Doctor Boogaloo (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 555: | Line 555: | ||
::::::::::A little light hearted humour on my part does not equate to the attacks [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:British_Isles_%28terminology%29&diff=prev&oldid=74030292] you are making on your fellow British contributors. You are absolutely not helping your argument by being so belligerent and quite frankly, racist. Although this seems to be beyond your comprehension, the entire population of the United Kingdom is not an ardent imperialist who wishes to permanently subvert or insult your countrymen. When a British person says the word "Britain" it is not political point scoring or a backhanded insult. Quite frankly, I couldn't give two monkeys whether Northern Ireland is part of the UK or the Republic of Ireland. Whatever makes the people there happy is fine by me. [[User:Gsd2000|Gsd2000]] 00:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC) |
::::::::::A little light hearted humour on my part does not equate to the attacks [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:British_Isles_%28terminology%29&diff=prev&oldid=74030292] you are making on your fellow British contributors. You are absolutely not helping your argument by being so belligerent and quite frankly, racist. Although this seems to be beyond your comprehension, the entire population of the United Kingdom is not an ardent imperialist who wishes to permanently subvert or insult your countrymen. When a British person says the word "Britain" it is not political point scoring or a backhanded insult. Quite frankly, I couldn't give two monkeys whether Northern Ireland is part of the UK or the Republic of Ireland. Whatever makes the people there happy is fine by me. [[User:Gsd2000|Gsd2000]] 00:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC) |
||
::::::::::: 1) ''A little light hearted humour on my part does not equate to the attacks....''. Oh well, I suppose it must be grand then if you say so. 2)''You are absolutely not helping your argument by being so belligerent and quite frankly, racist.'' Please, name the race in question. Thank you. 3) ''Although this seems to be beyond your comprehension.'' There is sea between Ireland and Britain. When it comes to what is, and is not, Britain the rest is not exactly rocket science. So I'm sure you'll forgive me if I refuse to take a lecture on comprehension abilities from your fine self. 4) ''the entire population of the United Kingdom is not an ardent imperialist who wishes to permanently subvert or insult your countrymen.'' Judging solely on your Irish-related edits to date, you're no [[Tony Benn]] or [[Ken Loach]], so get over yourself quickly. The lovely [[ARA General Belgrano|Mrs Thatcher]] comes more to mind. In other words, the "entire population" of Britain has nothing to do with your mentality. 5) ''When a British person says the word "Britain" it is not political point scoring or a backhanded insult.'' It is precisely that when they are deliberately using it to refer to a part of Ireland, and rejecting all attempts at incorporating the imprecision of the name into this article. Then, it has everything to do with their national narrative, and nothing to do with transmitting factual information through an online encyclopedia. [[User:El Gringo|El Gringo]] 01:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC) |
Revision as of 01:00, 6 September 2006
Software: Computing Unassessed | |||||||||||||
|
Archives | |
---|---|
| |
Country/State debate archives
| |
Climate
This article contains nothing on the UK's climate, for instance, how it could be placed in Köppen climate classification. --Barberio 17:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
mains voltage supplied at 240v
The 230 is only a specification, it is still supplied at 240v.
See http://www.answers.com/topic/mains-electricity
- 240V is within tolerance and it has not, therefore, been necessary to change all of the equipment to meet the harmonised standard yet. That doesn't alter the fact that the UK voltage is defined as 230 and this is what should be shown here.
- BTW, Wikipedia articles are not usually considered satisfactory references Mucky Duck 14:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- Yep, 230v it is. All the EC members with 220v electricity had to raise it to 230v and those with 240v had to reduce it to 230v quite a few years ago. The result being that older 220v designs can now be used in the UK/Ireland without major problems (although their life will more than likely be shortened) and older 240v designs can be used elsewhere in the EC. Of course newer equipment is designed for 230v so it should be happy anywhere in the EC. The actual voltage supplied does fluctate -- I've seen it over 250v in the old days: that caused problems with electronic equipment although kettles and motors hardly noticed -- but the electricity suppliers are now aiming at 230v plus or minus, so it should be there or thereabouts. The old specs (240v +/- 6%) translated to anywhere between 225.6v and 254.4v whereas the new specs (230V +10%/-6%) translate to somewhere between 216.2v and 253v. Of course since 240v lies within both ranges it's quite true to say that 240v is still supplied but that doesn't change the fact that the allowable range is different. -- Derek Ross | Talk 14:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Maps
I think we could do with a map showing the borders of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland - perhaps with major cities marked too. It would also be useful on Politics of the United Kingdom Cheers Andeggs 15:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- There is already a map showing the location of major cities in the geography section, however this does not include state boundaries (although modification to include boundary lines probably wouldn't be too dificult). Maybe a map similar to this one which appears in France#Administrative divisions could work well; with the thicker, darker lines showing the state boundaries between Scotland, England and Wales and the thinner, lighter lines showing either regional boundaries (i.e. North-East, Midlands etc.) or county boundaries. State and County boundaries would probably be best although I fear the small size of counties might make the map unclear. Doesn't such a map already exist on Wikipedia somewhere? Canderra 15:45, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah that sort of thing would be perfect. I can't find anything like it for the UK on wikipedia which is amazing really when you think we have maps for so much else (e.g. all constituencies!). Let me know if you find one or can make one.Andeggs 16:17, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- "There is already a map showing the location of major cities in the geography section" This shows Felixstowe, but not Sheffield, Grangemouth, but not Dundee, Falmouth, but not Swansea, Coventry or Leicester. I've said it before and I'll say it again; it's far from ideal. Rednaxela 21:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- I've added a blank one to the commons if anyone wants to use it as a base. Kmusser 17:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm working on a version, although I fear it won't be good enough. There are a few problems with the above map: Extra lochs have appeared in Scotland, there are two bubbles between England and Wales. The Welsh border seems to extend up the Severn estuary.... Which cities to include is a problem; text may clash if the cities are too close. Also which font to use, regular or bold, underlines for the four capitals etc etc Rednaxela 00:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I think we should avoid "county" boundaries as it is an ambiguous term. A popular definition includes all the unitary authorities as counties and that would look silly, other definitions split Yorkshire up into 5 or so separate "counties". Either stick with the constituent countries and capitals or use the Government Office Regions (which is what the map on England does. Yorkshire Phoenix God's own county 08:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
"Britain" being an "incorrect" abbreviation
It's completely anal to label "Britain" as being an "incorrect" abbreviation when referring to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. An abbreviation is just that - a conventional short form, it's not about being "correct" or the full form would be used. The United States of America is conventionally shortened in English to "the US", "United States", "the States", "America" and the "USA". Calling it "America" or "the States" or "the US" is "technically incorrect" because America is a continent and "the States" could equally refer to Mexico, whose "correct" name is incidentally the United Mexican States https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/mx.html#Govt. Yet convention dictates this usage in the English language.
Examples of this conventional usage are littered everywhere, from newspapers to websites to academic texts. The website of the British Embassy in America is britainusa.com http://www.britainusa.com. Its first paragraph begins "We provide up-to-date information about Britain including UK Government policy & humanitarian efforts, British science & technology advancements, requirements & regulations for visas to Britain, and a wealth of additional information and news about Britain in the US." The foreign office has a section "Britain in the EU". http://www.fco.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1007029391674 The Oxford History of Britain http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/019280135X/sr=8-1/qid=1153516925/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-2945053-6337504?ie=UTF8 doesn't exclude itself from talking about Northern Ireland.
As the British Isles (terminology) page says, "Britain in its modern usage is the usual short form for Great Britain and also for United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (or, in historical contexts, for United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland)."
Please just stop this silly childish revert warring and leave as is.
