Talk:Terminology of the British Isles/Archive 10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11

Geographical Distinctions, part II

England, Scotland & Wales are not islands. Why are they listed in that section? GoodDay (talk) 21:01, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know that they are called islands, but they are under Geographic Distinctions, when they are really Political Distinctions in my opinion. Thoughts? TWCarlson (talk) 14:27, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Western Isles?

Just out of historical completeness, should there not be some mention of the Western Isles in this topic? --Triton Rocker (talk) 16:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Use as a geographic term

OK. I propose that we confirm the geographic use of the term as noted in academia.

The British Isles is an archipelago consisting of the two large islands of Great Britain and Ireland, and the many smaller islands surrounding them. It is a geographical term, [1] arguably in use since the second century BC, and used widely in academia without reflecting the United Kingdom's hegemonic interests. [2][3] In books published before 1920, this term relates to the United Kingdom of Great Britain, Ireland, the Channel Islands, the Isles of Scilly and the Isle of Man, as Ireland was ruled directly from Westminster. From 1920 onwards, the term includes both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland (Eire). [4][5]

  1. ^ A Handbook of Varieties of English: A Multi-Media Reference Tool by Bernd Kortmann and Edgar W. Schneider. 2005)
  2. ^ A.L.F. Rivet and Colin Smith, The place-names of Roman Britain. London, 1979
  3. ^ Studies in Historical Archaeoethnology by Judith Jesch. Jun 27, 2003
  4. ^ Human geography of the UK: an introduction By Irene Hardill, David T. Graham, Eleonore Kofman
  5. ^ The British Isles: a Systematic Geography by James Wreford Watson, John Brian Sissons for the 20th International Geographical Congress

--Triton Rocker (talk) 04:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Once you start to talk about 'the UK, Northern Ireland and Ireland' it ceases being a geographical term and becomes a political one. Geographical talks about the islands (Great Britain, Ireland, Isle of Man etc). Political talks about the political structures of the nations inhabiting those islands. Country names are inappropriate in this section unless they also happen to be the names of the islands. Daicaregos (talk) 09:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Quite so. And there has never been an entity called "the United Kingdom of Great Britain, Ireland, the Channel Islands, the Isles of Scilly and the Isle of Man"; the Channel Islands and Isle of Man are not "ruled directly from Westminster"; etc. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Indeed. So were you to delete everything from "In books published before 1920" onwards, you would have a defensible position. From the moment you introduce political jurisdictions you muddy the waters. Also, your Judith Jesch citation needs to be a lot clearer. --Red King (talk) 13:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Just to clarify: Nothing before "Once you start to talk about 'the UK, Northern Ireland and Ireland' it ceases being a geographical term and becomes a political one." was written by me. It appears to be a 'blockquote', whatever that is, and written (but not signed) by Triton Rocker. Daicaregos (talk) 14:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Political-only diagram

(This topic was branched off from this point in the Euler Diagram discussion.)

A diagram showing the political relationship between the major political entities in the British Isles.

Here's a politics only diagram. --RA (talk) 22:04, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

This diagram, from purely point of view of view of clarity and ease of reading, is the best. So much easier to read. Probably could drop the England and Wales grouping for increase clarity. Only qualm is the relationship between NI and Ireland doesn't really come out. DeCausa (talk) 22:11, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
OMG! What kind of a rabid, Irish nationalist/republican, POV pushing warrior am I? Totally forgot about the North-South bodies. --RA (talk) 22:18, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
This is a really nice diagram. Very pleasant and clear, and it helps explain the complexity of the relationships.
I guess the problem I see is that it entirely leaves out geography. I can sense by your comments that you think a political and legal diagram is needed, but it doesn't take away our need to clarify ALL of the relationships in one place. Your diagram would be great deeper in the article. Mine is for the introduction. Do you agree? TWCarlson (talk) 23:21, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
As much as I like the diagram, I think it would be a step backwards for an overall diagram for this article. I imagine this could go in the political distinctions section (indeed we could have one for geography too, making a nice set), but it could not replace the current one in the lead. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 02:58, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Yea, the region is very complex, both physically and politically. Maybe showing ALL political and physical relationships on one map is not possible. As DeCausa pointed out, not even all of the important political relations are shown on this one (maybe we would need another for the relationships between ROI-NI-UK?). Maybe an approach is a complex political diagram and a complex geo-political map? If a combined an overall diagram is needed, it might just need to be a simple one and be more lateral in its approach rather than strictly correct from either a physical or political perspective? --RA (talk) 07:57, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
I think the diagram you've created is fine, it shows the direct progression of legal groupings without going into too much detail. I've been tossing around the idea of a geographical one, and I see an issue there in determining which areas are included. Just the main islands? As for an overall diagram, I'd be quite happy to have one of the ones shown above used the same as it is now, but without a key or colour coding, which should eliminate the issues of how to label different areas. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Don't know if this was suggested earlier, but what about this political one and a separate purely geographical one. Maybe it's just me, but I find combining the 2 makes for quite a difficult diagram to follow. DeCausa (talk) 09:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
I like this diagram and think there is no need for another geo one. Good job RA. Bjmullan (talk) 09:39, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Let me offer my experience as an example of why a simple overview is still needed. In the United States, the most commonly confused terms are England, Britain (or Great Britain), and United Kingdom; people use these interchangeably all the time. I came here to find out the difference. RA's diagram would not have showed me that difference, and frankly (no offense intended here), I wouldn't have cared about the political intricacies at that point (not until later, anyway). What I really learned was that Great Britain is an island (strictly a geographical term), UK is the true name of the sovereign state, and England is a region within the UK that is on the island of GB.
If we eliminate the geography, I wouldn't have learned anything about Great Britain. If we keep the overview but eliminate the color scheme, I might think Great Britain is some kind of political entity. I think the color scheme must stay. I'm going to continue working on an overview diagram and I'll do my best to implement the points that have been raised, but I'm not willing to sacrifice the simplicity and clarity for the sake of including every last nuance. TWCarlson (talk) 11:44, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
(Wrote this before seeing TWCarlson's comments, which I believe are of the same spirit.) Maybe we need something even simpler again. Something that doesn't attempt to be "definitive", or even strictly "accurate", but is just "useful". What are the important concepts: the two larger islands, the two states, the four constituent countries. Maybe we don't even need the three crown dependencies individually. We could show them as one thing - just to flag there are dependencies outside of UK that are in the region also - or as just give the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands.
The important thing might be just enough so that people know what's there and roughly how they relate. The ins-and-outs of devolution, the three jurisdictions of the UK, the British Islands, etc. may be too much information at the start. The North-South bodies and British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference would be too much too. --RA (talk) 12:02, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
It's a good diagram. However, I think Scotland should be abuv Northern Ireland (as it's bigger in size and population) and the Isle of Man should be abuv Jersey and Guernsey. ~Asarlaí 12:23, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
RA, I'm starting to think simpler is going to be better as well. I like the idea of consolidating the crown dependencies. Do you think we could somehow leave in "British Islands" to clarify, since it is so similar in name, or would that still be too much detail? TWCarlson (talk) 12:58, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
See also: #Overview_diagram TWCarlson (talk) 14:00, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
I think this one is very clear. Well done. --RA (talk) 14:42, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree, but have we decided to take England and Wales out? JonChappleTalk 15:54, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
I favour leaving it out. But if England and Wales is included, on the grounds that it is a legal entity, then Wales should be noted as a legal entity too. Daicaregos (talk) 16:34, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
For an simple overview diagram, I think it is needlessly confusing. The four constituents of the UK are a sufficient introduction. --RA (talk) 16:40, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Have we decided to do a political-only discussion? If so, lets keep it on topic. If we're talking about the overview diagram, put those comments in the #Overview_diagram section. TWCarlson (talk) 18:32, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
This diagram is fit for nothing but the garbage bin. Its sole purpose is to diminish the useage of "British Isles" as a term. The British-Irish council is of no interest, and even less consequence, to most people of "These Islands", as is the vague concept of the "British Islands". Yes, both things exist, but no-one is really interested in them. By the way - England, as an entity, is not part of the British-Irish Council, so think again! Some of the geographic Euler diagrams are good, but this "political" one - it stinks. And it doesn't even look good. (talk) 20:35, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
yawn DeCausa (talk) 20:39, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that's what I did when I saw this diagram. (talk) 20:43, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────RA, get ready for some fire with this diagram. There are a lot of strong political beliefs out there. (I believe you can take it, though!) I think you've got a great start. TWCarlson (talk) 21:03, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

