Talk:Terminology of the British Isles/Archive 7

Ulster

I deleted this from the section on the political entity section called Ireland, on the grounds that is mostly about a part of the United Kingdom and becuase the Ulster meaning dispute is comprehensively covered elsewhere. And it is flogging the horse to death and back. But I said in the edit note that I was moving it to the political entity section for United Kingdom, but I can't see where it sensibly can go, so I haven't. So here it is if any one can find a respectable home for it:

Many people, particularly Unionists, refer to Northern Ireland as Ulster – although the area described does not match with the historic province of that name. Unionists also refer to Northern Ireland as "the Province", sometimes because it can suggest an origin of the polity of Northern Ireland that pre-dates 1922, referring back to the Act of Union 1800, the Glorious Revolution of 1689, the Plantation of Ulster in 1610, the ancient migrations between Ulster and Scotland, and even to biblical tradition. This use for the term Ulster by Unionists to mean Northern Ireland, is offensive to members of the Nationalist community, as Ulster includes, but is not exclusive, to Northern Ireland. for these reasons, it is understandable that certain local place names are still in dispute: for example see Derry/Londonderry name dispute.

Comments welcome. --Red King (talk) 00:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I have added this text again by giving Ulster its own sub section to compromise with those who may feel uneasy in having it incorporated into the section on Ireland. I would like to point out and stress that the term Ulster is officially a nine-county entity and this should not be deleted from the section as it cannot be looked over. Also, when you make edits, please try not to use terms such as "These Republicans" this implies contempt to those of that persuasion and is not allowed on wikipedia as neutrality of information is what we are trying to achieve.

Irish citizenship

Main article: Irish nationality law

In relation to the Irish Citizenship part of the article i have re-included this as it is an informative and factual piece of information, relevant to the sub section on Ireland (state). I would welcome your feedback and response on making this article better. --  RÓNÁN   "Caint / Talk"  14:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

But what you have added is fundamentally wrong - this is absolutely basic nationality law in any country. You get a passport because you are a citizen. You don't get to be a citizen because you have somehow winged a passport! The Belfast Agreement has no force in law in and off itself: it is an agreement to make laws that put its principles into effect. The determining law is the nationality laws of the UK and Ireland. And by the way, since at least 1937, anybody born on the island is an Irish national. Anybody born in Northern Ireland is also a British national. So they have dual nationality, whether or not they choose to exercise it/them. --Red King (talk) 20:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Channel Islands

The Channel Islands may be politically British, but are they really a part of the British Isles? JAJ (talk) 03:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes - "British Isles" is a geographical term, not a political one. The CI and Man are within that definition. The CI also come within the British Islands, which is the term used on Jersey and Guernsey passports. Obviously "British Isles" not a universally popular term - alternative names are proposed - but the geographical area it describes does not denote a sovereign state, just a collection of islands, however we choose to name them. Cnbrb (talk) 09:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes. They are explicitly included in definitions that list the smaller islands (e.g. the Oxford English Dictionary). Although it gets my gut to cite other encyclopedias - because we can do better - Encarta considers them part of the British Isles - going by the title at least. (It's not really a "geographical" term - no "geographical" term really is.) --sony-youth^pléigh 10:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that they (and the Isle of Man) ought to have individual and separeate entries in the section British Isles (terminology)#Political distinctions, probably before a much shortened British Isles (terminology)#British Islands. They are not part of the United Kingdom or the European Union, so in many ways are politically distinct beasts. Also, and I hate to do this, what about Gibraltar? Is it not also a "British Island"?--Red King (talk) 21:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

No. British Islands is a term defined by the UK government to include the UK and its Crown Dependencies. Gibraltar is and Overseas Territory. josh (talk) 22:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

If the "British Isles" is a geographical term rather than a political one, then it clearly includes the Isle of Man, but are not the Channel Islands really offshore islands of the European Continent? JAJ (talk) 07:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. The Channel Islands are "British" politically (and then only half so, because of their autonomy), but not geographically.--MacRusgail (talk) 14:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Use of the term British Isles in articles

This discussion on Talk:British Isles#Use of the term British Isles in Articles may be of interest to some here. Bardcom (talk) 15:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I have created a draft proposal for a guideline about the use of the term "British Isles" in articles, you can read it at WP:British Isles. If you are interested please do so and comment. It is only in the beginning stages. Tb (talk) 18:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Another proposed guideline

I have numerous concerns about the proposal as they are currently written and have written another proposal. My main concerns were that the proposal as it is written here did not walk the line of WP:NPOV, did not have an adequate grounding in current consensus and practice, and did not offer any concrete guidelines per se that an editor could follow or easily understand (in the broadest sense of the term).