Gsd2000 21:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- I disagree. Britain is the island of Britain. The UK is the legally defined entity of Britain and Nothern Ireland. They do not correspond. Evidence of conventional usage is not good enough for WP. So solly to contwadict you.--Shtove 21:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- Wait, hold on. Speak for yourself here, not for Wikipedia. You are not the personification of Wikipedia. If it's good enough for the OED (see above quote) it's good enough for Wikipedia. Gsd2000 21:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- Moreover, by your logic of legal definitions, you would have to mark any abbreviation as "incorrect". The only legally correct term would be full form "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". Gsd2000 21:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- I take your point about the OED - reliable, verifiable source, and all that. But reduce the notion to its elements: Britain is Britain, Ireland is Ireland, and any conflation or mixture of the terms is political and tendentious.--Shtove 22:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- Moreover, by your logic of legal definitions, you would have to mark any abbreviation as "incorrect". The only legally correct term would be full form "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". Gsd2000 21:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- Semantics is not about logic: words only have meaning because by convention that is the meaning that people ascribe to them, and that meaning may change depending on the context or the era, or both. e.g. the term "gay". Language is always changing, words are not defined once and set in stone forevermore - that is why the OED is constantly revised. By convention - not for political point scoring - "Britain" is used as an abbreviation of The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, just like "America" is for The United States of America. When books or newspapers are published, the editors do not sit there tediously weeding out these references as being factually incorrect or politically charged. It's a simple abbreviation, and I do hope our fellow Irish Wikipedians do not continue to view its use as a synonym of "the UK" as an attempt to denegrate their people or country. Gsd2000 22:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- Yo, Blair! We shouldn't care about newspapers or convention: that's the territory of bullshitters. Of course lungwidg changes all the time (especially that "of" Shakespeare), but principles of definition don't change. Britain is an island in Europe. Ireland is an island in Europe. The term British Isles was invented to cover both islands so that a Scottish king could define for his new found subjects what the feck he was up to. All politics - nothing to do with geography, geology, birds or walking paths. Homosexual conduct remains sweatily constant, no matter what tag you choose to describe it by. Ugh, you English and your bottoms!--Shtove 23:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- Semantics is not about logic: words only have meaning because by convention that is the meaning that people ascribe to them, and that meaning may change depending on the context or the era, or both. e.g. the term "gay". Language is always changing, words are not defined once and set in stone forevermore - that is why the OED is constantly revised. By convention - not for political point scoring - "Britain" is used as an abbreviation of The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, just like "America" is for The United States of America. When books or newspapers are published, the editors do not sit there tediously weeding out these references as being factually incorrect or politically charged. It's a simple abbreviation, and I do hope our fellow Irish Wikipedians do not continue to view its use as a synonym of "the UK" as an attempt to denegrate their people or country. Gsd2000 22:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Great Britain is the name of the island (And maybe the smaller islands off its coast?). So far as I understand it Little Britain (apart from being a popular TV show) is Britanny. Hence the use of 'Great' to differenciate the two. The 'Great' is relevant in French to distinguish Grande Bretagne from Bretagne and not as necessary in English. Rednaxela 23:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
GSD is wrong. Britain means Great Britain, which is one island in the United Kingdom. While British is sometimes seen, albeit controversially, as the correct adjective for the entire UK, Britain and the UK are not the same and no amount of POV-editing can change basic geopolitical facts. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 23:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- The point that you (pl.) are failing to grasp is that all that is meant by this inocuous sentence is that the UKoGBaNI is "usually shortened" to "Britain", which (like it or not) it is. This is an empirically verifiable fact - this is not a point of view. Now, as for the specifics of your argument, it is ambiguous whether "Britain" is the short form of "Great Britain", or the short form of "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", as "Britain" is what you end up with if you remove one word in the former or seven in the latter. The (in)correctness or not of its usage depends on the intent of the speaker: it is only technically incorrect if and only if the speaker intends "Britain" to mean specifically "Great Britain" when they are referring to the whole of the United Kingdom. Given that the norm is to understand that the speaker/writer is referring to the UK when the term "Britain" is used (even the OED gives a definition of Britain as the UK), it is injecting a POV to argue this is incorrect, especially when the reasoning behind this is to make a point about Anglo-Irish history (it has not escaped my notice that those who wish to revert this hail from the Emerald Isle, and I have been attacked by one of those on my talk page as being "jingoistic" and "ignorant" - only someone with a POV agenda would stoop to that level). Gsd2000 01:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- "Usually shortened"? Where? Not in Ireland. And when did this particular "shortening" start? By your logic I should hop over to the Great Britain article and say it is "usually shortened" to England. And there's the rub: no Brits would accept that edit even though that particular (mis)usage is prevalent throughout the world. Why? Because the usage is known to be incorrect in Britain so therefore the incorrect world usage beyond Britain is abnegated in the eyes of British posters. Amazing how the fire of nationalism burns so brightly it blinds certain posters to the double standards at work. El Gringo 12:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- You are too busy ascribing beliefs to me that you cannot possibly know whether I hold and not following my logic. It could not possibly be argued that "UKoGBaNI" is "shortened" to "England", because "England" does not appear at all in the term, whereas "Britain" does. However, let us now turn to your logic. The key point it seems is that you argue it is not usually shortened thus in Ireland. Well, I just went to http://www.ireland.com and searched for "Britain". Here is one of the 1000 results returned:
- Irish Times Article - New British ambassador leaves post in Ottawa
- Patsy McGarry
- Britain's new ambassador to Ireland, David Reddaway, will take up the post in August or September. He will replace Stewart Eldon who has been appointed Britain's permanent representative on the North Atlantic ...
- This cannot possibly be referring to Great Britain, because as you well know, Great Britain does not have ambassadors. Only the United Kingdom does. So if the UK is referred to as Britain even in Ireland, then your argument is blown out of the water. Game, set and match I'm afraid. Gsd2000 23:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Hello.
This reminds me of the gripe some people have about calling persons of the United States Americans.
It doesn't matter that a certain usage word is controversial and seen by some (or many) as incorrect or poor: the point is to report how words are used: the fact is that, every day, millions of human beings, in and out of the U.K. (including Northern Ireland), use Britain, Briton, and British in talking about things that apply to the whole U.K. (including Northern Ireland). — Wikipedia is to report facts; one of the facts can be that there is controversy about other facts. — To deny that the entire U.K. is called, by millions, every day, "Britain", is to deny a fact; equally, to deny that this usage is less technical than restricting "Britain" to a certain island that excludes the Irish island, and to deny that this dual usage irritates some persons, is to deny a fact. — Why should Wikipedia be into denying facts?
This reminds me of very long arguments at the Talk page for "Acronym and initialism" about definition distinctions between the two terms (usually, the idea that acronym is for NATO but not BBC and that initialism is for BBC but not NATO). I am a proponent of maintaining that distinction; but I also know that, every day, millions of people call BBC an acronym and that Wikipedia must report this lack of distinction as well as the controversy. The opening of "Acronym and initialism" reports this dual usage and cites sources for the various sides.
I don't see how it would be too hard for this article to acknowledge that Britain, Briton (even Britisher), and British are used (by some—many) to talk about the whole U.K. (including Northern Ireland) and then to have a little footnote or parenthesis directing readers to a separate paragraph or article about the usage controversy. This is how it is with America and American at "United States", in the opening sentence of the article and in the last sentence of the "United States#Name" section.
(In the rest of the "United States" article, where it doesn't interfere excessively with the flow of the sentence, "America" and "American" (e.g., "America has [* * *]", "30% of Americans are [* * *]") are foregone in favor of "the United States" and "the U.S." (e.g., "the U.S. has [* * *]", "30% of the U.S. population is [* * *]"). Seems easy enough to do in the U.K. article too.)
President Lethe 15:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- But persons of the USA are Americans, as are persons of Mexico and Canada. So, the analogy doesn't work.--Shtove 15:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Ask a Canadian or a Mexican to tell you his or her nationality. What percentage of Mexicans or Canadians will say "American"? What percentage of them will say "Canadian" or "Mexican"? The point is that, asked their nationality, people respond with the adjectives and demonyms for specific countries, not continents (except in the case of Australia). How many Germans or Spaniards, asked their nationality, will say "European"? The truth is that extremely few Mexicans and Canadians waste their time griping about not being able to call themselves, unambiguously, Americans—because they're quite happy to call themselves Mexicans and Canadians. With country names, it's 'first come, first served', and most persons don't spend their lives griping about this. We don't hear those from Lesotho and Botswana yelling about how the South Africans stole their demonym. We don't find other countries of low altitude/elevation screaming about how the Dutch hijacked their name. If some other Arab countries with emirs decide to unite themselves, they probably won't gripe about having to choose another name than United Arab Emirates. Also, Americans no more call themselves Statesians than Mexicans call themselves the Spanish equivalent, or citizens of the République Française, asked their nationality, say "Republican", or those in the People's Republic of China answer "Peoplean"; instead, we take a country's longer name, and cut out most of the words until we're left with one that can easily be turned into a decent demonym: French(man) for the French Republic, Canadian for Canada, Chinese/Chinaman for the People's Republic of China, American for the U.S.A., and British for the U.K. — President Lethe 17:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Hear hear, President Lethe. Gsd2000 23:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- GSD: I have to say that you are quite naive when it comes to Ireland. Maybe, just maybe, he used Britain because the "UK" involves a claim to Ireland? By the way, I went over and pointed out that Britain is also shortened to England throughout the world. No doubt you'd be happy with that. El Gringo 12:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- Let me get this straight - first you replied to me "Usually shortened"? Where? Not in Ireland.", then when I respond with a quote from one of your Irish national newspapers to the contrary, you change your argument to say that when an Irish person says "Britain" they are deliberately using it instead of "United Kingdom" to make a political point because UK involves a claim to Ireland? This reduces to: if a British person refers to the UK as Britain they are incorrect because the UK includes Northern Ireland and Great Britain does not, but if an Irish person refers to the UK as Britain they are correct because the UK has no rightful claim to Northern Ireland. I don't, incidentally, expect you to see the irony of this. You will no doubt once again miss my point altogether, fail to see the problems with yours, and once more accuse me of being a British nationalist with a POV agenda to inject into Wikipedia, when that could not be further from the truth. Gsd2000 23:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- To weigh in on this one; I always feel that its slightly misleading to say that Britain for the UK is incorrect. As abbreviations of this kind are not official, it is impossible to deem them necessairily incorrect. Clearly the route of the word is 'Great Britain' but its use to mean the UK has become SO prevelant that I would argue that calling it 'incorrect' is wrong; 'technically inaccurate' would be a better describer, if we had to qualify it at all. As noted previously, almost all British and foreign instiutions happily use 'Britain' to mean the UK--Robdurbar 19:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Absolutely right Rob. When everyone is using a particular word (or abbreviation) it really doesn't make much sense to say it is 'incorrect'. It's only incorrect in the same way that it is 'incorrect to call the USA 'America' or the ROI 'Ireland'. DJ Clayworth 19:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, RoI and Ireland issue is a little different - Ireland is its legal name and RoI its leagal description (and no, I don't understand what the difference is!). However, that is a side issue. --Robdurbar 21:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Here we go again. Just why do you people feel the need to claim a part of Ireland (see map) to be part of Britain? What is this relentless impulse in the British psyche to claim other lands as your own? The UK was invented by your own state for a reason: to make the distinction between Britain and Ireland. Had that distinction been unnecessary, Ireland would have become part of the state of 'Britain' rather