Note there is a bug in the history of this page. My changes today do not include those about Brutus. Rich Farmbrough 16:16, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Old Comments
"Britain and Ireland" simply won't do in the first paragraph here. The context is "Great Britain is the largest island in this whole bunch of islands off the coast of Northwest Europe". Reducing that group to "Britain and Ireland" makes the sentence nonsensical: "Great Britain is the biggest island in the group consisting of Great Britain and Ireland." Whee. If that was what the author wanted to say, he would have said "Great Britain is bigger than Ireland", which is a true but rather pointless statement.
How to phrase this so it's understood that Great Britain is the biggest of several islands there? -- Paul Drye
Sorry if I was a bit simplistic in replacing "British Isles" by "Britain and Ireland". How about something like "which is the largest island in the archipelago off the west coast of Europe that includes Great Britain, Ireland, the Faroes, the Orkney Islands, and the Isle of Man". --Eob
Well, the problem there is that you are making the thing being defined part of the definition: "Great Britain is....that includes Great Britain, Ireland, etc." We need the name of the archipelago. We may need to go with "British Isles" simply because the trend towards precision that's given us Britain and Ireland has not yet come up with a name for the archipelago that suits our purpose here. -- Paul Drye
I'm having a hard time understanding why "British Isles" was replaced with "Great Britain and Ireland" all over the place in this encyclopedia. My understanding has always been that the term "British Isles" included Ireland. I just looked up "British Isles" in the online Mirriam-Webster dictionary, and it said: 'island group W Europe comprising Great Britain, Ireland, & adjacent islands ' . Not that this proves anything, but it is definitely a common understanding among a lot of people that Ireland is part of the British Isles.
The term dates from when GB and Ireland were part of the one state, the United Kingdom. Most Irish people take offence at the term, because some presume it means that the states are still linked politically. So it is a controversial term that it is best to avoid. An alternative used is Islands of the North Atlantic or IONA, which is increasingly being used. JTD 16:16 Feb 16, 2003 (UTC)
But please see note lower down about the usage. Thanks Nevilley 08:55 Feb 17, 2003 (UTC)
It's reaction to "British" meaning, to many people, "of the United Kingdom". It's a fair cop, and several of Eob's changes are more precise. But some aren't, as we are discussing. -- Paul Drye
If the "British Isles" is the official name of the archipelago, then that is the name that should be used. I am willing to concede that the Miriam-Webster dictionary might be wrong, but it is also possible that this is indeed the correct term for all those islands, including Ireland. The United Kingdom is just a political entity anyway, that doesn't have to necessarily correspond to the name of any island or islands. The term "British" can also refer to the island of Britain, after all, and if Scotland becomes independent are we going to stop using the word "Britain" to refer to the island?
You're arguing at cross purposes with me; I agree with you that the archipelago is best-called the British Isles -- "British" has two meanings to me, only one possessive -- but that's not the entirety of Eob's changes. Several of those he's made are clearer with the extra precision (though I'm mulling over Zundark's suggestion that "United Kingdom and Ireland" might be better still). -- Paul Drye
See also the discussion in talk:Britain and Ireland. My contention is that although the term "British Isles" has been used in the past it originated in the time when Britain did have political control over both main islands -- which is no longer the case. Many people in Ireland do not want to be considered part of the "British Isles" any more than people in Britain would like to be part of the "Irish Isles". Most uses of the "British Isles" can be replaced by "Britain and Ireland". However there are a few cases, such as the original usage on the Great Britain page, where "Britain and Ireland" is not quite accurate because the intended use also includes other smaller islands in the archipelago. I do not have a good answer for those cases. --Eob
See also talk:Britain, for more along these lines.