My proposed guidelines are here. --sony-youth^pléigh 20:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

This Irish Times front page article from 2006 seemed rather interesting to the whole naming issue. ww2censor (talk) 04:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

British Isles Terminology Task force

I propose we post a request for this on WP:GEOGRAPHY (Wikipedia:WikiProject Geography) asking for a neutral to open it, and linking them to here, stating that it is a priority. Is everyone happy wih the name, and a 'task force' of Geography, rather than a BI Wikiproject of its own? Please comment below. --Matt Lewis (talk) 14:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support: --Matt Lewis (talk) 14:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm waiting for DDstretch to come up with something - he is neutral on this one. --Snowded TALK 14:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

He's always advocated a task force hasn't he? He's a good admin for sure, but he's simply not neutral in the sense of being uninvolved. If you look at his Talk page, he's had conversations (and sometimes disagreements) with most of the people involved. He also has had deep involvement with Wales and Countries of the UK, and probably much else besides. By neutrality I mean someone like Keeper76 on Wales, who at the time was completely uninvolved. We can discuss here, and then get a neutral involved surely? --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

If people think a less involved admin than myself would help, then the importance of the need to resolve this issue mans a different admin. really should be chosen. I'm not sure if the time needed to be involved in the taskforce as an administrator rather than an editor would make the task attractive to me, anyway.  DDStretch  (talk) 16:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support - with a condition. That we temporarily remove the BI term from the Shannon article so we can get it back to normal and do some work on it; no precedents, just a working arrangement, to be reviewed as and when this task force decides. Chris55 (talk) 15:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support rollback also but people like CarterBar, Bastun and Tharkuncoll would need to agree for it to happen. It could be a plain (non-vandal) rollback on Tharkuncoll's edit, made by an admin. I'm happy with that - so it can be re-worked on, and we can start this without the Shannon being locked. Anyone else? --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Question Why is a rollback needed? One can argue that the insertion was PoV, and that the removal was PoV, that inclusion is British Nationalism, or that removal is Wiki censorship. Its there now, its referenced, and plenty more references could be found. There is nothing to stop work and/or debate going on with the current version. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 18:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree it's here now and removing it would normally be problematic - but this is a specific circumstance. I just thought that it might be gesture. We can still go ahead with the Shannon locked - even start with working out how to solve the Shannon problem. Either way, we need the taskforce, that much is clear. --Matt Lewis (talk) 18:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. Can one ask what this "Taskforce" is supposed to do other than to cause trouble? I don't doubt that Matt Lewis and TharkunColl would enjoy a little "debate", but other than causing "debate" is this "taskforce" supposed to achieve anything?Wotapalaver (talk) 15:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

We have to AFG with this one - it really is important. I could easily say "why don't you want it?". Tharkuncoll and myself are certanly not 'in league' (we could well disagree on most matters).--Matt Lewis (talk) 15:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment: If you read User talk:HighKing/Archives/2008/July#GENUKI, User talk:TharkunColl#WikiProject British Isles, and User talk:Ddstretch#British Isles, you will see that I initiated the idea, and have expanded there my view of how this taskforce should operate in general terms. I am very concerned that this taskforce should have a single, well-focussed aim, and I would oppose any editor who tried to turn the taskforce into another talking shop with no real progress. Its aim is not to cause trouble, but to have a formal way of scrutinising the use of "British Isles" in every article that mentions the term, and then to critically evaluate the support or rationale for including the term: if reliable sources back it up, then the term may well be kept with appropriate justification where thought necessary, and if it is not, or if its use is not verified by the sources that purport to verify its use, then suitable ways of handling the term should be found. I would hope that this taskforce would have the joint support of the Ireland and United Kingdom wikiprojects in order to make as public a show as possible that it is a joint initiative with the aim of resolving as far as possible and as efficiently as possible, the problems that have plagued the use of the term so far. I for one would hope that any attempt to disrupt the practical process of scrutinising and resolving the use of "British Isles" on a more formal article-by-article basis would be dealt with firmly by administrators who would be committed to reaching a resolution to the ongoing problems in a reasoned and efficient manner and where debate merely for debate's sake, or even for some kind of desitre to stir up further problems was viewed as being unhelpful and potentially disruptive to the enterprise. Does that help at all?  DDStretch  (talk) 15:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support.  DDStretch  (talk) 15:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support. I am, of course, assuming that this taskforce will not merely be removing BI, but will also be adding it to articles for which it is the best term to use, both in terms of simple factual accuracy, and the avoidance of tortured, convoluted language. ðarkuncoll 16:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Broadly speaking - I would say it will be for discussing and resolving all removal, insertion and description issues surrounding the term 'British Isles', in view of a wider approach. We best not make any other direct affirmations now: It's basically an open book (ie no initial premise, other than that all options can be discussed). --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support, the task at hand. GoodDay (talk) 19:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. Looking at the people supporting this, it could only be designed to colonise all Ireland related articles with this most contrived of British nationalist terms. Your empire is over. Get used to it. Pathetic. 86.42.71.170 (talk) 09:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support as per ddstretch statement --Snowded TALK 09:53, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support It seems I'm late to the party, but I support Ddstretch on this. --HighKing (talk) 18:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support (despite the proposers comments on my page, btw). We need something to set some balanced rules. I thought we actually had an agreement last April but it appears not. Sarah777 (talk) 19:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support. CarterBar (talk) 21:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support Well, as it's already decided, I may as well join the "fun." Nuclare (talk) 00:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose, a loaded concept from the beginning.--MacRusgail (talk) 14:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. What possible good can come of this other than endless debates? Hadrianheugh (talk) 02:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment - we already have the endless debates, edit-warring etc; what harm can it do? Sarah777 (talk) 10:10, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Task force now opened

At WP:BISLES. --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Task force - first task...

