Talk:British Isles

Irrelevant archaic colonial era terminology

This discussion is going nowhere. If someone thinks the article should be moved to some other title, they can open a move request, ideally with their suggested alternative and with reasoning based on our article title policy. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 16:02, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Seriously guys wtf? Today the term British isles is no more than an archaic colonial era "geographical" term which has no relevance today and belongs in the dustbin of history The earliest known use of the phrase Brytish Iles in the English language is dated 1577 in a work by John Dee, who used it to promote the colonisation of Ireland. Dee also the same individual who came up with the term the "British Empire" It's really little wonder that Wikipedia is considered a totally unreliable source of information, when articles like this try to legitimise bs colonial era "geographical" terminology 31.187.2.224 (talk) 10:03, 10 July 2024 (UTC) Seriously? Are you unable to recognise the difference between geography and politics? We use the terms that are in common use, not a desired political motivated wish. The Banner talk 10:25, 10 July 2024 (UTC) And are seriously unable to comprehend that it's by definition an archaic geopolitical term, first used in the English language by a noted Elizabethan propagandist who advocated for the colonisation of Ireland. Or indeed that the term today has no official standing and when used online or otherwise can be invariably be traced back to British and or Anglophile sources regardless of where it turns up. The only political shenanigans are those who continue to insist otherwise. Time Wikipedia woke up to the overt politicised machinations of some of it's editors 31.187.2.87 (talk) 14:06, 10 July 2024 (UTC) an archaic geopolitical term. Thank you, but we are talking here about geography, not politics or geopolitics. The term is not archaic but in common use. And yes, there is discussion about the term but we follow the sources. We do not invent or promote other names. We just follow the sources. Only when the common name of the archipelago changes, the article will reflect that. The Banner talk 14:38, 10 July 2024 (UTC) As detailed the term is certainly not simply geographical,but is as detailed an archaic colonial era geopolitical term. A word btw which means the combination of political and geographic factors relating to something (such as a state or particular resources) such as the first use of the term Brytish Isles by the noted Elizabethan propagandist John Dee in 1577 Btw there is no common name for the "archipelago" other than a singular archaic colonial geopolitical term which has no official standing and where found online or otherwise can be invariably be traced back to British and or Anglophile sources regardless of where it turns up Its time the relevant Wikipedia articles reflected that and the small number of Wikipedia editors ring fencing the issue be removed from doing so 31.187.2.22 (talk) 15:11, 10 July 2024 (UTC) Yes, it is well know that a small number of editors take offence of the term. But unfortunately, we use the common name for this geographical entity. Not someone's personal preference. The Banner talk 15:25, 10 July 2024 (UTC) A "common name" according to a small number of Wikipedia editors who have inexplicably been allowed to ring fence the issue for years It remains it is an archaic geopolitical term that has no relevance other than in the history section of any Wikipedia article 31.187.2.22 (talk) 15:35, 10 July 2024 (UTC) A common name in the sources about the archipelago. That it not suits your opinion is entirely up to you. The Banner talk 11:12, 11 July 2024 (UTC) Incorrect. Anachronistic geopolitical terminology has no relevance to modern geography. If Wikipedia wishes to be considered a reliable source of information, then it's time that is accepted and this and other articles are updated appropriately. 109.77.57.184 (talk) 11:43, 5 November 2024 (UTC) It is not an archaic "geopolitical" term no matter how many times you repeat that phrase. It is the primary name for the archipelago and is in common use. GhostOfNoMeme (talk) 21:53, 11 July 2024 (UTC) History does indeed show it is a geopolitical term. One first used by John Dee in the English language. And used specifically to promote the colonisation of Ireland.The same John Dee who based his ideas of "British" empire on Arthurian legends. And yet we still have some trying to argue otherwise. 