Talk:Great Britain/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

title

The article seems to be about a single, large island. Isn't that Britain? Great Britain, surely, is a geographical expression which groups Britain with its surrounding islands. This is why great is used.

No! See the Derivation of "Great" section - the "Great" is to distinguish Britain-on-an-island from Britannia minor ("Lesser Britain"), the continental region which approximates to modern Brittany. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 16:44, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Strange links here

Hello gents. Is there a reason why a lot of links using the word "British" from elsewhere are linking to the Great Britain page? Some of it doesn't seem appropriate. In fact the entire reason I'm writing this is because I clicked on the "British" in "Himmler was arrested by British Forces," on the Heinreich Himmler page and instead of being taken to "British Forces" page, which is what I expected, I ended up on Great Britain. Seems pretty irrelevant to me?

Kaenei (talk) 23:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, in many cases the links to this page should be directed towards the UK article but come here instead, im not sure why people pipe Great Britain all the time but it certain happens alot. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. There are far too many errant links to fix manually, so if someone with the authority would care to take this up, it'd save a lot of confusion. Linking stuff like "British Forces" to Great Britain could only be relevant if it was regarding a military event prior to 1800 or actually linked to the Great Britain nation entry, rather then a geography page.

Kaenei (talk) 13:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

"British Isles"

Somebody has distorted the comments of Pliny the Elder. This article stated: The archipelago has been referred to by a single name for over two thousand years, the term British Isles derives from terms used by classical geographers to describe the island group. Pliny the Elder (c. 23–79 AD) in his Natural History (iv.xvi.102) records of Great Britain: “It was itself named Albion, while all the islands about which we shall soon briefly speak were called the Britanniae.” However, two sentences later, Pliny the Elder clarified the above: "Hibernia lies beyond Britannia, the shortest crossing being from the lands of the Silures, a distance of 30 miles." (http://www.roman-britain.org/pliny.htm). In other words, Ireland was not part of Britannia/the British Isles, as the editor suggested. I have amended it to accurately reflect the source. 78.16.118.19 (talk) 10:19, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Concur, and its nore relevant to the article anyway, which is about Great Britian --Snowded ^TALK 10:29, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

The passage makes it clear that Pliny is differentiating between the island of Britannia and the island group” while all the islands about which we shall soon briefly speak were called the Britanniae” Moreover it then goes on to list most of the islands around Britain. So it seems clear to me that Pliny is saying that the Island of Hiberni8a lies beyond the island of Britain but is part of the Britanniae group.Slatersteven (talk) 16:07, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Great Britain - Britain

The island in question is far more often called Britain than Great Britain. ðarkuncoll 00:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

It is called Great Britain because it is greater in size than the other British Isles such as Ireland or Wight. Great Britain as opposed to Little Britain. Barjon (talk) 18:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

No, that is wrong - see Terminology of the British Isles. "Great Britain" was so called in the Middle Ages to differentiate it from "Little Britain" or "Lesser Britain", which referred to the area now known in English as Brittany and in French as Bretagne. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

First Paragraph

Great Britain IS NOT the 3rd most populated island on Earth. Please amend!

The First Paragraph includes :-

"Great Britain is an island[5] lying to the northwest of Continental Europe. ... Great Britain is surrounded by over 1000[6] smaller islands and islets. The island of Ireland lies to its west."

That is not quite right. As is indicated later, GB is that large island AND the 1000 smaller islands (not including Ireland and its adjacent islands, the Isle of Man and its Calf, and the Channel Island group).

While the rest of the article makes the point clear, the introduction should of itself be accurate.

Great Britain also surrounds some islands, such as Brownsea Island and Chiswick Eyot.

82.163.24.100 (talk) 21:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

I notice reference to the full title of United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland being shortened to Great Britain - I'm not sure how this has come about and whether it's a good way of shortening the full title - Wouldn't United Kingdom be a less exclusive shortened form with respect to Northern Ireland?

CJB49 (talk) 18:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

No - this isn't about the UK. There is an article United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland about the UK. This one is about the island containing England, Scotland and Wales. Peridon (talk) 20:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Whatever a page is about it must be important that it's deemed to be accurate. The page currently says .... 'The term "Great Britain" (and the abbreviation 'GB') is the traditional 'short form' of the full country title 'the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland'.... This 'short form' seems not to be accurate as it excludes Northern Ireland - surely it would be accurate and less exclusive to limit the shortening of the full title to United Kingdom (and the abbreviation 'UK') - I think the page should be edited to remove the inaccuracy CJB49 (talk) 14:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

INTERNATIONAL IDENTIFICATION FOR MAIL TO GB ADDRESSES

While users of Royal Mail within Great Britain will use a city address and postal code, there is no necessity to address the question of where that city and postal code is located globally. But, if the sender is outside of Great Britain, then it becomes extremely important. I have personally had mail addressed to the "UK" misdirected to the UKRAINE!!!!! When searching for the correct identifier I was shocked to discover that the United States Postal Service uses Great Britain - not the United Kingdom for its geographical identification. The reason is simple: Great Britain is a geographical location and the United Kingdom is a political name. Mail goes by geography - not politics. The link to the USPS site is posted within the article. If a person wished to refer to Wikipedia in order to find out what the correct identification is in order to mail a letter or package, then it is certainly relevant to include this information. English and Scottish place names have been duplicated all over the globe, but there is only one island of Great Britain and that is where all incoming mail is sorted or directed on to its ultimate destination. If you live in Great Britain you may not be aware of any of this since you would not have a need to know. Perhaps there should be a section dealing with Mail, and the casual reference to "UK should be removed because its explanation for alternative usage within this article is incorrect. It is not a question of either-or, because there is only one correct address and that is Great Britain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.128.184.255 (talk) 14:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

This information is already present in the article (see [1]) and to date no one has considered it to be one of the most important features of the island of Great Britain. Realistically, do you believe that how the US postal service choose to distinguish towns and cities in Great Britain is more important and of greater interest to a worldwide readership than the information following it in the introduction? For example: which countries are on the island, their capital cities and historical information on the formation of the UK, or even all other information contained in the article that is not in the lead? Also, no external links should be in the main body of an article. I am reverting, please do not reinstate. Daicaregos (talk) 16:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Great Britain - Britain

Definitions:

• The island of Britain is called Britain.
• The term Great Britain is a political term and not a geographical term, like Großdeutschland = Great Germany, which included Germany, Austria, Alsace, Czechia, Slowakia and Poland, or Great Israel, which includes Israel, Palestine (West Bank and Gaza).
• The term Great Britain refers to the 3 Historical Regions of the island of Britain, which are England, Wales and Scotland, but not Northern Ireland.
• The term Little Britain stands for Brittany or Bretagne. This is more a historical allusion to the homeland of William the Conqueror and not a reference for the naming of the island of Britain in Great Britain.

Your reference to the Terminology of the British Isles is wrong, because this reference is wrong. See at the reference list of this article:

1. ^ "Britain", Oxford English Dictionary: "More fully Great Britain. As a geographical and political term: (the main island and smaller offshore islands making up) England, Scotland, and Wales, sometimes with the Isle of Man"
2. ^ New Oxford American Dictionary: "Britain: an island that consists of England, Wales, and Scotland. The name is broadly synonymous with Great Britain, but the longer form is more usual for the political unit."
3. ^ "Britain", Oxford English Dictionary (Online Edition): "Britain: 1a - The proper name of the whole island containing England, Wales, and Scotland, with their dependencies; more fully called Great Britain; now also used for the British state or empire as a whole."

Of these 3 References I would prefere the Reference of the New Oxford American Dictionary: "Britain: an island that consists of England, Wales, and Scotland. The name is broadly synonymous with Great Britain, but the longer form is more usual for the political unit."

Because you say in the head line ("This article is about the island. etc."), you must rephrase your first sentence in the article from ("Great Britain is an island situated to the northwest of Continental Europe.") to ("Britain is an island situated to the northwest of Continental Europe.") and so on.

Also you or somebody must correct the article Terminology of the British Isles in that manner.

Your article is nice, but it´s a collossal fault not clearly distinct between the geographical term Britain and the political-historical term Great Britain.

