Talk:United Kingdom

Great Britain vs United Kingdom

The use of the name of Great Britain outside the country is very spread, like Grossbrittanien Grande-Bretagne Groot-Brittannië Storbritannien rather than United Kingdom because the expression united kingdom makes no sense, like calling London the town? All present and past kingdoms are united kingdoms even though it is not any more in the official name. Like Sweden abolished the united kingdom approach in the new ground law 1970. This thing makes it for non-British people senseless to say United Kingdom because it leads to confusions, the listener/reader is not certainly understanding the phrase. So in practical language Great Britain and eq translated terms are the common expression, also make it more distingushed from Brittany in France as well.

The last 15 years there has been more common that British people refere themselves to living in the UK rather than Britain and it is definitly something that makes things more clear, and vey domestic like a STockholmer is talking about STockholm in daily talk as the town it is silly to be used officially.

At the same time there has started a huge confusion about America taht fopr most people is one or two continents and Americans people from this or these two continents and english speaking people starts to use it for USA and the population of USA. Like meeting Canadians refusing to accept he is an American, that is real silly. Then cover this with the Spanish expression for the two continents Americas is even making it worse. The sillyness is that is is the same confusion as with the UK, but the difference is how establish it is. For USA there are hardly any alternative but "the USA" but Great Britain is by far a much smoother and established expression for the Kingdom.

I Suggest strongly that "commonly known as ... or Great Britain" should be added at line 2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.219.161.75 (talk) 01:49, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

The British government discourages use of "Great Britain" to refer to the UK of GB and NI because it refers only to the island made up of England, Scotland and Wales and excludes Ulster. Thet term Britain (with no "Great") is in common currency and is becoming more widely used in an official capacity, but it's already mentioned in the first line so I'm not sure what more we can do. It's also already mentioned that many people incorrectly call the UK Great Britain further down.

Incidentally, we were taught at school that the French called Britain "la Royaume-Uni". JonChapple^Talk 06:42, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

You mean Northern Ireland not Ulster, Ulster includes three counties in Ireland, but I agree with you we should not be saying "commonly known as GB" --Snowded ^TALK 06:48, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

You knew what I meant. "Ireland" includes six counties in the United Kingdom. JonChapple^Talk 07:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Just concerned that you say what you mean! --Snowded ^TALK 07:16, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I did say what I mean. "Ulster" is short-hand for NI in addition to referring to the historical province. Just as "Ireland" is also a misleadingly-named state in addition to an island! JonChapple^Talk 08:05, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

The UK is more commonly called "England" rather than the rather technical "Great Britain". But good luck trying to get Wikipedia editors to acknowledge what is staring everybody in the face. Incidentally, I notice that "UK" is increasingly being used as an adjective, eg. UK soldier, UK hospital, UK weather, UK parliament, UK government etc etc etc. This would have been utterly incomprehensible to most citizens of the UK even as recently as 50 years ago, when the natural adjective would have been "English" or "British". There is no doubt that language is changing, and quite rapidly. --Mais oui! (talk) 07:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Isn't this covered in the Etymology section (and the See Also's)? DeCausa (talk) 08:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

The suggestion is that "Great Britain" be added to the list of commonly used synonyms in line 1. The fact that, to UK editors and the UK government, that term is seen as incorrect should perhaps not be the overriding principle here, if reliable sources do in fact indicate that "GB" is a term in widespread use to mean "UK". Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

From what I can see Britain or England are more common. The latter is so wrong as to not be permitted, the former is in increasing use --Snowded ^TALK 09:06, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I guess both "Great Britain" and "England" is analagous to Holland in the Netherlands article. There it is mentioned in the lead (because of common usage), but with an explanation of why it is "incorrect". I suppose that would be a way of dealing with it. In United States, America is given as an unqualified alternative even thaough it is technically incorrect and highly controveresial in Latin America. DeCausa (talk) 09:33, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Roman occupation vs Saxon settlement

The most odd thing about moste Englsih/Bristih histroy writings is the expressions, Roman occupation and Saxon settlement, why not the other way?

The time as Roman province England and Wales was indeed a part, provinces of the Roman empire. But certainly it was not hords of italians running around in Britain being it. Rather all research points at the fact it was the prevoius local population that was romanised or worked within the Roman sociaty as Romans. They hardly occupied themselves? During 400 years of Romans the celtic languages were in fact still existing, that is something completely different in comaparnce with Ireland or Wales in the Noraman era. The Noramans were really occupying Britain more than any other.

However the Saxons came and clensed the country from celts in a completely different way than the Roman empire. In fact Briatian becaim Anglish during these years.

