Talk:British Isles
|
|
| Contents |
What are the British Isles?
There's already a Talk page for "Britain and Ireland" which covers this issue to some extent, but actually the discussion belongs here because "British Isles" is the term being objected to; "Britain and Ireland" was just suggested as an alternative.
To begin with, the term "British Isles" is the commonly used and accepted term which refers to the group of islands off the northwest coast of Europe which includes the islands of Great Britain and Ireland and the many smaller adjacent islands. As authorities for this one may cite, among many, many others: Merriam-Webster Geographical Dictionary, Houghton-Mifflin Dictionary of Geography, Oxford Dictionary of the World, Goode's World Atlas, National Geographic Atlas of the World, Rand McNalley Atlas of the World, de Blij and Muller's Geography: Realms, Regions and Concepts (authoritative college text), etc. etc.
The use of the term is not simply common, it is virtually universal, among geographers, cartographers, historians, news writers, travel writers, and ordinary people. In fact, if there is any alternative equivalent term in use, I have been unable to find it. If there were one, surely it would have appeared in Kearney's "The British Isles: A history of four nations"; I looked there and didn't see one.
Of course it is possible to use an explicit descriptive phrase, such as "Great Britain and Ireland and adjacent islands", but virtually no one does, for reasons that are obvious. It's just too cumbersome, and quite unnecessary because the convenient term "British Isles" is so well established and widely documented that its meaning is virtually certain to be clear.
Norman Davies overcame this problem, in the title of his book, by just calling them 'The Isles', however, while being uncontroversial it is a little problematic. If you were looking up the book on a library catalogue, how would you know which Isles were being referred to?
If I were Iceland I would be deeply concerned about this IONA business. --MichaelTinkler
Not to mention the Faeroes, Greenland, Newfoundland, Rhode Island, Long Island, etc. -- Derek Ross
I removed the following (twice):
although there are of course cases where this cannot be done while preserving the intended meaning.
It is clearly and unambiguously POV. It implies that there is a right and wrong meaning to the BI, and that there are occasions when it is right to use it. That is completely disputed by many people, not just in Ireland, but also by nationalists in Scotland and Wales. Many see it as a term that is a hangover from past imperial anglo-centric times. Such a POV sentence has no place in the article.
In addition, to suggest that BI has a geographical meaning is factually wrong. In other cases, terms like Iberia, etc can be accepted by the states on Iberia because it does not have any potential political implications. BI does, because it was a term first coined to refer to a set of islands that were not just geographically but politically bound together, hence it is not a geographic term (as whomever keeps adding in the POV stuff seems to think) but a geo-political term. It is seen by some as the equivalent of using the term former Soviet Union to describe those states in the geographic area that covers Russia and states that once were part of the USSR. Using such a term would be seen as provocative and offensive by ex-USSR states who had achieved their independence, just as indeed the term former Yugoslavia is viewed as offensive by some people in that region. British Isles is widely interpreted by some as meaning the islands of Britain. Ireland is not an island of Britain, it is an island off Britain, a different thing entirely. Because internationally it is often treated as meaning some sort of current political relationship between Ireland and GB, the term is not merely not used by Irish people but is seen as arrogant, offensive and presumptive. And it is not a simple geographic term but a geo-political term. FearÉIREANN 19:42 13 Jun 2003 (UTC)
- I doubt BI ... was a term first coined to refer to a set of islands that were ...politically bound together. There are maps on the internet (e.g. 1607) (http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~genmaps/genfiles/COU_files/ENG/aaEng/mercator_britann_1607.htm) from well before the 1707 English-Scotish Act of Union that use the terms Britannicarun Insularum (Hibernia + Britannia major) or similar. I don't know Latin, but that sounds like BI to me. I don't dispute that BI has gathered some political implications since. Andy G 22:33 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)
- In fact, I think it's the other way round: British was originally a neutral geographical term for all the islands but it has since been used politically to imply the UK. Hence the problems. Andy G 22:42 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)
- That is simplistic. The states of Ireland and England were de-facto brought together when England claimed sovereignty in Ireland with the Treaty of Winsdor and the establishment of the english Lordship of Ireland in the 1170s. In 1541, the english King was proclaimed King of Ireland. Ireland was a nominally separate kingdom but was run by an english Lord Deputy and a parliament from which the native Irish were excluded and which was filled with the descendants of english settlers. Nobody from 1541 if not centuries earlier saw Ireland as anything other than an english colony. From October 1604 James I of England and Ireland and VI of Scotland claimed the title of King of the united kingdom of Great Britain. Its usage on those maps represented the fact that the three nominally independent states were all one political unit. Its usage clearly and unambiguously showed the political relationship, not just the geographic one, that bound the islands. Describing it as ever being a neutral geographical term is patently absurd and displays a serious lack of understanding of the history of the islands. FearÉIREANN 23:04 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)
- In the above "to suggest that BI has a geographical meaning is factually wrong" seems at odds with all the other opinions expressed here. As most everybody writing on this page has said, BI is widely considered a geographical term. Some people may be sensitive to the possibility that BI may be interpreted in another, political, way. They have the right to prefer other terminology, and even to promote its use, as this page now unashamedly does. It is quite another thing to argue that the term "British Isles" was somehow invented by the English as a political slight to the islands' non-English occupants. There are many bad things in anglo-irish history: this term is not one of them.
