Talk:Terminology of the British Isles

For previous talk see: *Talk Archive 1

*Talk Archive 2

*Talk Archive 3

From the archive:
I just moved the proposed text on my user page (User:DirkvdM/British Isles - Clarification of Terms) to this new article because it was collecting dust. For my motivation and the first reactions see the talk page there (User talk:DirkvdM/British Isles - Clarification of Terms).

DirkvdM 10:49, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Some editing for you all to get stuck into

Following an edit war on the British Isles article, the consensus for a way forward was that the article be pruned back to focus on geography and history, and the material on the original and controversy surrounding the name "British Isles" be dealt with here at British Isles (terminology). Accordingly, I have merged a load of info from that article into this one. This will require through editing to properly assimilate it, and may require splitting into a separate article.

I've tried to merge it all in together as there was a lot of duplication. --Robdurbar 22:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

---

Hi all. After a discussion elsewhere on the talk page about whether or not the term "The British Isles" could be sometimes offensive and where to mention this, I had a look around various media to see whether there was actually a universally accepted definition - taking usage and not dictionaries as the source of definition. I found that many major media use widely varying definitions of the term, or at least the way it is used implies varying and inconsistent definitions. I wondered whether an addition like the following would be useful in the section "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Isles_%28terminology%29#Geographical_distinctions".

Modern usage of the term "The British Isles" is often inconsistent and confusing. Even highly regarded major media sources like the BBC and The Times use the term "The British Isles" in widely varied ways. In some contexts the term is used as being identical to the UK, i.e. covering only a part of the island of Ireland. In other contexts the term is used as only covering Great Britain and the surrounding islands but excluding the island of Ireland entirely. In other contexts the term is used to cover the whole of Ireland and Great Britain as well as the surrounding islands, which is the traditional definition.

On a global basis, the traditional definition is almost certainly most common in contemporary usage.

Any thoughts or comments? Obviously, I believe that the additional text is verifiable as factual, although I´m a little unhappy about the words "almost certainly" in the last line. My problem is that I don´t know how to check/verify any more definite statement and my quick usage check (particularly on the BBC) doesn´t actually strongly support this assumption. Also, given the restructuring of the page that Robdurbar was trying to launch, I´m not sure that the info would be in the right place in the section I mentioned. --hughsheehy 15:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think it's fairly clear that the sources you cite have got it wrong. Have yo some actual examples? Mucky Duck 15:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Just taking a few seconds for a quick look....and then only on the BBC. The Times has similar variation which is easy to find.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/gal_coast_11.shtml is a British Isles Coast Gallery. There is no single site outside the UK. The sequence (clockwise) includes Somerset, Anglesea, Antrim, Scotland, which rather ostentatiously leaves out the parts of Ireland that are not in the UK. Unless you believe that - for instance - the Cliffs of Moher or the Aran Islands do not deserve mention then it seems reasonable to assume that they have been left out on purpose. I appreciate that there is also no mention of - for instance - the Giant´s Causeway, but the given the proportion of the overall coastline that is represented by the non-UK coastline, the fact that not a single non-UK area is included is hardly likely to be a coincidence.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/animals/features/139whales.shtml shows the British Isles as being all of Britain and Ireland, as per the definition currently given on this page.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/animals/features/137index.shtml shows the same definition.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/britishisles/ shows the British Isles as being only the UK.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/music/worldmusic/britishislesandirelandrev1.shtml uses the term "The British Isles and Ireland", and that´s the way they mean it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/voices/recordings/ shows only the UK on the map but describes it as the British Isles. (Note that this and most other pages do include the Channel Islands)

This list could continue for ages. I just did a quick sweep in response to Muck Duck´s question and only on the BBC. As to whether or not they are "wrong", I don´t know if that´s an appropriate discussion and would seem to be to be difficult to keep away from being pure POV. Besides, I´d personally hate to start a discussion asserting that the BBC and The Times are "wrong" in their use of English. These are not casual pages, but are editorial content and the fact is that the usage is clearly variable across several major British media companies. Meantime, what Mucky Duck "thinks" about whether this is "wrong" is just one POV and may not belong on WP. --hughsheehy 16:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

No, they have it wrong. You are trying to suggest that British Isles is an acceptable synonym for UK - it is not. The BBC are not the arbiters here and do not always get things right; as another example they produced a series called "A History of Britain" which was no such thing, it was a history of England. The fact that they did it does not mean that Britain is a synonym for England. Mucky Duck 09:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, once again, I don't believe that I am trying to suggest anything of the sort. I hope that Mucky Duck will read what I wrote. I am saying that usage of the term "The British Isles" is varied and often confusing. That is demonstrably true. Also, I don't suggest that the BBC are arbiters of anything. I am saying that usage needs to be looked at - and it's not just the BBC that has varied definitions in their usage. Ultimately dictionaries take usage as the arbiter, so it needs to be looked at.--hughsheehy 09:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I have reinserted the above proposed text after GSD2000 removed it with the remark "rv nonsensical edit" - which is not exactly constructive criticism. Again, the inserted text is accurate and factual and reflects an important problem with the use of terms that is not reflected elsewhere in this article. Since this article is about terminology, usage is important.--hughsheehy 10:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

My apologies - I was attempting to revert just the clause '...or that Ireland is essentially not a "British Isle".', added by what I saw was an anon IP to a sentence about why the British Isles is offensive to some, which was indeed nonsensical. I included two kosher paragraphs too by mistake, which certainly aren't nonsensical. FYI - better to do these edits logged in - less benefit of the doubt is given to anon IPs than seasoned contributors. Gsd2000 11:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I broadly agree with the edits you made Hugh. However, it does need to be directly sourced into the article - I know you have some sources here, but if you could put a few of those in? Also, the second 'paragraph' is a bit wishy-washy. I know what you're trying to say, but I don't think it needs saying. So, I support it, but source it! --Robdurbar 18:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Rob & co, I have not had time to come back and insert the links/sources, but I will. Meantime, I am deleting the item about the Irish sea not being problematical. There are an infinite number of terms that are not problematical. This section is about problems with terms, not about non-problems with terms. I saw there was already a mention of the "North" sea not being problematical, which has already been deleted. Next we'll have entries on why it isn't Womanchester instead of Manchester. Let's keep it a bit serious, please. --hughsheehy 11:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

How do any of these support what you're saying? They none of them, unambiguously anyway, appear to use anything other than the dictionary definition. Naomhain 15:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

To elucidate my question. Your list:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/gal_coast_11.shtml is a British Isles Coast Gallery. There is no single site outside the UK. The sequence (clockwise) includes Somerset, Anglesea, Antrim, Scotland, which rather ostentatiously leaves out the parts of Ireland that are not in the UK. Unless you believe that - for instance - the Cliffs of Moher or the Aran Islands do not deserve mention then it seems reasonable to assume that they have been left out on purpose. I appreciate that there is also no mention of - for instance - the Giant´s Causeway, but the given the proportion of the overall coastline that is represented by the non-UK coastline, the fact that not a single non-UK area is included is hardly likely to be a coincidence.

Out of a whole twelve pictures. There are no pictures from Man, East Anglia or mainland Wales either, what do you read into that. Yes it is UK centric and one might wish that it was not but it is not enough as a basis for the case that they are not using the dictionary definition.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/animals/features/139whales.shtml shows the British Isles as being all of Britain and Ireland, as per the definition currently given on this page.

Unambiguously dictionary definition.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/animals/features/137index.shtml shows the same definition.

Unambiguously dictionary definition.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/britishisles/ shows the British Isles as being only the UK.

I cannot see how you come to that conclusion.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/music/worldmusic/britishislesandirelandrev1.shtml uses the term "The British Isles and Ireland", and that´s the way they mean it.

Where does it use this term? It appears unambiguously to to use the dictionary definition.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/voices/recordings/ shows only the UK on the map but describes it as the British Isles. (Note that this and most other pages do include the Channel Islands)

How do you arrive at that? It does not only show the UK and it does include entries from the republic. That makes it unambiguously dictionary definition to my mind. As above it is heavily UK centric and I for one would prefer that it included more entries outwith the UK. But this is not about the use of the term but about the bias of the BBC (which to be fair is a UK organisation).

Naomhain 09:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Further point of clarification: while the Coast series gallery may show only UK shots, the (second series) recently included the coast from Dublin northwards, which I discussed on the talk page here or at talk:British Isles. While the programme did discuss how British / non Irish much of Dublin's history was, last I heard it wasn't in the UK ;) ..dave souza, talk 11:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Euler diagram

I think the reader and the editing disputes would both be well-served if the diagram distinguished between terms that are universally accepted and terms that are disputed or controversial. If a term can cause offense and isn't used by a significant fraction of the people involved, it shouldn't be drawn in a diagram with scientific precision just like all the other terms. I suggest changing the solid line around "British Isles" in this diagram to a dashed line. Flying Jazz 16:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. --Red King 16:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Whether you like the term or not, it reflects a definite geographical reality, and there's no commonly-understood and accepted term to replace it. If there was an alternative term, it would be placed alongside of (or would replace) the "British Isles" caption at the top center of the image -- it would not lead to the outermost circle being dashed... AnonMoos 17:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I live in Massachusetts, grew up in Pennsylvania and I have no ancestors from that part of the world. I'm trying to help create an NPOV article and don't have an axe to grind, so "whether you like the term or not" doesn't apply to me. I neither like nor dislike the term. But I'm aware that this is a subject that other people have strong feelings about. From reading this article and the British Isles article, it seems to me that the "British Isles" reflect a definite geographical reality to those who use the term and reflect someone-else's not-definite geographical outdated term to those who don't. If there is no commonly-understood and accepted term to replace it then the alternative is for there to be no term for a geographical entity that includes these islands. No term would mean no line and no name. A term that is accepted and used by all would be a solid line and a name. I see a dashed line and perhaps a grey font as an NPOV reflection of the reality that both of these views exist, one that accepts the term as a geographical reality and one that does not. Flying Jazz 21:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

That sounds a lot like postmodernist deconstructionist ultra-relativist "there is no such thing as objective truth" ideology taken to an extreme to me... To start again at the most basic level possible -- there is a grouping of masses of above-water earth in the ocean which is in fact a rather natural grouping of masses of above-water earth in the ocean. The existence of this rather natural grouping of masses of above-water earth in the ocean is a fact which is a lot more apolitical and culturally neutral than the existence of entities such as "Wales", "England", or "Northern Ireland". To question the existence of an objective reality because you don't like the terminology used to describe that objective reality is like trying to wage war by sticking a dagger into map. AnonMoos 21:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

And what is this grouping of masses called? "The British Isles" or "Great Britain, Ireland, and Isle of Man"? Living across the pond, I don't give a damn either way (so I'm assuming you weren't addressing me with all that you-don't-like-the-terminology-war-dagger business), but I'd like an NPOV article. I wonder what will you accuse me of liking or not liking next! The debate is not about objective reality. It is about terminology to describe objective reality. If folks in Ireland like to call them "Great Britain, Ireland, and Isle of Man" and most other folks call them "The British Isles" then the diagram should reflect both views in order to be an NPOV diagram. I like the part of the article that describes high-profile faux pas, but if it is a faux pas for me, as a tourist in the Republic of Ireland, to call Ireland one of the British Isles, I want the diagram to indicate it so I know it. That way, I'll know what I'm getting into when I say this intentionally to needle Irishmen during my travels and be a typically rude and insensitive American tourist. Flying Jazz 01:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Do folks in Ireland call them "Great Britain, Ireland, and Isle of Man", or is that something you just made up? AnonMoos 14:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The statements in my last post were phrased as quetions or prefaced with the word "if" because I am coming from a place of relative ignorance and so don't even have the confidence to make something up. But I can see your point. Rather than writing: If folks in Ireland like to call them "Great Britain, Ireland, and Isle of Man" and most other folks call them "The British Isles" then the diagram should reflect both views, I should have written: If some folks call them "The British Isles" and some folks don't then the diagram should reflect both views. Flying Jazz 22:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

You tourists from the Americas are so annoying!  ;) The dashed line seems a good idea - if only because the term seems to be in common use without an official definition of what's in it. Some people get so upset about names, doesn't bother me if you say Scotch; just with water, please. ...dave souza, talk 08:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Lovely city, Edinburgh, and pleasant stuff, whisky. You know...only the best sort of people have fewer extraneous vowels in words. Flying Jazz 22:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Support Flyzing Jazz' suggestion here. --Robdurbar 15:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

"Great Britain, Ireland, and Isle of Man" could never be an alternative name for the British Isles as the former only names 3 islands of the 600-or-so covered by the latter. A more accurate term would be "The United Kingdom, Ireland and the Isle of Man" but this is clearly political, not geographic. The best alternative they could come up with for the Good Friday/Belfast Agreement was "Islands of the North Atlantic" (which, of course, could be taken to mean Iceland, Greenland, all those little islands west of the Canadian mainland, etc). Yorkshire Phoenix (talk • contribs) 15:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

You probably meant east of the Canadian mainland. The islands of the North Atlantic would also include the islands east of New England in the US. Azores too. Probably others. A name doesn't have to be replaced with a new name in order to stop being used. I'm not advocating replacing a name with anything else. It just seems that an article that says "This term can cause offence" shouldn't have a diagram that treats the term identically to 10 other terms that can't cause offense. Flying Jazz 22:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

You're right, I did. Yorkshire Phoenix (talk • contribs) 07:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

To prevent confusion of the two Ireland's, I think the Euler diagram should be adjusted, having the blue Ireland changed to "Republic of Ireland" --Adzer

"A name doesn't have to be replaced with a new name in order to stop being used."

That's exactly the problematic point here -- you're turning a more or less natural geographical grouping into a sniglet for ideological reasons. AnonMoos 23:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

heh. Me? Ideological reasons about the British Isles? Have you seen my user page or read my description of myself? You are not assuming good faith about me as an individual editor. My ancestry is Russian and German and I grew up near Philly in the US. If the term has stopped being used in official documents in the Republic of Ireland and it hasn't been replaced in official documents in the Republic of Ireland (again, I'm using "if" because I honestly don't know!) then it is a different sort of term than the other terms in the diagram. It is a more-or-less-natural-geographical grouping to you. If it were viewed as this in the Republic of Ireland, they'd still be using it. Flying Jazz 23:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure they view it as a more or less natural geographical grouping in the Republic of Ireland too -- they just don't like being terminologically subsumed under "Britain". The ideology I was accusing you of was "language creates reality", by the way -- not Irish nationalism. AnonMoos 00:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be (yet again) attributing more to me than I intend. We might acually be in agreement about many things but it's tough to tell. From my perspective, this has been a debate about whether to turn a solid line and a red font into a dashed line and a faint-red or grey font. Nothing more. I'm actually proposing the exact same language in the diagram as is there currently, so your most recent accusation of my likes/dislikes/ideology involving language issues is actually making me giggle a little. I see it as a diagram-POV issue. You have seen it as me liking/not-liking a term, you've gone on about me being involved in daggers and wars and maps and language, and now you're accusing me of being a social constructivist. What would have happened if I'd suggested a dotted line or a wavy one? I am still trying to understand your position about the diagram without you accusing me of something. As editors, it should be possible for us to focus on details of the article instead of focusing on each other. Hopefully your future posts will be able to achieve this. If not, I won't take any action against you because I don't care enough about this issue. But I'll giggle at you again. By the way, I don't think you like the dashed line idea. Hmmm...care to say why not? Flying Jazz 00:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I've grown increasingly annoyed, but I really see absolutely no merit whatsoever to denying the reality of something because you don't like the term which is most frequently used to describe it. If there is some problem or controversy with the term "British Isles", then this could be handled in many ways (from the simple and minimal alteration of enclosing "British Isles" in parentheses, for example, all the way up to substituting an entirely different term in place of it, if a suitable alternative existed) -- but graying or dashing or dotting the coresponding enclosing circle seems to me to be very obviously completely wrong and extravagantly inappropriate on several distinct levels, from the semantic/philosophical to the purely practical. AnonMoos 06:27, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

How about instead of changing the colours, etc, you just put "/ Islands of the North Atlantic" or "(AKA Islands of the North Atlantic)" after the historic, internationally understood and widely accepted "British Isles"? Yorkshire Phoenix (talk • contribs) 09:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

It might actually help clarity if ALL the geographic groupings used dashed lines. That brings to mind the point that most definitions of the BI include the Channel Islands, so I'd suggest overlapping that circle a bit with the main one and wiping out the lines between them. As for Wales, it has its own devolved government, so why hasn't it a political line round it? It's not completely sovereign, but neither is Scotland. Perhaps dotted lines for these subdivisions? Given RI is more separate than the others from the UK, double lines for it? The nuances are endless, but the dashed line idea sees a good start. ..dave souza, talk 10:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem is you're trying to show two completely different things (sets of political entites and sets of geographic ones) on the same diagram. I don't think it's ever going to work. Seperate diagrams might help. Mucky Duck 11:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

They are not at all "completely different things." Every political entity is also a geographic one. john k 17:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

AnonMoos's claim that a dashed circle "seems to me to be very obviously completely wrong" is telling. If something is "very obviously completely wrong" then it would not need to be prefaced with "seems to me" and it would not have agreement from multiple editors. Yorkshire Phoenix's suggestion would substitute a different term instead of recognizing the significant POV that the term under discussion shouldn't be used. Dave souza's suggestions about dashed lines everywhere would obfuscate this particular issue. Mucky Duck may have a point with multiple diagrams if one shows that the British Isles are used as a term and the other shows that they are not. Flying Jazz 21:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

There is a difference between a term that is nuanced/debateable/misunderstood and a term that a national government policy says should not be used. When I go to http://www.britishirishcouncil.org/ and use their search function, "Islands of the North Atlantic" or "IONA" does not appear once, and "British Isles" only appears once in an address for a location in the Isle of Man. That multinational council seems to me to have a policy to use neither term. The islands are listed on its various pages and then refered to as "these islands" a dozen times or so. No other term is used. I am not advocating this point of view. I am just saying that this point of view exists, is significant, and the diagram should reflect both views in order to be an NPOV diagram. Flying Jazz 21:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Since when does wikipedia replicate the POV of the British-Irish Council? The meaning of the term British Isles is relatively clear, except possibly the question of whether or not the Channel Islands are included. That it is not in official use seems irrelevant - it is a very commonly used geographic term. john k 23:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

It's very strange how when I write "I am not advocating this POV," your reply is to ask "since when does wikipedia replicate this POV?" I think I must be even more explicit than I've been, and so I'll take your lead John. If Wikipedia were replicating the POV of the British-Irish Council, we would not have an article or a diagram that mentions the British Isles. That would be a huge POV mistake. However, if Wikipedia had a POV entirely the opposite of the British-Irish Council, we would have a diagram that shows "British Isles" as a geographic term just like any other. That would also be a huge POV mistake. And it is the POV mistake in the current diagram. A NPOV diagram would present both POVs to the reader in a neutral fashion by presenting both a relatively clear definition to the reader and also presenting to the reader the relatively clear fact that a significant minority do not use the term. Flying Jazz 01:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Image edited (July 15)

I further edited the image to put the words "British Isles" in parentheses, to reflect the fact that some dislike the term (while few deny the underlying geographic reality). Also, labels for the whole contents of each circle are now placed right up at the center top of the circle (to avoid potential problems of interpretation). I don't think that anything would really be served by trying to make the image much more complicated than it is now. AnonMoos 21:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Proposed SVG replacement

The proposed SVG replacement image Image:British Isles Venn Diagram en.svg is inferior in visual quality to the original PNG version Image:British Isles Venn Diagram.png at this time. The SVG has mysterious variations in font sizes, and differing widths of circle boundary lines, and the red "Ireland" caption is not at the top of its enclosing circle (as it should be for consistency). Putting the Channel Islands at lower right will increase the overall compactness of the image. AnonMoos 02:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Why is England and Wales encircled?

Inside the Great Britain circle, why is there a circle around England and Wales? Is there a term that is used to identify that entity (England and Wales, but not Scotland)? Shouldn't it be in red at the top of this circle? --Serge 00:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I see now from the article that England and Wales share a legal system. Perhaps there should be a red label, England and Wales, at the top of the circle that encircles England and Wales? --Serge 00:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The explanation is at Image talk:British Isles Venn Diagram.png. There can't be a red label, because "England and Wales" is not a "natural" geographic entity (i.e. its area can't be defined in a manner independent of contingent political boundaries). AnonMoos 10:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok then, how about a label of some other color to denote this particular type of association? --Serge 19:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Confusion

Anyone noticed how often this article tells us that we should find something confusing? It suggests that some people are very easily confused. In any case it doesn't seem very encyclopaedic language. Mucky Duck 08:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Historical information in intro

Personally I'm not too keen on this; I think the intro should stay as straight forward and as uncomplicated as possible. --Robdurbar 18:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you, but it's useful information which I haven't spotted elsewhere in the article, and putting it in a separate historical list would mean duplication of the list's headings. Would there be value in making The terms with technical meanings a section, and moving "These various terms can be confusing not only in themselves (partly owing to the similarity between some of the actual words used), but also because they are often used loosely or inaccurately." to what would now be a short intro? ..dave souza, talk 20:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that's reasonable. After all, as a topic, it doesn't really need the length of introduction of a 'traditional' article. --Robdurbar 22:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Too long an intro

This has happened several times before, but the intro has become too long again. I originally started this article because there will be a lot of people like me who are confused by the various terms and want a simple answer. What follows after that is another matter and I've decided not to meddle in that anymore. But the intro is still my realm, so to say. So I have added another short intro. This has been done twice before and now the article has a structure of 'overview - more detail - still more detail - various even more detailed bits', which sounds a bit silly if you put it like that, but I don't suppose that will bother anyone. :) DirkvdM 06:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on this: it's still a pretty long intro, but including terms with technical meanings in the intro rather than making it a first section does keep it together. On another aspect, it might be worth mentioning in the Origin of the term British Isles section the claim which someone has added to British Isles#Terminology that the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle uses "British" as referring to the ancient Britons (specifically excluding the English): more a tribal identity than geographical, perhaps. dave souza, talk 17:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted it, as it duplicated info already available below, only in unformatted, unlinked and less comprehensive form... —Nightstallion (?) 11:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that the intro is too comprehensive. There have to be many people like me who just want a quick answer to 'what's what'. There should be such an explanation somewhere on Wikipedia and the intro to this article is the most logical place. It is ironic that the article now lacks the very thing I wrote the article for in the first place.

