Wikipedia vote: inserting "British Isles" into articles

Rebelheart

Just thought some of you may be interested in knowing that numerous Wikipedia articles have been renamed in the past 6 months in order to insert the term "British Isles" into the new title. Thus 'History of Britain' has been renamed 'History of the British Isles', 'Hill Lists in Great Britain' has been renamed 'Hill lists in the British Isles' and so forth.

I'm sure most people are by now familiar with the 8-year long edit war on the main British Isles article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:British_Isles), with 28 archives of former discussions. It's well worth reading if you haven't done so already (especially for the term's origin in the English language).

The latest article to be renamed was originally 'Military history of Britain' but changed to 'Military history of the British Isles'. It is currently in an edit war under the title 'Military history of the peoples of the British Islands'.

There is a vote at the moment on what to rename the new article. There are five options for the new title:

Option 1 - Military history of the British Isles

Option 2 - British military history

Option 3 - Military history of Britain and Ireland

Option 4 - Create two articles. Military history of Britain + Military history of Ireland

Option 5 - Military history of the United Kingdom


You can vote here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Military_history_of_the_peoples_of_the_British_Islands#Poll_on_Article_Name

meglome

It funny but the term British Isles really irks me. I don't use it and I don't like it when I hear it. There are several reason why but tourism alone is a good enough reason to not lump us in with Britain.

P. Breathnach

I think it is too late to get the rest of the world to abandon the phrase. There just isn't another good term that we can promote in its stead.

Console yourselves with the thought that the original Brits were people of the Celtic tradition, and not the Anglo-Normans that we had trouble with later.

bmaxi

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I think it is too late to get the rest of the world to abandon the phrase. There just isn't another good term that we can promote in its stead.

Console yourselves with the thought that the original Brits were people of the Celtic tradition, and not the Anglo-Normans that we had trouble with later.

In an episode of Time Team they quoted a recent study of DNA which has shown that up to 90% of the Uks population are descended from Celts. Saxons, Angles, Jutes et al make for a very small proportion. So it has been a family squabble all along.

Rebelheart

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I think it is too late to get the rest of the world to abandon the phrase. There just isn't another good term that we can promote in its stead.

Console yourselves with the thought that the original Brits were people of the Celtic tradition, and not the Anglo-Normans that we had trouble with later.

That's far, far from the truth. If you have a read of the main "British Isles" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Isles) page you will see that the term has been abandoned in the past five years by plenty of international publications, and there is an unquestionable decline in its use:

A number of international publications have abandoned the term – in early 2008, National Geographic abandoned use of the term and replaced the plates on its maps which formerly read British Isles with British and Irish Isles.[31] Likewise, publishers of road atlases such as Michelin,[32][33] SK Baker,[34] Hallwag,[35] Philip's,[36][37] Reader's Digest[38] and The Automobile Association (AA)[39][40] have replaced British Isles with Great Britain and Ireland or Britain and Ireland in their recent maps. In 2008, Folens, an Irish publisher of school text books, decided to abandon using the term in Ireland while continuing to use it in the United Kingdom.[41][42]

As you can imagine those references didn't get on the page without a long fight. It has also been abandoned by the French TV Channel TV5 following a complaint and is generally avoided even by British stations now, although in Britain it is increasingly being used by Eurosceptics as a means to separate Britain from the rest of Europe. Furthermore, the government of Ireland is also officially on record objecting to the term and it does not exist in any British-Irish agreements such as the GFA in 1998 where 'Council of the Isles', for example, is used rather than 'Council of the British Isles'. All of these things are referenced in the wikipedia article.

Actually, read this for a very detailed list of the growing objections, academic and otherwise, to the name:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:British_Isles/References

Names and their meanings change all the time. Once upon a time the swastika was merely a Hindu symbol for peace. And, as you observed, once upon a time British meant something entirely different. So why would this be any different?

Rebelheart

PS: The Norman invasion was much more a Cambro-Norman invasion than it was an Anglo-Norman invasion, and led by Cambro-Normans like Strongbow, the earl of Pembroke, also. A Breathnach should know these things!

partyguinness

I had a similar problem with an English guy on YouTube.

