Talk:United Kingdom/Terminology archive1

"Britain" being an "incorrect" abbreviation

It's completely anal to label "Britain" as being an "incorrect" abbreviation when referring to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. An abbreviation is just that - a conventional short form, it's not about being "correct" or the full form would be used. The United States of America is conventionally shortened in English to "the US", "United States", "the States", "America" and the "USA". Calling it "America" or "the States" or "the US" is "technically incorrect" because America is a continent and "the States" could equally refer to Mexico, whose "correct" name is incidentally the United Mexican States https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/mx.html#Govt. Yet convention dictates this usage in the English language.

Examples of this conventional usage are littered everywhere, from newspapers to websites to academic texts. The website of the British Embassy in America is britainusa.com http://www.britainusa.com. Its first paragraph begins "We provide up-to-date information about Britain including UK Government policy & humanitarian efforts, British science & technology advancements, requirements & regulations for visas to Britain, and a wealth of additional information and news about Britain in the US." The foreign office has a section "Britain in the EU". http://www.fco.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1007029391674 The Oxford History of Britain http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/019280135X/sr=8-1/qid=1153516925/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-2945053-6337504?ie=UTF8 doesn't exclude itself from talking about Northern Ireland.

As the British Isles (terminology) page says, "Britain in its modern usage is the usual short form for Great Britain and also for United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (or, in historical contexts, for United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland)."

Please just stop this silly childish revert warring and leave as is.

Gsd2000 21:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Britain is the island of Britain. The UK is the legally defined entity of Britain and Nothern Ireland. They do not correspond. Evidence of conventional usage is not good enough for WP. So solly to contwadict you.--Shtove 21:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Wait, hold on. Speak for yourself here, not for Wikipedia. You are not the personification of Wikipedia. If it's good enough for the OED (see above quote) it's good enough for Wikipedia. Gsd2000 21:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Moreover, by your logic of legal definitions, you would have to mark any abbreviation as "incorrect". The only legally correct term would be full form "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". Gsd2000 21:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I take your point about the OED - reliable, verifiable source, and all that. But reduce the notion to its elements: Britain is Britain, Ireland is Ireland, and any conflation or mixture of the terms is political and tendentious.--Shtove 22:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Semantics is not about logic: words only have meaning because by convention that is the meaning that people ascribe to them, and that meaning may change depending on the context or the era, or both. e.g. the term "gay". Language is always changing, words are not defined once and set in stone forevermore - that is why the OED is constantly revised. By convention - not for political point scoring - "Britain" is used as an abbreviation of The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, just like "America" is for The United States of America. When books or newspapers are published, the editors do not sit there tediously weeding out these references as being factually incorrect or politically charged. It's a simple abbreviation, and I do hope our fellow Irish Wikipedians do not continue to view its use as a synonym of "the UK" as an attempt to denegrate their people or country. Gsd2000 22:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Yo, Blair! We shouldn't care about newspapers or convention: that's the territory of bullshitters. Of course lungwidg changes all the time (especially that "of" Shakespeare), but principles of definition don't change. Britain is an island in Europe. Ireland is an island in Europe. The term British Isles was invented to cover both islands so that a Scottish king could define for his new found subjects what the feck he was up to. All politics - nothing to do with geography, geology, birds or walking paths. Homosexual conduct remains sweatily constant, no matter what tag you choose to describe it by. Ugh, you English and your bottoms!--Shtove 23:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Amusing banter. I'm trying to pick out the serious points within it and suspect you are confusing the etymology of the word and its contemporary meaning. Gsd2000 00:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Etymology of what word? British Isles is a fabrication, without etymology.--Shtove 00:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Great Britain is the name of the island (And maybe the smaller islands off its coast?). So far as I understand it Little Britain (apart from being a popular TV show) is Britanny. Hence the use of 'Great' to differenciate the two. The 'Great' is relevant in French to distinguish Grande Bretagne from Bretagne and not as necessary in English. Rednaxela 23:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

GSD is wrong. Britain means Great Britain, which is one island in the United Kingdom. While British is sometimes seen, albeit controversially, as the correct adjective for the entire UK, Britain and the UK are not the same and no amount of POV-editing can change basic geopolitical facts. FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 23:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)}