Michael Belzer --MBelzer (talk) 10:22, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Aristotle citation is incorrect

The text cited as "by Aristotle", On the Universe, is generally considered an apocryphal work that misattributed to him for a period in antiquity. (Follow its link). I'd correct it but the page is locked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.182.242.170 (talk) 08:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Could you please propose a draft of your correction (with sources), here? It would be easier to understand exactly what you are pointing out. Thanks, Hayden120 (talk) 09:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Some basics this article lacks

Any geographical description of an island (or lake, ocean, or political entity) should include its length, width and coastline. This article was locked - implying it has some kind of authoritative imprimatur - before these fundamental facts were included. This failure is an embarrassment to Wikipedia. Someone should be authorized to fix it. Wlegro (talk) 15:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The article is semi-protected because of excessive vandalism, it's as simple as that. To be 'authorised', all one needs to do is make 10 edits anywhere on Wikipedia, and the account has to be at least four days old. As far as I can see, your account satisfies these criteria. It's just a way of limiting vandalism; unfortunately some people abuse their freedoms. Wikipedia is a work in progress – you are free to correct your concerns, as long as you cite your sources. Best regards, Hayden120 (talk) 08:54, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Derivation of "Great"

The distinction between Britannia Major and Britannia Minor is well attested, but Britannia Minor was not originally Brittany.

Ptolemy's Almagest is explicit that Britannia Minor is both north of Britannia Major and just south of Thule (Iceland). Unless I'm completely lost, that would be Scotland north of the Antonine Wall and so beyond Roman control. AJRG (talk) 12:33, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

For reliable sources, see Abraham Ortelius, in the Parergon (historical appendix) to his Theatrum Orbis Terrarum, Antwerp, 1595 and JANSSONIUS, J. Insularum Britannicarum acurata delineatio, Amsterdam 1642. The boundary has moved south to Hadrian's Wall to reflect Roman control at a date later than Ptolemy, though the more northern wall is marked. AJRG (talk) 12:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Religion

According to the article : "Christianity has been since the Early Middle Ages, though its existence on the island dates back to the Roman introduction in antiquity and continued through Early Insular Christianity. "

Has been what? 217.28.5.247 (talk) 18:45, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Undid clause deletion that originally resulted in this malformed sentence. Now (again) reads "Christianity is the largest religion on the island and has been since the Early Middle Ages, though its existence on the island dates back to the Roman introduction in antiquity and continued through Early Insular Christianity." Thanks for pointing it out. Fat&Happy (talk) 19:08, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Irish Sea - Why not?

This is an article about an island that makes no mention of one of the main seas the wash it's shores. It mentions the North Sea four times and the English channel three but not one mention of the Irish Sea. This needs to be changed. Bjmullan (talk) 19:43, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Omg two agreements in 2 minutes. I best leave for the evening! lol BritishWatcher (talk) 19:45, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Next I will be getting your address so I can send you a St Pat's card ;-) Bjmullan (talk) 19:49, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Well there is an incentive to disagree in future lol. I am glad they do not do St Georges day cards, i have to lock myself away on that day already with out worrying about what would be coming through the mail. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Appreciate it's off topic, but why do you have to lock yourself away on St George's Day? You may reply on my talk page if you feel it's inappropriate to do so here. Daicaregos (talk) 20:51, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

The British sea life may find the usage of Irish Sea, offensive. GoodDay (talk) 21:14, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done Daicaregos (talk) 21:33, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

The Irish Sea only covers part of the stretch of sea separating the two islands. To be more accurate, should the text not refer to the North Channel, Irish Sea, St George's Channel and Celtic Sea? See this map - the Celtic Sea is the stretch separating southern Ireland from Cornwall (but perhaps could be dropped if there is an issue over brevity). Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:45, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Now changed. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Population Clarity

In the opening paragraph it says the population is '59.8 million as of mid 2009' In the Demographics section at the side it says approximately 61,792,000 (as of mid-2009) This is a variation of nearly two million, probably needs clarifying and changing. I forget my username (talk) 22:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.89.20 (talk)

Political content

In general I think that this article has too much political content and not enough geographical content. Three of the four opening paragraphs deal with political issues not and the island. This is an article about GB the island NOT GB the country. Bjmullan (talk) 20:15, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Could merge the final 2 paragraphs into one, then have one more paragraph strictrly for more geographical stuff in the intro. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:17, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Just read the intro, it seems like there is a lot of unneeded information. The whole last two paragraphs deal with the historical advancement of the UK, which is in my opinion definitely not important enough to place in the introduction. Possibly could be replaced by a short geological description (expand on the current first paragraph) and a summary of fauna/flora Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:36, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Use of British Isles

The discussion involves inclusion of the term "British Isles" in the article's lead. TFOWR 09:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

If there are no justified objections to British Isles being mentioned in the lead, i will be adding it within 24 hours. Inclusion on this page does not mean it must be included on the Ireland page. This article already mentions the British Isles in the infobox, something editors on the Ireland page successfully blocked for no real reason. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:33, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Reasons..

• This is a geographical article, its geographic location belongs in the introduction.
• The fact Great Britain is the largest island in the British Isles is notable for the introduction, especially as it already mentions there " It is the ninth largest island in the world, and the largest European island", highlighting the size of an island in relation to geographical areas (Europe/world) is important so why exclude the British Isles?
• It was in the introduction before it was removed by an editor clearly involved in British Isles matters.
• It is factually accurate.
• A search for "Great Britain" + "British Isles" on Google Books finds over 300,000 results highlighting its notability.
• The controversy that may exist over use of British Isles with Ireland, does not exist for Great Britain there for it can be mentioned without needing to water it down a lot over the naming dispute.
• New Guinea (an island) mentions in its introduction that "Geographically it is east of the Malay Archipelago, with which it is sometimes included as part of a greater Indo-Australian Archipelago."
• Baffin Island - In its first sentence it mentions its the largest member of an archipelago.
• Like the Baffin Island, the following articles on islands in the Canadian archipelago mention it in their introduction (mostly in the first or second sentence). Victoria Island , Ellesmere Island, Banks Island, Devon Island, Axel Heiberg Island, Melville Island, Southampton Island , Prince of Wales Island, Somerset Island , Bathurst Island , Prince Patrick Island, King William Island, Ellef Ringnes Island. Only Bylot Island fails to mention the archipelago in the introduction. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:42, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

First, there should be consideration, collectively, of whether the term needs to be added to the article text, presumably in the section on "Geographical definition". When that is resolved, there should then be further consideration, collectively, of whether the summary of the article which is contained in the lead - because the lead summarises the article and should not provide additional information - should contain a ref to the term. When that is resolved, there should be consideration of precisely what text should be included, taking account of the need to give due (and not undue) weight to it. So, no rush, please. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Whilst the lead is meant to summarise the article, many articles (especially country/geography ones) state some things in their lead which are not mentioned throughout the article. For example: Featured artcle India " It is the seventh-largest country by geographical area", where abouts is that in the article? Many country articles do not include geographical location details in their geography section, i happen to think they should but if featured articles can get away with it i do not see why we cant. British Isles should certainly also be added to the Geographical definition section on this page. I propose that as well. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Houston is another example of a featured article. I may be wrong but i can not find info about its first sentence "the fourth-largest city in the United States of America and the largest city in the state of Texas. " within the article. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:17, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Those articles should be adjusted so that error is corrected. WP:LEAD calls the Lead a concise summary of the article. In terms of this article it should definitely be added elsewhere before the lead. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:27, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Well there are a lot of articles that do it, whilst i agree that geographical information should be included in the geography section, i dont see any serious problem with it. Although it should have to be sourced. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

