![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
England, Scotland & Wales are not islands. Why are they listed in that section? GoodDay ( talk) 21:01, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Just out of historical completeness, should there not be some mention of the Western Isles in this topic? -- Triton Rocker ( talk) 16:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
OK. I propose that we confirm the geographic use of the term as noted in academia.
The British Isles is an archipelago consisting of the two large islands of Great Britain and Ireland, and the many smaller islands surrounding them. It is a geographical term, [1] arguably in use since the second century BC, and used widely in academia without reflecting the United Kingdom's hegemonic interests. [2] [3] In books published before 1920, this term relates to the United Kingdom of Great Britain, Ireland, the Channel Islands, the Isles of Scilly and the Isle of Man, as Ireland was ruled directly from Westminster. From 1920 onwards, the term includes both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland (Eire). [4] [5]
- ^ A Handbook of Varieties of English: A Multi-Media Reference Tool by Bernd Kortmann and Edgar W. Schneider. 2005)
- ^ A.L.F. Rivet and Colin Smith, The place-names of Roman Britain. London, 1979
- ^ Studies in Historical Archaeoethnology by Judith Jesch. Jun 27, 2003
- ^ Human geography of the UK: an introduction By Irene Hardill, David T. Graham, Eleonore Kofman
- ^ The British Isles: a Systematic Geography by James Wreford Watson, John Brian Sissons for the 20th International Geographical Congress
-- Triton Rocker ( talk) 04:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
(This topic was branched off from this point in the Euler Diagram discussion.)
Here's a politics only diagram. --RA ( talk) 22:04, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
RA, get ready for some fire with this diagram. There are a lot of strong political beliefs out there. (I believe you can take it, though!) I think you've got a great start. TWCarlson ( talk) 21:03, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
It seems to me that we can never achieve consensus with just one diagram: we have to have a political diagram and a geographic diagram. Every attempt to combine them has hit red lines of one sort or another.-- Red King ( talk) 14:16, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
I've tagged the following as Weasel: "The term British Isles can also be considered irritating or offensive by some". This frament has all the hallmarks noted in WP:WEASEL and my tagging of it is perfectly in order. Nonetheless, the tag was removed. Given the clarity of the situation I've reinstated the tag. Our choices are stratightforward; either substatiate the assertion - and the reader should not have to go to a linked article to find out who the "some" are - or remove the sentence. I favour removal, but will of course accept it being properly sourced. Van Speijk ( talk) 20:39, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
The term is irritating to Irish people, particularly in the Republic of Ireland, and is seen as outdated by authors from both Britain and Ireland. Its use is discouraged by the Government of Ireland. Other terms, particularly, Britain and Ireland, are becoming more favoured. However, there is no consensus on a satisfactory alternative. In relations between the the United Kingdom and Ireland, the archipelago is referred to euphemistically as these islands.
Well instead of "outdated", the British Isles article uses "... has imperialist overtones..." which might be more accurate. Fmph ( talk) 07:48, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
It has annoyed me for some time that this potentially excellent article has become bloated with repetition. I believe that what is needed is a short summary of the important terms at the top, followed by an explanation of the terms in detail, followed by any ancillary material (such as the more detailed historical development). What we actually have is a "brief" summary that is practically as long as the "terminology in detail" section, and then once the "terminology in detail" section is done, the whole thing starts all over again with "Geographical distinctions" and then "Political distinctions". It's too much. On the other hand, it's a lot of work to reorganise, and not something I'd attempt without broad agreement. I'd be interested to hear other people's thoughts. Matt 86.134.30.110 ( talk) 04:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC).
... which is really a continuation of #Geographical Distinctions, part II, above, which says the same thing but doesn't propose to do anything about it.
The geographical entities are Great Britain, Ireland, the Isle of Man, (arguably) the Channel Islands, and their associated adjacent small islands.