than the 'UK'. That, in the meantime, your very British impulse (and lack of education) to claim more than is yours has clearly triumphed does not change the fact that Britain is still shortened form of the island between Ireland and France, just as it was in 1800. By all of your logic Cork and Galway and Dublin were, when they were held under your little UK régime, in Britain. That is precisely how ridiculous you all are being by claiming the UK is the same as Britain. Now, get a grip lads. Your little empire fanaticism is over. Hands off our country, our traditions, our history, and our identity. You will not rewrite the reality of Ireland and shove us all into your little British project. Fanatics. And you all think you are so morally superior to the Yanks. Open your eyes. 193.1.172.163 19:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- 193.1.172.163, your little speech demonstrates three things - (1) you are clearly paranoid (2) you should not be contributing to Wikipedia because you are clearly incapable of being impartial (not to mention polite to your fellow contributors) and (3) that there really is an Irish nationalist POV agenda behind these attempts to label "Britain" wrt "UK" as "incorrect", and hence it would be in violation of WP:NPOV to include mention of this alleged technical incorrectness. I think you and others need to get over the fact that Britain is an inocuous short form of UKoGBaNI and come to terms with the fact that 99.9999% of those that use it are not ardent British nationalists staking a claim to your country. Gsd2000 22:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think it's fair to assume there is an Irish nationalist agenda here, just because one anonymous user posts a rant. He/she did the same in the section about constituent countries above. I think they are just looking for an attempt to get on their soapbox. DJ Clayworth 13:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Of course, the British do not have any agendas- oh lord no. Aw bless. And not a bone of nationalism in them at all. Above that sort of stuff, old bean. Yuck "nationalism"- for those lesser type nations. Considering that it is British posters who are going on the offensive and attempting to rewrite what Britain means this is the sort of jingoistic rubbish British attitudes towards their neighbouring island have always produced. I have lived in Ireland all my life and I have never heard a single person equate Britain with the UK- nobody. There is no basis for it except in the nationalist spirit and prejudices of users like Gsd2000 who, being a British nationalist, is not actually a real nationalist and has no nationalist agenda and is, just, well normal. There has been no more nationalistic people on earth in the past three centuries than the British. The very claim that Ireland is part of Britain is a complete, total and entire product of your nationalist claims to Ireland. You all know this, and you use it rather than the shorter 'UK' precisely because you do not want to weaken the link between Britain and Northern Ireland. That is precisely what is going on here. Your use is entirely political. So spare us your sanctimonious nonsense. It is truly obnoxious. 193.1.172.163 14:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Britain is separate from Ireland. Use of the term Britain to include NI is inaccurate (if not incorrect), and the intro should note this explicitly.--Shtove 15:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- If you have never heard anyone use "Britain" to mean the UK then you are simply not paying attention. I hear it pretty much every day, and there are dozens of examples given above. Please stop doing this, and stop using this talk page for purposes that have nothing at all to do with writing a better encyclopedia. DJ Clayworth 15:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Of course, the British do not have any agendas- oh lord no. Aw bless. And not a bone of nationalism in them at all. Above that sort of stuff, old bean. Yuck "nationalism"- for those lesser type nations. Considering that it is British posters who are going on the offensive and attempting to rewrite what Britain means this is the sort of jingoistic rubbish British attitudes towards their neighbouring island have always produced. I have lived in Ireland all my life and I have never heard a single person equate Britain with the UK- nobody. There is no basis for it except in the nationalist spirit and prejudices of users like Gsd2000 who, being a British nationalist, is not actually a real nationalist and has no nationalist agenda and is, just, well normal. There has been no more nationalistic people on earth in the past three centuries than the British. The very claim that Ireland is part of Britain is a complete, total and entire product of your nationalist claims to Ireland. You all know this, and you use it rather than the shorter 'UK' precisely because you do not want to weaken the link between Britain and Northern Ireland. That is precisely what is going on here. Your use is entirely political. So spare us your sanctimonious nonsense. It is truly obnoxious. 193.1.172.163 14:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
193.1.172.163, have you missed the example headline from The Irish Times? Or what about an article, dated today, from RTE, including "The British Prime Minister, Tony Blair" and "A former British ambassador to the US, Sir Christopher Meyer"? Or any of these RTE search results? Or these from The Irish Times (surely, when someone is banned from racing in "Britain", it doesn't mean he can still go do it in Northern Ireland). Or Wikipedia's own "Ireland" article's "Protectionism was abandoned, and Ireland applied to join the European Economic Community along with Britain, gaining entry in 1973", which surely doesn't mean that, while Great Britain joined the E.E.C., Northern Ireland didn't. — President Lethe 17:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- One of the unfortunate consequences of living in a society that values the right to free speech is that one occasionally has to listen to the rants of idiots like 193.1.172.163. Gsd2000 23:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
But less us restain our own speech and not call our fellow Wikipedians "idiots" where they can see it. — President Lethe 00:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- President Lethe: Let's not, indeed. Again, you clearly don't get it. Your Tony Blair is Prime Minister of Britain. The British claim to Ireland is an entirely different matter and it is for that reason that referring to him as UK Prime Minister is avoided. Have you slept through the little matter of the controversy surrounding the legitimacy of British rule in Ireland? This is so basic that it is only your own cultural values over in Britain which cannot see it. The likelihood of a Dundalk or Donegal man talking about his cousins from Newry or Derry as being part of your UK is extremely low- no more than they would have talked in the same manner about Cork or Galway people as "UK" people prior to 1920. They are Irish, and live in Ireland. That is their definition regardless of what names the British invent for where they live. You will also, by way of example, not read the above RTÉ or The Irish Times referring to the Six Counties as "the province" or "Ulster"- it just never happens. You will read them saying "the North" throughout, which is something the British media could never do seeing that you are in a different country (that bit is for our geographically challenged friends across the water, of which there are many here). 193.1.172.163 00:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Well, Gsd2000, one of the fortunate consequences of the demise of your British Empire is that the geographic extent of pompous jingoistic British people like you has been vastly curtailed. 193.1.172.163 00:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- I'm sorry you feel this way about Britain, I really am, but please refrain from racist abuse. Gsd2000 01:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
About the edit summaries and POV.
Adding the "technically incorrectly" to the opening paragraph, 193.1.172.138 said "rv pov".
I removed it, with this edit summary: "rv 193.1.172.138's edit. how is it POV to list the names by which something is known? what's pov is injecting judgements on usage in so few words instead of providing lengthier explanations elsewhere".
193.1.172.138 put it back, saying "rv. It is POV because you are denying that it is technically incorrect to equate Britain with the UK. To deny this millenia old fact is to push your agenda."
How is being silent on the question of whether a spade is a spade the same thing as specifically saying a spade is or isn't a spade? This kind of "silence about an issue = contradiction to one point of view on the issue" reasoning is like the idea that, if a government doesn't write "Jesus Saves" on every single signpost along every single road, it is telling its Christian population "There is no God".
"[M]illennia[-]old fact"? We go back at least two thousand years and we're supposed to find people technically incorrectly using "Britain" describe the U.K.?
A plain fact is that the U.K. is known as (among other things) "Britain"; to say that calling it is "technically incorrect" really needs a better explanation to be useful to a reader, for the (in)correctness is applicable only in certain contexts. Because the opening lines aren't going to get into details about usage controversy, this stuff is better left to another part of the article, or even to a separate article—as happens, for example, at "United States#Name".
... Anyway, I really wonder what would happen if I told you I was from some place on the big island west of England (especially if I didn't tell you which part).
President Lethe 01:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- El Gringo, \(caint) and Shtove: how about this for a compromise: the ref tag now contains a link to British Isles (terminology), which is where this discussion of nomenclature really belongs. The sentence in the introduction makes no mention of incorrectness, because it is merely stating a fact that it is "usually" shortened to United Kingdom, UK or Britain: this can be easily verified with some searching of British, Irish and other English language newspaper websites. The reader may visit British Isles (terminology) and make up their own mind whether one must adhere to a strict geographical interpretation of the term (as an island), or whether usage to describe the political entity of the UK has become commonplace enough to deem both correct within their respective contexts. Gsd2000 02:28, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Good to see that some sort of compromise has been reached, but for the record I would like to state my disapproval of Gsd2000's comment "there really is an Irish nationalist POV agenda behind these attempts to label "Britain" wrt "UK" as "incorrect"". I am definitely not an Irish nationalist, but I support the view that "Britain" is not "the UK" in any shape or form. The former excludes NI, the latter includes it. I thought El Gringo made an excellent point in saying "By your logic I should hop over to the Great Britain article and say it is "usually shortened" to England." Just because something is used prevalently across the world does not make it correct. Otherwise Netherlands would say "also known as Holland", which is completely wrong, despite popular belief. An encyclopedia should state the facts - what is true - not what is understood to be true. In this case, it should be made clear that, regardless of the popularity of its usage, the term "Britain" is not the same as the term "UK". "Incorrect" is extreme and not necessary, but any suggestion that the terms can be used synonymously is simply wrong. DJR (T) 23:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Djr_xi, you have an interesting understanding of "the facts", "known as", and "can". A fact is that many people do use Britain as an exact synonym of the U.K.; a fact is that many people (though probably fewer than those who use Britain as an exact synonym of the U.K.) do use England as an exact synonym of Great Britain and the U.K. (though this seems less common than it used to be); and a fact is that many people do use Holland as an exact synonym of the Netherlands. Just as much as it's a fact that, by certain standards and among certain persons and in certain contexts, this synonymy is false, it is a fact that this synonym exists by other standards, among other persons, in other contexts. If x is sometimes used by some persons as an exact synonym for y, then it's just plain false to say, without further qualification, that "any suggestion that [x and y] can be used synonymously is simply wrong". Denying a fact that is not only theoretically possible but is also true in the real world is simply silly. Wikipedia is in the business of reporting facts. You say it's "completely wrong" to say that the Netherlands are "also known as Holland". Yet the gist of your post indicates that you do understand that some people do know the Netherlands as Holland—so you do know that it is true, not false, to say that the Netherlands are also known as Holland. What things are known as in the human world is governed by human beings, not by some external constant. If some people know London as Londres, then London is also known as Londres. You can qualify this by saying "although this isn't the English name of the place"; but it is not wrong to say that people also know London as Londres. — President Lethe 00:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Lethe, you've sailed past the point again. How forgetful. It's not controversial to state that the UK is commonly referred to as Britain, but it is controversial to refrain from pointing out that this is an inaccurate usage. The footnote doesn't solve anything; besides, footnotes are for sources, not commentary. Insert the word "inaccurately" and the problem is solved. Ta da!--Shtove 15:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- I have ad nauseum failed to persuade people that 'inaccurate' would be the best compromise here - it doesn't mean 'wrong' in the way that 'incorrect' does, it just means 'not very precise'. An alternative could be 'vaguley', but that, in itself, is somewhat.... vague --Robdurbar 15:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- All abbreviations are inaccurate: they don't contain all the information that the full name does, and sometimes cause confusion. AI means different things to a computer scientist and a farmer, and so is "inaccurate", and opens up the possibility of confusion. I believe we explain the 'inaccuracy' in a footnate, and that's entirely proper. Anything more sounds petty - it's like Wikipedia getting up on it's little soapbox and yelling at the millions of people who call the UK "Britain". DJ Clayworth 15:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
1. I specifically chose to make a point about DJR's odd ideas of "the facts", "known as", "can", "completely wrong", and "simply wrong". Rather than missing a point, I was concentrating on certain logical fallacies that must be overcome before conversation can progress well: if someone has the idea that the thing that (s)he acknowledges to be reality is simultaneously untrue, it's an impediment to productive discussion.