But if we must deal with the text within the rest of the articles, so be it. We should change the sentence in the geographical definition section to say something like.. "Great Britain lies to the northwest of Continental Europe and east of Ireland within the British Isles." Justification for including this information is explained in many points posted above about the lead. Also add to it the fact Ireland mentions it is in the British Isles within the article text and we already mention British Isles here in the infobox (in line with the overwhelming majority of Island infoboxes, although for unknown reasons it is excluded from some others. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I would support a slightly tweaked version of the sentence in the Ireland article, so: "Great Britain lies to the northwest of Continental Europe and east of Ireland. Great Britain and Ireland, together with nearby islands, are known collectively as the British Isles, although the name is contentious in relation to Ireland, and other terms are also in use." Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I do not see the need to mention the name is contentious in relation to Ireland on this article. Its mentioned on the Ireland article because of the concern there. But stating it on this page gives the naming dispute undue weight. Are we expected to include the fact it is contentious every time British Isles is mentioned? Its unworkable and this would have implications for the wider dispute. The campaign would start trying to rubbish the term in every article it appears rather than the simple deletion method used at present. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

We are discussing this article, not any "campaign" elsewhere. The controversy over the term should be mentioned in this article because it is notable. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

It is not notable in relation to Great Britain. It is notable in relation to Ireland. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:41, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

No - it is contentious in relation to Ireland, but the controversy is notable generally, which is why we have an article on it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Everywhere the British Isles is mentioned on wikipedia must it make reference to the fact it is contentious in relation to Ireland and that there is a naming dispute article about it? BritishWatcher (talk) 10:45, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

No, but in this article it is of sufficient relevance and notability to be mentioned in passing in the text, as my suggested wording does. I'm not suggesting that the controversy should be mentioned in the lead. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:48, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The naming issue is only in relation to Ireland though, it seems irrelevant to this article and it overplays the seriousness of its contention. Id back a compromise to mention the controversy in the geography section if BI can be added to the lead without having to detail it, but the controversy still seems unrelated to this article. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that the first paragraph of "Geographical definition" is reworded to Great Britain lies to the northwest of Continental Europe and east of Ireland. Surrounded by over 1,000 smaller islands and islets, it is the largest island in the British Isles archipelago. It is separated from the continent by the North Sea and by the English Channel, which narrows to 34 kilometres (21 mi) at the Straits of Dover. It stretches over about ten degrees of latitude on its longer, north-south axis, and occupies an area of 209,331 km² (80,823 square miles). The North Channel, Irish Sea, and St George's Channel separate the island from the island of Ireland to its west. The island is physically connected with continental Europe via the Channel Tunnel, the longest undersea rail tunnel in the world which was completed in 1993. Geographically, the island is marked by low, rolling countryside in the east and south, while hills and mountains predominate in the western and northern regions.

This would then allow the lede to start Great Britain is an island situated to the northwest of Continental Europe. It is the ninth largest island in the world, and the largest European island. With a population of about 59.8 million people in mid-2009, it is the third most populated island on Earth. The largest island in the British Isles archipelago, Great Britain is surrounded by over 1,000 smaller islands and islets., with no reference to Ireland being included in the British Isles or not. Bazza (talk) 12:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Nice! garik (talk) 12:53, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, that is a very good suggestion. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:13, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion reads well, should be stable. I say go for it. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:48, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that the proposed para for the "Geographical definition" reads well, although I would personally prefer a mention of (and link to) the dispute there. But, so far as the first para of the intro is concerned, I propose ditching in its entirety the suggested fourth sentence ("The largest island in...."), simply on the grounds of undue weight. When the first three sentences talk about the location and size of the island, there is no need - in the opening paragraph - to talk about the "over 1000 islands and islets" surrounding it, or to make any reference to the archipelago. We have said it's a big island, and we have said where it is located. That is enough - that paragraph does not need to go into further unnecessary and peripheral details. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:29, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

But there is no need to mention the dispute, we avoid stating Ireland is part of the British Isles making it totally irrelevant to this article use of the term. People can easily check the article itself for the details of whats included in the British Isles and also see the naming dispute there. I believe mentioning the dispute here would give it undue weight, we cant state it on every article that mentions the British Isles. If it has to be mentioned, the only place its needed is on the Ireland/Geography of Ireland articles. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:19, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

The introduction should make clear it is part of an archipelago, and there is no reason not to state its name. Maybe we dont need to say it is the Biggest island in the British Isles as weve already said its the biggest in Europe but the fact it is in the BI needs to be there. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:24, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

How about if we simply say " Great Britain is surrounded by over 1,000[6] smaller islands and islets within the British Isles". BritishWatcher (talk) 09:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Why does the introduction need to state anything about that? "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject should usually be established in the first few sentences." WP:WEIGHT applies. The fact that there is a group of islands sometimes called the "BI" is obviously of consuming interest to some editors here - but it is actually not that important when considering what are the most important facts about the island for readers. We've said it's big, densely populated, and where it is, and the next para goes on to talk about its position in the UK. The fact that there are other smaller islands around it isn't really of sufficient importance to justify a reference in the opening paragraph of the article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Great Britain is part of an archipelago known for centuries as the British Isles. There are 100,000s of references to it. Its notable, i gave some examples above where the archipelago is stated in the introduction of island articles. The introduction at present states " Great Britain is surrounded by over 1,000[6] smaller islands and islets. " but we do not tell them the name of the archipelago they are in. If the fact its surrounded by islands is notable, which i believe it is, we should state the archipelago. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:37, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

My argument is that it is not sufficiently notable for the opening paragraph of this article, and I'm not defending the current wording. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Belonging to an archipelago seems far more notable than: "The island has a relatively small variety of fauna and flora, due to its size and the fact that wildlife has had little time to develop since the last ice age. The high level of urbanisation on the island has contributed to a species extinction rate that is about 100 times greater than the background species extinction rate." Which is in the introduction. If the intro was overflowing with vital information then maybe it would be more questionable, but there is plenty of space to include it being part of a group of islands. It is just one line. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Are we ok to add this? the wording is better and if there is no more concerns it should be included. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:52, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I've no probs with its addition. GoodDay (talk) 22:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

If British Isles is notable enough to be included at all (and I am far from convinced that it is) it should be noted that the term is controversial, that there are other terms being used increasingly and it should be linked to the naming dispute. I am also in agreement with Ghmyrtle that it is not sufficiently notable for the opening paragraph of this article. Daicaregos (talk) 07:02, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Ghmyrtle suggestion of 10:07, 23 September 2010. Per previous discussion on Ireland: this is a minor geographic fact, it is just about satisfies notability criteria for the Geography section but there is no valid case for the lede. If mentioned there needs to be a link and a note in respect of the controversy. Also BW, your opening common on this thread to wit that you will add the term into the lede unless there are "no justified objections" is provocative. You knew that there would be objections from previous discussions. --Snowded ^TALK 07:13, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that proper weight should be given in the main text of the article to the naming dispute, by mentioning it briefly there - which Bazza's proposal does not do. I still haven't seen a good reason for mentioning the archipelago in the opening paragraph, and I'm also not clear what Bazza is suggesting about the last sentence of the current opening paragraph - "Politically, Great Britain may also refer to the island itself together with a number of surrounding islands which comprise the territory of England, Scotland and Wales." Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:28, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

The idea that every time the British Isles is mentioned we have to include it with a statement that it is controversial in relation to Ireland and other terms are in use is simply unworkable. If we do not even mention Ireland as being part of the British Isles within this article as the proposal above said then how is a mention of the dispute needed which only applies to Ireland? As for the reasons for including this in the introduction. I have stated a number of reasons above. What are the specific reasons against inclusion in the introduction? BritishWatcher (talk) 09:27, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't need to be included every time the British Isles is mentioned in each article. Often an article (on fauna for example) will say ' … are common in the British Isles.', in which case there would be no need to mention the naming controversy, as it is not relevant. In this case, however, the term is used to define the archipelago Great Britain is a part of. If it is notable to include the name of that archipelago, the alternative names of the archipelago are relevant and notable too. That it has more than one name requires explanation so the naming controversy should also be linked. Btw the 'dispute' does not just concern Ireland. Even if it did, this is the English language Wiki, not the English Wiki, and the English language is used in Ireland too. Daicaregos (talk) 11:15, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