This is a rather common (and understandable) problem on Wikipedia. Those who write an article are knowledgeable (or at least they should be), so it's hard for them to view things with the mindset of someone who is not so knowledgeable. But those people are the target of an encyclopedia article. As the article progresses, it may get more bogged down in details, but the intro should, as far as possible, answer the most obvious overall questions people might have. DirkvdM 08:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Just to make sure you understand my point: I'm not against making the lead shorter and more concise, but if you do this, you should also merge the section immediately following it (the "expanded" lead) into the new, shorter lead and the extremely-detailed latter part of the article; in you version, we had a short lead, a longer semi-lead, and then again the whole article in all its depth, duplicating a lot of info between those three sections, mostly unnecessarily. —Nightstallion (?) 16:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

You seem to misunderstand what I mean. I don't want to make the intro shorter, just add a short answer for those who are looking for that (as I was before I started this article). Of course that would duplicate info below it. But that's looking at it the wrong way around. First there was the short intro. Then that expanded into something less transparent, more fit for those who already know the basics. And then the original intro (the main purpose of the article) got deleted. So I put it back. Where the links go, I don't care much. It seems more logical to have them together in the following section. And what do you mean it was unformatted? It was, wasn't it? I'll put it back for now. Maybe alter it, but please leave a short intro for non-experts like me. DirkvdM 09:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I've tried restructuring it a bit. A lot of the confusion arises from mixing up the geographical and political terms which are often the same word for different concepts. How does this look? Mucky Duck 10:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

'

Not bad. I've tided it up and merged the repitions so hopefully it will be better. You deal with the geographical bits well; the political section is a bit too vague. --Robdurbar 16:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Right. Don't get carried away, though: Remember the reasoning behind the "short intro". Mucky Duck 19:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

And I suspect it's already grown much too long again. This does not have to be a full pedantic explanation of the terms, discussion of any controversy etc; that belongs later in the article or in the indivdual referred articles. Mucky Duck 08:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

No; full, pedantic meanings discussing controversy are vital here, so that they don't fill the resepctive articles. That is the whole point of this page - to give overly-anal carfeully worded techincal discriptions. As far as I can see, the only bits that could be removed from the intro now are the England/Scotland/Wales/Northern Ireland/Isle of Man discriptions. --Robdurbar 14:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

That's fine, but not in the "short intro"

-for example: Ireland = a sovereign state covering 26 of the 32 counties of Ireland and Republic of Ireland = a "political description" of the sovereign state of Ireland are too complicated for the intro - important, but for the more technical sections later. Likewise "this term is problematic". For the intro KISS should be applied. Mucky Duck 20:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

My suggested intro by Neo

Hi, I haven't contributed to the debate yet, but can I offer the following as a suggestion; it basically streamlined descriptions and consolidated terms where appropriate. IMHO it *should* give people an idea of what each term means, and hopefuly lead them into the more comprehensive descriptions in the rest of the article. --Neo 21:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The various terms used to describe the different (and sometimes overlapping) geographical and political areas of the islands traditionally referred to collectively as the British Isles are often a source of confusion for people from other parts of the world, and even for the inhabitants of those islands themselves. The purpose of this article is to explain the meanings of and inter-relationships among those terms.

In brief , the main terms and their simple explanations are:

• Geographical terms
  • British Isles = Great Britain + Ireland + many smaller surrounding islands (note that this term is problematic)
  • Great Britain = the largest of the British Isles archipelago (sometimes informally refered to as Britain)
  • Ireland = the second largest island of the British Isles archipelago.

• Political terms
  • The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland = a sovereign state occupying much of the British Isles. Often shortened to 'United Kingdom', and sometimes informally known as Britain.
    • England, Scotland and Wales = constituent countries of the United Kingdom.
    • Northern Ireland = a de facto constituent country of the United Kingdom, occupying the north west east of the geographical Ireland.
  • Ireland / Republic of Ireland = an idependent sovereign state in the south of the geographical Ireland.
  • Great Britain = England + Wales + Scotland

These various terms can be confusing not only in themselves (partly owing to the similarity between some of the actual words used), but also because they are often used loosely or inaccurately. --Neo 21:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Fine, except for the flame bait that I've crossed out and replaced with something less tempting. --Red King 23:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Ditto, and I correct your geography! --Robdurbar 19:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Why is Northern Ireland said to be a de facto constituent country? That qualification doesn't appear on the constituent countries page, and doesn't seem to be explained on this article. I'd strongly suggest deleting de facto, if not ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› . ...dave souza, talk 19:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, that's my fault. I wasn't really thinking when I first introduced it to the article but it almost certainly falls foul of WP:OR. I used 'de facto' because I felt that it had taken the place of a 'real' country (Ireland) in the UK's set up, without actually being a country in itself. But you're right that it's both subjective and original research to say that... lazy editing on my behalf! --Robdurbar 22:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Although greatly improved, I' still not too happy about the intro. Any intro, but especially this one, should be for the clueless (mind you, that's 'clueless', not 'stupid'). There should preferably be an aha-erlebnis for as many people as possible. Any details for those with a clue can then follow. I'd rather see something like this, followed by a little mor4e detail, a short explanation of the controversies:

• Britain = Great Britain = England + Wales + Scotland (politically) = the largest island (geographically)
• The United Kingdom (political) = England + Wales + Scotland + Northern Ireland
• The British Isles (geographical) = Great Britain (the island) + Ireland (the island) + many smaller surrounding islands

I picked this one from one of the earliest versions. (Damn, I missed the anniversary! This article is now just over one year old.) DirkvdM 11:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Britain does not = Great Britain. Britain can refer to either Great Britain or the United Kingdom as a whole. john k 21:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

And England, by the illogicality of that logic, can also refer to either England or Great Britain as a whole. El Gringo 19:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Not until the UK or GB are referred to as Enlgand on the UN's website or Tony Blair starts calling the UK or GB England in his speaches are these remotely comparable. --Robdurbar 21:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

'Not until the UK or GB are referred to as Enlgand on the UN's website or Tony Blair starts calling the UK or GB England in his speaches are these remotely comparable.'- So, out of millions of sources, wikipedia now has a precise selection policy where a name for Britain only has legitimacy when a British Prime Minister uses it? Care to cite the relevant policy? And, by this logic, the British Isles do not exist because the Irish Taoiseach never used the term to include Ireland? For that matter, numerous British nationalist posters over on the Talk:British Isles and Talk: Britain discussions have argued that Ireland is a British Isles and the North of Ireland is part of Britain solely because it is perceived as being thus- regardless of how technically incorrect it is. In other words, by the logic which British posters invoke in those articles, all we need do is show a widespread perception that England and Great Britain are the same in order for us to register that in those articles. And that, as you know, is an easy task. El Gringo 18:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

PS: A simple Google for "Ambassador to England" returned 50,100 results. England has not been a political state since 1707 and therefore people are really talking about something different, like Great Britain (until 1801) or the United Kingdom. By the same logic that you apply to the above Irish-related articles, this perception should be recorded in the relevant Wikipedia articles. El Gringo 18:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

My point was that whilst reputable and educated sources use the term Britiain to mean the UK, I feel that you would be hard pushed to find more than a handful of examples of such people calling it England. I used TB and the UN just as examples of such sources, rather than for themselves in particular. What I meant, really, is that there's a big difference between Joe Blogs saying that the country is England and Tony Blair, the UN, the Red Cross, the IOC or anyone else saying that the country is 'Britain'. The policy that I was using, by the way, is Wikipedia:Reliable sources, which notes that sources should be reputbale.

British Isles, I agree, is quite - though not exactly - comprarable. As you have noted, far fewere reputable and official sources use the term. However, you will find very few users on the page who state unequivocally that the Ireland is in the British Isles and that the page should say so, without any qualifications (though I accept that some - who I agree with you are either biased or blinkered - do say this).

Meaning is not controlled by some higher nature - if Britain grew from 'Great Britain' and then came to mean UK, then fine. I feel that the current intro is fine and explains the situation well; DirkvdM's attempts are a little to brief - for an article of the current page length, WP:LEAD recommends 3/4 paragraphs. --Robdurbar 19:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't mean to replace the intro with this, but add it to it, as a first explanation. The way it is now, if I would have come here a year ago I would still be puzzled as to what's what. You can keep on expanding the intro with considerations and exceptions because there are so many here (and that has indeed happened several times already). So the most logical thing to do is to start with the basics and then slowly build it up from there. For example, Britain = Great Britain is roughly true ('great' distinguishes it from 'Little Britain' or Brittany. Any further considerations can then follow.

Let me restate: the primary purpose of the article has been lost. DirkvdM 09:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem, though, is that if we over simplify, we will be inundated with complaints such as User:El Gringo's above. If we state, unequivocally, that BI = great britain, Ireland and surrounding isles, then we will get sucked into repeated attempts to justify this and edit wars with users who think this is a non-neutral statement. I'm afraid that 'roughly true' probably isn't acceptable for an encylopedia anyway.

I think the best way of dealing with this would be to stick with the current intro. I think to state that it has lost its purpose is currently going a bit far. I wonder whether the Euler diagram could be replaced with some other form of simiplar graphic. --Robdurbar 12:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure of the British Isles terminology at all. Why do we need to clump these islands together with a name at all? The term 'British Isles' comes from when Britain controlled both islands. Now they do not - no more 'British Isles' right? As for the UK discussion I really wish they would stop including the Republic of Ireland with the UK. There are a few wikipedia articles of places and things in the Republic of Ireland that are said to be in the UK (see Castle Durrow eg). OisinT 13:52, 20 August 2006

Sorry to ruin your example but it couldn't be left as a UK-building-stub. --Red King 22:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Oisín, we need it because it is important to the national identity of very many British wikipedians that Ireland continues to be part of some greater geographical sense of Britishness, and contextualising Ireland within a 'British Isles' framework is apposite to this need. This neighbourly charm continues here in five archives (so far) El Gringo 00:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The term "British Isles" did not, in fact, come from when "Britain controlled both islands". The term is much older than that Oisin. Read up about it. :) --Mal 14:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no move. -- tariqabjotu 22:38, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Page Move

Requested move

British Isles (terminology) → Britain and Ireland (terminology) – Some users find British Isles offensive or outdated. By moving to Britain and Ireland, we can avoid using this term with no great harm to ourselves. Also, it removes the misconception that some users get that this page will be about the term British Isles itself. Robdurbar 19:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

Oppose votes

1. Oppose - Britain and Ireland is a badly defined term. Does it mean the two states (UK and Ireland) and ignore the Isle of Man or the two islands (Great Britain and Ireland) ignoring the multitude of smaller islands. British Isles is a well established term. We shouldn't give up clarity for the sake of bleeding hearts. josh (talk) 19:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
2. Oppose - as above. British Isles is a well established term: "Britain and Ireland" is problematic. Yorkshire Phoenix (talk) 09:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
3. Oppose - as above. Any offense can be noted in the article. Cleveland Indians is offensive to some but the title is not expunged to assuage the offended. "Britain and Ireland" does substitute for British Isles any more than "Norway, Sweden, and Denmark" would for Scandinavia. -  AjaxSmack  18:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose - delete the article British Isles (terminology) if necessary as British Isles#Terminology says it better, but to deny that this is the common term is close to the thinking process of those people in Belfast who think they live in Ulster rather than Ireland. --Henrygb 22:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

   and a comment:What terminology is this article about? that at British Isles or that at Britain and Ireland? --Henrygb 23:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

5. Oppose as per AjaxSmack above. --Mal 22:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
6. Oppose - Wikipedia is not here to prescribe language, but to describe it. British Isles remains the only universally known term. 'Britain and Ireland' simply refers to the states. TharkunColl 23:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

   Comment so merge it back into British Isles or delete it altogether? This article is someones personal project, someones drum, nothing more. Its a "disambiguation" page that is clearly not a disambiguation page, but an agenda. Djegan 23:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

7. Oppose - as per no. 12 above. Matthew 23:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
8. Oppose the move. There is already a Britain and Ireland article that discusses terminology. This issue is a hot potato at British Isles and has not yet resulted in a move of that. A first move here could destabilise the fragile consensus there. See Talk:British_Isles/Archive_3#One_term.2C_One_article.2C_One_thorough_explanation Finally, there are less offensive terms, and ones that would be less confusing in the present context of two states (and the IOM) occupying the islands, with the word British normally applying to just one of those states. However, the better terms are not widely (nor consistently) used outside Ireland, and so don't help the general reader. Since the islands are pieces of rock, they cannot self-identify, so Wikipedia should instead use the most widespread term for the article name. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 23:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC) .Vote withdrawn. Abstain After reflection and some persuasion from Robdurbar (see #Summary style below), I see that since the article is not really about the piece of geography usually called the British Isles, it is not such a hot potato, and Robdurbar's proposed article name is just as meaningful. Any move here may destabilise the fragile consensus at British Isles, but I hope people see the sense in the different purposes of the two article. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
9. Oppose. Regardless of my personal feelings about the term, British Isles is still the recognised term used in atlases and what all all over the world. Wikipedia isn't just for people in Ireland, Wales and Scotland; it's for people everywhere, and until the standard name changes, we are stuck with it. BTW, I saw someone suggest Dispute over the name of the British Isles over at Talk:Britain and Ireland: does anyone else think this sounds like a good idea? Vashti 04:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

   Actually, why not split the page and have Britain (terminology and Ireland (terminology)? Both islands have big sections on each other, and they could have pointers to each other at the top. Vashti 04:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

10. Oppose. The name of the archipelago is the British Isles. That that offends some people is not a reason to change the name of the article - state and explain the objection (and objections to the objection) by all means but no weasel wording. Mucky Duck 10:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

    By the way, I would support the third option (delete the article altogether). Mucky Duck 10:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

11. Oppose - as far as I'm aware it's the official term that is used, and as this is an encyclopedia we should be using the official term. -- Roleplayer 12:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
12. Oppose: article covers more islands than Britain and Ireland. C mon 13:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
13. Oppose "British Isles" is just a name, it doesn't mean they belong to Britain. What would happen if Koreans feel offended about the "Sea of Japan" that bathes the Korean Peninsula? Would we have to change the name of the sea? There's hundreds if not thousands of similar examples... They're just names. People feel offended just because they enjoy creating nuisances.--Húsönd 14:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
14. Oppose: British Isles is far and away the most common term used in the world for Great Britain and Ireland under any terms of searching. Ben W Bell talk 14:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
15. Oppose:Per all the above. Lancsalot 15:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
16. Oppose. Jeez, this is getting tiresome. john k 15:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
17. Oppose for now. As can be seen below there is still some disagreement over this article's scope and very existance. That all should be worked out before a rename. Also i'm unsure about the purpose of the move. The current intro defines the scope to be the terminology surrounding the "geographical and political areas" of the archipelago. Would the renamed article describe the terminology of the UK and ROI, a much wider scope? Or just the two islands? If so, maybe rework the intro—then propose a move?EricR 16:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
18. 'Oppose. "British Isles" is a well-known phrase; There is a clear difference between British Isles and "British Islands" (which is defined by the Interpretation Act 1978 to mean the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man only) Owain (talk) 17:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
19. Oppose, it is not for Wikipedia to invent terminology; "British Isles" suffices for the gross majority of the inhabitants thereof. James F. (talk) 18:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
20. Oppose. British Isles is clearly the most well known term. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 20:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
21. Oppose. Per above. It's the most common geographic term. --JW1805 (Talk) 20:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
22. Oppose. Wikipedia is supposed to describe the world as it is, not how people want it to be. In the world as it is "British Isles" is the term people use. When you succede in replacing that phrase, either by lobbying those in power to discourage its use, or by convincing people that it's politically incorrect, out of date, or whatever, Wikipedia will follow. Joe D (t) 20:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
23. Oppose. As for above, especially 3, 10, 13, 18, and most especially 16. MAG1 11:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
24. Oppose vide supra Alci12 14:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
25. Oppose Jonto 16:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Support votes

1. Support - Britain and Ireland is a precisely defined term: it means Britain and Ireland. The British Isles, in contrast, entirely lacks specifics at its most fundamental point and this point, depressingly, still needs to be spelt out: Ireland is not a British island. El Gringo 00:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
2. Support - I'd have to support Britain and Ireland because it's the purest and most honest term to use and it lacks any sense of jingoism. It personifies the calm in the middle of a storm of flag-waving. MelForbes 19:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
3. Support as nom and re Mel Forbes. Robdurbar 20:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
4. Support (even better would be a deletion, its nothing more than a pov fork) Djegan 20:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
5. Support per User:Djegan. As far as I can see this entire article is a breach of WP:Content forking. --Mais oui! 20:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
6. Support or delete as above. If somebody comes here to be enlightened they will leave utterly addled! Scolaire 21:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
7. Support Some peopele perfer the term "Atlantic Isles" as use by some historians for example Diarmaid MacCullough ant_ie 22:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
8. Support While Great Britain is an established term its meaning is different for different people and though some people's interpretation can be correct, it can also be partially-correct, slightly-wrong or really really wrong, and all points in between. Britain and Ireland has more clarity than Great Britain. ww2censor 22:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

   I think you've misunderstood the question: It's about "British Isles" terminology; not "Great Britain" terminology.

9. Support Accurate and correct. Djegan is correct. The current article is nothing more than a pov fork, all the more so under a name that is in itself offensive to many. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
10. Support. Palmiro | Talk 00:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
11. Support. British Isles is an outdated and slightly offensive title to a number of people. While I semi-jokingly suggest the term "Western European Isles", I certainly oppose the use of the British Isles. Lochdale 03:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
12. cautiously Support - this article serves a useful purpose in explaining the ambiguities and different meanings of the terms for both main islands and both states, as well as the terms for the British Isles as a whole. The revised title probably makes that clearer to the uninitiated. ...dave souza, talk 13:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
13. Support. Laurel Bush 13:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC).
14. Support. More descriptive (and accurate) term. E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 02:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
15. Support only because it's more descriptive of what the article is about, and probably more helpful for the casual reader who may not know what the British Isles are. --Ryano 12:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
16. Support Thinking about it more, I think that an article free from the serious POV issues associated with 'British Isles' term is definitely best...'Britain and Ireland' is clean and descriptive...I strongly support this renaming. Pconlon 16:51, 25 August 2006 (PT)

Discussion

The sooner people in Britain stop deluding themselves about Irish self-definition the better both our peoples will get on. It is (long passed) time to curtail this imperialist terminology for other people's homes. Respect costs absolutely nothing. El Gringo 01:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Understanding of language costs nothing either. British Isles existed long before the British state. TharkunColl 23:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

So did smallpox. That doesn't make it a good idea. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

There once was a set of old isles

whose naming disputes ran on for miles.

With long history lessons

and longer bitching sessions

It produced much more groaning than smiles. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

And that you don't like it doesn't mean that smallpox doesn't exist. Mucky Duck 10:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems that since this article was created, much of the terminology material has re-emerged in the British Isles article. Is there a reason why that material is not moved here leaving only a summary at the parent article? I kind of like the guideline Wikipedia:Summary style and would hope that it would be followed here. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 23:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

That is a non-starter with Irish Wikipedians.

• "British Isles" is a controversial and widely rubbished term in Ireland (and among people of Irish descent worldwide, as well as many Scottish and Welsh Nationalists). There is no chance whatsoever of having an article under the name "British Isles" that does not include a detailed discussion of the naming controversy. Even if it was tried, all that would happen is that everytime the BI article was edited, if it didn't have all that information, it would be added in by others. It is one of those things which simply cannot be pushed off to another article.
• This article's title is widely seen as unacceptable. In its current format it implies that it is discussing terminology for the British Isles. To millions of people, there is no such thing as the "British Isles" – it is as dead as term as "Austria-Hungary". So this article's title is discredited for many users. There is a justifiable reason for deleting this article altogther (it is little more than a POV fork) but no justification whatsoever not to cover the naming issue in the article on the "British Isles". FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 00:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Eh? Have I made a new enemy? I did not say don't cover it, I said summarise it. I did agree that the current name has come to sound jingoistic, but we can't use Wikipedia to campaign for changes to the English language. Britain and Ireland is indeed becoming much more widespread, and with one last push, it could become global normal usage. (I kind of prefer IONA, Ireland and Britain and British and Irish Isles but it seems they have lost the battle.) However, Wikipedia is not the place to make that last push. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 00:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. But there are articles on WP where you simply cannot send a large chunk to another article. The issue isn't that it isn't a good idea (it may well be). It is that unless you state it is detail in the main article it will get added in anyway, in a less than NPOV manner, by others. There are certain topics which by their nature cannot be daughtered off to other articles. The terminology dispute has to be covered in detail in the main article. Otherwise you just invite edit wars and POV additions on the hour. So a long section on terminology in the main article is unavoidable. (We face the same issues to do with aspects of George Bush, Hitler, various wars, etc. Summaries are not an option because they only generate people adding in what they think is "missing". And no, you haven't made a new enemy. Did I sound a bit techy? Sorry, I didn't mean to. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 00:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

When a disproportionate flood of material putting the "Irish" case against the term changed the balance in the British Isles article, attempts were made to move the detail here and keep a summary in that article. This was hotly opposed, as stated above. The remnants here should be severely pruned, and the section devoted to more accurate information on the origins of the various terms, not just the British Isles. ...dave souza, talk 13:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Jtdirl says: "That is a non-starter with Irish Wikipedians. "British Isles" is a controversial and widely rubbished term in Ireland (and among people of Irish descent worldwide, as well as many Scottish and Welsh Nationalists)."

Being an Irish Wikipedian, I object to this generalisation of us. On top of that, having lived in Ireland all my life, I have rarely, if ever, heard any objection to the term "British Isles" by a fellow Irish person - no matter what their religious or socio-political background.

