Talk:British Isles/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 → Archive 5

Not Common

After searching a great number of news sources vie Google for "British Isles" the "about" results are below it doesn’t look like the term is common at all, it be hard to argue that it's even common in the UK…

The more I look into this the more it comes apparent the term is mainly used by those who think accuracy is less important then convenience. This does not include news sources in general or at least their usage does not amount to common usage as the article suggests.

Like some of the links previously provided, many may not be using the term as to include Ireland or may be talking about history or historic groups from when Britain ruled Ireland…

Ireland

  • 38 from rte.ie
  • 2 from rte.ie/news
  • 16 from breakingnews.ie
  • 34 from ireland.com
  • 78 from unison.ie
  • 18 from irishexaminer.com

UK

  • 518 from guardian.co.uk (inc the Observer)
  • 393 from timesonline.co.uk
  • 64 from dailymail.co.uk
  • 938 from news.bbc.co.uk
  • 4 from express.co.uk
  • 17 from reuters.co.uk
  • 131 from scotsman.com
  • 30 from belfasttelegraph.co.uk
  • 11 from thesun.co.uk
  • 6 from sky.com

US

  • 211 from cnn.com
  • 12 from foxnews.com
  • 177 from nytimes.com
  • 31 from latimes.com
  • 100 from washingtonpost.com
  • 44 from economist.com
  • 41 from usatoday.com
  • 23 from reuters.com

Canada

  • 36 from canada.com
  • 47 from cbc.ca
  • 42 from theglobeandmail.com

Australia

  • 105 from news.com.au
  • 129 from smh.com.au
  • 172 from abc.net.au

Monucg 03:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

This is blatant nonsense. I'd say they were fairly respectable numbers of references anyway, and in any case it reflects only on the number of times people want to refer to the British Isles as a whole. Perhaps you should compare it to whatever you think the most common alternative name for the Isles is? --Khendon 07:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

It shows that unlike what the article says, the term is not “still commonly used”.

  • “and in any case it reflects only on the number of times people want to refer to the British Isles”

Commonly, it’s not used too much, so the term is not “still commonly used”.

For a term that is in dispute, the article at the very least shouldn’t have lines like “still commonly used” unless it make clear in what circles such is true or in what countries. It’s clearly not “still commonly used” in Ireland – can you at least agree with that? Can I have your permission to add such?

Monucg 19:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

It *is* still commonly used; whenever people want to talk about the British Isles, they overwhelmingly often call it the British Isles. I'd be happy with putting something in about where it's used, if it's carefully phrased. I think it's definitely commonly used in Britain, and I'd accept your word that it's not commonly used in Ireland, but what of the rest of the world? --Khendon 20:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is commonly used. You can hear it in almost any weather forecast for the region. Waggers 12:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
What channels use it in their weather forecast? Just UK ones? Even if so, what ones? Monucg 21:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
The term is very commonly used. I suspect the person who first raised this issue was an American! They never use the correct term and prefer to label the whole British Isles as simply 'England'.

The term is always used in Europe to refer to the group of island which include the UK, Ireland, Isle of Man and sometimes the Channel Islands also. How else would you describe these islands?

I just searched on Google for "British Isles" and found 10,600,000 hits. For comparison "Britain" has 35,500,000 hits. So the term British Isles is very commonly used across the Internet. EdH 18:52, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Negative reflection of Wikipedia

This is obviously an out-of-date, and outdated, term. In the first place and most importantly, it is now technical incorrect.

In general, it is no-longer generally, commercially, or academically used, and is a politically sensitive term for many in Ireland and Northern Ireland, and to others in Scotland and Wales.

It is considered a highly offensive term by many in both the North and South of Ireland. Those who support the term are often doing so because they are politically extremely polarised, or just polarised in historic argument to a small percentage of the people who dislike the term, while the general population has no affiliation with the name, and arguably never has.

The fact that greater focus is not giving to the fact the term is out-of-date (‘old and not useful or correct’ - cambridge.org) amounts to another very negative blur on Wikipedia. Wikipedia should be a dynamic factual international source, not one that has a place for relics of past British imperialism. The context of any ‘British Isles’ article should be historical

I’m changing “is a term traditionally given to”, to “is an out-of-date term, traditionally given to”. I’m doing this because it is an out-of-date term, and a term which is not factually correct. Edit: For clarity I have edited this to “is an out-of-date and now technical incorrect term, traditionally given to”.

Monucg 23:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

You're wrong. It's still commonly used, and is not factually incorrect. It is only incorrect if you interpret British Isles as a statement that the islands belong to the British, rather than a geographical description. --

Khendon 07:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Where in the world is it "still commonly used” and what is it used for (real examples, please)? For starters, it is not an accepted phrase in all of the so-called British Isles.

The majority of the first few pages of a Google search for ‘British Isles’, refers to groups or sources linking back to the days of the British Empire, OR refers to things concerning ‘Great Britain’ alone or the ‘United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland’. Geographical use is in the minority, and mainly from British sources.

"Geographical description", give over. Is English actually your first language? Can you not interpret an English language term in the way the language dictates? Geography is not like math, it does not have its own language that avoids the rules of English .

Monucg 19:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

MATHS not MATH. [By 80.229.137.53]


Looking into this further, I’ve found that the term has been effectively wiped from the official vocabulary of the governments in both the UK and the Irish Republic (although, it is still a legal term in the UK).

Monucg 19:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, commonly used. You might not like it to be, you might think it's terribly unfair, but wikipedia should reflect what is, not what you think ought to be. --

Khendon 20:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


I love the fact you avoid answering about the factually correctness of the term it is by English standards factually incorrect. That “is” was it is, factually incorrect, but you edited this from the article – why?

I'm sorry, I really can't understand that paragraph. --Khendon 16:56, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

You have also avoided my point that the vast majority of Google's first few pages for ‘British Isles’, refers items about the days of the British Empire, or refers to Britain and/or the UK (which does not include Ireland - just in case you don’t know, because your links aren’t much to go on…).

Some of them do, certainly, and others are contemporary. I'm not sure what your point is? --Khendon 16:56, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

So far the only thing you have proven that 'is', is school children in the UK, and the British Met Office use maps of Ireland and the UK with the name British Isles

Linking to the Botanical Society of the British Isles is pointless; it was set up in 1836, when the British state controlled my country.

So? If the phrase was no longer commonly used, I'd expect the name to change. --Khendon 16:56, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

The linked Defra page use of the British Isles is about “TRAVELLING WITHIN THE UK” - it does not refer to the Republic of Ireland

The BBC link is to a program aimed at British viewer. The site commonly talks about 'Britain’s', and ‘Britain’ on the site. If they mean both the UK and Ireland, calling Ireland part of ‘Britain’, and calling things belong to it/its people 'Britain’s' is wrong by Wikipedia’s standards – so that’s not a good source to make your point.

The directgov link is misleading at best “One way to look at this is that the UK is the part of the British Isles for which Parliament makes laws”… so, apparently the British Parliament still controls the Republic of Ireland. Another link not too heavy on accuracy.

Er, you completely misread that sentence. It's saying that the UK is the British Isles minus the bits where Parliament's authority doesn't run (ie, UK = British Isles minus RoI minus some other bits) --Khendon 16:56, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Your link named ‘Heriot-Watt University’, is misleading, the page is part of the personal site hosted by the university. The opening page reads “Everything beyond this page lies outside the responsibility of Heriot-Watt University”. But as you linked to it… the author says “Applying the term British, or any of its variants, to citizens of the republic is both incorrect politically and politically incorrect”, but linking the term British to the main island they inhabit is some-how fine. This is confused logic.

It's not at all confused logic. I make no claims about how "fine" the phrase is, only that is commonly used. --Khendon 16:56, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

You’re not good at research (dear god, don’t tell me you do it for a living), leading to being misleading and not good at what you term “what is”, ie fact. To be crude, your reply amounts to proving you are what you accused me of being.

You might have the right to revert my article edits, but you have no proven grounds.

Monucg 22:34, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't "research", it was five minutes spent finding sources showing that the phrase is still in common use. The very fact I didn't have to use more than a few pages of a couple of google searches to find plenty of examples of its use only supports my point. I could keep on finding more examples, but what would be the point?
Canada is part of North America, but Canadians aren't American; the Persian Gulf doesn't belong to the Persians; the British Isles don't belong to the British... but all these names are still used. That's because the implication you imagine is there doesn't really exist. --Khendon 16:56, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Monucg, please no personal attacks and whatever you think about "British Isles", "Irish Republic" is ***totally incorrect*** when referring to the Republic of Ireland. Djegan 19:06, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Djegan, if you are talking about my comment about Khendon not being good at research (based on his above research), it was not in “bad faith” and was not with any venom (never mind “sufficient venom”). It was an attack on the person’s research. But as you think I may have broked the rules, I'll take this on board and will try to be more careful in future. As for my use of "Irish Republic", I was meaning to use ‘the Irish republic’ (lc). Anyway, my use was in a discussion, unlike the article in question which uses an even more-so ***totally incorrect*** term.