I've just created Template:Islands of the British Isles, which I intend to be a list of all the islands for which articles exist (though so far I've only added four!). This template should then be added to the bottom of all said articles. A good resource is List of islands in the British Isles. Anyone want to help? ðarkuncoll 15:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I think this does not fall within the remit of the taskforce, given what the majority of people have understood it to be so far. I suggest you remove the notice and place it elsewhere, as currently, it seems to be merely unecessarily provocative, given that we are still gauging support for the idea, and you are making assumptions about what one of the taskforce's jobs will be. Now, we all know what your reaction is likely to be TharkunColl, and so I am explicitly asking you NOT to comment here, but to allow others to comment on the advisability of this message by you. After they have, you can respond.  DDStretch  (talk) 17:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I shall respond, whether you want me to or not. This template perfectly falls within the remit of the task force - to remove BI from articles where it is inappropriate, and to add it to those where it is appropriate. Or, did you have in mind a taskforce that just supports one side in this debate? My template adds knowledge to Wikipedia, and is therefore a good thing. ðarkuncoll 17:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I did ask you not to respond immediately, and yet you have.  DDStretch  (talk) 17:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

And if I asked you to go and jump off a cliff, would you? My comments were neither offensive nor personal, and I have therefore a perfect right to make them. ðarkuncoll 17:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Cool down Tharky! You know very well that adding that template to, say, Republic of Ireland would open the gates of Wiki-hell! Sarah777 (talk) 17:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

If we're lucky? Ireland may be re-united, by the time this Taskforce starts up. GoodDay (talk) 19:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

If anyone has a problem with this template I will delete it now. The taskforce hasn't been okayed, and opened by the neutral Wikiproject Geography member. This was seriously provocative Tharcuncoll - if you don't play ball, and step all over others, you'll end up with a block. Think about it.

Sarah - are you going to vote in the Task force poll? I'm sure that many are waiting for your vote.--Matt Lewis (talk) 19:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Have done; sorry for the delay I was engaged in more mundane Wiki editing today; and yes - I think we'd be better off without the Template. Sarah777 (talk) 19:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey, it took me ages to write the names of all those little islands! ðarkuncoll 19:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

A template called the Isles, might've been less hair-raising (I assume). GoodDay (talk) 19:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Come on. When Sarah votes (or comments on voting at least), we'll have the taskforce. --Matt Lewis (talk) 19:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Agh! I've done it :) Sarah777 (talk) 19:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

e/c Hey! I spoke too soon. And it's a support! --Matt Lewis (talk) 19:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Quite apart from the obvious British/Irish problem, anyone who thinks that the above template sounds like a good idea should take a look at Category:Islands of Scotland navigational boxes. There are almost as many small archipelagos in Scotland as there are islands mentioned in the above box, and from the perspective of WikiProject Scottish Islands I can't say that it looks like anything other than a lot of clutter. You might just as usefully create an "Islands of Europe" one. One or more of the relevant lists in a 'See also' section as needed would perform a similar purpose and potentially avoid a lot of counter-productive posturing and edit-warring, which no doubt we are all keen to avoid. Ben MacDui 21:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed; maybe we should have a template "Islands of the Western World" or better, "Islands of the Free World". If we want to fight lets start thinking creatively. Sarah777 (talk) 21:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The template is redundant, it would be better used as an overarching link between the various archipelagos. We have 700 islands in Scotland alone - it would be pointless to have a template for all the main Scottish islands - and that's excluding the ones in other countries round about. We have dozens which have a significant population.--MacRusgail (talk) 14:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Template is not a good idea. Strongly agree with Ben MacDui and MacRusgail comments on this topic. Hadrianheugh (talk) 02:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Template not first task: Labelled 'Not for use. Pending discussion.'

I've labelled the template as 'Not for use. Pending discussion..'. Per request, doubts, and my promise above. It was certainly not the 'first task' of this not-quite-started task force. A deletion request (or not) can happen later, per talks.--Matt Lewis (talk) 21:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the template looks good, but more to the point, it will be useful to readers. It doesn't need to be specifically related to the Task Force. Like it or not, the British Isles is a recognised geographical unit and it makes sense to organise articles on its parts in this way. I'm surpised it hasn't been done before. CarterBar (talk) 21:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not judging it at all - the timing of it's creation couldn't have been worse. It's easily recoverable if needed. --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Fair point. I suppose it could have been seen as provocative by some. CarterBar (talk) 22:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I can't see the problem. Perhaps this template shouldn't be used in articles where it would cause offence (at first site, policy would appear to be "WP is not censored", but you know what I mean). Equally clearly, it's a rather useful addition to most articles on these islands. If I've misunderstood the problem, and it's acceptable for one group to control what another group wishes to put in their articles, then I'm sure people will correct me. From what I recall when I bumbled into this discussion before, it's very largely about wasting the time of (if not ham-stringing) other editors. PR^talk 12:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