Further to this, there are those people both in the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom who object to being described as European. However that does not change the fact that they are of the European continent. --Mal 17:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Calling the archipelago the "British" (sic) Isles is akin to calling Europe "Little Russia" or "West Asia". --Mais oui! 18:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Except it's not, because none of those is an established term for Europe. Matthew 21:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I just want to echo what Mal says - as an Irish Wikipedian I've never considered the term offensive, and outside of Internet discussions like this one I've never encountered an Irish person who finds it particularly offensive. As I've said elsewhere, I don't have a problem with the term as a purely geographical descriptor, along the same lines as the Irish Sea or the Indian Ocean. I do have a problem when people take the existence of the term to mean that Ireland and Irish people can accurately be described as "British" --Ryano 09:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I think describin this as a POV fork is highly offensive to the editors who have tried to develop this page into a description of the often confusing terminology in the isles. If you think they have failed, then edit it. But I am sure that the original editor's aim (I think he was Dutch) was an honest one and, quite frankly, to come here and call this a POV fork is highly disrepectful to Wikipedia's otehr volunteers. --Robdurbar 07:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• If this article is to be renamed, I suggest British Isles naming dispute, to parallel similar articles like Iran naming dispute, Persian Gulf naming dispute, and Sea of Japan naming dispute. In each case the most commonly used, most familiar name is used, followed by the words "naming dispute". User:Angr 16:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

As I indicated earlier, this article has a use for clarification of terms which predated addition of a lump about the naming dispute, though it did mention it. The dispute is dealt with more fully at British Isles: British Isles naming dispute could contain full detail of that argument and link to both articles, if need be, but expect objections which others have expressed above. ..dave souza, talk 17:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think Fear Éireann said that "British Isles" is a non-starter for Irish Wikipedians, merely that 'summary style' is a non-starter for Irish Wikipedians. While he is still generalising about us, he is only generalising about our style of encyclopedia editing. State your own opinion, and the reason you hold it, and let that stand for itself. See below for my response. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 18:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

My opinion is that both this article and British Isles should contain a concise summary of the dispute, with a further article being created for the detail of the dispute along the lines being discussed at Talk:British Isles#Idea. ..dave souza, talk 19:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Summary style

Fear Éireann says that extensive duplication of this material in British Isles#Terminology is inevitable, if I understand him correctly. I may not have been around long enough, but it seems to me that since British Isles (terminology) keeps surviving votes for deletion, there is some kind of obligation on Wikipedia volunteers to make Wikipedia:Summary style work. Otherwise, by default, it becomes a content fork - with the inevitable result the same facts are treated in a different way in each article - and becomes confusing to readers.

Perhaps the most neutral manner for summary style to work here is for the British Isles#Terminology to be an exact mirror of the current state of the lead section of British Isles#Terminology To survive, that lead section would need to reflect the naming dispute better than it does now.

However, the current state of affairs or any other will require constant vigilance and merciless reverts to the consensus wordings.

Right now, British Isles is 50% Geography and History, and 50% Terminology. That is unbalanced, and shows that the consensus that Robdurbar mentioned on 5 July is not working yet. There are enough Wikipedians with good knowledge of Ireland, Britain and the IOM, and good writing skills, that British Isles ought to become a featured article one day. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 18:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, I've removed that article from my watchlist - I had enough of the personal attacks on the page. However, I should point out that one of my reasons for requesting a move on this page was to clarify that this is not just a discussion of the term 'British Isles' (and its alternatives) it/themself/ves, but of all the geographical terminology about places within the British Isles e.g. this is a clarification page about a number of issues - British Isles#Terminology is intended as a discussion about the phrase British Isles and its alternatives. If anything, all the info on this page about that debate could be removed, with a link to the relevant part of that article.

As for consensus on the British Isles page - well though its not entirely relevant here - my conclusion was based on how little the page has changed, despite all the talk. It seems/seemed to me that the vast majority of debate on the article was nitpicking over senetences/single words, rather than the content as a whole.

This article has never, by the way, been nominated for deletion. Indeed, some users have found it so helpful that they have decided to copy it (if not in form, then at least in principal) at Americas (terminology). Ironically, I think that article is probably now better than this one! --Robdurbar 18:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying the history, and sorry for the false statement. Please explain this a bit more:

Following an edit war on the British Isles article, the consensus for a way forward was that the article be pruned back to focus on geography and history, and the material on the original and controversy surrounding the name "British Isles" be dealt with here at British Isles (terminology).

That was one of the reasons I sound like a stuck record on 'Summary style', and why I feel sad that the material at British Isles#Terminology diverges so much from that at British Isles (terminology). I think both articles should be even-handed about all the useful terminology, and aim to educate and inform first. Neither should go on at endless detail about the naming dispute. Explaining the naming dispute is encyclopedic, but endless analysis of the citations by both sides doesn't seem to be to me, and I admire you for trying to hold the line against such.

I know that is very easy for me to say until I try to put it into practice, but if no-one else feels the same way, it won't be possible (or useful) to do alone. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 12:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, that. Yeah, that's bad editing on my behalf, I went way ahead in presuming that there was a conesnsus, and then havn't really tidied it up here. As for your concern - you can always create your vision of the article on a sub-page of this talk, for people to see and for you to try; you can always list for speedy when you're done. --Robdurbar 21:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

To avoid the situation where this article has essentially an outdated duplication of the section at British Isles, I've trimmed it back to a brief summary with a reference to the other as a main article. I've also pointed out that the term Ireland is itself a sensitive matter. Trust that helps to tidy this up. ...dave souza, talk 19:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

British Islands

It might be worth updating the diagram to add one more circle, "British Islands" that includes everything, including the Channel Islands. It would be unified, somehow :) Also, anyone know if the Channel Islansd were ever considered part of the "British Isles" (especially during WWII)? I might have a dispute over a trivia quiz...:) Stevage 11:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Such a circle would not include everything: to be accurate it would obviously have to exclude the Republic of Ireland, but include the Channel Islands. I'm not sure where Northern Ireland sits in relation to this term since it is not an island. Yorkshire Phoenix 11:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Yorkshire Phoenix. British Islands definitely does not include the territory of the Republic of Ireland. The term seems to be rarely used outside diplomatic circles, and it would make the diagram messy. As regards your trivia quiz question, read the articles — the answer is buried in there somewhere. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 18:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I did read the articles, but the answer seemed to only be hinted at - hence my request for confirmation. Stevage 08:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Why didn't you say you had read them? As I recall, they say that sometimes the Channel Islands are included in the British Isles. That is the best I can do. Please don't write pub quiz questions about it. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 21:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I think a figure that included a circle for the British Islands as a political entity without the Republic of Ireland would be very useful to readers in order to indicate just how uncontrollably murky and ambiguous this topic is and how the passions it evokes are so ludicrous. A messy reality calls for a messy diagram. Flying Jazz 23:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that inclusion of British Islands would add value to the Euler diagram. Yorkshire Phoenix 09:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Irish language

According to the article, in the Irish language, Éire refers both to the Political Entity of the Republic of Ireland, and also to the Geographical Entity, the island of Ireland. Firstly, I'd like to know if this is accurate, and, furthermore, if it is accurate, perhaps there could be a note to explain this difference between the two languages. I wonder if the Éire entry at the Irish-language Wikipedia could help here, if there are any Irish speakers contributing to this article? Liam Plested 22:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The name Ireland is simply the English language version of Éire: Ireland is the English name for Éire. Consequently, Derry, Ireland, is simply the English for Doire, Éire. This logic is something which would be too much for your average British person. But it stands. As for the 26 counties, its official name is Ireland, when speaking the English language. When speaking Irish, its official name is, naturally enough, Éire. This is contained in the 1937 Constitution, which reasserted, in the form of Articles Two and Three, the native Irish right to the entire country. That is the context of the legislation. In other words, those who admit Belfast is in Ireland, but wouldn't say Belfast is in "Éire" are simply twisting things to suit their (unionist) politics. I have yet to hear any Irish speaker use Éire in the partitionist sense British people use it. See: www.rnag.ie; www.tg4.ie, for instance. El Gringo 23:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

"This logic is something which would be too much for your average British person." (El Gringo). Then again, perhaps it's the Irish who are having trouble understanding the concept that you cannot legislate for language. I don't care what the Irish constitution of 1937 might say - the fact is that when used in English, for the vast majority of people in the British Isles, "Eire" means the Irish republic (whereas "Ireland" almost always means the whole island, and not just that part of it that has appropriated the name for itself). Perhaps this is because "Eire" always appeared on coins from the republic, which had a nasty habit of turning up in handfulls of change and then proving impossible to spend, except in slot machines - quite literally like the proverbial bad penny.

And on the subject of legislating for language, what on earth is wrong with the traditional term "Irish Gaelic"? Just calling it "Irish" is open to all sorts of misinterpretation. TharkunColl 08:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Absolute and total nonsense from beginning to end. So no change there then. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 12:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

hehe, Fear Éireann. ;-) El Gringo 20:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you denying that when used in England, for example, the term "Eire" means the Republic of Ireland (and not the whole island)? TharkunColl 13:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Why am I not surprised that you are preoccupied with how terms are understood in England? Obviously Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland and indeed the island of Ireland don't matter. All that matters is what England thinks. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 14:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe that in legislation of the Republic (perhaps the constitution of the Republic) both Ireland and Eire have been defined as names for the Republic. Also, however, I imagine these definitions date from when the Republic had "constitutional" claims to the whole of Ireland/Eire. (Ireland is quite obviously and Anglicisation of Eire + land. Laurel Bush 14:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC).

When de Valera began working on his new constitution in 1935 he initially planned to keep the name Saorstát Éireann. Later on, in 1936 and particularly 1937 drafts, he dropped the term, using instead Ireland and Éire. His constitution defined two entities: a twenty-six county "state" and a thirty-two county "national territory". He never defined what name meant which. So when referred politically, the twenty-six country state is variously referred to as "Ireland", "Éire-Ireland" (in the EU), "Éire" and "The Republic of Ireland". When the island is referred to culturally or geopolitically, it is referred to as "Éire" or "Ireland". "Éire" can mean either the 26 or 32 counties, depending on context. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 14:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's where we differ in our use of the words. When used in England (which I simply cited as an example before), or indeed in most other areas of the British Isles, the term "Eire" refers to the Republic, and "Ireland" almost always means the whole country - not just that part of it that is no longer in the UK. I even suggested a reason for this - namely, that "Eire" became associated with the Republic, in British people's minds, primarily though the medium of Irish Republic coins, which turned up here regularly. There's no other particular reason for us to have adopted a loan-word from Gaelic in this fashion, and I imagine that we pronounce it "wrongly" as well - just like many other loan-words from foreign languages. In short, whatever the word might mean in Gaelic, to most English-speakers who know it, it means the Republic of Ireland. As I stated before, anyone who tries to legislate the meaning of words is a fool. TharkunColl 14:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, its dictionary meaning is clearcut. Éire (genitive case: Éireann) means Ireland. It is just that there are two Irelands; the island of Ireland and the state of Ireland. Both have the official name Ireland. As a result, in Irish both are Éire. It is simply that in the UK when people of Ireland they think of the state. So it is natural in that context to think Éire = The Republic. But it simply is one meaning. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 15:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes indeed, I fully understand that "Eire" is the Irish Gaelic word for Ireland. But in general contemporary English, when the loan-word "Eire" is used, it means the Republic. I don't, incidentally, think it's true that when people use the term "Ireland" they are thinking primarily of just the Republic (though it depends on context). In most cases, however, "Ireland" means the whole island. So in other words, there was a linguistic gap in English usage and saying "Republic of Ireland" or even "Irish Republic" all the time was a bit of a mouthful - language abhors both a vacuum and needless long-windedness - and "Eire" fitted the bill nicely (usually pronounced something like "air-a" or even "air", i.e. how people saw it written on coins). Were it not for this combination of factors, I doubt that the word would ever have been adopted into general English at all. TharkunColl 15:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes indeed, I fully understand that "Eire" is the Irish Gaelic word for Ireland. Indeed, it most certainly is not. Obviously, Ireland is the English Anglo-Saxon word for Éire. Get the historical sequence correct. Unionist revisionism is so, like, eighties, like. El Gringo 20:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be a little confused as to what I actually said. I said that "Eire" is the Irish Gaelic word for "Ireland". I made no suggestion as to which of those two terms came first. Can you not understand plain written English?

And whilst we're at it, I must take exception to your suggestion that I'm a "unionist". In my opinion the artificial division of Ireland was a terrible crime, forced on a weakened British government by German-sponsored Irish terrorism during the First World War. Both Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic are gerrymander states, that should never have been torn assunder in the first place. TharkunColl 23:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

by German-sponsored Irish terrorism during the First World War. This coming from a supporter of the murdering British state savages who took the great, noble and honourable James Connolly over to Kilmainham Gaol during this time, strapped him to a chair, and murdered him in cold blood just reflects how fucked up and utterly fanatic some of you British can still be about the natives. And how nice of you to do it all "for the rights of small nations to self-determination". You blinkered, xenophobic jingoists. The only terrorists in Ireland are the ones who believe Britain has a right to rule lands beyond Britain. Masterrace nutcases. The free Irish are a very peaceful people; the only part of the country that is not at peace is where the British have settled in large numbers. Term it the British military tradition, or the British cultural affinity with violence- it means the same thing. But I don't expect any of you to honestly face this aspect of your national values. In other words, the "Irish Problem" is, clearly, the British state's presence here. El Gringo 22:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

"The only terrorists in Ireland are the ones who believe Britain has a right to rule lands beyond Britain." Then I take it that you do not regard the IRA as terrorists? In that case, Mr Gringo, I accuse you of being a fellow traveller with repugnant murderous bastards. You are beneath my contempt. I shall not respond to any further statement that you make, as in my opinion you have forfeited the right to be heard. TharkunColl 23:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Woah, woah, woah, let's bring this back a little. We're meant to be discussing words and terms here, not bringing any of this heated nationalist/loyalist stuff up. There's a whole Internet full of forums for that sort of stuff. In English, one can refer to "The Republic of Ireland", or "The Island of Ireland", and each is a separate entity. The article implies, however, that Irish Gaelic has only one term (Éire) for the two. Doing a little research, I've found "Poblacht na hÉireann" as being a translation for the name of the RoI, and there also being a term for NI. I'll be quite honest here, and state that I find the whole thing confusing, and I'd be glad if someone could clear it up without bringing their axe to the grindstone. If it's a matter that can't be cleared up, perhaps this should be stated in the article. Liam Plested 23:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I find ElGringo's comments about Brits being unable to understand logic and having "a cultural affinity with violence" (presumably you'd like to explain the difference between those comments and saying that Black people have a cultural affinity with crack dealing for example or that Jews have a cultural affinity for being mean with money and world domination) to be about as racist and despicable as you can get and to have no place on Wikipedia - oh and I'm not a unionist, far from it, before I'm tarred with that brush. I'm sorry but as well as breaking Wikipedia guidelines on civility it also reduces the credibility of your arguments since it makes you comments on the alleged imperialist nature of the term "British Isles" seem to just be another outgrowth of your prejuidice. Frankly if I had bigoted views on other nations I'd at least be ashamed of it enough not to broadcast them in public. While there are certainly many British people who's attitude to Ireland could be summed up by the terms "xenophobic" or "jingoistic" unfortunately you have demonstrated how much in common with them. The sad fact is that there are so many people in this world who would be exactly what they currently despise if they were only born a few miles down the road since at heart they think in exactly the same way. Disgraceful. Truly disgraceful. 82.12.232.172 20:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations on making a post that contributes nothing to the discussion on the article. Your opinion is valid, but this isn't the place for it, so take it elsewhere. Liam Plested 11:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

That might perhaps have been more useful if you had suggested where to take it! I'm not new to Wikipedia but would have no idea myself where an appropriate place would be for such things. Matthew 12:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

To go back to Liam's original question. Yes Éire refers to both the island of Ireland and to the irish state in the irish language. The official position of the Irish goverment is that this also applies in the English language as per the Irish Constitution ie. Island = Ireland, state = Ireland. There is a term "Poblacht na hÉireann" in irish which is basically a direct translation of the term "Republic of Ireland". However this is not the official name of the state per the constituion which is "Éire/Ireland" (Depending on language used and as oppose to "Poblacht na hÉireann/Republic of Ireland"). The term for "Northern Ireland" is "Tuaisceart Éireann" which is a direct translation into irish. Likewise one could say "Iarthair na hÉireann" as a translation for "west of ireland" etc. The confusion is to do with the fact that use of english language is different between Ireland and Britian. Here (i'm irish) Ireland is name of both the state and the island, whereas in Britian you will more likely find usage of "Republic of Ireland"/"Irish Republic"/"Southern Ireland"/"Éire" for the state and the usage of "Ireland" purely for geopgraphic island. Hope that helps. -Paul

Brittany

Have changed a bit here. I'm tired of seeing this same line that Brittany was peopled by the Cornish! Some facts: Brittany and that region of France had a culture and language similar with that of southern Britain; the Anglo-Saxons didn't kick the 'Celts' out of England; migrants from Britain to Brittany would not have just come from Cornwall (that one always makes me scratch my head); the population of Brittany would have existed prior to British migration and would have enveloped it. Enzedbrit 09:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Interesting subject: according to Snyder Armorica was Brittonic speaking with longstanding trade and religious links to Britain, and was less Romanised than the east of Gaul. Unrest from the third century led to a series of revolts, and though Britons had travelled through Gaul throughout the Roman period, there's no indication of large groups of Britons until the mid 5th century, with the term Brittania being first applied to the area by Procopius and becoming a standard term for Armorica by the late 6th century. He mentions linguistic similarities between Cornish and Breton leading some to argue for migration from south Wales and southwest Britain from the late 5th century, and since this predated Saxon expansion into these areas have suggested they were fleeing from Irish raiders, but Snyder considers ecclesiastical and commercial links suffice to explain the language links. ...dave souza, talk 15:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

What is the basis of this statement?

Quote from article;

The second largest island in the archipelago is Ireland. That Ireland is a part of the geographical "British Isles" in no way implies that all of the island is politically British.

Does someone think that it is? This is yet another sop to the POV pushers who don't like the term British Isles. Arcturus 17:40, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

"Does someone think that it is?" - From an Online Encyclopaedia I just found;

"Hostility to the term British Isles has often been caused by its misinterpretation; this was exemplified by an embarrassing and controversial faux pas by the then American First Lady Nancy Reagan during an Irish visit. The confusion caused by the term was also highlighted during a stop-over visit to the Republic of Ireland by then Soviet Union leader Mikhail Gorbachev, when he indicated that he presumed Ireland's head of state was Queen Elizabeth II, given that she was the British Queen and his officials said that Ireland was a part of the British Isles." -[1]

I'll look for a primary source if further confirmation is needed --Neo 18:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Neo, the source looks like it's a Wikipedia mirror, perhaps using a previous version of the BI article. I still wonder whether the statement is necessary in the article. Arcturus 18:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with the 'probably a Wikipedia Mirror' thing; however, returning to the point I think that a statement explictely stating that Ireland (the state) is independent of the United Kingdom does no harm, and may help clarify any queries or doubts in people's minds. As someone who appears to have spent some time on Wikipedia I'm sure I don't need to say Be Bold and edit it if you can think of a better formulation. --Neo 20:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Faroe Islands article claims that it is in the British Isles

Is that correct or not. If not, then we must correct the Faore Isles article. Chivista 18:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted that as well. It is all about an argument going on at Talk:British Isles and added to prove a point. josh (talk) 18:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

That's not very nice; it misled me for no reason... because they are almost close enough and in the old days of Beowulf the Danes did invade Britain so I thought that the Faroe Isle claim was correct. Chivista 18:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I would be perfectly happy to accept the Faeroes as part of the British Isles - both geographically and, as you say, culturally. They are, however, situated on their own fragment of continental shelf that is not joined to that on which the British Isles are situated - but this fact cannot have been known to the ancients. TharkunColl 19:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Manx

Citations were given for "Western European Islands" being terms used in Irish (Oileáin Iarthair Eorpa, Dinneen 1927, s.v. oileán 'island') and Manx (apparently Ellanyn Sheear ny hOarpey, Fargher 1979). I was noting (with footnotes) that "British Isles" occurs in Irish (Oileáin Bhreatanacha, Dunne & Ó Raithbheartaigh 1937) and Manx (Ny hEllanyn Goaldagh, Fargher 1979, s.v. British-Isles; basically the Manx called them all "foreign islands"). I do not find Ellanyn Sheear ny hOarpey in Fargher. Under Western Isles the term Ellanyn Sheear ny h-Albey occurs, obviously referring to Scotland's Hebrides. Further, 'Europe' is Europey in Fargher. What gives? POV mendacity? -- Evertype·✆ 18:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

What are you trying to prove? That the term "British Isles" is so loved by the Irish Government that they incessantly refer to "Britain and Ireland" as Oileáin Bhriotanacha. There is no doubt about the fact that "British Isles" does translate into the Irish language, but to go on and quote government sources where it was used in 1937 when Ireland was part of the British Commonwealth is mear pov, and not apt for a worthy encyclopedia article. The usual term is Oileáin Iarthair Eorpa, or the West European Isles. MelForbes 19:30, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Hold your POV horses, MelForbes. I am not trying to prove anything. I am showing attested use of a particular term in Irish. I have a NPOV about this. I am not offended by the use of "British Isles" to refer to a Britain, Ireland, the Isle of Man, and the thousands of little Islands in the area. Nor do I insist that people use the term. As a lexicographer, however, I have simply shown that Oileáin Bhriotanacha is a term which has been used in Irish. That's simply a fact, found in a book on my shelf (I have lots of maps and atlases). "Not apt for a worthy encyclopaedia article" is seriously POV. Why do I think so? For the same reason that I am unhappy that someone who edited this page suggested that Ellanyn Sheear na hOarpey is a Manx term from Fargher, which I have been unable to find in that book, while the term Ny hEllanyn Goaldagh which means 'British Isles' is attested in that book. Ths seems to me to be a POV revisionism on the part of a Wikipedian. This article is about usage. Facts are not to be suppressed. -- Evertype·✆ 20:04, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

You said: "The usual term is Oileáin Iarthair Eorpa, or the West European Isles." An bhfuil Gaeilge agat? Tá sí agamsa agus níor chualas duine ar bith ag úsáid an téarma sin, cé go bhfuil fáil air i bhfoclóir an Duinníneach. Got proof that it is usual? (And it may very well be usual, but that does not mean that a term for 'British Isles' is not attested in Irish, in use, one might think, by people who were quite well aware of what it did and did not imply. -- Evertype·✆ 20:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

A Cara, tá an Gaeilge agamsa freisin. Slainte chugat. MelForbes 21:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

"A chara, tá an Ghaeilge agamsa freisin." Soraidh. -- Evertype·✆ 22:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Sadly, to a certain breed of Irish Nationalist on wikipedia, any concession to use of the geographical term "British Isles" to include the island of Ireland is always fought tooth and nail. Tedious to those of us who prefer neutral facts, but sadly a site like wikipedia attracts disproportionate numbers of such folk. It's mentalities like this which are a large part of the reason why a certain junket was taking place in St Andrews the past few days...--feline1 20:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Sadly, to a certain breed of Irish Nationalist on Wikipedia. Unquote. The line says much more about you than it says about me. My record on NPOV at WP is exemplary. My aim is for a true and honest article, that's totally NPOV.