Someone at some point has added the political subdivisions of these geographical entities, material which duplicates the Political Distinctions section elsewhere in the article. This means that that these subsections are redundant in this [geographical] context and consequently I am removing them. Before anyone reinstates, they should make a case here for why we should have repetition of another section. -- Red King ( talk) 12:51, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
The article contains this Euler diagram. Conventionally Euler diagrams avoid any regions that represent empty sets, so that all regions of intersection represent non-empty sets. Unfortunately that's not the case with this one, which wrongly shows:
Could someone with imaging skills do a new, accurate diagram? Thanks. Duoduoduo ( talk) 16:28, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
I've made a specific request in this regard at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Illustration workshop#Euler diagram for Terminology of the British Isles. Duoduoduo ( talk) 16:07, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Does it have to be a perfect Euler? I am wondering if a Euler is the best method for describing the British Isles, especially when it's just not a perfectly-defined term - there is technically a 'dotted area' regarding the Channel Islands you see. Some kind of diagram needs to show that the Channel Islands (just off the coast of Europe's France ie Jersey etc), are both within and without definitions (ie there are two definitions, primarily without them ie the 'geographical archipelago' only - which is the most used scientifically - and also sometimes colloquially as within the definition also - ie culturally inc the CI's).
The most informative and accurate diagram we currently have is probably this one ( Isles Euler Diagram-ru.png Best diagram of British Isles). It really needs to be converted into English somehow (the translation from Russian is pretty obvious really).
Please note that the whole matter tends to get obscured with debate over the inclusion of the Republic of Ireland (some don't like it for political reasons), but no one can really argue with a diagram based on the Russian one (itself based on this politiced version). The article itself makes it clear that some people (largely Wikipedians in my view, but still) actively object with the RoIreland being part of the definition. Note that everyone here does accept that, for good or bad, the term is basically used by people with RoIreland included (ie either that or they don't use it at all) - it's the Channel Islands that sometimes are included, and sometimes not - and overall not in real-world terms. It's largely been the unfortunate result of a political stalemate on Wikipedia that the Channel Islands tend to be misleadingly included without any qualification at all. It mustn't be a restriction caused by the type of diagram used though - that makes no sense at all. The best way to describe it all I think is with some form of dotted line, unless you try something more like this graphic I started years ago (it was never fully completed/realised). It would certainly be a good thing if diagram-minded people could finally sort it out though. Regards, Matt Lewis ( talk) 01:39, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
I have to completely disagree about the suitability of either the article's current diagram or the Russian one. They both take something that's not complex, as shown by the linear rectangular approach, and make it look utterly complex. Try this: Imagine that you don't understand the relationships, stare at either the current diagram or the Russian one for a while, do your best to memorize it, and then come back tomorrow and try to reproduce it or try to give an accurate rendition of what's part of what. Very hard. Then do the same with the linear rectangular version I've proposed. Much easier. Duoduoduo ( talk) 19:39, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Here's my best shot at illustrating what I described: Draw a rectangle, and divide it into 8 different parts in a left-to-right arrangement:
The boxes line up on my screen -- I hope they do on yours too! Here I've labeled the second, third, fourth, and fifth boxes as "United Kingdom". This could alternatively be done by labeling those boxes as a group with a border of one color. Then label all but the leftmost box (all but Rep. of Ireland) as "British Islands", also having the labels below the diagram (or with color-coded borders). Above the diagram (or with color-coded borders), label the first two boxes as a group "Ireland (island)". Also above the diagram (or with color-coded borders), label the third, fourth and fifth boxes as "Great Britain". And the whole thing (all 8 boxes) is "British Isles". Duoduoduo ( talk) 17:36, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
As some may have noticed , I've changed and/or added (here and elsewhere (
Terminology of the British Isles,
Great Britain,
Britain (placename),
List of country-name etymologies: United Kingdom,
Hibernia, EDIT-ADDENDUM April, 24:
British Isles,
Albion,
Scotland during the Roman Empire,
England and
History of Scotland) a lot (of similar and/or relevant stuff) on and from Greek (EDIT-ADDENDUM April, 24: and Latin and modern) sources, drawing partially from some much earlier work(mostly references though I've not used them all) I'd done in the past at the
Great Britain article,Toponymy section, that I had only partially incorporated into that text.(EDIT-ADDENDUM April, 24: I couldn't resist the temptation, I've now added even more references...)