The point that you (pl.) are failing to grasp is that all that is meant by this inocuous sentence is that the UKoGBaNI is "usually shortened" to "Britain", which (like it or not) it is. This is an empirically verifiable fact - this is not a point of view. Now, as for the specifics of your argument, it is ambiguous whether "Britain" is the short form of "Great Britain", or the short form of "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", as "Britain" is what you end up with if you remove one word in the former or seven in the latter. The (in)correctness or not of its usage depends on the intent of the speaker: it is only technically incorrect if and only if the speaker intends "Britain" to mean specifically "Great Britain" when they are referring to the whole of the United Kingdom. Given that the norm is to understand that the speaker/writer is referring to the UK when the term "Britain" is used (even the OED gives a definition of Britain as the UK), it is injecting a POV to argue this is incorrect, especially when the reasoning behind this is to make a point about Anglo-Irish history (it has not escaped my notice that those who wish to revert this hail from the Emerald Isle, and I have been attacked by one of those on my talk page as being "jingoistic" and "ignorant" - only someone with a POV agenda would stoop to that level). Gsd2000 01:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

"Usually shortened"? Where? Not in Ireland. And when did this particular "shortening" start? By your logic I should hop over to the Great Britain article and say it is "usually shortened" to England. And there's the rub: no Brits would accept that edit even though that particular (mis)usage is prevalent throughout the world. Why? Because the usage is known to be incorrect in Britain so therefore the incorrect world usage beyond Britain is abnegated in the eyes of British posters. Amazing how the fire of nationalism burns so brightly it blinds certain posters to the double standards at work. El Gringo 12:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

You are too busy ascribing beliefs to me that you cannot possibly know whether I hold and not following my logic. It could not possibly be argued that "UKoGBaNI" is "shortened" to "England", because "England" does not appear at all in the term, whereas "Britain" does. However, let us now turn to your logic. The key point it seems is that you argue it is not usually shortened thus in Ireland. Well, I just went to http://www.ireland.com and searched for "Britain". Here is one of the 1000 results returned:

Irish Times Article - New British ambassador leaves post in Ottawa

Patsy McGarry

Britain's new ambassador to Ireland, David Reddaway, will take up the post in August or September. He will replace Stewart Eldon who has been appointed Britain's permanent representative on the North Atlantic ...

This cannot possibly be referring to Great Britain, because as you well know, Great Britain does not have ambassadors. Only the United Kingdom does. So if the UK is referred to as Britain even in Ireland, then your argument is blown out of the water. Game, set and match I'm afraid. Gsd2000 23:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello.

This reminds me of the gripe some people have about calling persons of the United States Americans.

It doesn't matter that a certain usage word is controversial and seen by some (or many) as incorrect or poor: the point is to report how words are used: the fact is that, every day, millions of human beings, in and out of the U.K. (including Northern Ireland), use Britain, Briton, and British in talking about things that apply to the whole U.K. (including Northern Ireland). — Wikipedia is to report facts; one of the facts can be that there is controversy about other facts. — To deny that the entire U.K. is called, by millions, every day, "Britain", is to deny a fact; equally, to deny that this usage is less technical than restricting "Britain" to a certain island that excludes the Irish island, and to deny that this dual usage irritates some persons, is to deny a fact. — Why should Wikipedia be into denying facts?

This reminds me of very long arguments at the Talk page for "Acronym and initialism" about definition distinctions between the two terms (usually, the idea that acronym is for NATO but not BBC and that initialism is for BBC but not NATO). I am a proponent of maintaining that distinction; but I also know that, every day, millions of people call BBC an acronym and that Wikipedia must report this lack of distinction as well as the controversy. The opening of "Acronym and initialism" reports this dual usage and cites sources for the various sides.

I don't see how it would be too hard for this article to acknowledge that Britain, Briton (even Britisher), and British are used (by some—many) to talk about the whole U.K. (including Northern Ireland) and then to have a little footnote or parenthesis directing readers to a separate paragraph or article about the usage controversy. This is how it is with America and American at "United States", in the opening sentence of the article and in the last sentence of the "United States#Name" section.

(In the rest of the "United States" article, where it doesn't interfere excessively with the flow of the sentence, "America" and "American" (e.g., "America has [* * *]", "30% of Americans are [* * *]") are foregone in favor of "the United States" and "the U.S." (e.g., "the U.S. has [* * *]", "30% of the U.S. population is [* * *]"). Seems easy enough to do in the U.K. article too.)