2. Footnotes can play more than one role in life, even at Wikipedia.
3. Accuracy and precision are two different things, as Robdurbar seems to point out. But something that is "not very precise" is imprecise (not inaccurate). If accuracy and precision are two different things, then, obviously, the negated form of precision (imprecision), rather than the negated form of accuracy (inaccuracy), is the antonym to precision.
4. It's a question of neither accuracy nor precision. It's a question of context. When someone means Britain as an exact synonym of the U.K., then it is precisely a synonym of the U.K. When someone doesn't mean it as an exact synonym of the U.K., then it's imprecise and, in some contexts, even inaccurate. The precision and accuracy vary with the context. So, a statement that it's "inaccurate" or "imprecise", but that isn't specific about when (or in what context, or according to whom) it's inaccurate or imprecise, is too sweeping ... and too imprecise.
5. To avoid a footnote, the text could just read "(usually shortened to the United Kingdom, the UK, and sometimes Britain)", with "sometimes" as a link to "British Isles (terminology)".
President Lethe 15:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- DJ Clayworth, abbreviations inherently have less precision, not less accuracy, than the full terms that they shorten. It may be useful to think of accurate and inaccurate as correct and incorrect, and of precise and imprecise as specific and general (or less specific or not specific enough). An abbreviation is not inherently inaccurate, but rather becomes inaccurate only if someone uses it incorrectly or someone else gets the wrong idea from it (e.g., takes AI as short for artificial intelligence when the speaker meant it as Adobe Illustrator); the (in)accuracy is about human intent and perception, while imprecision is built in to the very concept of abbreviations themselves. — President Lethe 15:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- You are right, and my post was indeed inaccurate ;-) . I did mean imprecise. However my argument still holds exactly if you take imprecise as my meaning. (I tend not to assume that all other Wikpedians are trained in numerics). DJ Clayworth 18:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Shtove, you said "Insert the word 'inaccurately' and the problem is solved", with "the problem" seeming to be the failure to point out "that this is an inaccurate usage". This doesn't solve the problem: it invites battling from those who would point out the contexts in which Britain is not inaccurate for the U.K. Once we open up the door to saying that something is sometimes inaccurate or imprecise, we, to be fair, must also open the door to saying that the thing is sometimes accurate or precise. The result? Several words of explanation. And should those several words be in the opening sentence of this article? Probably not. Solution? Explanation elsewhere—e.g., in a footnote or another article (with the other article being linked from one of the words in the sentence that can't bear to have several explanatory words added).
If Wikipedia had to devote words about controversy right in the middle of a sentence every time a controversial word or topic came up, it would be extremely bogged down. This is why, when the focus of the sentence is not the controversy, it's good to relegate the controversy to a footnote or, sometimes better, a whole other article (but linked from the sentence). For example, if one were simply listing the major terrestrial television channels of the U.K., and there happened to be a current big ordeal about whether ownership of one of those channels should be sold to a foreign company, it would probably be better just to stick to listing the channels in the article at hand, and to let the discussion of the ownership controversy remain in that specific channel's own article, rather than to inject it into a parenthesis in the list—and, of course, that channel's article would be linked from the mention of that channel in the list.
President Lethe 16:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Since all abbreviations are inaccurate (techically imprecise - see above) should we say that Jennifer Lopez is inaccurately known as JLo? Donald Trump is inaccurately known as The Donald? DJ Clayworth 18:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- To user 193.1.172.163 14:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC):
- 1. You say you have lived in Ireland all your life and never heard a single person equate Britain with the UK. But so what? On ITV news, for example, they regularly talk about "Britain", and they are clearly talking about the country, the UK, not the island of Great Britain.
- 2. Why do you think that there has to be a nationalist spirit and prejudices to equate "Britain" with the "UK"? I interchange "Britain" and "UK" all the time. And I don't think twice about it. Why? Because I really don't see it as a political thing. It's just another way of shortening UKoGBaNI.
- 3. "The very claim that Ireland is part of Britain is a complete, total and entire product of your nationalist claims to Ireland. You all know this, and you use it rather than the shorter 'UK' precisely because you do not want to weaken the link between Britain and Northern Ireland. That is precisely what is going on here. Your use is entirely political. So spare us your sanctimonious nonsense. It is truly obnoxious."
- I'm sorry, but the above is simply rubbish. Firstly, no-one is claiming that Ireland (Republic of) is part of Britain. Secondly, I'm afraid (and I'm sure you simply won't believe this), there are no political reasons for using "Britain" instead of "UK". Also, in fact, you say that "UK" is shorter but it's not really, because the comparison is between "Britain", 2 syllables, and "the UK", 3 syllables!
- So finally, stop being silly by talking about "sanctimonious nonsense" and being "obnoxious".
- Ojcookies 01:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Although no-one seems to have realised this, equating 'Britain' with the 'UK' is in fact making an Irish nationalist political statement! Equating the UK with the island of Britain is a tacit statement that only the island of Britain is really part of the country we call the UK! So I say long live Irish Nationalism! Let's look forward to a united Ireland by using the abbreviation 'Britain' wherever possible! ;-) DJ Clayworth 03:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- Can't you just state that using "Britain" to describe the UK is a misnomer, but commonly used? We're not here to advocate our own beliefs, but the facts and the fact is a lot of people call the UK simply "Britain".--Sir Edgar 06:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- Even that is going too far, because the OED gives a definition of "Britain" in a political context as "United Kingdom". Given that it is put together by amateurs (me included), Wikipedia should not be in the business of contradicting the OED. Gsd2000 12:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- The Oxford English Dictionary is not God. I don't believe in relying on a single source for any kind of information, whether it's the British government, Encyclopedia Britannica, the CIA, or my mother. And you shouldn't either.--Sir Edgar 01:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Both Encarta and Britannica state that britain is a valid alternative name for the country. josh (talk) 16:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
How about:
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland' (usually shortened to the United Kingdom, the UK or, some would say incorrectly, to Britain??
GiollaUidir 21:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it's necessary. "Some would say" is a bit weaselly. We used to have a footnote, and we still do have a link to the terminology article where it is all discussed in more detail. I think the terminology link works, but we could put the footnote back. DJ Clayworth 16:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, as has been now said many times, if you can say Britain is now a short form for the UK then you can, by the same nationalistic logic, say England is a short form for the UK. Let's ask the Yanks, England's political masters, and see how many times the average Yank says 'England' when they mean the 'UK'. There's one reality which doesn't quite fit into your nationalist narrative, and proves how pov you all are on this issue. You can try all you like, but no part of Ireland will ever be part of Britain. A true Unionist, being loyal to the Act of Union, would embrace this reality without hesitation. The same people who are resisting this are undoubtedly raging against the great, progressive European Union and the Euro. This has everything to do with British people not understanding the limits of their nationalism, and wanting to distort everything to fit that. Be honest. 193.1.172.163 18:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
England is indeed commonly used instead of UK, but not deliberately by people who understand the difference. Britain is regularly used to mean the UK by people who do understand, including major reference works and the British (and Irish) governments. DJ Clayworth 19:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
That's your own distinction, not one which Wikipedia recognises. The Irish government use Britain to refer to Britain, just as I do. To refer to the 'UK' means to acknowledge the British claim to the northeastern part of this country. The North is just that: "the North". This is a basic guide to Irish politics. 193.1.172.163 19:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- To poster 193.1 etc: Firstly, if you and the Irish government want to talk about Britain to specifically mean Great Britain, then that is rather nationalistic and wrong, as Great Britain is just an island. Also, in your strange world, is Northern Ireland an independent country or something? Or do you see it as only temporarily being part of the UK/Britain? Sorry, but I'm just trying to figure out where you're coming from. As for the British "claim" to Northern Ireland, it is the case that a clear majority of the Northern Irish population want to remain part of the UK. Only 22% want it to reunify with the rest of Ireland. See here: http://www.ark.ac.uk/nilt/2004/Political_Attitudes/NIRELAND.html
- Finally, in Encarta it says: "People often confuse the names for this country, and frequently make mistakes in using them. United Kingdom, UK, and Britain are all proper terms for the entire nation".
- Ojcookies 23:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Sadly it appears that 193.1.x.x is not prepared to contribute to a rational debate or accept a compromise. Furthermore they have twice violated WP:3RR, the second violation for which I have now reported them. I think other editors will only be wasting their time by trying to reason with 193.1.x.x. This debate has gone round in circles a couple of times, the compromise of linking to the [[British Isles {terminology)]] page seems to have satisfied all but 193.1.x.x, so I propose ignoring them and continuing to report if 3RR violations occur. If a substantial number of other editors (ie not 193.1.x) disagree with the compromise, then we can follow the standard WP dispute resolution procedure (RFC, straw poll, arbitration etc). Gsd2000 00:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not the Oxford English Dictionary. Even reputable works can be wrong on occassion. This is an encyclopedia, and as such I believe it is prudent to stick more precisely to the facts. I fully accept that "Britain" is used to describe the United Kingdom. I also fully accept that "England" is also used to describe the same thing. They are both however, wrong - entirely. Britain is an island. No part of Ireland has ever been a part of Britain (unless you consider when the ice sheets created a temporary bridge between the islands).
While Wikipedia should certainly note that the United Kingdom is often referred to as Britain (and as England), I think it should be the official policy of Wikipedia to name the country United Kingdom or UK to prevent any confusion to readers who may not understand the nuances of the terminology.