  • “I'm sorry, I really can't understand that paragraph. --Khendon”

Sorry about that, here’s a fix… I love the fact you avoid answering about the factually correctness of the term, after all it is by English standards factually incorrect. It is not just “what [I] think ought to be” but you edited this from the article – why?


  • “Some of them do, certainly, and others are contemporary. I'm not sure what your point is? --Khendon”

My point is that out of the Google results the vast majority of pages refer to the term in ‘British Isles’ in a context of (A) history, and (B) not including the Republic of Ireland.

  • “So? If the phrase was no longer commonly used, I'd expect the name to change. --Khendon”

What “you think ought to be”, or what you “expect” of the Botanical Society of the British Isles, may be one thing or another, “but wikipedia should reflect what is”, not what you “expect”.


  • "Er, you completely misread that sentence. It's saying that the UK is the British Isles minus the bits where Parliament's authority doesn't run (ie, UK = British Isles minus RoI minus some other bits) --Khendon"

Yes, I misread it, sorry about that. You still haven’t answered my points on the Defra or the BBC links – can I take it you now don’t believe they support your case?

  • “It's not at all confused logic. I make no claims about how is, only that is commonly used. --Khendon”

By removing my statement in the article about the term being factually incorrect by English language standards you have inferred that the phrase is of "fine" quality.


  • “It wasn't "research", it was five minutes spent finding sources showing that the phrase is still in common use. --Khendon”

The amount of time spent does not alter the fact that it was research.


  • “The very fact I didn't have to use more than a few pages of a couple of google searches to find plenty of examples of its use only supports my point. I could keep on finding more examples, but what would be the point?” --Khendon”

Next time you could exclude items that only talk about the term in the context of the UK. You could possibly try to show that the term is commonly used in a non-historic way outside the UK. You could try not to link to peoples personal pages and use a university’s name in the link tag.


  • “Canada is part of North America, but Canadians aren't American; the Persian Gulf doesn't belong to the Persians; the British Isles don't belong to the British... but all these names are still used. That's because the implication you imagine is there doesn't really exist. --Khendon”

Nice flawed examples there…

Canadians are North Americans, but if you want to go by this site’s standards – “American may also refer to… a current or former resident of the Americas; a native of the Americas.

As for the Persian Gulf - Your point is? Is it relevant? It there still a state named Persia? Do the Persians still control “dependences”? Anyway, the ‘Persian Gulf’ implies the gulf belongs to the Persians, for one reason or another this term is in disputed. It is far worse to imply an island that is part occupied by one state to be owned by another.

Monucg 21:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

PS Hate to interrupt such a good argument, but the UK does include part of Ireland. It is commonly known as Northern Ireland, just in case you didn't know.

[By 80.229.137.53]

I've moved the above text and added "[By 80.229.137.53]", as where it was placed it looked like I said such.

In reply to the above comment, in the above we're talking about states, Ireland the state is not in the UK. Monucg 18:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


My mistake. I thought we were talking about the whole of the island of Ireland rather than just the Republic of Ireland, which is, of course, only part of the island. However, having scrolled through the reams and reams of discussion on this topic, I must make a point or two: Whether Irish people like it or not, the name British Isles has stuck, being used for both Great Britain and Ireland (Little Britain), as well as the many surrounding Isles. It is not the duty of Wikipedia to voice opinions over the name's suitability, rather to report that there are divided opinions over its use. [By 80.229.137.53] 17 Feb.

To add my two cents, I would say the British Isles is correct and accurate, and the nickname British for "people from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" is actually what is incorrect. Briton / Britannias & Britannea historically included Ireland (dating right back 2000 years) and it is only the use of the nickname "Briton" for people from the UK which has clouded the issue, in the same way that "Americans" is used as a nickname for people from the US and not people from Mexico. The British Isles will not change their name until the North American and South American continents change their name. Interesting this dispute is almost entirely an American one (where I mean US!) with the inhabitants I have spoken to throughout the British Isles being (on the whole) happy with the name British Isles. Rnt20 10:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

What are the British Isles?

Ireland is not part of the british isles!

There's already a Talk page for "Britain and Ireland" which covers this issue to some extent, but actually the discussion belongs here because "British Isles" is the term being objected to; "Britain and Ireland" was just suggested as an alternative.

To begin with, the term "British Isles" is the commonly used and accepted term which refers to the group of islands off the northwest coast of Europe which includes the islands of Great Britain and Ireland and the many smaller adjacent islands. As authorities for this one may cite, among many, many others: Merriam-Webster Geographical Dictionary, Houghton-Mifflin Dictionary of Geography, Oxford Dictionary of the World, Goode's World Atlas, National Geographic Atlas of the World, Rand McNalley Atlas of the World, de Blij and Muller's Geography: Realms, Regions and Concepts (authoritative college text), etc. etc.

The use of the term is not simply common, it is virtually universal, among geographers, cartographers, historians, news writers, travel writers, and ordinary people. In fact, if there is any alternative equivalent term in use, I have been unable to find it. If there were one, surely it would have appeared in Kearney's "The British Isles: A history of four nations"; I looked there and didn't see one.

Of course it is possible to use an explicit descriptive phrase, such as "Great Britain and Ireland and adjacent islands", but virtually no one does, for reasons that are obvious. It's just too cumbersome, and quite unnecessary because the convenient term "British Isles" is so well established and widely documented that its meaning is virtually certain to be clear.

Norman Davies overcame this problem, in the title of his book, by just calling them 'The Isles', however, while being uncontroversial it is a little problematic. If you were looking up the book on a library catalogue, how would you know which Isles were being referred to?

If I were Iceland I would be deeply concerned about this IONA business. --MichaelTinkler
Not to mention the Faeroes, Greenland, Newfoundland, Rhode Island, Long Island, etc. -- Derek Ross

I removed the following (twice):

although there are of course cases where this cannot be done while preserving the intended meaning.

It is clearly and unambiguously POV. It implies that there is a right and wrong meaning to the BI, and that there are occasions when it is right to use it. That is completely disputed by many people, not just in Ireland, but also by nationalists in Scotland and Wales. Many see it as a term that is a hangover from past imperial anglo-centric times. Such a POV sentence has no place in the article.