How is controversy over use of British Isles in relation to Ireland related to this article if we are simply saying Great Britain is part of the British Isles and not mentioning Ireland at all. It is not relevant here. There is no other name of the archipelago that comes anywhere close to being on an equal footing with the British Isles, the only main alternative is that Atlantic archipelago which almost no one has heard of. The dispute is in relation to Ireland. There was no mention of Ireland in the proposal above. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:26, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh and please explain how it is not notable to mention the fact this island is part of an archipelago. There are 100,000s of references to the archipelago, there are many books with it in their title. It is notable for the geographic definition section, its notable for the infobox and yes it is notable for the introduction. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:28, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Atlantic archipelago is not the only main alternative, that is as you well know "Britain and Ireland". That aside it is controversial, a short statement and link is hardly a big issue. As to notability, those arguments have been made many times, it has some relevance but notability is questionable. It is notable in many an article on flora/fauna etc but that notability does not transfer accross--Snowded ^TALK 11:35, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

If a short sentence is a not a big issue i do not understand why there is such hostility to BI being mentioned within the article text and Introduction. The geographical location of Great Britain is extremely notable for an article on an island. And GB is in the British Isles and Europe, we should clearly mention both. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:24, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Mention the controversy, BW. Doing so, is educational for readers, which is an encyclopedia's function. GoodDay (talk) 13:03, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

My concern about including the controversy when it is clearly irrelevant to this specific article, and the fact GB is part of the British Isles is it will be insisted on in other articles too. We will get to a stage where you can not mention British Isles without this disclaimer. Id support the compromise of mentioning the controversy if it means BI can be mentioned in the intro too which several editors seem to support. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:24, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I see no probs with mentioning the disclaimer in other articles. GoodDay (talk) 13:27, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

including it after every single time it is mentioned is simply unworkable. Most sources that use British Isles do not include the fact the term is controversial or disputed. And its only disputed in relation to Ireland and the proposal above made no reference to Ireland being in the British Isles. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:30, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Mentioning it 'once' per article, is sufficent. GoodDay (talk) 13:41, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I just put in at the start, for one very simple reason. If I didn't know that, I think I would want to, so it is a useful piece of information and should appear here. Lancashire Druid (talk) 13:51, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

And I just reverted. One opinion is not consensus. Daicaregos (talk) 13:54, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand where consensus comes into this. The information is just basic stuff and dosn't harm anyone. Lancashire Druid (talk) 13:58, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

That is just your opinion. Perhaps you will understand if you read though this thread. Please also read WP:CONS. Daicaregos (talk) 14:02, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Well i am very glad to see there is consensus to add British Isles to the article. If we include a mention of the controversy, can a mention of the BI be added to the introduction as well? that seems to be a fair compromise that goes to addressing both points of view. However mentioning the controversy on this page should not set a precedent. I do not believe that it is really needed on this page at all, especially if we avoid mentioning the fact Ireland is part of the BI. Use of BI in reliable sources does not always come attached with a warning that its contentious in relation to Ireland. We are giving this wikipedia dispute far too much weight. All of this is based on a couple of comments by an embassy and a couple of organisations avoiding mentioning the archipelago. Anyone would think from all of this there is rioting on the streets of Dublin over it. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:54, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

You see consensus do you? I don't. Perhaps we should have a straw poll. (Re: precedent) Please note that it is not up to an individual editor to dictate policy. And please stop soapboxing. Daicaregos (talk) 12:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I see clear consensus that people accept the British Isles should be added to this article. Thats an improvement from the present situation which has existed since BIs unjustified removal. The question is do we have to include detailed information about a controversy that does not have any relation to Great Britain being in the British Isles (it is simply about Ireland which we avoid mentioning). The other question is do we add it to the introduction. I do not think a straw poll is needed, we can always add up the comments above. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can see there is some consensus for including a reference in the geography section if there is a link to the controversy. There is no consensus for the lede and I really don't see how this could be considered a compromise. --Snowded ^TALK 19:27, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Well 4 posts here seem to suggest they are fine with the proposal without mentioning the controversy and a 5th that supports it being in the introduction. Levenboy also proposed this although hes not commented here and obviously wont be able to for a few days. I count 3 wanting the controversy be mentioned so far, with GoodDay also saying we should mention it (although i dont know if hes opposed to inclusion without it). Im unsure how some people feel on the introduction. I believe mentioning the controversy (which has nothing to do with Great Britain being in the British Isles) in the text along with a mention in the introduction of the British Isles is the middle ground of the above positions stated. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Inclusion with or without the controversy mentioned, is fine with me. GoodDay (talk) 14:07, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The BISE template should be removed, as this discussion has been [Resolved] at BISE. Start a new discussion if you like, but don't use the BISE template. --HighKing (talk) 15:56, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Do all the templates get transcluded after the debate there is fully resolved? BritishWatcher (talk) 16:12, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Well it has all gone quiet. What should we do. British Isles clearly needs to be inserted into the article. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:41, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

The "clear need" is your opinion, but there is agreement to put it into the geography section - propose wording --Snowded ^TALK 22:06, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Im prepared to support mentioning the controversy and using the wording for the Ireland article if it can get a mention in the introduction. As i said before that seems to be the middle ground of the present positions with some thinking it should be mentioned in both the intro / article without a mention of the controversy and others saying mention it but with the controversy. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:04, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

So the Ireland wording mentioned above by Ghmyrtle in the article and perhaps.. "Great Britain is surrounded by over 1,000^[8] smaller islands and islets within the British Isles. " in the introduction. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I've no probs with mentioning it in the introduction. GoodDay (talk) 23:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

If there is no more debate, ill be added the compromise above tomorrow. Mentioning BI in the lead like in the example above, and in the article with the wording used on the Ireland page which explains it is contentious in relation to Ireland. Seems like a reasonable middle ground. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:35, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I believe there is consensus for what you are suggesting - there has been no additional discussion for several days. I see no reason why you can't go ahead with the edits whenever yo like. --HighKing (talk) 16:41, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

What wording do you suggest Ghmyrtle. It could not say Great Britain is surrounded by over 1,000 smaller islands and islets within the British Isles. The island of Ireland lies to its west. It will sound like the island lies to the west of the BI. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:30, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Maybe.. Great Britain and Ireland, which lies to its west, is surrounded by over 1,000 smaller islands and islets within the British Isles.?

or maybe

Great Britain is surrounded by over 1,000 smaller islands and islets, including Ireland which lies to its west, within the British Isles? BritishWatcher (talk) 15:32, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

If you want grammar, something like Great Britain is the largest island in the British Isles, surrounded by Ireland to its west and many other smaller islands and islets. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:35, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

nice, something like that would be good. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:36, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I thought the proposal was that suggested by Bazza on 23 September: "Great Britain is an island situated to the northwest of Continental Europe. It is the ninth largest island in the world, and the largest European island. With a population of about 59.8 60.0 million people in mid-2009, it is the third most populated island on Earth. The largest island in the British Isles archipelago, Great Britain is surrounded by over 1,000 smaller islands and islets." There has certainly been absolutely no discussion, of which I'm aware, suggesting that this article's introduction should indicate explicitly that the "British Isles" include Ireland. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

PS: A better wording would be: "Great Britain is surrounded by over 1,000 smaller islands and islets, and is the largest island in the British Isles." This is an article about GB - no need to mention Ireland at all. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:12, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Well i support his wording proposed, which made no reference of Ireland being part of the British Isles. But others objected saying it needs to mention the fact its contentious in relation to Ireland. Id rather this article simply avoid mentioning Ireland is part of the BI anywhere, then people can read the BI article if they want to learn what it includes as well as the controversy. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:47, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

In the section on Geographical definition, I suggest: "Great Britain lies to the northwest of Continental Europe and east of Ireland.....and northern regions. It is surrounded by over 1,000 smaller islands and islets. Great Britain and Ireland, together with nearby islands, are known collectively as the British Isles, although the name is contentious in relation to Ireland, and other terms are also in use." So, Ireland would be mentioned in that paragraph, but use Bazza's wording (as tweaked above) for the opening paragraph of the article. I don't find it ideal, but it may be a compromise. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:08, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Why dont we just have something that doesn't explicitly link the two, we can mention Ireland and the BI, but not necessarily together. Whole first paragraph:

Great Britain lies to the northwest of Continental Europe, which it is separated from by the North Sea and the English Channel, which narrows to 34 kilometres (21 miles) at the Straits of Dover. The North Channel, Irish Sea, and St George's Channel separate the island from the island of Ireland to its west. Great Britain is surrounded by over 1,000 smaller islands and islets, and is the largest island in the British Isles. Geographically, the island is marked by low, rolling countryside in the east and south, while hills and mountains predominate in the western and northern regions. It stretches over about ten degrees of latitude on its longer, north-south axis, and occupies an area of 209,331 km² (80,823 square miles). The island is physically connected with continental Europe via the Channel Tunnel, the longest undersea rail tunnel in the world which was completed in 1993.

