take for granted, like Island of Ireland, Great Britain, British Isles, etc and so, in my experience, do at least some people from these islands. The terminology page aims to meet this, but you can never have too much explanation in my humble experience. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:03, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Does the government "rule", anyway? I thought that it "governs".  The IoM and CIs have, I think, for long periods been ruled by the same monarch as the other islands, if not the same government.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:29, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You always have the problem in British international relations that the UK governmental system both currently and in the past obfuscates terms - so for example, "Crown" rule instead of "State" rule, etc. Britain is a monarchy and the Head of State is just King/Queen of various territories, not the direct comptroller - but they nevertheless derived their legal structures, governmental systems, etc, from dear old Blighty. The British Empire is in many ways an example of direct foreign rule by a state with it only rarely being publicly announced as such - "united under one glorious imperial monarch". As for those irksome little offshore dots on the map, they may be "Crown Dependancies" but in reality they are nearly as tightly British controlled as West Yorkshire. Some might say more so. (joke) Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 06:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * A general introduction such as this, to set the tone and rationale, would be a good idea - maybe even necessary. I don't think it would be sufficient to replace individual bullet points. Like others I'd have issue with specific statements made here (even today the parliament at Westminster can legislate directly for the Crown Dependencies, should it so wish). Also, there are other points that would need to brought into it such as the perspective that the term is simply outmoded and that it is irksome to some. Those would have to be neutrally stated though. --RA (talk) 11:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Re-assembly: specific examples?
OK, from the above I've recompiled a list as follows. I've footnoted specific concerns for some points and highlighted two that may need to be rewritten (but were accepted in essence). I am not proposing we accept these as they are. What I am proposing is that we look at specific examples, without changing any text of articles, and see what consequences these guidelines would have (or not) if they were taken up.

My guess is that they won't have a very strong impact in the actual deciding of what to write but would have an impact on the "approach" editors adopt (as I believe the cordiality from most on this page has shown). However, looking at specific examples may help us iron out the creases in the points that have concerns hanging over them. I suggest we address these concerns directly now with real-world examples.

It was pointed out above that many of the items on this list don't actually belong in a manual of style. I suggest that what we have here are not a "manual of style" per se but more broadly "guidelines" for editors on this source of conflict. In some ways, I think that is better.


 * The British Isles are Great Britain, Ireland, the Isle of Man, Orkney, Shetland, the Hebrides, all the smaller islands within the coastal waters of these larger islands and, by tradition, the Channel Islands. Use on Wikipedia may or may not include the Channel Islands.
 * Use of British Isles is not prescribed in any context (i.e. there is no context in which British Isles has to be used).
 * Don't mix "apples" and "pears" (e.g. if content lists states then list states, if content lists geographical units then list geographical units).
 * British Isles is a geographical term; use in political contexts and listing the British Isles alongside political entities should be avoided.*
 * Greater consideration should be given before adding British Isles to an article that relates primarily to the Republic of Ireland or to the island of Ireland (including their geographic features) except where the article relates more particularly to Northern Ireland.†
 * Common synonyms of British Isles or turns of phrase that impart the same information can be used where appropriate and where there is consensus on relevant talk pages.‡
 * Use of synonyms or other turns of phrase however should not be considered to be preferred over British Isles in any general sense. (See Wikipedia is not censored.)
 * Editors should not add, remove or change use of British Isles (or a synonymous turn of phrase) in an established article without first gaining consensus on the relevant talk page.§

Systematic addition or removal of British Isles to content, or edit warring over it, may result in a topic ban.¶

* What is a "political context" vs. "geographic context"? † Worries about abuse(?) and consequences for NPOV. ‡ Synonyms/turns of phrase not identical, depends on what is "acceptable" in the context. § Process of getting "consensus"? Vindictive gaming? Silence/BRD? ¶ Wait for AN/I. --RA (talk) 18:51, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Bullet point 5 - why is it there at all? Apart from James, the only other editors who agreed to this are, shall we say, from the Irish side. There is no consensus to include this point. LevenBoy (talk) 20:13, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * BW and Phoenix expressed support in principle. All it is doing is pointing out to not jump in with two feet particularly on those articles. Just give "greater consideration", that's all. In fairness, anyone involved in the conflict over this topic knows that that it is a minimum of sound advice. --RA (talk) 20:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Just going on a random example brought up above. Let's say someone opens a move request to move Trees of Britain and Ireland to Trees of the British Isles. How does the proposed guideline inform us as to how the inevitable catfight would be resolved? MickMacNee (talk) 20:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "Common synonyms..." etc. It doesn't have to move solely to use British Isle. If there is consensus to use "Britain and Ireland" on the talk page and it's not inappropriate in the context then it's fine where it is. (Ghmyrtle raised good points whether synonyms/turns of phrases are appropriate being highly context dependent. I agree with that. I'm not on for a carte blanche to use synonyms/turns of phrase. It does depend on context.) --RA (talk) 20:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Do they not have trees on the Isle of Man then? Or the Hebrides? How would any non-POV pushing discussion ever determine by consensus that 'Britain and Ireland' was an appropriate synonym for the British Isles in this context, without coming up with some NPOV violating argument that 'inappropriate' = it cannot be used on articles covering the territory of the ROI? Back to square one it looks like to me. MickMacNee (talk) 21:38, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That is something that you would have to raise at Talk:Trees of Britain and Ireland; but if your argument is merely that British Isles is the "right term" (as opposed to anything that at its heart is concerned with improving the article in a meaningful way) then I don't think you should be given much time. On the other hand, if Britain and Ireland is genuinely inappropriate in that context then it should be moved. --RA (talk) 22:15, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * OK then. The argument is clearly not that is just 'the right term', but I have no doubt the anti-BI camp are not prepared to accept that. So, in this case, it appears the guideline would be pointless, and merely shifts the exact same nonsense ideas about NPOV that have been evident at the SE campaign page, to individual article talk pages. Next case... MickMacNee (talk) 14:23, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I've offered this advise before (and it wasn't heeded), but here it is again. Let's from this moment on, stop deleting or adding British Isles to articles. Call a truce on the dispute. GoodDay (talk) 14:33, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