He had posted a video on the "British Lions" and I asked him to correct it.

Cue...a fairly obnoxious set of replies back and forth with the general tone being that I was being "precious". And that was the more polite of the words used.

How do I vote? Cant seem to make it out.

Rebelheart

partyguinness wrote: »

I had a similar problem with an English guy on YouTube.

He had posted a video on the "British Lions" and I asked him to correct it.

Cue...a fairly obnoxious set of replies back and forth with the general tone being that I was being "precious". And that was the more polite of the words used.

How do I vote? Cant seem to make it out.

Hi Party (Did your sister get sorted out in Australia?)

Yeah, that's another example of "British Isles" being abandoned ; the rugby organisers officially changed the name to the British and Irish Lions.

To vote, just click on the link in my first post. When you get to that wikipedia page click the button on the top right that says Log in/Create Account. Then just log in and if you don't have a wikipedia nick create one for yourself in about 20 seconds.

Then scroll down the page and put 'support' or 'oppose' underneath each of the five options(as listed in my original post). It should take about 3 minutes :-)

Fratton Fred

so if ireland is not one of the "British Isles" where is it? what is the alternative name for the relatively insignificant set of islands off the north east of Europe?

I can understand getting the name of the British and Irish lions correct, because that infers nationality, but isn't Ireland part of the islands that make up the british Isles, along with Great Britian, Isle of Man, Jersey etc?

r3nu4l

Fratton Fred wrote: »

so if ireland is not one of the "British Isles" where is it? what is the alternative name for the relatively insignificant set of islands off the north east of Europe?

I can understand getting the name of the British and Irish lions correct, because that infers nationality, but isn't Ireland part of the islands that make up the british Isles, along with Great Britian, Isle of Man, Jersey etc?

Isn't it obvious? The 'Irish Isles' of course!!

After all Britain is a one of those islands incorporated into the Irish Isles, we couldn't leave you guys our on your own!

Erin Go Brath

Fratton Fred wrote: »

but isn't Ireland part of the islands that make up the british Isles, along with Great Britian, Isle of Man, Jersey etc?

No

jhegarty

Fratton Fred wrote: »

so if ireland is not one of the "British Isles" where is it? what is the alternative name for the relatively insignificant set of islands off the north east of Europe?

I could be wrong , but I think Ireland is on the island of Ireland.

I presume you acknowledge Iceland exists (even though it's not part of a larger group) ?

P. Breathnach

Fratton Fred wrote: »

so if ireland is not one of the "British Isles" where is it? what is the alternative name for the relatively insignificant set of islands off the north east of Europe?

I have tried promoting "The Celtic Archipelago" but found few takers. I suspect that a lot of people cannot spell "archipelago".

IIMII

Fratton Fred wrote: »

so if ireland is not one of the "British Isles" where is it? what is the alternative name for the relatively insignificant set of islands off the north east of Europe?

I can understand getting the name of the British and Irish lions correct, because that infers nationality, but isn't Ireland part of the islands that make up the british Isles, along with Great Britian, Isle of Man, Jersey etc?

This is Ireland. Over there

---

> Britain. We don't need a collective name, other than Europe.

I'm happy with our name, until some shower try to re-write history under the pretence of geography.

It ain't Geographers that keep changing wikipedia

IIMII

r3nu4l wrote: »

Isn't it obvious? The 'Irish Isles' of course!!

After all Britain is a one of those islands incorporated into the Irish Isles, we couldn't leave you guys our on your own!

Exactly, isn't Britain located in the Irish sea? Slam dunk, your ass is ours

Fratton Fred

r3nu4l wrote: »

Isn't it obvious? The 'Irish Isles' of course!!

After all Britain is a one of those islands incorporated into the Irish Isles, we couldn't leave you guys our on your own!

You're too kind

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

No

well what then? how would you describe these islands?

jhegarty wrote: »

I could be wrong , but I think Ireland is on the island of Ireland.