The diagram is explicitly political; the British Isles are irrelevant to this and England is not a political body. The IP has no argument. Except for looks, I also preferred circles, but never mind! Is it worth doing a geographical diagram? It would include the British Isles, Great Britain, Ireland, and what else? Do we make an arbitrary cut based on area? It may not be worth making one. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 00:19, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
So if the BI are irrelevant to this, why is it eing proposed to put it in this article? And, yes, England is not a political unit, so in this diagram there should be no mention of it. (talk) 05:59, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
I wonder what this diagram is intended to achieve. I thought that the point of having a diagram at all was to try and present as many of the terminological variants as possible - both "political" and "geographical" - in a way that minimises (and hopefully resolves) any confusion and was explanatory to a wide range of readers. Chipmunkdavis' TWCarlson's diagrams do that. This one doesn't. It gives precedence to explaining things that really don't need explaining - such as "British-Irish Council" and "British Islands" - which are relatively obscure. It is logically correct, but by giving emphasis to those terms, and by appearing to give substantial weight to the small dependencies, it is actually quite likely to mislead. I don't like it at all - more importantly, I don't think it's something that anyone really needs. Sorry. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:30, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
You don't happen to mean my diagrams, do you? TWCarlson (talk) 11:51, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Oops! Sorry, brain freeze! Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:55, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Not trying to hog the credit, I just didn't know if I had missed something important! TWCarlson (talk) 13:07, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
@Ghmyrtle, the diagram above is a politics-only diagram. What it "intends to achieve" is to show the political relationships in the region. It is NOT a diagram that tries to present as many of the terminological variants as possible. I also think that TWCarlson's diagrams do that. This one doesn't. That is not its purpose. --RA (talk) 14:14, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
I know. But do we need a "politics-only diagram"? What does it clarify, that needs clarifying in a diagram? Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:16, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
If we used RA's diagram and threw a colour loop around the E/W/S and in the key indicated that that loop was "island of Great britain", and did something similar (different colour) with NI and Ireland with the key saying "Island of Ireland", and replace "British-Irish Council" with British Isles wouldn't that cover everything that's needed? It would have the clarity of RA's diagram but include the information which causes most confusion. The NI box and the Ireland box would have to be slightly re-positioned to make the loops work. DeCausa (talk) 14:47, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
D'oh! Looking above, I see it's already been done! DeCausa (talk) 14:52, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
We don't need any diagram. One way a politics-only diagram might be useful is that it may allow us to worry less about the in-and-out of devolution, "Crown Dependencies", jurisdictions, "British Islands" and whatnot in an overview diagram knowing that these things will be shown later in a seperate diagram. An overview diagram could then concentrate on the big concepts: the two islands, the two sovereign states, the four constituents of the UK, the three Crown Dependencies, and not fret about having to show everything absolutely.
See the timestamps of the first posts in this section and the section immediatly above. It may appear as if the diagram above was proposed after the simpler diagram. --RA (talk) 15:18, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
OK - in my view we should concentrate on getting TWCarlson's diagram finalised, and then see whether an additional politics-only diagram is helpful. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:36, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Absolutely. It may be useful for the politics section of the British Isles article in any case. --RA (talk) 15:43, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't see what all the fuss is about here. This diagram:[1] is far superior to all the others and encompasses everything the reader would want to know - and it does it very clearly; much more so than the others. The alternative using rounded squares is not at all good from the point of view of clarity. Van Speijk (talk) 09:51, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── It seems to me that we can never achieve consensus with just one diagram: we have to have a political diagram and a geographic diagram. Every attempt to combine them has hit red lines of one sort or another.--Red King (talk) 14:16, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

A geographic diagram would be quite boring. A large circle labeled British Isles, and several small circles inside saying Ireland, Great Britain, Isle of Man, Guernsey, Jersey; none of the inner circles would overlap. The relationships are not complicated enough for a diagram, IMO. TWCarlson (talk) 20:34, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Weasel words in this article

I've tagged the following as Weasel: "The term British Isles can also be considered irritating or offensive by some". This frament has all the hallmarks noted in WP:WEASEL and my tagging of it is perfectly in order. Nonetheless, the tag was removed. Given the clarity of the situation I've reinstated the tag. Our choices are stratightforward; either substatiate the assertion - and the reader should not have to go to a linked article to find out who the "some" are - or remove the sentence. I favour removal, but will of course accept it being properly sourced. Van Speijk (talk) 20:39, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

