" 

 ::: You are completely right that the current article is, in reality, about a historical entity. However, it is historical and ""geographical"" (sic) only in the period from the 17th century. In 16th century Ireland or England the ""British"" were, consistently, equated with ""Britons"" who were, consistently, the people of Britanny [""little Britain""]. Holinshed's Chronicles, for instance, made this equation often. When he referred to ""the Britons here in this Isle[Britain]"" he was treating them as an ethnic minority from the past and their affect on English [ooops! ""British""]history. Not once did he equate or imply that British or Briton was the name of all the people in Britain. In fact, the ""British"" were frequently banned by the sixteenth-century English Tudor colonial governors of Ireland from Ireland!(especially for taking fish which the Tudors claimed to be for English fishermen](See, for example, Calendar Patent Rolls Ireland, vol i, page 389 from September 1557-58] But this does not fit in at all, at all with British nationalist claims to Ireland since the 17th century. That last sentence sums up this entire article. This entire term is completely and entirely representative of a political claim to Ireland and to the Irish people since the defeat of the Irish in the seventeenth century. This political context is the clear and unequivocal history of the term ""British Isles"". Irish people know this; modern ""British"" people obviously would prefer to keep their nationalist egos alive by denying the political origins of the term in order to keep the current name as ""British Isles"". The title on this article makes the entire article a sham article, nothing but a vehicle for British jingoistic claims to Ireland. Most despicable of all is the dishonesty of wikipedia editors about the political agenda at the heart of this article.   "