Talk:Terminology of the British Isles/Archive 2

New Intro

The format of this new introduction is good, but I have a few problems with some of their content:

• When does Ireland ever mean ROI and NI as a political term? It is used for the two (sparingly) in sport, but this is not a main point for the introduction. If anything, Ireland as a political term is the ROI only, this being the translation of the state's official Irish language name, Éire.

• Britian as a political term is not necessairily inaccuarate for the UK. A citizen from the United Kingdom is 'British' after all. Equally, I'm not sure if 'Britain' really means 'Great Britain' geographically. I think the word is a very ambiguous term, and such a claer cut definition is not really available

129.234.4.10 13:35, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

O, one other thing, Ive replaced country with state in the intro; its too ambigous for an encyclopedia Robdurbar 13:49, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

1) I agree, "Ireland" meaning ROI and NI isn't politically meaningful. The use of "Ireland" as in sport for the island of Ireland (a.k.a. "the 32 counties") is common, but not political (except in its connotations/evocations of the notion of a united Ireland).

But we now have two lines which mean the same thing:

1. Ireland (as a political term) = Republic of Ireland
2. Ireland (as the name of a country) = Republic of Ireland

One should be removed.

2a) Yes, "British" denotes UK nationality, but "Britain" is inaccurate when substituted for UK. Perhaps a similar situation obtains for Hawaii, whereby citizens are "American", but don't necessarily describe themselves as "from America", "America" presumably denoting either the mainland US, or anywhere in the continents of the Americas.

In either case, someone from Belfast isn't likely to describe themselves as "from Britain". So yes, I suppose "Britain" is not "necessarily" inaccurate, it just happens to be inaccurate for about 1.7 million people out of 59.5 million :)

2b) I'll quote this, which I quoted on the UK discussion page.

From http://www.direct.gov.uk/Gtgl1/GuideToGovernment/AboutBritain/AboutBritainArticles/fs/en?CONTENT_ID=10012517&chk=loPvDs

"The full title of this country is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The UK is made up of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Great Britain (or just Britain) does not include Northern Ireland. The Channel Islands and the Isle of Man are not part of the UK."

Britain is a typical abbreviation for Great Britain.

3) Changing country to state still leaves us with two identical entries for "Ireland".

Robertbyrne 14:10, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• The official name of theRepublic of Ireland in its constitution is Ireland. Therefore Ireland is a political term, in fact it's probably the most political term of the whole lot. The constitution of Ireland until the good friday agreement explicitly stated that the country of Ireland encompasses the whole island and that Northern Ireland should be regarded as occupied territory. After the good friday agreement the offical name of the state is still Ireland, however it's terrotorial boundaries are somewhat fudged. Either way Ireland is very much a political term Bandraoi 17:23, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi Bandraoi. The word "political" in the intro of this article doesn't indicate that the term referred to is contentious, or the subject of political debate. It just means that the definition given is the political sense of the term. It's like the difference between a relief map and a political map. Robertbyrne 01:59, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

It should also be remembered that ROI has dropped its official claims to NI Robdurbar 13:27, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

That's right. I may sound like one of those American journalists who has "never met anyone who voted Republican", but I never met anyone from ROI who thought the claims to Northern Ireland in the constitution were anything but an embarrassment.

Either way, I should also have commented that the territorial boundary of Ireland (Republic of) is far from fudged. It is perfectly well defined. Robertbyrne 14:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Is that embarrassment political or historical? I mean people might not want to be bothered with it anymore (especially now that Ireland is going so enormously uphill economically), but if you specifically ask them if the English (or rather Scottish (or should I say British... :) )) have a historical right to Northern Ireland, you'd probably hear a different story. At least, based on my experience there about ten years ago. DirkvdM 07:48, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

We're probably getting a bit off-topic here. But for the record, I disagree with much of what you say.

• The embarrassment isn't "political or historical", it's the embarrassment of empty triumphalism. The *claim* is, of course, political, based perhaps on certain readings of history.

• Economic growth in Ireland didn't bring about the removal of articles 2 and 3 (the claim to Northern Ireland), the peace process did. Some people do like to throw in every success of Ireland over the last decade under one heading (e.g. "Celtic Tiger"), but there are in fact different, independent forces at work shaping Ireland.

• Not sure who you spoke to ten years ago, but I think for both of us, what people say to us depends on what questions we ask, how free people feel to speak, etc. Oh, and whether you're in a city or not.

• In the cities, there is a kind of muted dislike of "the English" in some circles (especially soccer fans :) ), even though, as you say, the "occupiers in the North" are probably more Scottish than English. This wouldn't fit in with a simple view of Celt versus Anglo-Saxon, and seems to be ignored! I have less experience outside the cities, but anti-English sentiment seems to get stronger, in my anecdotal experience.

• If you ask "do the X people have a historical right to Y territory" most sane, informed people will answer no. The Celts "replaced" (murdered, one guesses) the previous inhabitants of Ireland. They were then murdered, raped and pillaged by waves of invaders. So who has the historical "right"? I would answer no to your question, but I would also rule out historical precedents for any other territorial claims, such as those removed from the Irish constitution. (c.f. Israel.) Robertbyrne 15:52, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I also usually make the comparison with Israel. That country should not have been created, but now that the majority of people there have been born there, they've got an equal right to the land as the Palestinians did at first. And the Palestinians are equally losing that right. Same for Northern Ireland. By the way, I didn't have to ask for opinions. They were volunteered. The best example was when I was on an Irish bus that passed through Northern Ireland. When we passed a bunch of British military training in mock battle you should have seen the anger on the faces of the people on the bus. DirkvdM 18:00, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Image

Can somebody do something about that image? Sorry, but it doesn't represent the shape of the British Isles very well at all. It look as if there's been some terrible disaster - the area between Newcastle and Edinburgh has been devastated, as has East Anglia, and Cardiff and the Scottish islands aren't there anymore.... TheMadBaron 17:00, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Islands

• "Great Britain (as a geographical term) = the largest island"
• "Ireland (as a geographical term) = the second largest island"

I'm not convinced - does this mean that the Isle of Wight isn't, geographically, part of Great Britain, and that Inishmore isn't, geographically, part of Ireland? Hmmm.... TheMadBaron 17:12, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Um, yes. Inishmore is an island off the island of Ireland, I would have thought that's fairly unproblematic. --Ryano 00:28, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi. In what sense would the Isle of Wight be part of Great Britain? It isn't part of the island called Great Britain. Do you mean it is politically part of it? (If so, that is covered by the second line, which gives the political meaning of Great Britain.) Robertbyrne 21:44, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

A geographical unit can consist of more than one island. The British Isles are an example of that. It would complicate the neat overview further still, though, and the purpose of this article is to present a simple overview to those who are confused. I somehow hope that this is sufficiently disputed, so we can say it falls under the 'disclaimer' below the first overview. But this should be mentioned further down, at least for the Isle of Wight, because it's a fairly well known island (if only because of the festival). An interesting phrase from the article: "it became the last part of the United Kingdom to convert to Christianity - almost a century after the rest of the mainland". So it's part of the mainland?