- Ireland was invaded and occupied by Normans in the 12th century, whose leader happened to be King of England (but not Scotland or Wales), although he rarely visited. When Henry II died, England had nothing any more to do with Ireland until its Lord, the Norman prince Jean, inherited the English throne in 1199. By this time, Ireland had been colonised by Normans, most of whom soon (to borrow a phrase) "went native" becoming "more Irish than the Irish". See History of Ireland and map (http://www.wikipedia.org/upload/2/22/Www.wesleyjohnston.com-users-ireland-maps-historical-map1300.gif).
- The organised domination of Ireland by english rulers really started with Henry VIII, whose policies were of unbridled opposition to anything controlled by the Pope. The Norman-ancestry lords of Ireland at this time mainly opposed Henry and remained Roman Catholic. By Henry's time, mapmakers across Europe were already producing, and in some cases printing, maps entitled "British Isles" and it seems likely that the term originated some time earlier for it to have reached such wide acceptance. We have no empirical evidence that the term was originated or supported for political purposes at this time. When Ortelius etc. were making their maps, Great Britain was two separate kingdoms. Had there been an English political intention, a title such as the English Isles would have been a far more likely choice.
- There may have been attempts after 1603 to promote the single identity of the combined kingdom on the big island, but this was long after the term British Isles was in widespread use. User:EdH 20:22 28 Jun 2003 (UTC)
- Again simplistic and inaccurate. I never said that the term British Isles was unvented by the British. And you chronically underestimate the degree of English involvement in Ireland before Henry VIII. You mention Jean as Ireland's lord, inheriting the English throne. The reason he was called Lord of Ireland was that the territory was given to him by Henri II, who saw Ireland as part of his territories, it being given to him because he was up to that point the only one of Henri's sons without territories, hence his nickname. English rule in Ireland was perceived as legitimate on continental Europe and backed by the pope for centuries before Henry VIII. An all-island Irish state governed by a native polity did not exist and the Lordship of Ireland, then Kingdom of Ireland, was an english creation internationally accepted long before the first maps referred to the term British Isles. So to claim that the term was purely geographical is patently simplistic and inaccurate. Had their been some concept of Ireland as an independent island then it is quite probable as elsewhere that a term would have been used that was neutral rather than focused on the identity of the larger island. But because the smaller island was seen internationally as a colony of the larger (indeed the papacy had openly endorsed the right of England to rule over Ireland, though not to call the smaller island a 'kingdom' - which had to wait until Henry VIII broke with the papacy) it was perceived as reasonable to use a term that focused on the identity of the former, a term Great Brittaine being used by royal ordinance to describe the larger island in October 1604. FearÉIREANN 22:37 28 Jun 2003 (UTC)
- (I have bought a copy of The Isles to educate myself.) I withdraw may original point. But part of my problem stemmed from the fact that the article launches straight into English-Irish-Scottish politics without mentioning the original usage of British: to describe the Brythonic Celts, of most of Great Britain and of Brittany ("Little Britain")(I didn't know that). I'm going to edit this in. The other point that needs clarifying is that British Isles was in use well before there was any central control over the whole of the archipelago (including Scotland), and before it was even claimed. It's pushed beck to "before Henry VIII" above. This was a time when Great Britain was uncontestedly two nations, England and Scotland.