President Lethe 15:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

But persons of the USA are Americans, as are persons of Mexico and Canada. So, the analogy doesn't work.--Shtove 15:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Ask a Canadian or a Mexican to tell you his or her nationality. What percentage of Mexicans or Canadians will say "American"? What percentage of them will say "Canadian" or "Mexican"? The point is that, asked their nationality, people respond with the adjectives and demonyms for specific countries, not continents (except in the case of Australia). How many Germans or Spaniards, asked their nationality, will say "European"? The truth is that extremely few Mexicans and Canadians waste their time griping about not being able to call themselves, unambiguously, Americans—because they're quite happy to call themselves Mexicans and Canadians. With country names, it's 'first come, first served', and most persons don't spend their lives griping about this. We don't hear those from Lesotho and Botswana yelling about how the South Africans stole their demonym. We don't find other countries of low altitude/elevation screaming about how the Dutch hijacked their name. If some other Arab countries with emirs decide to unite themselves, they probably won't gripe about having to choose another name than United Arab Emirates. Also, Americans no more call themselves Statesians than Mexicans call themselves the Spanish equivalent, or citizens of the République Française, asked their nationality, say "Republican", or those in the People's Republic of China answer "Peoplean"; instead, we take a country's longer name, and cut out most of the words until we're left with one that can easily be turned into a decent demonym: French(man) for the French Republic, Canadian for Canada, Chinese/Chinaman for the People's Republic of China, American for the U.S.A., and British for the U.K. — President Lethe 17:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Hear hear, President Lethe. Gsd2000 23:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

GSD: I have to say that you are quite naive when it comes to Ireland. Maybe, just maybe, he used Britain because the "UK" involves a claim to Ireland? By the way, I went over and pointed out that Britain is also shortened to England throughout the world. No doubt you'd be happy with that. El Gringo 12:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Let me get this straight - first you replied to me "Usually shortened"? Where? Not in Ireland.", then when I respond with a quote from one of your Irish national newspapers to the contrary, you change your argument to say that when an Irish person says "Britain" they are deliberately using it instead of "United Kingdom" to make a political point because UK involves a claim to Ireland? This reduces to: if a British person refers to the UK as Britain they are incorrect because the UK includes Northern Ireland and Great Britain does not, but if an Irish person refers to the UK as Britain they are correct because the UK has no rightful claim to Northern Ireland. I don't, incidentally, expect you to see the irony of this. You will no doubt once again miss my point altogether, fail to see the problems with yours, and once more accuse me of being a British nationalist with a POV agenda to inject into Wikipedia, when that could not be further from the truth. Gsd2000 23:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure I often hear Tony Blair call the country Britain. My two pence: When I use the word Britain, I am refering to the UK and never Great Britain and I am not voicing any opinions on Irish sovereignty. Dmn € Դմն 23:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

To weigh in on this one; I always feel that its slightly misleading to say that Britain for the UK is incorrect. As abbreviations of this kind are not official, it is impossible to deem them necessairily incorrect. Clearly the route of the word is 'Great Britain' but its use to mean the UK has become SO prevelant that I would argue that calling it 'incorrect' is wrong; 'technically inaccurate' would be a better describer, if we had to qualify it at all. As noted previously, almost all British and foreign instiutions happily use 'Britain' to mean the UK--Robdurbar 19:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely right Rob. When everyone is using a particular word (or abbreviation) it really doesn't make much sense to say it is 'incorrect'. It's only incorrect in the same way that it is 'incorrect to call the USA 'America' or the ROI 'Ireland'. DJ Clayworth 19:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, RoI and Ireland issue is a little different - Ireland is its legal name and RoI its leagal description (and no, I don't understand what the difference is!). However, that is a side issue. --Robdurbar 21:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Here we go again. Just why do you people feel the need to claim a part of Ireland (see map) to be part of Britain? What is this relentless impulse in the British psyche to claim other lands as your own? The UK was invented by your own state for a reason: to make the distinction between Britain and Ireland. Had that distinction been unnecessary, Ireland would have become part of the state of 'Britain' rather than the 'UK'. That, in the meantime, your very British impulse (and lack of education) to claim more than is yours has clearly triumphed does not change the fact that Britain is still shortened form of the island between Ireland and France, just as it was in 1800. By all of your logic Cork and Galway and Dublin were, when they were held under your little UK régime, in Britain. That is precisely how ridiculous you all are being by claiming the UK is the same as Britain. Now, get a grip lads. Your little empire fanaticism is over. Hands off our country, our traditions, our history, and our identity. You will not rewrite the reality of Ireland and shove us all into your little British project. Fanatics. And you all think you are so morally superior to the Yanks. Open your eyes. 193.1.172.163 19:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