Hold on. The Isle of Wight isn't mentioned at all! That won't do of course. Neither is Inishmore, or, rather the Aran Islands, but they're a bit too small and little known to be mentioned here. DirkvdM 07:44, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I think it's important to use language correctly here. It's not accurate to describe Ireland as an island, since it's clearly more than one island. I suspect that the same is true for Great Britain. TheMadBaron 07:46, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Ireland the country is more than one island, but Ireland, the island, is exactly one island. The country is named after the main island. Robertbyrne 05:03, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

An island can include (much) smaller islands. Surely you would agree that Brownsea Island, or Lindisfarne, or any of the islands in the Thames, are part of the island of Great Britain? Almost every island reasonably sized island has islets round its edge; e.g. the Needles are part of the Isle of Wight, which is part of the island of Great Britain. EdC 17:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Good Reference

http://www.macs.hw.ac.uk/britishisles/ Found this page and I think we should base the article on it. it's the clearest and most precise outline of the terminology I've seen yet, particularly the first part. Let's get rid of the fluff. Bandraoi 20:18, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I remember coming across this page when writing the article. I can't believe that I've forgotten to add the link. I'll fix that right now. Not sure about the text, though. Basing this article on it would go to far, though , because that webpage already covers that view and it's been linked to now. DirkvdM 07:23, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

As far as I can see this web page expresses pretty much everything that's said in the article we have written accurately but it's more coherent and better structured. Bandraoi 18:45, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

While that page is detailed and well written it does include Ireland in Great Britain (CORRECTION: I mean in British Isles! Paulc1001 ). Whether you like it or not, this is not an agreed fact. Sorry, it just isn't and no arguing will change that, in fact it just illustrates how "un-agreed" it is. Paulc1001 16:43, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

????? I don't see where it includes Ireland in Great Britain. From my reading it appears to be quite explicit that Ireland and Great Britain are the names of the two main islands. --Ryano 17:04, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I see 3 instances at least, not sure how they could be missed, frankly! (1) "The rugby union touring team, The Lions, draws its players from all over the British Isles" - this obviously includes Ireland. (2) The first map in the section "The Geographic Entities" includes Ireland (shading in white). (3) The population given for British Isles is the sum of the populations given for UK + Ireland - And what's with all the question marks????? Paulc1001 17:27, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok, my bad, I had a typo I just noticed! I should have written "...include Ireland in the British Isles" when I wrote "...in Great Britain", apologies. However, my original point stands. Paulc1001 17:36, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

To be honest, I think that the majority of people, especially outside of Ireland, would accept 'British Isles' as a reasonable term for the islands. This is not to say that we should ignore the possible confusion or connotations that this term brings; but acknowledge taht it remains the most common Robdurbar 19:01, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Rob, I appreciate your attempt for balance, but I think the point is still being missed (no offence to you). For one thing, it's a little more than confusion that's caused, more like downright anger and offence in all honesty, sorry. And I'm afraid the idea of the majority outside Ireland doesn't really stack up; do the Chinese or South Americans use the term? I can't find any reference in the Spanish side of Wikipedia (e.g. http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categor%C3%ADa:Islas) to some "Islas Britanicas" for one thing. And a quick scan of the french side seems the same I think. I think that people outside the UK don't really think that much of articially lumping these islands together. Let me ask you in all seriousness, why do you or any Briton feel the need to shoe-horn another independent country into an artificial amalgamation in which you are the "senior partner"? No offence, seriously, but really, why? The "junior partner" doesn't generally welcome or accept the term. I think in reality, that many if not most Britons when it's pointed out reasonably to them, would see that "ok, yes, I can see how that would rankle... I don't think I'd like to be labelled as living in 'Islands off France' or something". Paulc1001 19:45, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I think you're overstating this a little. I know there are those who don't like the term, but I can't say I've ever encountered "downright anger and offence" (other than on the Web, where it's easy to be angry and offended :) ). Also, it sounds as if you are disputing the term's very existence, but there is no doubt that it has currency as a geographical term - we certainly used it in Inter Cert Geography. Like it it or not, there is no other term to describe these islands as a group which has gained currency (I quite like "These Islands" myself). The only problem occurs when British people decide that because the islands are called the "British Isles" that the people of the islands can be described as "British" also - see elsewhere on this talk page. This may be a legitimate reason to look for an alternative term, but as of now "British Isles" is the only one in general use. --Ryano 20:51, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Ryano, no I'm not disputing the existence of the term (though I wouldn't be unhappy if it didn't!) I think it should be referred to and discussed of course, but I would like the discussion to include all aspects, and a fair acknowledgment of those to take offence to it as well as the illogicality of it. I don't really think what you describe is the 'only problem' either to be honest. As for alternative terms, 'these islands' is not too bad, as is Britain & Ireland, but I often wonder why there is such an urge amongst some to create any label. As I seem to have found, other languages don't seem to, and we don't refer to New Zealand as part of the Australian Isles! :-) Paulc1001 21:24, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, if there's a dispute over the term we have a responsibility to characterise this fairly, and not go over the top. My impression is that most Irish people are not too bothered by the term, i.e. they don't go out of their way not to use it. My own personal opinion is that it's in the same category as "Irish Sea", or "Indian Ocean", i.e. a convenient geographical term which has no political status.

As for the urge to create labels, it appears to be pretty strong - we have a label for Australia and New Zealand after all - the Antipodes. --Ryano 22:13, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't think its artificial to geographically lump the islands together... after all, they are a distinct archipalego off the French coast. I think it really is confusion thats the problem with the term - mainly from non-British/Irish who, when using the term, presume that the islands must be a political whole. This is then what causes offence.

The use is far from British only, and is not created to suggest a 'senior partenr' or a 'junior partner' - the name comes from the largest of the isles, in the way the Canary Isles are anmed after Grand Canaria.

As for the lack of use of British Isles abroad; the first result of 'Iles Britaniques' in google is the French Wikipedia page [1]; which opens with [my translation] 'The British Isles are an archipalego situated to the north-west of the European continent, consisting principaly of Great Britain and Ireland, as well as numerous smaller islands'. In fact, the term gives us a total of 1 730 000 results in google.fr. A search in google.es for the Spanish 'Islas Británicas' returns over half a million results, including that Wikipedia article you were looking for [2], which again describes the British Isles as the traditional name for the islands off the north-west coast of Europe inclusing Great Britain and Ireland... which is the term now used in the article

Yes 'British Isles' can cause offence, especially if used politically. But no it is not used by 'some', it is used by a majority to describe the islands as a whole, when it is useful to do so geographically. Thus the article should describe the geographical term as the common one for the islands, but note that this can cause confusion leading to offence, or is offensive if used politically. As a result alternatives have been sugested, but none of these have ever really taken off. Robdurbar 23:11, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

"(Sovereign) state" versus "Country"

Rather than reverting each others edits and writing rediculosuly long edit comments, how about a little healthy discussion re: the state/country debate? Now my understanding of the situation is:

• Some people prefer country as they see it as the most neutral term, and that the subtle meaning of state would be lost on most people
• Those prefering state argue that it is the most accurate phrasing over the unsepcific country and that it is not a loaded word.