In addition, to suggest that BI has a geographical meaning is factually wrong. In other cases, terms like Iberia, etc can be accepted by the states on Iberia because it does not have any potential political implications. BI does, because it was a term first coined to refer to a set of islands that were not just geographically but politically bound together, hence it is not a geographic term (as whomever keeps adding in the POV stuff seems to think) but a geo-political term. It is seen by some as the equivalent of using the term former Soviet Union to describe those states in the geographic area that covers Russia and states that once were part of the USSR. Using such a term would be seen as provocative and offensive by ex-USSR states who had achieved their independence, just as indeed the term former Yugoslavia is viewed as offensive by some people in that region. British Isles is widely interpreted by some as meaning the islands of Britain. Ireland is not an island of Britain, it is an island off Britain, a different thing entirely. Because internationally it is often treated as meaning some sort of current political relationship between Ireland and GB, the term is not merely not used by Irish people but is seen as arrogant, offensive and presumptive. And it is not a simple geographic term but a geo-political term. FearÉIREANN 19:42 13 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are in error Jtdirl. The British Isles does not describe only the islands "off Britain" (though perhaps this description is used widely throughout the Republic of Ireland), and any such use is in error.
The term was created during the Iron Age to describe the collective peoples as they were known by the Greeks and the Romans, taken from the name of the bulk of the population that lived here - the Pretani (ie: the Pretannic Isles). The problem though, is the more modern use of the word "British" as a nationality. Therefore, while I can understand the percieved 'offense' at the use of the term, it is borne out of ignorance. Many people still think the term originated from the large tribe called Britons. --Mal 19:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
I doubt BI ... was a term first coined to refer to a set of islands that were ...politically bound together. There are maps on the internet (e.g. 1607) from well before the 1707 English-Scotish Act of Union that use the terms Britannicarun Insularum (Hibernia + Britannia major) or similar. I don't know Latin, but that sounds like BI to me. I don't dispute that BI has gathered some political implications since. Andy G 22:33 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)
In fact, I think it's the other way round: British was originally a neutral geographical term for all the islands but it has since been used politically to imply the UK. Hence the problems. Andy G 22:42 27 Jun 2003 (UTC. See Pliny on this.
That is simplistic. The states of Ireland and England were de-facto brought together when England claimed sovereignty in Ireland with the Treaty of Winsdor and the establishment of the english Lordship of Ireland in the 1170s. In 1541, the english King was proclaimed King of Ireland. Ireland was a nominally separate kingdom but was run by an english Lord Deputy and a parliament from which the native Irish were excluded and which was filled with the descendants of english settlers. Nobody from 1541 if not centuries earlier saw Ireland as anything other than an english colony. From October 1604 James I of England and Ireland and VI of Scotland claimed the title of King of the united kingdom of Great Britain. Its usage on those maps represented the fact that the three nominally independent states were all one political unit. Its usage clearly and unambiguously showed the political relationship, not just the geographic one, that bound the islands. Describing it as ever being a neutral geographical term is patently absurd and displays a serious lack of understanding of the history of the islands. FearÉIREANN 23:04 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)
In the above "to suggest that BI has a geographical meaning is factually wrong" seems at odds with all the other opinions expressed here. As most everybody writing on this page has said, BI is widely considered a geographical term. Some people may be sensitive to the possibility that BI may be interpreted in another, political, way. They have the right to prefer other terminology, and even to promote its use, as this page now unashamedly does. It is quite another thing to argue that the term "British Isles" was somehow invented by the English as a political slight to the islands' non-English occupants. There are many bad things in anglo-irish history: this term is not one of them.
Ireland was invaded and occupied by Normans in the 12th century, whose leader happened to be King of England (but not Scotland or Wales), although he rarely visited. When Henry II died, England had nothing any more to do with Ireland until its Lord, the Norman prince Jean, inherited the English throne in 1199. By this time, Ireland had been colonised by Normans, most of whom soon (to borrow a phrase) "went native" becoming "more Irish than the Irish". See History of Ireland and map.
The organised domination of Ireland by english rulers really started with Henry VIII, whose policies were of unbridled opposition to anything controlled by the Pope. The Norman-ancestry lords of Ireland at this time mainly opposed Henry and remained Roman Catholic. By Henry's time, mapmakers across Europe were already producing, and in some cases printing, maps entitled "British Isles" and it seems likely that the term originated some time earlier for it to have reached such wide acceptance. We have no empirical evidence that the term was originated or supported for political purposes at this time. When Ortelius etc. were making their maps, Great Britain was two separate kingdoms. Had there been an English political intention, a title such as the English Isles would have been a far more likely choice.
There may have been attempts after 1603 to promote the single identity of the combined kingdom on the big island, but this was long after the term British Isles was in widespread use. User:EdH 20:22 28 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Again simplistic and inaccurate. I never said that the term British Isles was unvented by the British. And you chronically underestimate the degree of English involvement in Ireland before Henry VIII. You mention Jean as Ireland's lord, inheriting the English throne. The reason he was called Lord of Ireland was that the territory was given to him by Henri II, who saw Ireland as part of his territories, it being given to him because he was up to that point the only one of Henri's sons without territories, hence his nickname. English rule in Ireland was perceived as legitimate on continental Europe and backed by the pope for centuries before Henry VIII. An all-island Irish state governed by a native polity did not exist and the Lordship of Ireland, then Kingdom of Ireland, was an english creation internationally accepted long before the first maps referred to the term British Isles. So to claim that the term was purely geographical is patently simplistic and inaccurate. Had their been some concept of Ireland as an independent island then it is quite probable as elsewhere that a term would have been used that was neutral rather than focused on the identity of the larger island. But because the smaller island was seen internationally as a colony of the larger (indeed the papacy had openly endorsed the right of England to rule over Ireland, though not to call the smaller island a 'kingdom' - which had to wait until Henry VIII broke with the papacy) it was perceived as reasonable to use a term that focused on the identity of the former, a term Great Brittaine being used by royal ordinance to describe the larger island in October 1604. FearÉIREANN 22:37 28 Jun 2003 (UTC)
(I have bought a copy of The Isles to educate myself.) I withdraw may original point. But part of my problem stemmed from the fact that the article launches straight into English-Irish-Scottish politics without mentioning the original usage of British: to describe the Brythonic Celts, of most of Great Britain and of Brittany ("Little Britain")(I didn't know that). I'm going to edit this in. The other point that needs clarifying is that British Isles was in use well before there was any central control over the whole of the archipelago (including Scotland), and before it was even claimed. It's pushed beck to "before Henry VIII" above. This was a time when Great Britain was uncontestedly two nations, England and Scotland.
A lot of what's been written leads to the expectation the islands might be called "The English Isles". Re-reading, it looks like "British Isles" was first used to imply two nations: England-including-Ireland and Scotland. Is that right? If so, the article just confuses things by mentioning English rule extended to Scotland in 1603.
I am reminded of the way in which The Netherlands have come two be known as "Holland" to English-speakers. I gather this is because the sea-trading peoples of the provinces of North and South Holland were those most likely to be encountered by Englishmen, and so that name was transferred in popular usage to the country from which they came - without, as far as I know, any political spin-doctoring to encourage it. Does this throw any light on the question? Andy G 12:31 29 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Good buy with Norman Davies' The Isles. One bit of advice, though. I was severely disappointed to notice some rather monumental errors in it. I get the impression that Norman sort of ran out of steam half way through or realised that what is was writing was getting to be too big (been there, done that when writing history!) so the second half seems to cover things in a lot less detail than the first and some almightly blunders crop up, such as suggesting that de Valera won the Irish civil war, which would have come as a suprise to him, given that he had given a 'dump' arms command to his defeated followers and finished the civil war in gaol. There are other blunders too. It is a fascinating and thought-provoking book (I reviewed it for a newspaper) and had to say that it was such a pity that easily correctable mistakes have undermined its credibility. Whether that was fault of Norman or his editors I don't know but it was a great pity.

BTW please don't think I am some Irish republican Brit-hater etc. Far far from it. (On another article I worked on I was called a British Tory by someone!) But because of the complexity of Anglo-Irish relations, Ireland was seen for most of the last millennium as a form of english colony and so all the islands were seen as secondary to the main island, and even on the main island, Scotland though an independent kingdom was seeen as secondary to the main major kingdom on the island, England. The fact that the Scottish kingdom was seen as so unstable, with coups, murdered monarchs, regencies, rebellious nobility, constant English invasions, etc helped project the image that it was a minor kingdom; the fact that its ex-queen, Mary Queen of Scots, could be help a prisoner for many years in England and than be executed showed the real nature of power on the island. That James VI when he inherited the throne went to London and never returned to Edinburgh, indeed that he chose to reign as James I of Great Brittaine from the English not Scottish capital is indicative of the power relationship on the island. So there was no more perceived need to acknowledge Ireland in the terminology used than there was to include the Isle of Man. As Britain was a term applied to the major island, and it was the source of power among all the islands of the archipelago, it was understandable that the whole group was called the British Isles. Put simply, you had a lot of islands, one main one, on which stood a minor kingdom and a major one. Geographic terms are not created in isolation but tend to reflect the generally accepted power basis at the time. (Hence the use of the word 'America' to refer to the US, even though all parts of the American continent should have equal ownership of the term.) FearÉIREANN 14:04 29 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I removed the following inaccurate addition:

Some writers may choose to avoid referring to the island group as a whole in order to avoid giving offense.

No they don't. They simply choose not to use a particular term to describe the island group which is seen by many to have geo-political implications and to imply a political relationship between the countries in the group that actually ceased to exist 81 years ago. An increasing number use a less potentially offensive term. They don't stop referring to the island group altogether. Why has someone a problem with simply accepting that there are potential problems with this term? Instead we are getting amendments that imply the term is OK. If there is a problem, it is with people who may take offence with it. That is blatenty POV. The problem rests with the term itself and what it potentially implies. People genuinely and understandably have a problem with a term that has inaccurate geo-political implications.FearÉIREANN 20:28 13 Jun 2003 (UTC)

(Presumably we should read the above as: ...the people who make the amendments think that if there is a problem, it is with people who may take offence with it... Andy G 12:20 6 Jul 2003 (UTC))

A late clarification about FearÉIREANN's comment above that "the fact that its ex-queen, Mary Queen of Scots, could be help a prisoner for many years in England and than be executed showed the real nature of power on the island" looks a non sequiter to me: Mary was overthrown, "abdicated" and had been imprisoned in Scotland for a year before she escaped and fled to her cousin who imprisoned her in England for 19 years before executing her, and the power struggle in Scotland meant only some wanted to restore her. When James VI also inherited the English thone his choice of London makes sense in terms of relative wealth and the need to build relationships in his new kingdom rather than a crude "power relationship". That's the problem with English-centred history - it's as much a political construct as geographical names are..dave souza 19:50, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in but i noticed a conversation you had on the British isles discussion page where you referred to the Book "The Isles" by Norman Davis. Can i recommend to you two books to you on Cornish history. Mark Stoyle "West Britons, Cornish identities in th early modern period" Philip Payton " Cornwall a history" Both excellent and place the Cornish in their rightful context as a distinct peoples of the Atlantic Archipelago. Fulub le Breton 6/02/05

Ortelius makes clear his understanding that England, Scotland and Ireland were politically nominally at least separate in 1570 by the full title of his map... which translates as "A description of England, Scotland and Ireland, or the British Isles".