I would say that these very politically flavoured expressions of British history are unfit. The expressions shows that no follower of political power refere its regin to the Roman era, and so it should be described as black as possible in contrast to their own. In fact after the Roman collapse during the 5th century half the British population vanished and most likly because the souciaty cound not feed them and domestic wars. People died in masses and emigrated most likly to todays France where the sociaty and its facilities were more intact. During this century of disaster the collapse of a smooth working advanced sociaty things like Arthur and Tristan and Isolde emmerge, the most romantic events in British tailes covering the disaster from history records. Political propaganda in the past was really very advanced, much more than one first believes. Many of the features of the roman era Bitish sociaty hasent been seen in Britain until the mid 20th century. The Roman sociaty was not a democracy and not an equal sociaty form, but very few others has been since. I suggest the expresssion "Roman provinces" should be used instead of Roman occupation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.219.161.75 (talk) 02:17, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I changed "occupation" to "rule", does that suffice? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:01, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the key point is the opening of the above post "The most odd thing about most English/British history writings is the expressions, Roman occupation and Saxon settlement" (my emphasis). The point of Wikipedia here is simply to reflect most English/British history writings. If it is the case that these events are generally referred to as the Roman occupation and the Anglo-Saxon settlement - and I think they are, more or less - then that's how they should be referred to here, for good or ill. The rest of the post which may or may not be true, is WP:OR. I would favour reverting. DeCausa (talk) 08:17, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

The wording has come about because, essentially, the Roman occupation was led by an organised military force which imposed rule over the local inhabitants. Clearly there was romanisation of the population over time, but originally it was a military occupation. The process of Saxon settlement was certainly not peaceful, but equally it was not centrally organised to the same extent, so far as I am aware. So, there is no overriding logic in using the same terminology in both cases. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Occupation is usually used only when an area is regarded as foreign territory, but the areas in Britain became full Roman provinces. True it was occupied, but it is more contentious to describe the 400 years as a continuous occupation. In general I think it is best to avoid words with strong emotive connotations when there are better alternatives in the body of an article. The terminology still isn't the same. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:33, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Emotive?! 2000 years ago...Are there Roman Empire neo-nationalists who would get upset?! I still think it's best to be guided by common usage: 10,300 hits for "Roman occuation of Britain" on Google books. DeCausa (talk) 08:40, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Now now, us Romano-celts have been attempting to sustain civilisation in the face of Anglo-Saxon barbarism for the best part of 2,000 years and its still emotive. The Dyrham a vivid memory, and don't even start me on the Normans. Serious stuff aside, I think the current wording is fine --Snowded ^TALK 08:50, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Great Britain, United Kingdom and style guides

The Etymology and terminology section says, "Great Britain...particularly in the UK, is not favoured as an alternative name for the United Kingdom." This is not supported by the two cited sources. The Guardian and Observer style guide says, "These terms are synonymous: Britain is the official short form of United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland." The opposite of the statement it is supposed to support! It then goes on to advise the writer "not to write Britain when you might mean England and Wales, or just England", which is not of course, the same as using it for the United Kingdom. The BBC style guide says, "Britain remains, just about, an acceptable substitute for the United Kingdom in some contexts", and then says, like the Guardian, that it should not be used for England or England and Wales. Ironically, considering the sentence I quoted from the article, it also deprecates the use of "UK". That sentence needs to be changed to reflect actual usage as shown by the cited sources. Scolaire (talk) 11:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

In the early part of your paragraph you have fallen into the frequent trap of confusing "Britain" with "Great Britain". - David Biddulph (talk) 11:40, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Unless I'm reading this wrong, you've mentioned that the Guardian and Observer style guides say "Britain" is the official short of the UK, not "Great Britain". If that's the case, the article is correct as it stands. JonChapple^Talk 11:55, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know where this (very strongly felt) belief on UK-related articles that there is a clear distinction between Britain, Great Britain and the United Kingdom comes from or that Great Britain, as opposed to Britain, is the "full" name for the island. Elsewhere, the words are used interchangeably and Britain is the original name for the island, rather than an abbreviated from of Great Britain.

For example, the OED:

United Kingdom: a country of western Europe consisting of England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland; population 61,113,200 (est. 2009); capital, London. Full name United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Britain: the island containing England, Wales, and Scotland. The name is broadly synonymous with Great Britain, but the longer form is more usual for the political unit. See also Great Britain, United Kingdom

Great Britain: England, Wales, and Scotland considered as a unit. The name is also often used loosely to refer to the United Kingdom.
Usage: Great Britain is the name for the island that comprises England, Scotland, and Wales, although the term is also used loosely to refer to the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom is a political unit that includes these countries and Northern Ireland. The British Isles is a geographical term that refers to the United Kingdom, Ireland, and surrounding smaller islands such as the Hebrides and the Channel Islands

These would appear to contradict the article and give Great Britain as a frequent synonym for the United Kingdom. --RA (talk) 12:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

In response to David Biddulph and JonChapple, you're right, I was conflating Britain and Great Britain. But I would suggest that is the fault of the article, not my ignorance. To say that it is "often referred to as Britain", and then go into a rigmarole about Great Britain, gives the impression that it is the same term that is under discussion. A reader who is familiar with both terms will not register the change from one to the other unless it is signalled in advance. At any rate, the sentence is still not strictly in accordance with the cited sources: both sources give lists of "do's" and "don'ts" e.g. don't use Britain for England, but neither explicitly states that Great Britain for the United Kingdom is "not favoured". A more proper way of saying it would be:

• United Kingdom is often referred to by the short-form name of Britain. Style guides of British media allow the use of Britain for the United Kingdom, but point out that the longer term Great Britain refers only to England, Scotland and Wales (references). However, some foreign usage...