Now, for my part, I beleive that the word 'state' would be better as it is a more accurate description of the UK. Country is a synonym for state, but it can also be a synonym for other words, notably nation - which is where Scottish/Irish nationalists would start to get angry.

What is mroe important however, is that the point of this article - claryfying the terms - is not lost in a debate over semantics. Robdurbar 15:21, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I more or less agree with your comments above, once you substitute sovereign state wherever you say state. In theory this means I should insist on sovereign country instead of country, but that is unidiomatic. It is overwhelmingly usual to think of a country as a self-governing (a.k.a independent) body politic.

I think that country is the best word to describe the body politic of the UK, and that of the Republic of Ireland. I have two kinds of reason.

First: style. The Wikipedia, and any encyclopedia, should be written in the least technical, clearest, most jargon-free language possible. In a geopolitics article it would, no doubt, be necessary to define, contrast, and carefully use the words nation, state, nation-state, country, etc., along with subtle explanations of whether a member of the EU, for instance, is really independent. This is not necessary in this article and therefore the most common term, if correct, should be used.

Second: precedent. As I have noted elsewhere:

From http://www.direct.gov.uk/Gtgl1/GuideToGovernment/AboutBritain/AboutBritainArticles/fs/en?CONTENT_ID=10012517&chk=loPvDs

"The full title of this country is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The UK is made up of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Great Britain (or just Britain) does not include Northern Ireland. The Channel Islands and the Isle of Man are not part of the UK."

... this official UK government web page uses the word country to describe the UK. The EU considers all of its members to be countries, including the UK.

Arguments that country is "too vague" for an encyclopedia are setting a bar of precision that is too high. Any article could easily be ruined by including technical jargon. In one article I replaced the technical term portmanteau with the much more common word abbreviation. More specific than that wasn't needed. In another article I replaced "ident" with "logo". Again, the more technical word is correct, but confusing and unnecessary. The principle applies to country versus sovereign state too.

If I defined myself as a "human being", would the precision pushers claim that was "unencyclopedic"? Would they scream that "human being" is vague mumbo jumbo, and start arguing over which of homo-sapien, male human, male human being, male hominid, etc., etc. was "correct", even though they all are, along with "human being"? If they wouldn't, they should think clearly about country versus sovereign state.

Precedents on Wikipedia: if country is too vague to describe a sovereign state, then we would have to change hundreds of articles, including: France, Germany, Canada, Spain...

"The status of UK as a country" is not in question, despite the comments that may be found on the UK talk page. The dictionary definition of country is "a nation or state", so the UK is clearly a country since it is a state.

The only question is whether country is a suitable word for use in this encyclopedia article, and whether sovereign state is inferior. I have put my reasons why I think country is superior. Robertbyrne 06:17, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

By the way, I see no problem using the more specific sovereign state later on in the same article, if the context calls for extra precision. This happens in the UK article, and someone claimed that all occurrences of either word needed to be made the same as one another. That is unnecessary. Robertbyrne 06:21, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Country tends to be used for England, Scotland and Wales as well though, the so called "Home Nations", which are all within the UK. A UK Passport refers to the UK as the "issuing state". We are talking about a country made up of countries, which surely makes little sense. - JVG 09:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't find your points compelling.

• The use of "issuing state" on any document doesn't make "country" wrong
• There's no problem with a country made up of countries. Here for your reference are some definitions from my Collins Dictionary

• country 1) an area distinguished by its people, culture, language, or government. 2) the territory of a nation or state.

(The UK falls under definition 1) since it is distinguished by government and culture, or alternatively under definition 2) since it is a state.)

• state 3) a sovereign political power or community. 6) one of a number of areas or communities having their own governments and forming a federation under a sovereign government.

I have added meaning 6) for state because this ambiguity could be confusing for American readers. The American Heritage Dictionary entry at dictionary.com gives:

• nation 3) A people who share common customs, origins, history, and frequently language.

This is how England is a country — because it is a nation. The UK is a country for a different reason, because it is a state. There is, for sure, a certain amount of false precision when using definitions in such a formal way. The important thing is that the usages I see every day, and which I would like to see on Wikipedia, do not contradict dictionaries; moreover, they are supported by dictionaries.

Since the use of "issuing state" on a passport, or the concept of "country of countries" both pose no problems to the use of "country" to describe the UK, and since the website quote I gave earlier demonstrates the common usage of "country" to describe the UK, do you have any other reasons why "country" should not be used, or will I go ahead and change it? My reason for changing it, by the way, is that it is the most common word used to describe sovereign states both in every day discussion and on Wikipedia. (Look up a few countries and see. As you are no doubt aware, you could start with United Kingdom.) Robertbyrne 15:48, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Calling them both countries can also be confusing though, a compromise is needed across the wiki as different pages are using different terms... - JVG 09:30, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

It's not our place to say that something correct is confusing, and change it. That would be original research! What pages are using different terms? Robertbyrne 15:53, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Constitutional status of Cornwall

I have made the following changes.

Culturally, many consider the Cornish to be distinct from the English, but, politically, Cornwall is considered by the UK government to have the same status as any other county in England. However some have raised questions concerning the constitutional status of Cornwall.

For anybody out there If as the article claimed, Cornwall, for national and local purposes is a Ceremonial and Administrative county of England (and that therefore the Duchy of Cornwall is a separate issue) then:

• 1) Why do the duchy Charters that are still law today talk about the whole of Cornwall being augmented into a Duchy?

• 2) Why was the county of Cornwall successfully described as a Duchy in the Cornish Foreshore Case of 1856?

On behalf of the Duchy in its successful action against the Crown, which resulted in the Cornwall Submarine Mines Act of 1858, Sir George Harrison (Attorney General for Cornwall) makes this submission.

1. That Cornwall, like Wales, was at the time of the Conquest, and was subsequently treated in many respects as distinct from England.

2. That it was held by the Earls of Cornwall with the rights and prerogative of a County Palatine, as far as regarded the Seignory or territorial dominion.

3. That the Dukes of Cornwall have from the creation of the Duchy enjoyed the rights and prerogatives of a County Palatine, as far as regarded seignory or territorial dominion, and that to a great extent by Earls.

4. That when the Earldom was augmented into a Duchy, the circumstances attending to it's creation, as well as the language of the Duchy Charter, not only support and confirm natural presumption, that the new and higher title was to be accompanied with at least as great dignity, power, and prerogative as the Earls enjoyed, but also afforded evidence that the Duchy was to be invested with still more extensive rights and privileges.

5. The Duchy Charters have always been construed and treated, not merely by the Courts of Judicature, but also by the Legislature of the Country, as having vested in the Dukes of Cornwall the whole territorial interest and dominion of the Crown in and over the entire County of Cornwall.

• 3) Why did the Duchy of Cornwall Management Act confirm that the Duke possesses seignory and territorial rights befitting a king in 1863 if the Duchy is just a landed estate?