109.77.57.184 (talk) 11:35, 5 November 2024 (UTC) It's simply not true that the first known use dates from John Dee, as a quick glance at the History section of Names of the British Isles will tell anyone who's genuinely interested in the subject. WaggersTALK 12:28, 10 July 2024 (UTC) please read what was written - The earliest known use of the phrase Brytish Iles in the English language is dated 1577 in a work by John Dee. And that based on a hillarious theory from Geoffrey of Mommouth writings that King of Arthur allegedly invaded Ireland. Prior to that some ancient Greek and Latin references to the Pretannic isles had laid buried and unused for the best part of a a millenia until one wiley Elizabethan propagandist decided that a bit of geopolitical chicanery was the order of the day in order to promote the Elizabethan colonisation of Ireland 31.187.2.87 (talk) 14:17, 10 July 2024 (UTC) I think it's probably time to make up an FAQ that we can point to for these perennial comments, incorporating a link to the naming controversy article. Acroterion (talk) 14:41, 10 July 2024 (UTC) I think it's high time that the use of archaic geopolitical colonial era terminology masqueraded as being legitimate be stopped once and for all. Wikipedia as a source has become a laughing stock exactly because of this type of editing 31.187.2.22 (talk) 14:56, 10 July 2024 (UTC) Thank you for illustrating my point. Wikipedia's discussions of geography are not determined by Irish/British (note the distinction, relevant politically) nationalist politics, any more than they are by Japanese/Korean politics, Indo-Pakistani politics, or Iranian/Saudi politics. Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia, which will follow global usage if and when it changes. And see the edit notice at the top of this page. Acroterion (talk) 15:09, 10 July 2024 (UTC) Thanks for missing the point altogether - where the usage of the term in Wikipedia is evidently overtly politicacised regardless of protestations by the same editors otherwise. It remains the term is an archaic colonial era geopolitical term which belongs in the dustbin of history..Time Wikipedia content reflected that reality 31.187.2.22 (talk) 15:15, 10 July 2024 (UTC) Yes, I get your point. You want Wikipedia to be a means of effecting a change in global usage. That isn't Wikipedia's purpose, and Wikipedia isn't a tool for such purposes. And read the notice at the top of this page. Acroterion (talk) 15:18, 10 July 2024 (UTC) o font think you do. Just as there are no wikipedia content discussing Albion as an extant geographical entity, the same should apply to the archaic colonial era term "British Isles". The term has no official standing nor does it have any defined "global use" outside that claimed by a small number of Wikipedia editors who cite sources which the absolute majority can be traced back to British and or Anglophile sources regardless of where it turns up 31.187.2.22 (talk) 15:30, 10 July 2024 (UTC) If you want the term to be no longer used, then you have to stop its usage. Wikipedia isn't here to dictate usage or lead, we're here as an encyclopaedia. Wikipedia doesn't have a say in if it's used or not, we just deal with the reliable sources that clearly show it's being used. Once people in Ireland stop using the term (including the government (yes they use it as simple searches show), news sites and other usages) and then the rest of the world stop using it, then we'll stop using it. You need to direct your ire at the term outside of Wikipedia and then we'll reflect it, until then referencable real world usage and sourcing will prevail. Wikipedia isn't the cause here, it's purely a symptom. You need to actually stop it in the real world, then it will be stopped here. We don't get to choose if it's used, usage does that. We're not a leader in these things, we're a trailing indicator. Canterbury Tail talk 15:38, 10 July 2024 (UTC) Wrong - its usage is being specifically pushed in Wikipedia by a small number of editors. Outside of that it remains an archaic colonial era geopolitical term which has no official standing and correctly belongs as a historical reference only. There are plenty of references to similar archaic terms such as Albion and Germania which are also found in common usage on the Internet and elsewhere but are not being inexplicably being pushed as somehow relevant despite this issue being repeatedly highlighted by countless contributors and editors. It remains the terms usage exemplifies the ugly face of Wikipedia content which relies on a politicised ring fencing such as the invariable pretence that the term is solely a "geographical" term and other shenanigans Wikipedia needs to sort this issue and not allow a tiny muber of editors to ring fence the use of such terms - exactly what is happening hers 31.187.2.22 (talk) 16:17, 10 July 2024 (UTC) You're entitled to your beliefs. I'm not going to post again the multitude of links that show it in active use in Ireland, including within the Irish government. They're all in the archives for you to peruse at your leisure. However the term is in common use despite your denials. Canterbury Tail talk 17:03, 10 July 2024 (UTC) Incorrect - these are facts not "beliefs". The wikipedia archives you cite are full of the exact same ring fencing of this issue. I have already detailed that this stance is being maintained by a tiny number of editors in the face of the facts including that the "Irish government" have already made a very clear statement that the term has no official recognition or indeed that the absolute majority of occurances on various Irish government websites can be traced back to various British and or Anglophone sources from citations and other third party references Again Wikipedia has unfortunately become a laughing stock because of overt politicised behaviour from a tiny number of editors- the same few editors who again and again trot out the same arguments, none of which stand up to even basic scrutiny. Time this issue went to independent arbritation by Wikipedia once and for all 31.187.2.161 (talk) 10:39, 11 July 2024 (UTC) Independent doesn't mean "agrees with you". We are all independent on this talk page. The arbitration is what you are getting. Time to drop the stick on this one. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:55, 11 July 2024 (UTC) A FAQ is a nice idea, but sadly certain people don't bother reading them. I mean, look at all the notices at the top of this page that the IP just ignored and waded in with their forum-y post about the name on the wrong talk page. WaggersTALK 12:44, 12 July 2024 (UTC) FAQs never solve the issue, but they at least make it possible to say "read the FAQ at the top of the page" and hat the 4836th discussion. The FAQ on Talk:Nazism hasn't closed down perennial arguments that they were socialists and therefore of the Left, and people still try to argue with them, but it at least allows a quick response. Acroterion (talk) 13:07, 12 July 2024 (UTC) True. Anything to save this talk page from being filled up with threads like this one - there's plenty of other stuff we need to address here! Anyone fancy drafting some FAQs? WaggersTALK 13:20, 12 July 2024 (UTC) Can we include in the FAQ the fact that the "irrelevant archaic colonial era terminology" of "British Isles" is used in almost 180,000 Irish web pages, and that includes over 1,000 uses in just the the past year alone? And obviously that's not including print and broadcast media... BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:07, 12 July 2024 (UTC) It supports the "Wikipedia follows, it doesn't lead" response.Acroterion (talk) 14:19, 12 July 2024 (UTC) Not this old hoary chestnut again. Google searches have long shown not to be a reliable indicator of common usage. With searches being influenced by user preferences and other notable issues such as "Irish" web sites being populated with automated content from commercial British web sites - see the hundreds of travel websites showing that. That and issues such as book shop listing books written by mainly British authors who use the term in their book titles and other similar anglophile terminology. The same then being listed or automatically populated from reseller websites which are not based in Ireland. The other point that a website having a .ie designation, does not mean it automatically reflects Irish authorship of any material included on such sites. Wikipedia doesn't follow in this instance but rather it's an issue of an anachronistic and deeply insulting term being pushed by a tiny number of content editors. Time that changed. 109.77.57.184 (talk) 12:03, 5 November 2024 (UTC) This discussion is nearly 4 months old, has been had many times in the archives, and is largely a settled matter. Trying to reopen it and stoke up division is simply not going to work. WaggersTALK 13:45, 5 November 2024 (UTC) Well last time I checked this is a talk page. And the issue remains current. As you detail the topic has been raised many times, by countless contributors and editors and remains unresolved. It is most certainly not a "settled matter". Nor is there any "division" other than the inexplicable use of an anachronistic geopolitical term which has all the nuance and subtlety of claiming the territory of Ukraine is by definition part of Little Russia. That term has no relevance to the island of Ireland and has already been disavowed by both the Irish and British governments when referring to the two islands in official communications such as the Good Friday Agreement. Time for Wikipedia content to reflect that. 109.77.57.184 (talk) 14:41, 5 November 2024 (UTC) You have really a problem with understanding the concept of "geographical term". Do you also deny that Great Britain exists as an island? The Banner talk 02:20, 11 November 2024 (UTC) Talk pages are for improving the article. Expressing opinions because you don't like it is not improving the article. The geographical term is still in widespread use. [https://www.google.com/search?q=%22British+Isles%22+site%3Agov.ie Including by the Irish government and its agencies.[ BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:00, 5 November 2024 (UTC) Indeed talk pages are to help improve articles. With this and a several other similar articles being in urgent need of improvement for no less reason than the use of an anachronistic term bizarrely favoured by tiny minority of Wikipedia editors Hillarious random google searches as a defence for the use of a deeply offensive geopolitical term do not stand up to scrutiny. To repeat Google or other search engines searches have long shown not to be a reliable indicator of common usage. With such searches being influenced by user preferences and other notable issues such as commercial "Irish" web sites being populated with automated content from identical British web sites - see the hundreds of travel websites showing that. That and issues such as .ie sites being acquired by British commercial companies - like the ones selling maps using the term. Similar with the majority of references appearing on Irish government websites invariably being traced back to anglophone references or material from British sources. It remains both the Irish and British governments have disavowed the use of the term in recent communications such as the Good Friday Agreement and for good reason. Time Wikipedia articles follow suite for the simple reason such anachronistic terminology has no place in Wikipedia other than as a simple historic reference. 