If I were someone who did not understand the geo-political structure(s) of the British Isles, I would be confused if someone referred to the UK as either Britain or England. Indeed, i have met people who have not understood the terminology, and they genuinely thought that the proper name for the country was England! They thought that included Scotland, Ireland and Wales too. While this would obviously be offensive to many people, that isn't necessarily what we should be concerned with. Wikipedia should be concerned with sticking to the proper terminology consistantly, so as to avoid this type of confusion. That doesn't mean we cannot include footnotes or short explainations to clarify the usage of other terms. --Mal 19:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah! That goes for me too.--Shtove 21:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Amusing though I find this entire thread, I would, as a born and bred London, say that UK or United Kingdom should be used, and "of the United Kingdom" over "British" when referring to agencies of state etc. For the record, "British" is a far more political and even racial term than people here seem to be aware of. This is all very 'post-Empire' a debate and full of pitfalls. Just stick to U.K or "of the United Kingdom" and variations thereof.Iamlondon 00:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, the basic problem here seems to be the different resonances these names have to different communities. It looks like to many US people in particular, but also to others outside the UK, "Britain" seems a normal usage and they don't really see the problem; to people who have Irish Republican or other political views against "the empire of Britain" the name is very different to the "UK"; to people within the UK, each separate country such as England, Scotland, Wales and so on is the main point of identification, and sometimes the people particularly from England are ignorant about, or insensitive towards, the people from for example Ireland in the use of terminology. Why don't we try to make a determined effort to explain these political and national viewpoints better on the Terminology page? There is a good attempt there, but to my mind, that page is currently more confusing than illuminating. Clearly there are strongly held views on what each usage means to different groups of people and WP should reflect that. MarkThomas 07:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- The "country confusion" isn't helped by certain editors constantly removing United Kingdom in favours of the home nations such as England (which, as far as I'm aware is a footy team, not a country). Yorkshire Phoenix God's own county 08:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Actually it's both. England is definitely a country, as is the UK. Wiktionary uses England as an example of a 'country within a country'. DJ Clayworth 13:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- OK, So if the OED is wrong how about Webster? The island you refer to is not actually "Britain", it is "Great Britain" which, like the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is informally referred to as "Britain". In neither case is that "incorrect". Mucky Duck 21:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Archive
What's the archive policy on this page? Discussions from the last week (indeed from yesterday) seem to have been archived already. Mucky Duck 09:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- I archived because the page had reached 100kb in length (well, 99!). There is no policy, as such - people (usually me) just archive when its fairly long. I archived all talk which I figured was 'dead' (I wanted to archive the Britain stuff above but as I'd been involved, felt I better not), but if you want to resurrect something just retrieve it from the archives. --Robdurbar 18:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- I pulled conversations that were only a couple weeks old back out. Kmusser 18:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
removing sources
I just reverted an edit because I saw an unregistered user remove a source. Selmo
Demographics
I removed this: "The part of Ireland still under UK rule has been subject to invasion and migration from Britain-most notably in the Settlement of Ulster by Scottish Protestants. ". Not that I disagree with it, but the section is about demographics, not history. Also this is just one aspect of a hugely complex subject, namely the migration of different peoples between the different parts of the UK, by regular movement and by conquest and colonisation. It seems wrong to mention this one aspect without mentioning the huge migration of Irish to mainland Britain, the migration of English to Scotland, the conquest of the Welsh, and a whole host of other subjects. DJ Clayworth 15:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with the above. The plantation of Ulster is significant historically but in a section on demographics it doesn't make sense to single it out amongst all the other instances of migration, invasion and colonisation. --Ryano 16:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- It has an extremely high historical significance. The Troubles in NI have their root in that migration. (More accurately described as Colonisation).GiollaUidir 16:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- I wouldn't dispute its historical significance, and I would hope it is adequately covered in the History of the United Kingdom article. However in the context of a section on the demographics of the UK it's hard to justify singling it out above the many other examples of migration and colonisation which have produced the current demographic mix. --Ryano 17:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- It has an extremely high historical significance. The Troubles in NI have their root in that migration. (More accurately described as Colonisation).GiollaUidir 16:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I put the first part of that edit in. The rest of the demographics talked about various invaders. In an article about the 'United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland' (that's the official title of your state, by the way: the meaning of the word and can be found here: www.m-w.com) there was not a single mention of the British as invaders. Why? Why were those particular invaders omitted? In that precise context, it was only correct that I mentioned that fact that British invaders came to Ireland and that is how this small part of Ireland (currently) remains part of the UK. It is only your nationalism which is denying these particular invaders of this (current) part of the United Kingdom. 193.1.172.163 19:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Your knowledge of history and nationalism of my country appears to leave a lot to be desired, 193*. It wasn't "British invaders" to start with - it was Normans. The people of Ireland were already British at this time, and had been for more than 1,000 years. As for the meaning of the word and, I think most people with a modicum of intelligence can see the context in which it is used.
- So, basically, your nationalism is preventing you from seeing a bigger picture and is convincing you that somehow "British invaders" arrived in Ireland at some point. --Mal 18:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, but those discuss external migrations to the current country (who's existence, rightly or wrongly, cannot be denied.) As a compromise, though, a sentence on 'the multiple immigrations between the constitutent countries' could be worthwhile, to emphasise that this happens. --Robdurbar 19:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- I would support that too. DJ Clayworth 19:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Illogical might-makes-right self-serving rhetoric. By the precise same train of thought, in 1919 you would not use the word invasion to describe how Galway, Cork and Dublin became part of the UK. The British held power so apparently that nullifies the entire invasion. Christ almighty, guys. Orwell would be inspired by you if he were rewriting the Newspeak part again. It was an invasion, and the native Irish nationalist community has remained subject to this British invasion in all its sectarian ignomy, an invasion/ status quo which has been supported to the teeth by the entire aparatus of the British state since 1969. You are not talking to a reader of The Sun here. 193.1.172.163 19:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- What an interesting theory. Because a country I once lived in invaded another country, my views on editing articles should be ignored. DJ Clayworth 19:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
For the second time this anonymous user has refused to play by the rules and has violated 3RR. I have reported this violation here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR#User:193.1.172.163_reported_by_User:Gsd2000_.28Result:.29 Gsd2000 23:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- User:80.6.206.189 keeps changing the demographics section. I have rv twice but would like to get some consensus, I have changed it to
- Immigration has come through interaction with continental Europe and international ties forged by the British Empire. Constant waves of immigration hit the UK, with Europe, Africa and South-East Asia being the biggest areas from where people emigrate. As of 2001, 7.9% of the UK's population identified themselves as an 'ethnic minority'.<ref> [http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=273 Ethnicity] National Statistics Online, Accessed [[June 3]] [[2006]] </ref>
- as I much prefer the National Census than Matthew Lynn as a secondary source and the BBC as a secondary source of an estimated figure! Rex the first talk | contribs 23:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Lists
I have removed lots of names in lists. Can we please try to keep the names down. I have been very harsh but the section read very badly, would you pleases consider this if more names are to be added. The UK article is too long and overly long lists are the easiest things to go. Rex the first talk | contribs 23:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Agreed. I did something similar to Scotland a few weeks ago. But I also linked a list, from an external source rather than a random list based on the personal favourites of whoever happens to have been editing Wikipedia. You might like to do the same. Viewfinder 00:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah - unfortunately I seem remember that people (myself included) have done this before, and then lo and behold, the list grdually expands again. --Robdurbar 06:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm sure it will regrow but we can but try! I'm not sure when you mean by, I also linked a list, from an external source. Do you mean external from Wikipedia or a category like ?Rex the first talk | contribs 11:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- For things like famous UK bands rather than a making up a list ourself we should reference an external source and use that. See Scotland's talk page for an example and in this page's archives about universities. Thanks/wangi 12:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Straw poll
Naming conventions are currently being discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography#UK geography terminology straw poll. Please join the discussion there to define a United Kingdom-wide policy. Mammal4 09:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
4 constituent countries
On a point of information, UK is consitiuted of 5 countries technically (see Constitutional status of Cornwall). The point is pedantic certainly, but, it has to be said, valid, and should be mentioned. Cornwall has a parliament, if further proof were needed. (Graldensblud 17:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)).
- The Cornwall argument is just a theory with plenty of holes in it. The Stannery parliment was for Cornish miners not Cornwall and has been suspended for several centuries. A parliament has been proposed for every English region but that wouldn't make them consitiuent countries. josh (talk) 18:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- josh is completely correct. The Cornwall 'parliament' has absolutely no standing at all. DJ Clayworth 20:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- Desuetude has relatively little legal standing in the UK, and it was stated in the Commons in ?1977? that the Charter of Pardon is still in effect. The Court of Chivalry sat in 1954 after several centuries of absence (and there was much official comment on how it still technically existed). The status of the current nationalists purporting to be a parliament certainly is a seperate issue, but the status of the Stannary Parliament as it stands suspended since 1752 (which holds right of veto on uk legislation) is set in law. Existed ergo exists. Not "proposed".
- For cornish miners not cornwall; "jurisdiction of the Cornish Stannary Parliament covered the four Cornish stannary towns: Truro, Lostwithiel, Launceston and Helston. Since these four boroughs covered the whole of Cornwall, the Cornish Stannary Parliament acted as a legislative body for the whole county" [Wikipedia]. I'm looking for the wording of the 1508 treaty.
- Laws were worded "England and Cornwall" prior to the union with Wales, just as they were later "England and Wales". I'll dig a source for that if needed but i've encountered several. Maps up until the c17th show it in a different colour and everything.
- Present situation/revivalists notwithstanding, there are actually relatively few holes in the arguement. Comments?
- [[[User:Graldensblud|Graldensblud]] 20:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)]
Population
Is over 60 million now. I haven't changed it though. Troubleshooter 09:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
The [BBC] quote it as 60.2 million, which I think must be rounded quite heavily. Can anybody find a reliable figure that's more accurate, or will we stick with 60,200,000? 195.224.127.180 10:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- "60,200,000" suggests the population is no more than 60,199,199 and no less than 60,000,001: "60.2 million" makes no such claim. Yorkshire Phoenix 10:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- ACtually 60,200,000 suggests the population is 60,200,000, 60.2 million suggests the population is anywhere between 60,150,000 and 60,249,999. 203.114.140.222 20:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Welsh
Could I suggest editors talk here instead of reverting over Welsh being included in official languages. Also why was Welsh and Scottish Gaelic not treated the same? Rex the first talk | contribs 13:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- I can only speak for myself but I know that Welsh is an official language in Wales (and thus the United Kingdom) but I don't know if the same is true of Scottish Gaelic, Ulster Scots or Cornish. Yorkshire Phoenix 13:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- Government =/= Westminster: if you change your address to one in Wales the DVLA will supply a bilingual licence whether you want it or not. That's official government use, as was the way the information booklets about higher education issued when I was at school that were published jointly by the Home Office and Welsh Office included Welsh (and my school was in Yorkshire, not Wales!) Yorkshire Phoenix 14:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- No, the government are the few MPs and Lords with ministerial portfolios, their civil servants and the departments and agencies who deliver their services. Yorkshire Phoenix 14:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Semantics never was my strong point. However, official languages are a legislative issue. If one were to be reconised it would be done by an Act of Parliament. This has never been done but as every single Act of Parliament is published and debated over in English and no other language it becomes a no brainer.