A specific note,one of the many I could make, that I have to make for any future work and reference:
Having added Ptolemy's Geography, which certainly is a major source, there came -inter alia- the w problem(in the Greek text addition I've found), e.g. in Ἰουρνία and Ἀλουίων.As many of you may already know, in classical Latin V was both a vowel and a consonant and when used as a consonant corresponded to English W.Ancient Greek(during hellenistic-graeco-roman times),as far as I know, used ου-ou to transcribe this (having lost earlier in most dialects the
digamma).So at first glance Ἰουρνία and attested Ἀλουίων(are there any other editions that differ in this?does anyone know?) would correspond to IVRNIA ,i.e. Iwrnia and ALVION, ie. Alwion(this is how I've dealt with it, as others before me have dealt with it here or anyway in one of the aforementioned articles,can't recall now where exactly).Yet we know e.g. that the original Greek and Latin for the latter is Ἀλβίων-Albion, with a b.
So here is the problem of
changing phonology(and orthography) of both Greek and Latin, i.e. by they time of Ptolemy (or of one or many of his text's later copiers)
beta may have changed from b to v (the latter as in English v and perhaps passing first through w) which is also the later sound of consonantal Latin V.On top of this, there is the additional problem of the later copiers,and the of copiers of copiers, of the surviving editions of ancient texts (also think about double-single
tau and/or double-single
nu;whence also the interplay between Greek and Latin;is there a norm that we can or should follow?and how could follow a norm when we're citing-quoting how ancient scholars called these places and we have lots and lots of attested variants of the various words?) that did indeed or might have taken the initiave of "correcting" texts or simply making errors.So from a phonetical-phonological point of view, W in these two words is a possibly or probably higly misleading mess about which I have no idea what to do.I don't want to simply erase stuff.Lot's of hard work(by me and by others);lot's of shared knowledge.Simply transliterating e.g.ου as ou would also may be misleading, it wouldn't solve the problem;e.g. one would have still and inter alia to explain the ou in Alouion vs Albion.I don't also think simplyifying would be a real solution.And yet???Experts on linguistics,dates of phonetical-phonological changes and text editions would be very handy here;I'm not one of them,I'm simply an amateur.I've chosen the W "solution" partially because that's how I've first found Ἰουρνία transcribed here(or anyway in one of the articles) before I had done any relevant work.I hope that people who don't know about these things won't get troubled or misled.
Anyway, any suggestions???
Let anyway someone else, henceforth or at least for now, do the rest of the work ;I've now done the work that I had said(at the talk page) in the long past I would do on Great Britain's Toponymy section but which I had hesitated and eventually forgotten or got bored to actually do...
P.S.I had to choose one article's talk page(out of the many related and edited pages) in which to write this.I've chosen this.Can't do it in all pages...
Thanatos|
talk
12:49, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
We currently have a disambiguation page at Great Britain and Ireland and an article at UK & Ireland that have virtually identical content. Several similar terms redirect to either one of those targets or British Isles. At Talk:Great Britain and Ireland#Merge proposal I have proposed merging the article and dab page (with no preference to direction) and retargetting all the redirects to the merged page. Your comments on the proposal would be welcome. Thryduulf ( talk) 18:54, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
A better diagram than the one currently featured, can be found in the video "the difference between the united kingdom, great britain and england" by c.g.p. grey. If someone who has knowledge of these things, would care to upload it, that would be helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.102.82.23 ( talk) 15:30, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
From the lede: "It should be stated from the outset that the term has no legal or official political standing and merely a loose definition of convenience." (my bolding)
What "term" is this referring to? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 02:04, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
I think its necessary to correct the article with regards the name Britain and Great Britain. Britain refers to the main island that England, Scotland and Wales are on. Great Britain refers to the political union of England, Scotland and Wales including the other islands of the 3 countries 86.46.89.155 ( talk) 03:39, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
The term Great Britain was first used when the parliament of Scotland was merged with England & Wales in 1707 86.46.67.74 ( talk) 18:40, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
It is not entirely clear, but it seems that an inhabitant of Ireland could be called a "Briton" (and be "British") because he or she comes from one of the British Isles (albeit not from Great Britain). Would that be correct? Terry Thorgaard ( talk) 14:36, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Much of the article seems to be opinion rather than cited fact; this may have been all right a few years ago, but it feels distinctly flaky today. Perhaps a global {{refimprove}} tag would be appropriate. Questions like Terry Thorgaard's would be best answered by a cited statement in teh article, not by discussion here (this isn't a forum). Chiswick Chap ( talk) 19:47, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
This term not only refers to the United Kingdom. It also refers specifically to England in other contexts. Take, for example, the terms Anglo-Welsh, Anglo-Scottish, Anglo-Saxon, etc. Should this not be mentioned in some way? -- Mac Tíre Cowag 18:40, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Recent
edits have massively expanded the details on how medieval maps purportedly portray Cornwall, which seem to have more to do with making a political point and waving flags about purported Cornish independence. This page is simply about the terminology of the British Isles and really doesn't need to be a proxy battleground for this sort of thing. I've copyedited and qualified some of the claims, as there is some useful info there, but
this latest one is a definite step too far. The source advanced,
Cornwall's Strangest Tales: Extraordinary but True Stories, is clearly not an authoritative source for matters of geography or history. It also simply appears to rehash tropes and claims commonly found in other, even fringier, sources such as nationalist blogs and self-published books about ancient maps.