You may have missed the salient issue at hand with this: the argument here is not specifically about the need for the tempate at all at this moment. The template being made now was to deliberately prejudice the upcoming task force on how the term can be used. It's not a question of whether it is useful or not: it's creation makes a mockery of the hard-won task force, and was a provocative act to the 'other side' of the argument (who have behaved far better, and by the 'rules' we've laid out). It may or may not be of use in the future: but many don't like it now, that's for sure. It may never come into play - and it was a stupid act to 'push it out' just as the task force was starting: it's just created an immediate problem. --Matt Lewis (talk) 13:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I've indeed missed the salient issue, I've already been over to the TfD and voted to "Delete". I've posted a related question to your TalkPage. PR^talk 13:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Poll was in support of Task force

I'll put a request on the Geography page now? I would say that if is not replied to today, DDStretch can open it (as a specific 'Task force' was his idea). Any comments? ..--Matt Lewis (talk) 19:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Get'er done. GoodDay (talk) 19:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

A request for what, exactly? We already appear to have more than enough people here willing to participate. I certainly intend to, anyway. ðarkuncoll 19:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

For a neutral WP:GEOGRAPHY member to open it. (I've placed the request here). It's what you signed up for - nobody can argue how it starts then (ie initially worded etc). I don't suggest waiting too long though.. but it's best to keep to the terms of the poll. --Matt Lewis (talk) 20:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

A significant number of the support was for the proposal by ddstretch. That did not signify moving directly to the creation of a highly controversial template to be added to any and all articles. I see that as a pre-emptive strike from one perspective (nearing on a POV) rather than a genuine attempt to open a dialogue to move the issue forwards. If this task force is just going to be another edit ware then its not worth it. In my opinion its critical that a neutral person opens the task force and guides its tasks and collaboration and ALL should agree to engage in that rather than treat this as yet another excuse to play ideological games. --Snowded TALK 23:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, look: here, now Tharkun is submitting classified ads for the job candidates. Wonder if he's going to do one on one interviews as well. Then again, maybe no one is interested...wouldn't exactly blame them. Nuclare (talk) 00:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

A whole bunch of fly-by dmins have 'green lighted' him, I'm afraid. How often have we seen this behaviour? He's as high as a kite right now. DDStretch blocked him, and they straight removed it without a single word about his actions. They labelled it: 'content issue'. I could scream at admins at times: they take all of 10 seconds on some decisions, while probably doing 5 other things at the same time. Craziness - they simply create hours of work for people like us in one crazy 10 second decision. I'm thinking about what to do about it. Any ideas?--Matt Lewis (talk) 00:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's an idea. Stop harrassing me. ðarkuncoll 00:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

You are now talking about the template as if it is your own (3/4 times now) and have called me a vandal and a harasser. Take a quick break and think about reversing your attitude. Or I'll turn into a lawyer. --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

You might try requesting assistance at Wikipedia:Ethnic and cultural conflicts noticeboard. This is essentially a nationalist issue rather than a geographical one. Ben MacDui 07:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

It's actually a geographic issue. Only those who oppose the term invest it with a nationalist agenda. ðarkuncoll 08:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid it is symptomatic of such conflicts that some us of believe we know The Truth. See also Wikipedia:Beware of the tigers: "You perceive your biases as neutral.". Let us at least try "To see oursels as others see us" and perhaps something useful may emerge. Regards, Ben MacDui 08:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have said linguistic issue. One side believes that if a majority of speakers of a certain language call something by a particular name, then that's its name. The other side appear to believe that it's possible to change this by fiat if they happen not to like it. ðarkuncoll 09:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Fallacy of the excluded middle, amongst other problems with this view.  DDStretch  (talk) 09:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Not in the least. A "middle" position would allow censorship in some places but not others. Unfortunately, since it is censorship itself that is being challenged here, this is no solution. ðarkuncoll 09:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with DD here; certainly my position isn't represented by either of the two sides you describe. Sarah777 (talk) 01:21, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

You are taking the presence of "middle" in the name of the fallacy too literally. It also goes under the name of False Dilemma, if that helps. The principle problem is that you are stating that there are only two alternatives or means of interpreting the dispute, when there are many more, and that is the essence of a fallacy of the excluded middle. The "middle" refers to the position of a statement in a formal logical argument in a standard form that is used to illustrate the fallacy. Nothing to do with the "surface features" of the situations with which the fallacy is used to identify problems.  DDStretch  (talk) 09:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The logical error of the False Dilemma is something those of us involved in conflict resolution encounter all the time. Used by ideological extremists to gather support for their position. As Sarah says, neither extreme represents an position I can see as sensible. --Snowded TALK 08:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Snowded and Sarah777 about my own position here as well. I know this fallacy well, having been involved in academic research into its occurrence in biased and partisan arguments within various scientific subjects, for similar reasons that Snowded gives in the area of conflict resolution (which covers the same kinds of things I was concerned with in science, and with which we really are centrally concerned with here.)  DDStretch  (talk) 09:12, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Islands of the British Isles