It's fully sourced in the British Isles article and the wording there is the result of extensive discussion and consensus. This is a summary article and the phrase is valid. Repeating references from another article is simply a waste of everyone's time. --Snowded TALK 21:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Please read what I said. I know it's sourced elsewhere, but it isn't sourced here, and the reader should not have to go to a linked article. You can't excuse weasel words simply because a sourced alternative is used elsewhere. I've tagged it, so the onus is on you, or anyone else for that matter, to meet the requirements of the tag. Please stop edit warring to try and prove a point. I won't stoop to your level by reverting it but hopefully someone will find a source anyway. Van Speijk (talk) 21:41, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Fmph has put in the a citation. End of discusion, no? DeCausa (talk) 21:43, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
And we end up sourcing summary material. Its unnecessary as the statement can be easily verified. If editors want to indulge an SPA feel free, but it won't be the end of it. Oh, Van Speijk, or whoever you were before, a single revert is not edit warring. --Snowded TALK 21:50, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
And Van Spejk, if you know it is sourced elsewhere, why don't you just add the source yourself rather than creating your own little drama. t'would be easier all round wouldn't it? Fmph (talk) 21:58, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
No, t'wouldn't. The problem is the nature of the sources. They are generally of low quality. Take the one you've added to this article. It's an opinion blog from the Guardian. It's just the view of a single person. It does not reflect any academic study into the issue and is very poor. In fact, when you look at just about all the sources supporting the claim of "offensiveness" they are invariably personal opinions rather than documenting any investigation into the matter. Van Speijk (talk) 22:58, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
You obviously haven't read it then. Its not an 'Opinion Blog'. It's a response by the Grauniad's production editor to multiple complaints by readers - most of whom seem to be in Ireland. That paper is one of the few who take seriously the opinions of their readers, having a Readers Editor to act as an independent advocate for the readers when the paper get things wrong. David Marsh is responsible for ensuring that the style guide is followed (which it wasn't in the case in point). It's a professional - as opposed to academic - study of the complaints made together with a response on behalf of the publishers. It's about as close to the definition of secondary source as is possible to get. And if you don't think so, why not take the matter over to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard and see what response you get from the experts over there. Fmph (talk) 06:42, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I have, twice now. It is and opinion blog and what's more, the British Isles matter receives scant mnetion in the piece. It's all about misrepresenting someone's nationality. Really, it is not a good reference. Van Speijk (talk) 08:20, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
You say above that you were aware the statement was sourced. Are you now challenging the source or simply defending yourself from not either (i) accepting the statement as sourced or (ii) inserting a reference yourself? If you are challenging it then you need to go the British Isles article and raise it there. Its been two years since it was settled and resolved but you are of course free to disrupt another long standing consensus. --Snowded TALK 09:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Can't we all just get along? :) I don't know the whole history of the debate, but I'd guess that the term British Isles almost certainly is offensive to some, but also that the "some" who say that need to be identified; otherwise, it seems to objectively meet the criteria for weasel words. Also, what's wrong with sourcing in a summary article? Doesn't Wikipedia say every article should be properly sourced? There's no problem repeating references -- it's not going to take down the server or even complicate the article. Some articles have hundreds of references; it's really not a problem to add more credibility. TWCarlson (talk) 11:53, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
The sentence would benefit from being more specific. The comparable sentences in British Isles are more specific, for example. Also, "offensive" isn't quite the issue. It's not a bad word that causes people to blush or to cow. The following is more specific and can be sourced:

The term is irritating to Irish people, particularly in the Republic of Ireland, and is seen as outdated by authors from both Britain and Ireland. Its use is discouraged by the Government of Ireland. Other terms, particularly, Britain and Ireland, are becoming more favoured. However, there is no consensus on a satisfactory alternative. In relations between the the United Kingdom and Ireland, the archipelago is referred to euphemistically as these islands.

--RA (talk) 08:26, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm happy with that as alternative wording --Snowded TALK 08:27, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Fine by me too. RashersTierney (talk) 09:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Me three Fmph (talk) 09:52, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Although WP:OR only requires every statement to be attributable (even if not attributed), I think this falls under "material likely to be challenged" as described under WP:V. RA, you say your statement can be sourced -- can you list it here? Thanks. TWCarlson (talk) 12:09, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
All except the last sentence is attributable to references already in British Isles. (They are more or less direct quotes from them.) The last sentence is quite devilishly hard to source explicitly. The meaning of euphemisms, by their nature, are left unstated. However, an explicit reference, if one is needed, is:
  • Cordula Hawes-Bilger, 2007, "War Zone Language: Linguistic aspects of the conflict in Northern Ireland", in Schweizer anglistische Arbeiten, Vol 132
Or we can go with the New York Herald Tribune's Guide to Europe, which put it plainly that, "Both sides deny that the Republic is in the British Isles at all, preferring the euphemism 'these islands.'" --RA (talk) 13:57, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Sounds good to me and hat tip to RA for tracking those down --Snowded TALK 14:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. --RA (talk) 14:16, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Fantastic. TWCarlson (talk) 14:44, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
The specific use of "outdated" needs sourcing, and I would suggest "some" authors. As it is at the moment it could be taken as all authors are of this view. I also wonder about "becoming more favoured". How about "are finding favour" or "becoming more widely used"? Van Speijk (talk) 16:05, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Well instead of "outdated", the British Isles article uses "... has imperialist overtones..." which might be more accurate. Fmph (talk) 07:48, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