- A lot of what's been written leads to the expectation the islands might be called "The English Isles". Re-reading, it looks like "British Isles" was first used to imply two nations: England-including-Ireland and Scotland. Is that right? If so, the article just confuses things by mentioning English rule extended to Scotland in 1603.
- I am reminded of the way in which The Netherlands have come two be known as "Holland" to English-speakers. I gather this is because the sea-trading peoples of the provinces of North and South Holland were those most likely to be encountered by Englishmen, and so that name was transferred in popular usage to the country from which they came - without, as far as I know, any political spin-doctoring to encourage it. Does this throw any light on the question? Andy G 12:31 29 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Good buy with Norman Davies' The Isles. One bit of advice, though. I was severely disappointed to notice some rather monumental errors in it. I get the impression that Norman sort of ran out of steam half way through or realised that what is was writing was getting to be too big (been there, done that when writing history!) so the second half seems to cover things in a lot less detail than the first and some almightly blunders crop up, such as suggesting that de Valera won the Irish civil war, which would have come as a suprise to him, given that he had given a 'dump' arms command to his defeated followers and finished the civil war in gaol. There are other blunders too. It is a fascinating and thought-provoking book (I reviewed it for a newspaper) and had to say that it was such a pity that easily correctable mistakes have undermined its credibility. Whether that was fault of Norman or his editors I don't know but it was a great pity.
BTW please don't think I am some Irish republican Brit-hater etc. Far far from it. (On another article I worked on I was called a British Tory by someone!) But because of the complexity of Anglo-Irish relations, Ireland was seen for most of the last millennium as a form of english colony and so all the islands were seen as secondary to the main island, and even on the main island, Scotland though an independent kingdom was seeen as secondary to the main major kingdom on the island, England. The fact that the Scottish kingdom was seen as so unstable, with coups, murdered monarchs, regencies, rebellious nobility, constant English invasions, etc helped project the image that it was a minor kingdom; the fact that its ex-queen, Mary Queen of Scots, could be help a prisoner for many years in England and than be executed showed the real nature of power on the island. That James VI when he inherited the throne went to London and never returned to Edinburgh, indeed that he chose to reign as James I of Great Brittaine from the English not Scottish capital is indicative of the power relationship on the island. So there was no more perceived need to acknowledge Ireland in the terminology used than there was to include the Isle of Man. As Britain was a term applied to the major island, and it was the source of power among all the islands of the archipelago, it was understandable that the whole group was called the British Isles. Put simply, you had a lot of islands, one main one, on which stood a minor kingdom and a major one. Geographic terms are not created in isolation but tend to reflect the generally accepted power basis at the time. (Hence the use of the word 'America' to refer to the US, even though all parts of the American continent should have equal ownership of the term.) FearÉIREANN 14:04 29 Jun 2003 (UTC)
I removed the following inaccurate addition:
Some writers may choose to avoid referring to the island group as a whole in order to avoid giving offense.