A brief look around the internet for examples of these maps will reveal that most such maps clearly include both Cornwall and Wales within England (as the latter was too then), marked no differently from any other subdivisions. Here, for example, are maps by Munster, none of which do what the material just added claims his maps do. Here are links to other maps, including those by Ortelius which, again, do not appear to make this alleged distinction. Even with those few that do give more prominence to Cornwall and Wales in terms of the way they are marked up, eg by putting the names in capitals, there is of course no way of proving what the mapmaker meant by this at all, let alone that they meant they were "separate nations". N-HH talk/ edits 17:19, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
In addition, I can't access or check the source being used to support the claim that the Hereford Mappa Mundi "shows Britain as being composed of Anglia, Cornubia, Scotia and Wallia", but a glance at the detail of the map itself shows that this is manifestly incorrect. The quote from the George Lily map talking about Welsh, Cornish and English "people", and suggesting that Wales, Cornwall, England and Scotland were the main national or political divisions, is also selective, out of context and possibly mistranslated. The map and its notes are quite explicit in dividing Britain into simply two kingdoms, England and Scotland. The full quote talks about five "idiomata" – which AFAICT refers to languages or dialects – and includes reference to Irish in the Hebrides and northern Scotland and "Gothicum" in Orkney. It cannot be taken to be a reference to political entities additional to England or Scotland or to imply that Cornwall was then considered a separate nation any more than Orkney was. N-HH talk/ edits 13:32, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Those "Home International" bridge tournaments include five national teams (and one extra host team) that represent E S W NI and Ireland, which implies five home nations.
The regatta is also active and implies four home nations, E S W and Ireland.
The football tournament is defunct and covered in this article.
-- P64 ( talk) 16:06, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
reland did not begin with the Lordship of Ireland. It is shown alongside the Kingdom of England, Kingdom of Scotland, etc., in the diagram. Can the diagram be changed to reflect High Kingship of Ireland prior to Norman Invasions? Thanks ( Stpaul ( talk) 15:15, 20 February 2015 (UTC))
I'm finding on other pages (eg Opinion polling in United Kingdom constituencies, 2010–15) there is a need to link to 'Great Britain' as a political unit. But at present I can't see any way to do it, leading to inaccurate links to geographical GB, or alternatively a need to specify: eg "Great Britain (England, Scotland and Wales)" at Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election.
Is there an appropriate way to make 'Great Britain' a sub-section in the section "Political terms in more detail"? DrArsenal ( talk) 13:45, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
The Euler diagram seems to include Northern Ireland as part of United Kingdom. Doesn't that make "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland " redundantly include Northern Ireland?
Also from http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/Great-Britain?q=Great+Britain "The United Kingdom is a political unit that includes these countries and Northern Ireland." DGerman ( talk) 22:03, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Terminology of the British Isles. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 06:27, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
An unregistered editor recently added the {{ who}} tag to the phrase "Many within the unionist community and much of the UK press refer to Northern Ireland as Ulster".
I am dubious of the pressing need to provide a citation for such a well-known fact. However, I added a citation ( "A Glossary of Terms Related to the Conflict". CAIN Web serivce. Ulster University.), albeit one that does not mention the UK press. I removed the {{ who}} tag.