Template:Islands of the British Isles has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Matt Lewis (talk) 02:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

A number of people have found this provocative now. I took GoodDay's advice and put it up for deletion. Tharcuncoll - it should be in your sandbox. Please comment via the link above, if you want to comment directly. --Matt Lewis (talk) 02:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Britain does not equal the United Kingdom

The disambiguation page on Britain provides it as an alternative name to United Kingdom. Now my understanding is that the United Kingdom is Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Britain is thus a geographical term relating to Wales, Scotland and England. Britain can surely not be a higher category than Great Britain? Yes it is frequently confused with the UK, just as people overseas often say England when their mean the UK (the latest example being the Australian Sports Minister at the Olympics). Has there been a previous discussion here? If not then I will change the disambiguation page but thought I would check here first. --Snowded TALK 09:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

"Britain" may be a geographical term - my dictionary declines to comment - but it is regularly used in ordinary parlance as a synonym for the UK. If you are sure it is only correctly geographical I would keep the entry and add 'erroneously' to the UK entry rather than removing it. Ben MacDui 10:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Its correctly designated on Great Britain, the historical providence of the name is clear and citable. I think you are right on the suggestion to clarify not remove however, thanks for that. Will leave it a few hours before actioning. --Snowded TALK 10:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that while Great Britain is defined reasonably precisely, Britain on its own is a rather vaguely defined colloquial term — there is no official government definition of it (as far as I am aware) by which we can decide whether or not it can correctly used of the UK. But just because Northern Ireland is not part of Great Britain doesn't mean it can't be said to be part of Britain. After all, the adjective British is the normal adjective for entities belonging or pertaining to the United Kingdom, not just Great Britain; and it is reasonable to use Britain to refer to the territory mainly inhabited by British citizens. It's worth adding (only as a sidenote) that Great Britain is not a purely geographical term: it includes the largest of the British Isles, but also many smaller ones, like Anglesey. It doesn't, however, include islands like the Isle of Man that are not part of England, Scotland or Wales. In other words, it's a semi-geographical, semi-political term. Britain, on the other hand, is just underdefined and colloquial. It has no official meaning. It's equivalent to referring to the Russian Federation as Russia. Since people from Northern Ireland are (officially) British, it is perfectly reasonable to refer to Northern Ireland as being in Britain, even if it's not in Great Britain. And it's certainly no worse than referring to the United States as America. garik (talk) 11:06, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

That said, I notice the Great Britain article claims, without a citation, that the government did indeed sanction it as an informal synonym for UK, rather than GB. If this is correct, then — officially speaking — Britain does equal the UK. garik (talk) 11:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Well England is used colloquially to reference the whole of the UK as well, but its clearly incorrect. Using the United States instead of America is also incorrect and offensive to Canada and Mexico but it is common. I'll check the Great Britain page as it starts by correctly stating the England/Wales/Scotland link, so it then has an uncited link re the UK the that needs to be challenged! British Citizen includes aspects of overseas territories as well so that is a different argument. A fractious history makes for terminological difficulties. --Snowded TALK 11:44, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

True! On the topic of England for UK: the problem is that "England" is rather precisely defined officially. "Britain" isn't. The point is that there is no more reason to suppose that Britain = Great Britain than that Britain = UK. garik (talk) 11:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Accepting that this subject is fraught with difficulties, I am not sure I agree that "Great Britain is not a purely geographical term: it includes the largest of the British Isles, but also many smaller ones, like Anglesey." If you mean that people regularly but wrongly conflate GB and UK, then fair enough. However the GB article is quite clear that it is about a specific island. The definition in this article (Terminology of the British Isles) is at odds with that and the "countries within a country" citation it uses is hopeless. "Great Britain, however, comprises only England, Scotland and Wales. Great Britain is the largest island of the British Isles." Well which one of these is true? - or if they are both supposed to be true making it clear that one is a political and the other a geographical definition might help. Many people (meaning I suppose, landlubbers in general and London-based civil servants in particular) simply forget that there are hundreds of other islands. Ben MacDui 12:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, the question can be reframed thus: is it possible to be in England, Wales or Scotland while not being in Great Britain? I used to be under the impression that it was, Anglesey and the Isle of Wight being examples of where this was the case. However, I was later told that Anglesey and Wight (among various other small islands) are in fact considered part of Great Britain. I don't know what body, if any, gets to define this authoritatively, so I don't know what the answer is. I suspect that there are two answers, prefixed by "It depends on what you mean by Great Britain". I notice that the GB article here gives a geographical definition and a political one. I see no reason why one should be treated as primary, except insofar as it's far less useful now to have to refer to England, Wales and Scotland to the exclusion of Northern Ireland. In other words, Great Britain is not a purely geographical entity: it is also defined politically. But I accept that under one definition, it does indeed exclude the Isle of Wight. garik (talk) 16:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I've often seen/heard, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland being called Britain. GoodDay (talk) 14:03, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I've often heard the same thing called England, GoodDay --Snowded TALK 14:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Me too. GoodDay (talk) 14:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The reality is that Britain does equal UK when the term is used in any political context. siarach (talk) 14:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. The point is that "Britain" is underdefined and colloquial. It's pointless to argue whether or not it's "correct" to use it to refer to the UK. It's not the official term for the state, but it's not officially defined as anything else either, so there are no grounds for saying it's erroneous. Calling the UK Great Britain is wrong as the terms are officially defined, but there are no grounds, as far as I can see, for saying that to call either "Britain" is wrong. The term is too underdefined for that. All the article should make clear is that the term is frequently used to refer to the UK, but that this is unofficial and chiefly colloquial. garik (talk) 16:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