• 4) Why did the Kilbrandon Report into the British constitution in 1969-71 recommend that Cornwall (the territory of) should be referred to as a Duchy in light of its constitutional position?

• 5) Why does the Duke of Cornwall have rights of governance and honours over the whole territory of Cornwall but not Duchy lands outside Cornwall? For instance the right of wreck on all Cornish shores, the right of Bona Vicantia / treasure trove for the county of Cornwall, the right to Swans and Sturgeon caught in Cornwall, the duty to appoint the Sheriff of Cornwall and preside over the Stannary Parliaments.

• 6) Why does the Duchy have its own exchequer and other arms of governance and indeed why is the duchy described in law as a body of governance if it is just a landed estate?

• 7) Why did this definition of county in the Complete Oxford English Dictionary (2nd Ed 1989 p. 1044.) describe Cornwall as a Duchy?

Whence county was gradually adopted in English ( scarcely before the 15th century ) as an alternative name for the shire, and in due course applied to similar divisions made in Wales and in Ireland, as well as the shires of Scotland, and also extended to those separate parts of the realm which never were shires, as The Duchy of Cornwall, Orkney and Shetland. Part definition of the term County.

• 8) Why did the 1998 Tamar Bridge act confirm the power of the Duke and border of Cornwall (the Duchy) if the Duchy of Cornwall is just a landed estate?

Bretagne 44 14:29, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Language

Robertbyrne just reverted the following addition:

The two languages spoken in the British Isles are English and Celtic. The English that is spoken is referred to with either English English or British English, with the latter being more ambiguous for various reasons, as mentioned above.

saying there is no such thing as 'the Celtic language'. But it doesn't say there is one Celtic language. I know there are several versions of Celtic, but the same goes for English, which is what the paragraph is about. I really just wanted to add the notion of 'English English' and/or 'British English'. That makes sense here, right? DirkvdM 06:28, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

English is predominant, with Gaelic (both Irish & Scots) and I think Cornish also found. - JVG 11:56, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Hmm... I think that saying 'the celtic language' is a bit like saying 'the scandanavian language' for Norwegian, Swedish and Danish. Sure they're similar, but they're also too distinct to be considered one. Similarly, Welsh and the two Gaelics (and Cornish, if we must) are too distinct from each otehr to be referred to as one.

Oh, and I think the British English thing is a bit incedental too Robdurbar 14:36, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I didn't say 'the Celtic language' but 'Celtic' (no article). To continue the comparison, could one say that in Northern Europe Scandinavian is spoken? I'd say so. Still, which languages are spoken in the British Isles should maybe be reserved for that article. DirkvdM 07:05, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

DirkvdM you said "the two languages". English is one language ergo you imply that, there being one other language mentioned, Celtic must also be a language. It's not, it's a family of languages. The statement is in essence inaccurate. Bandraoi 08:14, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Ah, yes, of course, silly me. But now I wonder if one can call English a language. In the British Isles alone there are quite a few versions, but worldwide there is much more variation. Then again, I don't really want to get caught up in a discussion about what constitutes a language - definitions are pretty vague and therefore more politically inspired I believe. DirkvdM 09:16, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

It is incorrect, as there really isn't anything called "Celtic" which is spoken. There's English, Scots Gaelic, Welsh, Cornish, and possibly some Irish Gaelic. Gaelic and Welsh are related, for certain, but then so are English and German. Your sentence does imply two languages, English and Celtic, not a variety of Englishes and a variety of Celtics. Perhaps the term English English does exist (I am neither a sociologist nor an anthropologist), but so do Welsh English and Highland English. The two sentences are misleading and, ultimately, the article is improved for not having them. [[Sam Korn]] 00:22, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, this is somewhat academic since this is not the right article for this, but still, two things. First, there is even an article on English English. Secondly, on a bus to Ireland I heard someone make a remark about how Gaelic is pronounced in different parts of the Isles; in Ireland 'Gaylic', in Scotland 'Garlic' and in Wales 'Gillic'. Just a bit of trivia. Is it true, though? DirkvdM 07:13, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, there is supposedly a dialect English English, though I have never heard anyone use it. Gaelic is not spoken in Wales: Cymraeg is. I think your point says more about accents than about languages! [[Sam Korn]] 17:13, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

The word Gaelic does have different pronounciations. In the English of Ireland its usually GALE-IC and in the English of Scotland it is usually GALLIC. I dont know about Wales. Laurel Bush 11:48, 15 December 2005 (UTC).

British Isles = Redundant

I'm from Dublin. The simple fact is that we Irish do like this term and find it incredibly insulting. Nobody here uses it and in fact, the Irish government does not recognise it AT ALL. It became out-dated when we became a soverign state.

People who argue that it is a geographical term say this as an excuse to use it as a political term.

It is out-dated, old-fashioned and highly insulting. I am not a nationalist or republican, and have nothing against the British. I am simply an Irish citizen.

Any other opinions from the Republic of Ireland, out of interest, out there ? Is the above representative of a generalised Irish citizen (if I am permitted to generalise), or does the average person on the street just not give a damn either way, or something in between ? --jrleighton 13:06, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

It is a largely redundant term, but it still deserves a article not least for all cognitiations. Something which is uneccessary though is two articles British Isles and British Isles (terminology) - both of these are largely a rehash of concepts surrounding "British Isles" and the second particularily to terminology of the islands of the isles. We should have one article. We might as well have a Europe (terminology) which gives a blow-by-blow accoount of Europe related terminology, how boring? Djegan 13:48, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Not really; the point of this page is for all the terminology within and the British Isles - thus it refers to Britain, United Kingdom, Ulster etc.

And if you find a page boring, dont read it ;) Robdurbar 14:58, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually if you read by comments correctly it is that an article "Europe (terminology)" would be boring - not this one. Djegan 15:09, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Lol, sorry Robdurbar 15:47, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Fundementally my point is why have two articles when you can have one clear and concise article with all the pertinent information? I am not calling for the deletion or dilution of British Isles, on the contray. As this article is structured at the moment it is essentially a long British Isles (disambiguation) article and as such maybe better suited to a short page of links to relevent articles or even not at all. A simple numbered map would go a long way to clearing any ambiguity as to what country/island/region/etc is where in British Isles. We should not assume that people are so dumb that we require a whole article article simply to define the terms, remembering in particular Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary or link farm. Djegan 16:07, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

If I heard an Irishman use the expression "British Isles" I really would have no choice but to wonder just how warm his bedclothes were in 1916. Nobody here uses it! It's just another product of British claims to this country. Oddly enough that sort of thing doesn't go down to well with the natives. Similarly nobody uses the term "Éire" in the partitionist sense that the British, and they alone, use it. Béal Féirste and Doire are in Éire in precisely the same way that Belfast and Derry are in Ireland.