An unregistered editor (most likely the same editor) has reinstated the {{ who}} tag and moved the citation to refer only to the unionist community. On the face of it, this is reasonable. However, I feel that the use of "Ulster" for "Northern Ireland" by the UK press is so widespread that it does not need tagging. If it is to be tagged then {{ who}} is the wrong tag to use, Template:Who says this tag is intended for unsupported attributions. If a tag is required then {{ Citation needed}} is the one to use.
I have not found a usable secondary source that says that the UK press use "Ulster" in this way. However, a quick web search gives numerous examples, including:
We could cite some or all of these so support the statement, although some Wikipedia zealots might tag the citations with {{ Original research inline}}. I feel that in this case no citation is needed, although if I had a good secondary source then I would cite it. I will remove the {{ who}} tag. Verbcatcher ( talk) 16:40, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Terminology of the British Isles. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.ngrs.demon.co.uk.guide.pdf/When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:55, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Terminology of the British Isles. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:37, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
This page deserves to be congratulated for clarifying that "Great Britain" only refers to Scotland, England and Wales. Could it clarify that the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands are not part of the United Kingdom? Vorbee ( talk) 16:24, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 04:07, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Some would strongly object to calling Cornish and Manx "living languages"... AnonMoos ( talk) 10:17, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
The problem with a compromise solution is that it often involves accepting an error as being correct. 'Being in current use' implies, on balance, that Cornish and Manx are L1 languages, which they are not. Rosbif73, you were a bit too quick off the mark there. I suggest you revert and wait for a proper discussion before assuming consensus. Incidently, it is highly questionable whether Cornish can be described as anything close to being a revived language. Roger 8 Roger ( talk) 12:01, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
There'll be some hobbyist somewhere speaking Cumbric. The solution is to spell it out even if that involves more words. Far better that than to fudge and mislead. Roger 8 Roger ( talk) 13:23, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
I didn't want to cause any unnecessary controversy, but many linguists would not consider a language to be "living" unless there are true native speakers who learned it as tiny kids from their parents speaking to them in that language (and not from textbooks or grammars). This can sometimes give anomalous results (there are actually some Esperanto native speakers, but probably not for Modern Standard Arabic), but it's often part of the definition. Being "in use" is a much less demanding criterion -- religious liturgical languages can be "in use" for religious worship (Latin among Roman Catholics, Coptic among Egyptian Christians etc.) without anybody thinking they're living languages... AnonMoos ( talk) 09:03, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
In the Linguistic Terms section of the article, it says that Wales is often called the Principality of Wales, but the link for Principality of Wales leads to this page, which is for a medieval feudal polity in Wales. Is this intentional, or should I change it? Ravenclawjedi42 ( talk) 21:45, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
[s]ince the Laws in Wales Acts 1535–1542 [...] there has been no geographical or constitutional basis for describing any of the territory of Wales as a principality, although the term has occasionally been used in an informal sense to describe the country, and in relation to the honorary title of Prince of Wales.This is reflected in the language used in the linguistic terms section. The only questionable aspect is the link to the medieval entity, but given the qualified language surrounding it I see no need to change anything. Rosbif73 ( talk) 08:17, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
These don’t look right! I think they’re the words for “Britain”, in the table near the end. 80.189.229.124 ( talk) 00:15, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
Please see the discussion at Talk:British_Isles_naming#Terminology_of_the_BI_/_BI_naming_-_tidy_up_proposal which includes a proposal to convert this article to a list and rename it. Waggers TALK 13:36, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
England, Scotland & Wales are not islands. Why are they listed in that section? GoodDay ( talk) 21:01, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Just out of historical completeness, should there not be some mention of the Western Isles in this topic? -- Triton Rocker ( talk) 16:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
OK. I propose that we confirm the geographic use of the term as noted in academia.