193.1.172.163, your little speech demonstrates three things - (1) you are clearly paranoid (2) you should not be contributing to Wikipedia because you are clearly incapable of being impartial (not to mention polite to your fellow contributors) and (3) that there really is an Irish nationalist POV agenda behind these attempts to label "Britain" wrt "UK" as "incorrect", and hence it would be in violation of WP:NPOV to include mention of this alleged technical incorrectness. I think you and others need to get over the fact that Britain is an inocuous short form of UKoGBaNI and come to terms with the fact that 99.9999% of those that use it are not ardent British nationalists staking a claim to your country. Gsd2000 22:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's fair to assume there is an Irish nationalist agenda here, just because one anonymous user posts a rant. He/she did the same in the section about constituent countries above. I think they are just looking for an attempt to get on their soapbox. DJ Clayworth 13:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course, the British do not have any agendas- oh lord no. Aw bless. And not a bone of nationalism in them at all. Above that sort of stuff, old bean. Yuck "nationalism"- for those lesser type nations. Considering that it is British posters who are going on the offensive and attempting to rewrite what Britain means this is the sort of jingoistic rubbish British attitudes towards their neighbouring island have always produced. I have lived in Ireland all my life and I have never heard a single person equate Britain with the UK- nobody. There is no basis for it except in the nationalist spirit and prejudices of users like Gsd2000 who, being a British nationalist, is not actually a real nationalist and has no nationalist agenda and is, just, well normal. There has been no more nationalistic people on earth in the past three centuries than the British. The very claim that Ireland is part of Britain is a complete, total and entire product of your nationalist claims to Ireland. You all know this, and you use it rather than the shorter 'UK' precisely because you do not want to weaken the link between Britain and Northern Ireland. That is precisely what is going on here. Your use is entirely political. So spare us your sanctimonious nonsense. It is truly obnoxious. 193.1.172.163 14:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Britain is separate from Ireland. Use of the term Britain to include NI is inaccurate (if not incorrect), and the intro should note this explicitly.--Shtove 15:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

If you have never heard anyone use "Britain" to mean the UK then you are simply not paying attention. I hear it pretty much every day, and there are dozens of examples given above. Please stop doing this, and stop using this talk page for purposes that have nothing at all to do with writing a better encyclopedia. DJ Clayworth 15:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

193.1.172.163, have you missed the example headline from The Irish Times? Or what about an article, dated today, from RTE, including "The British Prime Minister, Tony Blair" and "A former British ambassador to the US, Sir Christopher Meyer"? Or any of these RTE search results? Or these from The Irish Times (surely, when someone is banned from racing in "Britain", it doesn't mean he can still go do it in Northern Ireland). Or Wikipedia's own "Ireland" article's "Protectionism was abandoned, and Ireland applied to join the European Economic Community along with Britain, gaining entry in 1973", which surely doesn't mean that, while Great Britain joined the E.E.C., Northern Ireland didn't. — President Lethe 17:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

One of the unfortunate consequences of living in a society that values the right to free speech is that one occasionally has to listen to the rants of idiots like 193.1.172.163. Gsd2000 23:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

But less us restain our own speech and not call our fellow Wikipedians "idiots" where they can see it. — President Lethe 00:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

President Lethe: Let's not, indeed. Again, you clearly don't get it. Your Tony Blair is Prime Minister of Britain. The British claim to Ireland is an entirely different matter and it is for that reason that referring to him as UK Prime Minister is avoided. Have you slept through the little matter of the controversy surrounding the legitimacy of British rule in Ireland? This is so basic that it is only your own cultural values over in Britain which cannot see it. The likelihood of a Dundalk or Donegal man talking about his cousins from Newry or Derry as being part of your UK is extremely low- no more than they would have talked in the same manner about Cork or Galway people as "UK" people prior to 1920. They are Irish, and live in Ireland. That is their definition regardless of what names the British invent for where they live. You will also, by way of example, not read the above RTÉ or The Irish Times referring to the Six Counties as "the province" or "Ulster"- it just never happens. You will read them saying "the North" throughout, which is something the British media could never do seeing that you are in a different country (that bit is for our geographically challenged friends across the water, of which there are many here). 193.1.172.163 00:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, Gsd2000, one of the fortunate consequences of the demise of your British Empire is that the geographic extent of pompous jingoistic British people like you has been vastly curtailed. 193.1.172.163 00:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel this way about Britain, I really am, but please refrain from racist abuse. Gsd2000 01:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

About the edit summaries and POV.

