Jump to content

Talk:Terminology of the British Isles/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8→Archive 10

British in British Isles <> Belonging to Britain

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

Insertion of Anglo-Celtic Isles term

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

As a Scottish lowlander I consider the term politically and ethnically objectionable, but your wording seems ok to me. Daft saying it's an alternative to BI before defining BI, so I've fixed that. .. dave souza, talk 20:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Hello Dave, I was trying to maintain alphabetical order there, but I defer to your correction. I'm surprised at your political/ethnic objection - what causes you trouble? Best regards, Pconlon 22:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
"Anglo-Celtic Isles"‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› [citation needed] - is this term O.R.? I think it's necessary to specify which group of people are using it. I've never heard it. -- Abut 22:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
There was an Anglo-Celtic Isles article which failed an AfD (on the grounds it was a neologism, IIRC). There was only a single reference to its use, in an old ballad. Has this changed? BastunBaStun not BaTsun 14:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I've been looking and as far as I can tell it's not a neologism but never appears to have been a very common term by any stretch of the imagination either and not in common use today (although of all of the alternatives, it appears the least resisted/more welcome, maybe because it always was there underneath the surface as the ballad testifies - by that's just my opinion). Anglo-Celtic Islands is an alternative form. It also appears to be used quite unselfconsciously(see here for example). In either case, I think its right that Anlgo-Celtic Isles redirects to BI, as they refer to exactly the same entitiy. --sony-youthpléigh 15:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Here's a map on the internet anglocelticisles.uni.cc Anglo Celtic Isles Gold♣heart 02:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I've removed the following line from this section: "(However, many historians do not regard the "Celts" as a single ethnic group, but as a collection of various tribes who all spoke similar Celtic dialects and had similar cultures.)" I'm not questioning the information's validity (I don't know), but it seems to be a detail that should have its home in the Celt article. 'Anglo-Celtic' is a macro-cultural term - inclusive rather than divisive. I also inserted reference to 'Anglo-Celtic Islands'. I have also modified the 'Islands of the North Atlantic' reference with: "However, its convolution and impracticality due to implying inclusion of fellow North Atlantic island Iceland have made it unworkable and it has not come into common use." Pconlon 19:55, 23 June 2007 (GMT)

Euler diagram

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

Good work with the new diagram. However, as with the old one are England and Wales presented as subsets of Scotland - I don't know if I'm reading it right. Also, could a dotted line be extended around the Channel Islands are they often are included in definitions of the British Isles. --sony-youthtalk 22:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
"The Channel Islands" is a collective name for the Bailiwicks of Jersey and Guernsey. john k 23:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
re: England and Wales as a subset - the way I think one is intended to read the diagram is that the label at the top of the circle refers to that encircled, and other labels are elements within that set. Perhaps the labels which refer to the circles could be underlined to show this better.
Also; on a related matter - do the Jersey and Guensey need to be circled? Although they are distinct, other sets with one a single element (Scotland, N. Ireland, Ireland) don't have circles. --Neo 10:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I see. In that case, I don't think that there is a need to circle Jersey and Guensey as it doesn't give any further information (a set of one can just be left on its own like Scotland and NI.
What do you think of the dotted line to indicated to way CI are sometimes included in the British Isles - how may definitions explicitly exclude them compare to how many explicitly include them (not counting those that are ambigious)? --sony-youthtalk 12:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