@RA, for the third point, what about In articles that list regions, if content lists states then list states, if content lists geographical units then list geographical units, don't mix one with the other. --HighKing (talk) 00:06, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Moved to British Isles
In light of the silence from most contributor above, I've moved the list to British Isles. I've rewritten the "apples and pears" section per HighKing's suggestion, simplified the point that linked to Wikipedia is not censored and added notes on the main concerns to the relevant points. I assume all of these are within consensus.

Micks concerns about neutrality are outstanding and important. They are however addressed elsewhere as part of policy. Thus they are outside of the remit of any guidelines that we might agree here but are something that still governs all of our approach to this conflict. --RA (talk) 20:56, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I suggest you immediately withdraw these so-called guidelines from the the Manual of Style. They have not been agreed here, they have not been agreed anyhwere. A number of editors have strong reservations about the content and you have jumped the gun big time. LevenBoy (talk) 21:03, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Excellent work RA. Bjmullan (talk) 22:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Time to move it to a formal vote I think, the issues have all been aired and we need something. The act that several different initiatives have all ended up here or here abouts argues for them.  -- Snowded  TALK  06:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think rather than a vote, simple expressions of support would be sufficient. As we saw on the SE page, there are a handful of determined nay-sayers contributing to this area that ultimately lie outside of genuine consensus on the matter.
 * There are also (very understandably) some nervous people who are afraid that guidelines of this sort would be used to game the system or to squeeze out expressions in a way that is ultimately contrary to consensus. These are guidelines, they are not binding and should be used with common sense (all guidelines say that at the top of the page). What is more important, in my opinion, is not that we have hard-and-fast rules about when or where to use or not to use this term (and related ones) but that we have a common perspective on good practice around this matter. It is a hymn sheet, not a bible, and can be improved upon over time. --RA (talk) 08:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No a vote is required (and for the avoidance of doubt I Oppose them) - this is IMO the wrong way to fix a non-issue, it is just over complicating something that very few people actually have a problem with. In the end it will lead to some determined editors (at both end of the spectrum) trying to game the system.
 * There is now a General sanction on the issue, let's leave it at that for now and see if that works. Codf1977 (talk) 09:28, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but i can not support all of those guidelines, there for i can not support the proposal overall. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You have comments in the other place, but cannot support at this moment. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:17, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

OK. In the absence of anyone other than Bjmullan being willing to explicitly express support, I don't see that it is possible for me to carry the proposal. In that event, I'm going to mark it as having failed to gain consensus. I'll give it until tonight.

I'm sure everyone can appreciate that it was personally exhausting to facilitate a discussion like this and maintain momentum without it descending into conflict. Consequently, I'm going to withdraw. It was heart-warming that almost all contributions were constructive and in a spirit of good faith and willingness to work together. Thanks and regards, --RA (talk) 11:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think we got a long way, and thank you for all the work on it. Hopefully having undertaken the exercise (together with the sanctions proposed at ANI) will damp things down somewhat. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * "Micks concerns about neutrality are outstanding and important. They are however addressed elsewhere as part of policy. Thus they are outside of the remit of any guidelines that we might agree here.". I could not disagree more. Yes, NPOV is part of policy eslewhere, it is infact a core policy. And Guidelines cannot contain wording or principles that contradict or over-ride it. This is a very basic aspect of Policies and guidelines, the advice of which needs to be followed if anyone wants this list of points to become a Guideline. MickMacNee (talk) 12:04, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Mick, you are fundamentally lacking in your understanding of WP:NPOV. None of the proposed guidelines gave instruction on to how to treat reliable sources or how to strike neutral balance between them. --RA (talk) 12:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Saw your comment at Wikipedia talk:British Isles. --RA (talk) 13:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Irrelevant. NPOV covers all guidelines, whether they discuss treatment of souces or not. The wording of any guideline must adhere to the principles and goals of NPOV, which are handily given in the nutshell - Editors must write articles from a neutral point of view, representing all significant views fairly, proportionately, and without bias. The wording of the proposed guideline encourages biased treatment of the term according to different topic areas, based on a particular POV, rather than a neutrally weighted presentation and treatment of the term. If you don't think it does, which your comment at WP:BI implies, then maybe you've not read it from the perspective of all sides of the dispute, and are unable to separate your own bias from the issue. MickMacNee (talk) 13:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You appear to have missed a bit: "...all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." --RA (talk) 14:04, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I've got zero clue what your point is. You started out by saying NPOV wasn't relevant to this Guideline, now you are quoting bits of it at me. You are hard enough to understand when you are being thorough, but this sort of reply just leaves me scratching my head as to wtf you are on about. MickMacNee (talk) 15:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Marked as failed
In absence of support for the proposal, with the exception of Bjmullan, I've marked the proposal as having failed at British Isles. --RA (talk) 19:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * What about listing all points that everyone agrees with? Is that possible? -- Phoenix (talk) 21:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That would leave the MOS/guidelines incomplete in the controversial areas. Which basically means the guidelines would solve nothing. I think its gonna be easier just to try and keep a track of BIs additions / removals and make sure they are not systemic changes by involved editors. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)