Talk:British Isles

Template:Vital article

(Great) Britain/UK and Ireland

We currently have a disambiguation page at Great Britain and Ireland and an article at UK & Ireland that have virtually identical content. Several similar terms redirect to either one of those targets or to this page. At Talk:Great Britain and Ireland#Merge proposal I have proposed merging the article and dab page (with no preference to direction) and retargetting all the redirects to the merged page. Your comments on the proposal would be welcome. Thryduulf (talk) 18:48, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

The UK & Ireland is the modern political situation present in what is, and always will be, a political term with no basis in geography nor ecology, that is the anachronism of British Isles.

This British Isles article makes as much sense as an article on the Japanese isles that includes Taiwan. As Taiwan was previously under the control of Japan years ago.

In sum we should refer to the British Isles as an antiquated political term not based in geography, ecology nor in modern law. However like Taiwan, the term British Isles is still erroneously used to refer to Ireland, in much the same way Taiwan is regarded as part of China by the Peoples Republic of China.

Boundarylayer (talk)

That's a very politically charged view and neither reflects general usage worldwide nor the plethora of reliable sources on the matter. I advise you to look at the achives of this talk page to see how many times we've had this discussion previously and how the current consensus was obtained. No new substantial evidence has been forthcoming since that position was established. WaggersTALK 21:53, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Pop density map

Population density map

I have a number of concerns with the map (to right) used in the demographics section. These are:

1. Inconsistent subdivisions. It would be best to use a single consistent level, as opposed to mixing the English regions with the Welsh preserved counties with...
2. Poor colours. A red/green gradient is bad for accessibility, and the blue for the capitals is arbitrary.
3. Data quality. When/where is the data from? I'm guessing the UK is using the 2001 census, but is the Irish data consistent with that?
4. Map quality. Higher quality base maps are available, and SVGs would avoid the issues with unfilled areas (eg in the middle of England).

With regards to the first point, ISO 3166-2, NUTS 3 or LAU 1 are possible options. Unfortunately, the counties aren't really viable - they are different admin levels in each country, or have no admin function at all. The level to chooose depends on how much detail is wanted really.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:53, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree completely, Nilf. Not entirely sure how to take this forward though. WaggersTALK 11:11, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I also agree. Information on the United Kingdom Census 2011 and the Census of Ireland 2011 should be compatible, but I don't know if totals have been published for NUTS regions yet. If they have, then a request to Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Map workshop should get the job done. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:17, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Both UK and Irish data is available down to LAU1 (districts) or lower, its easy enough to recombine back up to higher levels. This ONS map gives a rough idea of output at that level.

Not sure what level is optimal to show the overall trends, like "England is most densely populated country". Too fine a detail may only show where the cities are and lose overall trends, while too broad gives the impression that the Lake District is as densely populated as SE England(!) NUTS 3 appeals as a starting point.--Nilfanion (talk) 12:56, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

@Nilfanion and Ghmyrtle: I think I prefer the more granular level of detail (as shown in that OS map) to the English region level used in the current map - it still shows (for example) that South East England is more densely populated than the North East, but also gives that extra level of detail - it just feels more accurate without being over the top. Completely subjective opinion of course. WaggersTALK 18:54, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I think we should bear in mind that this article is not supposed to give geographical detail that is better set out in the articles on specific countries - England, Scotland, Ireland, etc. Detailed pop density maps would be more appropriate in those articles, rather than this one. This article should take more of an overview, and so, in my view, a coarser regional map would be more appropriate for this article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:02, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

@Nilfanion and Ghmyrtle: That makes sense. WaggersTALK 20:35, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree a coarser map is what is wanted. Given the existing prose, NUTS 1 (the English regions and the other countries) might be enough. My chief concern is that the map should be consistent and show areas of the same level. So if we want to show any sub-national details outside England, we need to show that same level within England - (about) county-level.

I'll prep blank maps for the whole of the British Isles at NUTS 1, 2 and 3.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:31, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• 
  Countries
• 
  NUTS 1
• 
  NUTS 2
• 
  NUTS 3

OK, I've uploaded the above 4 images to Commons, showing the variation in baseline areas. These maps also address the other points in original post.