Does this imply separation? Couldn't someone have produced a map with the same title in, say, 1850? Andy G 23:20 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

In cases where what is being referred to is the two largest islands, the term "Great Britain and Ireland" can be used. Of course, in those cases, the term "British Isles" would not be appropriate to begin with. There is no other brief term in common use to refer to the island group as a whole; "Great Britain, Ireland, and surrounding islands" gets at the basic meaning, but at the cost of conciseness

Is this not back to front? Surely the main islands are assumed to include their outlying islands unless you make it clear that's not what you intend. Great Britain and Ireland is a common substitute for The British Isles. To refer just to the two large islands you would surely have to say something like "the mainlands of Great Britain and Ireland". How would one describe the Geography of New Zealand? Andy G 23:20 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

213.84.6.203, you cannot keep expunging any mention of the Channel Islands simply because (like me) you don't think they ought to be considered part of the British Isles. It is not for Wikipedia to redefine English usage. If you can find an authorative reference that says that the Channel Isles are not part of the British Isles, then that can be mentioned in the article. However, I looked at this two years ago and could find no such reference, so I merely added a comment to the article pointing out that, geographically speaking, they don't really belong. (Unfortunately, someone has since removed this comment.) Note that the Jersey government website says that the Channel Islands are part of the British Isles, and the Guernsey government website also says that its islands form part of the British Isles. --Zundark 12:55, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Yes, politically they are, but geographicaly they are not. My reference is any atlas. The government of those two channel islands can claim they are part of it, but they simply are not. Many British are also saying that the UK is not part of Europe, but we all know that they are part of it. Same thing with Greenland, politically Europe, geographicaly North-America. The British Isles do not have any political meaning, so we should put it in a geographical context. 213.84.6.203 01:45, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Not true, PML. British Isles has both a geographical and a political meaning. FearÉIREANN 01:51, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

British Islands is used on Jersey passports (added to article). Andy G 23:52, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Why did you add it to this article rather than the British Islands article? By adding it here you have (incorrectly) implied that it means the same as British Isles. --Zundark 09:09, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
'Cos I'd not seen it. Updated and linked. Andy G 19:19, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Footnotes

The last two footnotes (textbooks.2 & used2.) refer to none of the footnotes, least of all "2". These footnotes are really hard to use (people need to open 2 broswers, or scroll up and down repetitively). It's best to incorporate them into the main body if at all possible. --Menchi 09:50, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Fixed numbering. Those two notes were both supposed to refer to the same footnote about Norman Davies and "The isles". The paragraph about mapmakers had a note number but the footnote had been deleted ages ago. See revisions of
  • 05:16, 14 Jun 2003
  • 13:50, 16 Nov 2003
  • 06:21, 2 Dec 2003
  • 08:35, 2 Dec 2003
Andy G 20:21, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

It is asserted that

the term was interpreted to mean that Ireland was still ruled by Britain or had British royalty as its head of state, most famously when Mikhail Gorbachev on an short Irish visit in the late 1980s presumed that Ireland still had the British Queen as its head of state, due to its membership of the 'British Isles'

I have removed this assertion because I don't believe it to be true. Please provide details and corroborating evidence from an independent reputable published source. EdH 04:00, May 25, 2004 (UTC)

It happened in a live press conference being broadcast and was witnessed by thousands. It has been mentioned in a number of books on the Haughey era. I'll look up some, but as one of those who witnessed the event I can confirm that it happened. FearÉIREANN 16:27, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)


I'm intrigued by the mention of Nancy Reagan's gaffe over the term 'British Isles' during a state visit to Ireland. What did she say or do?

---

History of the 'British Isles'

Does anyone think it would be a good idea to have a page called 'History of the British Isles' (or whatever term you want to use for Britain and Ireland)? There has been a huge trend for 'British Isles' histories in the last few years (Eg Norman Davies' The Isles as well many others.) This gives a different perspective than looking at the different countries separately by concentrating on the interactions between them.

It does sound rather a good idea, yes.
James F. (talk) 23:23, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)


The article says 'The term British Isles is no longer used in Irish state documents, has been abandoned in schoolbooks in the Republic of Ireland and is being phased out of textbooks'. What is the source which supports the idea that it ever was used by the Irish state and in Irish state documents? I'm 32, and I've never seen it. Moreover, I've never heard my parents or their parents use the expression.

Substitution of link (an apologetic self-defense!)

For the full Latin text of Pliny, I substituted the LacusCurtius page for that at the Latin Library; not because it was my own, but because I know that the text at Latin Library was copied from mine -- and here's the clincher -- unfortunately debasing it with various errors, mostly in the numbers (bars removed from over the numbers, so that distances in miles were turned into distances in feet!). Also, the text at Latin Library has not kept pace with the ongoing corrections of typos in the original, but typos continue to be caught and corrected on the Lacus site; so that the resource is better.

latest changes by an anon

I don't like that part about a mysterious ""early source" at all. Would you please state which source that is? That would help a lot to make the changes useful. Will some Expert for the British Isles have a look at it? Lady Tenar 22:29, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I appologize for that statement. I see that you have put much thought in your changes and i appreciate that very much. It was not nice to pick at you like that, sorry. I wrote it after some time of watching recent changes, i think that made me paranoid. Now i go away and leave this article to those who really know something about the matter, as you do. Lady Tenar 21:05, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • No mystery at all. It is the Life of Saint Columba by Adomnán of Iona written in the seventh century. Anyone familiar with early British and Irish history will know of it.
  • I just had a quick read through Gildas and the Letter and Confessio of Saint Patrick and they contain no collective term for the archipelago, neither do the Irish annals which were begun circa 550 as far as I remember. Everything else (Bede, "Nennius", Anglo-Saxon chronicle, etc) is later than the Life of Saint Columba so it does look as if the term "British Isles" had no currency in the archipelago until a quite late date. I think it would be useful if someone could come up with its first mention in a native source so we can see the context for its emergence. I suspect that it may be a political context. If so it would seem to knock the "its a geographical term so get over it" argument on the head 195.92.168.168 10:10, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Having had a good read through the arguments further up the page it seems that nobody has considered the "Britishification" that occurred in post-Norman England. The body of "King Arthur" was dug up at Glastonbury and a "Round Table" was put on display at Winchester, all of which added the aura of timeless "British" (ie: pre-English) legitimacy to what was a very recently established Norman monarchy. Contemporary romances portrayed Arthur as an imperial figure who held the Scots and Irish in subjection so what would be more natural than to have the post-Norman English kings press the suitably imperial term "British Isles" into service in support of their campaigns of conquest in Scotland and Ireland. I do not have the details handy, but I know that post-Norman Canterbury claimed dominion over the Irish church on the basis of similar unhistorical hokum 195.92.168.171 17:14, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • In view of the surprisingly late entry of the term into English (1621) it seems to me that there is very little to support the view that "British Isles" had any currency, except among classical geographers, their copyists the renaissance/later mapmakers and users of these maps. I think the article now needs to be recast to emphasise the unreliable nature of these classical geographers when describing far flung lands. It seems to me that the term "British Isles" was until modern times little different to "here be dogheads and griffons". I will leave things for a week or three to see if any discussion develops 195.92.168.178 20:22, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Developing discussion..

It seems to me that the terms Britannia or British Isles pre-existed as a mapmakers designation when James VI & I used "Great Britain" as a political construct to provide a shared (ancient) identity for his kingdoms, with the "local" use of "British Isles" following on from that construct. It would be interesting to know if the original formulation of "Great Britain" excluded Ireland. References to Three Kingdoms suggest autonomous countries united under his (autocratic) rule, with the terms no more indicating imposing subservience to a dominant country than "Europe" does today to most in the EU. The Irish confederate leadership sought agreement with Charles I in 1642, and in the Williamite war in Ireland James VII & II was accepted as king, suggesting that their quarrels were with policies rather than looking for a new monarch. This situation obviously differed in the 20th century with British becoming a nationality which Republican Irish felt opposed to, though well into this period they were referring to "cruel England" rather than Britain. It's not clear just when this objection to "British" started, but an encyclopedia should be wary of projecting current political correctness back onto the past. It is of course right that the current sensitivities should be recorded, but the use of "British Isles" for the archipelago is likely to remain in common use outside Eire for the foreseeable future. dave souza 01:41, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)


  • Where the article says " the term is no longer used in Irish state documents, has been abandoned in Irish schoolbooks and is being phased out of textbooks." does this mean the Republic of Ireland, or do these changes all apply to Northern Ireland as well?..dave souza 19:11, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Hey Dave. You have no idea what you're talking about! Irish people never ever considered themsleves British. We were Gaelic (Gaelach) or Irish. Brythonic Celts were considerd Britons which more or less relates to the Welsh and Cornish people today (and the Bretons too in Brittany but lets leave that aside). By the way you don't even know that 'Eire' is not another name for Ireland (or Republic of Ireland) in English! It would be the same as calling Scotland 'Alban', or Wales 'Cymru'. Eire, Cymru and Alban are only used when speaking in the Celtic languages. Your lack of knowledge in general about these matters seriously undermines your credibility. Sinead.