Eh? Your edit (mentioned above) turned an assertion of attestation into an un-supported claim about what was the "most used" term in Irish. It seems to me that this was serving a POV. -- Evertype·✆ 22:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

My spat with Evertype, who incidentally offended me in a similar style to your own, was based on my proposal of stating that the term "British Isles" did not always include Ireland. You seem to have a prejudice problem, and you have made erroneous assumptions about my edits. MelForbes 20:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I offended you in what way? I did not make edits about your suggestion that "British Isles" "did not always include" Ireland. -- Evertype·✆ 22:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually I was speaking generally, not specifically about you. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to Strasbourg to protest about the continued oppressive use of the term "Irish Sea" by the Republic of Ireland.--feline1 21:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I am sure that's a joke. The British called it the Irish sea. Better take it up with HRH or TB. Actually the analogy is lame. I notice that the English call La Manche the English Channel, and due respect is given on the page to the different terms. That's the way it should be on WP. MelForbes 21:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Um, the "Irish Sea" has not always been called the "Irish Sea" by everyone. I think in Scottish Gaelic it is either the "British Sea" or the "Welsh Sea" (and that distiinction may be problemetic in Scottish Gaelic). -- Evertype·✆ 22:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Query

"The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a sovereign state occupying much of the British Isles. Often shortened to 'United Kingdom', 'UK' or Britain." Is that last part incorrect, or is it just me? If you're talking about the collective including N. Ireland nobody refers to it as Britain, do they? DavyJonesLocker 14:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes they do. And the nationality of people born in NornIrond is generally spoken of as "British" (ie legally they are "British Citizens")--feline1 16:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Only some people do. Many people in Northern Ireland take out Irish passports, and they are Irish. MelForbes 18:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes thanks for that Mel, well you hurry off now and count them all and come back and tell us which one is in the majority, and then we can all have a huge sectarian edit war about it, yes? thanks.--feline1 14:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Definition of British Isles is Controversial

It is suggested (again) that the controversy in Ireland surrounding the use of the term British Isles should be included up front because it is the definition that is controversial. I do not believe that this is the case: There is no dispute over the meaning of the term - it means the archipelago off the north west of Europe (indeed it is the name of that archpelago). Now although to most of the english speaking world this is an entirely neutral name, some in Ireland - for reasons that are understood - would want to change the name. This should, of course, be discussed. However, this is no part of the definition and including the statement in the introduction gives quite the wrong emphasis. Mucky Duck 09:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

You're on a hiding to nothing, Mucky Duck. The Irish Nationalist communitay on wikipedia will never stand for such an approach.--feline1 10:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, in the absence of any justification for it I'll give it a couple more days and then restore the neutral version. Mucky Duck 08:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

As the controversy is mentioned later in the article could we possibly put a subdued reference to it along the lines of:

• British Isles consists of Great Britain, Ireland and many smaller surrounding islands. (NB - this term can be controversial - see [revelant section] for more details).

Would this satisfy both sides, or just antagonise both? --Neo 13:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, no. That doesn't really answer the question. In fact because it doesn't mention the very limited sense in which the term is controversial it's somewhat worse than the current wording which is not incorrect. The point is that it doesn't belong in the definition because that overstresses it - to the vast majority of the world there is nothing controversial about the term at all. Putting it up front it inroduces a POV spin. Mucky Duck 07:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Careful now, Mucky Duck! You'll be denying the potato famine next ;-) --feline1 10:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Besides, the comment does nothing more than point out the fact that the term is sometimes considered offensive in one of the two main places covered by the generally accepted definition. That isn't POV, it's fact - however much some people like to deny it. Personally, I would disagree with Mucky Duck that "There is no dispute over the meaning of the term", but that might be POV. Meantime, the term "The British Isles" is widely used and widely recognised, and that's a fact too. Previous to the additional note in the definition the only reference to the "controvery" was in paragraph 6, a strange approach in a page that is supposed to clarify the terminology and its use....especially since the page on "The British Isles" refers to the controversy above the article and sends people to the terminology page for clarification. --hughsheehy 12:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

It's a "fact" that various people have *decided* to find the term offensive. A term cannot be offensive in of itself, it's merely a word. Humans have to find the offence. The term was not invented to offend.--feline1 13:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

And as I pointed out on the first day to Mucky Duck, there are many words where exactly the same *decision* has happened. If you assert that a term cannot be offensive of itself I suggest you wander around any of a dozen major US cities using the term "Nigger". You might find that many people *decide* to take offense and I suggest that your argument is invalid and would be dangerous to test. While I would not class "The British Isles" and "Nigger" in the same universe of offensiveness, both terms have origins in classical times, both have long history where they were entirely uncontroversial and yet both are currently less acceptable than they used to be - at least in some places and contexts. Again, that is not POV, it is fact. --hughsheehy 14:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this is true. However "nigger" is almost universally used as a pejorative term, (or a reclaimed ironically-self-impowering-word amoungst the niggaz, bitches and hoes of black urban america :) ... wheras "British Isles" is generally still used by everyone still as a neutral geographical term, NOT as a pejorative. It is only Irish Nationalists who object to it on political grounds. So it is not quite the same kind of thing as "nigger".--feline1 15:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

This is not a very good analogy. The term nigger is a derogatory word to describe a black person. The term British Isles is the name of the archpelago that includes the islands of Great Britain and Ireland. It is entirely different. With regard to whether the statement is factual or not I don't dispute it and although there is some synthetic offense taken for political reasons in this area I am quite willing to accept good faith here. The point is though that placing this in the "simple explanation" puts a strong Irish Republican POV spin on it. A single sentence here cannot do the controversy justice and it should be placed where it belongs in the section on the problems surrounding the terms (which could certainly be improved, by the way). This is not a "strange approach". There is in Ireland a movement to get the name changed but other than to report it Wikipedia is not the place for this campaign. Mucky Duck 10:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually it's probably quite a good analogy. Many dictionaries (and Wikipedia) give a straightforward definition of the meaning of words like "Nigger" and insert an additional note to say something like "usually offensive" (Webster) or "offensive in most social contexts" (Wikipedia). The recent addition to this page does the same thing, leaving the definition of British Isles untouched and adding the note "sometimes offensive". Rather than restricting the comment to a cryptic few words as would be common in dictionary contexts, the comment is slightly more expansive - as befits Wikipedia's nature. Debates on whether or not the term should be offensive to some people are almost unavoidably POV. The fact is that it is. --hughsheehy 14:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

"Rather than restricting the comment to a cryptic few words as would be common in dictionary contexts, the comment is slightly more expansive". This is exactly the point. The complexity of this requires much more than a cryptic few words. There is room to be slightly (indeed considerably) more expansive - but not here where it just results in POV spin. It is far from usually offensive (even in Ireland) - in fact it is nearly always inoffensive. What's more it is the only universally recognised name for the archipelago. There is need for a section detailing why some want it changed but that needs more than this in the simple explanation can possibly give. Since you've introduced it, by the way, unlike "nigger" Webster does not say "British Isles" is offensive. Mucky Duck 16:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, the comment does not say that is is "usually" offensive, it says it is "sometimes" offensive. That's accurate and factual. I suspect that an assertion that it is "nearly always inoffensive" is impossible to support with data. Even taking fantastically unscientific sources like Kevin Myers' and polls on www.boards.ie (where the ratio of answers to questions like "Do you recognise the term 'The British Isles' when used to include Ireland" are approx 60% No, <30% Yes, and the remainder not caring) the evidence from there and from the sheer persistence of the debate on WP indicates that the term is at least "sometimes" offensive. If that fact is accepted then the question is whether that should be buried in paragraph 6 or mentioned in the beginning (with the additional discussion later). Conventional treatment would put a mention at the beginning and a fuller treatment elsewhere. In that way the facts can be recognised without getting into discussions on the definition of the term or POV discussions on why it is "sometimes" offensive or whether it should be replaced and if so, with that. Again, all those discussions are almost unaviodably POV and (IMHO) probably belong on webforums and not on WP. The current fact is that it is at least "sometimes" offensive. As for Webster, I was not using it for reference on content, but on style and treatment. If you want a source on content that indicates that "The British Isles" does not have a universally agreed definition, please look at the BBC, which sometimes excludes the area of the Republic of Ireland from "British Isles" topics and sometomes treats "The British Isles" and the UK as coterminous - thus excluding most of Ireland. While that usage would lead to an awkward definition of "The British Isles" if I'm sure of one thing in life it is that the BBC is not an Irish Nationalist media company and is not part of any "movement to get the name changed" - as Mucky Duck would seem to suspect exists.--hughsheehy 17:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you deliberately misrepresenting what I have said? As I have explained there is nothing untrue about the comment you put in there - the problem is where it is as a part of the definition and its inevitably very limited coverage of the issue. Emphasisng the existence of a minority POV with so much prominence in itself causes POV problems. Mucky Duck 19:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

<reduce indent> Mucky Duck, I was not aware of any misrepresentation. Meantime, a browse of the BBC, The Times, and some other major media seems to show that the term "The British Isles" is NOT a term with a universally accepted meaning or definition. This raise the thought that the definition section, if not the whole article, may need to be updated to reflect current major media useage instead of arguing over what may or may not be "minority POV". The BBC and The Times variously use "The British Isles" to mean all of Great Britain and Ireland, or just to cover The United Kingdom, or to cover only Great Britain and its smaller outlying islands but excluding (all) of Ireland - using terms as varied as "The British Isles and Ireland", "Britain and Ireland", etc. (Google or the sites´ own search tools will easily demonstrate this.)

In the interim, if we accept that the term does cause offense to an appreciable number of people (mostly in Ireland) and if (as far as I can see) WP and other reference sources generally reflect potential offense in or near the definition of terms, the question remains "what should this article show?". The recent suggestion seems neutral, accurate and even potentially helpful for people likely to visit Ireland. If nothing else, can we please move away from the apparent situation now where any suggestion that "The British Isles" is anything other than a neutral and univerally accepted geographical term is greeted with accusations of trying to push Irish Nationalist or Republican POV or participating in "movements". As far as I can see, this kind of view has been put by Mucky Duck and feline and it does not seem useful. --hughsheehy 01:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Well. If this statement is to remain then it needs to be expanded and improved to reduce the degree of POV spin. At the very least it needs to explain: That the term is not generally considered offensive, and is rarely if ever meant offensively; That it is the only generally accepted name for the archipelago and in no way implies that Britain has any claim over Irish territory; And given your points above that it has been used incorrectly to mean the British Islands. It's going to drift some way from being a simple explanation but would at least have the benefit of be neutrality. Mucky Duck 09:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Mucky Duck persists in saying that the recent addition is POV spin, but not why. The statement was intended to be (and seems to me to actually be) neutral, factual and about as short as reasonable. Since it already specifies that the term is only "sometimes" offensive and gives some guidance on when, it already addresses the concerns raised above. Again, I cannot see the POV content and since the assertion that there is a lack of neutrality is unsupported it is difficult to see what to change. If we add all the extra stuff about "The British Isles" being the only generally accepted name and all the stuff about there being no claim to territory etc.,etc.,etc then we might as well move the whole controversy section into the definition, which seems counterproductive. Besides, if we do that then the BBC and The Times and the fact that contemporary usage in major (British) media apparently contradicts the assertion that there is a generally accepted definition all becomes entirely relevant and then we are back to square one. --hughsheehy 12:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

"Why" is because it only states one side of the equation.

"If we add all the extra stuff about "The British Isles" being the only generally accepted name and all the stuff about there being no claim to territory etc.,etc.,etc then we might as well move the whole controversy section into the definition, which seems counterproductive" - Exactly! That is what I have been saying. Only one aspect of the "controversy" is there at present and this creates a biased view. Ideally it should be left to the section where there is space to discuss it properly, but if it must be here then all aspects must be covered. Mucky Duck 15:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Again Mucky Duck persists in saying that the recent addition is POV spin, but not why or which other POV should be incorporated to ensure NPOV. Since I believe that the addition is NPOV I fail to see what to change. Again, the statement was intended to be (and seems to me and apparently to dave souza (see below) to actually be) neutral, factual and about as short as reasonable so that it can complement the definition without overwhelming it. It is completely unclear where the addition introduces any bias and Mucky Duck is not pointing out where, simply reiterating unsupported accusations of POV. Meantime, I suggest that modern usage indicates that there is significant confusion (note I say confusion and not dispute) over the meaning of the term "The British Isles" and a treatment of actual usage seems important on a page that discusses terminology. Right now I don´t know where that should best be placed, so I am suggesting an option at the top of the talk page. --hughsheehy 15:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

<reduce indent> Point of fact, hughsheehy: the page on "The British Isles" refers to the controversy above the article and sends people to a British Isles#Terminology section specially written to justify the controversy: that section has a "main article" link to this terminology page for clarification, which is a bit confusing. Think I'll try some changes to that page to clarify things. The current bracketed statement in the lede to this page "(Note that this terminology is sometimes considered obsolete or even offensive in Ireland if it is used to include Ireland.)" looks good to me: it doesn't suggest any dispute over the meaning of the term, though the "used to include Ireland" part is rife with ambiguities. ...dave souza, talk 15:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Dave/Feline, I am trying to keep POV out of the article and my input as much as I can. Still, I come back to the simple fact that the term is not generally - or at least not universally - accepted as a neutral geographical term and this fact is of fundamental importance in laying out a definition. The Irish govt doesn't use the term, Irish schoolbooks (both past, present and future) often don't use the term and it can and does raise emotions in many people if it is used to include Ireland. This is true, whichever POV you have.

My best guess (if you will permit me to veer into POV in this discussion area) on why this is so is simple. I suspect it's because the term "The British Isles" is explicitly ethnic in its origins and however the ethnic balance has changed over the millenia it can never be a neutral geographical term in the same way as it would be if it was "The Rainy Isles" or "The Green Islands" or something like that. As currently structured the term unavoidably implies that the islands are either ethnically or politically "British" (even if the meaning of "British" then and "British" now are ethnically and politically different and even if it's not easy to assert that there is a clear ethnic dividing line between Irish and British now or then). The simple fact is that the implication is practically guaranteed to cause either offense or accusations of historical anachronism for many people in Ireland. On the point dave souza raises - basically re the use of "Ireland" in that context - it seems difficult to find a better solution. The island of Ireland contains both Northern Ireland, which is part of the UK, and The Republic of Ireland. However, since the two parts of the island also contain almost all the people likely to take offense at the term "The British Isles" it seems likely that the word "Ireland" is accurate enough and not necessarily political. Just on my own experience, I don't know anyone in Britain, not even avid Glasgow Celtic fans, that react the same way. I may be wrong, but IMHO that's why "Ireland" may be as good as anything else in that specific context. Sorry for writing so much...I blame Mark Twain. --hughsheehy 17:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

None of this would matter if the Irish could come up with a decent replacement name. But they've singularly failed to do this. Until they come up with something catchy, people will keep saying "British Isles" rather than "Islands of the North Atlantic" etc.

Hmmm...I´m afraid that the tone of feline´s last unsigned comment and use of phrases like "the Irish" sounds like we´re verging on ad hominem arguments next. I hope I´m wrong. Meantime, I don´t doubt that "The British Isles" has lots of life in in yet and will potentially never be replaced - at least in British English. --hughsheehy 23:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

---

Ok, Mucky Duck has had a go at the recent addition and AnonMoose made a reasonable go at tidying up the language. However, the newest modifictation is (IMHO) truly terrible. It´s fantastically long, demonstrably POV and is become practically an apologia of the definition within the definition itself. Mucky complained that the addition in the intro was POV, but now the original added text has been modified to make it less accurate and far more controversial. Let me point out where the difficulties are, putting my objections in italics within the paragraph.

British Isles consist of Great Britain, Ireland and many smaller surrounding islands. (In no way does this term imply that the UK owns or has any claim over any territory of the Irish state (Actually, part of the problem with the term is that it almost certainly does imply something very much like that. There is occasionally passionate disagreement over whether it should, but there is a widespread perception that it does which - where implication is concerned - essentially means that it does. In fact, it´s that very implication that upsets some people. Saying that it doesn´t imply something without having some way of showing that (which is difficult when implication can be such a slippery concept) is just POV.).

Also, although this term is the only current commonly-used name for the achipelago (it´s not the only commonly-used term, even if it is almost certainly the most commonly-used term and is certainly the traditional and most known definition. If nothing else, the examples I gave above show that the definition from usage is anything but certain and other terms are used in major media. Without substantiating that it is the only name, or without defining the meaning of "commonly-used", we´re straight into POV.), and is rarely if ever used with offensive intentions (Again, terms like "rarely if ever" are vague and POV. I have seen the term used with deliberate provacative intent and while I can entirely accept that it is rarely if ever done, I don´t know how anyone could substantiate this POV. It would be equally possible, but equally POV to assert that its use is almost always used with offensive intentions if used to include Ireland, since it is recognised that there are people who are likely to be offended.), it is sometimes considered obsolete or even offensive in Ireland. (Perhaps an area of discussion here, but I don´t know anyone who objects to the term "The British Isles" who objects to the term "The British Isles and Ireland", indicating that if the term "The British Isles" is sometimes objectionable to people - it is only objectionable to those people if it is meant to include Ireland, which point has just been deleted from the intro..)

So, Mucky Duck´s modification seems to be a badly done addition, with poor logic and despite AnonMoose cleaning up the grammar and flow it is still POV to the core. There is nothing in the text that is verifiable and it just messes up the whole thing. I hesitate to say it but Mucky Duck seems to have an agenda and not to be interested in NPOV.

Finally, here´s a suggestion that is in line with the original addition to the intro and tries to be entirely NPOV. It also tries hard to be short, which isn´t easy, even if it isn´t as short as the original and I don´t believe it´s as good. How about "Note that some people in Ireland consider this terminology to be anachronistic if it is used to include Ireland and some may take offense." That takes the "blame" off the term - which seems to be part of Mucky Duck´s problem. If there isn´t a suitable shortening of the current intro I´ll put this in place instead. --hughsheehy 23:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I've avoided this area of talk up till now because, quite frankly, I don't believe that there are any editors here who ARE attempting to game the system or put in a non-neutral point of view, and I just couldn't be bothered with all the bitchy commenting. However - and I'm not necessairily agreeing with anyone in general on the issues - that new intro is very poorly written. See WP:LEAD. This is meant to be a concise and punch summary. Say all that stuff in the body of the article - its important that we do - but that intro is not hte solution. --Robdurbar 08:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree (although thanks to AnonMoose for improving it). I do not believe that this belongs in the intro at all since I don't believe that it can be kept acceptably short and cover the issue adequately. The problem is that if it has to be there it must be balanced. By pushing it into the defintion without other views the original gives the impression that there is a general problem with the term: That is untrue. The current tries to cover all the angles but just can't get that into an acceptably concise and punchy summary and I agree it inevitably fails.

As I have said, the issue needs to be covered; but properly.

I was not aware that I did any "bitchy commenting". It was certainly not intended and I apologise if anything comes across that way. Mucky Duck 09:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to RobDurbar for a nice edit. On first look it seems better than either of my attempts and is mercifully short. I'll have a think over the next few days of where the usage issue (which is at the top of the talk page) might be covered in the article. --hughsheehy 09:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind comments. I think, MuckyDuck, what you're basically wanting is something similar to the introduction as it lies now BUT with a sense that the term is also used unproblematically and with no bias intended by many. And for this to be done in a way that is as concise as possible. OR, as an alternative, not mentioning it at all. But that the latter should only be done if the former is impossible. Am I about right? --Robdurbar 09:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Very nicely put (although I'd put it round the other way - nothing at all is better here in the intro, with the issue discussed fully elsewhere where proper justice can be given to it. But I'm quite content with your approach) Mucky Duck 10:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

First time doing this so bear with me... I'm not going to pretend I read everything that has been written on this discusion because I haven't but I scanned through it to see if anybody had already pointed out what I was going to say, which I don't believe they have. As far as I have been taught, the "Island of Ireland" is a fairly modern term and an invented one at that. The correct geographic terms to refer to the two main islands of the British Isles are Greater Britain and Lesser Britain, LB being what they will refer to as the "Island of Ireland". I don't, unfortunately, have a cite for this... anybody else ever come across this at all? 159.134.161.250 20:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm...I´m pretty sure "Lesser britain" is Brittany, not Ireland. Ireland has - AFAIK - never been widely called Lesser Britain. It has been Hibernia instead of Ireland but I don't remember ever seeing a reference with the use of Lesser Britain, and certainly not as a widespread usage. --hughsheehy 18:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

As the Origins of terms section points out, Ierne is an ancient name for the island. The map by Ortelius from 1573 says in its title box Eryn. Hiberniae Britannicae Insulae Nova Descriptio Irlandt. That gives two variants on Ireland while describing it as a Britannic island. ... dave souza, talk 21:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Vernacular usage of "U.K."

When and how did "United Kingdom" or "U.K." come into general popular use as opposed to legal use?

Virtually every primary or secondary source (literary, historical, etc.) that I have seen for the period 1801 to roughly the late 1960s refers to the Home Islands of the British Empire/Commonwealth collectively as "Britain" (the most common - dropping the "Great" seems to make it greater geographically speaking) or the "British Isles" or "Great Britain" or even "England". Is there a link between the use of the more precise and sensitive term "United Kingdom" and the Troubles in Northern Ireland?

Anyone in the British/Irish/Manx/Channel Isles care to shed some light on this aspect of the subject?

Mr. Mencken, lexicographer extraordinaire

64.252.213.249 04:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why you should regard the terms "UK" or "United Kingdom" as sensitive, but it would seem that the term "United Kingdom" (if not its abbreviation "UK") came into use during the eighteenth century, as a result of the Act of Union with Scotland (1707). This act described the kingdom as the "United Kingdom of Great Britain" (though confusingly it also used the phrase "Kingdom of Great Britain"). The Act of Union with Ireland (1801) used the phrase "United Kingdom" consistently. Incidentally, don't be misled by historians who never use the phrase "United Kingdom" for the period 1707-1801 - contemporaries most certainly did use it, along with the perhaps even more common term "Union". TharkunColl 12:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

United Kingdom (or U.K.) is more sensitive because it doesn't refer to the part of Ireland controlled by the government in London (all of Ireland prior to 1922; Northern Ireland thereafter) as "Britain". Of course, this more precise language will mollify only the Unionists, not the Republicans.