In which case perhaps we should abandon the colour coding system somewhat and adopt something along the lines of geographical entities in blue, political entities in bold/italics. Where the boundaries agree the label can be blue and bold/italic. --Neo 10:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Okay, just tell me everything that you want changed and I'll work on it. I can increase the font size (and change the font, if necessary). The only reason I included "Channel Islands" in red subdivided into Guernsey and Jersey is that a) "Channel Islands" was already on the diagram, so I didn't want to remove it without cause, but also to show that Guernsey and Jersey are political entities. The Isle of Man is a political entity, so it had to change to blue. You may also note that I changed the legend to show that a political entity may also be a geographical one as well. I first toyed with the idea of making both geographic and political entities purple, but decided against it. "Geographic" here actually means "island" (or in the case of the Channel Islands, "island group"). Now, for Scotland, I did originally put it in its own circle. However, doing things that way makes me wonder whether it is correct, as it leaves "empty space" in the circle which isn't England, Scotland, or Wales. Is that acceptable in a Euler diagram? We may be trying to include more in this diagram than its type is designed to hold. Anyway, discuss this, and I'll set to work on modifying. Lexicon (talk) 14:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I think it would be clearer to put Scotland in its own circle. The way it is right now looks odd to me. Anyway, you already have "empty space" in the United Kingdom circle that isn't in Great Britain or Northern Ireland, and also space in the British Isles circle that isn't in any of the named entities, so if that troubles you then the diagram needs more radical surgery. On another note, the diagram is inconsistent with the map immediately above it. The diagram shows the Channel Islands as part of the British Isles, wheras the map doesn't. Matt 21:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC).
I also think that it would be clearer to put Scotland in its own circle. Can anybody update that? 213.169.104.46 08:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Political Definition of GB

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

The Encyclopedia Britannica clearly states that Great Britain is less formally used to refer to the United Kingdom. I think that this is something the UK is moving away from because the politicians are worried about losing NI, but it doesn't change the fact that in much of the English-speaking world people have used and still use the term "Great Britain" when talking about the UK. Churchill does this frequently in his book "The Second World War". English usage is not determined by politicians, so you're going to have to throw out or at least deemphasize what your schoolteachers indoctrinated you with. Haber 13:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't disagree that people use GB for the UK (e.g. George Bush does) but a reference from >50 years ago hardly constitutes a demonstration that they still do so today. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
So then can we agree that "Great Britain" was acceptable and widely used 50 years ago? Haber 01:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
GB is the iso two-letter code for the UK, and GBR the three-letter code. .gb is reserved as a top-level domain name for the UK, but has fallen into disuse. The [UK olympic team] is Great Britain, not UK, although it does include Northern Ireland. These, as we well know are all technically incorrect, because of Northern Ireland, but not without precident, prior to the partition of Ireland the UK was commonly called Great Britain (it was Great Britain that was reported to have fought that fought the Great War, for example).
All this said, however, this article is here to clarify the situation. Technical inaccuracies should be pointed out, but so too shoulds common usage. One such technicality is that contrary to what is reported on this page, Great Britain is not the island. Great Britain is, as the OED puts it, "England, Scotland and Wales considered as a unit." The island, is (was?) Britain, despite that term now more common than Great Britain to refer to the "unit" and Great Britain more often being used for the island. The ways these terms have swapped is very interesting (and confusing), but it shoud not stop us from explaining them fully. --sony-youthpléigh 14:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Please help with the main article. Haber 14:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Points taken. However, I strongly take issue with the implication of Haber's wording that it is a matter of governmental recognition. It's not. The Number 10 website is just stating the fact of the matter, not the fact that it "recognises" this state of affairs. Governments and policies come and go, but Great Britain is England, Scotland and Wales. Only independence or incorporation of other countries would change that, both of which would require an Act of Parliament. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm curious as to why you keep deleting the references to Encyclopedia Britannica and Winston Churchill's book. Do you think they are not good references? Do you have other references that disagree with them? So far all we have that contradicts these reliable sources is your word. Haber 01:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
In the compromise edit I made, I left the Britannica reference - which you can see for yourself if you check the article. As for Churchill's book, it was written decades ago and is not evidence that nowadays GB is used to mean UK. Since that is what is being claimed, the reference should go. The Britannica reference covers it anyway. Also, I'm not contradicting the observation that GB is (incorrectly) used as a synonym for the UK. I was opposed to your wording that suggested it was OK to use as a synonym (contrary to the Guardian style guide reference below), and opposed to your wording about government recognition, when it's not a matter of "recognition". The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 01:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I think you are claiming that 50 years ago it was correct to use the term Great Britain, but that nowadays it is incorrect. How did you arrive at this conclusion? Haber 02:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
sony-youthpléigh offered a very good summary of the situation above - to which you replied "agreed", did you not? "prior to the partition of Ireland the UK was commonly called Great Britain" - since Churchill's formative years were prior to the partition of Ireland, is it not surprising that he shoud continue to use the term Great Britain? Anyway, this article is not here to speculate on Churchill's usage, it's to discuss contemporary every day usage, and explain the terms. So let's not get distracted on that tangent. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 02:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
You're assuming that this article must be exclusively about contemporary everyday usage. Would you object to adding a statement, "Historically, this term was used to refer to the United Kingdom as a whole"? Haber 02:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't see why not, but I personally think this should go into the "detail" section below. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 11:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I would also suggest that the lede section only deal with "right now", whearas discussion be left to the main body. --sony-youthpléigh 11:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
"Great Britain is grographically congruent with the island of Britain" - is that really true? What of the Isles of Angelsey and Wight, the Orknies, Scillies, and Shetnies? Those are islands in their own right. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 11:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Good point, your right. Wight and Anglesey, I would worry about - just off shore islands, but yup, Shetland is a far way away. I'll revert myself. --sony-youthpléigh 11:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Brittany & Little Britain