Every time I need to link to this page, I am again made aware that it appears to emphasize a view of the island from an English point of view. There are other nationalities on this island who are quite happy to not be called English, and who have a long historical record. To work around this problem, can wre have under the "see also" heading a list of other links, such as prehistoric Britain, Roman Britain, Wales, Scotland, Cornwall? I'm probably asking this with insufficient tact & will get flamed for this suggestion, but I hope cooler & more reasonable heads understand the problem I am pointing at. -- llywrch 19:25 Jan 2, 2003 (UTC)
The term IONA (Islands of the North Atlantic) is used in the Good Friday Peace Agreement as a replacement term for the 'British Isles', though it may or may not catch on. (It is also defined on Wiki.) A solution might be to use the 'British Isles' (saying that it is a long-standing term) but mention that IONA is considered as a possible alternative, to take into account Irish sensitivities. That would allow you to use the most common term 'british isles' while reducing its offensiveness to we Irish. JTD 04:42 Jan 9, 2003 (UTC)
My understanding is that Great Britain is not, in fact, a single island, as this article says, but one big island plus lots of little islands like Lundy, Angelsey, the Hebrides and so on, governed from the mainland. It doesn't include the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands, however. Am I correct in thinking this? I'll edit the page to say as much if so. --Camembert
It is a confusing point. Politically it may include them. Geographically it might not do (except Anglesea, which usually is included.) There are different theories. JTD 16:16 Feb 16, 2003 (UTC)
OK. Would it be fair to say, do you think, that baldly stating without qualification at the article's outset that GB is "an island" is misleading? --Camembert
My understanding is that "Britain" is an island, while the "British Isles" is Britain plus the surrounding islands. Otherwise the term "British Isles" would be redundant... (And as the article says, "Great Britain" is just another name for what we normally call "Britain".) -- Oliver P. 16:26 Feb 16, 2003 (UTC)
Don't forget that "British Isles" also includes Ireland, which "Britain" certainly does not. See the MacMillan Encyclopaedia on this, btw - not the greatest source, but the only one I can dig up right now. --Camembert
It seems like Great Britain is best stated as a political concept: England + Wales + Scotland including their small islands. [1] seems like a good explanation, although it contradicts itself by saying "Great Britain is the largest island in Europe". [2] is an official document referring to "islands of Great Britain." But what about the geographical concept of island? How can the largest island of Great Britain have no name? ( 17:25 Feb 16, 2003 (UTC)
There's the problem, you see - "Great Britain", as JTD suggests, is used to mean both the political grouping of England, Scotland and Wales, and also used to mean a single island. The article, I think, has to reflect this double usage, and, IMO, should open with something like "Great Britain is a political entity consisting of Scotland, England and Wales, including their small islands, such as Anglesey, the Hebrides, the Orkney Islands and the Shetland Islands. It is part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The term Great Britain is also sometimes used to mean the large island consisting of the bulk of these countries." The rest of the article could then be changed as needed. Thoughts? --Camembert
Oh, sorry, I changed it before seeing your proposal. You'd better change my version, as it didn't sound quite right anyway. I'm not sure we should favour the political entity over the geographical one, though, as the phrase "also sometimes used" suggests we are doing. -- Oliver P. 17:56 Feb 16, 2003 (UTC)
Don't worry, your version is probably better. I'm going to move that reference down to the bottom, but otherwise I'll leave this for today, and return tomorrow or some time to fiddle with it (if it's not already been fiddled with). --Camembert
The whole of this geographic thing can lead to endless hair-splitting because of past history. What about the Irish Sea which has Great Britain on its eastern side, or the English Channel, shared by France. jimfbleak 16:34 Feb 16, 2003 (UTC)
good suggestion, Cam. re-the Irish Sea and the English Channel - those names aren't disputed. Re-Anglesey: it may technically be an island, but because it is so close to Wales and is linked to Wales physically, it is generally seen as part of Great Britain both politically and geographically. The Hebrides, etc are more complicated because they are unambiguously islands off the island of Great Britain. JTD 18:13 Feb 16, 2003 (UTC)
Just as well the French will have their own fr.wikipedia page to describe "perfidious Albion". The English Channel is the English name the French name is La Manche "The Sleeve” which is a reference to its shape. So no surprises there then! Philip Baird Shearer 12:18, 17 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
I like the look of ('s version. As I say, I'll probably return to this later, but what we have now is an improvement on what we had before, I'm sure. --Camembert
I shifted the IONA bit to lower down the article. I think it had an unwarranted prominence at the top, and I am not sure that claim of increasing use can be substantiated. (Looking at it again I think I may have shifted it to the wrong place, and might try again, whoops sorry, but I stick by the principle! ) I've been looking around the web a bit and, quite apart from my feeling that it's a terrible temr and that the annexation of the placename Iona is regrettable, I honestly cannot find that much evidence that it's coming into use - most of the (little) stuff I found is from a few years ago. I am happy to debate this, and I am certainly not unaware of the sensitivities around these issues. I just didn't feel that the previous version reflected the facts. Sorry if I have trodden on your toes: let's discuss it. Nevilley 08:54 Feb 17, 2003 (UTC)
Because they refer to different things. Great Britain is a currently existing entity, namely the island of Great Britain, (England + Scotland + Wales) that is part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Kingdom of Great Britain was a kingdom that was created by an Act of Union in 1707 (which merged the previous Kingdom of England and Kingdom of Scotland - since October 1604 the royal titleGreat Britain had been used. But a kingdom with that name didn't legally come into existence until the Act of Union! Yeah it is confusing!!!) which ceased to exist when the Kingdom of Ireland and the Kingdom of Great Britain merged to form the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland in 1801.