As to your other point, I understand that the correct legal and constitutional terminology was United Kingdom, from 1707 or 1801 onwards. This point has been well covered by the existing article. Though I think that even here you will find official documents or political pronouncements (e.g., Churchill's wartime speeches) that refer to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and (Northern) Ireland as simply "Britain". What I am talking about is the collective term for the realm used in everyday conversation, personal letters, business correspondence, novels, films, stage plays, etc. I'm having a hard time finding usages of "United Kingdom" or "U.K." in these unofficial contexts prior to the late 1960s.

Attention to this issue, either here or in a separate article, would reveal quite a bit about the evolution of British (UKer?) national identity or consciousness, away from an Anglocentric or Britoncentric model to something more inclusive.

64.252.213.96 05:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Mencken the lexicographer extraordinaire

I think the most common way of referring to the country during the 18th and 19th centuries would undoubtedly have been "England". As late as 1928, it was still possible for Asquith to be called (on his tomb) "Prime Minister of England". Even in the 1930s Baldwin in his speeches liked to conjure of images of "England" rather than the UK. It is ironic that pretty much as soon as the English were finally, after 250 years, conditioned into calling their country Britain or the UK, those very parts of it that were not in England have increasingly decided that they want to leave. You just can't win, can you? TharkunColl 08:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Seeing as we're going off topic, one interesting thing I've always noted is that if you look at the 1966 World Cup Final and see pictures of the crowd, they're all waving Union Jacks (I'm sure someone will point out that's not the flag's proper name, but I don't care!). Go to an England football match now and you'll only see the St George's Cross. Conclusion? Either that as late as the 1960s most English people equivacated the UK with England? or that over the last forty years there has been a reawakening of English idenity as something seperate from the UK? (or indeed both?). --Robdurbar 09:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Apparently (I'm not sure where I got this from - a BC Four documentary or something) it was the norm for all the home nations (or at least England and N. Ireland) to wave the Union Flag / Jack / Whatever its called at football matches of that period. From what I understand it's only been in the last 10-20 years (Euro 96 is often cited as a stong influence) that the George Cross has re-established itself. --Neo 10:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The tendency to refer to the UK has lately been strengthened by internet pull-down lists which invariably give United Kingdom as an option, but not Britain or Great Britain. UK may have been avoided in normal speech because it's quicker and easier to say Britain or British, or indeed because of its royalist associations, but UK is less ambiguous and more official. The flag waving at football games was much commented on and subjected to some campaigning to change to the England flag at a time when devolution was a matter of hot debate: previously people just didn't seem to be so aware of the St. George's Cross flag, and sort of assumed that the Union Jack was the flag of England. Certainly during the last world cup there were many news comments about England flags on vehicles etc. – a new bookies here had a changing show of national flags, but not the England or Union Flag as far as I noticed: local sensitivities! Of course Union Flags at football games here are a sign of Rangers F.C. supporters...dave souza, talk 10:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Terminolgy Problems in Northern Ireland

The problems section includes the following:

In Northern Ireland ... unionists, when countering nationalist insistence on the territorial integrity of the island of Ireland, change the geographical frame of reference to that of the whole archipelago of what they call the British Isles.

What does it mean? The language sounds POV but perhaps it's not. What is it trying to say? 193.113.57.161 10:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I've not read the book it comes from: perhaps the CAIN report 7 puts it better with "Unionists describe themselves as primarily British and, although this does not exclude a supplementary Irish identity, the latter is firmly subordinate to a sense of belonging to a British 'national' community. For unionists, their 'imagined community', or nation, extending beyond the confines of Northern Ireland, is Britain, regardless of whether other elements of Britishness - such as the Scots-accept this in preference to a primary Scots nation. For Irish nationalists, their imagined community, extending beyond Northern Ireland, is that of the Irish nation as a distinct political community. For many unionists, Irishness is more akin to a regional patriotism." – can that be briefly summarised? .. dave souza, talk 16:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Problems with Terminology

Someone keeps reverting unexpained the addition of reference to the problems with the term Ireland. There are problems with this term just as there are with British Isles and balance demands that they are either both referred or neither. 193.113.57.161 12:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

A proper balance demands that a minority POV should be mentioned, but should not be given the same amount of space as the majority view. TharkunColl 12:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

What does that mean? It is just as much a minority view that "British Isles" is a problematic term. 193.113.57.161 12:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, to most people who use the term there is no problem associated with it. A small (but apparently not vanishingly small) minority of people - seemingly mostly Irish (though certainly not all the Irish, and almost certainly not even a majority of them) have a problem with it. To reflect this, the article should mention this problem just once, and not devote undue space to it. I have already suggested the creation of a new article called something like British Isles (controversy) which can go into more detail, and can be linked from both this article and British Isles. To put the relative figures into perspective, note that the population of the UK outnumbers that of the Republic of Ireland by 15 to 1, so even if we were being generous and assumed that every man, woman, and child in the Republic disliked the term (which is very far from being the case - even Irish government ministers use it), then they would still only constitute a small minority of the population of the British Isles. Not so small as to not deserve a mention, but small enough that such a mention should be restricted to a single paragraph within the body of the article. TharkunColl 14:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

But this is equally true of the term British Isles. A small number of people mostly Irish (though certainly not all the Irish) have a problem with it. Why does the article "devote undue space" to this but not to the problems with the term Ireland? 193.113.57.161 14:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this is indeed true of the term British Isles because that's exactly what I just said! It was the very term British Isles that I was talking about, because this article is entitled "British Isles (terminology)". I know that the term Ireland can be contoversial, insofar as it has a geographical and (a much more modern) political meaning that do not coincide, but this is a matter for another article. The term Britain, by the way, is equally ambiguous as it can be used informally in a political sense to refer to the whole UK. TharkunColl 14:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

So you're saying that the over-emphasis of one POV needs to be removed from the term British Isles? If so why remove it only from Ireland since by doing this even more emphasis is place on one POV? 193.113.57.161 14:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what you're getting at here. I'm talking about how the phrase British Isles is used and understood within the English language. The vast majority of people understand it to mean Britain, Ireland, and surrounding islands, and this is also its dictionary definition. The term, moreover, predates the formation of the British state (which was named after the islands and not the other way round) by at least 2000 years. If a minority of the people who live in the British Isles object to it on political grounds, then this fact should be mentioned, but not given undue space. If half the people in the British Isles objected to it, only then should their views be given equal billing. TharkunColl 14:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I balanced up the introduction by putting the same reference into the Ireland entry as already exists in the British Isles entry. Both terms are controversial dending on which side of the Irish divide you stand and the refered section covers the controversial nature of both terms. Why is it valid on the one POV to refer it but on the other it is "over emphasis"? 193.113.57.161 15:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Any controversy over the term "Ireland" should go in the article of that name. This article is about the terminology of the British Isles, and whilst its use may well be controversial amongst some Irish people, the term also encompasses England, Wales, Scotland, the Isle of Man (etc.) where the term is not controversial. In other words, talking about the "Irish divide" is giving too much emphasis to just one region at the expense of other places in the British Isles. The terms "Ireland" and "British Isles" do not have equivalent weight, as the former is just one part of the latter. In any case, people in Ireland use the term regardless of which side of the "Irish divide" they are on. TharkunColl 16:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The article is about the terminology of the British Isles, not the term British Isles. You seem to be arguing that undue weight should not be placed on controversy around the term British Isles and in this you are completely correct. As it stands that undue weight is in the article because the reference to controversy is applied to it but not to Ireland. 193.113.57.161 09:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

There isn't really any controversy over its meaning, is there? It just has more than one. --Robdurbar 16:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know of any meaning it has other than its actual meaning, except those proposed by people simply in an attempt to muddy the waters, whilst quoting the ignorant. TharkunColl 17:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Is that meant as an insult? My edit is in good faith. The article needs balance. 193.113.57.161 09:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

And "British Isles" has a single meaning. Controversy arises when it is used politically to suggest that Ireland is somehow owned by Britain. Equally the term Ireland is controversial when it is used to mean, what the Irish constitution used to call its national territory and now calls the Irish nation, to suggest that Northern Ireland is somehow owned by the republic. The case is almost exactly equivalent. What's more, the section to which the reference points discusses problems with the t4erms British Isles and Ireland and yet only one of these has the reference to it. 193.113.57.161 09:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

No, the cases are not equivalent, because "British Isles" is not used as the name of any state or by any state. You appear to be assuming that just because it has the word "British" in it then it must be connected to the UK, but the very opposite is true - and as editors of an encyclopedia we have a duty to point this out, rather than obscure the matter even further. Ireland is part of the British Isles because that's the name of the group of islands of which it is part, and that name is well over 2000 years old. As far as I can gather, the only people who use the term "British Isles" in a political sense are those who don't like it. TharkunColl 09:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not assuming anything of the kind. British Isles most certain does not indicate connection with the UK. BUT this is what the controversy (again, you're right, mostly synthetic) revolves around. I absolutely agree with you regarding the term British Isles, but the article highlights the controversy in the introduction. To be balanced it should also highlight the equivalent controversy surrounding Ireland and its use politically to refer to the entire island.

Tha alternative solution is, I suppose, to remove the emphasis from the "British Isles" entry. A better solution on reflection. 193.113.57.161 10:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The two meanings that I refered to are the sovereign state of Ireland and the lump of rock that lies somewhere to the west of Anglesey. The simplest thing here - if you can prove that the term Ireland is still considered controversial when referring to the state, and can source it, then its worht mentinioning in the terminology bit. As the intro is meant to be concise and chopped down, I really don't think its worth brigning up there. --Robdurbar 12:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually as I said to TharkunColl I think that on reflection I agree. The better solution is to remove it from the British Isles entry. 193.113.57.161 13:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

"As far as I can gather, the only people who use the term "British Isles" in a political sense are those who don't like it." Spot on - sums up how daft this 'controversy' is really. siarach 13:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course it's a political term. We own Northern Ireland, and the majority there want to remain in the UK. Johnox 22:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

If your interjection was intended to be serious Mr Knox (interesting username by the way, as an Englishman I have always felt the Calvinist religious attitudes of certain segements of the population of Scotland and their descendants in Northern Ireland to be wholly alien to my way of thinking), then it was ill thought out. Whether or not it is used as a political term in Ulster, it is not so in Great Britain. TharkunColl 00:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

ox is an abbreviation of my own name, nothing to do with Scotland. Britain is the biggest island, and it has the largest population. So the islands must be named British. Also we are one of the most powerful countries in the world, how would they be named anything else? Johnox 00:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Funny how I can't think of a similar common term for say, Sardinia, Corsica and Sicily. Perhaps the Italian Isles? or French Isles? These things can certainly be troublesome . . . Oh, we could just call them Sardinia, Corsica and Sicily. Windyjarhead 03:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The fact that Sardinia etc. do not have a collective name does not change the fact that the British Isles do have a collective name, and have had it for well over 2000 years. TharkunColl 14:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

And yet, we get by by simply refering to the specific island. In fact the collective noun is unnecessary. Remarkable. Windyjarhead 19:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

And again, people persist in suggesting that the view that the term "British Isles" is controversial and disliked is a tiny minority view but offer no supporting data. There is insistence that the term has only one definition, despite previous demonstration (with data) that this is not true. Some use the comparative population of the UK and Ireland to assert that even if everyone in Ireland (either the state or the island) disliked the term, that the fact that everyone (another unsupported assertion) in the UK likes the term that the majority view should prevail (a political validation of Irish republicanism if I ever heard one). <re-edit..removing poorly chosen words>.

If "Ireland" is actually controversial then reference can be made to external sources on the controvery and we can include the reference in the header. It can clearly be ambiguous, which is different. I have updated the edit in the "Problems" section to try to reflect fact, not opinion. Hughsheehy 22:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I have a compromise proposal which removes the imbalance and over-emphasis of the existing text but retains the reference to problems: The introductory paragraph can refer to the problems section. Difficult to explain here so I've editted it in. Mucky Duck 12:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The new proposal is terrible and vague, and (again) removes the text inserted by either robdurbar or dave souza a couple of months ago - this time in search of some vague thing called balance. If there is a problem with the term "The British Isles", which there demonstrably is (from external references) it is best stated in the introduction beside the definition. We have been here before.

If there is an extensive problem with the term "Ireland" then someone will be able to provide evidence of this, not just assert that it is true. Until evidence is provided, there is no imbalance in rob/dave´s edit and I will replace it. Also, I believe Mucky Duck is in danger on the three revert rule for repeatedly removing it over the past couple of months. Hughsheehy 12:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Enough with the unfounded personal attacks already. Attempted character assassination is no way to conduct a discussion. Mucky Duck 23:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Hughsheehy has unilateraly decided that my compromise proposal is invalid and removed it before there was any chance of discussion. I will therefore have to place it here after all for other to consider. I propose that the over emphasis on any problem with the term British Isles be resolved by revising the introductory wording as follows:

In brief, the main terms and their simple explanations are as follows. There are problems with some of the terms and these are considered below.

• Geographical terms
  • The British Isles is an archipelago consisting of Great Britain, Ireland and many smaller surrounding islands.
  • Great Britain is the largest island of the archipelago (sometimes informally referred to as Britain)
  • Ireland is the second largest island of the archipelago.

Mucky Duck 16:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

It takes away the over emphasis on one particular term so it is better but it still overstresses problems. This section is meant to be a concise summary, helpful to someone wanting to understand the terms. 193.113.57.161 11:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

As a dual national, with homes in the UK and Ireland, this is how I understand the term; perhaps it will help resolve some of your concerns:

The British Isles is the traditional name for the archipelago, comprising the island of Great Britain, the island of Ireland, the Isle of man and numerous smaller islands (list them if you like), in the North Atlantic off the western coast of Europe. The region encompasses territories of the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland.

Modern usage of the term is inconsistent, variously referring to; the islands of the United Kingdom, Great Britain and Ireland, all islands in the region, etc (list them if you like).

Such inconsistent use has lead some, nationalists in the Republic of Ireland and republicans in Northern Ireland, to consider the term to be offensive; maintaining that it has strong colonial overtones and diminishes the sovereignty Republic of Ireland.

The term is commonly used in a geographic context in weather forecasts, but is rarely encountered in a socio-economic or political context and is falling out of general use.

I wasn't even aware the term was so ambiguous and I live here - the content of this page confirms that none of you are qualified to write the encyclopedic article you're aiming for, so don't, take a few steps back, stick to the facts and reference the conjecture - let somebody else carry the can for it. There is encyclopedic and then there's trivial 86.140.241.147 09:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

With a minor quibble - the term never has been socio-economic or political, it is a purely geographical term - your wording is good. It doesn't address the point of this discussion, though, which is that, as you point out, the term is not 'so ambiguous'. There is some inconsistent use of the term but this does not justify the stress that putting a statement that it is a problematic term into the brief introductory definition gives. The discussion does belong here but in the section where the terms are fleshed out. 193.113.57.161 10:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, re the recent reinsertion of unsupported assertions, WP edits are based on opinion without references. Hughsheehy 02:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Tell me. Why have you placed that as a response to my comment? 193.113.57.161 09:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Thule is not Iceland

The article Thule makes it clear that the term could be used for all sorts of places, including many within the British Isles. Why does the article as it stands state that Iceland was intended? Is it an attempt to muddy the waters even further, to try and say that "British Isles" has no coherent meaning? TharkunColl 00:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

No "muddying" is intended. The Thule article states (correctly) that the term was used to describe many different places, often as a sort of "the ends of the earth" term. The reason the article - as it stands - states that Iceland was intended in this case is because that is the consensus scholarly interpretation of how it was used by Pytheas, Pliny, etc. This was already extensively discussed, with references, on the talk page either here or at British Isles page. Hughsheehy 12:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

In fact, the discussion on Thule as Iceland on the discussion page included TharkunColl, who now seems to have forgotten this fact. Hughsheehy 16:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• ...it would seem most probable that the island here intended was Mainland, the chief of the Shetland islands... Some authorities have supposed that Iceland is meant, and others Lapland; but these conjectures seem to carry us too far afield.Tozer, H.F. (1971). A History of Ancient Geography. pp. p. 159. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)

• Scholars variously identify Thule as Iceland, Norway, the Shetland Islands, or the Orkney Islands, but no one solution is entirely satisfactory.Magill, Frank N., ed. (1998). Dictionary of World Biography: The Ancient World. Vol. 1. pp. p. 732. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)

• Even today we cannot be certain where his Thule is, or whether he actually visited it. Some have associated Thule with the Shetlands and the Orkneys, but more likely possibilities are Iceland or part of Norway.Deacon, G.E.R. (1962). Seas, Maps, and Men: An Atlas-History of Man's Exploration of the Oceans. pp. p. 24. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)

The 2004 Columbia states: "variously identified with Iceland, Norway, and the Shetland Islands." Where do you find this scholarly or talk page consensus that the Thule of Pytheas, Pliny, and Strabo was without doubt Iceland?EricR 16:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, the majority view is Iceland then, not necessarily consensus. But it is the majority view. Also, if it isn´t Iceland then the next most likely candidate is the coast of Norway. Hughsheehy 17:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, one other thing. Thule has been identified as all sorts of places in other texts, including places in the Baltic. HOWEVER, the issue is what Pytheas, Pliny, etc., meant when they used Thule as part of their British Isles. There the clear majority view is that they meant Iceland. If you read Pliny itself it´s pretty clear it isn´t the Orkneys he´s talking about. Hughsheehy 17:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

All of the above quotes were re Pytheas and/or Pliny. I've got more if you like, or we could move them to the BI reference subpage and i'll provide fuller quotes w/ more context.EricR 17:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm finding sources describing the voyage, and Pliny's later account, which state "probably Shetlands", or "probably Iceland", or "possibly Norway". Why would a "majority view" of scholars allow us to state Thule is Iceland w/o question within the article? And what do we have to show that Iceland is in fact majority opinion?EricR 17:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

And I find the majority of sources (from notes in several translations of Pliny to the Icelandic Tourism website to 8th century Irish monks) that say that Thule was Iceland. The notes on Pliny/Strabo translations, and other similar sources, often mention that it was possible it was someplace else (from Norway to the Shetlands) but the majority view is Iceland. Reference to Thule from other writers and in other contexts can be about Southern Sweden or Islands in the Baltic, but Thule in Pytheas/Pliny/Strabo seems to be either Iceland or maybe somewhere in Norway.

Further, I ask a question back, as I wonder whether this whole question isn't based on some fundamentally POV approach. Why would Pytheas/Pliny/Strabo's Thule being Iceland mean - and I refer to TharkunColl's accusation that I was muddying the water - that the term "The British Isles" has no coherent meaning? What has that got to do with it? Hughsheehy 14:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

(unindent, responding to Hugh) A few bullet points:

• counting the references to Thule on an Icelandic tourism site cannot demonstrate some "majority view". If the documents you are looking at have been published, then they can certainly be used in the article, but does one of them tell us what the "majority view" of some group of people is concerning the Thule?
• I have no idea what any "majority view" could be, but why should it matter? All the sources i've seen so far have been qualified: probably this island, or maybe that island, or we'll never really know for ceartain, yet within the article you would like to state that Thule is Iceland. How can we make such a conclusive statement in the face of all these conflicting views, even if one is somehow shown to be the majority?
• I'm not taking any quotes out of context here, the sources provided have all been discussing Pytheas/Pliny.
• I think it's clear that Strabo did not accept the Thule of Pytheas (2.5.8), if you discount my reading of that primary source then i seem to recall a secondary source which makes the point.
• Of course this whole question of what Thule could be is transparently based on a couple of POV agendas. If you think i'm pushing one in particular, then fine, there's probably no possible way i could convince you otherwise. Still, that's no reason not to address any valid points i've raised.

EricR 16:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think it was anywhere specific, which is why my wording has left the choice ambiguous. I don't believe those Classical authors had any clear mental image of the geographical layout of the seas to the north of the British Isles, and it is preposterous to pinpoint one particular location for Thule - especially when it happens to be the one that is furthest away and least likely. TharkunColl 16:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we have to say that it IS Iceland and I don't remember that it did say it so definitely..maybe I'm wrong. It may have been been too definite on this page, but it wasn't on the other (or vice versa)..it said something more nuanced and maybe should have been more nuanced here too. It would be fine to say that it was probably Iceland, or even that lots of scholars think it was most likely Iceland, or that the place most often identified as it was Iceland, all of which are true (and no, it isn't necessary just to point at the Icelandic tourist website).

We can also mention the other places that are most often suggested - as long as it is done in a neutral way and isn't some attempt to get the potential places back into a predefined box that suits some agenda. I get the impression that TharkinColl is trying to push some POV here and migrate Thule back into the Shetlands so that it fits within the current boundaries of the British Isles.