In response to User:Sony-youth requesting a citation on Brittany being derived from 'Little' or 'Lesser' in contrast to great Britain - Ican't find you a definitive source, but if you check out Brittany (It was at one time called "Lesser Britain"), Little Britain (disambiguation) ('Little Britain is an old term for Brittany in France. This usage is rare. The English word Brittany originally meant Little Britain. (This is in contrast to the French Bretagne which means Brittany, requiring Britain to be referred to as Grande-Bretagne.') and Diminutive ('this also being the basis of the naming of Brittany i.e. Minor Britain in reference to its cultural ties to the celtic nations of Great Britain'). There is evidence, as well as the external page: [1] --Neo 12:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

All of that I accept, except for Brittany being a dimunitive form. A dimunitive form of what? Little Britain and Great Britain are fine (but I would avoid saying "Little Britain" as that was not the actual term used and today it has a different connotation, use Britannia minor or petite Bretagne). But, where is the source to say that the English word Brittany is the demunitive form of something else? --sony-youthpléigh 12:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Ah - a little more time now; I had about 5-10 minutes when I wrote that last comment. Apparently its actually the other way around to how I wrote, at least according to the OED:
Britany - Also Britanie, -annie, -anny, Brittany.
  1. Britain, Great Britain.
  2. The Roman provinces of Britannia Prima and Secunda
  3. The French province of Bretagne: ‘Little Britany’; commonly spelt Brittany.
I feel this should be included in the terminology in detail section - at the very least to help justify why Brittany is there, but for the life of me can't think of how to include it well! --Neo 15:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Geographical defintion of "Britain" and "Great Britain"

The definition of "Britain" from the OED is:

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

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

No, it doesn't. The same resource defines Great Britain as "The countries of England, Wales and Scotland considered as a unit."
Are we looking at the same dictionary? If you would like to put "Great Britain" in as the island then please cite its entry in the OED as evidience. Putting in one term and then citing the definition of another as 'evidience' is no good. --sony-youthpléigh 10:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, "No it doesn't" what? Are you questioning the reference? My quotation is directly from the SOED (the entry for "Britain") and it clearly says that "Britain" is an abbreviation for "Great Britain". It can be reworded to say it that way around if that helps but the dictionary is quite clear about which is the full term. KateMurray 10:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
The Online edition writes: "Britain: 1a - The proper name of the whole island containing England, Wales, and Scotland, with their dependencies; more fully called Great Britain; now also used for the British state or empire as a whole." and doesn't seem to have an entry for "Great Britain". --Neo 10:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
"more fully" is not the same as "more proper", and "less fully" is not the same as "short form", Britain is not an abbreviation for Great Britain (if it were, "abv." would follow its entry). The definition for Great Britain from the same resource is provided. It is for the countries of the island of Britain considered as a unit. I am not questioning the reference. The reference says the island is called Britian. The island can be (more fully) called Great Britain, but, in the first order, the island is Britain and the countries of that island considered as a unit are called Great Britain. There is no need to confuse matters by drawing second and subsequent order definitions into play. --sony-youthpléigh 10:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you (about properness): "More fully" means just what it says; there's nothing wrong with the term "Britain" (although, frankly, I have never heard it used to mean the island) but it is the shortened form and the OED says so. Take a look at a couple of other references, they don't contradict the OED but they may clarify it:
Britannica:
Britain - Name historically applied to the island of Great Britain. Britain is used especially when referring to its pre-Roman and Roman periods and to its early Anglo-Saxon period.
Great Britain - or Britain - Island, western Europe. It is the largest island in Europe, comprising England, Scotland, and Wales and covering 88,787 sq mi (229,957 sq km).
American Heritage Dictionary
Britain - The island of Great Britain during pre-Roman, Roman, and early Anglo-Saxon times before the reign of Alfred the Great (871-899). The name is derived from Brittania, which the Romans used for the portion of the island that they occupied.
Great Britain - An island off the western coast of Europe comprising England, Scotland, and Wales. It is separated from the mainland by the English Channel and from Ireland by the Irish Sea.
Dictionary.com
Britain - 1. Great Britain. 2. Britannia (def. 1).
Great Britain - an island of NW Europe, separated from the mainland by the English Channel and the North Sea.
KateMurray 11:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  1. Where does the OE say it is the shortened form? Please quote where it does. The ref from Neo, above, has it saying that Britain is the "proper name" for the island.
  2. As you say, none of the references above contradict the OED, however, I don't see how the OED can be any clearer: Britain is the "island containing England, Wales, and Scotland", Great Britain is "England, Wales and Scotland considered as a unit."
I get a different return from Britannica Encyclopedia[2]: "Britain, also called Great Britain, island off the western coast of Europe ..." and the same in article in reverse for Great Britain. Britannica Dictionary says, Britain: "the island of Great Britain"[3] and Great Britain, "island W Europe comprising England, Scotland & Wales." The American Heritage Dictionary sticks out, as we all know that is nothing like how Britain is used[4] and contradicts etymology references that put it as being first recorded in English in 1297,[5] however AHD does take liberties in defining words on how they 'should be used. --sony-youthpléigh 12:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
The OED (from the online version quoted above) says "The proper name of the whole island containing England, Wales, and Scotland, with their dependencies; more fully called Great Britain". I don't see how that could be clearer either. The proper in "Proper name" is not as in "right and proper"; it means "applicable to a particular individual" KateMurray 13:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
What definition of proper are you looking at? Is it Defintion 1 ("truly what something is said or regarded to be; genuine.")? Or definition 3 ("suitable or appropriate; correct.")? (Other entries do not apply.) So, by their own definitions, the OED says that the name of the island is "truly [...] said or regarded to be" Britain. Or would you prefer to interpret it as the OED saying that Britian is the "correct" name for the island?
It's under "proper name" [6]. The appropriate definition from the full SOED is "Of a name or noun: applicable to a particular individual person, animal, place, country, title, etc. (and usu. spelt with a capital letter). Opp. common. ME.". Or you might refer to the Wikipedia article.
And that it would be the proper name (as opposed to a proper name)? --sony-youthpléigh 14:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I've just seen that you abridged the Dictionary.com reference. The full definition for Great Britain from that resource is "an island of NW Europe, separated from the mainland by the English Channel and the North Sea: since 1707 the name has applied politically to England, Scotland, and Wales." --sony-youthpléigh 12:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
No intention to deceive - The section is about the geographical meaning so the bit I left out is not relevant - I am not disputing the political meaning. But I should have indicated the omittion, I agree. KateMurray 12:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Indeed it is about the geographical meaning. The island is called Britian. England, Scotland and Wales considered as a unit is called Great Britain. If you cannot see how the section you left out is relevent, there is little hope of you being able to see the difference between these two terms. --sony-youthpléigh 13:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
This is incorrect as all of the above references demonstrate. I am quite capable of seeing the difference between the political unit and the island, thank you. That Britain is an alternative name for the island I am not trying to argue, nor that GB is used to refer to the political unit. However, the island is called Great Britain. KateMurray 14:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I am not arguing that the island can not be called Great Britian - that may even be the most common term for it. However, if we do not use the precise terminology in this article then what is the point in it?
Precisely speaking, the name of the island is Britain (see the OED entry for Britain), and the name of the political unit of that island is Great Britain (see the OED entry for Great Britain). That these terms are interchange with others - Great Britain for the island, Britain for the UK - confuses matters, I know, but the headword for each concept is clear.
What more evidience do you need? --sony-youthpléigh 14:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I'm convinced. Haber 22:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Any evidence at all would be good. You appear to base your contention that Britain is the island, Great Britain is the political unit - that there is a "difference between these two terms" on a dodgy interpretation of just one of the sources where you read "more fully" as "incorrectly" where in fact all the sources quoted show that the two terms are more or less synonymous in all contexts. The geographical section is OK now that "Great Britain" is back, by the way. KateMurray 08:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
<reduce indent>More or less synonymous in all contexts? Yes, and is that how we want to present in an article on the terminology of the British Isles? "Well, this isn't exactly the precise meaning, but its more or less synonymous in all contexts."?
I do not interpret "more fully" as anything other that just what it says: "more fully". Not the same as "less precise". "short form", "abbreviation", "slang", etc. etc. etc. "More" = "more". "Fully" = "Fully". What I do interpret is the one dictionary that makes a distinction between the two terms - the most highly regarded and authoritative dictionary of the language we are describing. That dictionary distinguishes the island (Britain) from the unit (Great Britain). Great Britain is a more full name for Britain just as Britain is another name for the UK, but in the first order, Britain refers to the island, and Great Britain to the unity of that island.
If you want to make a clear distinction between the island and the political unit, use the term Britain for the island, and the term Great Britain for the unit. Apart from that, as you say, they are practically interchangeable. I don't care what you use in day-to-day life, call the whole lot England for all I care, but in this article - where we want to explain the precise difference between confusing terms of this sort - lets keep it accurate and not bungle up our reader. They are here for clarity, not synonymous. --sony-youthpléigh 09:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Sigh. OK, perhaps I didn't put that very well. "Synonymous in more or less all contexts" would be better. In all the meanings we are discussing here they are synonyms; the "Great" version being the fuller. There is no distinction between the terms and none of the sources quoted, including the OED, says there is. Indeed most are quite clear about the lack of distinction. I added the "more or less" qualification because there are cases outwith these where there is a difference, the Roman province, for example, was Britain but not Great Britain. KateMurray 10:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Another one: Collins - Britain, another name for Great Britain or the United Kingdom. KateMurray 11:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
"fully": "In a full manner or degree; completely, entirely, thoroughly, exactly, quite" (OED). If Britain is "more fully" Great Britain then Great Britain is less fully (completely, exactly, etc) Britain.
Your proof that Britain is not an abbreviated form because the OED doesn't say "abbrev". The OED doesn't mark avbbreviated phrases this way - see for example "United States" which surely you would not argue is an abbreviation.
It really doesn't matter how often, loudly or petulantly you say it, the OED does not state what you say it does. Other sources, without contradicting the OED sayt quite the opposite. KateMurray 12:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