Rearranged the script so Ireland is described in relation to Great Britain, and then the next sentence mentions it being the largest. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:23, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I still do not why we can not just avoid mentioning Ireland is part of the BI throughout the article. As Ghmyrtle said, this article is about GB, no need to mention Ireland at all. Instead we have to include it and say there is a controversy, when it would be easier and make more sense to avoid it completely. It needed to be mentioned on the Ireland article, but i still dont understand the need for it here, it would be like mentioning it every time the BI is mentioned. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:34, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

• sigh* Well sometimes that's what happens when you poke a wasps nest with a stick. Not sure myself who is objecting to what at this point. --HighKing (talk) 17:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

It really isn't important enough for the lede. We should follow what was agreed on Ireland - leave it out of the lede put it in the geography section (which needs work anyway) --Snowded ^TALK 18:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Well i oppose mentioning the controversy if its deemed not notable enough to be in the article lead. This article is on Great Britain, there is no need to mention Ireland is in the British Isles. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:12, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

As GB & I are the main islands in the British Isles, it's probably best to keep'em (the 2 articles) as simliiar as possible, concerning the mentioning of being within the British Isles. GoodDay (talk) 18:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

If BI is not notable enough for the lead, then mentioning the controversy relating to Ireland on this article is certainly not notable either, the controversy's notability even with it being mentioned in the lead is still question. The fact it is deemed contentious in relation to Ireland is clearly relevant for an article on Ireland. It simply is not so elsewhere, otherwise every mention of BI might require additional comments about it being contentious and other terms existing. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Put it in the main body with the archipelago word and its less of an issue, some reference to the controversy (pipelink no major elaboration) is enough. No need for it in the lede. --Snowded ^TALK 18:43, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

In time British Isles will be mentioned in the lead of both articles. 'Tis best to take one-step at a time. GoodDay (talk) 18:32, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Your opinion, but I doubt it and just how helpful is that type of comment GoodDay? Does it make an argument or is it just intended to provoke? --Snowded ^TALK 18:40, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

A proposal for inclusion in the lead, could be made a year from now or further into the future. But for now, it's not urgent. GoodDay (talk) 18:45, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

It would be quite wrong to try to decide what goes in the introduction before it is agreed what goes into the body of the article - the introduction is a summary of the article, and should not contain freestanding concepts. The section on "Geographical definition" can quite reasonably in my view mention the term "BI" as a description of the archipelago - but, if it does, it should also say that it is a contentious term and that other terms are in use. Why on earth not? There is still no need at all, in my view, to mention the archipelago in the introduction to an article about one island - but, if it is deemed necessary to mention it in the introduction, there is certainly no need to mention Ireland in the same sentence, because it's not relevant to an article about GB. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:38, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

You yourself said.. "This is an article about GB - no need to mention Ireland at all." Yet we not only have to mention Ireland is part of the British Isles, but also a controversy only relevant to Ireland. I supported the compromise of using the wording at Ireland in the text if there was agreement to also add BI to the lead which i believe is totally justified, based on many reasons i gave in my original post. But if it is deemed not notable for the introduction, then i believe a controversy relating to another island is certainly not relevant within this article. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:11, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

We've no need for mentioning the controversy around the term in this article. Last time I checked, the people living on Great Britain, had no probs with the term. GoodDay (talk) 19:15, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

That's a non-argument. Firstly, what "checks" did you use? (WP:OR?) Secondly, the fact is that the term is, objectively, the subject of contention, and that is affecting its use everywhere, including within GB. Nothing to do with who "has probs" with the term. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:24, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

But that implies we must mention the controversy and the fact other terms exist every single time the British Isles is mentioned. That simply is totally unacceptable and problematic. Clearly as its contentious in relation to Ireland, it should say that on the Ireland page. But thats it. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:26, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting mentioning the controversy everywhere, but I am suggesting consistency between this article and the Ireland article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

That reason was sadly totally rejected when we attempted to get BI mentioned in the infobox over on Ireland. Consistency is not needed, id only support mentioning the controversy on this page if BI is mentioned in the lead, thats why i supported it as a compromise. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:38, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Consistency is important and maybe its time to consider the inclusion in the information box here? --Snowded ^TALK 06:34, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

'British Isles' is already shown in the infobox here. Daicaregos (talk) 07:12, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I know and am pondering if its significant enough or should be deleted to conform with the decision on Ireland. Not sure at the moment. --Snowded ^TALK 07:31, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Most island infoboxes state their archipelago. It is not mentioned on Ireland for political reasons. It should certainly not be removed from the infobox here simply because the pathetic blocking of the issue over at Ireland. BritishWatcher (talk) 07:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

There is a case for including the alternative names by which the archipelago is also now known. Daicaregos (talk) 07:42, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Please name the next most common name for the archipelago in North West Europe known as the British Isles. BritishWatcher (talk) 07:58, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia has an article on the subject (British Isles naming dispute) you may be interested in, which will provide you with the answer you seek. It also contains some background information, if you can spare the time and feel able to tear yourself away from creating and improving Wikipedia articles. Daicaregos (talk) 12:11, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a reliable source, especially in the troubled area of the British Isles. What is the next most common name of the archipelago in North west Europe known as the British Isles? The naming dispute article has sourcing problems and includes names that are very questionable. So i am struggling to know the next most common name for the archipelago. The British Isles article intro mentions "Atlantic Archipelago" so perhaps its that (although it wasnt mentioned on the naming dispute article until the past couple of days which suggests how notable that is). If it is the "Atlantic Archipelago", it returns 3,500 results on google books search compared to "British Isles" - 929,000. Clearly highlights that BI is overwhelmingly used common name for the archipelago and there for these other names do not need to be stated, to state them would give them undue weight. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

GB short for UK

I've removed this sentence from the lede;

The term "Great Britain" (and the abbreviation 'GB') is the traditional 'short form' of the full country title 'the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

'GB', or 'Great Britain', are occasionally used to refer to 'the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland', but this is certainly not a 'traditional use' - only an erroneous use. And in any case, the traditional 'short form' of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is 'UK' . Obscurasky (talk) 17:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

It appears to me a matter of attempting to legitimise the issue rather than state facts. It is a fact that Great Britain is often used as the name of the United Kingdom. That is all that needs stated. If appropriate sourcing can be found, it might also be wise to point out that this usage is less common than it was in the past. --Breadandcheese (talk) 19:47, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Obscurasky as it is erroneous. Bjmullan (talk) 20:08, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, short form of the United Kingdom is obviously UK. MTB UK (talk) 23:52, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

This is an encyclopaedia: must like a modern dictionary, it states what is established fact; it does not attempt to be prescriptive in terms of usage. Great Britain is very often used as a short form name of the United Kingdom. That is a notable fact, and is perfectly properly included in a page of this nature. --Breadandcheese (talk) 21:19, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

GB is commonly (if erroneously) used, even in official circles. The two letter shortcut for the United Kingdom in some areas, for example on car number plates, is GB. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:27, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Chipmunkdavis, there are 'political compromise' reasons why GB is used on car number plates in N.IrelandMTB UK (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC).

Great Britain (political)

Would it be worth separating this page into two:

1. Great Britain (main page) - relating to the geographical island. 2. Great Britain (political entity/political unit/etc) - relating to the legal use of the name to describe England, Scotland and Wales - thus including outlying islands and so forth.