I don't have a personal view on where Pytheas' Thule was. Strabo doubted it existed at all because he didn't trust Pytheas and Pliny might not have been sure, but TharkunColl's view that it wasn't anywhere specific is only his view..and his view that Iceland is the least likely is NOT SUPPORTED by the scholarly view. It turns out that Iceland does exist, so maybe Strabo was wrong to doubt Pytheas and as for its identification as Iceland, if we're going to have to have a war of references we can go right ahead. If nothing else, Irish monks in the post-Roman period thought Thule was Iceland, and they are a lot closer to the debate than we are. Meantime, I completely share the idea that these Greeks and Romans had very little idea where they were, or where they were describing (and I have said so on these pages before) but it doesn't change what they wrote and I will continue to insert the appropriate text to refer what they actually wrote and how that is most often interpreted, here and on the British Isles page. Hughsheehy 18:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi again. I had a go at tidying up the reference to Thule on the main page. Please have a look. I put the appropriate disclaimers and references in which ( i hope) make a reasonable stab at a balanced presentation. Hughsheehy 21:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Origin of terms

A thought... There's lots of good information here on the origin of the term Britain and British Isles, but less clear info on the origin of Ireland, Scotland, Wales, etc. Should the the focus of this page be moved to the subsiduiary names, and let the bulk of the content on british Isles move to the main page? That would allow introductory-level info on all the other terms and make the page a lot richer. Also, the info on British Isles is good stuff and is currently not shown on the main page. Hughsheehy 21:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

All good suggestions. --Robdurbar 21:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. The main article already has a (very) large paragraph on the origin of the term. The version here is verbose in the extreme. Let sleeping cats lie. --Red King 17:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The idea was (1) to reduce the section on the origin of British Isles by moving the bulk of the text to the main British Isles page....thus reducing the section in this page that Red King thinks is verbose in the extreme (and i don´t really disagree with that characterisation of the section) and (2) to insert brief summaries of the origin on the words Ireland, Scotland, Wales, England, Britain, etc.. Those are not (AFAIK) controversial terms and wouldn´t wake any sleeping cats. Hughsheehy 14:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

BBC "Coast"

Just thought mention - the BBC natural history programme "Coast", currently enjoying a fair amount of acclaim, does most definately stick to the old "British Isles being a neutral geographical term that includes Ireland" terminology. No doubt Irish Nationalists are fuming :)--feline1 23:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no need to be offensive. We do not all espouse this silliness and political posturing over what is just a name. Naomhain 14:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree there's no need to be offensive about it, which is why I was merely being dryly lighthearted... (unlike many of the anguished posters on this topic :)--feline1 15:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

If the geographical term "Irish Sea" is acceptable to the UK and the geographical term "British Isles" is acceptable to the Republic of Ireland, then that sounds like the basis of a compromise. -- Abut 22:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I suppose we could go back to the previous name for the North Sea then too. It was - if I remember correctly - the German Sea. Let's see. "Newcastle and Edinburgh are two large cities on the German Sea. The Thames reaches the German Sea 50 miles east of London." Fun Fun Fun! Hughsheehy 15:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

British in British Isles <> Belonging to Britain

If there truly is a problem with the term British Isles then confusion over the meaning of "British" when considering Ireland is the central and essential point. It is therefore necessary to clarify this and to keep removing the clarification simply muddies the waters. 193.113.57.161 09:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Insertion of Anglo-Celtic Isles term

Good evening, I have just inserted the following text: 'Anglo-Celtic Isles is an alternative term (in limited use) for the same geographic region more commonly described by the term British Isles. It is used as a term free of any political inference that may cause objection and references the distinct ethnic groups from which the majority of the island group's population are decended - the Anglo-Saxons and the Celts.' I recognise that this term is currently only in limited use and have stated this fact clearly. Kind regards, Pconlon 19:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

As a Scottish lowlander I consider the term politically and ethnically objectionable, but your wording seems ok to me. Daft saying it's an alternative to BI before defining BI, so I've fixed that. .. dave souza, talk 20:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello Dave, I was trying to maintain alphabetical order there, but I defer to your correction. I'm surprised at your political/ethnic objection - what causes you trouble? Best regards, Pconlon 22:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

"Anglo-Celtic Isles"‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.›  - is this term O.R.? I think it's necessary to specify which group of people are using it. I've never heard it. -- Abut 22:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

There was an Anglo-Celtic Isles article which failed an AfD (on the grounds it was a neologism, IIRC). There was only a single reference to its use, in an old ballad. Has this changed? Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 14:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I've been looking and as far as I can tell it's not a neologism but never appears to have been a very common term by any stretch of the imagination either and not in common use today (although of all of the alternatives, it appears the least resisted/more welcome, maybe because it always was there underneath the surface as the ballad testifies - by that's just my opinion). Anglo-Celtic Islands is an alternative form. It also appears to be used quite unselfconsciously(see here for example). In either case, I think its right that Anlgo-Celtic Isles redirects to BI, as they refer to exactly the same entitiy. --sony-youth^pléigh 15:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Here's a map on the internet Anglo Celtic Isles Gold♣heart 02:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the following line from this section: "(However, many historians do not regard the "Celts" as a single ethnic group, but as a collection of various tribes who all spoke similar Celtic dialects and had similar cultures.)" I'm not questioning the information's validity (I don't know), but it seems to be a detail that should have its home in the Celt article. 'Anglo-Celtic' is a macro-cultural term - inclusive rather than divisive. I also inserted reference to 'Anglo-Celtic Islands'. I have also modified the 'Islands of the North Atlantic' reference with: "However, its convolution and impracticality due to implying inclusion of fellow North Atlantic island Iceland have made it unworkable and it has not come into common use." Pconlon 19:55, 23 June 2007 (GMT)

Euler diagram

The Isle of Man is a political entity as well as a geographical one, so the red-only is incorrect. Also, are the channel islands a political entity themselves, or are they only composed of political entities (Guernsey, Jersey)? Lexicon (talk) 16:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Good work with the new diagram. However, as with the old one are England and Wales presented as subsets of Scotland - I don't know if I'm reading it right. Also, could a dotted line be extended around the Channel Islands are they often are included in definitions of the British Isles. --sony-youth^talk 22:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

"The Channel Islands" is a collective name for the Bailiwicks of Jersey and Guernsey. john k 23:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

re: England and Wales as a subset - the way I think one is intended to read the diagram is that the label at the top of the circle refers to that encircled, and other labels are elements within that set. Perhaps the labels which refer to the circles could be underlined to show this better.

Also; on a related matter - do the Jersey and Guensey need to be circled? Although they are distinct, other sets with one a single element (Scotland, N. Ireland, Ireland) don't have circles. --Neo 10:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see. In that case, I don't think that there is a need to circle Jersey and Guensey as it doesn't give any further information (a set of one can just be left on its own like Scotland and NI.

What do you think of the dotted line to indicated to way CI are sometimes included in the British Isles - how may definitions explicitly exclude them compare to how many explicitly include them (not counting those that are ambigious)? --sony-youth^talk 12:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Diagram error If the term "British Isles" is purely geographic, then the Channel Islands should not be within this set. The Channel Islands (although politically part of the "British Islands") are geographically part of France/continental Europe. Therefore part of the British Islands set (containing the Channel Islands) should be outside the British Isles set. Sabremesh (talk) 11:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

---

The more I look at the new diagram, the more potential problems I see. The old graphic followed the principle that if an area can be validly defined in purely geographic terms (without needing to refer to arbitrary political boundaries), then it was in red, while an area which formed a political unit, but did not form a non-arbitrary geographical unit, was in blue. But the new graphic appears to violate that rule in the case of the Isle of Man, and the sub-units of the Channel Islands. The Channel Islands are certainly not an overall political unit -- Jersey and Guernsey are completely separate and distinct dependencies of the crown.

Furthermore, the text is in a small size, which is much more difficult to read than the text in the old diagram, when the two diagrams are thumbnailed at the same pixel width (and the font itself is kind of ugly). And England and Wales were in an ellipse in the old diagram for a reason -- it keeps the Label "Great Britain" as far apart from the label "Scotland" as possible, so it's clear that England and Wales are not part of Scotland. AnonMoos 02:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

In which case perhaps we should abandon the colour coding system somewhat and adopt something along the lines of geographical entities in blue, political entities in bold/italics. Where the boundaries agree the label can be blue and bold/italic. --Neo 10:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, just tell me everything that you want changed and I'll work on it. I can increase the font size (and change the font, if necessary). The only reason I included "Channel Islands" in red subdivided into Guernsey and Jersey is that a) "Channel Islands" was already on the diagram, so I didn't want to remove it without cause, but also to show that Guernsey and Jersey are political entities. The Isle of Man is a political entity, so it had to change to blue. You may also note that I changed the legend to show that a political entity may also be a geographical one as well. I first toyed with the idea of making both geographic and political entities purple, but decided against it. "Geographic" here actually means "island" (or in the case of the Channel Islands, "island group"). Now, for Scotland, I did originally put it in its own circle. However, doing things that way makes me wonder whether it is correct, as it leaves "empty space" in the circle which isn't England, Scotland, or Wales. Is that acceptable in a Euler diagram? We may be trying to include more in this diagram than its type is designed to hold. Anyway, discuss this, and I'll set to work on modifying. Lexicon (talk) 14:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be clearer to put Scotland in its own circle. The way it is right now looks odd to me. Anyway, you already have "empty space" in the United Kingdom circle that isn't in Great Britain or Northern Ireland, and also space in the British Isles circle that isn't in any of the named entities, so if that troubles you then the diagram needs more radical surgery. On another note, the diagram is inconsistent with the map immediately above it. The diagram shows the Channel Islands as part of the British Isles, wheras the map doesn't. Matt 21:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

I also think that it would be clearer to put Scotland in its own circle. Can anybody update that? 213.169.104.46 08:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Political Definition of GB

The purpose of this page is to clear up confusion about the confusing terms associated with the British Isles, right? If so, this definition of GB is misleading: "Although the UK government distinguishes officially between Great Britain and the United Kingdom, the former term (or simply Britain) is also widely used as a synonym for the latter.". It doesn't matter what HMG recognises because it's a matter of law not governmental "recognition" (that Number 10 website is just clearing up terminology like this article is) but more importantly this page exists precisely to point out to people that GB is not a synonym for the latter, despite its common usage to that effect. I had changed the political def of GB to "the countries of England, Wales and Scotland", but it seems to have been reverted. Does anyone have any comments on the matter? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 10:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The Encyclopedia Britannica clearly states that Great Britain is less formally used to refer to the United Kingdom. I think that this is something the UK is moving away from because the politicians are worried about losing NI, but it doesn't change the fact that in much of the English-speaking world people have used and still use the term "Great Britain" when talking about the UK. Churchill does this frequently in his book "The Second World War". English usage is not determined by politicians, so you're going to have to throw out or at least deemphasize what your schoolteachers indoctrinated you with. Haber 13:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't disagree that people use GB for the UK (e.g. George Bush does) but a reference from >50 years ago hardly constitutes a demonstration that they still do so today. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

So then can we agree that "Great Britain" was acceptable and widely used 50 years ago? Haber 01:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

GB is the iso two-letter code for the UK, and GBR the three-letter code. .gb is reserved as a top-level domain name for the UK, but has fallen into disuse. The [UK olympic team] is Great Britain, not UK, although it does include Northern Ireland. These, as we well know are all technically incorrect, because of Northern Ireland, but not without precident, prior to the partition of Ireland the UK was commonly called Great Britain (it was Great Britain that was reported to have fought that fought the Great War, for example).

All this said, however, this article is here to clarify the situation. Technical inaccuracies should be pointed out, but so too shoulds common usage. One such technicality is that contrary to what is reported on this page, Great Britain is not the island. Great Britain is, as the OED puts it, "England, Scotland and Wales considered as a unit." The island, is (was?) Britain, despite that term now more common than Great Britain to refer to the "unit" and Great Britain more often being used for the island. The ways these terms have swapped is very interesting (and confusing), but it shoud not stop us from explaining them fully. --sony-youth^pléigh 14:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Please help with the main article. Haber 14:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Points taken. However, I strongly take issue with the implication of Haber's wording that it is a matter of governmental recognition. It's not. The Number 10 website is just stating the fact of the matter, not the fact that it "recognises" this state of affairs. Governments and policies come and go, but Great Britain is England, Scotland and Wales. Only independence or incorporation of other countries would change that, both of which would require an Act of Parliament. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm curious as to why you keep deleting the references to Encyclopedia Britannica and Winston Churchill's book. Do you think they are not good references? Do you have other references that disagree with them? So far all we have that contradicts these reliable sources is your word. Haber 01:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

In the compromise edit I made, I left the Britannica reference - which you can see for yourself if you check the article. As for Churchill's book, it was written decades ago and is not evidence that nowadays GB is used to mean UK. Since that is what is being claimed, the reference should go. The Britannica reference covers it anyway. Also, I'm not contradicting the observation that GB is (incorrectly) used as a synonym for the UK. I was opposed to your wording that suggested it was OK to use as a synonym (contrary to the Guardian style guide reference below), and opposed to your wording about government recognition, when it's not a matter of "recognition". The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you are claiming that 50 years ago it was correct to use the term Great Britain, but that nowadays it is incorrect. How did you arrive at this conclusion? Haber 02:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

sony-youth^pléigh offered a very good summary of the situation above - to which you replied "agreed", did you not? "prior to the partition of Ireland the UK was commonly called Great Britain" - since Churchill's formative years were prior to the partition of Ireland, is it not surprising that he shoud continue to use the term Great Britain? Anyway, this article is not here to speculate on Churchill's usage, it's to discuss contemporary every day usage, and explain the terms. So let's not get distracted on that tangent. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 02:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

You're assuming that this article must be exclusively about contemporary everyday usage. Would you object to adding a statement, "Historically, this term was used to refer to the United Kingdom as a whole"? Haber 02:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why not, but I personally think this should go into the "detail" section below. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 11:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I would also suggest that the lede section only deal with "right now", whearas discussion be left to the main body. --sony-youth^pléigh 11:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

"Great Britain is grographically congruent with the island of Britain" - is that really true? What of the Isles of Angelsey and Wight, the Orknies, Scillies, and Shetnies? Those are islands in their own right. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 11:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Good point, your right. Wight and Anglesey, I would worry about - just off shore islands, but yup, Shetland is a far way away. I'll revert myself. --sony-youth^pléigh 11:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Brittany & Little Britain

In response to User:Sony-youth requesting a citation on Brittany being derived from 'Little' or 'Lesser' in contrast to great Britain - Ican't find you a definitive source, but if you check out Brittany (It was at one time called "Lesser Britain"), Little Britain (disambiguation) ('Little Britain is an old term for Brittany in France. This usage is rare. The English word Brittany originally meant Little Britain. (This is in contrast to the French Bretagne which means Brittany, requiring Britain to be referred to as Grande-Bretagne.') and Diminutive ('this also being the basis of the naming of Brittany i.e. Minor Britain in reference to its cultural ties to the celtic nations of Great Britain'). There is evidence, as well as the external page: [2] --Neo 12:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

All of that I accept, except for Brittany being a dimunitive form. A dimunitive form of what? Little Britain and Great Britain are fine (but I would avoid saying "Little Britain" as that was not the actual term used and today it has a different connotation, use Britannia minor or petite Bretagne). But, where is the source to say that the English word Brittany is the demunitive form of something else? --sony-youth^pléigh 12:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah - a little more time now; I had about 5-10 minutes when I wrote that last comment. Apparently its actually the other way around to how I wrote, at least according to the OED:

Britany - Also Britanie, -annie, -anny, Brittany.

1. Britain, Great Britain.
2. The Roman provinces of Britannia Prima and Secunda
3. The French province of Bretagne: ‘Little Britany’; commonly spelt Brittany.

I feel this should be included in the terminology in detail section - at the very least to help justify why Brittany is there, but for the life of me can't think of how to include it well! --Neo 15:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Geographical defintion of "Britain" and "Great Britain"

The definition of "Britain" from the OED is:

More fully Great Britain. As a geographical and political term: (the main island and smaller offshore islands making up) England, Scotland, and Wales, sometimes with the Isle of Man...

In other words the term is "Great Britain", shortened to "Britain". KateMurray 09:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. The same resource defines Great Britain as "The countries of England, Wales and Scotland considered as a unit."

Are we looking at the same dictionary? If you would like to put "Great Britain" in as the island then please cite its entry in the OED as evidience. Putting in one term and then citing the definition of another as 'evidience' is no good. --sony-youth^pléigh 10:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, "No it doesn't" what? Are you questioning the reference? My quotation is directly from the SOED (the entry for "Britain") and it clearly says that "Britain" is an abbreviation for "Great Britain". It can be reworded to say it that way around if that helps but the dictionary is quite clear about which is the full term. KateMurray 10:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The Online edition writes: "Britain: 1a - The proper name of the whole island containing England, Wales, and Scotland, with their dependencies; more fully called Great Britain; now also used for the British state or empire as a whole." and doesn't seem to have an entry for "Great Britain". --Neo 10:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

"more fully" is not the same as "more proper", and "less fully" is not the same as "short form", Britain is not an abbreviation for Great Britain (if it were, "abv." would follow its entry). The definition for Great Britain from the same resource is provided. It is for the countries of the island of Britain considered as a unit. I am not questioning the reference. The reference says the island is called Britian. The island can be (more fully) called Great Britain, but, in the first order, the island is Britain and the countries of that island considered as a unit are called Great Britain. There is no need to confuse matters by drawing second and subsequent order definitions into play. --sony-youth^pléigh 10:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you (about properness): "More fully" means just what it says; there's nothing wrong with the term "Britain" (although, frankly, I have never heard it used to mean the island) but it is the shortened form and the OED says so. Take a look at a couple of other references, they don't contradict the OED but they may clarify it:

Britannica:

Britain - Name historically applied to the island of Great Britain. Britain is used especially when referring to its pre-Roman and Roman periods and to its early Anglo-Saxon period.

Great Britain - or Britain - Island, western Europe. It is the largest island in Europe, comprising England, Scotland, and Wales and covering 88,787 sq mi (229,957 sq km).

American Heritage Dictionary

Britain - The island of Great Britain during pre-Roman, Roman, and early Anglo-Saxon times before the reign of Alfred the Great (871-899). The name is derived from Brittania, which the Romans used for the portion of the island that they occupied.

Great Britain - An island off the western coast of Europe comprising England, Scotland, and Wales. It is separated from the mainland by the English Channel and from Ireland by the Irish Sea.

Dictionary.com

Britain - 1. Great Britain. 2. Britannia (def. 1).

Great Britain - an island of NW Europe, separated from the mainland by the English Channel and the North Sea.

KateMurray 11:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

1. Where does the OE say it is the shortened form? Please quote where it does. The ref from Neo, above, has it saying that Britain is the "proper name" for the island.
2. As you say, none of the references above contradict the OED, however, I don't see how the OED can be any clearer: Britain is the "island containing England, Wales, and Scotland", Great Britain is "England, Wales and Scotland considered as a unit."

I get a different return from Britannica Encyclopedia[3]: "Britain, also called Great Britain, island off the western coast of Europe ..." and the same in article in reverse for Great Britain. Britannica Dictionary says, Britain: "the island of Great Britain"[4] and Great Britain, "island W Europe comprising England, Scotland & Wales." The American Heritage Dictionary sticks out, as we all know that is nothing like how Britain is used[5] and contradicts etymology references that put it as being first recorded in English in 1297,[6] however AHD does take liberties in defining words on how they 'should be used. --sony-youth^pléigh 12:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The OED (from the online version quoted above) says "The proper name of the whole island containing England, Wales, and Scotland, with their dependencies; more fully called Great Britain". I don't see how that could be clearer either. The proper in "Proper name" is not as in "right and proper"; it means "applicable to a particular individual" KateMurray 13:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

What definition of proper are you looking at? Is it Defintion 1 ("truly what something is said or regarded to be; genuine.")? Or definition 3 ("suitable or appropriate; correct.")? (Other entries do not apply.) So, by their own definitions, the OED says that the name of the island is "truly [...] said or regarded to be" Britain. Or would you prefer to interpret it as the OED saying that Britian is the "correct" name for the island?

It's under "proper name" [7]. The appropriate definition from the full SOED is "Of a name or noun: applicable to a particular individual person, animal, place, country, title, etc. (and usu. spelt with a capital letter). Opp. common. ME.". Or you might refer to the Wikipedia article.

And that it would be the proper name (as opposed to a proper name)? --sony-youth^pléigh 14:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I've just seen that you abridged the Dictionary.com reference. The full definition for Great Britain from that resource is "an island of NW Europe, separated from the mainland by the English Channel and the North Sea: since 1707 the name has applied politically to England, Scotland, and Wales." --sony-youth^pléigh 12:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

No intention to deceive - The section is about the geographical meaning so the bit I left out is not relevant - I am not disputing the political meaning. But I should have indicated the omittion, I agree. KateMurray 12:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed it is about the geographical meaning. The island is called Britian. England, Scotland and Wales considered as a unit is called Great Britain. If you cannot see how the section you left out is relevent, there is little hope of you being able to see the difference between these two terms. --sony-youth^pléigh 13:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

This is incorrect as all of the above references demonstrate. I am quite capable of seeing the difference between the political unit and the island, thank you. That Britain is an alternative name for the island I am not trying to argue, nor that GB is used to refer to the political unit. However, the island is called Great Britain. KateMurray 14:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not arguing that the island can not be called Great Britian - that may even be the most common term for it. However, if we do not use the precise terminology in this article then what is the point in it?

Precisely speaking, the name of the island is Britain (see the OED entry for Britain), and the name of the political unit of that island is Great Britain (see the OED entry for Great Britain). That these terms are interchange with others - Great Britain for the island, Britain for the UK - confuses matters, I know, but the headword for each concept is clear.

What more evidience do you need? --sony-youth^pléigh 14:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'm convinced. Haber 22:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Any evidence at all would be good. You appear to base your contention that Britain is the island, Great Britain is the political unit - that there is a "difference between these two terms" on a dodgy interpretation of just one of the sources where you read "more fully" as "incorrectly" where in fact all the sources quoted show that the two terms are more or less synonymous in all contexts. The geographical section is OK now that "Great Britain" is back, by the way. KateMurray 08:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

<reduce indent>More or less synonymous in all contexts? Yes, and is that how we want to present in an article on the terminology of the British Isles? "Well, this isn't exactly the precise meaning, but its more or less synonymous in all contexts."?

I do not interpret "more fully" as anything other that just what it says: "more fully". Not the same as "less precise". "short form", "abbreviation", "slang", etc. etc. etc. "More" = "more". "Fully" = "Fully". What I do interpret is the one dictionary that makes a distinction between the two terms - the most highly regarded and authoritative dictionary of the language we are describing. That dictionary distinguishes the island (Britain) from the unit (Great Britain). Great Britain is a more full name for Britain just as Britain is another name for the UK, but in the first order, Britain refers to the island, and Great Britain to the unity of that island.

If you want to make a clear distinction between the island and the political unit, use the term Britain for the island, and the term Great Britain for the unit. Apart from that, as you say, they are practically interchangeable. I don't care what you use in day-to-day life, call the whole lot England for all I care, but in this article - where we want to explain the precise difference between confusing terms of this sort - lets keep it accurate and not bungle up our reader. They are here for clarity, not synonymous. --sony-youth^pléigh 09:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. OK, perhaps I didn't put that very well. "Synonymous in more or less all contexts" would be better. In all the meanings we are discussing here they are synonyms; the "Great" version being the fuller. There is no distinction between the terms and none of the sources quoted, including the OED, says there is. Indeed most are quite clear about the lack of distinction. I added the "more or less" qualification because there are cases outwith these where there is a difference, the Roman province, for example, was Britain but not Great Britain. KateMurray 10:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Another one: Collins - Britain, another name for Great Britain or the United Kingdom. KateMurray 11:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

"fully": "In a full manner or degree; completely, entirely, thoroughly, exactly, quite" (OED). If Britain is "more fully" Great Britain then Great Britain is less fully (completely, exactly, etc) Britain.