Because of the use of so many nomenclatures and governmental structures on the islands of Great Britain and Ireland, separate articles exist explaining what each is, hence Kingdom of Ireland separate from Ireland, and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland separate from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Taken together each article should offer readers a stepping stone to follow each merger and separation as it followed. England and Scotland exist as governmental units still, but GB doesn't and the Kingdom of Ireland is long gone. Hence separate articles on the K of GB and K of Ireland. FearÉIREANN 01:03 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)
I'll go out on a limb here and remove the term "SUCKZORZ" from the article after the mention of King James I's usage of the term "King of Great Britain" (Nomenclature)
Winnebagan
8th or 9th largest Island
"depending on whether Australia is counted as an island."
Australia is a continent, or is there really a dispute over this. If there isn't then lets fix Great Britian's rank among islands. --ShaunMacPherson 13:12, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I for one never thought Australia's status as a continent was disputed until the question arose on Talk:History of Greenland (the article mentions Greenland as the world's largest island). Maybe the teachings on this matter differs between different countries or different times? -- Jao 08:12, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
I removed the remark about Australia. Australia is considered a continent. Shanes 11:32, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
If Australia can be an island and a continent then the world's 3 biggest islands are Afro-Eurasia, the Americas and Antarctica.
Isn't Greenland part of Europe, making Greenland the biggest island in Europe?84.71.121.223 00:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Politically yes, but geographically it's considered to belong to North America. garik 02:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do u mean political as in the fact that in most atlases it shows as part of Denmark. - OsirisV 11:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, to quote Wikipedia, it's "a self-governed Danish territory ... Though geographically and ethnically an Arctic island nation associated with the continent of North America, politically and historically Greenland is closely tied to Europe." garik 11:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Population
What's the historical population of the island of Great Britain? - Jerryseinfeld 18:56, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Etymology
Can we get some sources--Are we source that "Britanny" is a DIMINUTIVE of Britain, as Jimmy is for Jim? Is it not likely to have developed from Latin Britannia, the -ia suffix becoming -ie (/i/) in French and -y in English?
The material in the Nomenclature section appears to be a mix of (1) (in its own words!) the "extremely dubious", (2) the poorly-stated (the distinction between Geoffrey of Monmouth's Britannia maior and Britannia minor is not explained), and (3) the downright mistaken (the arguments presented in Talk:United_Kingdom#Little_Britain on the supposed "diminutive" form Brittany seem well-founded). A simple link to the relevant sections of the Britain article would be far better. Vilcxjo 16:33, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a section to the History section on the correct historical and etymological link between Brittany and Britain. Brittany was called Amorica in Roman times. It was settled in the 5th century by British refugees fleeing the Anglo-Saxon invasion and was renamed Bretagne. The French then came to call Britain Grande Bretagne to distinguish it from Bretagne, and this usage was transmitted to England by the Norman Conquest. Geoffrey of Monmouth (who spoke French and wrote in Latin, not English) was merely reflecting this habit. It is wrong by the way to refer to Brittany as "Gaulish". It was inhabited by Gauls before the Roman conquest, but it didn't become Brittany until it was resettled by Britons. Adam 23:13, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
New Article - overview of terminology
I have just written an article that is meant to give an overview of terms like (Great) Britain, the Bitish Isles, the UK and England (and whether Ireland has anything to do with any of these) on my user page. The discussion seems to have died down, but when I tried to find a clarification of these terms I found the answer spread over various articles. I suppose more people will have problems with this, so I wrote an overview: User:DirkvdM/British Isles - Clarification of Terms
Area
If GB = England + Wales + Scotland, we have E=130295, W=20779, S=78782 Total = 229956. Yet the area quoted here for GB is only 219000. Why are we 11000 adrift? -- SGBailey 12:22, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The "Times Atlas of the World" confirms the 229k figure. I don't have a web reference for it.--King Hildebrand 17:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But some difference between the area of GB and the sum of the areas of E, W and S is to be expected. GB is mainland only: E, W, and S all include islands.--King Hildebrand 17:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ptolemy
The article now gives two quite contradictary origins for Great Britain in successive paragraphs: the first that it derives from Ptolemy and distinguishes the main island from the sourrounding small islands, and the second that it distinguishes Great Britain from Brittany. Both cannot be correct and one must be deleted. Can we get a source for this attribution to Ptolemy? Adam 08:54, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A citation is still not forthcoming for Ptoloemy, despite a fact tag. It seems unlikely. So I am deleting it, until someone can find a good reference. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 11:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cornubia
Mercator produced CORNWALL & WALES ("Cornewallia & Wallia") in 1564:[3][4]
Humphrey Lhuyd and Abraham Ortelius produced Angliae Regni Florentissimi Nova Descripto in 1573, this showed Cornwall and Wales as distinct regions of England, however Cornwall was not portrayed as an English county. This map was re used in 1595 at about the same time that Norden produced the map of the Duchy (not county) of Cornwall.