No they don't. They simply choose not to use a particular term to describe the island group which is seen by many to have geo-political implications and to imply a political relationship between the countries in the group that actually ceased to exist 81 years ago. An increasing number use a less potentially offensive term. They don't stop referring to the island group altogether. Why has someone a problem with simply accepting that there are potential problems with this term? Instead we are getting amendments that imply the term is OK. If there is a problem, it is with people who may take offence with it. That is blatenty POV. The problem rests with the term itself and what it potentially implies. People genuinely and understandably have a problem with a term that has inaccurate geo-political implications.FearÉIREANN 20:28 13 Jun 2003 (UTC)
- (Presumably we should read the above as: ...the people who make the amendments think that if there is a problem, it is with people who may take offence with it... Andy G 12:20 6 Jul 2003 (UTC))
A late clarification about FearÉIREANN's comment above that "the fact that its ex-queen, Mary Queen of Scots, could be help a prisoner for many years in England and than be executed showed the real nature of power on the island" looks a non sequiter to me: Mary was overthrown, "abdicated" and had been imprisoned in Scotland for a year before she escaped and fled to her cousin who imprisoned her in England for 19 years before executing her, and the power struggle in Scotland meant only some wanted to restore her. When James VI also inherited the English thone his choice of London makes sense in terms of relative wealth and the need to build relationships in his new kingdom rather than a crude "power relationship". That's the problem with English-centred history - it's as much a political construct as geographical names are..dave souza 19:50, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Sorry to butt in but i noticed a conversation you had on the British isles discussion page where you referred to the Book "The Isles" by Norman Davis. Can i recommend to you two books to you on Cornish history. Mark Stoyle "West Britons, Cornish identities in th early modern period" Philip Payton " Cornwall a history" Both excellent and place the Cornish in their rightful context as a distinct peoples of the Atlantic Archipelago. Fulub le Breton 6/02/05
Ortelius makes clear his understanding that England, Scotland and Ireland were politically nominally at least separate in 1570 by the full title of his map... which translates as "A description of England, Scotland and Ireland, or the British Isles".
Does this imply separation? Couldn't someone have produced a map with the same title in, say, 1850? Andy G 23:20 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)
In cases where what is being referred to is the two largest islands, the term "Great Britain and Ireland" can be used. Of course, in those cases, the term "British Isles" would not be appropriate to begin with. There is no other brief term in common use to refer to the island group as a whole; "Great Britain, Ireland, and surrounding islands" gets at the basic meaning, but at the cost of conciseness
Is this not back to front? Surely the main islands are assumed to include their outlying islands unless you make it clear that's not what you intend. Great Britain and Ireland is a common substitute for The British Isles. To refer just to the two large islands you would surely have to say something like "the mainlands of Great Britain and Ireland". How would one describe the Geography of New Zealand? Andy G 23:20 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)
213.84.6.203, you cannot keep expunging any mention of the Channel Islands simply because (like me) you don't think they ought to be considered part of the British Isles. It is not for Wikipedia to redefine English usage. If you can find an authorative reference that says that the Channel Isles are not part of the British Isles, then that can be mentioned in the article. However, I looked at this two years ago and could find no such reference, so I merely added a comment to the article pointing out that, geographically speaking, they don't really belong. (Unfortunately, someone has since removed this comment.) Note that the Jersey government website says that the Channel Islands are part of the British Isles (http://www.gov.je/island/heritage.asp), and the Guernsey government website also says that its islands form part of the British Isles (http://www.gov.gg/law/obtainevidence.htm). --Zundark 12:55, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- Yes, politically they are, but geographicaly they are not. My reference is any atlas. The government of those two channel islands can claim they are part of it, but they simply are not. Many British are also saying that the UK is not part of Europe, but we all know that they are part of it. Same thing with Greenland, politically Europe, geographicaly North-America. The British Isles do not have any political meaning, so we should put it in a geographical context. 213.84.6.203 01:45, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Not true, PML. British Isles has both a geographical and a political meaning. FearÉIREANN 01:51, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- British Islands is used on Jersey passports (added to article). Andy G 23:52, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- Why did you add it to this article rather than the British Islands article? By adding it here you have (incorrectly) implied that it means the same as British Isles. --Zundark 09:09, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- 'Cos I'd not seen it. Updated and linked. Andy G 19:19, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Footnotes
The last two footnotes (textbooks.2 & used2.) refer to none of the footnotes, least of all "2". These footnotes are really hard to use (people need to open 2 broswers, or scroll up and down repetitively). It's best to incorporate them into the main body if at all possible. --Menchi 09:50, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- Fixed numbering. Those two notes were both supposed to refer to the same footnote about Norman Davies and "The isles". The paragraph about mapmakers had a note number but the footnote had been deleted ages ago. See revisions of
- 05:16, 14 Jun 2003
- 13:50, 16 Nov 2003
- 06:21, 2 Dec 2003
- 08:35, 2 Dec 2003
- Andy G 20:21, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
It is asserted that
- the term was interpreted to mean that Ireland was still ruled by Britain or had British royalty as its head of state, most famously when Mikhail Gorbachev on an short Irish visit in the late 1980s presumed that Ireland still had the British Queen as its head of state, due to its membership of the 'British Isles'
I have removed this assertion because I don't believe it to be true. Please provide details and corroborating evidence from an independent reputable published source. EdH 04:00, May 25, 2004 (UTC)
It happened in a live press conference being broadcast and was witnessed by thousands. It has been mentioned in a number of books on the Haughey era. I'll look up some, but as one of those who witnessed the event I can confirm that it happened. FearÉIREANN 16:27, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I'm intrigued by the mention of Nancy Reagan's gaffe over the term 'British Isles' during a state visit to Ireland. What did she say or do?