As these concepts are quite different, and the meaning of Great Britain when linked to in other pages is often ambiguous, I suspect this may clarify the situation and remove somewhat irrelevant information from different sections. Thoughts? --Breadandcheese (talk) 20:36, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so. Great Britain is not, currently, a political unit at all. The hatnote makes clear that there is a separate article on the Kingdom of Great Britain, when it was a political unit (1707-1801). And, the opening para makes clear that, although the term relates to one island, it also refers to the island together with its associated smaller islands (I of Wight, Hebrides, etc.). So, I don't think that your proposal would clarify things - it seems to me it is more likely to add more confusion. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:27, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Great Britain is relevant as an administrative / political unit, for example welfare benefits are administered by the DWP in Great Britain but devolved to the Northern Ireland Executive. I know that's a little obscure, there may be other examples.--Pondle (talk) 23:37, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I doubt there'd be enough difference to create two separate articles. Most islands that are also political units have just one article. As it stands, this article gives both political and geographical definitions, and I think that adding information about great britain as a political unit to this article would be just fine. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 01:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Map?

I was astonished to find this article has no map. Is anyone aware of a suitable one we could add? --Doradus (talk) 16:09, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Isn't the mainland called Britain?

I'm pretty sure that at school I was taught that Britain is the mainland, and that Great Britain is Britain plus the various English, Welsh and Scottish islands. How come this idea isn't reflected in the article? Are folk not familiar with this usage? --Duncan (talk) 11:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

You may have been taught that, but it's not true. The island is Great Britain, as explained in the article, but the term is often used to include the smaller islands as well. "Britain" is the short term for the UK. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:45, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Contrary according to the OED: Great Britain is the political unit formed by England, Scotland and Wales, whereas Britain is the island. (Which would concur with what Duncan was taught at school.) --RA (talk) 21:02, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone have access to the proper OED (as opposed to the simple, online OED)? I'm not convinced the transcribers of the online version have taken sufficient care to maintain its accuracy. Daicaregos (talk) 21:20, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

What the "proper" OED says is that "Britain [is the] the name of the largest of the British Isles". Malleus Fatuorum 21:28, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Is that the paper copy? oed.com has two entried for Britain: The first is: " A. n.1 1. = Briton n. 1. Now hist. and rare. [...] 2. = Briton n. 1b. Obs. [...] †B. adj. Of or relating to the Britons (Briton n. 1). Obs." The second is: "Now hist. and rare. I. Compounds. 1. attrib. Sc. Designating a type of cloth or canvas, originally made in Brittany. [...] 2. attrib. Of or relating to Great Britain, British. Now only in Britain crown n. now hist. a gold coin of the reign of James I & VI (originally valued at five shillings, later at five shillings and sixpence); [...] II. Simple uses. 3. In pl. Great Britain and its dominions and dependencies, the British Empire. [...]" None of which is much help. There's no entry for Great Britain. Apparently the full online version doesn't do proper nouns. garik (talk) 21:34, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I have a Shorter OED Third Edition (my prize for reaching the University Challenge semi-final, 1972!!). Britain: "The proper name of the whole island containing England, Wales, and Scotland, with their dependencies; more fully called Great Britain..." Not very helpful I'm afraid, and there's no entry for Great Britain. We also now have the Directgov reference here: "Great Britain is made up of England, Scotland and Wales.... 'Britain' is used informally, usually meaning the United Kingdom." And, the Home Office guidance here: "The name 'Britain' or 'Great Britain' refers only to England, Scotland and Wales, not to Northern Ireland." I'd never previously heard of the distinction drawn by Duncan, and would like to see any sources suggesting it. But I think the only conclusion to be drawn is that usage is quite confused and unclear (and certainly not as clear as I suggested in my 9 December post). Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:41, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

It's the online edition of the OED, available here if you have a subscription or are a member of a subscribing library. As you say Garik, there are indeed two entries for Britain, one for the island and one for the cloth, but no entry for Great Britain. Malleus Fatuorum 22:03, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The various versions of the OED do seem to differ on these terms when I get a chance to read them. It's best to use encyclopedias imo (or a least specialised terminology dictionaries), and remember that even the Oxford is actually a 'word' dictionary at the end of the day - and is inclined in my experience to be both concise and inclusive (even the SOED, or the older print one at least). Having said that, I don't think they handle UK nomenclature as well as they could. It's not really their specific intention to properly explain terms (or words even) - only to represent their current use (and older use if it's a bigger OED): they just don't do it particularly comprehensively with these 'UK' terms imo - possibly so they can standardise across the whole dictionary. Not having the prose-space that encyclopedias have, they might need tighter definitions for certain terms perhaps. It is striking how dictionaries seem to be used 'above' encyclopedias to such a degree WP – I can't see how they can supersede them on any kind of terminology. Perhaps there is a sense of competition regarding Britannica etc. Whose own website gives:

Great Britain, also called Britain, island lying off the western coast of Europe and consisting of England, Scotland, and Wales. The term is often used as a synonym for the United Kingdom, which also includes Northern Ireland and a number of offshore islands. (probably also concise).

Not that Wikipedia could ever follow a leading definition on anything. Matt Lewis (talk) 22:25, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The explanation is actually very simple. The Latin name of the island is Britannia, and has ever been since antiquity (despite spelling variants). When British Celts colonised Armorica (Aremorica is a more archaic variant of the same name), their colony also came to be called Britannia. To differentiate the two, the colony was called Britannia minor (literally "Lesser Britain"), the island was called Britannia maior (literally "Greater Britain"). In French: Bretagne (without a qualifier, as it's the geographically closer one) vs. Grande Bretagne. (Breton has likewise retained the double sense of "Breton" and "Briton" in French, and Armoricaine may therefore be used for disambiguation, as Armorica was used in Medieval Latin when the Britannia in Gaul was meant.) In Breton, the corresponding forms are Breizh and Breizh-Veur. In English we have (historically) Little Britain, or (Little) Brittany, and Great Britain. This is actually explained in the article now. But you know, this should really be discussed on Britain (name) instead. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 02:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Toponymy section is a mess

The "Toponym" section is a mess; it is full of confusing claims and seeming contradictions. Let's start with the following:

"The oldest mentions of terms related to the formal name of Britain was made by Aristotle (c. 384–322 BC), in his text On the Universe, Vol. III. To quote his works, "... in the ocean however, are two islands, and those very large, called Bretannic, Albion and Ierna"."

So we have three names for two islands? Huh?

Next comes this: "The name Britain descends from the Latin name for Britain, Britannia or Brittānia, the land of the Britons."

But wait! We were just told that the term "Bretannic" is found in the writings of Aristotle, who (call me crazy) I believe wrote in Greek. So if the term comes from Greek, why are we claiming it descends from a Latin word?

Moving on, we encounter this gem:

"Old French Bretaigne (whence also Modern French Bretagne) and Middle English Bretayne, авBreteyne."

Unless I'm missing something, that's not a sentence folks. Next comes:

"The French form replaced the Old English Breoton, Breoten, Bryten, Breten (also Breoton-lond, Breten-lond)."

What the heck is that? A sentence that ends with a list of words, with slight differences in spelling and no "and" before the last? Does anyone else find it ironic that an article about Great Britain fails basic rules of English? Also, what exactly is this "French form" that replaced that Old English string? The article doesn't say.

Finally, we have this non sequitur:

"Britannia was used by the Romans from the 1st century BC for the British Isles taken together. It is derived from the travel writings of the ancient Greek Pytheas [sic, need "from" here] around 320 BC, which described various islands in the North Atlantic as far North [sic again; "North" should not be capitalized] as Thule (probably Iceland)."

So which is it? Does the term Britain originate with Greek or Latin? And what does a word for Iceland ("Thule") have to do with any of this?

Someone who actually knows what he is talking about needs to re-write this section. I can't do it; all I can do is point out how, in current form, it is a holy mess. Please help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.103.7 (talk) 23:09, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

The original Greek syntax is to blame whose more literal translation is not that clear in English (Bretannic is an adjective-> Brettanic (Isles) = British (Isles)) ...;-)

I've changed the translation to D. J. Furley's one found in the source that I referenced(also included therein the Greek text and a transliteration of it).