From about 1600 things change the Mare Brittanica and the Celtic sea become the English Channel and Bristol/St Georges Channel respectively. At this time Cornwall also seems to become an English county. Why, there is no record of an act of union or annexation of Cornwall?
That's great. Thanks. Essexmutant 14:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The flag however, has not been seen since 1807 (Act of Union between Ireland and Great Britain, it has no standing and is not found flying anywhere. It could be compared with saying that the pre 1959 USA flag is the flag of the contiguous United States (not including Alaska and Hawaii) Brixtonboy (talk) 03:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Status of Wales
I believe that it is correct to classify Wales as a principality and England and Scotland as (constituent) countries for the purpose of this article, and for Northern Ireland as a province. There has been a lot of to-ing and fro-ing for Wales from country to principality. Nobody is doubting that it is a country but its legal definition is principality, or am I mistaken? Enzedbrit 23:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Its a close one; country is a bit of a subjective word for all of them to be honest... I'd much prefer 'its compose of four consitutent parts'. Wales was never a state, for which country used to be a synonym - its probably on that basis that some people would rather have principality. Country has been appropriated over the C20th - for ideological purposes at first - to mean 'nation' too, in which case Wales/England/Scotland could probably all be described as countries. --Robdurbar 07:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't it the other way round? Hasn't it only been in the 20th century that there has been a tendency in some quarters to restrict the word "country" to something like "independent state"? In previous centuries, it was quite common for example for people to refer to their home county as their "country". TharkunColl 07:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think then that something along the lines of Robdurbar's suggestion would be less controversial.Enzedbrit 23:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is is correct to refer to Wales as a principality, as traditionally it is headed by a Prince. Scotland has no equivalent title associated with it.--King Hildebrand 17:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wales is a country and a nation, looking at these two articles the word country can be used for a state and for the geographical area inhabited by a nation. A nation is a group of people, from the nation article: One of the most influential doctrines in history is that all humans are divided into groups called nations. It is an ethical and philosophical doctrine in itself, and is the starting point for the ideology of nationalism. The nationals are the members of the "nation" and are distinguished by a common identity, and almost always by a common origin, in the sense of ancestry, parentage or descent. I don't know any Welsh people that would describe Wales as a Principality (I am Welsh myself). By the way Wales has never been headed by a prince as far as I'm aware, various Welsh princes ruled over various parts of Wales, but none I think ruled over the entire country (though I'm no historian). The non indigenous Princes of Wales, as far as I'm aware, never really had controll of the area (again this is just my perception), it's more of a courtesy title and is offensive to many Welsh people. Why not four nations? Alun 17:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are Welsh and have never heard the term "Principality" applied by its inhabitants? I lived four bried years in the cardiff area and the term was not not infrequently used, although more often a media thing. It was even used by nationalists I new (who I assume would not have been more concerned with ancient princes than the current one) Dainamo 21:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Many Welsh citizens find the term Principality offensive, as they have to endure an English prince. On the other hand, Welsh subjects loyal to the crown have no problem with this. On a technical point, Wales was a state for four years under Owain Glyndwr's leadership, although I accept that this does not amount to much. User: malicachu 17.25, 8 March 2007.
It is not inconsistent to call Wales a nation, a principality and a state all at the same time: it has a distinct civilised people/culture, it has a prince (of a conquering kingdom) and it is a separate part of a greater (larger) government and subject to both the laws of that government and it's own limited government (the Assembly). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jp adelaide (talk • contribs) 17:13, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Canaries
Curiously, Gran Canaria is only the third largest of the Canaries, after Tenerife and Fuerteventura. I have yet to see a convincing explanation for the designation. Nevertheless, the reference to the Canaries should be deleted if it is supposed to stand as an example of Great (or Gran) meaning the largest. It rather weakens the case!--King Hildebrand 17:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rewording of phrase about Team GB
The current statment at the end of the first paragraph reads "However, it should be noted that in the United Kingdom's own television coverage of the Olympic Games, the athletes from the United Kingdom team are referred to as the Great British team, in turn under the abbreviation "GB.""