I don't know about the Irish bit, so I won't get involved in that discussion. But I created this article because I wondered about all those confusing terms like United Kingdom, Britain and Great Britain. I already knew that calling 'Great Britain' 'England' was wrong, but then I found that calling it 'Great Britain' was wrong too because I was really thinking about the UK. This turned into a bit of a study and then I thought I might as well write an an article about the terminology because I sure won't be the only one who is confused. The most important part is the top, which gives a quick overview of the terminology. That (or something similar, as long as it's a short overview) should be at a location that will be linked to from all the articles that relate to the British Isles (or whatever they should be called). That's the main point as far as I'm concerned. Whether this overview is given in a seaprate article, I don't care much, but it does make sense. Maybe much of the rest of the article could be merged with British Isles. But the overview should be at an easily found location - ie linked to at the top of the related articles. At the moment I'm trying to get other things done, so I won't be doing any of this myself. DirkvdM 08:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe, officially, in the Republic of Ireland, Éire does now have the meaning Republic of Ireland. In other words: it is the official name in Irish for a republic which does not include Northern Ireland. This is one effect of constitutional reform which followed the Good Friday agreement. Laurel Bush 11:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC).

Lloegr

Can anyone who speaks Welsh confirm or deny the explanation of the name Lloegr as "the lost country"? (I don't think it does actually mean that, but I'm not a native speaker.) 66.92.237.111 03:22, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm a native speaker and I don't think it means that either. I don't know what it does mean though - it's a very old word. I'm deleting "the lost country" - if somebody has a good reference for the meaning they can put it back. Rhion 09:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Weirdly, Geiriadur Prifysgol Cymru (a massive massive Welsh dictionary which includes etymology) does not include the term Lloegr, although it includes all the derivatives. But looking through it, there's only one country name I found in it at all (guess which). This is the only Welsh dictionary I know which does etymology. So I went to the local university library and spent some time down in the Welsh and Celtic periodicals section. Lots of conjecture about the origin (with entire articles devoted to it) but I didn't find a definite answer. It's probably also worth noting that I didn't come across a single suggestion that it means "lost". --Telsa 16:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I have given a number of sources that mention Lloegr meaning lost lands on the Celtic nations discussion page.

A merge to reduce the permutations of articles

There is a discussion about merging United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland into United Kingdom. If you would like to contribute, please do so at: Talk:United_Kingdom. Regards Bobblewik 13:44, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Britain = United Kingdom (not "Britain = Great Britain")

Very interesting article, though I was surprised to see "Britain = Great Britain", since I know a number of people who include Northern Ireland in "Britain" but not "Great Britain". (I'm English, if that makes a difference.) Loganberry (Talk) 11:40, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Loganberry above: I have always understood the term "Britain" to be referring to the UK, not only to the Great Britain parts of the UK.--Mais oui! 12:06, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Hmm... I think the problem here is that the noun for a person from the United Kingdom is 'British'; so, someone from Northern Ireland or the Isle of White could be British without being from Britain itself. In reality, then, I think: British = (from) Untied Kingdom; whilst Britain is most commnoly used for Great Britain! Robdurbar 18:02, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Mais oui! is correct. "Britain" is a perfectly valid abbreviation of "UK of GB and NI". The article is wrong. --Dtcdthingy 11:01, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Nope, Britain is a loose term with 2 meanings. It can refer to either Great Britain (England, Scotland and Wales) or the British Isles (All islands including all of Ireland). The term Britain is not used a lot in Ireland due to the terms usual association with the UK. That's how this Englishman understands it. - JVG 10:48, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Your understanding is incorrect: "the British Isles" is a geographic descriptive term, and geographically Britain is an island. Politically, Britain can be used as a synonym for the UK, thus taking in part of Ireland. --Ryano 10:59, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, it looks like we've got another bit of confusion. How convenient that this article is exactly about that :) . So both views should be represented in the article (provided they're held by enough people). However, it should also be established what the official meaning of the words is. So if anyone's got a good source for that .... let me guess ... official sources disagree as well ... ? DirkvdM 07:25, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Nope, geographically, GREAT Britain is an Island. There is no island named Britain. It is GB to differentiate from Brittany in France. Why don't we just say Britain has 3 meanings, using all those mentioned here? - JVG 09:42, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Geographically Britain and Great Britain are the same thing - "Britain" is an abbreviation of "Great Britain" if you prefer, but in any case "Britain" does not mean "the British Isles" in any context. --Ryano 09:28, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm part English and Part Irish. I thus call myself British, coming from the British Isles, and think of the whole group of islands as Britain... It's open to opinion, there is no right answer. - JVG 10:39, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, I would be inclined to class that under "common misconceptions" :) I know that many English people do think that "British Isles" implies the whole thing is "Britain", but I'm not aware of any reason why this should be so, other than the fact that many people seem to think it is so. Perhaps we should leave it here until one of us can come up with some sources. --Ryano 10:59, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

In response to Ryano's suggestion for sources. People may be interested in the following quotes about the term Britain:

• Website of the British Prime Minister On this site the term 'Britain' is used informally to mean the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
• The British Embassy the term “Britain” is used informally to mean the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
• Foreign and Commonwealth Office guide to the EU for simplicity, this booklet uses the term “Britain”. It should be taken to mean the United Kingdom (i.e. England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland).
• The Economist In most contexts favour simplicity over precision and use Britain rather than Great Britain or the United Kingdom, and America rather than the United States.
• alt-usage-english Like the USA, the UK suffers from having no convenient adjective to describe the country or its people. The best thing that can be said for "British" is that it is not quite as misleading as "American", but it is nevertheless the established term for "relating to the UK"....So what about "Britain"? This is not a term with any legal meaning, but if you ask the English person in the street what country they live in surveys show that more will answer "Britain" than anything else. So it should probably be taken as a back-formation from "British", and therefore to mean "United Kingdom".
• The British Consulate The term "Britain" is used informally to mean the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Bobblewik 20:28, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for those links, but you will note that none of them support JVG's contention that "Britain" can refer to the entire British Isles, which was the point under discussion. I would not dispute that "Britain" is used informally as a synonym for the UK, but the UK is a political entity and not a geographic one. --Ryano 21:48, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. That is how I interpret them too. Bobblewik 22:50, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I think we do our readers a disservice on issues like this. People are often keen to debate nuances within an article, but if we look across several articles that explain again and again about Britain, we see:

• Great Britain There is similar situation with the terms Britain and British, which are used to relate to the whole of the UK and not just the island of Great Britain. This usage is generally considered to be correct.
• United Kingdom Thus "Great Britain" (or "Britain" for short) properly refers to the nations of England, Wales and Scotland, i.e. the United Kingdom except for Northern Ireland.
• History of the United Kingdom Britain's application to join the EEC was vetoed by Charles de Gaulle

Sigh. Bobblewik 22:41, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

The info on the GB page is right; the info on the UK page is misleading as it suggests that it wouyld be wrong to say that Northern Irleand is part of 'Britain' - which it is as our many soruces have shown that Britain is used as a term for the UK.