So are you saying the word "British" has imperialist overtones? Van Speijk (talk) 10:58, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
I would have thought that was not a controversial statement in this (and many other) contexts. Kinda goes with having run an empire for a century or two --Snowded TALK 11:04, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
I disagree. We had Spanish, German, Russian, Roman and various other empires and we don't tend to associate the term "imperialist" with those (well, maybe with Roman we do to an extent); but, this is getting off track. However, related to this, I checked the reference alluded to by Fmph and I can't find the words "imperialist overtones" in the referenced publication (via Google book search). Maybe someone else could also have a look to confirm this. If it doesn't have those words then we need to correct something or other. Maybe the wrong publication is referenced, or maybe it was some misinterpretation by an earlier editor. Van Speijk (talk) 11:20, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
This article should've been deleted long ago. GoodDay (talk) 11:32, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Which article? Van Speijk (talk) 11:35, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
This article -Teminology of the British Isles. I think it's even longer then the British Isles article. GoodDay (talk) 11:36, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
The word British with regards to the British Isles refers to the island of Great Britain, not the British state. It is the largest island in the group and so lends its name to the rest – no imperialist overtones there. An island can't have an empire. JonChappleTalk 11:16, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
lol pity you weren't around in WWII; them silly Americans wasted a lot of lives fighting an imperialist island nation when they should have realised that it was all semantics. Tom Pippens (talk) 16:36, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
It's likely a historical combination of both - largest island & empire. GoodDay (talk) 11:34, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
lol so it was not called the British Empire then? --Snowded TALK 11:35, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Where did I say that? JonChappleTalk 11:37, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
You can't deny the imperalist stigma to the name. Afterall, London is located on the island of Great Britain. GoodDay (talk) 11:39, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
The word "imperialist" can easily be associated with the words "British Empire", but certainly not with the single word "British", and therefore not with other combinations such as "British Isles". JonChapple's point is absolutely correct. The term "British Isles" is derived wholly from the geographic use. Van Speijk (talk) 11:43, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Well if the pair of you want to believe that you have my sympathy, it seems that you are both in denial of reality, and more importantly here, the sources. --Snowded TALK 11:47, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
It'll have imperialist overtones to some, it won't to others. It's a personal, and I suppose maybe cultural association. That's what should be reflected. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:02, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
"So are you saying the word "British" has imperialist overtones?" It's not me. It's the editor(s) that constructed and agreed that particular part of the British Isles article. You seem to be a little to literalist for me. Editors are urged to paraphrase sources, and, in the case of the source in question, editors have distilled the long wording of the actual reference down to the words "...has imperialist overtones...", which I'd have thought was a reasonably accurate ditillation. To be fair, I think RA distilled it further into slightly more NPOV language by using the term "outdated" which I thought very elequent. But you obviously disagree, so I suggested that instead we could use the phrasing agreed on the BI article. And you seem to disagree with that. It's starting to get awfully WP:IDONTLIKEIT around here. Fmph (talk) 13:33, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Looks to be like a balance in favour of RA's wording - does anyone really object to using it? --Snowded TALK 17:10, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
The British in the British Isles is a geographic adjective, not a genitive. Compare the use of the geographic adjective Irish in the Irish Sea. (talk) 01:36, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
You are, of course, completely correct, but you're wasting your time with this 'orrible shower. JonChappleTalk
How do you know that? Fmph (talk) 12:44, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, RA's wording is acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 14:50, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. --Red King (talk) 14:22, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Article needs an organisational overhaul

It has annoyed me for some time that this potentially excellent article has become bloated with repetition. I believe that what is needed is a short summary of the important terms at the top, followed by an explanation of the terms in detail, followed by any ancillary material (such as the more detailed historical development). What we actually have is a "brief" summary that is practically as long as the "terminology in detail" section, and then once the "terminology in detail" section is done, the whole thing starts all over again with "Geographical distinctions" and then "Political distinctions". It's too much. On the other hand, it's a lot of work to reorganise, and not something I'd attempt without broad agreement. I'd be interested to hear other people's thoughts. Matt (talk) 04:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC).

I came to make precisely the same point, and see I've have been beaten to it. P M C 20:58, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Geographical Distinctions, part III

... which is really a continuation of #Geographical Distinctions, part II, above, which says the same thing but doesn't propose to do anything about it.

The geographical entities are Great Britain, Ireland, the Isle of Man, (arguably) the Channel Islands, and their associated adjacent small islands.

Someone at some point has added the political subdivisions of these geographical entities, material which duplicates the Political Distinctions section elsewhere in the article. This means that that these subsections are redundant in this [geographical] context and consequently I am removing them. Before anyone reinstates, they should make a case here for why we should have repetition of another section. --Red King (talk) 12:51, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Euler diagram is misleading

An Euler diagram with an overview of the terminology
  Legal distinction
  Geographical feature

The article contains this Euler diagram. Conventionally Euler diagrams avoid any regions that represent empty sets, so that all regions of intersection represent non-empty sets. Unfortunately that's not the case with this one, which wrongly shows:

  • there is a part of Great Britain that is not in England, Scotland, or Wales;
  • there is a part of the United Kingdom that is not in Great Britain or Northern Ireland;
  • there is a part of the British Islands that is not in the UK, Jersey, Guernsey, or Man;
  • there is a part of the island of Ireland that is in neither the Republic of Ireland nor Northern Ireland;
  • there is a part of the UK that is in the island of Ireland but not in Northern Ireland;
  • there is a part of the British Islands that is in the island of Ireland but neither in the UK nor in the Republic of Ireland.

Could someone with imaging skills do a new, accurate diagram? Thanks. Duoduoduo (talk) 16:28, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I've made a specific request in this regard at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Illustration workshop#Euler diagram for Terminology of the British Isles. Duoduoduo (talk) 16:07, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Cheers - this could do with improving! --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 18:51, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
  • there is a part of the British Isles that needs a dotted line around them (the UK-dependent Channel Islands off France are sometimes included in cultural definitions, but are not in the geographical-archipelago-only definition that various different people - including scientists etc - use. It's mainly seen as a geographical term.).

Does it have to be a perfect Euler? I am wondering if a Euler is the best method for describing the British Isles, especially when it's just not a perfectly-defined term - there is technically a 'dotted area' regarding the Channel Islands you see. Some kind of diagram needs to show that the Channel Islands (just off the coast of Europe's France ie Jersey etc), are both within and without definitions (ie there are two definitions, primarily without them ie the 'geographical archipelago' only - which is the most used scientifically - and also sometimes colloquially as within the definition also - ie culturally inc the CI's).

British Isles Euler Diagram-ru.png

The most informative and accurate diagram we currently have is probably this one (Isles Euler Diagram-ru.png Best diagram of British Isles). It really needs to be converted into English somehow (the translation from Russian is pretty obvious really).