Also one of the effects of making a language official is that every piece of government documentation has to be published in that language. While some documents are translated in to Welsh many aren't. It would be unthinkable to not publish a government document in English. Until such time as the government pass legistation stating that all documents must be published in Welsh as well it is not an official language of this country. josh (talk) 14:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- Then, may I suggest we compromise by stating that there is no official language for the UK, and list all British languages that are officially recognised? Yorkshire Phoenix God's own county 07:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
- The legal situation is, I believe, that services must be provided in Welsh, and documents translated into Welsh, in Wales. So you can go into a government office in Cardiff and expect to be served in Welsh, but not in London. We should probably explain the situation rather than just say is/is not an official language. DJ Clayworth 13:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
- According to the Welsh Language Act 1993, an obligation is placed on the public sector to treat the Welsh and English languages equally in the provision of services to the public in Wales (direct.gov.uk). However, The Welsh Language Act 1967 guaranteed the right to use Welsh in court, and also provided for its use in public administration. (www.bwrdd-yr-iaith.org.uk - the Welsh Language Board). The upshot is that any Welsh speaker can access Government servies and documentation in Welsh in any part of the United Kingdom and not just Wales. christopherson78 13:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
- It is not true that one can access Welsh language services elsewhere in the United Kingdom, as the Welsh Language Acts were restricted to Wales. Furthermore, the right to use Welsh in court (in Wales alone) was established in the 1993 Act, not 1967. Notwithstanding those dry technicalities, Wales is unequivocally not an official language of the United Kingdom. Whilst we lack our own definition of an official language, the European Union does not, and they treat Welsh as a minority language, not an official language of the UK. This is also the position taken by the British government in everyday discourse. Thus, English is the only official language of the United Kingdom (as established by precedent), but Welsh is official in Wales (as, in fact, it was even before 1993). Bastin 20:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- "Welsh has never been uttered in Westminster" Lloyd George's first language was Welsh, for the record, so this statement is unlikely to be true. [[[User:Graldensblud|Graldensblud]] 20:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)]
That BBC link is very interesting, and we should modify the statements about Welsh in this article to reflect it. Unless anyone has any counterexamples. DJ Clayworth 22:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Establishment
Does anyone know why 1801 has been shown as the date of establishment? Technically the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland was established in the 1920s but it can clear trace its roots to the Acts of Union of 1707 and indeed the personal union of England and Scotland in 1606.
"Established 1801" just doesn't do the UK justice: it makes us look younger than some of our former colonies, including the United States! Yorkshire Phoenix God's own county 15:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- This is something that has been brought up before by users - including myself - who were unfamiliar with the situation. Apparently, the Kingdom of Great Britain that existed from 1707-1801 was never officially called the United Kingdom, and so the addition of Ireland to form the UK of GB and I in 1801 is seen as the beginning of the 'United Kingdom', with the removal of the Irish state in the 1920s as an 'adjustment'.
- And as for seeming younger - well it is!! --Robdurbar 15:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
This is a peculiar way of looking at it: "United Kingdom of" is actually part of the country's title (just like "Republic of"), not it's name. The name has been Great Britain ever since 1707 (this is why the ISO identifiers are GB and GBR, not UK). Whether it was officially a "Kingdom" or "United Kingdom" should be neither here nor there. Yorkshire Phoenix God's own county 15:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- For the most part, the Act of Union 1707 created the model for the institutions of state as they are today. However, the Act of Union 1800 was not a document of amendment of the Union between England and Scotland, or one inviting Ireland to enter into the same agreement. The Act of Union 1800 makes it clear that the United Kingdom is a wholly new country, formed by the union of two equal predecessors; the Crown, Parliament, established church, armed forces, and so on were different to those that predeced them.
- The 1800 Act is unlike the Government of Ireland Act 1920, the Anglo-Irish Treaty 1921, the Irish Free State Constitution Act 1922, the Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act 1927, and other relevant documents of the 1920s. All of these make it clear that the country and institutions remain the same, but under different names and jurisdictions. Thus, the analogy to the more recent change is false.
- I agree that it is an unfortunate side-effect that, by acknowledging this, it seems that the United Kingdom is younger than would otherwise appear. Colonially, militarily, culturally, it is a mockery of actuality, but, politically and legally, it was actuality.
- On the last point, that of its name, you are wrong. 'United Kingdom' has been an integral part of the name, since at least 1801 (some say 1707); 'Great Britain and Northern Ireland' is not the name of any state. By comparison, 'Republic of Ireland' has never been our neighbours' name, but a description (or, at least, so claims the Republic's constitution). The reason that the ISO codes are 'GB' and 'GBR' is stupidity, not deliberate commentary on the subtleties of centuries-old legislation. Bastin 15:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
ISO's reasoning is that "United Kindom" is not country-specific (United Kindom of Denmark-Norway, United Kingdom of Sweden-Norway, United Kingdom of Portugal, Brazil, and the Algarve, United Kingdom of the Netherlands, etc) and the union of any two existing kingdom's could compromise its uniqueness, whereas Great Britain is very specific (even though it does exclude Northern Ireland). Suggesting Ireland was an equal partner in 1801 and that the United Kingdom was not a continuation of Great Britain is somewhat misleading, regardless of what the Act says!
- I wasn't aware that ISO confided such things, but, if that's what they're saying, it can only be to cover their bureaucrats' lazy, incompotent arses. The reason that this article is titled 'United Kingdom' is that it's not confusing at all. I hardly find it credible that somebody would confuse the British Ambassador with the fellow from Denmark-Norway, think that Portugal, Brazil, and the Algarve had a chance in hell of winning gold at the quadruple sculls, or imagine the TLD '.uk' means that Ancient Israel had made it to the computer age. Even ignoring their extinction, the fact is that, in those cases, 'United Kingdom' was a style, and not the name of the country. In our case, the short name of the country is 'United Kingdom'; it's not just a style.
- I recognise that the Kingdom of Ireland, in actuality, was not an equal partner in 1801, or, indeed, at any point until Emancipation (some would say later or never; I wouldn't). However, the union prescribed under the Act of Union does make them equal partners.
- Of course, just because the 1801 is undeniably the date on which the modern state was born doesn't mean that other dates can't be added. Germany and Spain each have four dates given, so why the UK can't have more than one (1603, 1707, 1801, 1921, I suggest) is quite beyond me. Bastin 16:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- It doesn't really bother me, but the fact is that the 1800 act - as you state - notes that it is an entirely new country. I don't see why we couldn't also mention 1921. As for 1603 - plenty of states were in personal unions at various times in Medieval history and, though undoubtdly it made the later Union possible, legally and officially it has no bearing on the formation of the UK. --Robdurbar 17:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- The articles on Spain and Saudi Arabia gives their personal unions; Germany, the creation of the Holy Roman Empire; Norway, its exit from personal union with Sweden; most former Commonwealth Realms, their date of becoming republics; Malta, the date of British military withdrawal, etc. Why can't the UK do the same by giving the date on which its component parts first came under the same rule? I'm not suggesting that it be given instead of the actual dates of consolidation, but a secondary note to the date that would explicitly be given as the date of establishment: 1 January 1801. Bastin 22:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Well if others do it then I don't see why we shouldnt. WP:BE BOLD and as long as its well written and clear... --Robdurbar 08:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- How could one characterise the 1707 Act? 1603 is clearly a matter of 'Dynastic union' (as per Spain), 1801 is undoubtedly 'Establishment', and 1927 is 'Renaming', but 1707 is harder to describe so succinctly. Until one can be reached, I'm leaving it out (even though it was the trigger to change it in the first place). It may be for the best, because 1707 was probably the least relevant date anyway. If you object to any part of the addition, feel free to revert and discuss. Bastin 10:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
The current infobox is a vast improvement: but lists a different set of events to the {{UKFormation}} template (to the right of this paragraph).
Do you think we could come up with a consistent list of establishment events for the UK for the infobox and the template?
- Well we could leave out Rhuddlan and Wales from the article as these incorporated Wales into the Kingdom of England, and didn't really have much affect on creating the United Kingdom (the template is more detailed, I guess). The difference in the act of union date is that it was an 1800 act that came into affect in 1801 - semantics, really, but we can change the template there.
- Though 1927 was the 'renaming', I think its fair to say that the important event was Ireland leaving and I'll change the article date to 1921, for the Anglo-Irish treaty, but add the renaming to the template. Robdurbar 21:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- The 'new form' of the United Kingdom wasn't really redefined by Parliament until 1927. Only under the Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act did Parliament ultimately recognise the change in its territorial jurisdiction; Section 2 redefines the meaning of 'United Kingdom', which is as close as one can get under the principle of parliamentary sovereignty. The 1927 Act also marked the change in both parliamentary and sovereign styles. Bastin 13:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- Well its up to you; I agree wity Yorkshire that we should use the same in both and if your familiar with this subejct then thats fine. --Robdurbar 19:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but I don't understand the significance of the date of 12 April 1922 (I would have thought 6 December 1921 or 6 December 1922 appropriate). Notwithstanding that, I'd still rather go with 1927 than 1921/2. Whilst 1921/2 was obviously more important to the Republic of Ireland's historical formation, 1927 is (IMO) more important to the United Kingdom's current status. Furthermore, 1927 is of importance as the culmination of the events that preceded it, both in terms of the Irish Free State and the relationship with the Commonwealth. Territorially, of course, the date of the final expansion should be given as 1955 (annexation of Rockall)!