In the same sense that "America" is used sometimes to mean the United States of America, perhaps? JAJ (talk) 17:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Not quite. "America" at least has a well accepted definition in formal use: it is the name of the continent. "Britain" has no equivalent formal definition. It is simply underdefined and primarily colloquial. garik (talk) 18:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Britain is the official shorthand for the UK, and I can prove it! Since at least the 1940s, there was an annual HMG publication called Britain: An Official Handbook. The 2001 edition states:

"The term ‘Britain’ is sometimes used as a short way of expressing the full title of the country: the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (or, more simply again, the United Kingdom or the UK). ‘Great Britain’ comprises England, Wales and Scotland only. The adjectives ‘British’ and ‘UK’ are used interchangeably in this publication and cover the whole of the United Kingdom. As far as possible, the book applies to the UK as a whole, as the title suggests." (p.vii)

You can't get much more official than the Official Handbook! In the mid-1990s, a similar note was the only item on the inside front cover, indicating that the editors understood its significance. The policy has changed since, and the book now refers strictly to 'the United Kingdom', but that doesn't delete the earlier usage. Matt's talk 09:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Makes it easier to call Ireland (the state) Ireland then .... --Snowded TALK 09:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair comment :-) Matt's talk 14:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Are the Channel Islands part of the British Isles?

I would have said "yes". The map and the diagram also say "yes". However, the text disagrees:

The full list of islands in the British Isles includes some 6,000 islands, of which 51 have an area larger than 20 km², but does not geographically include the Channel Islands.

I'm also wondering what the word "geographically" is doing here. "British Isles" is a geographical term, isn't it? So how could it either include or exclude any island except "geographically"? Is this an attempt to make the article consistent -- trying to say something like "the Channel Islands are part of the British Isles in some ways (as per the map and diagram), but aren't part of it geographically"? If so, I don't understand it. Any ideas, anyone? Matt 02:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC).

I think it means that the CIs are part of the British Isles in a political sense, but not in a geographical one. I'd say "British Isles" is an essentially geographical term that is also used colloquially in a quasi-political or geo-political sense, usually rather loosely and perhaps inaccurately. I agree the existing language is confusing and needs amending. Let's see if there is any other input first. Ben MacDui 07:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

In international terms, the (British) Channel Islands is a political entity; this is necessary to distinguish them from the other Channel islands, which are part of France. But in British terms, they’re purely a geographical entity because there is no single government of these islands. They consist of 2 separate polities: the Bailiwick of Jersey, and the Bailiwick of Guernsey. We just refer to them collectively as “the Channel Islands” for convenience. This is a little like how we refer to Norway, Sweden and Denmark (and possibly Finland) collectively as Scandinavia. The difference there is that everyone knows these are all separate, sovereign states, whereas most people have little or no idea about the governmental arrangements applying to the Channel Islands. Nevertheless, those arrangements exist. Our Euler diagram shows the Channel Islands as a geographical entity - which is correct from the British perspective, although it may be misleading from the international perspective, and we are writing for readers from all over the world, not just Britain – and Jersey and Guernsey as political entities, which is undeniably correct because these terms refer to the Bailiwicks and mean more than just the islands of Jersey and Guernsey.

So, to the question: “Are they part of the British Isles?”. The British Isles is purely a geographical term because it includes 2 independent nations and various sub-national entities and other bits and pieces. The Channel Islands (in the geographical sense; and remember we’re only talking about the British ones, not the French Channel Islands) are definitely part of the British Isles. In my opinion. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

• I found this: [1]. It says: "Usage is not consistent as to whether the Channel Islands are included [in the British Isles] - geographically they should not be, politically they should." I don't know how authoritative this is though; it seems to be a webpage belonging to an Internet discussion forum. This article doesn't really reflect that viewpoint: in most places it implies or explicitly states that "British Isles" is purely a geographical term. If it can be used in a political sense then some more things need tweaking I think. In fact, this possibility is hinted at further down in the article, where it says "However, it [British Isles] is sometimes used as if identical to the UK" -- but this definition would politically exclude the Channel Islands, contrary to the reference given. Matt 13:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.129.226 (talk)

The CIs are very clearly part of the geography of France - just look at the sea bed. Legally, they are part of the British Islands. But of course they say they are British Isles (not being French) - and for exactly the same reason, most of Ireland declines just as strongly to being described as a BI (not being British). And that summarises months of fruitless debate. The issue can never be settled. --Red King (talk) 15:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Fortunately the article only has to explain the issue, not settle it! Matt 19:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.100.148 (talk)

Suggested changes:

Point in opening bulleted list to read:

• The full list of islands in the British Isles includes some 6,000 islands, of which 51 have an area larger than 20 km². In a technical geographical sense, the British Isles does not include the Channel Islands, but in practice, and despite the fact that "British Isles" is strictly a geographical term, they are often included because of their political associations with Britain.