Please note that the whole matter tends to get obscured with debate over the inclusion of the Republic of Ireland (some don't like it for political reasons), but no one can really argue with a diagram based on the Russian one (itself based on this politiced version). The article itself makes it clear that some people (largely Wikipedians in my view, but still) actively object with the RoIreland being part of the definition. Note that everyone here does accept that, for good or bad, the term is basically used by people with RoIreland included (ie either that or they don't use it at all) - it's the Channel Islands that sometimes are included, and sometimes not - and overall not in real-world terms. It's largely been the unfortunate result of a political stalemate on Wikipedia that the Channel Islands tend to be misleadingly included without any qualification at all. It mustn't be a restriction caused by the type of diagram used though - that makes no sense at all. The best way to describe it all I think is with some form of dotted line, unless you try something more like this graphic I started years ago (it was never fully completed/realised). It would certainly be a good thing if diagram-minded people could finally sort it out though. Regards, Matt Lewis (talk) 01:39, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

The desire to present a perfect Euler diagram (although it's difficult to work out that this one isn't) misses an important point: fitness for purpose. As it stands (notwithstanding the note above about the Channel Islands), the diagram summarises concisely the various relationships in the subject at hand, and does so in an easy-to-understand way; in fact I've always thought this one of the best examples of using a picture to convey information there is in Wikipedia. If it's not an Euler diagram, as has been suggested, then don't call it one. I note that the request for a new one is asking for a rectangular form: in this case, I think that would be a retrograde step and would not improve the articles in which it is used. Bazza (talk) 09:21, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
A translated version of the Russian diagram (see right) would be my preference. It shows the uncertainty over the inclusion of the Channel Islands, and a diagram consisting of ovals is visually far preferable to one with rectangles in my view. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:32, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I have to completely disagree about the suitability of either the article's current diagram or the Russian one. They both take something that's not complex, as shown by the linear rectangular approach, and make it look utterly complex. Try this: Imagine that you don't understand the relationships, stare at either the current diagram or the Russian one for a while, do your best to memorize it, and then come back tomorrow and try to reproduce it or try to give an accurate rendition of what's part of what. Very hard. Then do the same with the linear rectangular version I've proposed. Much easier. Duoduoduo (talk) 19:39, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Please give an example of the sort of rectangular diagram you have in mind. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:36, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't think I can do any better than the description I've linked to twice now, since I have no graphics skills myself. Here's a copy-and-paste from my request at the graphics request page:
Article(s): Terminology of the British Isles
Request: I'd like a simpler Euler diagram for this article. There should be one big rectangle divided into 8 smaller rectangles of equal sizes in a left-to-right arrangement (or if you think it fits better in the article, in a top-to-bottom arrangement). The insides of the 8 small rectangles should be labeled, in sequence, Republic of Ireland, Northern Ireland, England, Scotland, Wales, Jersey, Guernsey, Isle of Man. It should be shown, whether by labels above and below (or to the sides of) the big rectangle, or by using 5 different border colors, that the following group names apply:
British Isles: all 8 small rectangles
Ireland (island): first and second rectangles from the left (or top)
Great Britain: third, fourth, and fifth rectangles from the left (or top)
United Kingdom: second, third, fourth, and fifth rectangles from the left (or top)
British Islands: all except the left-most (or top-most) rectangle
Duoduoduo (talk) 20:43, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
British Isles Euler Diagram 14.svg
Do you mean something like this one? This was considered in 2011, but the other version was preferred. >>>>>>>>>>>
Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:27, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
That could also work if the bottom area was extended and dotted. It's just the accuracy of content that concerns me. According to duoduo everthing that could be wrong is wrong with the current Euler (ie as a 'Euler') - which confuses the hell of me I must say(!) Providing it's mathematically-speaking the right style, there is also room here to create a Crown Dependency box. I think the boxed names of sub-places should be yellow or something - not a variation of blue surely? I remember that much from Geography. You could also put "(state)" in small under UK and ROI, so all the smallest subsets can all be yellow and not confuse. It needn't be so compact either - more space inside the outer border of British Isles is needed to show it's the largest group. Sometimes compacted neatness can confuse a little. I think that would cover it all though actually. What do you think? I think the style's OK here to be fair, and it's probably easier to 'dot' a box. Matt Lewis (talk) 22:23, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
If the above is OK, contacting User:TWCarlson might be the best idea, as he could still have the file in a layer-using package, and so more easily adjust it. Adjusting an existing flat image sometimes difficult, so people often start a new one from scratch. Matt Lewis (talk) 22:35, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
The proposed version looks to be the same as the existing one with the shapes changed from oval to rounded rectangles. It's not as friendly, though, as it only uses colour to distinguish physical from political; and I agree that more spacing is required to improve clarity. Both versions are erroneous in that there are parts of England, Scotland and Wales which are off-shore islands, so not part of Great Britain; similarly for the republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland on the island of Ireland. Having each "country" extend beyond its containing island to include "off-shore islands" or some other generic entity would solve this. Bazza (talk) 09:28, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
OK place an asterisk next to Ireland and Great Britain, with '*and offshore islands.' at the bottom of the image. The countries are subsets so should fall into line. Matt Lewis (talk) 12:49, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Personally I've never had a problem with this diagram - it always made perfect sense to me and illustrates the topic very well. Maybe just keep it and not call it a Euler diagram? :-) Cnbrb (talk) 14:00, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Man I hate smilies sometimes, esp as they tend to come in twos and threes - yech. The "does it have to be called a Euler?" point has already been made above, so :( to you. That's just the waste of a watchlist link-click. It's pouring with rain and we're watching the match on TV - maybe I can also upload a rough graphic based on the above that someone with more time can do properly. I'm not watching this one get peed on, that's just too much the past now isn't it? Providing nobody edit wars (and it doesn't look like there is any will for that hopefully), there is no possible negative outcome from having a properly-representational diagram here at all. All it wouldn't include is the controversial "this part can be offensive to Irish" dispute, but that's normally covered in these articles every 50 lines or so anyway. Matt Lewis (talk) 16:57, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Here's my best shot at illustrating what I described: Draw a rectangle, and divide it into 8 different parts in a left-to-right arrangement:

|Rep. of Ireland | N. Ireland | England | Scotland | Wales | Jersey | Guernsey | Isle of Man|
United Kingdom