As for choice of map: I think using countries-only or NUTS 3 best reflect the prose. Countries only shows England is by far most densely populated, NUTS 3 shows all the conurbations mentioned. Both NUTS 1 and NUTS 2 seem insuffienct as nothing worthwhile can be seen outside England at those levels. No real opinion between the two extremes though; both are viable.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:40, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

@Nilfanion and Ghmyrtle: Excellent work. What would be great is for one of these to be shown by default but to include links to the others in the caption. I also have no strong views as to which should be the defualt! WaggersTALK 09:14, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Offensive term

User:Setanta Saki has added a statement in the middle of the bit about the term being controversial in Ireland, none of the references support the statement and the original text clearly mention Irish objections and that British and Ireland are used as an alternative, the challenged text doesnt really add anything to that paragraph so it should not be added with gaining a consensus, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 17:51, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed.--SabreBD (talk) 18:20, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Strange that you chose that title it is a little misleading the point of the addition was the use of the term of "British Isles and Ireland" which the sources did show and there are plenty of others if needed, the term offensive is not at issue it may be removed if necessary, however any logically person knows that the entire reason for the usage of new terms is of course just that, but as I have said its not the substance of the addition Setanta Saki (talk) 21:19, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

(a) The section title above is entirely appropriate: you have asserted that a particular form of words is utilised to avoid causing offense, but none of the sources you've quoted actually says this. (b) The sources are not reliable sources for a geography article - a holiday website, two articles on rugby players, and the title of a map of Scottish clans. (c) We already have a number of alternatives listed which are supported by reliable sources; we don't need every variation - the dispute is covered in more detail in the article on that subject. Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:44, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

In my last post I pointedly said that anyone with an ounce of common sense accepts that one of the reasons behind the usage of the new terms is of course to avoid causing offense, it is previously stated in the paragraph that the government of the people of Ireland does not recognize the articles title to include Ireland actively discourages its use, this is not because they and their citizens have fondness for the term but once again it was not the premise of the addition. Granted the article is a geographical one but the section in question deals with controversy regarding the term. I propose the inclusion of a very commonly used term especially in the sports media arena aswell as historical/geographical which makes it a small but appropriate addition to the lead, also many other sources available .Setanta Saki (talk) 23:05, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

The government of Ireland has an official policy to not recognise the title of a Wikipedia article? Hey, that's penetration and recognition right there. You know you've made it when governments issue statements about pages on private websites. Also check the Irish government archives. For a term they don't use and don't recognize, they sure use it a lot. Even RTE uses it. There used to be more but lots of the archives have actually been changed over the years, but online archival services show the original forms of those documents. There's plenty also documented in the talk page archives for this article. Canterbury Tail talk 01:30, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

That's really nothing to do with my suggested sourced term addition, as for the merits of the use of "not to cause offense", its common sense and obviously logically gels with previous statements in the paragraph. You have an amazing insight into the actual thinking of a foreign government and I dont think im required to defend previously factual sourced additions. However I would say that whatever "old" Irish governmental archives you are referring to and felt strongly enough to try and locate (very odd for a foreigner) today it means nothing, one can find reference to never used again defunct names etc in historical records, its only current day government of Ireland (which represents the people ) policy that matters, which is very clear and should be respected. The rte comment is very odd, personally as a citizen I have never heard it but you may be right and it has occurred on occasion from journalists/producers of varying backgrounds but rte as a "state organization" can not and does not endorse its use. So all your points are really moot.Setanta Saki (talk) 09:04, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I think he was being facetious about the phrasing of your previous post and its implications. The point, however, is that the material you want to insert is synthesis. We don't make assumptions about what is logical. Also, as I said previously, the article already discusses the fact that there are lots of variations and provides some properly sourced examples. It does not need to cover them all because the naming dispute is a separate topic for which there is a separate article. Wiki-Ed (talk) 11:03, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Ya I got the facetious slant, a little un-administrator like I thought , I also took on board the numerous variations point and know that to be the case, I was simply making the the point that the particular variation i included was because of personal experience with hearing its usage in the media arena outside of Ireland, for example especially during the British and Irish Lions series , that in conjunction with its use in the historical and geographical sources would put quite high on the variation list and imo possibly merit inclusion in the short synopsis in the lead of this article. Setanta Saki (talk) 11:50, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Because you heard someone using an incorrect term once is insufficient grounds for special inclusion. This has been talked to death (check the archives) and the article is currently stable. Let's leave it that way. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:21, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

"British Isles" is controversial in Ireland. There were many references in this article showing that, and also that it was "offensive", but like so much else which doesn't fit into the British nationalist narrative which dominates this article, they have been deleted. The controversy section was in the first sentence of the first edit to this article (in October 2001). For most of the past ten years it remained in the first paragraph. Now, thanks to a sustained rightwing British campaign the "controversy" section is so far down the page it's risible, which is ironic given that this "British Isles" article has 39 archives because it is a deeply controversial and offensive term and it is so far down the page because British nationalists insist upon it. In Ireland, this term, like "Londonderry", is only used by people of pro-British/unionist leanings who want to make a political point. 79.97.64.240 (talk) 23:22, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

The article is only "stable" because there are more rightwing British editors here than Irish editors. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the legitimacy and acceptance in Ireland of the archaic and jingoistic British term "British Isles". Nothing at all. 79.97.64.240 (talk) 23:22, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I keep track of British nationalist activity and I can assure you that most of them aren't aware of the "British Isles" controversy. --Somchai Sun (talk) 07:39, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

That's because it's an imaginary controversy. If it existed there would be pressure groups putting forward arguments for and against, an anti-British Isles website and so on. But there's nothing, apart from a bunch of loudmouths using Wikipedia to push a point of view that the man in the street in England, Ireland or anywhere else for that matter doesn't give a toss about. Shadwell Munch (talk) 13:07, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Maybe thats what would happen with a term which offended British sensibilities. The Irish, having bigger fish to fry, do things their own way. Atlas-maker (talk) 14:12, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Rubbish. They're both as bad as each other when it comes to this nationalistic crap. If you think Ireland is this Xenophobic/racist-free paradise where people don't get offended by words then you're laughably mistaken. And there are plenty of right-wing British nut-cases who go out of their way to be offended, it's all the same pointless crap. This isn't aimed at anyone really... Somchai Sun (talk) 14:19, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Most favoured alternative and changes to world atlas

The following edit was removed twice, why?

The National Geographic Atlas of the World, which once titled the area as the British Isles now reads: Britain and Ireland. This has become the most favoured expression.

1. What an American magazine calls it is undue weight for the lead of the article, as has been explained several times so stop saying there's been no explanation for its removal
2. Even that source says that term has problems and has no consensus
3. It's been removed several times by several editors
4. Read what vandalism is
5. If you continue to edit war, which is what you are doing, you'll only result in getting blocked or getting the article locked
6. You've decided to bring it to the talk page, so give it the consensus of the talk page and stop reverting. See WP:BRD. Canterbury Tail talk 03:00, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

1. What an established Atlas of the World printer calls it is very relevant. On your second claim, it was not explained in any of the reverts that the reason this sentence should not be in the article is because some editors, like yourself don't like American Atlas printers. Thanks for clearing that up!
2. The very same source that says the term has problems with it, is presently the same source that is used to support the notion that the "British Isles" term is still in common use. So what you're arguing is that the source is OK when used the way you like it but not OK when the very next sentence in the source, which states that the now "most favoured expression is Britain and Ireland", is including in the article. Oh no, can't have that in the article, can we? That's utter hypocrisy. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
3. Read what needs to be in the WP:LEDE.
4. I'm not going to wait around for a load of British nationalists to arrive here, to cook up some manufactured consensus. I think it's about time to take this nonsense to the dispute resolution page.

83.71.30.126 (talk) 03:13, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

No one is disputing the inclusion in the article, just in the lead. The naming issues are already there, the National Geographic one specifically is putting undue weight on that particular case in the lead. Why should it be in the lead and not just in the appropriate section of the article when this article is not primarily about the name? Canterbury Tail talk 14:02, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Canterbury Tail's assessment of the issue. It is giving undue weight to one source and entirely in the wrong place in the article. Mabuska ^(talk) 15:38, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

We presently have 3 references in the introduction that each state Britain and Ireland - "is becoming [the] preferred official usage...", "Nowadays" it is the "most favoured expression..." and that the term "British Isles" - "should best be avoided". The last quoted reference according to the Guardian newspaper. So it's not your mere "one source" as claimed. Despite these 3 references however, bizarrely, none of these well referenced facts are to be seen in the introduction of this article. Canterbury Tail's, you ask - "Why should it be in the lead...?" - because it is now the most favoured and preferred official alternative term.

Lastly, on a practical standpoint, say for example you were looking for a new book on the types of birds/wildlife in general for the region, you'd be hard pressed to find any such modern books with "British Isles" in the title. Why? Because "Britain and Ireland" has become the "preferred official usage". See ->

Crossley ID Guide: Britain and Ireland (The Crossley ID Guides) (published 2013)

Bird Atlas 2007-11: The Breeding and Wintering Birds of Britain and Ireland (British Trust for Ornithology) etc.

