Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anglo-Celtic Isles

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

The result was Redirect to British Isles. User:Angr 13:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anglo-Celtic Isles

[edit]

This page falls foul of WP:NEO - it is a neologism with an article. Its content is almost entirely duplicated in British Isles, which covers this term, with sources, in just one sentence. There is little potential for expansion (unlike, say Islands of the North Atlantic, which discusses the political context of the name). I see no justification for having this article --Robdurbar 19:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isoxyl, the term is being used by some in academia, that's a certainty. Where is the avid WP learner supposed to enquire about the term when WP hides it? MelForbes 23:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No suprises here! MelForbes 23:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leave as separate entry. As a standalone term in use, this does warrant it's own distinct encyclopedic entry. I agree on the desire to avoid duplication, but this article can have redirects within it to articles such as 'History of Ireland', 'History of Britain', etc... and thus would not create duplicate articles. The term's very existance is as a politically-neutral alternative to 'British Isles', so a redirect would be an insult to users of the term (such as myself). Pconlon 15:03, 12 August 2006
I don't believe any insult is intended, Pconlon! Redirects are a courtesy of Wikipedia in order to facilitate searching/finding pages and to avoid duplication of effort which requires updating of multiple articles with the same information. Perhaps a way to alleviate your concerns would be to address the British Isles article directly, more strongly emphasizing your concerns in the label at the top, or by discussion on the Talk:British Isles talk page. I remain by my Redirect vote, however, but certainly with no insult intended or implied. After all, I created Anglo-Celtic Isles and believe it is a legitimate term, which is mentioned in the other article along with several other alternatives names for the Isles. Isoxyl 14:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Isoxyl, I appreciate that an insult wasn't intended, I just wanted to highlight that a 'redirect' would nonetheless be insulting (if unintentionally so)! My firm belief is that every term should have its own entry; when it is an alternative for another, more commonly used term, links within it to the lengthy text in the other article (to avoid unnecessary duplication) are reasonable enough. A 'redirect' effectively says: 'No, you're wrong to use this term - you should use this one instead'. Given the length and breadth of the discussion so far on the 'British Isles' naming controversy, you can see why this proposed redirect will only get some people's backs up. Could you reconsider your support of the redirect proposition? Respectfully, Pconlon 16:27, 12 August 2006
I guess I don't look at redirects as telling anyone to use any particular term that they like, only that several terms are in use for the same thing. After all, no one seems to be arguing the Anglo-Celtic Isles are actually a different PLACE than the British Isles. It seems that if we redirect to one article of whatever name, and make note of all alternative nomenclature, and then explain what the Isles ARE, we are giving a good encyclopedia entry for the Islands themselves. I believe that British Isles is the most commonly used term, and therefore is a likely candidate for where the article should reside to serve the greatest number of people. But that does not mean that I don't agree that the term is vehemently opposed by some (including some in this debate). I still think that a well-written warning at the top of the article might satisfy those are insulted by this circumstance. Perhaps even list some of the alternative nomenclature right at the top? "British Isles, also known as the Islands of the North Atlantic, etc.etc."? I don't want to silence anyone... I think if the British Isles article contains the relevant FACTS about the Islands as well as an explanation for alternative terminology (it does, although perhaps these could be fleshed out), and there is a redirect from alternative nomenclature, then the encyclopedia works, and allows everyone's terminology to be useful. However, I do believe that IF there is enough in Anglo-Celtic Isles to warrant its OWN article then it should be left as such. At the moment, that doesn't appear to be the case... It appears to be an academic alternative term for BI, one in concurrent use with BII and IONA. Actually, IONA is a good example of what I mean, because it is an article which seems to justify its own existence by having extra information about its use which is not needed on BI. ACI doesn't appear to be that way, its use is documented within the BI article. Despite this, I am willing to consider other alternatives, perhaps:
Redirect to British Isles (terminology)?
Redirect to IONA?
Wait and allow a period of time for the Anglo-Celtic Isles to be improved with information that justifies its independent existence from British Isles?
I do believe regardless that the article about the Islands geography, etc., should remain at British Isles. These other articles discuss the terminology, not the islands themselves.

Thoughts on my longwinded response? Please note that I have no emotional attachment to either side. My own ancestors number among them both Celts and Britons. Though if my mother had anything to say about it, she would remind me that her own contribution outweighs all that Irish and British DNA anyway! Isoxyl 14:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • My prime reaction is Delete unless the author can add some citations of its actual use. The British Isles is a well accepted term. This seems to me to be a 'political correctness' neologism. If the author can show that the term has significant use, a short article would be justified, but this should consist merely of an explanation of the term, and a series of internal cross-references (without the sub-category). The largest island is 'Great Britain', not merely 'Britain', which in turn implies that there must be other islands. Furthermore, the earliest record of the name is (I think) in the work of the geographer Ptolomy, who recorded a tribe called the 'Pritanni', who were (I think) in Irleand.