The boxes line up on my screen -- I hope they do on yours too! Here I've labeled the second, third, fourth, and fifth boxes as "United Kingdom". This could alternatively be done by labeling those boxes as a group with a border of one color. Then label all but the leftmost box (all but Rep. of Ireland) as "British Islands", also having the labels below the diagram (or with color-coded borders). Above the diagram (or with color-coded borders), label the first two boxes as a group "Ireland (island)". Also above the diagram (or with color-coded borders), label the third, fourth and fifth boxes as "Great Britain". And the whole thing (all 8 boxes) is "British Isles". Duoduoduo (talk) 17:36, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, well despite the fact that a couple of people are studiously ignoring the arguments posed here (only on Wikipedia - I mean can you imagine that in work?), I've done something based on duo's and Bazza's suggestions above. It only reduces to about 70%, but that's the problem when it's basically made in a row. I think it looks ok (unless I've made any mistakes, it's quite late). The simpler it is the more it will mislead I'm afraid: it's never going to be as immediate as a STOP sign. I'm not sure the info on offshore islands is that clear (or even that needed).
new British Isles diagram, reduces to about 70% while remaining viewable.
I don't mind improving it if people are happy with the general layout. And improved version of TWCarlson's would actually extend downward, which is more useful on a screen obviously, as it can be immediately readable while text flows around it. Matt Lewis (talk) 02:04, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Well that's a good piece of work, but you still end up with areas of the diagram which are Great Britain but not England/Scotland/Wales, which was the original criticism. I'm quite happy with what you've done, but it does seem to me to the the same thing, just squarer.Cnbrb (talk) 12:40, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
This is surely an issue of the phrasing of the island's box titles, otherwise it would get hugely complicated it seems to me. Perhaps the title should be "Great Britain (large island) and its offshire islands"? The idea is that that box contains and covers the two entities. The problem is that the subset 'country' boxes (England etc) automatically include their offshore islands, but the simplistic set-names "Great Britain" and "Ireland (island)" do not. Anglesey, for example, is within Wales but not in Great Britain: it is an anomaly. I thought in the end that using an asterisk slightly deeated the purpose of the diagram a little, buy maybe not. If it needs more explanation we could just use an asterisk, and explain it better underneath. Obviouly it needs to be solved to everyone's satisfaction. Matt Lewis (talk) 13:12, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
The dotted lines around "Channel Islands" indicate that these are optional and in the past I've seen this now and again, but not very often and not particularly commonly. Matt, you've said you've seen a load of dictionaries and encyclopedias that say this - can you provide some refs and sources here? Looking at the British Isles article, it quotes the OED (inclusive) and then a book entitled "World Geography of Travel and Tourism: A Regional Approach" written by a Rabbi in San Francisco, a Professor of Marketing in New Zealand as an expert in tourism (optional). We can probably do better for a reference for the optional part. --HighKing (talk) 18:36, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
You know full well that the "optional part" is including the Channel Islands, not discluding them HighKing. I presented many examples to RA in the special "No Brainer" RFC he suddenly sprung up (just before a new diagram went in if I remember) years ago, basically to the show and drum up support - which for as long as I could stick with it at least, didn't work in support terms at all. No one outside was interested either way, and I hit him with a load of much-better counter examples including encyclopedic definitions. You know damn well that happened HK, so why don't you go and find those eye-wincing old pages instead of me? You'll never be my whipmaster here again I'll tell you that: accept what I give you this time. I was utterly worn down by you both back then (in other words I didn't present each example 20 times for you over 10 different places), so he probably closed it at some point. All the main encyclopedias and larger dictionaries I found gave a list of definitions with the Channel Islands as one of more than one definition, not the only use. One or two didn't include it at all. Only the old Oxford Concise just listed all the places in one simple line. I also had COMMON USE of course. You or RA could never prove that various colloquial uses definitively and implicitly include the Channel Islands in their meaning - it's just all too subjective. A general 'cultural' use - ie any specifically non-geographic use - does not have to equal "Channel Islands included"! There is no logic or sense in that at all.
It's often impossible to conclusively prove what people don't mean by a comment, rather than the elements they clearly do mean (mentioning Scunthorpe and Dublin or something): that's the simple logic of communication. Neither of us could actually prove things either way most of the time. When you talk about seeing non-CI definitions "now and again", it only shows that you simply infer that most people mean to include the CI's. But how many examples have you seen where you can honestly say that people clearly mean to include them? Because why would they? Most of the time in the UK people forget they even exist: they are fish and chips next to France, only some poeple's cup of tea. There is a logical flaw here that can lead to the dreaded “prove what people don't mean” scenario, which British Isles had to suffer with the ridiculous demand that people come up with counter-citations that directly show that “many people in Ireland” don't “find the term British Isles offensive”! The old sock Wotapalava (who exactly was that I wonder) insisted I do that at every turn at a time when imo the article was a actually somewhat nasty - and forever 'locked' from editing of course. What always gets me is the degree this 'CI matter' is so important to people who've admitted to wanting to see the UK broken up, a unified Ireland, and the term 'British Isles' replaced globally with an alternative like Atlantic Isles. I can see I'm going to have to gather references again - how very tedious for me, but there's no point me stopping at this juncture is there. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:41, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Great, thanks. BTW, most of the past discussions you seem to have a beef with (Euler diagram, inclusion/exclusion of CI, etc) didn't involve me so I'm still struggling to understand exactly why you've a bee in your bonnet these last few days with me. --HighKing (talk) 22:47, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Greek sources; W problem among many other ones