British would be used very rarely for someone/thing from the British Isles, and it is this use that would be consdired offensive by most Irish, I think. Britain cannot refer to the British Isels itself

So, Britain = UK; Britain = GB (however, given that all of Great Britain is in the UK anyway, it seems a bit of an odd debate); British = some from the UK or (technically) Great Britain Robdurbar 09:31, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with all three of your paragraphs. Extending this to incorrect assumption that GB = UK One thing that I do not see much of is the idea of habit (or some equivalent word). I hear it all the time in the US and I think it is part habit and part due to the extensive repetition of historical events in the 1700s. It seems common for well-intentioned but incorrect use of GB to mean UK. People will then sometimes use weird justifications e.g. by saying that President Bush did actually visit GB so why would people object to saying that. Perhaps if GB were actually called 'Lesser Britain' or 'Partial Britain' it would not be so well used. I did once suggest a guideline for foreigners: Great Britain does have a meaning today. But in most cases it is not as good as saying Britain or United Kingdom. In some cases it is much worse. Unless you know what you are doing, stop using Great Britain for events and places today and you won't go far wrong. Bobblewik 13:21, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Timeline of British Isles States

There is an ongoing discussion at Talk:United Kingdom about the creation of a diagram that explains the historical evolution of the states in the British Isles. I suggest that this diagram be included on the terminology page, replacing much of the text from the history section Robdurbar 00:13, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Diagram (version 2)

Slang Terms

What was the reason for removing "Pom" from the list of slang terms for Britons? Mucky Duck 12:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Lord knows; maybe the user felt it wasn't appropriate as the term is for 'the British' rather than 'the British Isles' which is what is being discussed here. Robdurbar 13:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Status of the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man

I wonder if some brave soul would like to undertake adding an explanation about the Isle of Man & the Channel Islands to this article? - that is, to explain how they are dependancies of the British Crown, but not part of the UK? --feline1 19:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Please remove Ireland from here or i will do it myself..

The Republic of Ireland has not been part of the British Isles since 1922, i am not sure why people have an issue with this. There seems to be no problem with every other country in the world who have acheived independance from the British Empire so why not Ireland?? The British Isles is a term to describe the lands that make up Great Britain, Ireland is not in Great Britain.

You Cannot just use geography as an argument for this, a nations history come into play also, Is Portugal part of the spanish peninsula? Is Cananda a state of the USA? --Murphyweb 07:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, Portugal is part of the Spanish Peninsula. Thank you for providing me with a counterargument. :) I don't get the Canada-bit, though. Anyway, it's all explained in the article and the first sentence makes clear that there is a lot of confusion about it and then that gets restated again in the intro, so I'd say it's clear enough that one should be careful what to call what here and that opinions differ. Better to include all opinions than to erase one in favour of the other. DirkvdM 07:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Portugal is located on a peninsula called the Iberian peninsula. Canada is not located in the United States, but rather in North America, Northern America and the two Americas. The Philippines is both the name of a sovereign state and an archipelago located within the much larger Malay archipelago. These are all geographical names. If there are alternative names for the archipelago known as the British Isles, please advise. Also, see Persian Gulf naming dispute and Sea of Japan naming dispute for useful comparisons. Thanks. //Big Adamsky 08:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Murphyweb, your belligerant attitude sucks. If you actually READ the article, you will see it is sensitively and dispassionately written, and explains the distinctions between geographical and political entities, and how the names arose historically over *millenia*. Using the geographical term "The British Isles" to refer to all the islands in the group, including the island of Ireland, is the most common usage and therefore must certain be listed as so in the article. The article already explains what toes this treads on. I suggest you dry your eyes. If you vandalize the article, others will only revert it back.--feline1 10:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

You can avoid the term "British Isles" if you don't like it, but you can't redefine it to mean the islands belonging to Great Britain, changing over time as Britain's historical boundaries change, because it never meant that. The term British Isles is far older than Britain, Britain is named after the archipelago, not the other way around, and its meaning has never been dependent on the extent of Britain. This article clearly states that many people in Ireland are understandably uncomfortable with the term, and mentions alternatives. Politically sensitive people will note that and possibly avoid using it. That's as far as you can go with the Irish perspective on this question. You don't do the Irish any credit by pretending the term means something which it never meant. --Doric Loon 12:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

If the Republic of Ireland is geographically part of the British Isles (and am inclined to think it is), then it would seem fair to call the citizens of the Republic "British." That, however, might get a few people upset. Then again, wasn't Bono just named one of the 100 greatest British people alive today, or something like that? (20 February 2006).

Well perhaps you hadn't noticed, but over the past few centuries, a great deal of people in the island of Ireland *have* gotten rather upset along these lines. But thankfully now Bono has descended to earth to bring world peace, so we can all relax.--feline1 11:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't necessarily follow. You wouldn't call the Manx Irish, although they're located in the Irish Sea. The same goes for people who live in the Indian Ocean etc. etc. --Ryano 11:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Aye - actually, the term tends to be applied to all the pre-Roman, pre-Anglo-Saxon, pre-Norman inhabitants of the British Isles is "Britons", not "British". Often the public will use the word "Celts" as well, but archeologists don't like this much.--feline1 12:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Seems to me, in this context, Celt is actually much better than Briton. Linguistically Celtic covers both Brythonic and Goidelic. (Welsh is Brythonic and Celtic, but not Goidelic.) Laurel Bush 16:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC).

Re 'Irish' and 'British'. Canada is in the Americas, but Canadians are seldom called 'Americans'. Likewise the Republic of Ireland is in the British Isles, but Irish people are not therefore 'British'. Laurel Bush 16:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC).

yes and what's more, watery tarts living in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government! I mean I went around, claiming I was an British Emperor, just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away! But having said this, "Celt" is a bit of a moot term, as these people never called themselves "Celts", the word just comes from one bit in Herodotus in reference to a tribe on the Danube... --feline1 16:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry? Was that Ynglis? Or Scots?. Or what?. And was that delicious reference to 'watery tarts' about someone in Somerset? Or Wales? Or what? Laurel Bush 17:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC).

Monty Python and the Holy Grail, you Philistine! LOL But yes, I gather that nobody really knows whether or not the pre-Roman indiginous people of the British Isles were displaced/invaded by/ blended with "Celts" from mainland Europe (bring their celtic art and languages) or were there all along for the last 6 millenia, and it's just that their brethern in mainland Europe got wiped out by the Romans et al, so it's only in the Hebrides and Donegal that there's any left...--feline1 17:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Template

To replace the various notes at the top of the pages that link here, I have created a template under 'Template:British Isles (terminology)'. It looks like this at the moment:

Robdurbar 12:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Claim that Irish Government "does not recognise the term British Isles"

This claim (now reverted) doesn't seem to be supported by the facts. A quick Google search [3] throws up plenty of references to "British Isles" in Oireachtas debates. In any case the term has no "official" status, it's merely a geographic descriptive term. --Ryano

If you read the actual references which you have provided; the British Isales is generally referring to the UK, Isle of Man and Channel Islands - NOT Ireland. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.40.155.137 (talk • contribs) 18:46, 23 February 2006 UTC.

Um, no.

