Talk:History of the British Isles

Political name
Given the not-so-nice experience of the Irish under British rule, this name and the assertion over Ireland implicit in it does seem quite contrived and politically motivated. 'Britain and Ireland' would be one of many less jingoistic titles for this article. There's no need for this petty irredentist stuff to be accepted by mainstream wikipedia editors.193.203.136.185 (talk) 17:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Since what many people want from this article is the history United Kingdom, could the title and content reflect this - e.g. History of the countries which now make up the United Kingdom. It's a bit long, true, but at least we could leave out the full title of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Irelend ... Perhaps the history of what is now the Republic of Ireland could be covered only to the extent of its overlap with UK history in this article, and more fully in an article of its own. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.56.178 (talk) 17:12, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Events in timeline
These seem disproportionately focused on Ireland as it stands at the moment, and especially lacking Welsh events. If possible, could someone add more important events to the timeline to balance it out. The Statute of Rhuddlan is noticeable in its absence, as is the War of the Roses.

In addition, are we sure all events already there warrant a place? A short period of economic growth over the course of only a few years, and in only one constituent part of the Isles (I refer to the Celtic Tiger) seems rather insignificant given the large time frame of the timeline. There have been many, many periods of economic growth and decline, it seems peculiar to elevate just one.

Ménalque (talk) 17:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Where are we
Can I suggest we move this to History of Great Britain? Its largely a political history for a geographical term and its been frozen for ages --Snowded (talk) 19:36, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems fine were it is to me. It covers the wars of the three kingdoms etc so this is the more appropriate page. --Cameron* 20:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The present title is clearly politically motivated, and 'History of Britain' was the name of the original article. Surprising the current title has lasted this long. 86.42.96.251 (talk) 09:04, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Another option is "History of Great Britain and Ireland" and only cover the period when that was a valid term. Whatever, the use of British Isles as a political term (which we have here) is wrong.  --Snowded (talk) 10:06, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If Ireland is included on this article, it should remain at its current title. GoodDay (talk) 14:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * GoodDay, the only valid reason for the continuation of the BI term is that it is geographical, if we are talking politics then GB & Ireland is the valid term. If you are going to start to use it politically then I will start to sympathise with those who want to remove it --Snowded (talk) 22:05, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I oppose any change to this articles title, it will simply open up a can of worms on other British Isles articles. The current title is accurate and does not need to be changed, politics is also part of history. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I've no sympathy for what bugs the British & Irish politically. In otherwords, keep the title for geographical reasons, as the islands of Ireland & Great Britain existed then (as they do now). GoodDay (talk) 15:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

"The present title is clearly politically motivated" Nonsense. This may be a foreign concept to some but the world does not revolve around petty Irish nationalist POVs. 'British Isles' is an historic, established, legitimate piece of nomenclature and like it or not Ireland is covered by it just as much as the other 'British' isles be they Great Britain, Lewis, Man, Rathlin, Mull, Wight etc etc etc. siarach (talk) 18:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Can't find Lewis there, can't be bothered to check the others. Tfz     01:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "Oh dear", another "British Isles" pov-fork, such an pitiful waste of kilobites. Tfz     01:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes ,it is better I agree Minachichi (talk) 11:15, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Deletion proposal
I am quite close to nominating this article for deletion. Granted its well written and sourced but I thinks its a stretch to have an article about the collective history of the group of islands like this especially as the British Isles is an ambiguous term and has no legal meaning or defined areas or constituants. We have article for the History of the United Kingdom, History of the Republic of Ireland and the History of Ireland so this is redundant and doesnt really make sense.--Vintagekits (talk) 18:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The only reason you want it deleted is because of its title. If it was called History of Britain and Ireland you would never have been here. I reject the idea of deleting it. MidnightBlue   (Talk)  18:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually I think you will find that I havent really been involved with the whole "British Isles" thing. Either comment on the substantive issue or I will end the discussion here and bering it to AfD. Way to assume good faith!.--Vintagekits (talk) 08:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ditto midnightblue. Ridiculous proposal. siarach (talk) 18:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh for god sake, the anti British Isle brigade moves on to its new victim i see. I strongly oppose this attempt to rid the term British Isles from wikipedia. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * ZZzzzzzzzz!!! My point is that the "British Isles" amabiguous geographical term and not a legal enity. Therefore is doesnt have a defined "history per se. We have aricles on the history of the UK, GB, Ire, Scot etc and this is just a POV fork and mish mash of all of these. --Vintagekits (talk) 09:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Why dont u go and have History of Europe deleted. thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 09:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh FFS! I can now understand why no one ever gets anything solves when you are around - its embarrassing! Why don't we create History of the British Isles, Iceland and Kenya whilst we are at it. I don't see what this article does that isn't done in the individual articles already. The various histories are artificially sewn together here in a manner that is incohesive - its pure POV or OR.--Vintagekits (talk) 10:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Rubbish, u do not view the British Isles as a geographical location thats fine but dont impose that on everyone else. It is a recognized location just like Europe is and there is just as much justification for an article on the History of the British Isles as there is History of Europe. U know u wont change peoples minds on this matter, so lets not even go there ok? Im sure we all have better things to do. Bye BritishWatcher (talk) 10:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