This gives the impression that the olympic team from Great Britain had another name but the team's name was ""Team Great Britain"" and it's informal name was ""Team GB"" here is a link to the British Olympic Association's offical website [[7]], notice the Team GB link. It is also normal for teams that comprise of individuals from all around Great Britain to be called the Great British team and is in fact very rare for them to be called the UK team.
There is also question of why this comment is here in the first place, as it has nothing to do with the preceding comments. TheEnlightened 12:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Population
Anyone know the average population for the whole of GB?
Its about 60 million
Geography
It would be nice to include the islands permiter.
Great Britain Acting Politically
Do we ahve any evidence that Great Britain is acutally used as a political term? It has come up at Talk:British Isles, and I realised that I'd never seen this claim substantiated anywwhere on Wkipedia. --Robdurbar 07:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know of any political usage, as far as I know it's just the name of the one island, presumably excluding islands like Ynys Môn. It's odd that in some sporting events (like the Olympics) sports people from the UK seem to compete as GBR, which I've always taken to be Great Britain, and as far as I know this would equally apply to athetes from Northern Ireland, for example. Alun 12:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By coincidence the BBC series Trawlermen yesterday evening described Lerwick as the northernmost town in Great Britain, and I thought oops, but checked this article and it appears to be ok. So the term is actually used to include Shetland. ..dave souza, talk 13:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, and whilst I appreciate that the term is used as such, suggesting that it is a political term indidcates, I think, some sort of legality (in a similar manner to England and Wales), rather than just it being used in this way. For example, I'm aware that No Win No Fee adds always say 'not in Northern Ireland' because the legislation to allow them wasn't passed there. In that sort of situation, then, does the law refer to it being passed 'in Great Britain' or does it just say Eng/Scot/Wal? --Robdurbar 17:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, well we have one source that suggests so [8], which is enough for me! --Robdurbar 17:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst the name for the island, Great Britain, dates back to the middle ages or earlier, it acquired an additional political meaning in 1604 when James I declared himself King of Great Britain. This political meaning was consolidated by the Act of Union of 1707. But even if we are using the term just to refer to the island rather than a political state, does it automatically exclude all other islands, no matter how small or close to the mainland they happen to be? I shouldn't think so. TharkunColl 18:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The term Great Britain is used extensively in the United States to refer to the British Empire. If you haven't found any evidence that it is used as a political term you are really not looking very hard. e.g. CIA factbook, Library of Congress ([9]).
There's no dispute that it is sometimes used politically to refer to the British state - the problem is that the article suggests that it is used to refer politically to Great Britain the island. This statement is hard to justify because there is no such independent political unit and there has not been since 1800. Mucky Duck 08:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Isles of Tin?
I have heard from several reputable sources, including a BBC TV program, that the origin of the name "Britain" and the "British Isles" is from the area's abundance of Tin during the early bronze age. From this they apparently became known literally as the "Isles of Tin" and hence [Bri]-t[a]in.
Unfortunatly I cannot find any proper academic references to this etymological origin. Whether or not this is the true origin of the term, I find it surprising that their is no section on the etymology of the name. As I've said I cannot find any references, nor am I an expert on this matter so I must leave it up to someone else to correct it (the article on the Isles of Britain could also be updated correspondingly).
Btw, the section titled "Where is 'Little' Britain?" seriously needs a title alteration. If it hadn't been there so long I would persume it was someone's idea of a joke. Canderra 01:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I find it surprising that their is no section on the etymology of the name, wrote Canderra.