I presume you acknowledge Iceland exists (even though it's not part of a larger group) ?

Yeah, but Iceland is kind of in the middle of nowhere though and geographically is about the same size as "these islands".

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I have tried promoting "The Celtic Archipelago" but found few takers. I suspect that a lot of people cannot spell "archipelago".

i'm not sure Rangers fans would go for that

partyguinness

Oh God no...not this again.:eek:

Fratton Fred...do you have an alarm system for these topics that has you racing back to the Forum...:)

IIMII

Rebelheart wrote: »

You can vote here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Military_history_of_the_peoples_of_the_British_Islands#Poll_on_Article_Name

How do you vote?

partyguinness

well what then? how would you describe these islands?

Why a description at all? We have our island and you have yours. Quiet simple.

We are in Europe and we are an island off the mainland of Europe.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Erin Go Brath

Fratton Fred wrote: »

well what then? how would you describe these islands?

Why does their need to be one term to describe Ireland and Britian anyway? If you are obsessed with pursuing this then i believe the "North Atlantic Archipelago of Islands" is sometimes used and is less divisive if a little unwieldy.

Rebelheart

Fratton Fred wrote: »

You're too kind



well what then? how would you describe these islands?



Yeah, but Iceland is kind of in the middle of nowhere though and geographically is about the same size as "these islands".



i'm not sure Rangers fans would go for that

'Atlantic Archipelago' is the best one, in my view. And there are even plenty of books about it - http://books.google.com/books?q=%22atlantic+archipelago%22. Of course the British Isles fans contend that there are loads of islands in the Atlantic. Yes, but we are still in the Atlantic. We are not, on the other hand in Britain or, for that matter, British. Ergo, Atlantic Archipelago is a much more accurate term.

Moreover, I'm against these separatist (from the rest of Europe) contextualisation of Ireland's place in the world as British. Europe is our geographical location. The only thing sustaining the term "British Isles" is that Britain is full of people who want to separate Britain from Europe, and thus they are keen to talk about something they call the "British Isles".

Nationalist separatism from the British? I am indeed shocked.:rolleyes:

Fratton Fred

partyguinness wrote: »

Oh God no...not this again.:eek:

Fratton Fred...do you have an alarm system for these topics that has you racing back to the Forum...:)

This is the only interesting thread on here for ages. its nice to see something other than how much the Civil Service or FF are ripping us off by

partyguinness wrote: »

well what then? how would you describe these islands?

Why a description at all? We have our island and you have yours. Quiet simple.

We are in Europe and we are an island off the mainland of Europe.

Great britain is an island off mainland europe, Ireland is an island off that

Groups of islands have always had geograpical names, unfortunately the name given to these ones has political overtones.

Why name it? why not I suppose. we talk about Scandanavian countries, so why shouldn't people talk about the countries in the common Travel Area in one collective term?

British Isles isn't ideal, I agree, but I don't see why there shouldn't be a collective name.

getz

bmaxi wrote: »

In an episode of Time Team they quoted a recent study of DNA which has shown that up to 90% of the Uks population are descended from Celts. Saxons, Angles, Jutes et al make for a very small proportion. So it has been a family squabble all along.

most in the passed [its changing now]the british peoples are mostly of celtic origin,even with the invasions of the saxons, jutes ,and angles[they are the ones that england got its name from] not enough of them came over to change the DNA make up ,remember there was over 4 million celts in britain at that time all they did was to take on the culture of the invaders

Rebelheart

daveirl wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

And in that Canadian -US analogy the minor matter of centuries of brutal treatment of the former by the latter is where, precisely?

The term "British Isles" can only be dated in the English language to the year 1577, and no earlier. It began to be used as a means to assert British rule over Ireland, and the person who coined it, John Dee, made no secret of his desire to create a "British Empire" covering his "British Isles" (in fact, he coined both terms according to the Oxford English Dictionary).

In Irish, Oileáin Iarthair Eorpa (Western European Islands) is recorded as the name for the same area in the late medieval and early modern period.