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

Kate, you truely are draining. "Great Britain" and "Britain" are synonymous. You can see that fact from the OED definitions. As synonynoms, of course, one is "another name" for the other - that's what being a synonynom means. But, as the the OED points out, there are slight differences between two - as with all synonoms. "Great Britain" and "Britain" are VERY close, but not quiet, exactly, perfectly, precisly the same. The OED, being the better of all dictionaries, points out that one refers to the island and the other to the countries on the island considered as a unit. You can, if you want, more fully call the island Great Britain also, but, in the first instance, Britain is the island and Great Britain is the union.
Are you diputing the OED reference? Remember, you put it in there? --sony-youthpléigh 12:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Not at all. It just doesn't say what you read into it.
The article as it stands, now that Great Britain has been restored to the list, is OK, by the way. The removal of this term was the main problem. KateMurray 13:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I don't mind it being in, so long as every other synonyms for everything else doesn't creep in either - that ruins the purpose of the article. --sony-youthpléigh 14:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
<Edit conflict replied to earlier post that simple said: "Not at all. It just doesn't say what you read into it.">
Let's break this down slowly for you. If you look up the word 'Britain' up in the OED, you will see that that word refers to an island. Understand, island? Let me quote for you: "The proper name of the whole island containing England, Wales, and Scotland, with their dependencies;" This island is "more fully called Great Britain", yet that does not detract from the "proper name" of the island being Britain - its just an more full name.
Now, let's look up Great Britain in the same dictionary. Oh? Great Britain refers to the union of countries occupying those islands. Let's quote again: "The countries of England, Wales and Scotland considered as a unit."
Hmmm? So the island is called Britain, or more fully, Great Britain, if you really so wish, and the union of the countries is called Great Britain. Geddit? What would you have read into it?
Now, let's think a little about what this article is about. Hmmm. Well, its about explain confusing, often overlapping and synonymous terminology to our readers. For example Britain can refer to the United Kingdom, as well as the island! Oh? So, do you think we should list Britain as a political entity? No, that would be silly and confusing. Our readers would not benefit from us using overlapping, synonymous terminology from the off-set. But, how about Britain and Great Britain? These two terms synonymous? Both can refer to the island! Yes, they both can, but again, our readers would not benefit from us telling them, right from word go, that there is no difference between Britain and Great Britain. They have come here for clarity, not synonyms. Let's stick to the most accurate definitions we have, shall we? Without diving into the world of "… but it also means … and that can be that too … and the other thing, well, that’s also called the same, too … and … and …" --sony-youthpléigh 14:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Might I suggest that reference to a current HMG (Office of National Statistics) publication ("UK 2005") ought to be definitive in this matter? (Certainly it seems spurious to suggest that one dictionary might be "the better [sic] of all dictionaries". No-one can substantiate this).