  • Strong keep. Is Wikipedia and Encyclopedia, or is it just a POV-Pushing instrument where the strongest gang wins. Now suppose a reader wants to inquire as to what Anglo-Celtic Isles means, then where is he to find out, if not on WP. I thought WP was supposed to be aiming at a world-class quality in it's coverage. Well this sort of editing will just damage WP, that is if WP intends to be credible MelForbes 21:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep The term clearly exists. There is no reason why an article explaining that this term exists should not exist, once it is adequately sourced. Once it doesn't simply duplicate the main article (i.e., becomes another British Isles article under another name — one of them is bad enough!) I fail to see why there should not be an article on a clearly existing term, a term BTW I have heard used by a Scottish academic not to long ago. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 04:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it may be in use, but it is close to undocumented: twelve Google hits after removing the Wikipedia mirrors simply isn't good enough. Vashti 07:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be foolgeled by google, almost all of the academic writings about the subject are under copyright protection, you just won't get them on Google for some years. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MelForbes (talk • contribs) 01:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, which is why I also did a Google Scholar search (academic papers and books, 1 hit) and a Google Books search (books in print; 3 hits, 2 of which are from the same work). I would very much like to see the sources demonstrating that this is a term in use. Vashti 22:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reason you can't quote, cite, or paraphrase copyright protected works. You don't need to provide the full text of a document, just a pointer so other editors and readers can find it, and it does not need to be available online. If you've got a relevant source, please add it to the article.EricR 17:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep The term "British Isles" is a product of British nationalism, dating no earlier than 1621. The term is one of their nationalist myths used to contextualise Ireland within the framework of their nascent British state, and thus make it easier to legitimise the conquest of Ireland. It is no more and no less than this. The very fact that British posters are so passionate about imposing this name, and Irish posters are so animated about resisting it, testifies to the inherent political nature of the phrase. Consequently, the attempt by British posters to tone down their irredentist nationalism by feebly claiming it is a "geographic" term is persistently insulting. There is no rational reason why the terminological creations to support that state's political claims to Ireland should subsume every other name for "this archipelago" (and as Mel Forbes has shown numerous times, there are many such alternative names). There are many more views of the world, including the minor matter of what the natives in Ireland think. Ireland is not a British Isle, and the Irish people do not perceive themselves to be British. Trying to eliminate the existence of Anglo-Celtic Isles and place it under British Isles is entirely about what Edward Said observed was the coloniser's central impulse to control the representation of the native. El Gringo 12:47, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The closing admin should note the recruitment [1] [2] [3] [4] of editors, and one's response [5] [6] [7].EricR 15:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Given some of the above responses and replies on linked diffs, I thought I'd give a few lines of policy which led me to propose this for deletion:
  1. (from WP:NEO) "Neologisms are words and terms that have recently been coined, generally do not appear in any dictionary, but may be used widely or within certain communities [so I think it IS a neologism] ...Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and so articles simply attempting to define a neologism are inappropriate...The term does not need to be in Wikipedia in order to be a "true" term, and when secondary sources become available it will be appropriate to create an article on the topic or use the term within other articles"
  2. (from WP:WINAD) "Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WINAD), and an entry that consists of just a definition does not belong...
That's just from a couple of pages. I note that those who have opposed have often accused me, and those voting keep, of pushing a POV, rather than dealing with policy concerns. The legitimacy of the terms British Isles, Anglo-Celtic Isles (or anything else) is an irrelevance in this case--Robdurbar 16:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentThe term is being used, why would anyone want to get rid of it. It does not matter if the term is not the most widespread term for this group of islands. This page's creation just bewilders me. My defination of POV-pushing is; anything that hides truth, or anything that bends the truth. And the truth is that the term is being used. And that is my belief, sorry if you don't like it. MelForbes 20:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rob, are you still arguing for a delete, or for a redirect? I'm not exactly sure how WP:V, WP:NEO, and WP:NOT apply to redirects, but it seems to me that current sources using the term/phrase should be enough. Also i see no need to get rid of the article history and talk page which may be of use some day.EricR 17:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well I don't think that arguing for a delete or redirect are necessairily differing views; after all, 'redirects are cheap'. I took my quotes and examples from areas discussing what to include as articles, not in articles. I agree that A-C Isles is used enough to warrent a mention in British Isles (indeed, I have helped add it), but not its own article (issues of duplication aside). --Robdurbar 05:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And Mel - the relevance of whether this term is used is irrelevant. As stated in the definition of 'neologism', 'Neologisms are words and terms that have recently been coined, generally do not appear in any dictionary, but may be used widely or within certain communities'. I do not want the term to be excluded from Wikipedia - it has its place, as a paragraph in British Isles. For me, it is baffaling that the page Anglo-Celtic Isles exists. --Robdurbar 05:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strrong redirect to British Isles. Not only does this article describe a term that already exists (British Isles), but its also very POV. The phrase is barely used, other than by a minority of paranoid people of a certain political persuasion, and does not describe the ethnic makeup of these islands very well at all - it makes assumptions based on popular myth.