Unless anyone actually wants to change the map and Euler diagram to exclude the CIs from the British Isles, I feel, tiresome though it is, that some weasel words are in order in the captions, referring the reader to the main text. Otherwise it simply looks as if the article contradicts itself.

Comments? Matt 19:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC).

I'd change "because of their political associations with Britain" to "because of their proximity to and political associations with Britain". If they had exactly the same legal/political status as they do now, but were located in the middle of the Pacific/Atlantic, they certainly wouldn't be included in "the British Isles". They really only ever got to be associated with Britain because of their location, because if they'd been out in the Pacific/Atlantic, it's likely they would either have been colonised by a country such as France, Germany, Netherlands, Spain or Portugal; or would have been an independent nation or part of a larger independent nation, depending on how close they were to larger land masses. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Apart from the inconvenient detail that they are far more proximate to France. Indeed most of the French coast from Pas-de-Calais to Cherbourg Peninsula is nearer to GB than are any of the CIs. --Red King (talk) 23:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Which is why I made the point above that it's necessary to distinguish the British Channel islands from the French ones. But they're still relatively very close to Britain compared with some other of her possessions, such as the Falkland Islands. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

"(Channel Islands are included in British Isles - see OED, Encarta, Idiots Guide to Geography, Languages in the British Isles, Guernsey and Jersey govt. websites, etc. etc. etc. Only WP excludes them.)" This is someone's comment from within the image page. But despite all this (assuming it's all correct - is it just WP that excludes them?) we can still change the diagram. It is not unusual for even the OED to vary in its explanations of UK terminology. This happens too with "Britain" - some definitions include Northern Ireland (per a common cultural/political use), some give Great Britain as the definition for it (which excludes NI). Basically, most compilers seem to choose an option, rather than go into any depth or tackle the ambiguities. I suggest Wikipedia covers all options - which it's meant to do, after all. I'll think about doing a Euler type diagram with a dotted line - it should be possible. --Matt Lewis (talk) 02:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Whatever the current situation, I am interested in the History of the exclusion/inclusion of the Channel Islands. I raised a related point at Talk:British Isles#Channel Isles. It 1807 John Cary did not include them based on some appeal to authority; Presently, according to OED etc, they should be included. Has the OED always included CI? Point is if we have a history lesson everyone will be more informed in their opinion. Lucian Sunday (talk) 07:38, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

A different quibble - anyone know where "6,000" islands comes from? Scotland has the most and the number usually quoted by Govt sources is 790. Ben MacDui 08:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

This reference states almost 5,000 although, from investigating your comment above, I am not convinced that it is true either. Lucian Sunday (talk) 07:44, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• I have inserted an amended version of my suggested text above; see this edit. It seemed to get a bit long-winded for the brief explanations in the lead, so I moved the detail to the "Geographical Distinctions". Matt 23:10, 17 August 2008 (UTC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.47.42 (talk)

I purchased a copy of The Independent recently, which came with a free "Map of the British Isles". For what it's worth, they included Les Îles d'la Manche. More interestingly to me the edges of the map are roughly equidistant from the extreme points of these Isles. The map arrived folded, making it easy to distinguish the four quarters. I am pleased to be able to report that Dumfries, The Toon and Westward Ho! are in the south-eastern quadrant of the British Isles. BBC Weather please note! Ben MacDui 07:32, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Did it include Ireland? If so you can dismiss everything else about it as inaccurate. Sarah777 (talk) 16:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Well of course it includes the island of Ireland - it's a British newspaper, not a wiki. It controversially excludes Rockall tho' and rather sweetly uses a simple colour scheme for all the sub-divisions subtly implying a unity throughout. I'm pleased to report that Surrey, Meath, the Isle of Man and Moray are all dark green, although because Cork, North Yorkshire and Highland are yellow it has a rather sickly appearance.Ben MacDui 16:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Another way of looking at it is to point out that a geographical entity - simply because it's a geographical entity, is likely to have shared historical and cultural traditions. In this sense we can say that inclusion of the CI is certainly justified, because, for example, they speak English there - just like in the rest of the BI - any other languages are very much secondary and in many cases mostly dead. One could argue about the reasons for this fact, but it remains a fact all the same. ðarkuncoll 17:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

