The term British Isles is a contentious issue. In order to better facilitate discussion of this issue, without swamping other matters, there is a specific talk page for matters relating to the name of this article. Your cooperation with keeping name-related matters on that page would be appreciated by other editors.
Also, please remember that article talk pages are provided only to facilitate improvements to the article. Editors uncertain about the use of talk pages should read WP:TALK and WP:NOT#FORUM. Inflammatory messages, personal attacks, and debate and discussion not specifically targetted to specific ways of improving the article may be removed and, in extreme cases, warnings issued to the editor who inserted them.
References
The term British Isles is a contentious issue. Academic and other references concerning this controversy can be read here.
British Isles was one of the Geography and places good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Channel Islands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Channel Islands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Channel IslandsWikipedia:WikiProject Channel IslandsTemplate:WikiProject Channel IslandsChannel Islands-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of geography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GeographyWikipedia:WikiProject GeographyTemplate:WikiProject Geographygeography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of islands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslandsWikipedia:WikiProject IslandsTemplate:WikiProject IslandsIslands articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Isle of Man, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Isle of Man on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Isle of ManWikipedia:WikiProject Isle of ManTemplate:WikiProject Isle of ManIsle of Man articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jersey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jersey on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JerseyWikipedia:WikiProject JerseyTemplate:WikiProject JerseyJersey articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scottish Islands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of islands in Scotland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Scottish IslandsWikipedia:WikiProject Scottish IslandsTemplate:WikiProject Scottish IslandsScottish Islands articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
Clarke, Donald (9 January 2016). "Saoirse Ronan being claimed by the UK not 'a compliment'". The Irish Times. Suchet followed these remarks with a patronising tweet featuring a link to the Wikipedia article on the British Isles. We do not know if he read as far as the following paragraph: 'The term British Isles is controversial in Ireland, where there are objections to its usage due to the association of the word British.'
Should half the lead be about the etymology?[edit]
@Tikaboo, @Wiki-Ed: The lead should mention some aspects of the etymology, but I agree that it's currently too much weighted towards etymology, in particular the naming controversy (which has its own article).
As it stands:
The etymology part of the lead is around 90 words, summarising around 450 words from the main article (1:5).
The "controversial" aspect of the name takes three-quarters of the lead's etymology content, and just under a quarter of the etymology section in the main article.
The non-etymology part of the lead is around 100 words, summarising 5000 or so non-etymology words from the main article (1:50).
This suggests that the current lead content gives WP:UNDUE emphasis to the naming controversy, and insufficiently reflects the content of the main article.
Substantially increasing the size of the first half of the lead, and moving some parts of the naming controversy from the lead to the main article, would provide a better-balanced lead to the article. Bazza (talk) 21:43, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, seeing how many people start jumping up and down about the term "British Isles" it is absolutely necessary. But some tweaking is possible. The Bannertalk00:27, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The lead should be tweaked. The third and fifth sentences of the second paragraph could be removed and placed in later sections, but the main thrust of the paragraph should be retained in the lead. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:33, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The main problem is that the lead has two paragraphs. Four would be better, with new second and third ones summarising the large number of aspects of the main article which are currently absent; and the fourth (currently second) shortened as @Ghmyrtle suggests. Bazza (talk) 09:50, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. I thought something looked off. Someone removed a significant block of information here[1]. The reason we've had four paragraphs for as long as we have is to follow - fairly literally - the MOS guide on leads. In particular we tried to balance (a) four paragraphs, (b) relative emphasis, and (c) prominent controversies. It took a long time to agree relative emphasis and it's clear that those who feel strongly about the controversy still feel strongly because they keep trying to expand the text. It's reasonable to assume that cutting it back would make them unhappy and restart the edit warring. But equally... removing two paragraphs for spurious reasons has changed the balance and it now looks disproportionate.
So, I've restored the version of 2 November. Most of the intermediate edits were by the same person who made the flawed changed in the first place. Given they've already wasted our time with this, I'm not going to waste my time reviewing any of their other edits - if any of them are valid they can restore them manually - and should probably seek consensus first.
I propose that if we're going to review the longstanding consensus version of the text then we should do so with said consensus version in front of us. And I'd also propose that we give people who feel strongly about the controversy time to respond to any proposal to cut back text they have fought to maintain. Wiki-Ed (talk) 12:08, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
I appreciate the necessity to keep the lead brief. However, we should acknowledge two things in the lead. 1) The term is pretty much exclusively used in Britain, and not used at all by Irish people in Ireland, if we're to consider the two largest islands in this apparent group. 2) There is no consensus on whether it's a geographical term, or a politically-coloured term.
Outside of the lead, the average non-Irish/non-British reader would have no idea there's a controversy, besides the one sentence in the lead. Should we not have at the least a brief section summarising the controversy, and directing the inquisitive reader to the other page? Wikiejd2 (talk) 14:50, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So the term is "pretty much used exclusively in [Great] Britain" and the people in Great Britain use it as a geographic term. And it is "not used at all by Irish people in Ireland" - either as a geographic or political term - in which case does that not mean it is used exclusively as a geographic term because the only people using the term do so in that way? And why do we need a brief section when (a) we already have a brief section and (b) there's a whole article on the controversy? Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There really isn't much of a controversy anyway, outside of Wikipedia talk pages. For most people in daily life it simply isn't a topic that crops up, wherever they live and whatever their nationality. It's hugely overblown here and we need to be very wary of giving it undue weight. We can see from the discussion above that there are people who think there's too much etymology in the lead and others who think it should go into more detail. On balance I'd say we've got it about right as it is. WaggersTALK12:06, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's hardly undue weight. Where are you talking about when you say "here"?