The British Isles is an archipelago consisting of the two large islands of Great Britain and Ireland, and the many smaller islands surrounding them. It is a geographical term, [1] arguably in use since the second century BC, and used widely in academia without reflecting the United Kingdom's hegemonic interests. [2] [3] In books published before 1920, this term relates to the United Kingdom of Great Britain, Ireland, the Channel Islands, the Isles of Scilly and the Isle of Man, as Ireland was ruled directly from Westminster. From 1920 onwards, the term includes both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland (Eire). [4] [5]
- ^ A Handbook of Varieties of English: A Multi-Media Reference Tool by Bernd Kortmann and Edgar W. Schneider. 2005)
- ^ A.L.F. Rivet and Colin Smith, The place-names of Roman Britain. London, 1979
- ^ Studies in Historical Archaeoethnology by Judith Jesch. Jun 27, 2003
- ^ Human geography of the UK: an introduction By Irene Hardill, David T. Graham, Eleonore Kofman
- ^ The British Isles: a Systematic Geography by James Wreford Watson, John Brian Sissons for the 20th International Geographical Congress
-- Triton Rocker ( talk) 04:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
(This topic was branched off from this point in the Euler Diagram discussion.)
Here's a politics only diagram. --RA ( talk) 22:04, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
RA, get ready for some fire with this diagram. There are a lot of strong political beliefs out there. (I believe you can take it, though!) I think you've got a great start. TWCarlson ( talk) 21:03, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
It seems to me that we can never achieve consensus with just one diagram: we have to have a political diagram and a geographic diagram. Every attempt to combine them has hit red lines of one sort or another.-- Red King ( talk) 14:16, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
I've tagged the following as Weasel: "The term British Isles can also be considered irritating or offensive by some". This frament has all the hallmarks noted in WP:WEASEL and my tagging of it is perfectly in order. Nonetheless, the tag was removed. Given the clarity of the situation I've reinstated the tag. Our choices are stratightforward; either substatiate the assertion - and the reader should not have to go to a linked article to find out who the "some" are - or remove the sentence. I favour removal, but will of course accept it being properly sourced. Van Speijk ( talk) 20:39, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
The term is irritating to Irish people, particularly in the Republic of Ireland, and is seen as outdated by authors from both Britain and Ireland. Its use is discouraged by the Government of Ireland. Other terms, particularly, Britain and Ireland, are becoming more favoured. However, there is no consensus on a satisfactory alternative. In relations between the the United Kingdom and Ireland, the archipelago is referred to euphemistically as these islands.
Well instead of "outdated", the British Isles article uses "... has imperialist overtones..." which might be more accurate. Fmph ( talk) 07:48, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
It has annoyed me for some time that this potentially excellent article has become bloated with repetition. I believe that what is needed is a short summary of the important terms at the top, followed by an explanation of the terms in detail, followed by any ancillary material (such as the more detailed historical development). What we actually have is a "brief" summary that is practically as long as the "terminology in detail" section, and then once the "terminology in detail" section is done, the whole thing starts all over again with "Geographical distinctions" and then "Political distinctions". It's too much. On the other hand, it's a lot of work to reorganise, and not something I'd attempt without broad agreement. I'd be interested to hear other people's thoughts. Matt 86.134.30.110 ( talk) 04:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC).
... which is really a continuation of #Geographical Distinctions, part II, above, which says the same thing but doesn't propose to do anything about it.
The geographical entities are Great Britain, Ireland, the Isle of Man, (arguably) the Channel Islands, and their associated adjacent small islands.
Someone at some point has added the political subdivisions of these geographical entities, material which duplicates the Political Distinctions section elsewhere in the article. This means that that these subsections are redundant in this [geographical] context and consequently I am removing them. Before anyone reinstates, they should make a case here for why we should have repetition of another section. -- Red King ( talk) 12:51, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
The article contains this Euler diagram. Conventionally Euler diagrams avoid any regions that represent empty sets, so that all regions of intersection represent non-empty sets. Unfortunately that's not the case with this one, which wrongly shows:
Could someone with imaging skills do a new, accurate diagram? Thanks. Duoduoduo ( talk) 16:28, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
I've made a specific request in this regard at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Illustration workshop#Euler diagram for Terminology of the British Isles. Duoduoduo ( talk) 16:07, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Does it have to be a perfect Euler? I am wondering if a Euler is the best method for describing the British Isles, especially when it's just not a perfectly-defined term - there is technically a 'dotted area' regarding the Channel Islands you see. Some kind of diagram needs to show that the Channel Islands (just off the coast of Europe's France ie Jersey etc), are both within and without definitions (ie there are two definitions, primarily without them ie the 'geographical archipelago' only - which is the most used scientifically - and also sometimes colloquially as within the definition also - ie culturally inc the CI's).