Dave, it's all quite muddled. First off, let me state this clearly as I suspect there may be confusion on this: Ireland did not just decide one day "Hey, let's do our own thing and call ourselves Irish, that British label is a bit passé". The identity of Irish was always there, (well for hundreds of years anyway, and the whole idea of nationhood is not a straightforward one). The point is that it Ireland was never British. Even when it was legally united with Britain it was as the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland". This was a legal/political construct, a union but not an identity. I'm pretty sure no-one ever thought of Ireland as "British" in its nature even then. A possession of Britain perhaps, but not British per se. In any case, it's certainly not the case now. Don't people get this? It's not a word or two were removed from some official documents, it's that the entire notion of being British was always rejected. Whw is there such a desire to lump them together anyway? There are actually very few situations when would really want to as far as I can see. Just what is the attachment to the term? And when there is a need, what's wrong with "Britain & Ireland"?? Paulc1001 18:30, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

B[r]ia

User:195.8.175.117 suggested

Bria ( standing for "BRitish and Irish Archipelago") with "Brihan" being the adjective to describe e.g. an inhabitant of Bria. This has the advantage of being concise,descriptive,politically inclusive and distinctive."

It would interesting to learn from residents of the Islands about its utility and euphony. It would be especially interesting to hear from citizens of the Republic of Ireland.User;Brihan)


When I lived in Dublin I noticed that people would say simply "these islands" to mean Britain and Ireland. The conversations were never specific enough to determine whether the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands were included in the term. One term I like (and that gets three whole Google hits!) is "Hiberno-British archipelago" --Angr 07:10, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Why is there such a desire to lump them together anyway? There are actually very few situations when would really want to as far as I can see. Just what is the attachment to the term? And when there is a need, what's wrong with "Britain & Ireland"?? I mean, is there a pressing need for a collective term for other 2 country pairs like the US and Mexico except "the US and Mexico". Yes, there is North America but specifically US & Mexico for instance? Also, "North America" seems to have no objectors that I've heard. "British Isles" has millions who can't simply be ignored. Paulc1001 18:36, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

(I've just added this to the list of Outstanding Problems). "Great Britain and Ireland" has the major problem that, if you just glance at it, or if you hear it read out, it's very easy to mistake it for "Great Britain and Northern Ireland", which is a common term for the UK specifically. So you have a real danger that the term for the two countries could very easily be interpreted as referring to only one, which would, hmm, cause more problems than it solves.
On a lighter note, I've just been doing some editing to the list of alternate names suggested; one mentioned North European Archipelago. The thought of telling Conservative backbenchers that not only were we to stop using the word British, we were to replace it with the word European... oh, wow, it's priceless. (This image may not be quite as funny to non UK residents) Shimgray | talk | 02:11, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

And what of Cornubia?

As usual there is no discussion of Cornwall and the Cornish. many maps up until 1600 showed Cornubia as a distinct region on a par if not with Scotia and Anglia then most definitely with Wallia. Not least of which would be Gerardus Mercator Atlas, see the "CORNWALL & WALES ("Cornewallia & Wallia") 1564"

Can i recommend two books for you edification on Cornish history "Cornwall a History" by Philip Payton of Exeter university. "West Britons, Cornish identities in the early modern period" by Mark Stoyle of South Hampton University.

Also why are no links given to works by Gildas or Geoffrey of Monmouth. If you are going to have links to the anglocentric pseudo historian Bede why not some for these two as well?

Also check these two websites.

Fulub le Breton

I think I miss your point—what of Cornubia? Why does it deserve special mention? It is currently identified as part of the United Kingdom, or England on a subnational level. Mercia and Wessex were also once subnational entities, they have no mention nor is there particular need to... --Oldak Quill 16:34, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Simply because the Cornish as a nation (many see themselves as such) still exist along with their language. Mercians and Wessaxons where Germanic peoples who developed into the English, nobody (almost) identifies themselves with these historic subnational entities. This is not the case for Cornwall and the Cornish. If there is no need to mention Cornwall then their is no need to mention Wales either. The Cornish are not a subnational element, they are a national element of a super national construction, the UK. Bretagne 44 15/3/05

What about Dispute over the name of the British Isles ?

There are already Dispute over the name of the Persian Gulf and Dispute over the name of the Sea of Japan articles. From what I've read here, it seems this geographical naming dispute probably merits it own article as well.--Pharos 19:58, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Excellent suggestion. The consistency of the naming doesn't single out this dispute in any way, perfectly N PoV. The link would be as at Dispute over the name of the Sea of Japan, perfectly plain, isolated for visibility, right at the bottom. --Wetman 20:18, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

How about Hiberno-British Isles?

Ed

Added comment Other possibilities would be: 

 Anglo-Celtic Isles

- Celtic Isles

- Atlantic Isles

How about the British just adjust to end of empire and quit their irredentist and jingoistic claims to Ireland? I have yet to meet an Irish person who views his/her country as being in the "British isles". It is the views of the Irish about their country that matter. And it is as simple as that.193.1.172.163

Links or sections on...

Flora and fauna, geology, langiuage, migration patterns, production/exports/imports, climate etc. Would be nice, as well as the extensive discussion over the term. Rich Farmbrough 11:15, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The term "Anglo-Irish Isles" is totally unacceptable as is the term "Anglo-Irish" in itself to refer to relations between the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom. The term "Anglo" clearly refers to England, yet there are Scots, Welsh and Irish in the United Kingdom also! "Brito-Hibernian Isles" might be alright but I have still to understand why we even need a single term to describe these islands.

And while we are on the subject, there are two other terms commonly used by the UK media that are perhaps just as bad as "British Isles" or even worse. Possibly even more patronising to Irish people is the use of "The Mainland" to refer to Britain when speaking of Ireland and the Six Counties in particular. The Six Counties of "Northern Ireland" are physically joined to the Irish mainland already!! There simply isn't any need for this term. The supposition being that Ireland is not a distinct nation but another of the "British Isles" lying off "The Mainland"!!

In sporting events, the UK media loves to report on the progress of the "Home Nations" and of course they must include Ireland in these "Home Nations" of theirs! Ireland is not one of the UK's "Home Nations" but a seperate people with its own language and history!!

Alan, Dublin.

There are plenty of people in the "Six Counties" of Northern Ireland who happily refer to Great Britain as "the mainland". Regards the Republic being a "Home Nation", while I would be inclined to agree, there are large numbers of Irish people in Britain who might appreciate the extra attention the Republic's teams get in contrast with "foreign" sides. Beano ni

Ireland not part of Britiish Isles

Sorry, but it's just not correct or acceptable to include Ireland in the British Isles; or more relevantly to use use the term British Isles to include Ireland. This really is not a matter of debate, it is simply NOT just a geographical term.

How about if we just start calling the English Channel "La Manche"? The point is that these are not just simple and neutral "geographic" terms.

Paulc1001 23:17, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes it is. Adam 00:13, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Ireland is not part of Britain, but it is part of the British Isles. The term "British Isles" is a geographical one, like the English Channel or Irish Sea, and does not connote ownership. --Jonathan Drain 19:07, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[1]
Agreed. "British Isles" is purely geographical. Ireland is as much part of the British Isles as Canada is part of North America. It doesn't imply any political "belonging" of ROI to the UK, any more than saying "Canada is in North America" implies "Canada is part of the USA". Any encyclopedia worth its keep will recognise the British Isles as including (the island of) Eire. Waggers 12:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Canada is, of course, on the continent of North America. Ireland is not on the island of Britain. Ireland is as much in the 'British Isles' as Britain is in the 'Irish Isles'. Saying Ireland is in the British Isles is like saying that Portugal is on the 'Spanish Peninsula'. The only reason the name has become the Geographical name and has stuck is because of British influence on world affairs during the 19th century. The Irish were never consulted and I think they have a right to complain.

The term "British Isles" long predated the British state. Indeed, that's why the English chose the word "British" to describe themselves, when they annexed Scotland, because it was a pre-existing term. As a student of Anglo-Saxon history, I find the terms British and English mutually exclusive. TharkunColl 00:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

- Indeed the term 'British' predated the British state. It was the Roman term (Brittania) for the island of Scotland, Wales and England. Ireland was never a part of Brittania, Ireland had its own name; Hibernia.