Your proof that Britain is not an abbreviated form because the OED doesn't say "abbrev". The OED doesn't mark avbbreviated phrases this way - see for example "United States" which surely you would not argue is an abbreviation.

It really doesn't matter how often, loudly or petulantly you say it, the OED does not state what you say it does. Other sources, without contradicting the OED sayt quite the opposite. KateMurray 12:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

:::Sigh indeed. I am no longer talking to you. --sony-youth^pléigh 11:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Kate, you truely are draining. "Great Britain" and "Britain" are synonymous. You can see that fact from the OED definitions. As synonynoms, of course, one is "another name" for the other - that's what being a synonynom means. But, as the the OED points out, there are slight differences between two - as with all synonoms. "Great Britain" and "Britain" are VERY close, but not quiet, exactly, perfectly, precisly the same. The OED, being the better of all dictionaries, points out that one refers to the island and the other to the countries on the island considered as a unit. You can, if you want, more fully call the island Great Britain also, but, in the first instance, Britain is the island and Great Britain is the union.

Are you diputing the OED reference? Remember, you put it in there? --sony-youth^pléigh 12:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Not at all. It just doesn't say what you read into it.

The article as it stands, now that Great Britain has been restored to the list, is OK, by the way. The removal of this term was the main problem. KateMurray 13:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I don't mind it being in, so long as every other synonyms for everything else doesn't creep in either - that ruins the purpose of the article. --sony-youth^pléigh 14:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

<Edit conflict replied to earlier post that simple said: "Not at all. It just doesn't say what you read into it.">

:::::Let's break this down slowly for you. If you look up the word 'Britain' up in the OED, you will see that that word refers to an island. Understand, island? Let me quote for you: "The proper name of the whole island containing England, Wales, and Scotland, with their dependencies;" This island is "more fully called Great Britain", yet that does not detract from the "proper name" of the island being Britain - its just an more full name.

Now, let's look up Great Britain in the same dictionary. Oh? Great Britain refers to the union of countries occupying those islands. Let's quote again: "The countries of England, Wales and Scotland considered as a unit."

Hmmm? So the island is called Britain, or more fully, Great Britain, if you really so wish, and the union of the countries is called Great Britain. Geddit? What would you have read into it?

Now, let's think a little about what this article is about. Hmmm. Well, its about explain confusing, often overlapping and synonymous terminology to our readers. For example Britain can refer to the United Kingdom, as well as the island! Oh? So, do you think we should list Britain as a political entity? No, that would be silly and confusing. Our readers would not benefit from us using overlapping, synonymous terminology from the off-set. But, how about Britain and Great Britain? These two terms synonymous? Both can refer to the island! Yes, they both can, but again, our readers would not benefit from us telling them, right from word go, that there is no difference between Britain and Great Britain. They have come here for clarity, not synonyms. Let's stick to the most accurate definitions we have, shall we? Without diving into the world of "… but it also means … and that can be that too … and the other thing, well, that’s also called the same, too … and … and …" --sony-youth^pléigh 14:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Naming of Teams

This is wonderfully comprehensive article, however I was looking for an explanation of why the United Kingdom's Olympic team (and also national teams at individual sports' world championships) is called the Great Britain team. This information would be a useful addition I feel. EdX20 19:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Until WWII most people used the term "Great Britain" to refer to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Since then the British government has been careful to use the term UK so as not to lose NI. This commandment has been pounded into the heads of so many British schoolchildren that is is pretty much near impossible to get a fuller explanation to stick in this article. If you doubt me read Churchill and see how he uses the term Great Britain when he is clearly referring to the UK of GB and NI. As for the Olympic team, it was named before the switch was made. Haber 20:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I understand now, thank you. EdX20 01:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, from a more practical viewpoint, it aviods confusion with Ukraine (both 'uk'). --Pretty Green 10:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Britanny "historical term"?

The article says that "Brittany" is "a historical term for a peninsula in modern France". In fact, in the UK, "Brittany" is very much the modern term for this region too. Possibly the article is trying to make some distinction between the modern use and historical use, but I'm not clear what this is. As it stands, it reads incorrectly, so it would be good to clarify. Matt 11:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC).

Euler diagram is wrong

The Euler diagram shown on this page is incorrect. It seems to show that England and Wales are within Scotland! To correct this, there should either be another circle around Scotland, or Scotland should be within the same circle as England and Wales are. Karenishere 11:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

This has been pointed out several times before. You're right: there needs to be a circle around Scotland. Unfortunately, no one has yet done the job. I don't have the necessary software. Anyone? garik 12:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

OK will do. --sony-youth^pléigh 12:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Sony-youth, if you have svg software, could you also do a correct version of the BI drawing itself...which now excludes the Channel Islands? I believe the drawing used is currently something about Britain and Ireland. Hughsheehy 16:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Two meanings of Great Britain

It seems there are two different and equally valid meanings of "Great Britain": a geographical term referring to one island, and a political term referring to England, Wales and Scotland. I don't think the article makes this sufficiently clear. In fact it contradicts itself: under "Geographical distinctions", Britain is described as "the largest of the British Isles", yet the picture includes all of the Scottish islands. The same picture appears in the "At a glance" section, with the caption "Great Britain": this is valid if you interpret GB = UK - NI = ENGLAND + SCOTLAND + WALES, but not if you interpret GB as an island, as specified in the first sentence of the Great Britain article. I think this article needs to establish a very clear convention from the start, and systematically write Great Britain (island) or Great Britain (political) where necessary. The Great Britain article needs fixing too: look at all the contradictions and ambiguities in the section Great Britain#Political definition. Is it an island or isn't it?? Mtford 20:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

GB is an island, it's completely surounded by water. GoodDay 21:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

If you read this article, you will see that there are two accepted definitions of Great Britain - used ambiguously, which is what I'm complaining about. Some people might argue that it's incorrect to say the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland = Great Britain + Northern Ireland... but plenty of reputable sources, including the UK Parliament and VisitBritain websites, do refer to Great Britain as England+Wales+Scotland. Therefore I think Wikipedia must accept both definitions as valid current usage. Mtford 22:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Great Britain itself is a geographic entitdy, just like the island of Ireland. GB is also a part of a political entitdy, known as United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. GoodDay 22:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Ireland is also a word with two valid meanings: a common colloquial name for the Republic of Ireland, and also a geographical island. The fact that the term "Ireland" for the country is colloquial does not make it wrong (in the sense that it would be wrong to call the UK "England"). Even the Irish government calls their country Ireland. The same is true of Great Britain. When Americans say that they declared independence from Great Britain (meaning the Kingdom of Great Britain), they are not wrong - they are just using a common colloquial English name for a former state. Given that this terminology can be found on UK government websites, I think we have to accept it as part of the language. The Oxford English dictionary gives an even broader definition:

"Britain (n): 1. a. The proper name of the whole island containing England, Wales, and Scotland, with their dependencies; more fully called Great Britain; now also used for the British state or empire as a whole."

Mtford 22:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the term Great Britain is used geographically (an island) and politically (part of the UK). Ireland is used geographically (an Island) and politically (Republic of Ireland). GoodDay 23:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed - we agree on that. So the question we're debating is: Which part of the UK does Great Britain refer to, when people use the term politically? There is no political entity whose territory corresponds exactly to the island of Great Britain, and there never has been. The Kingdom of Great Britain (called the "State of Great Britain" in the US Declaration of Independence, and commonly known as "Great Britain") was a state whose territory included several islands. In fact there are loads of tiny offshore islands and rocks included in the neighbouring districts and counties of the mainland: there is no meaningful political entity that excludes those islands. Therefore the political term "Great Britain" must correspond to a territory that is larger than just one island. Furthermore, political territories are often used in descriptions of geographical locations. Therefore I think a resident of Shetland would be correct, in one sense, to say "I live in Great Britain" (meaning "the territory governed by the political authorities of England, Wales and Scotland"). Mtford 01:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Shetland is in Scotland, Scotland is in Great Britain, Great Britain is in the United Kingdom. GoodDay 14:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be contradicting yourself, and I'm not sure what your point is. If Great Britain is just one island (the "Geographical" definition), then Scotland cannot be entirely in Great Britain, because part of it is outside. But according to the commonly-used "political" definition, the whole of Scotland is in Great Britain. Mtford 00:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm no so sure there are two definitions ... surely no-one would say the Isle of Wight (for example) is not part of Great Britain even in a geographical sense? Abtract 22:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

In practice, no, very few people would say that the Isle of Wight is outside Great Britain. But according to one common definition (the one in the first paragraph of the Great Britain article, for example) the Isle of Wight is not strictly in Great Britain. Unfortunately most sources are ambiguous, for example the 10 Downing St website says: "Great Britain, however, comprises only England, Scotland and Wales. Great Britain is the largest island of the British Isles.", which makes no sense if the word "comprise" implies all of England, Scotland and Wales. Mtford 00:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't quite understand what it is you want to know Mtford. I guess that's obvious by my previous answers. Sorry I couldn't help. GoodDay 14:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if I appear to be argumentative. The purpose of my original comment in this thread was to discuss the content of this Wikipedia article, and the one on Great Britain. I wasn't trying to debate the meaning of Great Britain for its own sake, because that's not what Wikipedia talk pages are for. I was (and still am) concerned that these two articles are ambiguous, self-contradictory and/or inaccurate in their use of the term "Great Britain". Given that the purpose of this article is to clarify terminology, this article at least should be as clear as possible. Unfortunately, it is not. I agree with the decision to include two definitions in the introduction: a traditional geographical definition comprising one island, and a modern political definition including all of England, Scotland and Wales. Islands such as the Shetlands are included in one definition, but not the other (you appear to dispute this). What bothers me is that the remainder of this article, and also most of the Great Britain article, assumes that there is only one definition. For example, the first paragraph of Great Britain states emphatically that the offshore islands are not part of Great Britain ("It is surrounded by over 1000 smaller islands and islets."), whereas the colour-coded maps in this article clearly show the Scottish islands as part of Great Britain. My proposals are twofold: (1) the Great Britain article should make clear from the start that there are two definitions in common usage; and (2) both articles should clarify which definition is intended each time the term is used. There is probably no point debating which definition is "right", because there is no consensus among authoritative sources, and the term has been used ambiguously for hundreds of years (certainly since the Kingdom of Great Britain was created in 1707, encompassing all of the 1000+ islands and islets in one political territory). As Abtract says above, you'd have a hard time convincing most modern Brits that the Isle of Wight is outside Great Britain, yet in one pedantic sense it is. Mtford 20:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem, you weren't being argumentive. GoodDay 17:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Usage of England

I felt that this page was lacking some mention of the colloquial usage of the name England to refer to Britain, as most of the article focuses on Irish-British issues, so I've dropped in some content on this topic.

I realise it's something that's dying out (probably thanks to sports coverage and devolution) but certainly something that does crop up with many people in everyday speech.

The problem is that this is hard to find verifiable references (beyond forums and blogs), so if anyone can help with this subject, it would be great. For example, a the US TV reporter who once said on a broadcast from the Edinburgh Festival, "Welcome to Edinburgh, England" (similar story here), or souvenirs or shop signs that say "English" over a Union Flag - that sort of thing. Cnbrb 16:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, brilliant, I need not have looked further than our dear old Wikipedia for an example! The article Alaw, Anglesey assures me that the (supposedly Welsh) Isle of Anglesey is now in England. Marvellous!  :-)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cnbrb (talk • contribs) 23:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Introduction

The introduction section is once again getting a bit too long - this should be a *brief* introduction to each term, with elaborating detail belonging in the main descriptive sections below. Can I suggest removing the sport and linguistics sections to begin with, and then cutting down the other sections to something resembling the following [as this is a major change, this is posted for comments/suggestions, I'll edit the article in a few days]:

• Geographical terms
  • The British Isles is an archipelago located just to the North of continental Europe.
  • Great Britain (sometimes simply Britain), the largest island of the archipelago. (Also a political term)
  • Ireland, the second largest island of the archipelago. (Also a political term)
  • Isle of Man, a island at the geographical centre of the archipelago.
  • The Channel Isles are an archipelago located off the coast of Normandy, France which are sometimes included amongst descriptions of the British Isles.

[Possibly we should use 'easternmost' and 'westernmost' to describe GB and Ireland rather than largest and second largest here]

• Political terms
  • United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the (Republic of) Ireland, are sovereign states within the archipelago.
  • England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are the constituent countries of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
  • Ireland is an informal (alternate word to informal? Shortened?) name for the Republic of Ireland.
  • Great Britain means the countries of England, Wales and Scotland considered as a unit.
  • Britain is widely used as a political synonym for the United Kingdom.
  • British Islands is a term used within Orders in Council to mean the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, that is those lands in in the archipelago and environs subject to the British Crown.
  • Isle of Man is a self-governing dependency of the British Crown.
  • The Channel Isles consist of two self-governing dependencies (the Bailiwicks of Jersey and Guernsey).

We also probably need to be more rigorous about keeping the size of this section down - people have a tendency to add clarifications which belong (and often exist) in the setion below. --Neo 10:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Some changes made in reflection to comments below - these have been highlighted by emphasis for additions or alterations, and strike through for removals. --Neo 11:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The actual content of the intro is all good stuff, but if you read the article right through, you notice how many points are duplicated in the main body of the article. I wouldn't want to lose any of the info however - make sure it's all covered later. I would also recommend a separate sporting terms section further down. There are a lot of sports references scattered around the piece, and they're very important as this is how millions of people worldwide encounter the terms explored in this article (Olympics, Six Nations, Football World Cup etc). Better to gather them together under one heading. --Cnbrb 11:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

PS for Ireland, I suggest "commonly used term" or similar, rather than "informal", as the Republic is referred to as "Ireland" in official terminology in Ireland, I think. --Cnbrb 11:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

As has been said many times before, "British Isles" is sometimes a political term (otherwise it would exclude the Channel Islands). This must be recorded.

"and Republic of Ireland, are sovereign states within " would be better written as "and (the Republic of) Ireland are sovereign states within" (the formal name of the state is "Ireland", the "Republic of" bit is a description). It would be even more correct to write "and Ireland are sovereign states within".

"Ireland" (not [[Ireland]]!) is not an informal name, it is a very formal name, used for all diplomatic purposes. I think it best just to lose this line as it will always be contentious. --Red King 21:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Both sections need to include the Isle of Man

The political section needs to include the Channel Islands

All attempts to insert Rockall in the intro should be deleted as just too silly. --Red King 21:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The line "British Islands consists of the states within the British Isles that have the British monarch as head of state." should read "British Islands consists of the states within the British Isles that have the British monarch as head of state, that is all except the Republic of Ireland". --Red King 21:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah - I was under the impression that 'Republic of Ireland' was like 'République française', that is the official name of the state. I think we can therefore call it that and lose the line as suggested. --Neo 11:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Picking up on the original point, I think that the organisation of this article is inherently too repetitious. The "brief" introduction is practically as long as the "Terminology in detail" section, and then the whole business is explained in even more detail again in the sections that follow. I think that there should be one summary of the most important terms, possibly combined with the "at a glance" graphics, and then a section-by-section detailed explanation. In other words, just two levels of detail. Matt 02:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.47.45 (talk)

"less attractive aspects"

The sentence "some Nationalists might attribute what they see as less attractive aspects of Northern Ireland to Britain or even to England" has been marked as weasel words ("attribution needed"). To me, this construction is actually okay, as this page is all about terminology. The sentence, despite the "some" and "might", is a fact in itself, rather than an attempt to weasellishly include a fact without needing proof, such as "some people might consider Open4D an idiot". I don't think a random example would improve the article. But if one is really needed, consider the 15 March 2007 press release from the 32 County Sovereignty Movement title "British Policing is Political Policing": http://www.32csm.org/statements.htm

Open4D 17:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Weasels words or not, can a source please be provided for this. If not - as I suspect - it will have to go. The sentence that precedes it is similarly nonsense. English, Scottish, Welsh, Irish, Manx and Channel Islanders would all describe a geographical feature in Northern Ireland as being "Irish" in the same was as one in England would be "English", etc.. This is simply trite. --sony-youth^pléigh 18:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I have provided a random example which proves the sentence true. So it should not be removed. I think the 'attribution needed' tag should be removed. It could be replaced by a reference to my or some other random example, but I don't think that would improve the article. We don't need to give a reference for every single sentence. - Open4D (talk) 17:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Erin

The article says that "Erin" is derived from the dative of Éire. Is there a source for this? I can only guess here, but as a linguist I find it unlikely that a dative form would be used in this way, and given that Scottish Gaelic has the -n- in the nominitive, I think it is more likely to be derived either from the Scottish form or from an archaic Irish form. I suspect that the story about the dative is just a rationalisation by somebody who only knows Modern Irish. Please check this. --Doric Loon (talk) 09:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Online Etymology Dictionary traces it to Old English Erinn, which in turn is derived from the dative form of Ériu, the Old Irish for Éire: "ancient name of Ireland, from O.E. Erinn, dat. of Eriu 'Ireland.'". --sony-youth^pléigh 14:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The picture allegedly labelled "incorrectly" as England from the 1943 film

This is not necessarily so. The word "ENGLAND" in fact only covers England, with the single exception of the final "D" which is partially in Scotland - a fact that can easily be explained by the constraints of geography, mapmaking, and wishing to make the word as prominent as possible. In short, whilst it could be argued to be incorrect, that is not the only possible explanation. TharkunColl (talk) 17:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Good point, the name "ENGLAND" does end around the English/Scottish border. But to an unfamiliar viewer, it does give the impression that the entire Island is named England. GoodDay (talk) 17:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The point is that there is more than one interpretation of the evidence, yet the article only gives one of these. TharkunColl (talk) 17:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

If you've got anything to add to the photo discriptive, by all means add it. Clarification is always best.GoodDay (talk) 17:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Taking a close look at it, I'd say the "D" is right on top of Midlothian, south of Edinburgh. It's also rather odd labelling the island with the name of only part of it. As it illustrates a misnaming that mostly only exists in everyday speech of the time, visual evidence is hard to come by, but if there are more obvious examples, they would be welcome. --Cnbrb (talk) 04:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

That picture smacks of original research. If it could be interpreted as labeling the whole island then you need a source saying so. You cannot use your own interpretation. josh (talk) 11:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand what you mean about OR, but I do not agree that this is OR; it is a visible example of misuse of a term. It might help this discussion if you see the map in context of another still from the same film, where the label "England" more obviously covers the whole island. The image itself serves to back up text in the article - this, as I understand it, is what is required of Wikipedia content, for content to have references. Without this, contributors would rightfully demand an example.--Cnbrb (talk) 18:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The use of "England" in the picture is quite clearly in reference to the entire island of Great Britain. siarach (talk) 11:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

That's your opinion. I would disagree as it doesn't cover the whole island as you would expect. The very fact that we are having this debate is proof that the image is open to interpretation. That makes any conclusions drawn OR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshurtree (talk • contribs) 12:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

That picture is generally very inaccurate as to coastline and topography and very much open to differing interpretations. Laurel Bush (talk) 18:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC).

Ulster

I deleted this from the section on the political entity section called Ireland, on the grounds that is mostly about a part of the United Kingdom and becuase the Ulster meaning dispute is comprehensively covered elsewhere. And it is flogging the horse to death and back. But I said in the edit note that I was moving it to the political entity section for United Kingdom, but I can't see where it sensibly can go, so I haven't. So here it is if any one can find a respectable home for it:

Many people, particularly Unionists, refer to Northern Ireland as Ulster – although the area described does not match with the historic province of that name. Unionists also refer to Northern Ireland as "the Province", sometimes because it can suggest an origin of the polity of Northern Ireland that pre-dates 1922, referring back to the Act of Union 1800, the Glorious Revolution of 1689, the Plantation of Ulster in 1610, the ancient migrations between Ulster and Scotland, and even to biblical tradition. This use for the term Ulster by Unionists to mean Northern Ireland, is offensive to members of the Nationalist community, as Ulster includes, but is not exclusive, to Northern Ireland. for these reasons, it is understandable that certain local place names are still in dispute: for example see Derry/Londonderry name dispute.

Comments welcome. --Red King (talk) 00:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I have added this text again by giving Ulster its own sub section to compromise with those who may feel uneasy in having it incorporated into the section on Ireland. I would like to point out and stress that the term Ulster is officially a nine-county entity and this should not be deleted from the section as it cannot be looked over. Also, when you make edits, please try not to use terms such as "These Republicans" this implies contempt to those of that persuasion and is not allowed on wikipedia as neutrality of information is what we are trying to achieve.

Irish citizenship

Main article: Irish nationality law

In relation to the Irish Citizenship part of the article i have re-included this as it is an informative and factual piece of information, relevant to the sub section on Ireland (state). I would welcome your feedback and response on making this article better. --  RÓNÁN   "Caint / Talk"  14:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

But what you have added is fundamentally wrong - this is absolutely basic nationality law in any country. You get a passport because you are a citizen. You don't get to be a citizen because you have somehow winged a passport! The Belfast Agreement has no force in law in and off itself: it is an agreement to make laws that put its principles into effect. The determining law is the nationality laws of the UK and Ireland. And by the way, since at least 1937, anybody born on the island is an Irish national. Anybody born in Northern Ireland is also a British national. So they have dual nationality, whether or not they choose to exercise it/them. --Red King (talk) 20:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Channel Islands

The Channel Islands may be politically British, but are they really a part of the British Isles? JAJ (talk) 03:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes - "British Isles" is a geographical term, not a political one. The CI and Man are within that definition. The CI also come within the British Islands, which is the term used on Jersey and Guernsey passports. Obviously "British Isles" not a universally popular term - alternative names are proposed - but the geographical area it describes does not denote a sovereign state, just a collection of islands, however we choose to name them. Cnbrb (talk) 09:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes. They are explicitly included in definitions that list the smaller islands (e.g. the Oxford English Dictionary). Although it gets my gut to cite other encyclopedias - because we can do better - Encarta considers them part of the British Isles - going by the title at least. (It's not really a "geographical" term - no "geographical" term really is.) --sony-youth^pléigh 10:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that they (and the Isle of Man) ought to have individual and separeate entries in the section British Isles (terminology)#Political distinctions, probably before a much shortened British Isles (terminology)#British Islands. They are not part of the United Kingdom or the European Union, so in many ways are politically distinct beasts. Also, and I hate to do this, what about Gibraltar? Is it not also a "British Island"?--Red King (talk) 21:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

No. British Islands is a term defined by the UK government to include the UK and its Crown Dependencies. Gibraltar is and Overseas Territory. josh (talk) 22:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

If the "British Isles" is a geographical term rather than a political one, then it clearly includes the Isle of Man, but are not the Channel Islands really offshore islands of the European Continent? JAJ (talk) 07:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. The Channel Islands are "British" politically (and then only half so, because of their autonomy), but not geographically.--MacRusgail (talk) 14:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Use of the term British Isles in articles

This discussion on Talk:British Isles#Use of the term British Isles in Articles may be of interest to some here. Bardcom (talk) 15:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I have created a draft proposal for a guideline about the use of the term "British Isles" in articles, you can read it at WP:British Isles. If you are interested please do so and comment. It is only in the beginning stages. Tb (talk) 18:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Another proposed guideline

I have numerous concerns about the proposal as they are currently written and have written another proposal. My main concerns were that the proposal as it is written here did not walk the line of WP:NPOV, did not have an adequate grounding in current consensus and practice, and did not offer any concrete guidelines per se that an editor could follow or easily understand (in the broadest sense of the term).