With logic like that, sounds like you could include all of the Anglophone into the British Isles. One day you'll just have to realise that you were born in the wrong century - the days of the empire are over. --HighKing (talk) 10:43, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Well at least you've shown us an inkling of your actual motivation with that last little quip. ðarkuncoll 10:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm - and there was I trying to understand and reflect on *your* motivation.... Your arguments about "shared culture" have been seen and replied to in the past, and are flawed, and that is my point. You cannot state that a geographical entity is defined on cultural similarities among humans... --HighKing (talk) 11:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Which goes to show that "BI" is actually a political entity that ceased to exist in 1918 (or 1948, depending on your POV). As such it should not be used to describe the UK and Ireland as it is totally misleading; wrong in fact. Sarah777 (talk) 13:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Nope, it's the other way round. A geographical entity tends to have effects on the degree of similarities of the culture within it - after all, a geographical entity is not just something on a map, but affects its human population. As for my motivation, it is simply a desire for factual accuracy free from political distortions. ðarkuncoll 11:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Well that argument is also flawed. A single geographical entity often affects a wider area than just the entity in question - but that doesn't mean that the entity expands to include all areas affected... So if your motivation is accuracy, where does the Channel Islands stand in your definition of the geographical entity referred to as the British Isles? --HighKing (talk) 11:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, my own opinion about the CI is that their status is ambiguous - as the article says. I also don't think it matters. The BI are defined as the two main islands, plus their outlying much smaller islands. The core of the definition is therefore the two main islands. Let's look at another example - how about Rockall? Is that in the BI? It's actually a part of the UK, but exists on its own fragment of continental shelf. ðarkuncoll 11:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

But that's the whole crux of most of the discussions here! Correct me if I'm wrong, but the consensus is that BI is only a geographic term, but recognises that historically it had a broader definition. If it's a geographic term, then strictly speaking the CI and Rockall don't belong. And this is where some editors don't know about the geographic/historic consensus, or accept some and not all, etc. By including the CI, we're broadening the scope of BI as political. It's why we need to agree on guidelines on usage, and Matt is/was going a great job on WP:BISLES on this issue. --HighKing (talk) 12:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I have never given it as my opinion that BI is purely a geographical term. Or at least, to be more precise, I have often pointed out that geography includes human geography, as much as physical, which some are apt to forget. ðarkuncoll 12:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I think admitting that it is a political term would expedite the elimination of its use on Wiki to describe Ireland and the UK. This "it can be whatever you want" only facilitates the imposition of British POV. The "official" Wiki line is that it is "purely geographical"; so long as that remains the case it rules out any use of the term to collectivise the populations and all instances of that must be removed. Sarah777 (talk) 14:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

We're all in agreement (of course), that the article British Isles must remain. Whether it be present tense or past tense content. GoodDay (talk) 14:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

"British" and "Isles" are just words, collections of roman script letters. "British Isles" is just a phrase, another collection of roman script letters. There's nothing inherantly geographical or political or historical or anything else ending in -al about it - that depends on the context of each use of the term. We need to stop getting hung up on this stupid "political versus geographical" debate as if the two are mutually exclusive. They are not - geography affects politics and politics affects geography. "British Isles" refers to what the references say it refers to; sometimes that includes the Channel Islands and sometimes it doesn't. Waggers (talk) 20:48, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

By definition the Channel Islands are part of the British Isles, OED, Britannica, etc. If the Channel Islands are not included it's correctly "Britain and Ireland", by definition OED etc. Wotapalaver (talk) 10:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

British Empire

There is a bit of a dispute going on at Talk:British Empire about the perceived "inaccuracy" of the term "Britain" when referring to the UKoGBaNI (in that it supposedly does not include NI, which contradicts what is stated this article). If you care, please see the discussion on the talk page. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Id just like to add to all of this that I personally find the term British Isles completely inappropriate with regards to Ireland (Republic). Ireland is not an isle of Britain which is to infer that it belongs to Britain. Yes, semantics but it would make more sense to include islands in the commonwealth that are half way around the world under the definition of British Isles than Ireland. It frustrates me to no end how many Americans stupidly and ignorantly say its wonderful to be here in the U.K (when referring to Ireland). Why do they think Ireland is in the UK? Why are Irish artists continually referred to as British. It makes no sense. So the sooner this British Isles term is once and for all thrown in the garbage the happier we'll be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.134.202.215 (talk) 20:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

"British Isles" is is a purely geographic term, having no political or cultural meaning (saving perhaps in the sport of Rugby Union until recently). It is simply a collective term for the islands in an archipelago, previously referred to by the Romans as the Britanniae. You have failed to propose a suitable alternative term. "Irish Sea" is another useful, purely geographic term for a stretch of water that is arguably confined by more British than Irish coast. Should this, too, be changed? Most Commonwealth countries have no geographic basis in being called British at all and your suggestion seems a spurious attempt to conflate geography with politics. Important distinctions within the UK and Ireland, IoM and Ch. Islands are understandably confusing to many foreigners, including the US President who came over all Irish last time he was in Belfast. The common language may also cause misunderstandings (though it probably prevents infinitely more). Please stop confusing geography and politics.13eastie (talk) 17:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Ukpassport-cover.jpg

The image Image:Ukpassport-cover.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --01:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorted for this article. 18:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)