109.77.57.184 (talk) 16:21, 5 November 2024 (UTC) btw just because you personally seem to like the term has absolutely no relevance to the discussion. 109.77.57.184 (talk) 16:35, 5 November 2024 (UTC) I think you really do not understand the phrase "geographical term". The Banner talk 17:22, 5 November 2024 (UTC) Incorrect. It's a historical "British" geopolitical term, that today has been disavowed by both the Irish and British governments as outlined That you chose to ignore that seems to be a significant issue to moving forward with this discussion 109.77.57.184 (talk) 17:51, 5 November 2024 (UTC) You are describing your own behaviour. WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT The Banner talk 03:10, 6 November 2024 (UTC) It is specifically not a "random search term." It is literally a search limited to official government websites. And not even all of them, as it omits government agency websites that do not use a gov.ie domain, of which there are many. If you are going to debate here, then at least get your basic facts right - the search parameters are clearly visible! BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 01:14, 6 November 2024 (UTC) Incorrect. Such internet searches have been shown to have little validity with results reflecting user preferences and previous usage. That and the majority of your linked searches primarily referening one single maratime report which involved British authours. So no such seaches do not stand up to scrutiny regardless 109.76.3.87 (talk) 01:59, 11 November 2024 (UTC) You are clearly completely blinded for the truth. You offer no facts, only bias and claims. The Banner talk 02:07, 11 November 2024 (UTC) Banner that summation is redirected straight back at you sadly 109.76.3.87 (talk) 03:21, 11 November 2024 (UTC) I did my research to see how often the term is still used. I even asked around in my local pub if they perceived the term as colonial or offensive. Nobody did. Note: that was in County Clare. The Banner talk 13:07, 11 November 2024 (UTC) Wrong - its usage is being specifically pushed in Wikipedia by a small number of editors. Outside of that it remains an archaic colonial era geopolitical term which has no official standing and correctly belongs as a historical reference only. I have some sympathy with this IP editor because I see this happening elsewhere on WP. However, my sympathy advances no further: British Isles is established common usage in independent RS sources. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 00:24, 6 November 2024 (UTC) The facts remain tuat the term today has no official standing and has been disavowed by both the Irish and British governments with documents such as the Good Friday Agreement using alternate terms to describe the island of Ireland and the island of Britain. And if that fact isn't good enough for the tiny number of editors who insist on their interpretation of the matter is the only one which carries any weight, then Wikipedia has a bigger problem than ring fencing by a tiny number of editors who have consistently denigrated the many, many contributors who have repeatedly raised this issue 109.76.3.87 (talk) 02:22, 11 November 2024 (UTC) Just for fun, try searching the term "Britse Eilanden" -wikipedia (one search term) on Google. This Dutch term is used more then 5000 times over the last year. The term British Isles is outdated? Don't think so. The Banner talk 03:00, 11 November 2024 (UTC) So a direct Dutch translation of what is specifically British centric terminology . Of note - the term "Little Russia" (referring to the territory of Ukraine) can also be found in many European languages. But just like that term, such translations happily offer no basis for the term's validity in reference to Ukraine 109.76.3.87 (talk) 03:29, 11 November 2024 (UTC) If you look up the search results you will see that they all refer to a group of islands west of mainland Europe. As in: geographical. The Banner talk 13:07, 11 November 2024 (UTC) There are two very simple facts that the latest IP needs to understand and acknowledge, and when it comes to the name of this article they are really the only facts that matter: There is a group of islands off the coast of northwest Europe that consists of the islands of Great Britain, Ireland, and the smaller islands around them The most common name for this group of islands in worldwide usage in the English language is "the British Isles". Arguments about how that term came about and the weird and wonderful ways people choose to interpret the words within it have no bearing on those two fundamental facts. We've had this discussion many many times, the outcome is always the same, those facts have not changed and discussing them further here will not change them. WaggersTALK 09:41, 6 November 2024 (UTC) I agree that "British Isles" is a standard term. That some Irish nationalists dislike it is as immaterial as Argentine objections to the name "Falkland Islands". If you dislike the term "British Isles," then your grievance is really with the English language, not Wikipedia. 