My proposed guidelines are here. --sony-youth^pléigh 20:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

This Irish Times front page article from 2006 seemed rather interesting to the whole naming issue. ww2censor (talk) 04:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

British Isles Terminology Task force

I propose we post a request for this on WP:GEOGRAPHY (Wikipedia:WikiProject Geography) asking for a neutral to open it, and linking them to here, stating that it is a priority. Is everyone happy wih the name, and a 'task force' of Geography, rather than a BI Wikiproject of its own? Please comment below. --Matt Lewis (talk) 14:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support: --Matt Lewis (talk) 14:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm waiting for DDstretch to come up with something - he is neutral on this one. --Snowded TALK 14:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

He's always advocated a task force hasn't he? He's a good admin for sure, but he's simply not neutral in the sense of being uninvolved. If you look at his Talk page, he's had conversations (and sometimes disagreements) with most of the people involved. He also has had deep involvement with Wales and Countries of the UK, and probably much else besides. By neutrality I mean someone like Keeper76 on Wales, who at the time was completely uninvolved. We can discuss here, and then get a neutral involved surely? --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

If people think a less involved admin than myself would help, then the importance of the need to resolve this issue mans a different admin. really should be chosen. I'm not sure if the time needed to be involved in the taskforce as an administrator rather than an editor would make the task attractive to me, anyway.  DDStretch  (talk) 16:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support - with a condition. That we temporarily remove the BI term from the Shannon article so we can get it back to normal and do some work on it; no precedents, just a working arrangement, to be reviewed as and when this task force decides. Chris55 (talk) 15:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support rollback also but people like CarterBar, Bastun and Tharkuncoll would need to agree for it to happen. It could be a plain (non-vandal) rollback on Tharkuncoll's edit, made by an admin. I'm happy with that - so it can be re-worked on, and we can start this without the Shannon being locked. Anyone else? --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Question Why is a rollback needed? One can argue that the insertion was PoV, and that the removal was PoV, that inclusion is British Nationalism, or that removal is Wiki censorship. Its there now, its referenced, and plenty more references could be found. There is nothing to stop work and/or debate going on with the current version. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 18:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree it's here now and removing it would normally be problematic - but this is a specific circumstance. I just thought that it might be gesture. We can still go ahead with the Shannon locked - even start with working out how to solve the Shannon problem. Either way, we need the taskforce, that much is clear. --Matt Lewis (talk) 18:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. Can one ask what this "Taskforce" is supposed to do other than to cause trouble? I don't doubt that Matt Lewis and TharkunColl would enjoy a little "debate", but other than causing "debate" is this "taskforce" supposed to achieve anything?Wotapalaver (talk) 15:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

We have to AFG with this one - it really is important. I could easily say "why don't you want it?". Tharkuncoll and myself are certanly not 'in league' (we could well disagree on most matters).--Matt Lewis (talk) 15:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment: If you read User talk:HighKing/Archives/2008/July#GENUKI, User talk:TharkunColl#WikiProject British Isles, and User talk:Ddstretch#British Isles, you will see that I initiated the idea, and have expanded there my view of how this taskforce should operate in general terms. I am very concerned that this taskforce should have a single, well-focussed aim, and I would oppose any editor who tried to turn the taskforce into another talking shop with no real progress. Its aim is not to cause trouble, but to have a formal way of scrutinising the use of "British Isles" in every article that mentions the term, and then to critically evaluate the support or rationale for including the term: if reliable sources back it up, then the term may well be kept with appropriate justification where thought necessary, and if it is not, or if its use is not verified by the sources that purport to verify its use, then suitable ways of handling the term should be found. I would hope that this taskforce would have the joint support of the Ireland and United Kingdom wikiprojects in order to make as public a show as possible that it is a joint initiative with the aim of resolving as far as possible and as efficiently as possible, the problems that have plagued the use of the term so far. I for one would hope that any attempt to disrupt the practical process of scrutinising and resolving the use of "British Isles" on a more formal article-by-article basis would be dealt with firmly by administrators who would be committed to reaching a resolution to the ongoing problems in a reasoned and efficient manner and where debate merely for debate's sake, or even for some kind of desitre to stir up further problems was viewed as being unhelpful and potentially disruptive to the enterprise. Does that help at all?  DDStretch  (talk) 15:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support.  DDStretch  (talk) 15:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support. I am, of course, assuming that this taskforce will not merely be removing BI, but will also be adding it to articles for which it is the best term to use, both in terms of simple factual accuracy, and the avoidance of tortured, convoluted language. ðarkuncoll 16:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Broadly speaking - I would say it will be for discussing and resolving all removal, insertion and description issues surrounding the term 'British Isles', in view of a wider approach. We best not make any other direct affirmations now: It's basically an open book (ie no initial premise, other than that all options can be discussed). --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support, the task at hand. GoodDay (talk) 19:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. Looking at the people supporting this, it could only be designed to colonise all Ireland related articles with this most contrived of British nationalist terms. Your empire is over. Get used to it. Pathetic. 86.42.71.170 (talk) 09:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support as per ddstretch statement --Snowded TALK 09:53, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support It seems I'm late to the party, but I support Ddstretch on this. --HighKing (talk) 18:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support (despite the proposers comments on my page, btw). We need something to set some balanced rules. I thought we actually had an agreement last April but it appears not. Sarah777 (talk) 19:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support. CarterBar (talk) 21:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support Well, as it's already decided, I may as well join the "fun." Nuclare (talk) 00:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose, a loaded concept from the beginning.--MacRusgail (talk) 14:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. What possible good can come of this other than endless debates? Hadrianheugh (talk) 02:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment - we already have the endless debates, edit-warring etc; what harm can it do? Sarah777 (talk) 10:10, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Task force now opened

At WP:BIT. --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Task force - first task...

I've just created Template:Islands of the British Isles, which I intend to be a list of all the islands for which articles exist (though so far I've only added four!). This template should then be added to the bottom of all said articles. A good resource is List of islands in the British Isles. Anyone want to help? ðarkuncoll 15:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I think this does not fall within the remit of the taskforce, given what the majority of people have understood it to be so far. I suggest you remove the notice and place it elsewhere, as currently, it seems to be merely unecessarily provocative, given that we are still gauging support for the idea, and you are making assumptions about what one of the taskforce's jobs will be. Now, we all know what your reaction is likely to be TharkunColl, and so I am explicitly asking you NOT to comment here, but to allow others to comment on the advisability of this message by you. After they have, you can respond.  DDStretch  (talk) 17:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I shall respond, whether you want me to or not. This template perfectly falls within the remit of the task force - to remove BI from articles where it is inappropriate, and to add it to those where it is appropriate. Or, did you have in mind a taskforce that just supports one side in this debate? My template adds knowledge to Wikipedia, and is therefore a good thing. ðarkuncoll 17:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I did ask you not to respond immediately, and yet you have.  DDStretch  (talk) 17:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

And if I asked you to go and jump off a cliff, would you? My comments were neither offensive nor personal, and I have therefore a perfect right to make them. ðarkuncoll 17:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Cool down Tharky! You know very well that adding that template to, say, Republic of Ireland would open the gates of Wiki-hell! Sarah777 (talk) 17:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

If we're lucky? Ireland may be re-united, by the time this Taskforce starts up. GoodDay (talk) 19:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

If anyone has a problem with this template I will delete it now. The taskforce hasn't been okayed, and opened by the neutral Wikiproject Geography member. This was seriously provocative Tharcuncoll - if you don't play ball, and step all over others, you'll end up with a block. Think about it.

Sarah - are you going to vote in the Task force poll? I'm sure that many are waiting for your vote.--Matt Lewis (talk) 19:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Have done; sorry for the delay I was engaged in more mundane Wiki editing today; and yes - I think we'd be better off without the Template. Sarah777 (talk) 19:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey, it took me ages to write the names of all those little islands! ðarkuncoll 19:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

A template called the Isles, might've been less hair-raising (I assume). GoodDay (talk) 19:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Come on. When Sarah votes (or comments on voting at least), we'll have the taskforce. --Matt Lewis (talk) 19:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Agh! I've done it :) Sarah777 (talk) 19:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

e/c Hey! I spoke too soon. And it's a support! --Matt Lewis (talk) 19:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Quite apart from the obvious British/Irish problem, anyone who thinks that the above template sounds like a good idea should take a look at Category:Islands of Scotland navigational boxes. There are almost as many small archipelagos in Scotland as there are islands mentioned in the above box, and from the perspective of WikiProject Scottish Islands I can't say that it looks like anything other than a lot of clutter. You might just as usefully create an "Islands of Europe" one. One or more of the relevant lists in a 'See also' section as needed would perform a similar purpose and potentially avoid a lot of counter-productive posturing and edit-warring, which no doubt we are all keen to avoid. Ben MacDui 21:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed; maybe we should have a template "Islands of the Western World" or better, "Islands of the Free World". If we want to fight lets start thinking creatively. Sarah777 (talk) 21:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The template is redundant, it would be better used as an overarching link between the various archipelagos. We have 700 islands in Scotland alone - it would be pointless to have a template for all the main Scottish islands - and that's excluding the ones in other countries round about. We have dozens which have a significant population.--MacRusgail (talk) 14:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Template is not a good idea. Strongly agree with Ben MacDui and MacRusgail comments on this topic. Hadrianheugh (talk) 02:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Template not first task: Labelled 'Not for use. Pending discussion.'

I've labelled the template as 'Not for use. Pending discussion..'. Per request, doubts, and my promise above. It was certainly not the 'first task' of this not-quite-started task force. A deletion request (or not) can happen later, per talks.--Matt Lewis (talk) 21:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the template looks good, but more to the point, it will be useful to readers. It doesn't need to be specifically related to the Task Force. Like it or not, the British Isles is a recognised geographical unit and it makes sense to organise articles on its parts in this way. I'm surpised it hasn't been done before. CarterBar (talk) 21:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not judging it at all - the timing of it's creation couldn't have been worse. It's easily recoverable if needed. --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Fair point. I suppose it could have been seen as provocative by some. CarterBar (talk) 22:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I can't see the problem. Perhaps this template shouldn't be used in articles where it would cause offence (at first site, policy would appear to be "WP is not censored", but you know what I mean). Equally clearly, it's a rather useful addition to most articles on these islands. If I've misunderstood the problem, and it's acceptable for one group to control what another group wishes to put in their articles, then I'm sure people will correct me. From what I recall when I bumbled into this discussion before, it's very largely about wasting the time of (if not ham-stringing) other editors. PR^talk 12:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

You may have missed the salient issue at hand with this: the argument here is not specifically about the need for the tempate at all at this moment. The template being made now was to deliberately prejudice the upcoming task force on how the term can be used. It's not a question of whether it is useful or not: it's creation makes a mockery of the hard-won task force, and was a provocative act to the 'other side' of the argument (who have behaved far better, and by the 'rules' we've laid out). It may or may not be of use in the future: but many don't like it now, that's for sure. It may never come into play - and it was a stupid act to 'push it out' just as the task force was starting: it's just created an immediate problem. --Matt Lewis (talk) 13:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I've indeed missed the salient issue, I've already been over to the TfD and voted to "Delete". I've posted a related question to your TalkPage. PR^talk 13:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Poll was in support of Task force

I'll put a request on the Geography page now? I would say that if is not replied to today, DDStretch can open it (as a specific 'Task force' was his idea). Any comments? ..--Matt Lewis (talk) 19:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Get'er done. GoodDay (talk) 19:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

A request for what, exactly? We already appear to have more than enough people here willing to participate. I certainly intend to, anyway. ðarkuncoll 19:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

For a neutral WP:GEOGRAPHY member to open it. (I've placed the request here). It's what you signed up for - nobody can argue how it starts then (ie initially worded etc). I don't suggest waiting too long though.. but it's best to keep to the terms of the poll. --Matt Lewis (talk) 20:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

A significant number of the support was for the proposal by ddstretch. That did not signify moving directly to the creation of a highly controversial template to be added to any and all articles. I see that as a pre-emptive strike from one perspective (nearing on a POV) rather than a genuine attempt to open a dialogue to move the issue forwards. If this task force is just going to be another edit ware then its not worth it. In my opinion its critical that a neutral person opens the task force and guides its tasks and collaboration and ALL should agree to engage in that rather than treat this as yet another excuse to play ideological games. --Snowded TALK 23:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, look: here, now Tharkun is submitting classified ads for the job candidates. Wonder if he's going to do one on one interviews as well. Then again, maybe no one is interested...wouldn't exactly blame them. Nuclare (talk) 00:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

A whole bunch of fly-by dmins have 'green lighted' him, I'm afraid. How often have we seen this behaviour? He's as high as a kite right now. DDStretch blocked him, and they straight removed it without a single word about his actions. They labelled it: 'content issue'. I could scream at admins at times: they take all of 10 seconds on some decisions, while probably doing 5 other things at the same time. Craziness - they simply create hours of work for people like us in one crazy 10 second decision. I'm thinking about what to do about it. Any ideas?--Matt Lewis (talk) 00:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's an idea. Stop harrassing me. ðarkuncoll 00:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

You are now talking about the template as if it is your own (3/4 times now) and have called me a vandal and a harasser. Take a quick break and think about reversing your attitude. Or I'll turn into a lawyer. --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

You might try requesting assistance at Wikipedia:Ethnic and cultural conflicts noticeboard. This is essentially a nationalist issue rather than a geographical one. Ben MacDui 07:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

It's actually a geographic issue. Only those who oppose the term invest it with a nationalist agenda. ðarkuncoll 08:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid it is symptomatic of such conflicts that some us of believe we know The Truth. See also Wikipedia:Beware of the tigers: "You perceive your biases as neutral.". Let us at least try "To see oursels as others see us" and perhaps something useful may emerge. Regards, Ben MacDui 08:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have said linguistic issue. One side believes that if a majority of speakers of a certain language call something by a particular name, then that's its name. The other side appear to believe that it's possible to change this by fiat if they happen not to like it. ðarkuncoll 09:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Fallacy of the excluded middle, amongst other problems with this view.  DDStretch  (talk) 09:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Not in the least. A "middle" position would allow censorship in some places but not others. Unfortunately, since it is censorship itself that is being challenged here, this is no solution. ðarkuncoll 09:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with DD here; certainly my position isn't represented by either of the two sides you describe. Sarah777 (talk) 01:21, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

You are taking the presence of "middle" in the name of the fallacy too literally. It also goes under the name of False Dilemma, if that helps. The principle problem is that you are stating that there are only two alternatives or means of interpreting the dispute, when there are many more, and that is the essence of a fallacy of the excluded middle. The "middle" refers to the position of a statement in a formal logical argument in a standard form that is used to illustrate the fallacy. Nothing to do with the "surface features" of the situations with which the fallacy is used to identify problems.  DDStretch  (talk) 09:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The logical error of the False Dilemma is something those of us involved in conflict resolution encounter all the time. Used by ideological extremists to gather support for their position. As Sarah says, neither extreme represents an position I can see as sensible. --Snowded TALK 08:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Snowded and Sarah777 about my own position here as well. I know this fallacy well, having been involved in academic research into its occurrence in biased and partisan arguments within various scientific subjects, for similar reasons that Snowded gives in the area of conflict resolution (which covers the same kinds of things I was concerned with in science, and with which we really are centrally concerned with here.)  DDStretch  (talk) 09:12, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Islands of the British Isles

Template:Islands of the British Isles has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Matt Lewis (talk) 02:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

A number of people have found this provocative now. I took GoodDay's advice and put it up for deletion. Tharcuncoll - it should be in your sandbox. Please comment via the link above, if you want to comment directly. --Matt Lewis (talk) 02:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Britain does not equal the United Kingdom

The disambiguation page on Britain provides it as an alternative name to United Kingdom. Now my understanding is that the United Kingdom is Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Britain is thus a geographical term relating to Wales, Scotland and England. Britain can surely not be a higher category than Great Britain? Yes it is frequently confused with the UK, just as people overseas often say England when their mean the UK (the latest example being the Australian Sports Minister at the Olympics). Has there been a previous discussion here? If not then I will change the disambiguation page but thought I would check here first. --Snowded TALK 09:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

"Britain" may be a geographical term - my dictionary declines to comment - but it is regularly used in ordinary parlance as a synonym for the UK. If you are sure it is only correctly geographical I would keep the entry and add 'erroneously' to the UK entry rather than removing it. Ben MacDui 10:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Its correctly designated on Great Britain, the historical providence of the name is clear and citable. I think you are right on the suggestion to clarify not remove however, thanks for that. Will leave it a few hours before actioning. --Snowded TALK 10:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that while Great Britain is defined reasonably precisely, Britain on its own is a rather vaguely defined colloquial term — there is no official government definition of it (as far as I am aware) by which we can decide whether or not it can correctly used of the UK. But just because Northern Ireland is not part of Great Britain doesn't mean it can't be said to be part of Britain. After all, the adjective British is the normal adjective for entities belonging or pertaining to the United Kingdom, not just Great Britain; and it is reasonable to use Britain to refer to the territory mainly inhabited by British citizens. It's worth adding (only as a sidenote) that Great Britain is not a purely geographical term: it includes the largest of the British Isles, but also many smaller ones, like Anglesey. It doesn't, however, include islands like the Isle of Man that are not part of England, Scotland or Wales. In other words, it's a semi-geographical, semi-political term. Britain, on the other hand, is just underdefined and colloquial. It has no official meaning. It's equivalent to referring to the Russian Federation as Russia. Since people from Northern Ireland are (officially) British, it is perfectly reasonable to refer to Northern Ireland as being in Britain, even if it's not in Great Britain. And it's certainly no worse than referring to the United States as America. garik (talk) 11:06, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

That said, I notice the Great Britain article claims, without a citation, that the government did indeed sanction it as an informal synonym for UK, rather than GB. If this is correct, then — officially speaking — Britain does equal the UK. garik (talk) 11:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Well England is used colloquially to reference the whole of the UK as well, but its clearly incorrect. Using the United States instead of America is also incorrect and offensive to Canada and Mexico but it is common. I'll check the Great Britain page as it starts by correctly stating the England/Wales/Scotland link, so it then has an uncited link re the UK the that needs to be challenged! British Citizen includes aspects of overseas territories as well so that is a different argument. A fractious history makes for terminological difficulties. --Snowded TALK 11:44, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

True! On the topic of England for UK: the problem is that "England" is rather precisely defined officially. "Britain" isn't. The point is that there is no more reason to suppose that Britain = Great Britain than that Britain = UK. garik (talk) 11:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Accepting that this subject is fraught with difficulties, I am not sure I agree that "Great Britain is not a purely geographical term: it includes the largest of the British Isles, but also many smaller ones, like Anglesey." If you mean that people regularly but wrongly conflate GB and UK, then fair enough. However the GB article is quite clear that it is about a specific island. The definition in this article (Terminology of the British Isles) is at odds with that and the "countries within a country" citation it uses is hopeless. "Great Britain, however, comprises only England, Scotland and Wales. Great Britain is the largest island of the British Isles." Well which one of these is true? - or if they are both supposed to be true making it clear that one is a political and the other a geographical definition might help. Many people (meaning I suppose, landlubbers in general and London-based civil servants in particular) simply forget that there are hundreds of other islands. Ben MacDui 12:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, the question can be reframed thus: is it possible to be in England, Wales or Scotland while not being in Great Britain? I used to be under the impression that it was, Anglesey and the Isle of Wight being examples of where this was the case. However, I was later told that Anglesey and Wight (among various other small islands) are in fact considered part of Great Britain. I don't know what body, if any, gets to define this authoritatively, so I don't know what the answer is. I suspect that there are two answers, prefixed by "It depends on what you mean by Great Britain". I notice that the GB article here gives a geographical definition and a political one. I see no reason why one should be treated as primary, except insofar as it's far less useful now to have to refer to England, Wales and Scotland to the exclusion of Northern Ireland. In other words, Great Britain is not a purely geographical entity: it is also defined politically. But I accept that under one definition, it does indeed exclude the Isle of Wight. garik (talk) 16:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I've often seen/heard, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland being called Britain. GoodDay (talk) 14:03, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I've often heard the same thing called England, GoodDay --Snowded TALK 14:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Me too. GoodDay (talk) 14:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The reality is that Britain does equal UK when the term is used in any political context. siarach (talk) 14:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. Britain is short for Great Britain, and it is only in your British nationalist mentality that Britain has suddenly been extended to cover Ireland. If the UK= Britain, then before 1922 Galway, Cork and Dublin must have been in Britain. Role on British nationalists. You are amazing. All of you. And all in the space of less than four centuries of propagating this modern idea of "Britishness" to dupe the Scots into feeling more comfortable with English state expansion. 86.42.109.173 (talk) 13:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. The point is that "Britain" is underdefined and colloquial. It's pointless to argue whether or not it's "correct" to use it to refer to the UK. It's not the official term for the state, but it's not officially defined as anything else either, so there are no grounds for saying it's erroneous. Calling the UK Great Britain is wrong as the terms are officially defined, but there are no grounds, as far as I can see, for saying that to call either "Britain" is wrong. The term is too underdefined for that. All the article should make clear is that the term is frequently used to refer to the UK, but that this is unofficial and chiefly colloquial. garik (talk) 16:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

In the same sense that "America" is used sometimes to mean the United States of America, perhaps? JAJ (talk) 17:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Not quite. "America" at least has a well accepted definition in formal use: it is the name of the continent. "Britain" has no equivalent formal definition. It is simply underdefined and primarily colloquial. garik (talk) 18:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC)