Talk:The British Isles and Ireland

Untitled

The current article is a stub. It will be expanded and extensively edited.

Article controversy

I notice a new article has been created by User:Sarah777 as a blatant attempt to circumvent not getting her way on this article, The_British_Isles_and_Ireland. I've suggested they are merged in here otherwise it is confusing in the extreme. Ben W Bell talk 14:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Strongly object; the article is a work-in-progress and will be better and more WP:NPOV than the one about what the British call the "British Isles". Wait till you see how it turns out before attacking it. (Sarah777 14:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC))

Strongly in favour of merging. That other article is completely pointless, is a blatant vehicle of POV, and the very title is a ludicrous tautology. It's a bit like saying "all the days of the week plus Sunday". TharkunColl 14:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment - here we go again. The article has barely started and it "is a blatant vehicle of POV". (More personal attacks from Bastun, btw, read WP:NPA). And Bastun is now describing the name for these islands commonly in use in Ireland as a "ludicrous tautology". It is not a tautology but "British Isles" is a ludicrous oxymoron. The determine of certain Nationalistic/Imperialist British Editors to reject ANY compromise on this issue exposes their true agenda. (Sarah777 14:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC))

Question Why am I being named here? Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 14:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I wondered that as well. Those comments were mine.

TharkunColl 14:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Bastun, my error in this case but you have a track record of making personally abusive comments. (Sarah777 15:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC))

No, I don't. On one occasion on this page I have accused you of trolling. That's it. Please either point me at diffs or withdraw that. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 15:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

STRONGLY OBJECT! MERGE! DELETE! GET RID OF IT! Blantat POV pushing, using wikipedia make a point, demonstrating contempt for consensus, fellow editors and the ambitions of this project. DELETE IMMEDIATELY - there is no need to even mark is for speedly deletion. Get it off this encyclopedia now. The editor responsible should be ashamed, admonished, chastised, punished. --sony-youth^pléigh 14:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment, WikiPedia allows new articles. Please discuss calmly, and in the meantime have a look at WP:PEACE Gold♣heart 15:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Cut out the hysteria; and the abusive personal comments. Also, don't TOUCH the article till we get a more balanced view of the matter. (Sarah777 15:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC))

Indeed Gold; it seems some editors are incapable of keeping it civil; the screaming hysterics above are outrageous. It seems that some editors think they OWN Wikipedia. (Sarah777 15:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC))

"Cut out the hysteria"... - > "don't TOUCH the article till we get a more balanced view of the matter."... - > "It seems that some editors think they OWN Wikipedia." Do as I say, not as I do? (Still waiting on those diffs, or a retraction...) Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 15:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's be absolutely clear - I'm accusing you of trolling, not anyone else.

This is now the second time I've had to quote that. (Sarah777 17:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC))

"Bastun, my error in this case but you have a track record of making personally abusive comments. (Sarah777 15:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC))"

"No, I don't. On one occasion on this page I have accused you of trolling. That's it. Please either point me at diffs or withdraw that. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 15:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)"

Again - on one occasion, I have accused you of trolling. So either show me the diffs to prove a "track record of making personally abusive comments" (my emphasis added), or retract. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 18:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Note: I strongly object to my comments being blanked by User:Gold_heart. That is a clear breach of WP:TALK. Please do not do so again. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 16:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the Merge To template from the said article, instead nominated for deletion under the rules for dealing with deliberate POV forking. Ben W Bell talk 15:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for saving me the trouble Ben. I have invoked a Higher Authority for a view on the alledghed impropriety of starting this article. I will move this discussion to the talk page of the new article, where is obviously should reside. (Sarah777 16:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC))