Here's an example of the aforementioned paranoia, coupled with ignorance: "The term "British Isles" is a product of British nationalism". The term British Isles can actually be dated back to around 300 BC - much, much earlier than the start of the consolidation of the kingdoms.
The very fact that some Irish editors are so passionate about imposing this name new invention testifies to the severe political brainwashing some people have been subjected to since the 18th century. The correct phrase (British Isles) is merely disliked (or detested) by some small-minded bigots who seethe and froth at any notion of a connection with 'Britishness' that they become too blind to see the term in its correct context. They confuse it with the modern national description, or citizenship.
There are indeed other terms which people use to describe these islands collectively, and any that have notable usage should also be noted in the article itself. I don't see the point in creating individual articles for each alternative phrase that is, or has been, created, when an article exists which has the title, not only of the original milleniums-old description, but the most widely known description.
I take exception to El Gringo's inaccurate generalisations when he says such things as "Irish people do not perceive themselves to be British." As an Irish person I not only perceive myself to be British, I also embrace it.. and furthermore I am British by virtue of the fact that I am a citizen of the UK. Do not presume, El Gringo, to speak for me thank you very much.
Keep your politics for elections and discussions, and keep the facts for an encyclopedia. --Mal 05:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
El Gringo on this issue reflects the views of the vast majority of Irish people who not merely do not regard themselves as British but take offence at anyone presuming they are. You are absolutely entitled to your opinion, just as French monarchists are demand a return of a king, and American anglophiles are entitled to regard themselves as British. But do not act as though you are anything more than a very small minority, not even a large minority, much less a majority. And calls from you that El Gringo "keep to facts" is ironic given your tendency to launch rascist abuse and snide attacks against Irish people, and your POV-pushing elsewhere. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 14:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say it was anywhere near a "vast majority" of Irish people that particularly share El Gringo's views on the matter. For a start, of a population of some 5.7 million, roughly 1 million could be considered at least nominally unionist. That's more than a sixth of the Irish population. Unionists are unlikely to take offence at the term. There are also, I would suggest, a large number of people who do not take any offence at the term simply because they really couldn't care less.
Regarding the term itself, I was not offering an opinion - I was stating fact.
As for myself being a minority, a small minority, a large minority or a majority.. I believe I am in the majority of those people who instantly recognise the term British Isles to be descriptive of the two main islands and surrounding smaller islands that make up that geographical area.
As for your last comment: "And calls from you that El Gringo "keep to facts" is ironic given your tendency to launch rascist abuse and snide attacks against Irish people, and your POV-pushing elsewhere." - I would remind you of Wikipedia's policy on attacking other editors in such a manner.
Please refrain from making up lies about me on any discussion page in Wikipedia.
  • I have never "launched racist abuse" of any kind on this web site.
  • Considering I am Irish myself, I'm hardly likely to make "snide attacks against Irish people".
  • I do not push any particular Point Of View.
I respectfully request an apology from you. --Mal 19:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Taunts ridiculing the opinions of the vast majority of a nation as supposed evidence "to the severe political brainwashing some people have been subjected to since the 18th century" are blatently rascist. You neither warrant an apology nor will receive one. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 19:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, I again question this "vast majority" claim you make. Secondly, while I may have generalised about a particular extremist group in our society, you have made a personal attack and told blatant lies about me. Thirdly, to be racist surely the topic must be about a race.
I await your apology in good faith. --Mal 23:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Given the nature of your comments you can wait all you want. You do not deserve one. You will not be receiving one. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 02:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then this only serves to show that you are an ignorant and untrustworthy editor. Let's hope you don't make a habit of personal attacks and of adding blatant lies about other editors to discussion pages. --Mal 12:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as neologism or, failing that, redirect to British Isles. Bastun 13:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Robdurbar, you still argue that you don’t understand why this article exists at all…well, if someone comes across the term ‘Anglo-Celtic Isles’, wants to find out what it means and types it into Wikipedia, they should expect to be taken to a page that explains it. Having a redirect will not do – the viewer would just be taken to the ‘British Isles’ page and will probably scratch their heads in bemusement. Reference to ACI in the BI article is deeply buried and they surely wouldn’t find it easily. If you want a redirect, you should have ACI clearly stated in the Introduction…as it once was. You wanted it removed from the Introduction and I relucantly accepted this modification (in the interests of consensus achievement and conciseness). With a redirct I believe would come the requirement to have ACI referenced explicitly in the BI article introduction. Is that really what you want?