"The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (UK) was created by the Act of Union 1800 and constitutes the greater part of the British Isles, a group of islands lying off the northwest coast of Europe. The largest of the islands is Great Britain, which comprises England,Wales and Scotland." .

Unfortunately, and rather confusingly, in a section entitled "Physcial features" the publication later continues:

"Scotland has about 790 islands, of which some 130 are inhabited."

In other words, Great Britain is one island comprised of many islands! While people debate the meanings of "GB", "Britain" etc. (terms that can never be specifically geographical) I think we are missing a crucial point: what do we actually want to describe? I feel we are lacking a specific and categorical term to describe the mainland geographically. Perhaps Pliny put it best - ought we not to put things right by resurrecting "Albion" (a beautiful word in any case)?13eastie (talk) 01:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Naming of Teams

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

Until WWII most people used the term "Great Britain" to refer to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Since then the British government has been careful to use the term UK so as not to lose NI. This commandment has been pounded into the heads of so many British schoolchildren that is is pretty much near impossible to get a fuller explanation to stick in this article. If you doubt me read Churchill and see how he uses the term Great Britain when he is clearly referring to the UK of GB and NI. As for the Olympic team, it was named before the switch was made. Haber 20:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I understand now, thank you. EdX20 01:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Further to Haber's comment above, official historical use of "GB" is evidenced by the Treaty of Versailles which was signed by Lloyd George for "Great Britain".13eastie (talk) 00:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Also, from a more practical viewpoint, it aviods confusion with Ukraine (both 'uk'). --Pretty Green 10:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Britanny "historical term"?

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

Euler diagram is wrong

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

This has been pointed out several times before. You're right: there needs to be a circle around Scotland. Unfortunately, no one has yet done the job. I don't have the necessary software. Anyone? garik 12:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
OK will do. --sony-youthpléigh 12:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Sony-youth, if you have svg software, could you also do a correct version of the BI drawing itself...which now excludes the Channel Islands? I believe the drawing used is currently something about Britain and Ireland. Hughsheehy 16:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Two meanings of Great Britain