86.41.228.39 (talk) 05:20, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Depends on how you define "official". How can you define what is official usage? Sources that use one or the other does not make anything like this official. Mabuska ^(talk) 01:20, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I do not personally define it as "official", how I or you define something is neither here nor there. What does matter is that reliable sources do state it as the preferred official term. The following reference, which is 14 years old, is used in the article, but again bizarrely, what it states is not reflected in the body of the introduction.

Davies, Alistair; Sinfield, Alan (2000), British Culture of the Postwar: An Introduction to Literature and Society, 1945–1999, Routledge, p. 9, ISBN 0-415-12811-0, "Some of the Irish dislike the 'British' in 'British Isles', while a minority of the Welsh and Scottish are not keen on 'Great Britain'. … In response to these difficulties, 'Britain and Ireland' is becoming preferred official usage if not in the vernacular,

86.45.205.129 (talk) 08:15, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

How does Mr Davis define official? Who states that he has the authority to define anything as official? It is a neither here nor there argument and utterly pointless. Mabuska ^(talk) 13:44, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Calm down, I think the only thing that is obviously pointless is you arguing with a reliable source. That you don't like it is truly, neither here nor there.

19:27, 14 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.41.147.102 (talk)

RfC: Is the disputed but referenced, "most favoured", alternative relevant?

As stated in the talk section above, should this article include the reliably sourced, "most favoured", alternative expression for the contentious term "British Isles" in the introduction? 83.71.30.126 (talk) 08:54, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

As a side note, I have concerns about frequent editors of this page, as they appear to be engaged in some kind of bizarre collaborative effort to promote((WP:BRITISHISLES) the use of this contentious term in every possible setting and article, like Gunpowder. 83.71.30.126 (talk) 09:07, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Ah yes, users Snowded and Highking, those infamous British nationalists. We've been having trouble with them for years. ;) Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:25, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Also see above as to the problems with this IPs suggestion. Also isn't it a bit early for calling an RfC? Also quite curious as to how an IP got from above to here so quickly. Mabuska ^(talk) 15:39, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comment The term 'British Isles' is WP:COMMONNAME. It is the term used internationally, especially in the Commonwealth nations and the English speaking world. In-fact this article even mentions the term was first used around 300 BC! The problem here is that a small group of editors are trying to 'politicise' a geography article. Keep petty nationalism to yourself, it doesn't belong here on Wikipedia. However I see no issue with the addition of the National Geographic citation, its a reliable source and of academic/encyclopedic value. Antiochus the Great (talk) 16:44, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comment As mentioned above there is no issue with the citation, it's just the undue weighting of it in the lead that people are reverting against. No reason it can't go in the section on the name and dispute. Canterbury Tail talk 17:54, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comment My inclination would be to say that the form as at 0234GMT on the 7th Feb is pretty solid. It mentions in the lead the fact a number of alternative names. I don't think we need the NatGeo reference, but having the names seems to be a good call. The only potential change I'd suggest would be to put '(though this name is conroversial)' after the first use of the term 'British Isles' because the term is controversial, and the reason that it's controversial is that it's widely seen (accurately or not) as political because of the historic intertwining of politics and geography in this case. But I'd broadly be inclined to leave it as it is. Interestingly, this is only the second RFC that I've been notified of by FRS, and the first that I've felt able to comment on, and in both cases Antiochus has also been FRSed. Thom 02:43, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

  I'm not sure if as the person who requested the RFC, if it is the right etiquette to comment in this section, but just so we're all on the same page, I'd like to make everyone aware that there is a discussion going on above this talk page RFC which is important to read in concert with this, most recent, RFC section. Secondly, to lay to rest a few things that User:Antiochus the Great implied - In regard to WP:COMMONNAME, I've never disputed that on the contrary, what I have been trying to do was include the "most preferred official usage" in the introduction, not change the title of the entire article. The majority of the official/academic community has essentially abandoned "British Isles" and increasingly taken to using "Britain and Ireland", and that is now the most favoured official term for the area, this should, I thought, have been a straightforward piece of information to include in the article's introduction, considering the wealth of references to support this fact.

  (3)To call this page a "geography article" is factually incorrect, the article may try to pull that feat off but the Channel Islands, which are "traditionally" included in the term British Isles, have little to no common geography with the other islands, being geographically French Isles, indeed the Channel Islands are considered geographically, "culturally and historically" part of Normandy and are thus highlighted on the map of that page. Perhaps this lack of being a geographic entity needs to be more explicitly stated in the article as it's seemingly a very common misnomer? (4) Judging by the context of your comment, I am glad that you think that the Nat Geo citation should be in the introduction.

86.41.228.39 (talk) 06:26, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: The phrase already appears in the lead at the end of the last paragraph: As a result, "Britain and Ireland" is used as an alternative description, and "Atlantic Archipelago" has had limited use among a minority in academia, although British Isles is still commonly employed. Within them, they are also sometimes referred to as "these islands".
  I'm satisifed with this except that it needs could of small changes: 1) the scare quotes need to be removed; 2. Alternative names (i.e. Britain and Ireland and Atlantic Archipelago) should be bolded per MOS:BOLD.
  As a side note, I also think, "As a result, ...", is misleading in the exact context because it implies that these alternatives are used because of objections from the Irish embassy. But that's a trivial correction. I'd just remove it altogether. --Tóraí (talk) 11:00, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
• Comment: The MoS states: "The lead should... define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies." The paragraphs in the introduction are arranged to correspond with this, i.e. definition, context, notability, key points, then controversies. Also, there is a footnote that states: Do not violate Wikipedia:Neutral point of view by giving undue attention to less important controversies in the lead section. While some may feel this is a massively controversial issue, in reality it is not and gets very little attention in the media or in academia. For that reason we do not bold the supposed alternatives as it gives them undue prominence. It took many years to get this article to a stable state; aside from removing "as a result", which has been orphaned from the sentence it linked to, there is no need to change it just because yet another 'new' IP has come along to push a POV. Wiki-Ed (talk) 00:50, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Just to note Wiki-Ed: "Ah yes, users Snowded and Highking, those infamous British nationalists. We've been having trouble with them for years." this sarcasm is not helpful as HighKing has not been involved in this as they are currently prohibited and Snowded actually reverted the IP twice telling them to seek consensus for this addition. I agree with the rest of your comments other than that sentence as it is wrong. Mabuska ^(talk) 01:28, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

It was a joke. The IP referred to a project page where Snowded was listed as a member, then accused him of being "engaged in some kind of bizarre collaborative effort to promote((WP:BRITISHISLES)", which I'm sure you'll agree, is highly improbable. The fact his sweeping statement also included Highking, who has a reputation for doing exactly the opposite, was highly amusing (at least to me).Wiki-Ed (talk) 10:19, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

The problem with text-based conversations - you can never tell the tone and context something is being written in, even with a winky face. Mabuska ^(talk) 21:38, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment: For years the controversy of this "British Isles" term was in the first paragraph, and for a long time it was in the first sentence. As the page history shows, in recent years a dedicated coterie of editors with a similar rightwing British outlook has moved it way down the page, and in the process deleted a huge number of references which confirmed international moves away from "British Isles" - e.g. the French TV station which stopped using it. Rationality, NPOV and objectivity has long ago abandoned this political project of an article. It's an embarrassment to Wikipedia. 79.97.64.240 (talk) 21:49, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, for a long time this article was absurd because the controversy was placed in the first sentence and it suffered from continuous edit wars. It's still listed under "Lamest edit wars", although it has been stable for some years as a result of the changes you refer to (which I've explained above). Those edit wars led to topic (or total) bans, mainly for Irish nationalist editors, not the supposed "dedicated coterie of editors with a similar rightwing British outlook". I believe the reason for this is illustrated by your conflation of "rationality" with NPOV; they are not the same thing. Your "rationality" is my swivel-eyed lunacy and presumably vice versa. Fortunately Wikipedia uses "verifiability" as its standard, not opinions. In this case, while there are sources supporting the fact that there is a controversy, they do not have sufficient weight to merit including this in the first sentence. The reason we have stability is because both parties compromised: British editors/readers tend not to recognise the controversy at all so including it is POV; for many Irish editors it is very important so not including it is POV. The middle ground is... where it is. Wiki-Ed (talk) 12:22, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I think it's very interesting that you say above that it was mainly "Irish" nationalist editors that ended up with topic or total bans. Can you provide a list please? Or perhaps you spoke in haste? Also, just for the record, I supported moving the "controversy" stuff out of the lede. The term "British Isles" is in COMMON use, to refer to a geographic area. No drama or controversy, just fact. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 13:54, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Vintagekits? Sarah777? Rasherstierney? DunlavinGreen? (There were others, although iirc some of them were socks). Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:13, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Ah right, I get it. You're listing Irish editors that were banned or blocked for overly nationalistic editing in various topics and articles, and not just British Isles related ones. In fairness, I think there's as much nationalistic editing from one side as the other - I certainly wouldn't say it was "mainly" one or the other. And socks? Don't get me started on socks (still some on here too...) -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:24, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, most of the nationalistic editing these days seems to be from short term editors and IPs that appear, edit for a few weeks, get bored and move on. Canterbury Tail talk 17:32, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