Also, just a correction for Mal who still, incredibly, believes that people who reject the term ‘British Isles’ and use ‘Anglo-Celtic isles’ instead are a ‘minority of paranoid people of a certain political persuasion’! Fact is that the clear majority of Irish people (inhabitants of the island of Ireland) reject usage of the term; I am not paranoid nor of a ‘certain political persuasion’ if that implies any sort of extremism. Argue against the scale of rejection of the BI term until you’re blue in the face and you won’t alter it. Being Northern Irish, you should welcome anything that removes the political divisions standing between you and your neighbours – ‘Anglo-Celtic Isles’ is wonderfully disconnected from political implication…and you can still have a UK passport if you want too! Reading your views is as depressing as listening to an Ian Paisley speech in the hope of hearing something reasonable, balanced, sensitively worded and free of hatred. Pconlon 18:20, 14 August 2006

You say that a "clear majority of Irish people [...] reject usage of the term". However, being an Irish person who has lived on Ireland all my life, I can tell you that I am not at all convinced that this is necessarily the case. And even if it were, that is still not a valid reason to create two basically identical articles which merely have different titles.
As for being Northern Irish, and regarding what I should or shouldn't think about my beighbours (either on the neghbouring island - Great Britain, or the neighbouring country - the Republic of Ireland) - that is a private matter which isn't relevant to this discussion. Thanks for allowing me to have a "UK passport" by the way!
Regarding your reference to Ian Paisley.. I could just as easily reply to you that reading your views is as depressing as listening to the doublespeak of Gerry Adams & Co. But I shant! --Mal 19:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I stated above in my recent reply, I think your comment, Pconlon, is a potential compromise: redirect to BI, but have ACI referenced explicitly in the BI article introduction. This may be the beginnings of compromise. However, since that requires changing the BI article, this will undoubtedly raise greate ire on the part of partisans in THAT article, who may not be aware of this AfD. And so, the wheel turns again.... Isoxyl 18:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Though I generally agree with your comment on the Irish view of Brtisih Isles, I don't see why Anglo-Celtic Isles should be treated any differently to, say, 'Northern European Isles', 'These Isles' or 'Britain and Ireland'. To list all these in the intro would be clumsy and would violate WP:LEAD(although having some sort of graphic lisiting them all may work in some way... I'll have a think on that and get back at Talk:British Isles). Though I agree that some users would be confused to come to a differently titled article - this does happen already with other redirects from sub-issues to main articles. Put simply, Anglo-Celtic Isles is the same thing as British Isles. Wikipedia is not a dictionary and so only has articles about a word or phrase in itself if it is notable in a wider context. As Anglo-Celtic Isles is barely notable (a dozen or so google results, no web of knowledge results etc.), it certainly does not deserve its own entry. As great as our two countries our, I don't think their location deserves two articles. --Robdurbar 18:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is a difference Rob. Britain and Ireland, etc is a generic term. Anglo-Celtic Isles is a formal title that is used. It exists as a term. I don't see the problem with an article on a term once it is not a duplication of British Isles, merely saying 'this term begun here, is used there, etc.' FearÉIREANN\(caint) 19:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
but more than anything else - more than my belief that having an article entitled Anglo-Celtic Isles simply breaks policy, all political assertions aside - I simply don't see how an article on Anglo-Celtic Isles could ever expand beyond 2 paragraphs maximum, and that's with describing every single use of it. I do not deny that it exists as a term - and I did mention other terms such as 'Northern European Isles' or 'that part of the World that calls fries chips' - but it is in such minor use. As a university student I benefit from access to a number of journal databases, such as Web of Science and EBESCO, and making a number of searches with different combinations (w.g. isles or islands, with/without hyphen) I have failed to find more than half a dozen uses outside of Wikipedia and http://www.anglo-celtic.org.uk/ (whiich uses it just to mean the islands of the United Kingdom anyway). As a result, I think it can only ever exist as a page that replicates the content of British Isles and includes one further paragraph, which could easily and justifiably be included in the British Isles page. --Robdurbar 21:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: 'Not only does this article describe a term that already exists (British Isles), but its also very POV.'- Oh for the love of God will you give that pompous nonsense a rest? Please. You're- the lot of you- merciless. I cannot think of a more politically POV term than 'British Isles'. Apparently there is a very long history of the British looking down on the Irish as intellectually inferior- going right into very recent times, especially in the financial institutions. How apt that the same people who are pushing their British colonial nomenclature on top of us are also insulting our intelligence by claiming the entire thing is not representative of British rightwing/unionist prejudices. In this you are, collectively, pathetic. Britain has persistently produced the biggest tribal drumbeaters in all of Europe in the past 400 years. And trying to shove this "British Isles" non sequitur on top of Irish communal identity is more of it. El Gringo 20:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Seeing that this has digressed....Mal: you are as much an Irishman as a Pied-noir was an Algerian. I wish it were different, but it isn't. Like the self-declared French in Algeria, your identity is nothing unless you can define yourself by being everything the Irish are not. If you, or people of your mentality, ever became Irish like the rest of us your entire self-definition as part of a "superior race" would be over. Without privilege in all its forms, your communal identity has lost its foundation stone. It is for that reason that you all bellow about how "British" you are: you need to separate yourselves from the rest of Ireland's people. In that separation is your privilege, and in your privilege is now, and always has been, the glacial heart of British unionist identity. You are no Stephen Rea, alas. El Gringo 20:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me?!? I am "as much an Irishman as a Pied-noir was an Algerian."?!? You do not know the first thing about me, yet here you are making some incorrect statement about what I am or what I am not! How the hell would you know if I were Irish, African, German, Dutch or Japanese?