Adding the "technically incorrectly" to the opening paragraph, 193.1.172.138 said "rv pov".

I removed it, with this edit summary: "rv 193.1.172.138's edit. how is it POV to list the names by which something is known? what's pov is injecting judgements on usage in so few words instead of providing lengthier explanations elsewhere".

193.1.172.138 put it back, saying "rv. It is POV because you are denying that it is technically incorrect to equate Britain with the UK. To deny this millenia old fact is to push your agenda."

How is being silent on the question of whether a spade is a spade the same thing as specifically saying a spade is or isn't a spade? This kind of "silence about an issue = contradiction to one point of view on the issue" reasoning is like the idea that, if a government doesn't write "Jesus Saves" on every single signpost along every single road, it is telling its Christian population "There is no God".

"[M]illennia[-]old fact"? We go back at least two thousand years and we're supposed to find people technically incorrectly using "Britain" describe the U.K.?

A plain fact is that the U.K. is known as (among other things) "Britain"; to say that calling it is "technically incorrect" really needs a better explanation to be useful to a reader, for the (in)correctness is applicable only in certain contexts. Because the opening lines aren't going to get into details about usage controversy, this stuff is better left to another part of the article, or even to a separate article—as happens, for example, at "United States#Name".

... Anyway, I really wonder what would happen if I told you I was from some place on the big island west of England (especially if I didn't tell you which part).

President Lethe 01:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

El Gringo, \^{(caint) and Shtove: how about this for a compromise: the ref tag now contains a link to British Isles (terminology), which is where this discussion of nomenclature really belongs. The sentence in the introduction makes no mention of incorrectness, because it is merely stating a fact that it is "usually" shortened to United Kingdom, UK or Britain: this can be easily verified with some searching of British, Irish and other English language newspaper websites. The reader may visit British Isles (terminology) and make up their own mind whether one must adhere to a strict geographical interpretation of the term (as an island), or whether usage to describe the political entity of the UK has become commonplace enough to deem both correct within their respective contexts. Gsd2000 02:28, 29 July 2006 (UTC)}

Good to see that some sort of compromise has been reached, but for the record I would like to state my disapproval of Gsd2000's comment "there really is an Irish nationalist POV agenda behind these attempts to label "Britain" wrt "UK" as "incorrect"". I am definitely not an Irish nationalist, but I support the view that "Britain" is not "the UK" in any shape or form. The former excludes NI, the latter includes it. I thought El Gringo made an excellent point in saying "By your logic I should hop over to the Great Britain article and say it is "usually shortened" to England." Just because something is used prevalently across the world does not make it correct. Otherwise Netherlands would say "also known as Holland", which is completely wrong, despite popular belief. An encyclopedia should state the facts - what is true - not what is understood to be true. In this case, it should be made clear that, regardless of the popularity of its usage, the term "Britain" is not the same as the term "UK". "Incorrect" is extreme and not necessary, but any suggestion that the terms can be used synonymously is simply wrong. DJR (T) 23:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Djr_xi, you have an interesting understanding of "the facts", "known as", and "can". A fact is that many people do use Britain as an exact synonym of the U.K.; a fact is that many people (though probably fewer than those who use Britain as an exact synonym of the U.K.) do use England as an exact synonym of Great Britain and the U.K. (though this seems less common than it used to be); and a fact is that many people do use Holland as an exact synonym of the Netherlands. Just as much as it's a fact that, by certain standards and among certain persons and in certain contexts, this synonymy is false, it is a fact that this synonym exists by other standards, among other persons, in other contexts. If x is sometimes used by some persons as an exact synonym for y, then it's just plain false to say, without further qualification, that "any suggestion that [x and y] can be used synonymously is simply wrong". Denying a fact that is not only theoretically possible but is also true in the real world is simply silly. Wikipedia is in the business of reporting facts. You say it's "completely wrong" to say that the Netherlands are "also known as Holland". Yet the gist of your post indicates that you do understand that some people do know the Netherlands as Holland—so you do know that it is true, not false, to say that the Netherlands are also known as Holland. What things are known as in the human world is governed by human beings, not by some external constant. If some people know London as Londres, then London is also known as Londres. You can qualify this by saying "although this isn't the English name of the place"; but it is not wrong to say that people also know London as Londres. — President Lethe 00:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Lethe, you've sailed past the point again. How forgetful. It's not controversial to state that the UK is commonly referred to as Britain, but it is controversial to refrain from pointing out that this is an inaccurate usage. The footnote doesn't solve anything; besides, footnotes are for sources, not commentary. Insert the word "inaccurately" and the problem is solved. Ta da!--Shtove 15:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I have ad nauseum failed to persuade people that 'inaccurate' would be the best compromise here - it doesn't mean 'wrong' in the way that 'incorrect' does, it just means 'not very precise'. An alternative could be 'vaguley', but that, in itself, is somewhat.... vague --Robdurbar 15:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