"Is the Minister aware also that the unit has been lying idle for the past two years, like the Berkeley Court, that it is the second busiest hospital in the Western Health Board region and that it is one of the busiest for its size in the British Isles?" [4]

"Ms O'Sullivan asked the Minister for Health and Children the plans, if any, he has to amend adoption legislation to provide adopted people with easier access to their original birth certificates which is the norm throughout the rest of the British Isles including Northern Ireland as recommended by the Adoption Board in its annual reports over the past number of years." [5]

"The case has been made many times in favour of complete derating of all agricultural land. There is complete derating of all agricultural land in the Six Counties and in Britain. We are mainly an agricultural economy and we are within the framework of the British Isles."[6]

"There is freedom to travel from eastern Europe to the British Isles and throughout the Mediterranean countries. In such circumstances, it is possible that one parent might live in Italy, for example, and the other might live in Ireland." [7]

I don't think any of the above could be interpreted as referring to only the UK, Isle of Man and Channel Islands.--Ryano 10:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Legal Term

The only legal term recognised by both the UK and Irish governments when referring to the Archipeligo is 'these Islands.' Strand Three, The Agreement, 10/04/1998. There are many precedents for geographical terms (e.g. Benelux, Central Europe, North America etc.) being legally and politically recognised - the 'British Isles' is not one of them. The term is not used in legislation in either jurisdiction.

The term 'British' Isles is not purely geographic no matter how hard one may attempt to protest that it is - it has geo-political implications. Ireland is NOT a British Isle, however, it is a part of the same archipeligo as Great Britain. The term 'British' Isles is unacceptable when referring to Ireland under any circumstances; whether they be purely geographic, political, legal etc.

One cannot escape the English language definition of British i.e. of or relating to the island of Great Britain or the United Kingdom, or to its people or language. Under this basic definition how can Ireland be deemed a British Isle? It is a complete non sequitur. Ireland is not British thus is not a part of the 'British' Isles. Ireland's identity is Irish and European - it certainly is not British.

Also, I have removed the reference to non-usage of term in Ireland being determined by political viewpoint and replaced it with: The term is deemed anachronistic in Ireland (Republic of) and use of same is generally avoided.

It's non-usage in Ireland is not determined by a particular political viewpoint, unless being an Irish citizen is a political viewpoint. Since merely being born on the island of Ireland entitled one to Irish Citizenship up until the Irish Nationality & Citizenship Act, 2004; I do not believe that Irish Citizenship constitutes a political stance. Iolar Iontach

Yes thanks there for your hysterical anonymous Republican trolling.--feline1 18:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Hardly hysterics nor republican, mere statement of facts peruse the above again at your leisure. Iolar

No, it's full of emotive language and value-judgements. This is a sober and dare I say it sligtly anal wikipedia article which attempts to dispasionately clarify some confusing terminolgy, not your politcal soapbox. And please leave a proper signature for your comments.--feline1 21:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I would sign in, however, wikipedia isn't allowing me to do so today. Where are the emotive language and value-judgements? You are judging me. My opinion is not political -it is legal, thus I do not have or require a 'political soapbox.' The only legal term used in both jurisdictions i.e. UK & Ireland, is 'these Isles.' Stating the definition of the adjective 'British' in English (the de facto official language of the UK)is hardly emotive, nor is stating the only legal term in both jurisdictions. I don't think anyone could claim that the Oxford English Dictionary and an intergovernmental treaty are wrong.

It is rather naive to believe that the term does not have geo-political connotations. The reference to non-usage in Ireland being determined by political stance was extremely biased, untrue and definitely PoV. Slander is also not in the spirit of Wikipedia Feline. Iolar Iontach

I don't think anyone is saying that "British Isles" is a legal term or holds any particular status. The fact that "these Isles" is used in the Good Friday Agreement doesn't confer any legal status on that term either. The only question is whether either of the terms has currency as a descriptive term for the geography in question. Personally I quite like "these Isles" and hope that it catches on, however until then we must acknowledge that "British Isles" has greater currency. --Ryano 11:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

The term certainly has some geopolitical connotations - but then ALL geographical terms do, to a certain extent. As for 'these isles' - I like it but unfortunately its not much use when you're not, well, here! Robdurbar 12:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

'These Isles' is not just used in the Agreement (the correct term for it), it is defined and that definition was used in the establishment of the British-Irish Council, which does confer it with legal status. It is the only term to have been legally recognised in each jurisdiction within the archipeligo. Iolar Iontach

"determined by political stance"

The reference to non-usage in Ireland being determined by political stance was extremely biased, untrue and definitely PoV thus has been changed again. Its non-usage in Ireland is apolitical. Iolar Iontach

If you were trying to make it less POV your replacement text wasn't much of an improvement "The term British Isles is deemed anachronistic in Ireland (Republic of) and use of same is generally avoided.". Do you have any sources to back this up? I have lived in Ireland all my life and have never heard anyone object to the use of the term "British Isles" as anachronistic. In any case, the original statement, a version of which I have re-instated, refers not to "British Isles" but to all the names used for the various territories. It is hard to dispute that usage of these names is not politically influenced in many cases, e.g. "Northern Ireland" vs "Six Counties". --Ryano 15:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I have added the word 'often' to the sentence 'Furthermore, to some extent the choice of terminology, especially in relation to Ireland, is often influenced by political stance,' which thus reads 'Furthermore, to some extent the choice of terminology, especially in relation to Ireland, is often influenced by political stance.'

In relation to use of the term 'British Isles' being anachronistic hence its non-usage, it was Dick Spring's view as Minister for Foreign Affairs in 1995. It is the view of Dermot Ahern as the current Minister. It is more correct to say it is anachronistic than offensive - I have lived in Ireland all my life and have yet to come across someone who finds it offensive or repugnant. Iolar Iontach

Indian Subcontinent

This includes India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Burma, Nepal, Bhutan... yet the term is still used, and in no way implies that the modern state of India rules those other places. TharkunColl 17:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

South Asia is the correct term in use. Indian Subcontinent is deemed inaccurate and politically incorrect. The Subcontinent is sometimes used when talking geographically or geologically. Iolar Iontach

British weather forecasts

Somebody at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:British_Isles claimed that all the British channels use the term "British Isles" when they are talking about the weather in Ireland and Britain. Nobody has supported this assertion. I have not heard the BBC, ITV or even the tabloidesque Sky News use the term on the service they provide to Ireland. I've checked the online versions of these three stations for today's weather. None of them use the term "British Isles": ; http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/ukweather/; http://www.itv-weather.co.uk/; http://www.sky.com/skynews/weather. Years ago they might have, but in my lifetime I have not heard them use the term. Does anybody have evidence to the contrary? Otherwise my alteration to the article should stand.El Gringo 16:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I doubt they do in written forecasts, though I expect it would slip out from some of the presenters now and then - in the end, there are probably over 100 forecasts a day on the main 5 channels and sky news. I've never noticed the word, but then don't think I would if it was mentioned.