Let me inform you of a few things: My family history has been traced back for hundreds of years. If you are under some illusion that I am some 'colonist' who arrived here in Ireland during the Plantation of Ulster, then I'm afraid you're way off the mark kid. My ancestors are all from Ireland with the exception of my great-great-grandfather, for as far back as can be traced.
And even if I weren't, who are YOU to define for ME what is and what is not Irish? How ironic it is that you snidely accuse ME of some notion of "superior race" with such a sanctimonious attitude.
And to think: I was accused of being "racist" on this very page! I am truly disgusted.
For the second time on this discussion page, I request an apology. --Mal 23:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Mal, you seem to be always making religious type edits, hope you are not an an orange bigot. I see you are trying to ruin Irish American page with your religious pov. I'm from mixed background and 'kick with all fours', but I don't make povish religious edits. Please give up the anal edits!! MelForbes 09:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello..? Read the accusations and racial slurs made against me above your comment Mel! Nothing to say about that..?
FYI I am not religious. I do not make "religious type edits". I'm certainly neither "orange" nor a bigot.. as can be evidenced by my contributions. Nor am I trrying to "ruin" any article (such as the Irish American article in your suggestion).
As for "anal edits".. my intention is only to improve articles and to balance out POV as best I can. There are editors here who are much more anal than I am when it comes to red tape etc.
Now that we've addressed my attitudes, have you anything to say about the insulting comments made to me by the previous editor? --Mal 12:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was just wondering why you are so obsessed with this Catholic-Protestant 'thing', that's all. As for me, I don't give a dam. MelForbes 13:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am not very concerned about Roman Catholics or Protestants really. Perhaps it appears that way because I am concerned with subjects relating to Northern Ireland and, as we are all aware, religion is very much a part of the sociology, history and politics of the region. --Mal 19:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mal, all I can think of are the lines of the John Lennon song, "Imagine". But he left out some vital lines Imagine there are no Protestants, or Catholics if you try, no-one to shoot or drum for, it's easy if you try. MelForbes 20:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mel, all I can think of is that you suffer from some kind of disability which reduces your ability to read replies to your queries. I'll repeat: I'm am not very concerned about Roman Catholics or Protestants really. I am not religious, and I am very suspicious of ALL religious institutions to be frank.
Besides, I much prefer the B-side to Imagine: Working Class Hero... and Lennon already covered religion in the song Imagine.
Now, having established that I don't care about religion, in spite of your insistance that I somehow care about it, what say you of the ethnic slur I have been subject to by the editor above our conversation? Still nothing to say about that? --Mal 21:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But Mal, I thought you said that you aren't ethnic! So how can you be ethnically slurred? MelForbes 21:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Eh? Where did I say I wasn't ethnic..? I suggest we have this discussion privately, as it has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Feel free to drop a note on my userpage any time.