All abbreviations are inaccurate: they don't contain all the information that the full name does, and sometimes cause confusion. AI means different things to a computer scientist and a farmer, and so is "inaccurate", and opens up the possibility of confusion. I believe we explain the 'inaccuracy' in a footnate, and that's entirely proper. Anything more sounds petty - it's like Wikipedia getting up on it's little soapbox and yelling at the millions of people who call the UK "Britain". DJ Clayworth 15:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

1. I specifically chose to make a point about DJR's odd ideas of "the facts", "known as", "can", "completely wrong", and "simply wrong". Rather than missing a point, I was concentrating on certain logical fallacies that must be overcome before conversation can progress well: if someone has the idea that the thing that (s)he acknowledges to be reality is simultaneously untrue, it's an impediment to productive discussion.

2. Footnotes can play more than one role in life, even at Wikipedia.

3. Accuracy and precision are two different things, as Robdurbar seems to point out. But something that is "not very precise" is imprecise (not inaccurate). If accuracy and precision are two different things, then, obviously, the negated form of precision (imprecision), rather than the negated form of accuracy (inaccuracy), is the antonym to precision.

4. It's a question of neither accuracy nor precision. It's a question of context. When someone means Britain as an exact synonym of the U.K., then it is precisely a synonym of the U.K. When someone doesn't mean it as an exact synonym of the U.K., then it's imprecise and, in some contexts, even inaccurate. The precision and accuracy vary with the context. So, a statement that it's "inaccurate" or "imprecise", but that isn't specific about when (or in what context, or according to whom) it's inaccurate or imprecise, is too sweeping ... and too imprecise.

5. To avoid a footnote, the text could just read "(usually shortened to the United Kingdom, the UK, and sometimes Britain)", with "sometimes" as a link to "British Isles (terminology)".

President Lethe 15:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

DJ Clayworth, abbreviations inherently have less precision, not less accuracy, than the full terms that they shorten. It may be useful to think of accurate and inaccurate as correct and incorrect, and of precise and imprecise as specific and general (or less specific or not specific enough). An abbreviation is not inherently inaccurate, but rather becomes inaccurate only if someone uses it incorrectly or someone else gets the wrong idea from it (e.g., takes AI as short for artificial intelligence when the speaker meant it as Adobe Illustrator); the (in)accuracy is about human intent and perception, while imprecision is built in to the very concept of abbreviations themselves. — President Lethe 15:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

You are right, and my post was indeed inaccurate ;-) . I did mean imprecise. However my argument still holds exactly if you take imprecise as my meaning. (I tend not to assume that all other Wikpedians are trained in numerics). DJ Clayworth 18:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Shtove, you said "Insert the word 'inaccurately' and the problem is solved", with "the problem" seeming to be the failure to point out "that this is an inaccurate usage". This doesn't solve the problem: it invites battling from those who would point out the contexts in which Britain is not inaccurate for the U.K. Once we open up the door to saying that something is sometimes inaccurate or imprecise, we, to be fair, must also open the door to saying that the thing is sometimes accurate or precise. The result? Several words of explanation. And should those several words be in the opening sentence of this article? Probably not. Solution? Explanation elsewhere—e.g., in a footnote or another article (with the other article being linked from one of the words in the sentence that can't bear to have several explanatory words added).

If Wikipedia had to devote words about controversy right in the middle of a sentence every time a controversial word or topic came up, it would be extremely bogged down. This is why, when the focus of the sentence is not the controversy, it's good to relegate the controversy to a footnote or, sometimes better, a whole other article (but linked from the sentence). For example, if one were simply listing the major terrestrial television channels of the U.K., and there happened to be a current big ordeal about whether ownership of one of those channels should be sold to a foreign company, it would probably be better just to stick to listing the channels in the article at hand, and to let the discussion of the ownership controversy remain in that specific channel's own article, rather than to inject it into a parenthesis in the list—and, of course, that channel's article would be linked from the mention of that channel in the list.