Rebelheart

IIMII wrote: »

How do you vote?

To vote, just click on the link in my first post. When you get to that wikipedia page click the button on the top right that says Log in/Create Account. Then just log in and if you don't have a wikipedia nick create one for yourself in about 20 seconds.

Then scroll down the page and put 'support' or 'oppose' underneath each of the five options(as listed in my original post). It should take about 3 minutes :-)

:-) I voted for Option 4, creating two articles, one called 'Military history of Britain' and the other 'Military history of Ireland' as that is obviously the most reasonable. Looking at current voting the final vote will be between Option 4 and Option 1 (rename it to 'Military history of the British Isles'). But you can vote yes or no to each of the five, most people seem to be doing that in fact.

Bottle_of_Smoke

The White Islands

getz

Rebelheart wrote: »

And in that Canadian -US analogy the minor matter of centuries of brutal treatment of the former by the latter is where, precisely?

The term "British Isles" can only be dated in the English language to the year 1577, and no earlier. It began to be used as a means to assert British rule over Ireland, and the person who coined it, John Dee, made no secret of his desire to create a "British Empire" covering his "British Isles" (in fact, he coined both terms according to the Oxford English Dictionary).

In Irish, Oileáin Iarthair Eorpa (Western European Islands) is recorded as the name for the same area in the late medieval and early modern period.

before 1920 nobody gave a monkies, there are some sad people about,by the way the term used for the islands of britain came from the romans 100 ad

IIMII

Before the 1920's we were a subjugated race

getz wrote: »

by the way the term used for the islands of britain came from the romans 100 ad

The Romans called us Hibernia

Rebelheart

getz wrote: »

before 1920 nobody gave a monkies

Your evidence for this is what?

PS: Wishful thinking is not evidence.

ejmaztec

I insist on Britain, Ireland and Rockall.

jhegarty

getz wrote: »

before 1920 nobody gave a monkies, there are some sad people about,by the way the term used for the islands of britain came from the romans 100 ad

I though the Romans called the islands Hibernia and Britannia ?

prinz

Rebelheart wrote: »

And in that Canadian -US analogy the minor matter of centuries of brutal treatment of the former by the latter is where, precisely?

So now the truth comes out, less about geographic particularities and more about simple indignant bigotry. Too much time on your hands.

Perhaps we should vote on changing the name of the Ireland rugby team to the 'Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland Team', of course "Ireland" shouldn't really apply to a separate political entity should it? Given that it's the geographic name of an island, much like the British Isles is a geographic name for a few islands.

IIMII

jhegarty wrote: »

I though the Romans called the islands Hibernia and Britannia ?

This gets overlooked by the British, again and again

prinz wrote: »

Perhaps we should vote on changing the name of the Ireland rugby team to the 'Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland Team'

Fair enough. Then we wouldn't have Irelands Call mistaken for a national anthem

prinz wrote: »

So now the truth comes out, less about geographic particularities and more about simple indignant bigotry. Too much time on your hands.

Just let it go. Ye came, ye conquered and now the party is over. Ireland isn't British. To quote Paisley "We may be British but our cows are Irish". Just because you are British living in Ireland doesn't mean to get to usurp a country

turgon

How predictable of the Irish Republicans. Getting caught up in the semantics of a title.

Im confident that the Republic of Ireland is Irish. I dont mind the islands being called the "British Isles" because Im confident enough in the Irish heritage for people to understand that the term in no way implies British control of the south.

I venture to suggest that those republicans against this term are simply not confident in their own ideal Ireland. They obviosuly feel it is not strong enough to withstand some geographic label, which I find ironic.

getz

jhegarty wrote: »

I though the Romans called the islands Hibernia and Britannia ?

they did, it was known to the romans as britannia which covered all the western islands under one collective,this was long before the angles and saxons ect came over to change the names,before the the romans people on these islands hadent any written language

prinz

IIMII wrote: »

Just let it go. Ye came, ye conquered and now the party is over. Ireland isn't British.