Scolaire (talk) 18:29, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your revised sentence to an extent, but it's not just the British media – the Government also frequently refers to the UK as Britain, as evidenced recently by this godawful website, so that would need a mention too. JonChapple^Talk 19:07, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

As an aside, I also tend to hear "Britain and Ireland" mentioned a lot by Irishmen, which I always took to mean short-hand for the UK and RoI. JonChapple^Talk 19:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Ditto, both terms being potentially vague and spilling into and over each other.

I would not say that Britain is a "short-form name" for the United Kingdom, however. Certainly, it is shorter but IMO it would be simply another name. E.g.:

"'Britain' is used informally, usually meaning the United Kingdom." — direct.gov.uk

--RA (talk) 19:33, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Done. I took the liberty of dropping pars pro toto while I was at it. It sounds frightfully clever but I don't see that it adds anything to the article. Scolaire (talk) 21:03, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Plus it's incorrect, as I've been trying to point to HighKing on a number of occasions today. JonChapple^Talk 21:05, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Great edit, btw. JonChapple^Talk 21:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Why, thank you :-) Scolaire (talk) 21:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Access dates

A small thing, but curious. Why were all the access dates in an article on the United Kingdom changed from British to American format, here? Scolaire (talk) 21:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Huh. Weird. I guess it'll have to be all pulled back manually now. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:37, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Needs to be reverted somehow, I have dropped User:Atomician a note about this discussion. MilborneOne (talk) 12:06, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I've changed it back myself. Atomician (talk) 12:33, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Glorious revolution

There is very little mention of the Glorious revolution on this article. The revolution of 1688 is much more important then the act of union. it should actually be considered the most defining event in British history, because it established England as a major power and as a financial power-house, it saw the beggining of Britain's policy of intervention on the European continent against aggressive powers, which was the beggining of Britain as a global power Voucherman (talk) 11:57, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

This article is about the UK, which did not exist before 1707 at the earliest. Although the Glorious Revolution is mentioned in the History section of this article, there is much more information in the linked article at History of England. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:01, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. The article deals with events after at least 1707 and anything before that has to be background and as concise as possible. Mention of the GR is in proportion and it is also very debatable that the Revolution caused what followed. There were colonies and armies successful in Europe before that date afterall.--SabreBD (talk) 12:19, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

The Glorious Revolution establish England as a modern nation-state, and arguably the world's first modern economic powerhouse. England began it's policy of opposing France on the continent after this revolution - before it England was extremely isolationist - after it from the Nine Years's war onwards, Britain would intervene in almost every single European conflict up until the Second world war. Really the Glorious revolution does not get the attention it deserves, but after it Scotland was virtually a vassal of William III's England anyway, so the act of union was inevitable anyway Voucherman (talk) 14:11, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

It deserves more mention on this article because it is the truly major turning point in British history, from political-religious chaos to stability and global power Voucherman (talk) 14:09, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Find sources that say that, in relation to the UK not just England, and we can take it from there. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:26, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

It is important to the whole British Isles but not entirely to the UK which occured afterwards for different reasons. The article can link to the main article on the Glorious Revolution itself where it is fully laid for a reader. Mabuska ^(talk) 21:04, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

The Revolution was a key point in the creation of the Union of 1707, just 19 years later. James II & VII was overthrown simultaneously in all three of his realms, though the consequences differed in each. When passing the Claim of Right in 1689, the Parliament of Scotland also called for a union with England, an offer which the English did not take up. The Revolution brought about the settlement of domestic affairs in England, Ireland and Scotland which allowed the eventual union to take place. Citations will be legion, but not at this time of night. Howard Alexander (talk) 23:35, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

If it is such a key point (I'm not a historian so I don't know), should it not be mentioned in more depth at History of the formation of the United Kingdom, where it only seems to merit a brief mention at present? Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:57, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

HISTORY : "After the defeat of France in the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars... " ?

 History section - Since the Acts of Union of 1707-

 "After the defeat of France in the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars... " , Yes France has lost the Napoleonic Wars (1803-1815) but never lost the Revolutionary wars (1792-1802). This is a serious mistake because without victory during the Revolutionary Wars, modern France would not exist! The evidence, when you click on the link -French Revolutionary Wars- it says: Result = French Republican victory, survival of the French Republic, Republics established several French customer. So there is a contradiction between the article on the UK and article on the French Revolutionary Wars.

                                                                 17 October 2011