I did not agree to having my comments moved here. When this article gets deleted, as it will, all these comments will disappear. TharkunColl 18:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Talk about a giant discussion page based on a single issue that's far less controversial than it's being made out to be. That being said, to quote myself on the AfD, Google hits for "British Isles and Ireland" = 25,000. Google hits for "British Isles" alone = 35 million. One would think that Jimbo's rules concerning a fringe POV held by a tiny minority would prevail here. Be damned to whether this is an "imperialistic" turn of phrase, it happens to be the turn of phrase that is the overwhelmingly common one of choice in the English-speaking world. (Hell's bells, "British Isles" out-Googles "British Isles and Ireland" by 60:1 on the Irish Google, specifying websites solely carrying an .ie domain suffix) If this AfD doesn't suffice to put this issue to rest, I strongly suggest filing a RfC.  Ravenswing  16:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Did you ever think it's because people are thinking the British Isles are just Great Britain and anyof it's islands and not Ireland included. - ( Mikel-Fikel 82

The Google count by User:Ravenswing proves nothing as the term means many different things. You'd have to establish what the various users actually mean by it. Abroad, some use it because they don't realise Ireland isn't British and think they are referring to a single polity. Others, who know that Ireland is a sovereign country don't realise when they use the term that some people in Britain take it to include Ireland. (Sarah777 18:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC))

Also, the "British Isles and Ireland" is the name of the article I started; it makes no claim to be the most common geographical term; it is used because it reasonably accurately describes the area I'm writing about. On Irish pages of Google "Britain and Ireland" beats "British Isles" by 54 - 35; so I would consider alternative names that are technically accurate; "British Islands and Ireland" is the most precise - though "Britain and Ireland" is taken mean the same thing by most users. (Sarah777 18:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC))

No, I don't have to "establish" a bloody thing; that's a straw man argument at best. Your entire assertion boils down to your belief that "British Isles and Ireland" is a term in widespread, common use ... if you've stipulated any meaning or definition that people using that turn of phrase must have, I've yet to see it. I have supplied evidence that it is not, even on Irish-domain websites. You have yet to supply any evidence that it is. What people's meaning, intent, politics or hobby horses are -- since I make no claims to being a psychic -- outside my purview, and correctly is outside Wikipedia's as well.

That you don't like "British Isles" is manifest. That you believe the term to be politically incorrect you've stated. That being said, you continue to push this POV in the teeth of overwhelming consensus to the contrary. As one wise Wikipedian asked me once, "Is this the hill you want to die on?" Do you truly find promoting this near-neologism the best use of your energies?  Ravenswing  18:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Less aggression please, and cut out the threats and abusive language. What is this - consensus through intimidation? Thanks. I am in the process of constructing an article titled The British Isles and Ireland If you feel that the title of every article must be a commonly used phrase (and can you cite a policy) then I am prepared to consider changing it to "Britain and Ireland", not as accurate, but according to your Google test it is the most commonly used phrase in Ireland. (Sarah777 19:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC))

Please note that according to WP:MERGE, this is the wrong place for a merge discussion - it should take place at the proposed destination. (Better late than never!). Waggers 19:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Sarah,

1. Should this page exist?

No - "There are two or more pages on exactly the same subject." WP:MERGE

2. Should the title of the merged article be "The British Isles and Ireland."?

No - "Except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication, use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things." WP:NAME

3. If a merge happens - i.e. if this trash is not deleted outright - will you get to merge your POV in the British Isles article?

No - "Gaming the system is the use of Wikipedia rules to thwart Wikipedia policy. In many cases, gaming the system is a form of disruption, such as obstinately reverting an edit exactly three times a day, and then "innocently" maintaining that no rules are being violated. The three-revert rule should not be construed as an entitlement to revert, and doing so is regarded as disruption. Doing this over a prolonged period of time leads to sanctions, and, in extreme cases, a permanent ban." WP:GAME

--sony-youth^pléigh 19:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Stopped being hysterical, have you Sony? I'm not gaming any system; I'm not reverting anything. Did you check out WP:CIVIL while you were at it? (Sarah777 20:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC))

Hm, Sony-youth beat me to WP:NAME, which is the exact policy at issue. (And what "threats" or "abusive language," may I ask?) That being said, "Britain and Ireland" returns just a shade over 700,000 G-hits, still in the overwhelming minority. Even on the Irish Google, it's still 25,000 for "British Isles," 15,000 for "Britain and Ireland." The English-language Wikipedia is not required to give equal stature to an article based solely on a POV that's a minority in a country about two-thirds the population of Massachusetts. About all I would say about this in the main British Isles article is a single sentence along the lines of "There is some controversy over the name given commonly used for the British Isles; see British Isles naming dispute for more information."  Ravenswing  19:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

On Irish pages of Google "Britain and Ireland" beats "British Isles" by 54 - 35. That isn't a minority. They call that a large majority. And you're talking about "a country about two-thirds the population of Massachusetts" shows the same arrogance at the 15:1 gang. What is offensive is judged by those offended; the majority in Ireland don't use the term, find it offensive and YOU are trying to force it down our necks and reject all compromise. I have read the merger rules; we are supposed to notify interested parties who have been involved in this issue, and give them at least 5 days to respond. I wish to start that process. How do we do that? Perhaps User:Ravenswing, as an administrator you'd stop sneering at my country, cut out the abusive language and explain how we move forward with this? And Sony; following that outburst I will not be responding to you in relation to ANYTHING again. Ever. (Sarah777 20:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC))

I don't know what kind of methodology you're using, but this is "Britain and Ireland" on the Irish Google using .ie-only sites, 15,800 hits total: [1]. Here's the same test with "British Isles, 23,500 hits: [2]. That being said, while I don't think a redirect on an article with a current AfD is appropriate, it's far from "vandalism;" you might wish to be careful with that characterization. As far as your other statements go, (1) you have yet to demonstrate with any evidence whatsoever that the majority in Ireland don't use the term and find it offensive; (2) Even if every single Irishman vociferously objected to the term (which I doubt, and which the Irish Google's survey of Irish websites does not support) they would still be outnumbered about 250:1 by non-Irish English-speakers, which means that (3) you are trying to force a fringe POV down the throats of a vast majority; (4) in the teeth of plain consensus to the contrary.

How we move forward with this is apparent. There's already a naming dispute article that adequately covers this controversy, though I'm increasingly suspicious that there's enough of a genuine "controversy" to warrant anything of the sort. A sentence should be in the British Isles article explaining the existence of such a controversy and linking the naming dispute article. That's all the leeway this fringe POV should receive.  Ravenswing  20:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello? The "250" of your imagination are not living in the place. Does Wiki still call Peking by that name because that's still what most English-speakers call it? You are trying to push an offensive name on the vast majority of Irish people who find it obnoxious. How I got 54-35 is simple: select "Irish pages only" and type in the two terms. Of course the published record, which includes much old material, underestimates the situation of almost total non-use the is the case today. (Sarah777 23:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC))

I checked. And guess what? Peking redirects to Bejing; the name NOT used by 80% of your 250. Should I try Bombay, for an even clearer example? You guys only push your political POV on countries you outnumber - is that it? And we have our Uncle Sonys to support you of course! (Sarah777 23:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC))

Actually Beijing is much more common place than Peking, Peking generally just refers to a type of duck sold in a Chinese restaurant. Using a Google test, Beijing gets 69 Million + hits, Peking 16.5 Million. Don't know where you are coming from here. Anyway it's a foreign area where the foreign government changed its name, totally irrelevant to this discussion. Ben W Bell talk 06:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not "my" 250; one billion speakers of English as a first or second language compared to four million and change in the Republic. I invite you to investigate mathematics as a substitute for polemic. That being said, the PRC tried to push "Beijing" for decades. Only when the world media got behind the drive did the facts on the ground chance, and since Wikipedia is not a publisher of first instance, it is not only not our job to be politically correct ahead of the curve, we need to actively avoid doing so. That being said, you've yet to respond to requests that you source your assertions that a "majority" of Irish find the term odious or adhere to your own POV as to which term to use. I invite you to post some sources and links.  Ravenswing  04:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)