President Lethe 16:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Since all abbreviations are inaccurate (techically imprecise - see above) should we say that Jennifer Lopez is inaccurately known as JLo? Donald Trump is inaccurately known as The Donald? DJ Clayworth 18:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

To user 193.1.172.163 14:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC):

1. You say you have lived in Ireland all your life and never heard a single person equate Britain with the UK. But so what? On ITV news, for example, they regularly talk about "Britain", and they are clearly talking about the country, the UK, not the island of Great Britain.

2. Why do you think that there has to be a nationalist spirit and prejudices to equate "Britain" with the "UK"? I interchange "Britain" and "UK" all the time. And I don't think twice about it. Why? Because I really don't see it as a political thing. It's just another way of shortening UKoGBaNI.

3. "The very claim that Ireland is part of Britain is a complete, total and entire product of your nationalist claims to Ireland. You all know this, and you use it rather than the shorter 'UK' precisely because you do not want to weaken the link between Britain and Northern Ireland. That is precisely what is going on here. Your use is entirely political. So spare us your sanctimonious nonsense. It is truly obnoxious."

I'm sorry, but the above is simply rubbish. Firstly, no-one is claiming that Ireland (Republic of) is part of Britain. Secondly, I'm afraid (and I'm sure you simply won't believe this), there are no political reasons for using "Britain" instead of "UK". Also, in fact, you say that "UK" is shorter but it's not really, because the comparison is between "Britain", 2 syllables, and "the UK", 3 syllables!

So finally, stop being silly by talking about "sanctimonious nonsense" and being "obnoxious".

Ojcookies 01:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Although no-one seems to have realised this, equating 'Britain' with the 'UK' is in fact making an Irish nationalist political statement! Equating the UK with the island of Britain is a tacit statement that only the island of Britain is really part of the country we call the UK! So I say long live Irish Nationalism! Let's look forward to a united Ireland by using the abbreviation 'Britain' wherever possible! ;-) DJ Clayworth 03:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Can't you just state that using "Britain" to describe the UK is a misnomer, but commonly used? We're not here to advocate our own beliefs, but the facts and the fact is a lot of people call the UK simply "Britain".--Sir Edgar 06:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Even that is going too far, because the OED gives a definition of "Britain" in a political context as "United Kingdom". Given that it is put together by amateurs (me included), Wikipedia should not be in the business of contradicting the OED. Gsd2000 12:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The Oxford English Dictionary is not God. I don't believe in relying on a single source for any kind of information, whether it's the British government, Encyclopedia Britannica, the CIA, or my mother. And you shouldn't either.--Sir Edgar 01:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Both Encarta and Britannica state that britain is a valid alternative name for the country. josh (talk) 16:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

How about:

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland' (usually shortened to the United Kingdom, the UK or, some would say incorrectly, to Britain??

GiollaUidir 21:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary. "Some would say" is a bit weaselly. We used to have a footnote, and we still do have a link to the terminology article where it is all discussed in more detail. I think the terminology link works, but we could put the footnote back. DJ Clayworth 16:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, as has been now said many times, if you can say Britain is now a short form for the UK then you can, by the same nationalistic logic, say England is a short form for the UK. Let's ask the Yanks, England's political masters, and see how many times the average Yank says 'England' when they mean the 'UK'. There's one reality which doesn't quite fit into your nationalist narrative, and proves how pov you all are on this issue. You can try all you like, but no part of Ireland will ever be part of Britain. A true Unionist, being loyal to the Act of Union, would embrace this reality without hesitation. The same people who are resisting this are undoubtedly raging against the great, progressive European Union and the Euro. This has everything to do with British people not understanding the limits of their nationalism, and wanting to distort everything to fit that. Be honest. 193.1.172.163 18:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

England is indeed commonly used instead of UK, but not deliberately by people who understand the difference. Britain is regularly used to mean the UK by people who do understand, including major reference works and the British (and Irish) governments. DJ Clayworth 19:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

That's your own distinction, not one which Wikipedia recognises. The Irish government use Britain to refer to Britain, just as I do. To refer to the 'UK' means to acknowledge the British claim to the northeastern part of this country. The North is just that: "the North". This is a basic guide to Irish politics. 193.1.172.163 19:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