- Assuming that I have understood the proper use of the template, I personally won't think that the lists of events need to be the same. The template must include every event mentioned in the infobox, but not vice versa. At the moment, I think that the template is roughly complete and perfectly adequate for the task that it's supposed to perform, whereas the infobox is probably not. Bastin 10:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
England and the UK are the same
By the logic which the far right is using here, if Britain is now, suddenly, the same as the UK because many people equate them then by the same rationalisation England is now the same as the UK because many people equate them, not least the United States of America and numerous other states which still appoint Ambassadors to England. Either Wikipedia is applied equally, or it is not. As another editor pointed out, the Netherlands article, for instance, does not imply that Holland is the same as the Netherlands, and in fact states it is not. The British far right here just cannot abide even a mention of the inaccuracy of equating Britain with the UK. This is POV to a new level. Anyway, if Britain is the UK then England most definitely is the UK if we are being consistent with the British far right here. El Gringo 22:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- Please do not make personal attacks on your fellow contributors (accusing them of being "far right" when you know nothing about them). Your behaviour is verging on vandalistic. Gsd2000 22:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- Claiming that any part of Ireland is a part of Britain, as opposed to the UK, is a claim of the British far right, and a claim which runs counter to even your own legislation, most noticeably the Act of Union of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. 'And' is the key word which people of your, shall we say, "nationalist spirit" wilfully omit in their ahistorical revisionist drivel- utter drivel- that claims Derry and Armagh are now in Britain. Now, you please piss off with your abjectly offensive jingoism towards Irish people. El Gringo 22:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- I would prefer accurate jingoism over this amazingly inaccurate blurb. It's "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and *NORTHERN* Ireland", for a start - not as you claim. Secondly, the presence of the province of Northern Ireland in the United Kingdom is not a point of debate or discussion - it was ceded officially by the referedum in the Irish Republic (where over 90% of the vote approved) which removed a claim to "The Island of Ireland". So before you're ready to throw your pseudo-academic nonsense about at least bother to read a couple of books. And for the record, I'm Irish. Your rhetoric reminds me of those guys who used to stand outside church each Easter collecting money for guns...never failing to get told "where to go" as we say here.Iamlondon 23:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Claiming that any part of Ireland is a part of Britain, as opposed to the UK, is a claim of the British far right, and a claim which runs counter to even your own legislation, most noticeably the Act of Union of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. 'And' is the key word which people of your, shall we say, "nationalist spirit" wilfully omit in their ahistorical revisionist drivel- utter drivel- that claims Derry and Armagh are now in Britain. Now, you please piss off with your abjectly offensive jingoism towards Irish people. El Gringo 22:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- I've just placed a warning about no personal attacks on your talk page for this. Gsd2000 23:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- The UK is not generally synonomous with "England" as claimed by user El Gringo; therefore I have reverted his recent change. "Britain", the "British Isles", the "British Nation", "Great Britain", the "UK", are all reasonable. England has quite a specific widely accepted meaning, regardless of any political point. MarkThomas 22:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- 1. In Ireland the UK is never synonymous with Britain. The reason why is obvious. 2. Had you ever been to Ireland, you would quickly find that calling Ireland one of your British Isles is far from reasonable in Ireland. In fact, it is considered offensive. A visit to Talk:British Isles is evidently much needed. Indeed, turn on your British television and the use of the term is now much, much rarer than ever. 3. Great Britain is patently not the same as the UK. 4. Britain has quite a specific, widely accepted meaning, namely as the shortened form of Great Britain, regardless of any political point (this time being made by those seeking to push Ireland further into the British world and out of Ireland). El Gringo 23:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- The first sentence of your paragraph is contrary to the evidence. As I mentioned in the previous debate (which we are now repeating) I went to the website of an Irish newspaper and found many matches for the term Britain, including this one:
- Irish Times Article - New British ambassador leaves post in Ottawa
- Patsy McGarry
- Britain's new ambassador to Ireland, David Reddaway, will take up the post in August or September. He will replace Stewart Eldon who has been appointed Britain's permanent representative on the North Atlantic ...
- Gsd2000 23:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- The first sentence of your paragraph is contrary to the evidence. As I mentioned in the previous debate (which we are now repeating) I went to the website of an Irish newspaper and found many matches for the term Britain, including this one:
- ps anyone wishing to check my results just type in "Britain" into the search box of http://www.ireland.com. El Gringo does not speak for the entire population of The Republic of Ireland. Gsd2000 23:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- In fact, it is nothing of the sort. Talk about getting the wrong end of the stick. It is simply an Irish refusal to embrace the concept of the UK, as that entity involves a claim to Ireland. This is so basic, and so remedial, that it is baffling that you could twist it into the very thing it is not. I have never once referred to the "UK government" of the "UK state". It is the British state, and it is not in Britain but Ireland. That is the key point, and the necessary language to accurately portray the presence here on the island of Ireland of that state from across the sea. Saying the "UK" is an attempt to normalise the profoundly abnormal nature of the British state here; to pass that presence off as something it isn't. Saying 'British', on the other hand, conveys its alienness when talking about its rule not in Britain but in Ireland. Britain dresses its claim up to part of Ireland by renaming the British state as the UK state. At no stage since 1800, even under British law, has the UK and Britain been coterminous. It is quite simply a lie to say otherwise, as this article does. El Gringo 00:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Well, I tried to anyway. :-) Sharp-eyed user Gsd2000 beat me to it, thanks! MarkThomas 22:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Ditto this point, England is not the United Kingdom. England is a country within the United Kingdom. Jefffire 22:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- And, should you consult a map, you will find that Britain is only part of the United Kingdom, just as Holland is only part of the Netherlands(despite misunderstandings in certain benighted quarters about that). This, once again, is why the full title of the United Kingdom is the 'United Kingdom of Great Britain and- see that word, everybody?- Northern Ireland'. Ergo, by your very logic, Britain is not the United Kingdom and thus should not be referred to as such. It is sheer British nationalism which refuses to concede that Britain is an incorrect term for the UK. Contrast this with the Netherlands article which makes it clear that Holland is incorrect, while acknowledging it is widely used. El Gringo 23:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
El Gringo has a point about Britain not including NI. However, it's not the fault of Wikipedians that people often refer to the UK as Britain. The footnote seems to address this issue, although perhaps as a compromise it should also mention that technically this is an incorrect abbreviation. But vandalism is no way to get around this issue, and it's not helping your case... Cordless Larry 22:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- Re inclusion of "technically incorrect" - we've been over this multiple times and had oodles of debate on it - see above. Things had finally settled down until El Gringo came back on the scene just now. Gsd2000 22:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- Indeed. And things "settled down" in Ireland too after Oliver Cromwell "until those Irish came back on the scene"? No part of Ireland has ever been, or will ever be, in Britain regardless of the agenda of the British rightwing here. Complete nonsense that goes against even British political history and the constitutional foundation stone of the modern British state here in Ireland, namely the Act of Union of 1800. El Gringo 23:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- El Gringo, (curious name for an Irish Republican, but nice all the same!), I think most people here understand where you are coming from and realise that the history, politics and use of words surrounding the north of ireland and the role of England and the British state are all extremely hot issues to some Irish people and that a number of Irish Republicans in particular would have very strong views about that, as would some or many protestants living in what they see as the UK. However, I think what you need to realise is that Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia and as such tries to reflect commonly accepted usages and terms that people around the world would quickly identify. There is no doubt in the minds of contributors over some years to these articles that most of the world uses "UK" and phrases like "Britain" interchangeably. Now we all accept that you and many other Irish Republicans have very strong views that this is not acceptable, and indeed these views do have a place on Wikipedia in getting both mentioned and discussed, and many think they are. However the basic introductory text that you are repeatedly trying to change is not intended to give a full and final political description of the makeup and political relationships of the UK, Ireland, Northern Ireland, England or Ireland/Eire, but simply to show common usages of the terms, to help most users from around the world understand which page they are on. I realise this won't mollify you politically, and it isn't intended to, but I am trying to explain (as incidentally a US citizen, so no axe to grind I hope!) how Wikipedia sees pages like this to give you a better feel for where comment sits and common usage. Thanks for your comments. MarkThomas 08:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- The problem is that using something due to the prevailing popular culture can be translated as hard fact. Anyone who read this article in its current form would think that the use of "Britain" to describe the UK is synonymous with "the UK", which is quite definitely is not. I personally would want it removed, but at the very least I think it should be clarified better - it is not a synonymous term. DJR (T) 22:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- I have some sympathy with this viewpoint of Djr; how about it being phrased as follows?
- The problem is that using something due to the prevailing popular culture can be translated as hard fact. Anyone who read this article in its current form would think that the use of "Britain" to describe the UK is synonymous with "the UK", which is quite definitely is not. I personally would want it removed, but at the very least I think it should be clarified better - it is not a synonymous term. DJR (T) 22:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (often shortened to the United Kingdom, the UK or (incorrectly) Britain[1]) is a country, etc.... ?? MarkThomas 08:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- This would be erroneous. The term "Britain" to refer to the UK is not incorrect; it is simply an abbreviation. Mucky Duck 12:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- No The term "Britain" to refer to the UK is incorrect as the UK includes Northern Ireland. You would not expect an encyclopaedia to include mistakes even common ones! -- Chris Q 13:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- It's not a mistake nor is it incorrect. Britain is a de facto informal form of The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland used by native academics, media and politicians alike. Yorkshire Phoenix God's own county 13:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- "The UK includes Northern Ireland" - As does Britain in its political sense, and Ireland in its geographical one. Mucky Duck 14:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- By the way, here are some encyclopaedia references:
- Mucky Duck 14:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- As an aside, I was under the strong impression that technically the US (and others?) appointed their ambassador to the "Court of St. James" or something similar. Correct me if I'm worng however. Badgerpatrol 23:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- Yes - the current US ambassador to the "UK / Britain" (!) says (according to the US embassy website 1) "Robert Holmes Tuttle is U.S. Ambassador to the Court of St. James's". Not sure if this is in any way relevant to our discussion though - it's just an old formula going back to medieval times. MarkThomas 08:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- See El Gringo's initial post.... Badgerpatrol 13:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- El Gringo is right. Britain is Britain, Ireland is Ireland. Any popular usage of Britain to include a part of Ireland should be flagged as inaccurate.--Shtove 23:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- People from Northern Ireland are British citizens and can apply for British passports. Unlike the patently incorrect use of "England" to refer to the UK, Great Britain is an acceptable short-form version of the UK's full name - by which it is known in the Olympic Games, international rugby league, etc - and the ISO codes for the UK are GBR and GB, not UK. If Great Britain is synonymous with UK and Britain is short for GB then it is clear that it can also mean the UK. Historians and political scientists use Britain to mean the UK, but they would not use "England" to mean the UK. Yorkshire Phoenix God's own county 07:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- "British passport" is (unfortunately for your line of argument Yorkshire Pheonix) just another "popular usage" - the passport is officially known as being the passport of "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". MarkThomas 08:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- British citizen, however, is the legal term. Yorkshire Phoenix God's own county 09:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Re the statement "Britain is Britain, Ireland is Ireland". Both of these terms have two separate and different meanings - a geographical one and a political one - and in neither case does the political entity correspond exactly with the geographical one.