Regarding "Where is 'Little' Britain?"—propose a better title, please. I tend to like informal titles, but I don't think they should proliferate at Wikipedia if there is a direct way of saying the same thing in a formal tone. I can't think of a replacement ofthe top of my head, but I bet there are several goodoptions. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 11:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
c. 430 BC Herodotus expressed doubts about stories of the Cassiterides (tin islands) which some think were the British Isles, others think them more likely to have been north-west Spain and Cornwall and not islands. Then c. 320 BC Pytheas described his voyage, round the Pretanic (or Brittanic) islands, and thought that the inhabitants called themselves Pritani, though that might have been what the Gauls called them. Related terms still in use include the Welsh "Prydain". So that's the source, the similarity to "tin" is just coincidence. .. dave souza, talk 01:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Request for expansion
This article spends rather a long time talking about what Great Britain isn't and tells you actually very little about Great Britain itself. How about some more info? This is, after all, an encyclopedia. Cripipper 10:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Political definition comes first
Great Britain is famous for being much more than a geological piece of the British Isles. People trying to use the encyclopedia to learn something need to be able to find the political definition front and center. Haber 23:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From your spelling, I gather you're not from these parts. Great Britain is not the same as the UK. Get used to it. .. dave souza, talk 00:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well thanks for that. If you're willing to take this further than "Get used to it" please let me know. Haber 01:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Great Britain fought against the US in the war of 1812, according contemporary sources. Today, I can mail a letter to Great Britain, and it will go to Northern Ireland. Great Britain participated in World War II, according to Encarta Encyclopedia. People all over the world use Great Britain in the political sense. No one cares about the island geographic definition any more than they care where Little Britain is. Haber 01:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ref provided. Got anything more than anecdotes? .. dave souza, talk 01:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid you argument just doesn't hold up, Haber. If someone mailed a letter to Edinburgh, England, it would probably get to the correct address in Scotland: the Royal mail are used to this kind of thing. Now, there was a political state known as Great Britain, but this was before Ireland joined it to make the United Kingdom. People all over the world may very well use the term Great Britain when they mean the UK: plenty of people used to call the Soviet Union Russia, and that wasn't correct either. If we start saying here that Northern Ireland is in Great Britain just because lots of people think it is, we might as well change the England article so that it includes Wales and Scotland. garik 01:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your answer. I hope I can change some minds. I'm sorry about the Encarta ref I got my encyclopedias mixed up and meant Britannica. [10]. The Universal Postal Union still recognizes GB [11]. ISO 3166-2:GB is another ref. US State dept. re:war of 1812 [12]. US diplomatic correspondence with Great Britain[13]. Rugby team from GB[14]. Great Britain produces television shows [15], dictionary definition synonymous with UK [16]. Haber 01:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, certainly a lot of different people don't distinguish between Great Britain and the UK: this is, as I said, very much like the terms Russia and Soviet Union during the Cold War: it was extremely common everywhere to get them mixed up, but it was still incorrect. Perhaps in this article we could add a note somewhere to the effect that the term Great Britain is often used to refer to the United Kingdom, even in reputable sources, but this is not correct according to official UK terminology. garik 02:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." -WP:V. If you can soften "not correct" to something like "inconsistent with", and feature this fact prominently in the lead, then we might be getting somewhere. Haber 02:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In accordance with WP:NAME, this article's about the geographical unit. To clarify things, I've added a mention to the informal use causing confusion. The "Rugby team from GB" is refers to the Great Britain national rugby league team which is apparently so confusing that they're ending the name this year. The Cleveland site referring to "programming goodies from the British Isles" will no doubt cause much frothing in Ireland unless RTE programmes are included, but the programmes and actors referred to seem to be all English so technically GB is right. ISO and postal references to GB are already explained in the article, and the "dictionary definition synonymous with UK" actually gives that as a second meaning, the primary meaning being the geographical one. There's already a UK article, and no need for this one to duplicate it. ... dave souza, talk 10:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is an encyclopedia, and is supposed to be as inclusive as possible. There is absolutely no reason to suppress the second definition, unless you consider present-day British politics a reason. Haber 15:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the common use of Great Britain to refer to the UK as whole is probably worth a mention — though I think 'suppression' is a bit strong. I also think that that the legal definition trumps common usage, however. By 'correct', incidentally, I meant legally correct: I realise I was rather ambiguous. But yes, there's no reason not to mention common usage as well. garik 16:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good [17]. Thanks! Haber 16:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We who live here rarely use the term Great Britain apart from the Olympics. We tend to use UK or Britain when refering to our political entity. It it stick out to the English, Scottish Welsh and even Australian and New Zealand ear when Americans use the term Great Britain. Brixtonboy (talk) 03:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Other islands of the archipelego
I've added some more of the major islands to this list, I couldn't see any discussion of this so just went ahead but we could debate whether a link to British Isles should be used instead. There's also mention of most of these islands as well as some of the smaller ones near the top of the article, so perhaps we should remove the Other islands section altogether.
What we should probably not do is keep the section but with only two islands listed.
This article just published on the BBC website claims Great Britain seperated from the continent over 200,000 years ago [18]. Do we have a source for the claim in the article it's only 9000 years old? It does seem very young. Otherwise I will replace it. Cyta 08:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Great Britain is no longer a country, but simply an island in the United Kingdom. Politically, 'Great Britain' describes the combination of England, Scotland, and Wales, and therefore includes a number of outlying islands..."