As some may have noticed , I've changed and/or added (here and elsewhere (Terminology of the British Isles, Great Britain, Britain (placename), List of country-name etymologies: United Kingdom, Hibernia, EDIT-ADDENDUM April, 24: British Isles, Albion, Scotland during the Roman Empire, England and History of Scotland) a lot (of similar and/or relevant stuff) on and from Greek (EDIT-ADDENDUM April, 24: and Latin and modern) sources, drawing partially from some much earlier work(mostly references though I've not used them all) I'd done in the past at the Great Britain article,Toponymy section, that I had only partially incorporated into that text.(EDIT-ADDENDUM April, 24: I couldn't resist the temptation, I've now added even more references...)
A specific note,one of the many I could make, that I have to make for any future work and reference:
Having added Ptolemy's Geography, which certainly is a major source, there came -inter alia- the w problem(in the Greek text addition I've found), e.g. in Ἰουρνία and Ἀλουίων.As many of you may already know, in classical Latin V was both a vowel and a consonant and when used as a consonant corresponded to English W.Ancient Greek(during hellenistic-graeco-roman times),as far as I know, used ου-ou to transcribe this (having lost earlier in most dialects the digamma).So at first glance Ἰουρνία and attested Ἀλουίων(are there any other editions that differ in this?does anyone know?) would correspond to IVRNIA ,i.e. Iwrnia and ALVION, ie. Alwion(this is how I've dealt with it, as others before me have dealt with it here or anyway in one of the aforementioned articles,can't recall now where exactly).Yet we know e.g. that the original Greek and Latin for the latter is Ἀλβίων-Albion, with a b.
So here is the problem of changing phonology(and orthography) of both Greek and Latin, i.e. by they time of Ptolemy (or of one or many of his text's later copiers) beta may have changed from b to v (the latter as in English v and perhaps passing first through w) which is also the later sound of consonantal Latin V.On top of this, there is the additional problem of the later copiers,and the of copiers of copiers, of the surviving editions of ancient texts (also think about double-single tau and/or double-single nu;whence also the interplay between Greek and Latin;is there a norm that we can or should follow?and how could follow a norm when we're citing-quoting how ancient scholars called these places and we have lots and lots of attested variants of the various words?) that did indeed or might have taken the initiave of "correcting" texts or simply making errors.So from a phonetical-phonological point of view, W in these two words is a possibly or probably higly misleading mess about which I have no idea what to do.I don't want to simply erase stuff.Lot's of hard work(by me and by others);lot's of shared knowledge.Simply transliterating e.g.ου as ou would also may be misleading, it wouldn't solve the problem;e.g. one would have still and inter alia to explain the ou in Alouion vs Albion.I don't also think simplyifying would be a real solution.And yet???Experts on linguistics,dates of phonetical-phonological changes and text editions would be very handy here;I'm not one of them,I'm simply an amateur.I've chosen the W "solution" partially because that's how I've first found Ἰουρνία transcribed here(or anyway in one of the articles) before I had done any relevant work.I hope that people who don't know about these things won't get troubled or misled.
Anyway, any suggestions???
Let anyway someone else, henceforth or at least for now, do the rest of the work ;I've now done the work that I had said(at the talk page) in the long past I would do on Great Britain's Toponymy section but which I had hesitated and eventually forgotten or got bored to actually do...
P.S.I had to choose one article's talk page(out of the many related and edited pages) in which to write this.I've chosen this.Can't do it in all pages... Thanatos|talk 12:49, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd suggest perhaps dropping a note at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Classical_Greece_and_Rome to see if they have ideas or other editors who knows this stuff well enough to comment.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:35, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Nothing to lose so following your suggestion I just did that.Thanx! P.S.Btw and jftrecord, instead of working on my thesis( totally different field-discipline), I've spent the last days doing this(and many more before these, on other articles researching e.g., ancient sources on Syracuse's name origin...).I'm an idiot, a very tired idiot;can't, must't do this any more...Thanatos|talk 23:33, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

(Great) Britain/UK and Ireland

We currently have a disambiguation page at Great Britain and Ireland and an article at UK & Ireland that have virtually identical content. Several similar terms redirect to either one of those targets or British Isles. At Talk:Great Britain and Ireland#Merge proposal I have proposed merging the article and dab page (with no preference to direction) and retargetting all the redirects to the merged page. Your comments on the proposal would be welcome. Thryduulf (talk) 18:54, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


A better diagram than the one currently featured, can be found in the video "the difference between the united kingdom, great britain and england" by c.g.p. grey. If someone who has knowledge of these things, would care to upload it, that would be helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:30, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

What term?

From the lede: "It should be stated from the outset that the term has no legal or official political standing and merely a loose definition of convenience." (my bolding)

What "term" is this referring to? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 02:04, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

That sentence was added in this edit earlier this year. It's confusing and unnecessary, so I've removed it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:33, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Good. Thanks. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 10:41, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Britain vs Great Britain

I think its necessary to correct the article with regards the name Britain and Great Britain. Britain refers to the main island that England, Scotland and Wales are on. Great Britain refers to the political union of England, Scotland and Wales including the other islands of the 3 countries86.46.89.155 (talk) 03:39, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

That is contrary to most sources, and incorrect. Great Britain can refer either to the large island, or to the union of England, Scotland and Wales, including their offshore islands. Britain is officially the short form used to denote the whole of the United Kingdom. This has been discussed countless times on this and other pages, and is explained in the article. Of course, both terms are occasionally used more loosely than that. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:14, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

The term Great Britain was first used when the parliament of Scotland was merged with England & Wales in 1707 (talk) 18:40, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

The term in its Greek form was first used by Ptolemy. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:44, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

British (as an adjective denoting ones place of habitation)

It is not entirely clear, but it seems that an inhabitant of Ireland could be called a "Briton" (and be "British") because he or she comes from one of the British Isles (albeit not from Great Britain). Would that be correct? Terry Thorgaard (talk) 14:36, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Well the article states that "British is an adjective pertaining to the United Kingdom; for example, a citizen of the UK is called a British citizen". To go to the Collins English Dictionary we find something similar: "relating to, denoting, or characteristic of Britain [sic] or any of the natives, citizens, or inhabitants of the United Kingdom". So, it refers primarily to something relating to the UK, but could also refer to something from 'Great Britain' (which will also of course therefore be from the UK). So it would be correct for someone from Northern Ireland but generally incorrect for someone elsewhere in Ireland (ie from the 'Republic of Ireland').
In that respect, the phrase 'British Isles' stands out as an exception, hence the complication in using it as a phrase. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 15:04, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
(e/c) "Would that be correct?" No. "British" (or "Briton") refers to someone from Great Britain, or from the United Kingdom - but not someone from the British Isles more widely. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:06, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Although in the 19th Century and early 20th Century it would not be that unusual to use the term for somebody from the British Isles, which included Ireland and the Irish when it was part of the United Kingdom. MilborneOne (talk) 15:11, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Citations needed

Much of the article seems to be opinion rather than cited fact; this may have been all right a few years ago, but it feels distinctly flaky today. Perhaps a global {{refimprove}} tag would be appropriate. Questions like Terry Thorgaard's would be best answered by a cited statement in teh article, not by discussion here (this isn't a forum). Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:47, 16 April 2014 (UTC)


Anglo- is often used as an adjectival prefix referring to the United Kingdom (notwithstanding that its original meaning is "English") particularly in the field of diplomatic relations.

This term not only refers to the United Kingdom. It also refers specifically to England in other contexts. Take, for example, the terms Anglo-Welsh, Anglo-Scottish, Anglo-Saxon, etc. Should this not be mentioned in some way? --Mac Tíre Cowag 18:40, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Cornwall/recent edits

Recent edits have massively expanded the details on how medieval maps purportedly portray Cornwall, which seem to have more to do with making a political point and waving flags about purported Cornish independence. This page is simply about the terminology of the British Isles and really doesn't need to be a proxy battleground for this sort of thing. I've copyedited and qualified some of the claims, as there is some useful info there, but this latest one is a definite step too far. The source advanced, Cornwall's Strangest Tales: Extraordinary but True Stories, is clearly not an authoritative source for matters of geography or history. It also simply appears to rehash tropes and claims commonly found in other, even fringier, sources such as nationalist blogs and self-published books about ancient maps.