- With regard to El Gringo's diatribe; Britain (the UK) makes no claim over any of the territory of Ireland (the RoI). The reverse, although watered down recently, is not true. Mucky Duck 10:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Having just been made aware of this debate, I have to say that I agree with Mr Gringo on this one specific issue - namely, that in wide international usage, "England" is indeed synonymous with the UK. Here in the British Isles most people would probably baulk at such a usage, but the fact remains that for the majority of English speakers in the world such a usage would be unexeptional. When they use it, however, I doubt if they are thinking of boundaries and such like, and so whereas they do use "England" as a synonym for the British state, they probably - if they thought about it - would not include Northern Ireland or even Scotland in with that. And in a sense, they are not wrong - England makes up 83% of the UK population and dominates it completely. But in any case, if we are talking about usage, then "England" is undoubtedly widely used to mean the UK. TharkunColl 11:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- I think you are right TharkunColl about the very common confusion (yet again I have to remind: hugely elaborated on the somewhat confusing-and-in-need-of-further-work British Isles (terminology) page) over the use of England to mean the UK. Yet I think the base definition at the top of the key page should not repeat this very deep confusion if at all possible. Clearly, England is not the UK. Neither actually is Britain, but that is less clear. The word "England" to mean "the UK" is most commonly confused in the US. Perhaps we need a special page for US'ers? But seriously, do we have to account for every widespread confusion, do we try to set people right, or do we just use (and I go with this one) the _most common_ usages and the rest can go hang? Especially since we are (attempting) to explain the confusions properly on another page? You do have a point, but how do we use that in the context of the introduction in the light of writing an Encyclopedia for everyone, not just confused Americans? MarkThomas 11:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- You won't hear historians, academics or politicians referring to the UK as England. They do, however, refer to it as Britain: this is informal usage, not incorrect usage. Gsd2000 11:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with Mucky Duck, Northern Ireland is certainly not Part of GREAT Britain, however Britain is not the same thing as GREAT Britain. Britain is used to refer to the UK by the media, governments and the common people alike. Britain has been used interchangably with the UK for so many years and it is commonplace all around the World, and in all nations and regions of the UK, but not necessarily by all people of course. Marky-Son 15:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- however Britain is not the same thing as GREAT Britain. Er, since when? Go on, tell all of us Irish that Conamara, West Cork, Kerry, Donegal and the lot were part of "Britain" until the 6th December 1922 at 2.45pm when the Butcher's Apron was, after 121 years, removed from Dublin Castle. Because that is precisely what you are saying is the case in 2006 about Derry, South Armagh, West Tyrone etc in this article. Intellectually, historically and politically it is quite simply a lie to equate Britain with the UK. Edward Said had it so, so, sooooooooooooo right when he observed that one of the central impulses of colonial powers is to control the representation of the native and his world. If this article were to be accurate, it would point out clearly, unequivocally and impartially, just as the Netherlands article does on the Holland issue, that Britain is an incorrect name for the UK. All attempts at putting that fact into this article have been resisted by people who are really raging more against multicultural Britain than us Paddies (in fact, nowadays even the white (?) Paddies would be welcome!) The source for this fact is the very basis in British law- your own law- of the modern British state in Ireland, the Act of Union 1800, which explicitly makes the distinction between Britain and Ireland. It is sheer rightwing pov which is trying to now, in 2006, equate Britain with the UK without flagging the fact that this is incorrect usage in the same way as using the common Holland for the Netherlands is. Wikipedia is discredited by this politically inspired crap from British nationalists. El Gringo 21:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Although some of the above by El Gringo 21:42 5-9-06 is complete rant and assumption of all kinds of malice and bias on the part of WP editors and therefore against various Wikipedia policies, deep breath, nevertheless.... there is a good point in there about Holland. To quote from the Netherlands article intro:
"The Netherlands is often referred to by the name Holland. This is not terminologically precise, since the provinces of North and South Holland in the western Netherlands are only two of the country's twelve provinces. (For more on this and other naming issues see Netherlands (terminology).)"
I wonder if we shouldn't be using the phrasing I've already suggested, eg:
- The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (often shortened to the United Kingdom, the UK or (incorrectly) Britain[2]) is a country, etc.... ?? MarkThomas 08:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, I agree with MT, and with El Gringo (despite the ranting). All that's being asked for is a flagging of the use of British to mean the UK as inaccurate (my preference over incorrect). The only objections I see are the weaselly one about abbreviation, and the geographical/political distinction (which has been twisted to opposite ends on Talk:British Isles). Let's all retire to Talk:Adolf Hitler, where the atmosphere is so much healthier.--Shtove 22:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (often shortened to the United Kingdom, the UK or (incorrectly) Britain[2]) is a country, etc.... ?? MarkThomas 08:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Mark Thomas...your suggested wording is "the UK or (incorrectly) Britain", I think incorrectly is too strong a word. The Netherlands/Holland article uses not terminologically precise, which I think would be more appropriate. Marky-Son 22:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Agreed about the strength or POVity of my phrasing, OK, how about this everyone? (User El Gringo, please do comment but please also try to remember we are all basically well-meaning around here)...
- The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (often shortened to the United Kingdom, the UK or (inexactly) Britain[3]) is a country, etc.... ?? MarkThomas 08:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- I'll accept 'not terminologically precise' as a very euphemistic compromise, with an explanation in a similar vein to that which exists regarding Holland in the Netherlands article. El Gringo 23:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- My issue is not that the term "Britain" can be used to mean "the UK", but that the article in its current form does not make it clear that the term is not formal usage. It is fine to say that "Britain" is used to mean the UK, but as an encyclopedic article, it should not encourage or dress up informal labels as formal. DJR (T) 22:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- If we are going to qualify this at all, "informally" is a better compromise than "inaccurately". As noted above in the previous discussion cycle, it would be contrary to the Oxford English Dictionary to mark it as "inaccurate". We should not be in the business of contradicting the OED. Gsd2000 22:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- I was going to suggest debatably, but informally seems like the best option. Marky-Son 22:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- No. To say the UK is the same as Britain is quite simply factually incorrect and saying it is merely 'informal' does not address the correctness, precision, or accuracy of equating the UK with Britain. We are talking apples and oranges. This is an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias deal in facts, regardless of how unpalatable some of them are. El Gringo 23:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Excuse my ignorance, but who exactly are the "OED", and why shouldn't they be contradicted? Are they a reliable source? DJR (T) 23:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- The Oxford English Dictionary, which as our own page on it says, "generally regarded as the most comprehensive, accurate, and scholarly dictionary of the English language". I would be very impressed if one could make such a statement about El Gringo. One cannot work out the meaning of a word from first principles - a word's meaning cannot be known a priori. Dictionaries are the closest thing we have to an absolute frame of reference for language. Gsd2000 23:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Gsd2000: Very impressive. Having vandalised my page in the most obnoxiously pompous way possible, claiming I was making personal insults, you then make another personal attack on me. You should be ashamed of yourself! (blah, blah, blah- hang on while I, like you, revert to ten years of age and find a few threats....) When it comes to Ireland I have more precision about the mentality of your ilk than you could ever imagine. El Gringo 23:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- A little light hearted humour on my part does not equate to the attacks [2] you are making on your fellow British contributors. You are absolutely not helping your argument by being so belligerent and quite frankly, racist. Although this seems to be beyond your comprehension, the entire population of the United Kingdom is not an ardent imperialist who wishes to permanently subvert or insult your countrymen. When a British person says the word "Britain" it is not political point scoring or a backhanded insult. Quite frankly, I couldn't give two monkeys whether Northern Ireland is part of the UK or the Republic of Ireland. Whatever makes the people there happy is fine by me. Gsd2000 00:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- 1) A little light hearted humour on my part does not equate to the attacks..... Oh well, I suppose it must be grand then if you say so. 2)You are absolutely not helping your argument by being so belligerent and quite frankly, racist. Please, name the race in question. Thank you. 3) Although this seems to be beyond your comprehension. There is sea between Ireland and Britain. When it comes to what is, and is not, Britain the rest is not exactly rocket science. So I'm sure you'll forgive me if I refuse to take a lecture on comprehension abilities from your fine self. 4) the entire population of the United Kingdom is not an ardent imperialist who wishes to permanently subvert or insult your countrymen. Judging solely on your Irish-related edits to date, you're no Tony Benn or Ken Loach, so get over yourself quickly. The lovely Mrs Thatcher comes more to mind. In other words, the "entire population" of Britain has nothing to do with your mentality. 5) When a British person says the word "Britain" it is not political point scoring or a backhanded insult. It is precisely that when they are deliberately using it to refer to a part of Ireland, and rejecting all attempts at incorporating the imprecision of the name into this article. Then, it has everything to do with their national narrative, and nothing to do with transmitting factual information through an online encyclopedia. El Gringo 01:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- ^ See British Isles (terminology) for further explanation of the usage of the term "Britain" in geographical and political contexts.
- ^ See British Isles (terminology) for further explanation of the usage of the term "Britain" in geographical and political contexts.
- ^ See British Isles (terminology) for further explanation of the usage of the term "Britain" in geographical and political contexts.