All this is of course original research - if its printed somewhere, or there is a verfiable forecast stored somewhere in which the term is used; fine, include it. If not - and you seem to have searched quite exhaustively - then you're in the right. Robdurbar 18:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand: BBC second and third paragraphs (worringly here they go on to say 'and even in a small country like the british isles'!!!!); Met office page on 'British Isles Rainfall; there are numerous other sources in google if you search 'british isles' and 'weather' Robdurbar 19:02, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

'This term is also rejected by Irish people'

The reason I've removed this sentence from the intro is:

• Irish people? All of them? Even the Ulster Unionists?? Its an over generalization to claim that all Irish people reject a term. Even the evidence from Wikipedia talk pages - which is generally considred bad form to use - is only of that small minority who've complained about it
• The article explains sufficiently the number of problems and critcisms of the term
• Such a claim cannot be made unsourced

Robdurbar 19:07, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Merge and interlink

There is apparently a great deal of (largely unreferenced) controversy over usage and meaning of toponyms as evidenced by Traditional counties of the British Isles, British Islands, British Isles, British Isles (terminology), Britain and Ireland, Islands of the North Atlantic and Brythonic or Anglo-Celtic Archipelago). Why not merge articles with quasi-identical content, and then provide mutual links to the articles that arguably and evidently do not mean the same thing. //Big Adamsky 18:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I started this article because there was a need to give a good quick overview of what's what in the British Isles. That's the first overview. As long as that bit is at the top of an obvious page I don't really care to much, although I'd prefer to keep the article. It seems a useful and logical collection of info. DirkvdM 17:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I think any talk on this is generally going on at Talk:British Isles; this is where the template directs you. Robdurbar 18:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Venn diagram 1

I added a self made Venn diagram (based on the one found in external links) to the intro. right now, the image pretty much looks bad. someone with better software, itd be sweet if you could go ahead and remedy that situation. I do think the diagram is usefull in the introduction, especially for us visual learners. but it should be tidied up a bit, at the very least.--jfg284 ^{you were saying?} 21:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

It provides an interesting and alternative way of looking at the concepts, as far as I can tell. Robdurbar 09:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

The diagram seems to imply the existence of parts of the UK which not within England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. Laurel Bush 10:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC).

Well geographically - but not politically - speaking there kinda is - e.g. the Shetland Isles - but that is a well-spotted weakness, yes. Anyway that could be fixed in the diagram? Robdurbar 11:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Good spot. I didn't even think of that. Hmmm...possible solutions? A note in the caption might explain it, but that seems kind of weak. Hmmm.--jfg284 ^{you were saying?} 15:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• Nice diagram but it is not entirely correct. The Isle of Man and the Channel Islands collectively are within the United Kingom not outside of it. The geographical island of Ireland is called Ireland but the Republic of Ireland should be called just that or preferably Éire while Northern Ireland should be called Ulster. Only the English and possibly some Scotts and Welshmen call it Northern Ireland. It is legitimate to put the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man outside of England because although ruled from Westminster they have a degree of quirky autonomy and the I of M is governed by the Manx. The Scillys are in England and the Shetlands and Orkneys are in Scotland. Ex nihil 04:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Venn Diagram 2

The Diagram, in its most recent incarnation, disagrees with the article. The article notes that the Channel Islands are included in the term "British Isles," while the diagram places them outside that circle.82.83.40.200 18:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I've edited it to reflect the ambiguous position of the channel islands. Robdurbar 09:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Which of the islands are geographically part of the archipelago? Both the British Isles and Channel Islands pages clearly state that they are separate. EricR 15:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Reverted to the previous version which places Channel Islands outside of the British Isles. EricR 16:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

A mere glance at the map should be enough to show that the Channel Islands are not part of the British Isles, which is a purely geographical term. As UK dependencies in close proximity, they are indeed among the British Islands, but that is a term invented in the 1950s are very rarely, if ever, used. As for the Shetlands, they are on the same bit of continental shelf as the rest of the British Isles, so must be included, regardless of whether they happen also to be politically part of the UK (which they are, of course). The Faeroes, on the other hand, have their own fragment of continental shelf, so are not included (regardless of the fact that they are part of Denmark). Rockall, which was annexed to the UK in 1972, likewise has its own segment of continental shelf, and so ought not to be included in the British Isles - but is so small that it hardly matters.

OK; then we should change the text to reflect this. Robdurbar 13:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Without wishing to stir up more argument, I must opine that the reason why many Irish people object to the term British Isles is because of a basic linguistic confusion. In most instances the term "British" has a political meaning - i.e. of or pertaining to the UK. But it also has a geographical meaning that predates the political meaning by many, many centuries. The political meaning can hardly have existed before 1707, but the geographical one has existed since at least Classical times. When the British state was created in 1707 (or, at a stretch, 1603), its rulers chose the term "British" to describe themselves, precisely because it already existed as a geographical term. TharkunColl 16:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Linguistic confusion!! Hardly; more like linguistic accuracy and logic. British never ever ever refers to Ireland. I understand that Ireland is deemed an inconvenience due to this but that fact cannot be escaped. Iolar Iontach

• Nice diagram but it is not entirely correct. The Isle of Man and the Channel Islands collectively are within the United Kingom not outside of it. The geographical island of Ireland is called Ireland but the Republic of Ireland should be called just that or preferably Éire while Northern Ireland should be called Ulster. Only the English and possibly some Scotts and Welshmen call it Northern Ireland. It is legitimate to put the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man outside of England because although ruled from Westminster they have a degree of quirky autonomy and the I of M is governed by the Manx. The Scillys are in England and the Shetlands and Orkneys are in Scotland. Ex nihil 04:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• The channel islands and Isle of Man are not in the UK
• The whole Ulster/Eire thing is far too complex to go into... just read the article and it should explain it! Robdurbar 11:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated claim

The article says Many encyclopaedia in use today prefer the terminology 'British Isles and Ireland' . Quite apart from the missing "s" on "encyclopedia", I don't actually believe this for one moment, as it makes no sense. Whoever wrote it was presumably thinking of something like "Britain and Ireland". If no one can provide a citation for "many encyclopedias", it ought to be removed. TharkunColl 16:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, good call Robdurbar 17:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Definition of Irish

I have added a definition for Irish that incorporates the language; citizenship; and adjective. In common parlance the term has ambiguity attached to it - often people in the UK regard the Northern Irish as Irish irrespective of their citizenship. "British" - a less ambiguous term is defined, thus it is appropriate to define "Irish." I think that both adjectives that refer to the sovereign states should be defined. The argument that English and Welsh aren't defined is irrelevant - neither refer to sovereign states nor are they confusing terms. Iolar Iontach 12:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes but I think British is only incldued because of its use in the term 'British Isles'. In the end, Irish is not a confusing or potentially offensive term, in the way that Brtish is. Robdurbar 13:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that a Northern Irish/British loyalist would see it that way. Feel free to go to a pub on the Shankill Rd, and tell everyone that they're Irish!! Iolar Iontach 13:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Falklands and other overseas territories and dependencies

Where do places like the Falkland Islands and Gibraltar fit into this? I imagine they are part of the UK but not of the British Isles; which makes the Venn diagram in the article slightly misleading as it shows the UK as being strictly within the British Isles. --Rhebus 22:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Nope, they're not part of the UK either - see British overseas territory Robdurbar 09:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)