Simply put, this page takes entirely the British position. It doesn't reflect the Irish position. That hardly seems fair and balanced. Wikiejd2 (talk) 11:15, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The word "here" does not appear in the message you've replied to. The article reflects the balance of the reliable sources on a global scale, not the perspective of any individual country. WaggersTALK11:58, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Wiki-Ed, would you agree with my point that a casual reader coming across this page would think that Ireland and Britain are part of a group called "The British Isles"? And can you also stretch the imagination to believe that the uninformed would believe that they are a political group?
This is exactly why we need a clear section on this page. I note you removed lines stating the the Irish govt discourages this contested term's usage. Your reason was "No. Let's keep the way it has been for several years". Why should we keep it that way? The term has not been in usage by the Irish government for about a hundred years. Why trample over the facts? Wikiejd2 (talk) 11:22, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The introduction is very clear that the subject is a group of islands. There's no implication of any political grouping and yes I think it would be quite a stretch of wilful misunderstanding to arrive at such a conclusion. WaggersTALK12:01, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi The Banner. I note that you removed my citation required tag for the sentence "As a term, "British Isles" is a geographical name and not a political unit".
What evidence do you have for your claims? It is a contested term, as you well know. What source are you basing that claim on, and why should it be the accepted authority? Wikiejd2 (talk) 11:19, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How do people feel about cutting a few extraneous words in the lead?
As a term, "British Isles" is a geographical name and not a political unit. In Ireland, the term is controversial, and there are objections to its usage. The Government of Ireland does not officially recognise the term, and its embassy in London discourages its use. "Britain and Ireland" is used as an alternative description, and "Atlantic Archipelago" has also seen limited use in academia. In official documents created jointly by Ireland and the United Kingdom, such as the Good Friday Agreement, the term "these islands" is used.
replaced with
As a term, "British Isles" is a geographical name and not a political unit. In Ireland, the term is controversial and the Irish government does not officially recognise the term. "Britain and Ireland" is used as an alternative description, and "Atlantic Archipelago" has also seen limited use in academia. In official documents created jointly by Ireland and the United Kingdom, such as the Good Friday Agreement, the term "these islands" is used.
I would also remove the "Atlantic Archipelago" bit. It's seen really minor use in academia, and a search returns results for me that includes fiction and books such as the tautologically titled "The Atlantic Archipelago: Political History of the British Isles". Undue for the lede. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!17:26, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of whether users consider the presentational change better or worse, the longstanding version was carefully sourced. Clumsy editing has removed sourced material, moved clauses away from the sources that supported them, or left sources hanging without the clause they were supporting. I'm not going to waste my time cleaning up after lazy editing, especially for such spurious reasons. Wiki-Ed (talk) 19:32, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, we've used the references to the Irish Embassy to maintain balance for those who feel strongly about this term being used at all, and the reference to the Atlantic Archipelago is reductio ad absurdum for those who feel equally strongly the other way. Wiki-Ed (talk) 19:34, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't necessarily think the amount of attention on the controversy in the lead should be reduced. It's just that the embassy thing is a bit of a random tidbit. And I don't think it's even relayed correctly. Is there a history of the embassy discouraging its usage? It looks like an embassy staffer was randomly asked about the term and they responded "we would discourage its use". But the embassy has never actually done so. If there's some other notable details we could include in the lead about the controversy then that would be better than the embassy thing. And mb about the editing. Tikaboo (talk) 22:53, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You may well be right about the embassy point, but there are some editors - who have so far remained quiet - with strong views that the example illustrates there is some sort of official reluctance to use the term. Whether or not it's a good exampple (or even representative), this article went through a long period of instability as different sides sought to emphasise their view before it reached a mostly-stable balance. This is a compromise position in which neither side is happy, but also not sufficiently unhappy to engage in further editing warring (bar occasional IP edits). If you have a better and sourced alternative then please feel free to switch that in, but otherwise I think it's better to let sleeping dogs lie. Wiki-Ed (talk) 09:59, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that works with reliable sources. But strong feelings by a group of silent editors is not cutting the cake here. The Bannertalk14:18, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected edit request on 11 February 2024[edit]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Why is the Scottish Gaelic for British Isles, Eileanan Bhreatainn when the Irish is Éire agus an Bhreatain Mhór. Eileanan Bhreatainn is a direct translation of British Isles just as Oileáin Briotanach would be for Irish. Would the Scottish Gaelic for British isles not resemble something more similar to the Irish language as they are so close. Probably something like Éirinn agus Breatainn Mhór. 109.79.4.140 (talk) 23:38, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Irish for the British Isles isn't "Éire agus an Bhreatain Mhór" - that translates as "Ireland and Great Britain". The Irish for "the British Isles" is "na hOileáin Bhriotanacha", but presumably a keyboard warrior has removed that from somewhere, with an edit summary along the lines of "No true Irishman uses that phrase!"? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!11:01, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My issue is not with the Irish as that is what these islands are referred to and is the terminology used. But rather that why isn’t the Scottish Gaelic following similarly to the Irish 109.79.4.140 (talk) 17:39, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your issue might not be with the Irish, but the Manx (also with a similar language) might take issue with it. But in any case, you don't translate a language based on how another and different language translates it. Not even if they are related. Now, where did I put my handshoes? I need to go out in the cold. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:53, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 Bannertalk10:25, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 Bannertalk14:38, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 Bannertalk15:25, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A "common name" according to a small number of Wikipedia editors who have inexplicably been allowed to ring fence the issue for years
The earliest known use of the phrase Brytish Iles in the Englishlanguage 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 Tailtalk15:38, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 Tailtalk17:03, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Your claim also seems to conflict with the information in the Dublin article. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 22:50, 11 February 2024 (UTC)