A brief look around the internet for examples of these maps will reveal that most such maps clearly include both Cornwall and Wales within England (as the latter was too then), marked no differently from any other subdivisions. Here, for example, are maps by Munster, none of which do what the material just added claims his maps do. Here are links to other maps, including those by Ortelius which, again, do not appear to make this alleged distinction. Even with those few that do give more prominence to Cornwall and Wales in terms of the way they are marked up, eg by putting the names in capitals, there is of course no way of proving what the mapmaker meant by this at all, let alone that they meant they were "separate nations". N-HH talk/edits 17:19, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

In addition, I can't access or check the source being used to support the claim that the Hereford Mappa Mundi "shows Britain as being composed of Anglia, Cornubia, Scotia and Wallia", but a glance at the detail of the map itself shows that this is manifestly incorrect. The quote from the George Lily map talking about Welsh, Cornish and English "people", and suggesting that Wales, Cornwall, England and Scotland were the main national or political divisions, is also selective, out of context and possibly mistranslated. The map and its notes are quite explicit in dividing Britain into simply two kingdoms, England and Scotland. The full quote talks about five "idiomata" – which AFAICT refers to languages or dialects – and includes reference to Irish in the Hebrides and northern Scotland and "Gothicum" in Orkney. It cannot be taken to be a reference to political entities additional to England or Scotland or to imply that Cornwall was then considered a separate nation any more than Orkney was. N-HH talk/edits 13:32, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

There also seems to be problems with the claims about the use of Anglia et Cornubia. The Celtic Review [2] doesn't contain any reference to the term. There is a mention in the second reference [3] but it states that it was used due to the "wide ranging expemptions from central taxation derived from the exceptional importance of the tin industry". This is not relevant to an article about terminology. I cannot get hold of the other references but given the misuse of citations by the editor it is probably safer to remove the whole paragraph. Eckerslike (talk) 19:11, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Home International sporting competition

Those "Home International" bridge tournaments include five national teams (and one extra host team) that represent E S W NI and Ireland, which implies five home nations.

The regatta is also active and implies four home nations, E S W and Ireland.

The football tournament is defunct and covered in this article.

--P64 (talk) 16:06, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I've posted a request to clarify the opening sentence on the Home International Regatta page. The contract bridge page is a real mish-mash of different terms and a great example of how terms are used in an "inexact" way but largely accepted. ---- HighKing++ 17:48, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm not certain you mean simply that wikipedia editors accept what they shouldn't, or that bridge officials or the Irish do, etc. Regarding the facts sufficient for coverage here:
I arrived here this week via Home nations, where I posted much more about international bridge competition one month ago. Talk:Home Nations#Home Internationals at the bridge table. Just now I expanded the month-old P.S. and P.P.S. to cover the 1999-2002 passing of "Great Britain" teams from Europe- and World-level competition, with more external links. The month-old material should be sufficient concerning British-level "Home Internationals".
--P64 (talk) 17:37, 21 June 2014 (UT)


reland did not begin with the Lordship of Ireland. It is shown alongside the Kingdom of England, Kingdom of Scotland, etc., in the diagram. Can the diagram be changed to reflect High Kingship of Ireland prior to Norman Invasions? Thanks (Stpaul (talk) 15:15, 20 February 2015 (UTC))

Cross-refs inside wikipedia to 'Great Britain' as a political unit

I'm finding on other pages (eg Opinion polling in United Kingdom constituencies, 2010–15) there is a need to link to 'Great Britain' as a political unit. But at present I can't see any way to do it, leading to inaccurate links to geographical GB, or alternatively a need to specify: eg "Great Britain (England, Scotland and Wales)" at Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election.

Is there an appropriate way to make 'Great Britain' a sub-section in the section "Political terms in more detail"? DrArsenal (talk) 13:45, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Can you not link to Great Britain#Political definition? DeCausa (talk) 14:31, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
thanks DeCausa. I eventually found that, between the comment here and reading your response! It might be a link to that is appropriate from within this page. I will take a look. DrArsenal (talk) 08:59, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

why "and Northern Ireland"

The Euler diagram seems to include Northern Ireland as part of United Kingdom. Doesn't that make "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland " redundantly include Northern Ireland?

Also from "The United Kingdom is a political unit that includes these countries and Northern Ireland." DGerman (talk) 22:03, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

The Euler diagram is correct. It shows the United Kingdom as comprising of Great Britain (which contains England, Scotland, and Wales, but NOT Northern Ireland) and Northern Ireland, which makes the text name perfectly accurate. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 22:36, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
I think the problem is where you see the more important break between the three clauses in "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". I think DGerman is reading it as "United Kingdom of Great Britain; and Northern Ireland", when the sense is more accurately as in "United Kingdom (of Great Britain and Northern Ireland)". DrArsenal (talk) 23:04, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you DrArsenal for clearing that up. DGerman (talk) 23:14, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Terminology of the British Isles. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:27, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Referring to Northern Ireland as Ulster

An unregistered editor recently added the {{who}} tag to the phrase "Many within the unionist community and much of the UK press refer to Northern Ireland as Ulster".

I am dubious of the pressing need to provide a citation for such a well-known fact. However, I added a citation ("A Glossary of Terms Related to the Conflict". CAIN Web serivce. Ulster University. ), albeit one that does not mention the UK press. I removed the {{who}} tag.

An unregistered editor (most likely the same editor) has reinstated the {{who}} tag and moved the citation to refer only to the unionist community. On the face of it, this is reasonable. However, I feel that the use of "Ulster" for "Northern Ireland" by the UK press is so widespread that it does not need tagging. If it is to be tagged then {{who}} is the wrong tag to use, Template:Who says this tag is intended for unsupported attributions. If a tag is required then {{Citation needed}} is the one to use.

I have not found a usable secondary source that says that the UK press use "Ulster" in this way. However, a quick web search gives numerous examples, including:

We could cite some or all of these so support the statement, although some Wikipedia zealots might tag the citations with {{Original research inline}}. I feel that in this case no citation is needed, although if I had a good secondary source then I would cite it. I will remove the {{who}} tag. Verbcatcher (talk) 16:40, 14 January 2017 (UTC)