Anyway yes, the whole Toponymy section needs work...Thanatos|talk 02:20, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Yet the {{dubious}} tag seems unjustified. Complaint: "Also highly dubious to state Britanniae referred to all the islands". Original text (Bostock translation): "at a later period, all the islands, of which we shall just now briefly make mention, were included under the name of "Britanniæ". Am I missing something here?

Re Greek: the Hellenistic-period Greek "Βρεττανία" derives from the Latin, not the other way around (citing OED).

I'm not offering anything in the way of repairing the whole section, but I'm inclined to have a go at these two tweaks.

--Old Moonraker (talk) 11:21, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I marked it as dubious and there's a number of (good, I hope) reasons. Bostock's translation uses the following Latin text: "Ex adverso huius situs Britannia insula, clara Graecis nostrisque monimentis, inter septentrionem et occidentem iacet, Germaniae, Galliae, Hispaniae, multo maximis Europae partibus, magno intervallo adversa. Albion ipsi nomen fuit, cum Britanniae vocarentur omnes de quibus mox paulo dicemus.". I've highlighted the pertinent piece. It's clear that Bostock's "translation" is not a literal translation, but also an interpretation. The literal Latin bears little resemblance to Bostock's translation. A more literal translation (WP:OR, I know :-) is "Albion was the name, subsequently Britannia, of which a little more we will say". If the translated piece is to be included in the text, it's far better to say something along the lines of "Bostock's interpretation of Pliny is that Britanniae was used to refer to ..." --HighKing (talk) 14:32, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Just to be clear:When I wrote "The original Greek syntax is to blame whose more literal translation is not that clear in English" I was referring only to this "... in the ocean however, are two islands, and those very large, called Bretannic, Albion and Ierna".

Which by the way was most probably written by pseudo-Aristotle and therefore is indeed of later times.So it certainly needed more work but I don't understand why you've totally cut it out(both from here and from the placename article)...Thanatos|talk 19:46, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I cut out "there are two very large islands in it, called the British Isles, Albion and lerne..." because the term "British Isles" is a relatively modern term, and because pseudo-Aristotle is simply not a good source to assert that the archipelago has been called "British Isles" from ancient times. It simply hasn't. --HighKing (talk) 23:48, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Why?!?!?!?!?! It's dubious that the work is by Aristotle;it's not a dubious work by itself!!!!It's an ancient source! One of many.

We must certainly change the text so that it will be presented that most probably the date of this work-passage(and hence the attestation of the names) is later than Aristotle but there is no reason(at least that I know of) not to include at all this passage...It's a valuable source!! Please either provide us with some arguments to dismiss fully the work as dubious(fact-wise) and/or irrelevant (i.e. date it to 1000AD :) ) or bring the passage (and the reference) back so that we can work on it! Thanatos|talk 00:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how I can be clearer than I just have been. Using translations/interpretations of ancient incomplete or unattributed Latin and Greek texts, and inserting them into here to make unlikely WP:SYN assertions is against WP:V core policy. For example, "Islands of the Bretannic" means the islands on which the Bretannic live or own - it doesn't mean the "British Isles" (and certainly wouldn't include the Channel Islands). You say that it's a valuable source - I 100% agree, but the translations/interpretations are not accurate and cannot be attributed to the early texts, but rather to the translator or interpretor. The term "British Isles" wasn't coined until the late 16th century, so saying that it was used in ancient times is nonsense. --HighKing (talk) 10:35, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

What language are you referring to? English?Then you're right about the British Isles cause English hadn't yet evolved into existence... But so what? In example in Greek Nesoi Brettanikai or Brettanikai Nesoi means "British Isles".So I really don't get your point:

• It's not original research.It has been around for thousands of years.
• The fact in example that Peri Kosmou-De Mundo is probably not by Aristotle doesn't make the claims or statements about the name of Britain or the British Isles unverifiable.There are multiple sources attributed to known or unknown writers from ancient times both in Latin and in Greek attesting the usage of words like Brettanike-ai etc for these islands.They may haven't been that consistent in their writings but that's normal for the period...
• You haven't yet provided us with a source modern or ancient that refutes what is being claimed/stated.Please do so otherwise you're the one promoting original research and making unverifiable claims.Thanatos|talk 17:06, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, I'm referring to the English language. But more importantly, the "British Isles" is a (relatively) modern term and geographic concept, referring specifically to a certain set of islands and includes the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands. Saying that ancient texts referred to the islands in this way in very misleading. Saying that the term "British Isles" goes all the way back to ancient times is unverifiable, since the texts used latin and greek, for example. Attributing modern concepts to ancient texts is WP:OR.

What can be verified though, is that certain people have translated and/or interpreted the texts from the original. While they could have easily used "British Islands", they didn't. They chose to use "British Isles". I've no problems at all with the quotes being attributed to the translator/interpretors, just not being directly attributable to the authors of the original texts. --HighKing (talk) 00:05, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I guess you're referring to the modern connotations of the modern term "British Isles".It's rational to think that the ancient text differs significantly as far as connotations are concerned.The ancient terms themselves,as I've already said, are not that consistently used.But we cannot deduce from these that we cannot or we must not at all say that the ancient Greek and Roman term British Isles is more or less the same with the modern one:(dyo) Brettanikai nesoi ->translation: (two) Brettanic Isles or more commonly (two) British Isles or (two) British Islands or ... The respected scholar whose translation I quoted uses "British Isles"; you may not like it but it's not up to you to judge the validity of the translation nor to decide whether the words are an ethnonym(or an exonym,read Snyder) or a geographical term.Whatever it is,"British Isles" is a fine translation and refers more or less to the entities that today are called British Isles!We certainly can or should add to it and emphasize that hasty and strong anachronisms should be avoided because they're hardly true for any term(in example does Hellas refer to the land of modern Greece or to the home of Achilles' tribe??).We can or should also add next to "British Isles" additional translations like "or Islands" or "Brettanic Isles" or whatever.Just like we should add that Peri Kosmou is probably not by Aristotle but by someone that lived after him...P.S. This is what you should have written : hai Brettaniai or hai Brettanikai Nesoi = "the islands of the Brettanoi" or "the islands of the Britanni".Not "(the) islands of the Brittaniai" nor of the "Brettanic".Let me guess:you don't speak Greek(modern or ancient),do you??? ;-)

@Old Moonraker

"Re Greek: the Hellenistic-period Greek "Βρεττανία" derives from the Latin, not the other way around (citing OED)."->

The later Greek Βρεταννία derives its spelling from the Latin Britannia (and Britanni) but the latter is derived from the older Greek Βρετ(τ)ανοί and this from Πρετ(τ)ανοί and not the other way around;citing Babiniotes,lemma Βρετανία and also Triantaphyllides, lemma βρετανικός(no latin etymology-origin) and Papyros, lemma βρετανικός(also no latin etymology-origin). See also (these links imo should be added to the references here and/or there) Strabo (1.4.2-5) and Diodorus (Lib. v, cc. 21, 22;).And since it has been referenced here: "This enigmatic name for Britain, revived much later by Romantic poets like William Blake, did not remain popular among Greek writers. It was soon replaced by Prettania and Brettania (Britain), Brettanos (a Briton),and Brettanikos (the adjective British). From these words the Romans derived the Latin forms Britannia, Britannus, and Britannicus respectively. Again, this is a geographic rather than a cultural or political designation, for hai Brettaniai, ‘the Brittanic Isles,’ included Ireland."[[2]],page 12 (note:I've used(->changed) latin transliterations for the Greek words in this citation).Thanatos|talk 01:42, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