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

GB is an island, it's completely surounded by water. GoodDay 21:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
If you read this article, you will see that there are two accepted definitions of Great Britain - used ambiguously, which is what I'm complaining about. Some people might argue that it's incorrect to say the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland = Great Britain + Northern Ireland... but plenty of reputable sources, including the UK Parliament and VisitBritain websites, do refer to Great Britain as England+Wales+Scotland. Therefore I think Wikipedia must accept both definitions as valid current usage. Mtford 22:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Great Britain itself is a geographic entitdy, just like the island of Ireland. GB is also a part of a political entitdy, known as United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. GoodDay 22:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Ireland is also a word with two valid meanings: a common colloquial name for the Republic of Ireland, and also a geographical island. The fact that the term "Ireland" for the country is colloquial does not make it wrong (in the sense that it would be wrong to call the UK "England"). Even the Irish government calls their country Ireland. The same is true of Great Britain. When Americans say that they declared independence from Great Britain (meaning the Kingdom of Great Britain), they are not wrong - they are just using a common colloquial English name for a former state. Given that this terminology can be found on UK government websites, I think we have to accept it as part of the language. The Oxford English dictionary gives an even broader definition:
"Britain (n): 1. a. The proper name of the whole island containing England, Wales, and Scotland, with their dependencies; more fully called Great Britain; now also used for the British state or empire as a whole."
Mtford 22:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the term Great Britain is used geographically (an island) and politically (part of the UK). Ireland is used geographically (an Island) and politically (Republic of Ireland). GoodDay 23:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Indeed - we agree on that. So the question we're debating is: Which part of the UK does Great Britain refer to, when people use the term politically? There is no political entity whose territory corresponds exactly to the island of Great Britain, and there never has been. The Kingdom of Great Britain (called the "State of Great Britain" in the US Declaration of Independence, and commonly known as "Great Britain") was a state whose territory included several islands. In fact there are loads of tiny offshore islands and rocks included in the neighbouring districts and counties of the mainland: there is no meaningful political entity that excludes those islands. Therefore the political term "Great Britain" must correspond to a territory that is larger than just one island. Furthermore, political territories are often used in descriptions of geographical locations. Therefore I think a resident of Shetland would be correct, in one sense, to say "I live in Great Britain" (meaning "the territory governed by the political authorities of England, Wales and Scotland"). Mtford 01:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Shetland is in Scotland, Scotland is in Great Britain, Great Britain is in the United Kingdom. GoodDay 14:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
You seem to be contradicting yourself, and I'm not sure what your point is. If Great Britain is just one island (the "Geographical" definition), then Scotland cannot be entirely in Great Britain, because part of it is outside. But according to the commonly-used "political" definition, the whole of Scotland is in Great Britain. Mtford 00:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

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

In practice, no, very few people would say that the Isle of Wight is outside Great Britain. But according to one common definition (the one in the first paragraph of the Great Britain article, for example) the Isle of Wight is not strictly in Great Britain. Unfortunately most sources are ambiguous, for example the 10 Downing St website says: "Great Britain, however, comprises only England, Scotland and Wales. Great Britain is the largest island of the British Isles.", which makes no sense if the word "comprise" implies all of England, Scotland and Wales. Mtford 00:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't quite understand what it is you want to know Mtford. I guess that's obvious by my previous answers. Sorry I couldn't help. GoodDay 14:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry if I appear to be argumentative. The purpose of my original comment in this thread was to discuss the content of this Wikipedia article, and the one on Great Britain. I wasn't trying to debate the meaning of Great Britain for its own sake, because that's not what Wikipedia talk pages are for. I was (and still am) concerned that these two articles are ambiguous, self-contradictory and/or inaccurate in their use of the term "Great Britain". Given that the purpose of this article is to clarify terminology, this article at least should be as clear as possible. Unfortunately, it is not. I agree with the decision to include two definitions in the introduction: a traditional geographical definition comprising one island, and a modern political definition including all of England, Scotland and Wales. Islands such as the Shetlands are included in one definition, but not the other (you appear to dispute this). What bothers me is that the remainder of this article, and also most of the Great Britain article, assumes that there is only one definition. For example, the first paragraph of Great Britain states emphatically that the offshore islands are not part of Great Britain ("It is surrounded by over 1000 smaller islands and islets."), whereas the colour-coded maps in this article clearly show the Scottish islands as part of Great Britain. My proposals are twofold: (1) the Great Britain article should make clear from the start that there are two definitions in common usage; and (2) both articles should clarify which definition is intended each time the term is used. There is probably no point debating which definition is "right", because there is no consensus among authoritative sources, and the term has been used ambiguously for hundreds of years (certainly since the Kingdom of Great Britain was created in 1707, encompassing all of the 1000+ islands and islets in one political territory). As Abtract says above, you'd have a hard time convincing most modern Brits that the Isle of Wight is outside Great Britain, yet in one pedantic sense it is. Mtford 20:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
No problem, you weren't being argumentive. GoodDay 17:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Usage of England