203.211.75.12 (talk) 17:07, 7 November 2024 (UTC) Wrong. The term today is an archaic geopolitical term and has no more relevance to Ireland than the term British East Africa has to modern day Kenya. It is evident that the term currently is being promoted by a relatively small number of British nationalists, who invariably chose to ignore the fact that using this anachronistic and deeply offensive colonial era term to include Ireland has all the nuance and sensitivity of referring to the territory of Ukraine as Little Russia. Note: arguements over what the actual official name of some islands off South America are irrelevant and best dealt with in that section of Wikipedia 109.76.3.87 (talk) 02:12, 11 November 2024 (UTC) To paraphrase: There are two very simple facts that contributers need to understand and acknowledge, and they are really the only facts that matter: • There are two major and wholly seperate Islands located off the coast of Europe each with their own unique geology and geography. • Historically those two islands were referred to (in the English language) by English and later British interests as the "British Isles" and that as a result of a period of brutal invasion colonisation and ethnic cleansing of Ireland under English and later British rule • Today that term has no official standing, has been disavowed by both the Irish and British governments in documentation referring to the two islands such as the Good Friday Agreement. The term is not in common usage within Ireland and is also recognised as archaic by many in the international community regardless of any Internet "searches" as a spurious argument for "common usage" which don't stand up to scrutiny. The fact remains the history of the term has both a primary and significant bearing on these facts for the reason that the term when applied to Ireland has much the same validity, nuance and subtlety as referring to the territory of Ukraine as Little Russia. Unfortunately despite this issue being raised many, many many times by many genuine contributors, the outcome has inevitably been barraged, with such discussions being deflected and buried to promote the sole use of what is in effect, British Centric terminology. Outside that very narrow viewpoint as evidenced by the concensus by both the Irish and British governments, the term has no relevance to the island of Ireland and therefore should have no place in Wikipedia, other than as a historic reference. 109.76.3.87 (talk) 03:14, 11 November 2024 (UTC) I see plenty of complaining about the current title, but very little consensus about what the article should be renamed to. Take your pick from Names of the British Isles and see if those wanting a rename can agree on something. It is possible those wanting a rename are ahead of the times, unfortunately Wikipedia can tend to lag behind as it uses reliable sources and the common name. For example if Wikipedia existed back then, up to the end of the 19th century, I imagine our article on Ukraine would have existed at Little Russia. Commander Keane (talk) 05:52, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

A can of worms, but worth a try

So, I know this isn't likely to get anywhere, but it's worth considering the historical nature of using the term "Normans" to describe the 12th Century invaders of Ireland. There is actually a fairly robust consensus among scholars of Ireland (at least among those who have critically examined this terminology) that the term's an anachronism, belonging mainly to the 11th Century, and is unhistorical when applied to Englishmen of the late 12th & 13th Century[1]. As Gillingham also notes (see link), hybrid terminologies like "Anglo-Norman" were also unknown at the time, and entered the lexicon only in the late 19th Century, when attempts were made to draw a parallel between the 1169 invasion of Ireland and the 1066 invasion of England. Prior to this, these invaders were described simply as 'Englishmen'.

I realize this isn't likely to get anywhere. "Norman" and "Anglo-Norman" are so widely used on Wikipedia and in pop history that even many historians use these labels out of convenience. But it is really no more accurate than saying the Battle of Hastings was fought between Anglo-Saxons and "Vikings". In the same way the Norse intermingled with the Franks and became 'Normans' in the 11th Century, the Norman invaders of England assimilated with the Anglo-Saxons and became Englishmen a century later. That's also why a number of Old English surnames in Ireland, like Stapleton and Birmingham, have Anglo-Saxon genealogies (and even here, I frequently come across Irish genealogy sites erroneously describing Stapleton as an "Anglo-Norman" name). Jonathan f1 (talk) 18:58, 24 November 2024 (UTC)