---
History of the 'British Isles'
Does anyone think it would be a good idea to have a page called 'History of the British Isles' (or whatever term you want to use for Britain and Ireland)? There has been a huge trend for 'British Isles' histories in the last few years (Eg Norman Davies' The Isles as well many others.) This gives a different perspective than looking at the different countries separately by concentrating on the interactions between them.
Substitution of link (an apologetic self-defense!)
For the full Latin text of Pliny, I substituted the LacusCurtius page for that at the Latin Library; not because it was my own, but because I know that the text at Latin Library was copied from mine -- and here's the clincher -- unfortunately debasing it with various errors, mostly in the numbers (bars removed from over the numbers, so that distances in miles were turned into distances in feet!). Also, the text at Latin Library has not kept pace with the ongoing corrections of typos in the original, but typos continue to be caught and corrected on the Lacus site; so that the resource is better.
latest changes by an anon
I don't like that part about a mysterious ""early source" at all. Would you please state which source that is? That would help a lot to make the changes useful. Will some Expert for the British Isles have a look at it? Lady Tenar 22:29, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I appologize for that statement. I see that you have put much thought in your changes and i appreciate that very much. It was not nice to pick at you like that, sorry. I wrote it after some time of watching recent changes, i think that made me paranoid. Now i go away and leave this article to those who really know something about the matter, as you do. Lady Tenar 21:05, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- No mystery at all. It is the Life of Saint Columba by Adomnán of Iona written in the seventh century. Anyone familiar with early British and Irish history will know of it.
- I just had a quick read through Gildas and the Letter and Confessio of Saint Patrick and they contain no collective term for the archipelago, neither do the Irish annals which were begun circa 550 as far as I remember. Everything else (Bede, "Nennius", Anglo-Saxon chronicle, etc) is later than the Life of Saint Columba so it does look as if the term "British Isles" had no currency in the archipelago until a quite late date. I think it would be useful if someone could come up with its first mention in a native source so we can see the context for its emergence. I suspect that it may be a political context. If so it would seem to knock the "its a geographical term so get over it" argument on the head 195.92.168.168 10:10, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Having had a good read through the arguments further up the page it seems that nobody has considered the "Britishification" that occurred in post-Norman England. The body of "King Arthur" was dug up at Glastonbury and a "Round Table" was put on display at Winchester, all of which added the aura of timeless "British" (ie: pre-English) legitimacy to what was a very recently established Norman monarchy. Contemporary romances portrayed Arthur as an imperial figure who held the Scots and Irish in subjection so what would be more natural than to have the post-Norman English kings press the suitably imperial term "British Isles" into service in support of their campaigns of conquest in Scotland and Ireland. I do not have the details handy, but I know that post-Norman Canterbury claimed dominion over the Irish church on the basis of similar unhistorical hokum 195.92.168.171 17:14, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- In view of the surprisingly late entry of the term into English (1621) it seems to me that there is very little to support the view that "British Isles" had any currency, except among classical geographers, their copyists the renaissance/later mapmakers and users of these maps. I think the article now needs to be recast to emphasise the unreliable nature of these classical geographers when describing far flung lands. It seems to me that the term "British Isles" was until modern times little different to "here be dogheads and griffons". I will leave things for a week or three to see if any discussion develops 195.92.168.178 20:22, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Developing discussion..