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

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

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

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

Introduction

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

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

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

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

Some changes made in reflection to comments below - these have been highlighted by emphasis for additions or alterations, and strike through for removals. --Neo 11:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree. The actual content of the intro is all good stuff, but if you read the article right through, you notice how many points are duplicated in the main body of the article. I wouldn't want to lose any of the info however - make sure it's all covered later. I would also recommend a separate sporting terms section further down. There are a lot of sports references scattered around the piece, and they're very important as this is how millions of people worldwide encounter the terms explored in this article (Olympics, Six Nations, Football World Cup etc). Better to gather them together under one heading. --Cnbrb 11:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
PS for Ireland, I suggest "commonly used term" or similar, rather than "informal", as the Republic is referred to as "Ireland" in official terminology in Ireland, I think. --Cnbrb 11:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
As has been said many times before, "British Isles" is sometimes a political term (otherwise it would exclude the Channel Islands). This must be recorded.
"and Republic of Ireland, are sovereign states within " would be better written as "and (the Republic of) Ireland are sovereign states within" (the formal name of the state is "Ireland", the "Republic of" bit is a description). It would be even more correct to write "and Ireland are sovereign states within".
"Ireland" (not [[Ireland]]!) is not an informal name, it is a very formal name, used for all diplomatic purposes. I think it best just to lose this line as it will always be contentious. --Red King 21:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Both sections need to include the Isle of Man
The political section needs to include the Channel Islands
All attempts to insert Rockall in the intro should be deleted as just too silly. --Red King 21:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
The line "British Islands consists of the states within the British Isles that have the British monarch as head of state." should read "British Islands consists of the states within the British Isles that have the British monarch as head of state, that is all except the Republic of Ireland". --Red King 21:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Ah - I was under the impression that 'Republic of Ireland' was like 'République française', that is the official name of the state. I think we can therefore call it that and lose the line as suggested. --Neo 11:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Picking up on the original point, I think that the organisation of this article is inherently too repetitious. The "brief" introduction is practically as long as the "Terminology in detail" section, and then the whole business is explained in even more detail again in the sections that follow. I think that there should be one summary of the most important terms, possibly combined with the "at a glance" graphics, and then a section-by-section detailed explanation. In other words, just two levels of detail. Matt 02:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.47.45 (talk)

"less attractive aspects"

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

Open4D 17:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Weasels words or not, can a source please be provided for this. If not - as I suspect - it will have to go. The sentence that precedes it is similarly nonsense. English, Scottish, Welsh, Irish, Manx and Channel Islanders would all describe a geographical feature in Northern Ireland as being "Irish" in the same was as one in England would be "English", etc.. This is simply trite. --sony-youthpléigh 18:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I have provided a random example which proves the sentence true. So it should not be removed. I think the 'attribution needed' tag should be removed. It could be replaced by a reference to my or some other random example, but I don't think that would improve the article. We don't need to give a reference for every single sentence. - Open4D (talk) 17:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Erin

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

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

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

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

Good point, the name "ENGLAND" does end around the English/Scottish border. But to an unfamiliar viewer, it does give the impression that the entire Island is named England. GoodDay (talk) 17:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
The point is that there is more than one interpretation of the evidence, yet the article only gives one of these. TharkunColl (talk) 17:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
If you've got anything to add to the photo discriptive, by all means add it. Clarification is always best.GoodDay (talk) 17:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Taking a close look at it, I'd say the "D" is right on top of Midlothian, south of Edinburgh. It's also rather odd labelling the island with the name of only part of it. As it illustrates a misnaming that mostly only exists in everyday speech of the time, visual evidence is hard to come by, but if there are more obvious examples, they would be welcome. --Cnbrb (talk) 04:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
That picture smacks of original research. If it could be interpreted as labeling the whole island then you need a source saying so. You cannot use your own interpretation. josh (talk) 11:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I understand what you mean about OR, but I do not agree that this is OR; it is a visible example of misuse of a term. It might help this discussion if you see the map in context of another still from the same film, where the label "England" more obviously covers the whole island. The image itself serves to back up text in the article - this, as I understand it, is what is required of Wikipedia content, for content to have references. Without this, contributors would rightfully demand an example.--Cnbrb (talk) 18:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Terminology_of_the_British_Isles/Archive_6&oldid=1142547932"