The short-term IP editors that appear simply to push things has been on a steady increase this past while. Mabuska ^(talk) 19:38, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

My request for comment was so that non-British and non-Irish editors could weigh in to give an objective decision on this matter. As presently it has a number of British editors pushing their view. Secondly, Wiki-Ed, I didn't insert anything into the first sentence, I added it to the last sentence of the introduction. Thus I'm having a hard time understanding how your diatribe is applicable to this RFC? Thirdly we have a number of verifiability references that state "Britain and Ireland" has now become the defacto official term for the region, even the British Ornithology society now uses the term, just see the talk page section above this RFC. That you dispute this is bizarre. I understand that you do not like this, and hey, personally I'm not jumping up and down about it either, but our opinions has nothing to do with our job as editors to include what reliable sources state and changes in usage. I would also tend to agree with the other IP editor - Failure to communicate the international, and even British, swing away from the term in the introduction of this article is an embarrassment to Wikipedia.

86.45.205.129 (talk) 08:30, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Tellingly non-British and non-Irish editors generally don't care. I didn't say you wanted to add something to the first sentence (although another IP did), but that was the cause of the edit wars. And as I said, there might be a few sources, but not enough to lend sufficient weight to the opinion you are expressing regarding usage. Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:13, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

The "British POV pusher" argument is a hallmark of anti-British POV pushers, so less with the ill-thought out and ill-founded claims. The fact you keep making these claims, that your IPs geo-locate to County Louth in the Republic of Ireland, and your eagerness to jump straight into an RfC after only one response in your previous section (by an administrator no less), only gives credence to a counter-claim. Just to add that the other IP locates to Ireland as well, so no real surprise they back this IP.

No editors objected to having the thing put into the controversy section where it belongs. We only objected to it in the lede where it violates Wiki policies of WP:WEIGHT and WP:UNDUE considering the lede already touches upon the controversy. Mabuska ^(talk) 12:28, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comment "British Isles" is a common name, suitable for the title of this article. Although The Guardian may no longer use it, it appears to still be in use by mainstream secondary sources, like the New York Times. --Precision123 (talk) 05:15, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

And in plenty of Irish sources, such as RTE 1, 2, with Irish companies, and many others. The archives are full of such references. Canterbury Tail talk 12:43, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

As an observation, I'd say that the term "British Isles" is relatively straight-forward for some (mainly British people) in any context and for any subject matter. Others tend to avoid the term these days unless it's within a particular geographic or scientific context. Sure - the term is used less today. That's an observable trend. But who knows - it might be used more tomorrow, generating another trend. And *of course* nobody but some Irish cares - who else would give a hoot? It doesn't mean it's not a real issue though. So we'll always get editors (probably Irish) popping up here to question/query/object/argue/etc for all the same reasons we've heard before. It doesn't mean that those editors are necessarily trying to cause trouble, or are evil, or are anti-British, or have read the history of this page to understand how consensus works and how it was achieved. I don't go in for the "POV pusher" arguments on either side - we've entrenched views by some editors, but they're entitled to their views, and those views (and everyone elses too) help establish consensus.

This discussion, I believe, has reached its natural conclusion. Consensus remains as it was, no changes agreed. ---- HighKing⁺⁺ 13:10, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

The request for comment will remain open until a substantial number of impartial outside editors comment. Not the usual suspects, such as yourself, who is a member of WP:BRITISHISLES. Secondly, Britain and Ireland has been the most common modern term for the area. This is not some recent trend but well established for well over a decade in the scientific literature, that you're trying to censor this well referenced fact, is a sad travesty.

19:21, 14 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.41.147.102 (talk)

• Clearly British Isles is the common name used historically and still used today, the dislike of the term in Ireland is well covered in the lead so I cant see any need to change the emphasis of the current article lead. Not sure you can actually keep open an RfC until you get the answer you want or restrict comments to certain groups by the way. MilborneOne (talk) 19:46, 14 February 2014 (UTC)