What is the problem ? The British Isles is a well defined and common term throughout Europe, in Germany we translate directly to Britische Inseln http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britische_Inseln


 * Well, what can we expect from the same people who are holding the British crown at the moment (yes, the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha family, alias the Windors)? To put it in German terms, try Lebensraum, because that is what the British have been using our country, Ireland, for since at least 1607 as they settle their own little masterrace ('herrenvolk' as one well-known Irish historian has accurately described them) upon us. These people goose-step around native Irish areas and claim supremacy over us native Irish. Google the Orange Order if you are in denial about these analogies. That German people subscribe to British political claims over my country does not make those claims any more legitimate. This term, "British Isles" is a claim over the Irish people following centuries of brutal British rule over our country - a red rag to a bull if ever there has been one. It's only British nationalists who are asserting it. Decent, genuinely peace-loving,  English people like Tony Benn would never make such a rabidly imperialist assertion over their neighbours. 86.44.18.40 (talk) 19:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * PS: I note that this article was originally 'History of Britain' before a British nationalist changed it to 'History of the British Isles'. How very revealing. Revert it asap. 86.44.18.40 (talk) 19:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

People like you seriously need to get a life, no one is claiming ownership on Ireland, atrocities have been commited on both sides and there is nothing nationalist about using a legitamite geograhical term!--86.4.87.120 (talk) 19:32, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * What you call a "legitimate geographical term" may be superficially so in the nether regions of British euroscepticism where its use is in reality a political assertion of separateness from the European Union. In Ireland, this term is seen for the blatantly political and jingoistic term that it is used as. It's disingenuous to pretend otherwise, particularly given the history of the Irish at the hands of the British occupying their country. 78.16.118.19 (talk) 09:48, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Input requested
Your input is requested at the following discussions:
 * Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_May_21,
 * Articles for deletion/Politics in the British Isles
 * In addition, your suggestions and improvements are welcomed to a newly created article here Politics_in_the_British_Isles. It still needs work...--KarlB (talk) 02:59, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Move proposal
I suggest moving this article to History of Britain such that, this article covers the history of Great Britain, and regions when they were governed by Great Britain (such as the whole of Ireland from 1542 to 1922 and Northern Ireland from 1922 to present). This is not intended to exclude Northern Ireland, but rather improve the structure of articles covering British History. Currently, there is an overlap on articles covering British history with History of the United Kingdom covering from 1707 to present, and Early modern Britain covering from 1485 to 1800. Changing the title of this article and making it the primary article covering British History (in significantly less detail then History of the United Kingdom does currently), then having the article History of the United Kingdom covering just the period from 1801 to present, would make it so that there is an overview article, with sub-articles going into more detail on periods exclusively. To show what I mean, here is the current structure of articles:
 * History of the British Isles (start of time–present)
 * History of Ireland (start of time–present)
 * Prehistoric Ireland (before 400)
 * History of Ireland (400–800) (400–800)
 * History of Ireland (800–1169) (800–1169)
 * History of Ireland (1169–1536) (1169–1536)
 * History of Ireland (1536–1691) (1536–1691)
 * History of Ireland (1691–1801) (1691–1801)
 * History of Ireland (1801–1923) (1801–1923)
 * Prehistoric Britain (before 43)
 * Roman Britain (43–409)
 * Britain in the Middle Ages (409–1485)
 * Early modern Britain (1485–1800)
 * History of the United Kingdom (1707–present)

My proposed alternative structure would look like this:
 * History of Britain (start of time–present)
 * Prehistoric Britain (before 43)
 * Roman Britain (43–409)
 * Britain in the Middle Ages (409–1485)
 * Early modern Britain (1485–1800)
 * History of the United Kingdom (1801–present)
 * History of regions while they are under English, Scottish or British governance and their relationship with England, Scotland or Britain
 * History of Ireland (start of time–present)
 * Prehistoric Ireland (before 400)
 * History of Ireland (400–800) (400–800)
 * History of Ireland (800–1169) (800–1169)
 * History of Ireland (1169–1536) (1169–1536)
 * History of Ireland (1536–1691) (1536–1691)
 * History of Ireland (1691–1801) (1691–1801)
 * History of Ireland (1801–1923) (1801–1923)

Thoughts?

Rob (talk) 17:07, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I find it very unlikely that anyone will accept any part of the "History of Ireland" being incorporated into the "History of Britain". At least "British Isles" recognizes that an entity other than Great Britain exists, as bad as the term may be to some. This, however, is rather poorly thought out. RGloucester  — ☎ 22:28, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No There are several scholars who are taking an "archipelagic" approach to writing the history of the British isles, such as "The Atlantic Archipelago A Political History of the British Isles" Tompson, Richard S.; or "The British Isles: A History of Four Nations - 1989, 2nd edition 2006, Cambridge University Press" by Hugh Kearney. I think as a summary-style article, with a more unified narrative at the beginning then links out to the individual histories, makes more sense than the fracturing into British and Irish history you propose above.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:30, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Moving this away from a geographical definitions will open a huge can of worms. Leave it as it is.--  SabreBD  (talk ) 17:42, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem is that some Irish object to term British Isles as it implies the island of Ireland is "British". We could invent a neutral term (The islands of Britain and Ireland?) but then no-one would find the article. Better to have two separate articles for the History of Britain and the History of Ireland in my opinion.TheMathemagician (talk) 14:30, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with this article but I don't understand why [History of Britain] redirects here, that ought to be an article too. Gob Lofa (talk) 20:25, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of the British Isles. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100526163947/http://www.musee-marine.fr/cartel2.php?id=55 to http://www.musee-marine.fr/cartel2.php?id=55

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:14, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Houston, we have a problem: this is not cricket
I just made a radical change to the hat structure of this article, out of personal necessity.

It's all too much to pack into a single hat, and if not a single hat, then hats all around.

I went a fair amount of trouble to make sure that each bit has fair mention, which lead to giving Wales a slightly less important entry for the sake of balance.

I know this is a bit non-standard, but I hope people will see the logic from where the sun never sets—the vast diaspora who share bits of this history, but who now live far away and for whom this is all far too inside baseball to puzzle out without a giant directory at the front gate. &mdash; MaxEnt 00:11, 8 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Oops, Britain was a self-link. &mdash; MaxEnt 00:21, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Second stab, more sophisticated formatting

 * This page covers many interlocking topics of unusual overlap and interdependence.

I personally think this works better, being more explicit about its nonstandard nature, but others may disagree. I've done my piece and I'm now moving along. Alter or revert at will. &mdash; MaxEnt 00:55, 8 November 2021 (UTC)


 * One final comment: the associated DAB page is plenty busy with the term "Britain" and that's the reason many readers would go there. But if Britain isn't your problem, my new inline DAB serves better, IMHO. &mdash; MaxEnt 00:59, 8 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I suspect most people don't know this, but Jobs' famous ad campaign, think different was as much targeted at his own employees as the consuming public. The peripatetic editors who arrive here might benefit more from the structure I've erected than anyone else, because the precise scope of this page is anyone's guess on short contact. &mdash; MaxEnt 01:11, 8 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I had a bad feeling about the : markup I used in the source above, so I actually looked at the rendered HTML page source, and discovered that hatnote page content is marked with a special class making it non-searchable (for search engines), and then I quickly figured out that a generic {hatnote} template was available to save me from myself. &mdash; MaxEnt 01:26, 8 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I can't seem to tear myself away, but for worries percolating up after my non-standard contribution. I'm not much of an infobox person. It occurred to me that maybe people with small screens won't find this change as appealing. (I'm not much for small screens, either.) Problem with the infobox is that its contents don't show by default, don't amount to a declaration of overlap and scope, and hide the history of the UK under "late modern period", but periodization has nothing to do with this. Moreover, periodization is generally annoying to non-historians, because it seems like the cake is never cut the same way twice. The infobox—if you poke hard—does expose the date 1707, but it does not expose the dates 1800, or 1921. It's purpose is somewhat orthogonal. Some might argue it's enough on its own. But the problem as I see it is that people who expect it to be orthogonal won't bother to look there, and they will try to work out the scope by engaging first of all with the text, which is what I tried on first contact, and it nearly killed me, because I was processing in chunks, rather than taking a full overview, and there's no way out of this particular maze on a chunky basis. Too many "British" Minotaurs. Not enough shoestring. &mdash; MaxEnt 01:38, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I am removing all of these, respectfully, as none of them actually seem necessary. Those a reader may be looking for should probably be in WP:SEEALSO instead. Remsense  诉  03:11, 23 February 2024 (UTC)