If you had read the article you would have discovered that Ireland was part of the British Isles, even during Roman times. TharkunColl 00:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

How about if we just start calling the English Channel "La Manche"? The point is that these are not just simple and neutral "geographic" terms.

If you are speaking in French you should call the English Channel la Manche. Similarly, in English the name of the archipelago is British Isles. What's its name in Irish? Markus Schmaus 00:21, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

changes by 83.70.231.14, November 11, 2005

I have reverted these changes to the previous version. I will explain why. First off, it's not that I think the previous version is very good either. However, thses changes were too much even for me, and I'm usually very vociferous on this subject. While I understand the motivation (I loathe this term also), it's both over the top in tone and complexity, and also just wrong. As far as I'm aware the term British Isles was not a formal legal term, so nothing magic happened in 1922 with Irish Independence. It's simply not true that the term magically disappeared then as many people do use it since then. What is at issue is its correctness and acceptability, not that it exists. This article is a mess, the introduction especially is just so badly written and convoluted. I am strongly tempted to revert to an earlier version I wrote, which I felt was clear and simple, but balanced in tone. Paulc1001 08:51, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


The term is outdated and should be confined to history at this stage, just like the term British Empire. Stop using it! Ireland is not part of the British Isles. That is official. Ireland stopped using the term from 1922 (but obviously Northern Ireland unionists love and embrace the term). Ask the Irish Government if you are in any doubt about this. Contact the Department of Foreign Affairs in Ireland. Serious thought and study went into this, with scholars from Geography and History Departments in Irish Universities, to determine the historical usage of the term, and it was found to be merely a hangover from British colonial days. There is no equivalent term in the Irish language and there is no mention of it in any manuscripts or books from Ireland. We may as well start calling England part of the Roman Empire if we are to follow your logic!

This anonymous user is talking politically. Geographically, the British Isles are all the islands off the north-west coast of Europe. That includes Ireland. Hence I have reverted this user's changes. Stephenb (Talk) 18:30, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
At the risk of being pedantic, that definition could include Iceland - however, the phrase "Islands of North Atlantic" is even more flawed in that regard. (I've heard suggested as an alternative to "British Isles" without the political connotations.) Autarch 14:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

It has nothing whatsoever to do with politics, but history and culture. Geographically Ireland is NOT part of the British Isles. Your ignorance on this matter is breathtaking. Have you ever been to Ireland? Have you ever studied the origin of the term? Before British political influence over Ireland the term didn't exist in the English or Celtic languages. It is you and your kind that continue to make it political, can't you even see that? Sinead

By the way Stephenb your use of the term British Isles sounds truly from the 19th Century so forgive me if you are over 100 years old. Your view is just that, a view, whereas the position I stated is factual, and has the backing of the Government of Ireland, so there can be no debate on the matter. Simple as that. Any gripes you have bring it up with the Department of Foreign Affairs of Ireland. Join with us in the 21st Century. There are millions of Irish people living in Britain and a million British people living on the island of Ireland. Dropping the historic British Empire era term British Isles doesn't diminish the Britishness of the British in Northern Ireland, but more accurately reflects the true historic and cultural use of the term British (encompassing Great Britain and Brittany), relating to the Brythonic Celts. Whether the people of Britain choose to drop the use of the term British to satisfy the Scots, Welsh and Cornish in a political sense is a matter for the British. Ireland has stated it's case on it's geographical description - it is Ireland, and is not part of the British Isles.

I am quite bemused. Going through the reference sources I have to hand - Whitakers 2004 classes features of the Republic as in the British Isles. Pears 2004 (K25) -
British Is., archipelago, N.W. Europe; comprising 2 lge. Is. of Great Britain and Ireland and 5,000 sm. Is.
the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language:
A group of islands off the northwest coast of Europe comprising Great Britain, Ireland, and adjacent smaller islands.
The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition:
The islands of Great Britain and Ireland and a number of smaller islands off their coasts
(For some reason, my OED does not contain "British Isles". I really must get a full-size edition)
It is true that the government of the Republic avoids using the term, but this does not mean it is wrong - it is simply quite similar to the use of "American" by the United States. The Canadian government does not normally talk about "being in America", because it would get confusing and have unfortunate political overtones, even though it is geographically accurate; it's much the same case here.
Do you have a citation for the Irish government explicitly stating they do not consider Ireland part of the British Isles, or are you simply inferring this from their not using the term? Shimgray | talk | 19:36, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


In terms of geography, the British Isles is a description of an archipelago that consists a series of islands, the principal ones of which are Britain and Ireland. Politically they were also a unit. That ceased in 1922. The article has to cover both the Geographic and political understandings of the term. The anonymous contributor is mistaken in his understanding of Iveagh House's views on the issue and mixing up the geopolitical, the geographic and the political. One of those still applies and defines Ireland as part of the geographic unit, the British Isles. Ireland rightly does not use the term because of the confusion it engenders. But not using it is not the same as it not existing in its geographic content. There are however moves to arrange a common name for the archipelago, possibly the Anglo-Irish Archipelago. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 19:49, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


It's not similar to America and USA. America was a person (Amerigo from Spain I think), does not signify a race occupying the continent, both North and South. Whereas 'British' related originally to the Brythonic Celts of Britain, not the Goidelic Celts of Ireland. 'British and Gaelic Isles' is most correct I suppose in that historic sense, but Anglo-Celtic is probably the best term in the modern situation. The term 'British' was later 'hijacked' in a sense by the English, but that's another matter.

The Irish Government explicitly answered this question again in mid 1990s, it's final definitive answer. They confirmed that Ireland was NOT part of the British Isles and requested the term to be dropped. Some foreign TV stations such as French language TV5 stopped using the term 'Les Isles Britannique' around that time. But ignorance remains, it will take time to phase out it's usage. It was Dick Spring, Minister of Foreign Affairs who made the statement around 1995 I think. I will look for a link to the formal release.

I think the anonymous contributor (Sinead?) is thinking of the term "British" meaning "British-owned" or "British-inhabited", which is a political interpretation not a strictly geographical one. Most other people simply accept that the group of islands should have a name, and since the biggest island in the archipelego is "Great Britain" (whether or not this relates to Brittany is largely a historical naming irrelevancy), then British Isles is quite appropriate (and by far the most common). I don't think anyone is saying that "British Isles" means that Ireland is in any way governed or even inhabited by anone other than the Irish (nor do I personally want it to be). By saying that Ireland is not part of the British Isles, would you also say they are not part of the archipelego (i.e. denying Ireland its geographical place)? Perhaps it should be anchored off Australia instead (joke) :-) My argument is not political, merely common-sense geographical nomenclature; I have no interest in the history of the term, just that is the common usage today and therefore belongs in an encyclopaedia of today. Stephenb (Talk) 20:23, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, subject to the proviso that the article must make clear that its usage is controversial and found offensive by millions living on the archipelago and for that reason is no longer used in official documents in any of the states on the archipelago and is has also been dropped from usage by many media outlets. I understand from contacts (though as it is primary research it can't go into the article) that there is agreement at the highest level among the various governments on the archipelago to axe the term; geographers too have agreed to axe it. They simply have not agreed yet on the replacement term, but British Isles as a term has effectively been binned. It is just that no-one has emptied the bin yet! FearÉIREANN\(caint) 20:35, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

'but British Isles as a term has effectively been binned'
What? When did this happen? I must have missed this. Can someone point me to a source for this? Dbnull 20:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Stephenb, just because it says so in an encyclopedia doesn't mean it's correct! The term is still in use by some, but the general trend is for the burying of this archaic term. Names of countries and cities across the globe are being 'de-colonialised', such as Mumbai, Beijing, Myanmar and so on. Politically motivated 'geographical' terms are not immune to this trend. 'British Isles' is on the way out. Spread the word! Sinead