It seems to me that the terms Britannia or British Isles pre-existed as a mapmakers designation when James VI & I used "Great Britain" as a political construct to provide a shared (ancient) identity for his kingdoms, with the "local" use of "British Isles" following on from that construct. It would be interesting to know if the original formulation of "Great Britain" excluded Ireland. References to Three Kingdoms suggest autonomous countries united under his (autocratic) rule, with the terms no more indicating imposing subservience to a dominant country than "Europe" does today to most in the EU. The Irish confederate leadership sought agreement with Charles I in 1642, and in the Williamite war in Ireland James VII & II was accepted as king, suggesting that their quarrels were with policies rather than looking for a new monarch. This situation obviously differed in the 20th century with British becoming a nationality which Republican Irish felt opposed to, though well into this period they were referring to "cruel England" rather than Britain. It's not clear just when this objection to "British" started, but an encyclopedia should be wary of projecting current political correctness back onto the past. It is of course right that the current sensitivities should be recorded, but the use of "British Isles" for the archipelago is likely to remain in common use outside Eire for the foreseeable future. dave souza 01:41, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Where the article says " the term is no longer used in Irish state documents, has been abandoned in Irish schoolbooks and is being phased out of textbooks." does this mean the Republic of Ireland, or do these changes all apply to Northern Ireland as well?..dave souza 19:11, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
B[r]ia
User:195.8.175.117 suggested
- Bria ( standing for "BRitish and Irish Archipelago") with "Brihan" being the adjective to describe e.g. an inhabitant of Bria. This has the advantage of being concise,descriptive,politically inclusive and distinctive."
It would interesting to learn from residents of the Islands about its utility and euphony. It would be especially interesting to hear from citizens of Eire User;Brihan)
- When I lived in Dublin I noticed that people would say simply "these islands" to mean Britain and Ireland. The conversations were never specific enough to determine whether the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands were included in the term. One term I like (and that gets three whole Google hits!) is "Hiberno-British archipelago" --Angr 07:10, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
And what of Cornubia?
As usual there is no discussion of Cornwall and the Cornish. many maps up until 1600 showed Cornubia as a distinct region on a par if not with Scotia and Anglia then most definitely with Wallia. Not least of which would be Gerardus Mercator Atlas, see the "CORNWALL & WALES ("Cornewallia & Wallia") 1564"
- Mercators Atlas (http://www.walkingtree.com/)
Can i recommend two books for you edification on Cornish history "Cornwall a History" by Philip Payton of Exeter university. "West Britons, Cornish identities in the early modern period" by Mark Stoyle of South Hampton University.
Also why are no links given to works by Gildas or Geoffrey of Monmouth. If you are going to have links to the anglocentric pseudo historian Bede why not some for these two as well?
Also check these two websites.
- BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/state/nations/)
- British Isles (http://www.macs.hw.ac.uk/britishisles/)
- I think I miss your point—what of Cornubia? Why does it deserve special mention? It is currently identified as part of the United Kingdom, or England on a subnational level. Mercia and Wessex were also once subnational entities, they have no mention nor is there particular need to... --Oldak Quill 16:34, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Simply because the Cornish as a nation (many see themselves as such) still exist along with their language. Mercians and Wessaxons where Germanic peoples who developed into the English, nobody (almost) identifies themselves with these historic subnational entities. This is not the case for Cornwall and the Cornish. If there is no need to mention Cornwall then their is no need to mention Wales either. The Cornish are not a subnational element, they are a national element of a super national construction, the UK. Bretagne 44 15/3/05
What about Dispute over the name of the British Isles ?
There are already Dispute over the name of the Persian Gulf and Dispute over the name of the Sea of Japan articles. From what I've read here, it seems this geographical naming dispute probably merits it own article as well.--Pharos 19:58, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Excellent suggestion. The consistency of the naming doesn't single out this dispute in any way, perfectly N PoV. The link would be as at Dispute over the name of the Sea of Japan, perfectly plain, isolated for visibility, right at the bottom. --Wetman 20:18, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
How about Hiberno-British Isles?
Ed
Added comment Other possibilities would be:
- Celtic Isles
- Atlantic Isles
Links or sections on...
Flora and fauna, geology, langiuage, migration patterns, production/exports/imports, climate etc. Would be nice, as well as the extensive discussion over the term. Rich Farmbrough 11:15, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)