To poster 193.1 etc: Firstly, if you and the Irish government want to talk about Britain to specifically mean Great Britain, then that is rather nationalistic and wrong, as Great Britain is just an island. Also, in your strange world, is Northern Ireland an independent country or something? Or do you see it as only temporarily being part of the UK/Britain? Sorry, but I'm just trying to figure out where you're coming from. As for the British "claim" to Northern Ireland, it is the case that a clear majority of the Northern Irish population want to remain part of the UK. Only 22% want it to reunify with the rest of Ireland. See here: http://www.ark.ac.uk/nilt/2004/Political_Attitudes/NIRELAND.html

Finally, in Encarta it says: "People often confuse the names for this country, and frequently make mistakes in using them. United Kingdom, UK, and Britain are all proper terms for the entire nation".

Ojcookies 23:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Sadly it appears that 193.1.x.x is not prepared to contribute to a rational debate or accept a compromise. Furthermore they have twice violated WP:3RR, the second violation for which I have now reported them. I think other editors will only be wasting their time by trying to reason with 193.1.x.x. This debate has gone round in circles a couple of times, the compromise of linking to the [[British Isles {terminology)]] page seems to have satisfied all but 193.1.x.x, so I propose ignoring them and continuing to report if 3RR violations occur. If a substantial number of other editors (ie not 193.1.x) disagree with the compromise, then we can follow the standard WP dispute resolution procedure (RFC, straw poll, arbitration etc). Gsd2000 00:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the Oxford English Dictionary. Even reputable works can be wrong on occassion. This is an encyclopedia, and as such I believe it is prudent to stick more precisely to the facts. I fully accept that "Britain" is used to describe the United Kingdom. I also fully accept that "England" is also used to describe the same thing. They are both however, wrong - entirely. Britain is an island. No part of Ireland has ever been a part of Britain (unless you consider when the ice sheets created a temporary bridge between the islands).

While Wikipedia should certainly note that the United Kingdom is often referred to as Britain (and as England), I think it should be the official policy of Wikipedia to name the country United Kingdom or UK to prevent any confusion to readers who may not understand the nuances of the terminology.

If I were someone who did not understand the geo-political structure(s) of the British Isles, I would be confused if someone referred to the UK as either Britain or England. Indeed, i have met people who have not understood the terminology, and they genuinely thought that the proper name for the country was England! They thought that included Scotland, Ireland and Wales too. While this would obviously be offensive to many people, that isn't necessarily what we should be concerned with. Wikipedia should be concerned with sticking to the proper terminology consistantly, so as to avoid this type of confusion. That doesn't mean we cannot include footnotes or short explainations to clarify the usage of other terms. --Mal 19:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah! That goes for me too.--Shtove 21:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Amusing though I find this entire thread, I would, as a born and bred London, say that UK or United Kingdom should be used, and "of the United Kingdom" over "British" when referring to agencies of state etc. For the record, "British" is a far more political and even racial term than people here seem to be aware of. This is all very 'post-Empire' a debate and full of pitfalls. Just stick to U.K or "of the United Kingdom" and variations thereof.Iamlondon 00:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the basic problem here seems to be the different resonances these names have to different communities. It looks like to many US people in particular, but also to others outside the UK, "Britain" seems a normal usage and they don't really see the problem; to people who have Irish Republican or other political views against "the empire of Britain" the name is very different to the "UK"; to people within the UK, each separate country such as England, Scotland, Wales and so on is the main point of identification, and sometimes the people particularly from England are ignorant about, or insensitive towards, the people from for example Ireland in the use of terminology. Why don't we try to make a determined effort to explain these political and national viewpoints better on the Terminology page? There is a good attempt there, but to my mind, that page is currently more confusing than illuminating. Clearly there are strongly held views on what each usage means to different groups of people and WP should reflect that. MarkThomas 07:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The "country confusion" isn't helped by certain editors constantly removing United Kingdom in favours of the home nations such as England (which, as far as I'm aware is a footy team, not a country). Yorkshire Phoenix 08:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually it's both. England is definitely a country, as is the UK. Wiktionary uses England as an example of a 'country within a country'. DJ Clayworth 13:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, So if the OED is wrong how about Webster? The island you refer to is not actually "Britain", it is "Great Britain" which, like the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is informally referred to as "Britain". In neither case is that "incorrect". Mucky Duck 21:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)