So, is it an island or isn't it? It seems there are two distinct entities called Great Britain. In the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", Great Britain implicitly means "everything in the UK that isn't Northern Ireland", otherwise the name wouldn't make sense. In other contexts it refers to a single island. I think this dual meaning should be made clear right from the first sentence of the introduction, and every subsequent reference to "Great Britain" should specify which meaning is intended. I've started a similar discussion thread at Talk:British Isles (terminology)#Two meanings of Great Britain. Mtford 21:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
GB is an island, it's completely surounded by water. GoodDay 21:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so is Shetland a part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland? And if the United Kingdom comprises Great Britain and Northern Ireland, as suggested by the name, which bit does Shetland belong to? NB the whole of the British Isles are surrounded by water too, but that doesn't make them an "island"! Mtford 21:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Shetland belongs to Scotland which is a part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. GB and Ireland are both islands. GoodDay 22:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not entirely convinced that there is a true geographical meaning of "Great Britain". Even the reference seems a little confused; follow it to the detailed page to see [19] which mentions that the nearest island is 20km away ... presumably this is Ireland. What about the IoW? or some even nearer islands? Also think about normal speech; would anyone on the IoW say "I am just nipping across to Great Britain"? I think not; they would say "I am going to the mainland". I was initially seduced by the thought that there must be a name for the big British island (everything must have a name) and therefore it must be "Great Britain" but now I am not so sure. The political definitoion clearly exists and is in use but where do we find the supposed geographical definition in actual use? Abtract 11:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[20] lists several. Bazza 12:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks ... but it doesn't allay my fears that such definitions are simply the result of people like us struggling to create a name for the island. If you look at this [21], which follows on from the ref you gave me, it seems to be saying that Great Britain the island contains England the country which is clearly not true - it contains most but not all of it, IoW for example. I'm not that bothered but I'm beginning to think that there is a danger of discussing the number of angels dancing on thr head of a pin. For my money I would stick to the simple definition that GB = E,S and W, with an aside mentioning that there are occasions when the term is used geographically for the island alone ... and for the rest of the article to ignore that minor definition. Either way I have devoted enough thinking time to it so I am off back to the real world. Abtract 15:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The page I you refer me to is labelled "record type: physical" — "Refers to physical features, defined by their physical characteristics on planet Earth, including mountains, rivers, and oceans." — and goes on to say "Note: Largest island of the British Isles, comprising England, Scotland & Wales.". Seems pretty clear to me. I guess the bit about England, Scotland and Wales is helpful context. Physical attributes are not an "aside", as you maintain — they are as important to readers as any political considerations. If it's not the name of the island, though what is? It's the eighth largest in the world, so I can't believe it hasn't got one. Bazza 15:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cornish people
Hi everyone, I was just curious to note that the Cornish people are not listed as an indigenous people of Great Britain. Any reason for that (they're not just lumped into the interesting 'others' category are they?), or just an oversight?
Many thanks! Rob Lindsey 23:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like an oversight - the Cornish people qualify as an indigenous people of Great Britain as listed on this page - Ethnic groups of the United Kingdom and were indeed living in Great Britain prior to the Roman, Angle, Saxon, Frisian, and Jute invasions. It wasn't until 927 that King Athelstan of England evicted the Cornish from Exeter and the rest of Devon and in 936 he fixed Cornwall's eastern boundary at the Tamar. In 944Athelstan's successor, King Edmund I of England, styled himself "King of the English and ruler of this province of the Britons" (Cornwall). In 1509 King Henry VIII's coronation procession includes "nine children of honour" representing "England and France, Gascony, Guienne, Normandy, Anjou, Cornwall, Wales and Ireland." In 1531 from the court of King Henry VIII, the Italian diplomat Lodovico Falier writes in a letter that "The language of the English, Welsh and Cornish men is so different that they do not understand each other". He also claims it is possible to distinguish the members of each group by alleged "national characteristics". The Cornish were allocated the ethnic code of '06' for the 2001 Census - see Census 2001 Ethnic Codes and the Cornish language was officially recognised by the Government in 2002. They are recognised by the Celtic League (political organisation) and should be included in this article.195.92.67.74 (talk) 22:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cornwall was known as West Wales for a time post Roman occupation and the language has more similarities to Welsh than any other, though, as said, significant differentiation exists today... as also exist with the language of Celtic Brittony in France. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jp adelaide (talk • contribs) 16:29, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's more correct to say that Breton and Cornish are more similar to one another than either is to Welsh, though all three are closely related. In fact it was Cornish migration to Brittany that took the language there in the first place. The pre-Latin language in the region would have been a form of Gaulish. There's more on this in the articles on Cornwall, Cornish, Brittany and Breton. --Chris Jefferies (talk) 18:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is existing 'History' Useful?