Sinead, "just because it says so in an encyclopedia doesn't mean it's correct" - in fact, you're reversing what I said - my belief is that, because it's in common use, it deserves to be in an encyclopaedia, not the other way around. Nor do I claim it to be "correct". I agree that some people find the term contraversial, and have no problems with there being a trend to change it (or saying this in the article itself), but the fact remains that an encyclopaedia chronicles current information (how the world is), not how (some) authors or publishers believe the world should be. Currently, it is the common term for the archipeligo, and that includes Ireland. By all means, spread the word and get it changed, but inaccurately editing an encyclopaedia is not the place to do this! Stephenb (Talk) 16:23, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Stephenb, "Currently, it is the common term for the archipeligo, and that includes Ireland". Common term where? Not in Ireland! Not generally accepted or used on one of the two major islands. Never was used by the natives in Ireland - it would be an absurd idea for people in Ireland to use this term, especially in Gaelic times up until 1600. Not accepted officially by the modern Irish state. The only reason people outside Ireland use it is because the much more powerful British state have skewed and have written their version of the history and coined the terms to suit themselves. It's a very Anglocentric term, quite obviously. Subtle propaganda. Naturally the world was being told for centuries that Ireland was part of the British Isles but the climate has changed now, old British Empire terms have to be phased out. Personally I have always found the term annoying and offensive, and have only ever heard it from outside of Ireland, never within. So, the term is only commonly used as you say outside of Ireland. Doesn't one of the two islands have more of a say than the rest of the world? If Britain wants a term, well that's for them to decide. If Ireland is to be included we have to be consulted. Ireland isn't imposing 'Talamh an Eisc' on Newfoundland, or 'An tIorua' on Norway, though these are the old names we use in Irish. It is up to the people in each land to name or change their islands etc. Siam is now Thailand. Burma is now Myanmar. Also applies to geagraphical terms. Sinead

"Subtle propaganda" - sigh, I'm rather fed up with you accusing me of being political, when this is not the case. Ireland may not use the term "British Isles" but unfortunately, this encyclopaedia is not just for the people in Ireland. "Doesn't one of the two islands have more of a say than the rest of the world?" - not necessarily, no. You do make a very good case that the term shouldn't be in common usage - by all means make that case in the article or another article, but the encyclopadia should reflect current terminology - but the fact remains that most of the English-speaking world uses the term "British Isles" to include the island of Ireland, and therefore the article should reflect that. Now, I shan't respond to your political accusations further - please find a more appropriate place to argue them. Stephenb (Talk) 10:45, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Well put Sinead. It's quite incredible how otherwise intelligent people simply cannot grasp that there may be no such thing as a "purely geographical" name. A name is always coined by someone and reflects someone's point of view in *some* way. Is this so difficult to understand? I suspect it would be very rapidly grasped if the positions were reversed. Shall we rename the article on the English Channel to La Manche? Why not, it's a commonly used "geographical term"! Shall we describe Britain as an Island off France? Of course not! Some people also seem to fail to understand that the term British Isles is not just incorrect but also offensive. It's not to disparage being British (please read that carefully!!), it's merely to reflect that Ireland is NOT a "British Isle". The terms exists, fair enough, let's discuss its existence and usage, but in a way that clearly reflects it is not a universal term and should be deprecated. In fairness, I find most who use it agree it to be outmoded and undesirable once made aware of the issues. Wibblywobbly 12:10, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Ireland is not a British isle. (well, parts of it are). It is, however, a British Isle. There is a small but subtle difference; the former is an island that is part of Britain, the latter an island that is part of the British Isles. (Compare "American state", a term which can mean Guatemala or Georgia, but rarely both) Shimgray | talk | 12:40, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Shimgray, no offence but your analogy is misplaced and not directly relevant. You illustrate this yourself by saying "American State" is never reallt used for Guatemala. The difference is that "British Isles" is used a lot and is apparently even the default term for many, which is precisly what causes offence. If it was an occasional term it might not cause a problem; the debate is precisely because it is posited as the "standard" or default term. Wibblywobbly 14:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure I follow you - no-one ever goes around calling Ireland a "British (I/i)sle", either! The plurals of both are common - in "the British Isles", or in such uses as the OAS - and in standard use. Wikipedia describes usage, it does not sek to shape it. Shimgray | talk | 14:46, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Oh dear. By being literal, you miss the real point. That's exactly what they do go around calling it! By including Ireland in the "British Isles" there is a clear implication that Ireland is (British|a British Isle). How is that difficult to follow? I presume we're all ok with what an adjective is, yes? Yes, Wikipedia describes usage; a full description of the usage of this term would clearly describe the associated problems and how the usage has changed or is changing. The article (as I would write it) fully acknowledges this. Where's the problem? Language and usage change. In 1770, a common name for a large part of what is now the USA was "The Colonies". Will we continue to use that term forever?? Of course not. Yes, we may refer to the term, even use it in screenplays of historical films, or use it humorously or ironically. We do not, however, posit it as the correct or common name for the US. The fact remains, the term is not universal and is not neutral and is not simply geographical. What part of that don't people understand?? As I observe above, people would understand it rather quickly if the postions were reversed. Wibblywobbly 14:58, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Language and usage might change, but it hasn't yet. The British Isles is still easily the most common name for the group of islands; wikipedia has to follow that convention, not try and lead a shift in usage to something more politically palatable. --Khendon 20:29, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
You miss the point spectacularly. Do try to actually read what was written. Just a suggestion... Paulc1001 22:16, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
I've read what is written, thanks, and it still looks to me as if people are confusing "is" and "ought to be". --Khendon 07:44, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Ah sure if it isn't a political term lets rename it the 'Irish Isles' reflecting those islands surrounding the Irish Sea. Makes perfect sense to me and would have been the name probably if Ireland had won the wars. Now do you guys get it? If it were Irish Isles would you find it strange? Would you object? (I'm assuming you are British which may not be the case, but you get the point). By the way Irish Sea is an Anglocentric term too in reality, not that I object to it, it's not a nation, but it reflects the sea to Ireland from England's perspective. If Ireland was the dominant nation it would have been called the British Sea most likely. We can swap if you like, haha! Irish Isles for British Sea. I'm joking to illustrate the sillyness of it all. Sinead

Shimgray, the British isle vs Isle(s) nonsense is just ridiculous and not worthy of a serious reply. Sinead

Apologists of the term "British Isles" maintain that it has ancient origins, something to do with Ptolemy calling Ireland and Britain the "Pretannic Isles" on some map or other, completely ignoring the fact that the knowledge of the world in Ancient Greece was in many ways as patchy as our own knowledge of the surface of Titan in our own time. If Ptolemy was referring to the peoples who spoke the British Celtic language, or Prythonic language of England, Wales and southern Scotland then he was, for the most part, correct in speaking of the "Pretannic Isles" but there is no concrete evidence to suggest that this Prythonic Celtic was spoken in Ireland.

The simple fact of the matter is that the term is both politically and geographically incorrect. The idea that "British Isles" is merely a geographical term is utter nonsense. "British Isles" is an extremely jingoistic, Victorian and imperialistic term. It is immaterial that most people in Britain use it as a "harmless" geographical term. As an Irish person, I find it deeply offensive. I live in the sovereign Republic of Ireland not in just another "British isle".

The adjective "British" refers exclusively to the island of Great Britain, however, in the absence of a satisfactory term for the United Kingdom and its people as a whole, "British" is used widely to describe the people, government etc. of the United Kingdom. The term "Ukonian" has been put forward in the past as a possible alternative term to "British" when referring to the United Kingdom. There is absolutely nothing wrong with using "British" when the term is used correctly, to describe the people, cultures, geography etc. of Britain, which is an island composed of Scotland, England and Wales. This has already been officially acknowledged by the United Kingdom state in its own official title; The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. If Northern Ireland were just another part of Great Britain there simply wouldn't be any need to mention it in the official title of the state.

There simply isn't any need for the term "British Isles" anyway. Can someone explain to me what exactly is wrong with the term "Britain and Ireland" or "Ireland and Britain"?? One does not refer to the Iberian Peninsula as the "Spanish Peninsula" nor to peninsular Scandinavia as the "Swedish Peninsula" nor to Corsica and Sardinia as the "Sardinian Isles", yet it seems to be perfectly acceptable to speak of Ireland and Britain as the "British Isles"!

The twenty-six county Republic of Ireland has been an independent state for almost eighty four years now, yet the British media continue to bandy this term about as though the sovereignty of this state were non-existent! It is most interesting that of the main stream British broadcasters, Sky News is the only television channel, as far as I know, which has a clear policy of not using the term British Isles in any of its reports. All weather reporters speak of "Britain and Ireland" and I've yet to hear "British Isles" on Sky News. If only this were the case for the BBC, ITV etc.

If, as apologists claim, "British Isles" is merely a geographical term, devoid of any political overtones, then does it follow that Ireland is a "British isle", that, therefore, its cities and towns are "British" cities and towns, indeed, can, therefore, people who inhabit those towns and cities be accurately described as "British" people? It is when one starts to evaluate the term in these terms, that any defence of the term begins to fall to bits.

To those who say that most of the main political parties, including the nationalist ones, raise no objections to the term, I say this: the vast majority of people in Ireland never ever use the term "British Isles" and find it repugnant. The fact that more people are not more vocal about this is that most people feel that nothing can be done about it, that the British media have been let away with this for years and can effectively use any terminology they like when referring to this state. Politicians are no different. "British Isles" is, indeed, an informal term but that does not make it any less inaccurate or patronising to Irish people.

A further argument commonly made is that Scottish or Welsh or Cornish nationalists occaisionally get hot under the collar about the term British, yet, the use of British to refer to Scotland, Wales or Cornwall is at least geographically correct. All three are physically joined to Britain unlike Ireland which is seperated from Britain by the Irish Sea.

The only fair and decent alternative to "British Isles" is "Britain and Ireland" or "These Islands". Neither side of the political fence in Ireland could possibly object to this!!

Alan, Dublin, Ireland.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ulster"

"Great Britain and Ireland" would be more appropriate than "Britain and Ireland", as Britain (without the Great) is, in common usage at least, simply a substitute for the United Kingdom rather than the island of Great Britain. Beano ni

Beano is right, Britain refers to the country; Great Britain is the island. But "Great Britain and Ireland" is not a suitable substitute for "the British Isles" as the former only refers to the biggest two islands in the group. The only term in widespread use for the whole group of islands is "the British Isles". Waggers 09:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Cornubia

Mercator produced CORNWALL & WALES ("Cornewallia & Wallia") in 1564:[2] [3]

Sebastian Munster produced maps depicting Cornwall as a distinct region of Britain in 1538, 1540, and 1550. [4]

George Lily produced a map showing Cornubia in 1556.

Girolamo Ruscelli did the same in 1561 portraying Cornubia alongside Anglia, Wallia and Scotia.

Johannes Honter followed this trend in 1561.

Humphrey Lhuyd and Abraham Ortelius produced Angliae Regni Florentissimi Nova Descripto in 1573, this showed Cornwall and Wales as distinct regions of England, however Cornwall was not portrayed as an English county. This map was re used in 1595 at about the same time that Norden produced the map of the Duchy (not county) of Cornwall.

From about 1600 things change the Mare Brittanica and the Celtic sea become the English Channel and Bristol/St Georges Channel respectively. At this time Cornwall also seems to become an English county. Why, there is no record of an act of union or annexation of Cornwall?

Bretagne 44 16:00, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

British Isles (terminology)

From Talk:British_Isles_(terminology)#British_Isles_.3D_Redundant.

Is is just my imagination or would one article suffice? I think one article would be better than two articles as the British Isles (terminology) article is essentially a disambiguation that has become a dumping ground for the "heavy" material and a kind of Politics and geography of the British Isles that is an uneccessary rehash of what this article should be. Djegan 20:53, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Celts in Britain and Ireland ... where?

"The inhabitants of the British Isles in classical times were the Celtic Bruthin or Priteni, later known as the "Brythons", who were in Great Britain and Ireland some time before the 5th century BC"

Now look, that's flat out wrong, and there is no evidence whatsoever that the Celts were ever the predominant population of either island at any time in our history. So along those lines I'm going to rewrite this section. Fergananim 19:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Infact, modern athropology has proven that the Celts did not invade Ireland or Britain on mass and that the inhabitants of both islands today are primarily descendant of Stone Ages poulations. For more information, see haplogroup R1B.

Offensive to Scottish and Welsh people?

Can anybody substantiate the claim that the "British Isles" is offensive to Scottish and Welsh people? I've never heard of that being the case, and it's a bit bonkers since Scotland and Wales definitely *are* part of Britain. --Khendon 20:21, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I didn't add in the mention but I know I have been told by Scottish nationalists that they find it offensive. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 21:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but no-one in Scotland or Wales finds the term offensive or at least if they do they must be a pretty small minority. Scotland and Wales are both part of the island of Great Britain and the thing below about the Scots not being descended from the ancient Britons is also wrong - lowland Scotland, always the most populous part was, divided up between Brythonic tribes such as the Dumnonii and Votadini and later the Brythonic kingdoms of Strathclyde and Gododdin. The fact that so many placenames in Southern Scotland have Brythonic elements - Lanark, Carstairs, and that its largest city Glasgow has a name that ultimately derives from Brythonic Glas Cau and its capital Edinburgh's name comes from an ancient Anglicisation of the Brythonic Dinas Eidyn is also evidence against this. The Picts (who probably spoke a language very closely related to Brythonic) were only one ethnic group in the territory that would become Scotland which would lately be as much Germanic culturally as Celtic anyway. In any case Scotland and Wales are part of the island of Great Britain and would only stop being British if continental drift moved them off into the Atlantic. I think this question probably springs from the widespread confusions arising to the exact meanings of England/English and Britain/British which are not the same thing? 82.2.118.2

The word Britain originates from the territory concerned with the ancient British culture. This culture was seperate to that of the Picts, and was confined to the southern two third of what we now call the Island of Britain. As a result, many Scots do not regard themselves as British because their ancestry is not British. Same logic applies to the Irish.

In acestral terms, the Welsh, Cronish and Bretons are more British that the English.

BBC: English and Welsh are races appart

But please do note that this article over simplifies things and that the English are infact more British than Anglo-Saxon in terms of ancestry.

Rosser et al. "Y-chromosomal diversity in Europe is clinal and influenced primarily by geography, rather than by language.", Am J Hum Genet. 2000 Dec;67(6):1376-81.

Polzsa 21:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

The map

Let's assume that the correct and neutral name for this group of islands remains "British Isles", until such a time as a new name is agreed upon by the involved parties/governments/language governing bodies (whether "Bria" or "Hiberno-British Isles" or "Anglo-Celtic Island" or "Atlantic Islands" as suggested further up on this talk page). Are the Channel Islands included in this geographic region? Other sources state that their alternative name is Anglo-Normannic Islands and that they are not located within the British Isles, but rather lie deep in the Gulf of Saint Malo ("Malvinian Bay") between the Cotentin Peninsula and Britanny. Moreover, the map intended to illustrate the extent of the British Isles depicts only some of the islands mentioned in the text, notably omitting the Shetlands and the Isles of Scilly. Should this omission be taken to reflect on correct usage and meaning of the term? //Big Adamsky 21:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the numbered map. Apart from being Big and Ugly, it excludes Shetland and the Channel Islands, and does not label the Isle of Man. And four maps is too many. Though personally I don't miss the Scilly Isles. An improved version could replace the cities map. Joestynes 01:01, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Well if the map of the islands should go so should the map of the cities as it does not show all of the cities, no its point of view. Incidentially that "big and ugly" map was mine. Djegan 18:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

And again

The Republic of Ireland has not been part of the British Isles since 1922, i am not sure why people have an issue with this. There seems to be no problem with every other country in the world who have acheived independance from the British Empire so why not Ireland?? The British Isles is a term to describe the lands that make up Great Britain, Ireland is not in Great Britain.

You Cannot just use geography as an argument for this, a nations history come into play also, Is Portugal part of the spanish peninsula? Is Cananda a state of the USA? I will be editing this article in a few days to show that Ireland was part of the British Isles until 1922 when she became a nation of her own and claimed independance from Britain. If anyone has an issue with this then you have a chance to respond but be prepared to back up your arguments as to why Ireland is in the British Isles. --Murphyweb 07:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The arguments have been repeated time and again on this talk page. Wouldn't it be easier to read them rather than have somebody type them out again? --Khendon 07:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
The equivalent of "Canada is not a state of the US" is "The Republic is not part of the United Kingdom", which no-one disputes. Saying "The Republic is not part of the British Isles" is equivalent to "Canada is not part of North America". Please consider your analogies - or, as the man says, read the page - before stating them as fact. To the best of my knowledge, the physical geography of Europe did not change in 1922; the "British Isles" is a physical group with a political name, not a political group.
(PS: Portugal is part of the Iberian Peninsula. Iberia is an archaic name for an area vaguely corresponding to modern Spain. I don't believe the Portugese get upset over this) Shimgray | talk | 21:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
"The Republic of Ireland has not been part of the British Isles since 1922" - not true. The Republic of Ireland has not been part of the United Kingdom since 1922. The UK is a political entity, the British Isles is a purely geographical one; they are not the same thing! Unless some great earthquake that we don't know about has moved the lump of land occupied by the Republic of Ireland to a different part of the planet, the Republic of Ireland is still contained within the British Isles. Waggers 12:14, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Tag

Why the unverified and original research tag? Robdurbar 18:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm guessing the "Alternative terms" section, which reads like an "add your suggestion here" section. The only 2 I've seen used unselfconsciously in Ireland are not listed: "these islands" (common in The Irish Times; not "these Isles") and "Britain and Ireland" (very different from "Great Britain and Ireland") Joestynes 19:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Well if its for that I think I'll remove the tag - all these terms are used and a sources provided Robdurbar 09:17, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Poll: Ireland article titles

A poll is currently underway to determine the rendition of the island, nation-state, and disambiguation articles/titles for Ireland in Wp. Please weigh in! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 08:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:British_Isles/Archive_1&oldid=1053811785"