Perhaps you should point that out the the OP then? btw I am Irish, I don't know what the "ye" refers to

IIMII

getz wrote: »

they did, it was known to the romans as britannia which covered all the western islands under one collective,this was long before the angles and saxons ect came over to change the names,before the the romans people on these islands hadent any written language

Writes he from his armchair in Knott end on sea

prinz wrote: »

Perhaps you should point that out the the OP then? btw I am Irish

My humblest apologies, I thought you might be British

getz

IIMII wrote: »

Writes he from his armchair in Knott end on sea

My humblest apologies, I thought you might be British

dident take long before the insults to come

IIMII

getz wrote: »

dident take long before the insults to come

That is my point - the term British Isles is insulting

Deedsie

To be honest in this situation i just dont want Ireland bungled in with the UK's Colonial Militristic history.

Why does it have to have a geographic term. The Channel Islands are as much a part of France "geographically" Are they in the British Isles?

Geographic and Political terms should prob be kept seperate.

prinz

getz wrote: »

dident take long before the insults to come

Well it is the usual intellectual argument is it not? If all else fails call them 'west brits' etc.

prinz

Deedsie wrote: »

To be honest in this situation i just dont want Ireland bungled in with the UK's Colonial Militristic history.

Ah yes this old nugget. Our own colonialist past can safely be swept under the carpet and we can blame it on the British.

IIMII

prinz wrote: »

Well it is the usual intellectual argument is it not? If all else fails call them 'west brits' etc.

And how is that different to when occupation fails using geography and calling them 'British Islanders'? And the term British is your own, definitely not mine

prinz wrote: »

Our own colonialist past can safely be swept under the carpet and we can blame it on the British.

True, we did have our collaborators. Like the French, Dutch etc did in WW2

turgon

Who ever called anyone a "British Islander"?

prinz

IIMII wrote: »

And how is that different to when occupation fails using geography and calling them 'British Islanders'? And the term British is your own, definitely not mine

True, we did have our collaborators. Like the French, Dutch etc did in WW2

That the British Isles were all, with the exception of the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, included in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland until 1922, when most of Ireland left, is also highly relevant to some. Although early variants of the term date back to Ancient Greek times, the term fell into disuse for over a millennium and was introduced into English in the late 16th or early 17th centuries by English and Welsh writers whose writings have been described as propaganda and politicized[5][6][7]. The term was not in wide use in Britain before at least the second half of the 17th century. The term was widely accepted from the late 18th century to at least the early 20th and problems with the term date mostly to the period after Irish independence.

Around AD 70 Pliny the Elder, in Book 4 of his Naturalis Historia, describes the islands he considers to be Britanniae as including Great Britain, Ireland, The Orkneys, smaller islands such as the Hebrides, Isle of Man, Anglesey, possibly one of the Friesan Islands, and islands that have been identified as Ushant and Sian

QED. Unless Pliny was a British imperialist occupier I think that clinches it.

IIMII

turgon wrote: »

Who ever called anyone a "British Islander"?

If one lives on a 'British Isle', is one then not a 'British Islander'? You haven't thought this through, have you?

IIMII

prinz wrote: »

QED.

Hah? That's like saying something must be so in Galway because an Aborigine said so in Australia. Look, if we wanted to be known by that title, the state would recognise it.

(Which it doesn't fyi)

getz

IIMII wrote: »

That is my point - the term British Isles is insulting

why ?is it the word british? i live in a area called; poulton-le-fylde ; and thats what the french named it after they invaded ,i have never heard anyone in the uk trying to change its name, because they dislike the french , i bet you dont speak english

prinz

IIMII wrote: »

Hah? That's like saying something must be so in Galway because an Aborigine said so in Australia. Look, if we wanted to be known by that title, the state would recognise it.

(Which it doesn't fyi)

Well hang on, you just said it was a post-partition invention...

Dardania

IIMII wrote: »

Exactly, isn't Britain located in the Irish sea? Slam dunk, your ass is ours

I would say that the Irish sea got its name from the British perspective, as in (cue English accent) "That sea leads to Ireland"