I put it that the section on History, without direct links to more detailed information, is compressed to the point of being misleading. The Scottish displacing/integrating with the Picts (they did not co-occupy as the text suggests) all the way to the post-Roman Anglosaxon period in a paragraph? Is this summary too summary?
Ireland
Since when is Ireland considered part of the archipelago of Great Britain?!?!?! The way it is written here, it would seem as if Ireland was the size of the Isle of Man. I'm going to remove it, and if anyone has any good reasons as to why it should remain on the page, I would be more than happy to hear them. Dennisc24 (talk) 01:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As a purely geographical term Ireland is part of the British Isles. So it is definately a part of the archipelago. We should try not to confuse politics with geography. It is called the British Isles after the name of the largest island in the archipelago. And, don't forget, this article is about Great Britain and not the UK. I have met rakes of Irish people and I know they're not happy with the idea of Ireland being a part of the British Isles, even if it is only a geographical term. TINYMARK 11:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And to echo TinyMark 'the archipelago' can't be called British Isles, because that will start just that kind of edit war. 'The archipelago' ought to be neutral enough - although to be fair it could be seen as misleading in that 'the archipelago' might imply the archipelago is called Great Britain. It does say 'other islands'. 'The archipelago' is not referring to Great Britain, which is just one island. I've added Isles of Scilly. Lundy is here - maybe this should be Bristol Channel/Mor Hafren islands - although that will start another argument about nomenclature. Also I don't know whether it would be better to list Mull, Skye and Lewis under Hebrides - if Hebrides is going to be on the list, the individual islands should be listed under that. Stevebritgimp (talk) 18:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a {{main}} to the section, as Great Britain is just a single island (so it doesn't include the Isle of Wight, etc.) and strictly speaking, the archipelago is the British Isles -- Ratarsed (talk) 18:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ratarsed!! Though I'm Irish, I'm not anti-British. They certainly don't come hand in hand, it's just a handful of our undereducated and closed-minded that make it seem so. I will quite happily tolerate the fact that Ireland is part of an archipelago called the British Isles, but when it was being referred to as an offshore island of Great Britain things had gone too far. Thanks for clearing everything up!! :-) Dennisc24 (talk) 01:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indiginous peoples
Sigh... It really makes little sense to include 'Celts' as indigenous people in the list in the info box. If we do add 'Celts' then we should probably remove the more precise terms, 'Scots' (not 'Scottish'), 'Welsh' and 'Cornish'. The list should read 'Cornish, English, Scots, and Welsh' IMHO. --Chris Jefferies (talk) 19:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Anoter proposed guideline for "the British Isles"
I have numerous concerns about the current proposal for a guideline for the use of the term British Isles 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).
This seems like a bit of a stretch. Considering the majority of the smaller islands are around Scotland and List of islands of Scotland says there is just over 790... I'd say its probably less than 1000. - Yorkshirian (talk) 17:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Population
The article gives the population of Great Britain (the island) as 58,845,700. This is taken the census figure for the population of England, Wales, and Scotland, which includes the populations of islands such as Portsea Island, the Isle of Wight, Anglesea, the Isle of Sheppey, Canvey Island, Shetland, etc. The population of Great Britain (the island) is not the same as that of Great Britain (the political entity). List of islands in the British Isles gives the population of Great Britain (the island) as approximately 58,000,000, which seems about right.
The total population of all the smaller islands of the British Isles (ie, excluding the islands of Ireland and Great Britain) is just over 800,000 (807,629 according to List of islands in the British Isles); with this in mind, I've changed the population of Great Britain on this article to "approximately 58,000,000". Hopefully this won't be an issue ... Neıl龱 10:23, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Map
I've restored the old map, as it colors Ireland the same as the rest of Europe. GoodDay (talk) 19:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
![[4]](http://www.walkingtree.com/images/mapsFullCornwall.jpg){kind=link}
![[5]](https://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~genmaps/genfiles/COU_files/ENG/aaEng/munster_england-det_1550.jpg){kind=link}
![[6]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Union_flag_1606_%28Kings_Colors%29.svg){kind=link}