I would still like an apology from El Gringo for his very insulting remarks and insinuations. --Mal 21:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
El Gringo - whatever some British/Irish users may say, on both 'sides' there are people/people/people whose sole aim is make Wikiepdia a decent and proper encyclopedia. This means leaving aside the politics of Britsh Isles/Anglo-Celtic Isles and approaching it objectively. As commeneted below, attacks - even on people who make statements that you most wholeheartedly disagree with - are no way forward here. I simply ask that you look at this from a neutral point of view, ask yourself how often the term Anglo-Celtic Isles is used, and see that the connotations or political meanings of terms such as British Isles (which, incidentally, I agree has far too much baggae to be used and should have more of an issue made of it - which I wouldn't have said before exposing myself to the international environment of Wikipedia) are irrelevant in this debate. --Robdurbar 21:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. All readers: please cease ad hominem attacks and return to the matter at hand. I don't care whether men, women, or purple sheep are debating this AfD, nor whether they English or Irish purple sheep. It seems the only thing that this request for discussion has really generated is attacks from one side or the other. Can we try to look at this from both sides, and come to an agreeable middle ground? I would humbly ask all participants to come back to the discussion without venom or rancor. Let's lay out what is acceptable and not acceptable to both "sides". Although it is distressing that our encyclopedia has to have sides at all... Isoxyl 20:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Agree with User:Isoxyl. There are some silly attacks being made, and some outrageous assertions. The "vast majority" of people on the island of Ireland are well capable of recognising a geographical term as being just that and the term is very much in common usage in Ireland. No problem with the neologism 'Anglo-Celtic Isles' being mentioned in the main article with a redirect, but including it as an article in it's own right? Ridiculous! Bastun 23:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further reasons to Keep Article. I'm all for focussing on the matter in hand. I have finally inserted into the article a nice (verified) reference I've had for a while. This is not a duplication of anything in the BI article. There are more (non-duplicate) additions to come. Isoxyl, I'm glad you agree with my point that, if a redirect route were followed, it should come with a clear reference to ACI in the BI article Introduction...something like: 'Alternative terms exist in limited use, such as 'Anglo-Celtic Isles' and 'British & Irish Isles'. The trouble is that several users (most probably contributing to this page too!) strongly opposed this. They argued either that the term didn't really exist (clearly not so!) or that usage was so limited that they didn't think it deserved the prominance of an Introduction reference. As long as this ACI article exists, and as long as someone wanting to read about it can type the term into Wikipedia and be taken to THIS article, then I'm able to reluctantly accept keeping the BI article intro as it is. The additional, non-duplicate information in this ACI article shows that this is not just a dictionary-type entry. By the way Bastun, your view about the BI term being purely geographical and 'very much in common usage in Ireland' is far from correct - this is ground we've covered/fought over long ago!! Kind regards, Pconlon 11:45, 15 August 2006

We'll have to agree to disagree on that one, Pconlon - I'm pretty sure if I went out on to the street now (in Dublin) and did a vox pop asking "What do you call the big set of islands west of France?" it'd be pretty much 50-50 between "The British Isles" and "Ireland and Britain" (in whatever order). It's simply a geographical term, like the Irish Sea (not the Anglo-Celtic Sea...) or the English Channel (not the Franco/Anglo Channel). It's also the term in my daughter's (Irish) school atlas... Bastun 10:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, having actually read through "Foster's The Global Etiquette Guide to Europe, Everything You Need to Know for Business and Travel Success, Part One: Western Europe" (I presume this is the new reference you're referring to), it doesn't actually mention the 'Anglo-Celtic Isles', but rather "Be especially careful in the terms you use to refer to your colleagues from these Anglo-Celtic isles." From the context, it is clearly not intended as a replacement term for 'British Isles' and it is disingenuous to suggest that it is. I would have serious problems, in any case, using this as a verifiable source, as even a cursory read of the article shows many historical and cultural inaccuracies - the Celts only arriving in the islands circa 300BC, the Normans arriving before the Saxons, (Unionist) Northern Irishmen who would describe themselves as 'Britons' (rather than 'British') and 'casual Friday' not having reached these islands to name just a few. Bastun 11:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Back on topic here, despite the outrageous and insulting personal attacks on me on this page from two other editors, I happen to agree with Baston and Robdurbar in general. I still think this article, which describes the exact same region as British Isles, should me merged and redirected.
However, I'm tempted to wait until PConlon has finished adding to the article. --Mal 12:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The main question here is the extent to which there should be separate articles for the names of things, people, places, events rather than the things themselves. Encyclopaedias deal with things &tc; dictionaries with words. The growth of articles around words and names has to be restricted as much as possible otherwise the encyclopaedia will become unusable with multiple articles about the same things. You don't have to look very far to see the amount of energy that some people will put into naming disputes to appreciate the problems that will arise if articles are allowed to blossom whenever there is more than one name for a single thing &tc (see Río de la Plata/River Plate, aluminium/aluminum, soccer/football and almost anything else concerning any sort of football, Derry/Londonderry &tc &tc &tc). "Anglo-Celtic Isles"'s only purpose is to be a synonym for "British Isles", it has no life or history of its own independent of this, and the same material in the British Isles article could be exactly duplicated there. It is a terrible precedent. MAG1 14:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion. This discussion is so cluttered and convoluted as to be very difficult to follow at this point. (This may be against policy on an AfD page, but....) Here is my suggestion based on reading the work so far: Allow a little more time to improve the article by those interested in doing so. Is there some way to put a timer on this? If the article does not improve to where it justifies its own existence (ala IONA, then we can merge/redirect to British Isles at some arbitrary later point? Agreed that we don't need a million articles documenting different names, but as long as it links to BI and provides good points for its unique existence, I'm willing to tolerate it. Thoughts on the suggestion? Please include below, with ":" to indent each opinion, please, because the mess above is maddening! Isoxyl 00:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article contains much that is unverified or plainly inaccurate, e.g., "The Anglo-Celtic Isles is a term increasingly used..." - it's lack of use has been demonstrated in this debate. The "controversial term 'British Isles', due to the latter's unacceptability in Ireland and among some Scottish and Welsh nationalists.[1]" What Scottish and Welsh nationalists, exactly? We have one source for this... The only other 'source' for verification in the article - "The populations inhabiting the archipelago have been referred to collectively as 'Anglo-Celtic cultures' in mainstream literature.[2]" has been debunked both on the article's talk page and in this AFD. Lastly, "The term is used in particular in academia and has begun to be used, alongside, or as an alternative to, British Isles in many library referencing systems. Its usage however is relatively small to date." is self-contradictory and unverified - what library referencing systems? Remove all of the unsourced/inaccurate material and you're left with nothing to base an article on. Still in favour of a delete or redirect - but if the above concerns can be addressed then the article can always be re-created later, following existing Wiki protocols. Bastun 00:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:The bottom line is this. If a term is being used by a section of people and scholars, then why should a reference to that term be blocked by WP. All material is of value, including the great and the small. Tell you something for nothing, there are a lot of regimes around the planet that would only be too delighted to block, block, block.....MelForbes 09:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply If a term is being used by a section of people and scholars, then why should a reference to that term be blocked by WP. Why? Because its against WP policies - WP:NEO and WP:V. "If an article topic has no reputable, reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic." Please actually go read those two policies. As to your last point - what? How is that relevant at all? This is an encyclopedia, not somewhere to push a PoV... Bastun 09:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I wholeheartedly agree with your sentiment "This is an encyclopedia, not somewhere to push a PoV". That is exactly what I am talking about. WP:NEO and WP:V are not there to be interpreted as an vehicle to push pov either. The reasoning is that if a term is being used for cultural purposes, which Anglo-Celtic Isles is, if follows that it is a worthy entry. What are you afraid of. You don't need to be Albert Einstein to understand the simplicity of the old-logic. MelForbes 13:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in agreement too of course on the encyclopedic (rather than POV-pushing) nature of Wikipedia. I accept some of the comments on wording inaccuracies in the article (e.g. 'many' vs. 'limited use to date') and will look at these in a moment. A thorough search for the best references to back up unverified points will take time and I'm alas only able to dedicate pieces of time to this (I'm not retired like some here are I imagine). Bastun, I assure you that there wouldn't be a 50/50 split between 'British Isles' and 'Britain & Ireland' in a straw pool on the streets of Dublin. The points made about the 'Irish Sea' and other areas of water are interesting, but overlook the long, long period political/military turmoil that has affected life on British and Irish soil - which baggage the stretch of water between the two islands thankfully lacks.
The people presently working on this article are well aware of the existance of the 'British Isles' article and of the need to avoid duplication. I certainly have no plans for an alternative history of the archipelago or anything of that sort. Can we please now remove this deletion/redirect tag and leave the article be?, so those of us who use the term and want it properly and fairly (I stress this) represented can get on with improving it. Wikipedia is about sharing knowledge and should be an unrushed, even enjoyable, pursuit. We should somehow keep this discussion though - where would it be best placed in this case? I'm of course happy to wait until everyone has had a chance to read and comment on this. Pconlon 15:27, 16 August 2006
I think we should let this run and have the wider community have its say - I'm glad its attracted a few new faces to the issue. As I've said before, as a student, and a geography one at that, I have access to a number of academic databases and I have failed to find any more references than are already provided at British Isles for the term. Thus to claims that this is widely use, I'm afraid I just don't believe that it is. On that basis, and on my understanding of WP:NEO, WP:NAME and WP:WINAD, I stand by my opinion that the article's content should be deleted and the page exist as a redirect to Brtish Isles. That said, if this debate comes out as 'no consensus' - as I suspect it might - then I'll be happy to leave the issue. --Robdurbar 18:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Having looked further at the article following updates, I'm still very much unconvinced of the merits of it existing as an article in it's own right and even coming to the conclusion that it doesn't deserve a redirect. I've since removed some of the hyperbole and added back in the 'unverified' tag, but the only checkable reference to the use of the term leads to a website which quotes a ballad apparently written in 1914. Now, pretty much any song will be found in several places on the net, but that's the only place where that particular one can be found. The "used by many library/bookstore reference systems" turned out to be one homemade <a href="http://pbwiki.com/">wiki</a> listing bookshops. Bastun 16:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the issue of this article's existance, can we now finally agree that there is no consensus and lay this romp to rest? Let's leave the article be. All users are of course welcome to keep an eye on it to ensure that no inappropriate verifications are used - I would ask that contentious opinions regarding additions/removals be placed in discussion for a few days before actual article changes are made. I also thank Robdurbar for his fairness and open mindedness. Kind regards, Pconlon 15:10, 18 August 2006