It's a common mistake to assert that it is a geographic rather than a cultural or political designation. The correct translation is "the islands of the Brittaniai" and not "the Brittanic Isles" (in fact, every time you use the word "isles", you're probable wrong anyway and should use "islands"). In ancient times, it was common for places to be referred to according to the tribes and peoples that lived there, not after the places themselves. --HighKing (talk) 10:29, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

hai Brettaniai (if this is what you're referring to) doesn't mean "the islands of the Brittaniai".You're the one clearly making the mistake...hai Brettaniai literally means "the Britains"... Thanatos|talk 17:06, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I can see how one might read what I said above in that way. But that's not what I said (although your preceding paragraph implies that hai Brettaniai means "the Brittanic Isles"). What I've meant is that people often translate what would normally be "Islands" into "Isles", especially anywhere they see a reference to Britain or British, and end up with "British Isles". Even when the original text may only have been referring to Great Britain and Ireland. --HighKing (talk) 00:05, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Read comment above.Also(I think it would be useful at this point) let me introduce you to the English translation of classical texts @PerseusProject Strabo (Geography 1.4.2-5) or to Google books Diodorus Sicelus (Bibliotheca Historica Lib. v, cc. 21, 22)(this,the latter, in example has indeed (mis-)translated, somewhere in the aforementioned passages, the Greek word for "some" or "a" (tina) as British (tina neson -> a British isle) ;search for Ictis ;-).I may find it wrong but it's a source) ... You might also want to read this... :) Moreover btw this article deals with and presents imo the issues at hand much better.Perhaps we should reedit the Toponomy section in its image??? P.S. Now please bring back pseudo-Aristotle,the translation of his passage and the reference I worked so hard to add or else I will do it(perhaps written in a better way)!!!

I've a lot of these translations myself already. I'm also aware of the etymology of "Isle" and "Island" (which predates Isle by centuries) - but thanks for the pointer, at least we're looking in the same areas :-) And I don't speak Greek either :-)

I've restored your reference but for now I've left in the "dubious" tag. On the subject of Aristotle's De Mundo, there are two points that should be made. The first is that these texts are acknowledged to have not been written by Aristotle, but are often attributed to him. The second is that translations are difficult and often there's a thin line between literal translations becoming unreadable to a modern reader, and interpretations that help with understanding the original texts. There's many "introductions" to Aristotle that make this point. Aristotle in outline By Timothy A. Robinson or Aristotle By Christopher John Shields make similar points, as does A new Aristotle reader By Aristotle, J. L. Ackrill. The Clarendon translations are often cited as being a set of references translations, translates the passage as "In this sea are situated two very large islands, the so-called British Isles, Albion and lerne, which are greater than any which we have yet mentioned and lie beyond the land of the Celts". Other translations are more literal - for example, early editions of Encyclopaedia Britannica state the following: "The passage is in the De Mundo, c. 3,—" Beyond*the pillars of Hercules (Straits of Gibraltar) the ocean flows round the earth, and in it are two very large islands called British (BperaviKal Acyo/ievcu), Albion and Ierne, lying beyond the Keltoi." A similar translation is attributed to "The General History of the Celts. By Rev. Neil MacNish, LL.D. in 1898". --HighKing (talk) 13:56, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

When reading translated works (and/or translating them) it is universal that one must be cautious;the problem of literal vs interpretational translations is not confined to Aristotle's or pseudo-Aristotle's works...;-)Anyway thanks for restoring the passage and the reference;I will work on it in due time...Thanatos|talk 16:29, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Folks, don't forget that Britain (name) is the appropriate article for the etymological discussion. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 02:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Area of Britain

The area on the right hand side doesn't match the area inside the text (nor other pages in Wikipedia). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.11.61 (talk) 09:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

8th Largest Island

The page, Great Britain is wrong. Great Britain should be the 8th largest island, not 9th. Check islands area order and Victoria Island. 60.242.189.200 (talk) 11:19, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

You changed List of islands by area to make it incorrect. I've corrected it back. Victoria Island is larger than Great Britain, so this article is correct. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Cornish Ethnicity?

From the article; "Ethnic groups: British (Cornish, English, Scottish & Welsh)". Surely Cornish should be amalgamated with English? Otherwise why not also include Northumbrian or Kentish? SaintDaveUK (talk) 14:32, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

If you don't already know, it's a contentious issue - see Cornish people. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:40, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

If we're talking about national sub-groups that relate to the individual constituent countries, we should indeed surely only note English, Scottish and Welsh within British; if we're talking about all ethnic groups on the island, there are plenty of others to include, and it seems odd to privilege Cornish and give that equal status to the other three. Only one of those two options is logical and consistent. Also, not that it's a clincher, but the source being cited for this mini-list makes no mention of Cornish, or indeed any other ethnic group.

Having said all that, I'm not sure it adds much to the infobox anyway - if the infox already says that the island is made up of "England, Wales and Scotland", why add another mini-list later on that simply says its people are "English, Welsh and Scottish" [and maybe Cornish]? Also of course, on the wider point, yes the situation is different to other English counties, but it's just as contentious to assert/assume that Cornish people are not English as it is to assert/assume that they are. If we're doing maths, as far as I know, most people who might say they are "Cornish" - ethnically or otherwise - would not do so to the exclusion of being "English" as well; many would, but I don't think they are a majority; or, indeed, necessarily more authentically Cornish. N-HH talk/edits 15:41, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Lots of things about Cornwall "seem odd", in some ways. Trying to draw rigid lines in relation to "ethnicity" is impossible, and very wasteful of time and effort. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:45, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree about drawing lines, it's just that like I say (and the OP suggests) separating English and Cornish in the way we have here is drawing a line as much as anything else is, and a line that is not actually recognised by a majority either of those "involved" or of those not involved. I guess my general indifference to apparent obsessions with ethnicity is what makes me somewhat obsessed with Wikipedia's frequent and undue obsession with it, which is often out of all proportion to its relevance to most people in the real world in 2011. If that makes sense. N-HH talk/edits 16:02, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree - my indifference led to me not reverting the addition of "Cornish" when it appeared, just as I won't revert anyone changing it back again. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:27, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

N-HH's arguments make sense, I'd agree with removal or addition of all others. Preferably removal for concision. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:14, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Don't see why it wouldn't be included - the Cornish have their own well-known flag, and a recognised minority language. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:21, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

"If we're talking about all ethnic groups on the island, there are plenty of others to include, and it seems odd to privilege Cornish and give that equal status to the other three" — I don't see what's odd about it. Cornish, Welsh, English and Scottish ar ethnicities that ar nativ to Great Britain. Yes ther ar plenty of other ethnic groups living in Great Britain but they'r not in the infobox becauz they'r not nativ to the island. ~Asarlaí 19:09, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I am struggling to find much on Wikipedia which suggests it is indeed an ethnicity to the same extent as English, Welsh or Scottish. Furthermore, most sources only declare the ethnic groups to be the government-defined White British and so-on. Also, the United Kingdom article uses the "White, South Asian, Black" and so-on for that Ethnicity info, so perhaps it would be better to adopt a similar system for continuity? SaintDaveUK (talk) 20:21, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

"Native ethnic groups" only? Erm, OK, I guess there's a kind of logic to that, even if it's not currently labelled as such and also seems to be drifting into slightly dodgy areas. But where do you draw the line? If we're focusing - as all this, including the separate inclusion of "Cornish", would suggest we are - on "English" meaning a distinct group of Anglo-Saxon (but not Celtic) genetic and cultural heritage, as opposed to meaning simply, er, people from England, then surely "English" shouldn't be there at all? That lot of Danes and Germans are latecomers to the party after all. And don't get me started on the bloody Vikings.

As the above post says, in the context of modern Britain, ethnicity - aside from the minority flag-waving of obscure identity politics and the narcissism of small differences - usually refers to those broader categories. Nor are we talking about a situation such as Kosovo, where it might be instructive to highlight the clear and significant distinction between ethnic Serbs and Albanians, and others. Overall, especially as this is primarily a geography article focused on the island, I can't see the benefit of having this box at all tbh, whatever ends up being listed in it. N-HH talk/edits 17:30, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the discussion guys. On balance, I have removed Cornish from the ethnicity section of the infobar for the reasons stated in the posts above. If anybody has further issue with this, or feels that different step must be taken (such as removal of ethnicity altogether) then please continue the discussion here.SaintDaveUK (talk) 18:30, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

If we remove Cornish then we should remove English, Scottish, Welsh and British too. ~Asarlaí 19:22, 30 November 2011 (UTC)