Why not follow standard AfD process? At the moment it's looking like an 8 to 4 majority in favour of redirect/delete, as opposed to keep. A 2 to 1 majority is consensus (for AfD purposes, anyway - I've seen articles/templates deleted with far slimmer majorities) and the closing admin will also presumably take into account the arguments on WP:NEO, WP:WINAD and WP:V. Bastun 14:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Agree that if the closing admin does decide to keep, then additions/removals should be discussed in Talk prior to inclusion/removal. That seems to work well on other pages. Bastun 14:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually 66% is borderline. Most admins who close debates would judge a debate like this no consensus because of the strength of feeling and the narrowness of the numbers. Tighter numbers may result in deletions if the debate is pretty consensual and if a lot of the votes on one side are of the 'I'm not pushed either way but . ." tone. This debate here is too passionate for a decision in the 60s. It really would need to be in the 70s. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 20:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to British Isles. Have a subheading in the Alternative terms section of that page for each alternative name. I thing this is a clear example of a neologism, with tiny usage. It means the same as British Isles: I think it is very clear that there should be one article for the archipelago, not twenty covering each term: the debate should be on what that article is called and what is in it. Wikipedia is not a dictionary.--Stonemad GB 22:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

People, this is not an exercise in 'getting the vote out'!! It will be petty indeed if each side went about calling in 'numbers' to support its position...which is where this is going. No one is saying that this term is in widespread use, however it is verified and is used by some, myself included. This debate is about a term that is not just concidentally used in place of another - rather it is used intentionally as an alternative term on an extremely sensitive subject. A redirect would be an insult to those of us who so use it. A suitably worded reference to it specifically should I believe be placed in the British Isles article introduction...it would be essential in the case of a redirect in my view. Pconlon 23:52, 20 August 2006

Nobody is denying that this term is used on occasion. I have yet to hear a convincing case that this means it should have its own entry. It is an alternative term for the archipelago, but there are many others - "these Islands", "IONA", "UK and Ireland", "northwest European archipelago", "West European Isles", "Britain and Ireland", "Western Lands", "British Isles and Ireland", even "England" to some dumb tourists. Should each of these have an entry? Or should there be one entry for the archipelago that discusses all the alternative names in a section within it? That is the question to be answered. If we go down the one entry route, as I and WP:WINAD suggest, I would question the practicality of including each of these alternative names, and an explanation of their origin and use, in the intro--Stonemad GB 23:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC).[reply]

(This is rather long and bitty, so I've used separators. I beg your indulgence.)

Um. Verified? According to the discussion that's been going on the talk page, it's not verified at all. Despite the extravagant claims of academic use, library use, and so on, none of these references have materialised. There is one ballad on a webpage, with no corresponding printed reference (and bear in mind that all of the searches I list below would return hits for this ballad, were there any to find); there is an academic text that uses the phrase "Anglo-Celtic isles" (small i); there is a tourist's guidebook that uses the phrases "Anglo-Celtic cultures" several times and "Anglo-Celtic isles" once (again, small i). Use of the adjective Anglo-Celtic cannot be considered substantiation of the proper noun "Anglo-Celtic Isles", even if the noun attached to the adjective happens to be "isles".
Here's a summary of the research I've done to try and substantiate this term. Please note that my Cardiff Libraries subscription does not entitle me to view holdings of any Irish newspapers; perhaps one of the Irish editors could do a corresponding search?
All newspaper searches are from 1996 up to yesterday, except for the Times and Sunday Times which are from 1985 onwards.
I've searched the following resources with no hits whatsoever:
The following resources turned up hits using the phrase "Anglo-Celtic isles", small i:
  • The Times Digital Archive, 1785-1985 (1574 hits for the term "Anglo-Celtic"):
One hit, a letter from Julian Amery MP and others: "We would welcome any arrangement based on reciprocity which moved towards the reunion of the British or, if it be preferred, Anglo-Celtic isles." (Amery, Julian (1985-11-12). "Letters: Quid pro quo in an Irish setting". The Times. p. 15. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help))
One hit of three, which is the "Celtic Geographies" text already cited at Anglo-Celtic Isles.
The following resources turned up hits using the contested phrase "Anglo-Celtic Isles":
One hit, apparently a reader's letter: "WHAT should we call "These Islands"? asks Triona Carey (letter, 14 April). Would "the Anglo-Celtic Isles" be neutral enough? It is certainly a more accurate description than "the British Isles"." (Buttle, Paul (1998-04-16). "Letter: Name these islands". The Independent. p. 20.)
Two hits of three, both of which are from the same work, "Proceedings: Isle of Man Natural History and Antiquarian Society" (no ISSN or ISBN). Text visible on search is "Early Norwegian legal principles in the Anglo-Celtic Isles, including G ..." and "...the constitutional crises which were to rack Europe and the Anglo-Celtic Isles during the next quarter of a century."
I don't think I'm going to be able to do the EBSCO search - would someone more au fait with it like to have a go? Vashti 02:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anglo-Celtic_Isles&oldid=1254606248"