The most informative and accurate diagram we currently have is probably this one ( Isles Euler Diagram-ru.png Best diagram of British Isles). It really needs to be converted into English somehow (the translation from Russian is pretty obvious really).
Please note that the whole matter tends to get obscured with debate over the inclusion of the Republic of Ireland (some don't like it for political reasons), but no one can really argue with a diagram based on the Russian one (itself based on this politiced version). The article itself makes it clear that some people (largely Wikipedians in my view, but still) actively object with the RoIreland being part of the definition. Note that everyone here does accept that, for good or bad, the term is basically used by people with RoIreland included (ie either that or they don't use it at all) - it's the Channel Islands that sometimes are included, and sometimes not - and overall not in real-world terms. It's largely been the unfortunate result of a political stalemate on Wikipedia that the Channel Islands tend to be misleadingly included without any qualification at all. It mustn't be a restriction caused by the type of diagram used though - that makes no sense at all. The best way to describe it all I think is with some form of dotted line, unless you try something more like this graphic I started years ago (it was never fully completed/realised). It would certainly be a good thing if diagram-minded people could finally sort it out though. Regards, Matt Lewis ( talk) 01:39, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
I have to completely disagree about the suitability of either the article's current diagram or the Russian one. They both take something that's not complex, as shown by the linear rectangular approach, and make it look utterly complex. Try this: Imagine that you don't understand the relationships, stare at either the current diagram or the Russian one for a while, do your best to memorize it, and then come back tomorrow and try to reproduce it or try to give an accurate rendition of what's part of what. Very hard. Then do the same with the linear rectangular version I've proposed. Much easier. Duoduoduo ( talk) 19:39, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Here's my best shot at illustrating what I described: Draw a rectangle, and divide it into 8 different parts in a left-to-right arrangement:
The boxes line up on my screen -- I hope they do on yours too! Here I've labeled the second, third, fourth, and fifth boxes as "United Kingdom". This could alternatively be done by labeling those boxes as a group with a border of one color. Then label all but the leftmost box (all but Rep. of Ireland) as "British Islands", also having the labels below the diagram (or with color-coded borders). Above the diagram (or with color-coded borders), label the first two boxes as a group "Ireland (island)". Also above the diagram (or with color-coded borders), label the third, fourth and fifth boxes as "Great Britain". And the whole thing (all 8 boxes) is "British Isles". Duoduoduo ( talk) 17:36, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
As some may have noticed , I've changed and/or added (here and elsewhere (
Terminology of the British Isles,
Great Britain,
Britain (placename),
List of country-name etymologies: United Kingdom,
Hibernia, EDIT-ADDENDUM April, 24:
British Isles,
Albion,
Scotland during the Roman Empire,
England and
History of Scotland) a lot (of similar and/or relevant stuff) on and from Greek (EDIT-ADDENDUM April, 24: and Latin and modern) sources, drawing partially from some much earlier work(mostly references though I've not used them all) I'd done in the past at the
Great Britain article,Toponymy section, that I had only partially incorporated into that text.(EDIT-ADDENDUM April, 24: I couldn't resist the temptation, I've now added even more references...)
A specific note,one of the many I could make, that I have to make for any future work and reference:
Having added Ptolemy's Geography, which certainly is a major source, there came -inter alia- the w problem(in the Greek text addition I've found), e.g. in Ἰουρνία and Ἀλουίων.As many of you may already know, in classical Latin V was both a vowel and a consonant and when used as a consonant corresponded to English W.Ancient Greek(during hellenistic-graeco-roman times),as far as I know, used ου-ou to transcribe this (having lost earlier in most dialects the
digamma).So at first glance Ἰουρνία and attested Ἀλουίων(are there any other editions that differ in this?does anyone know?) would correspond to IVRNIA ,i.e. Iwrnia and ALVION, ie. Alwion(this is how I've dealt with it, as others before me have dealt with it here or anyway in one of the aforementioned articles,can't recall now where exactly).Yet we know e.g. that the original Greek and Latin for the latter is Ἀλβίων-Albion, with a b.
So here is the problem of
changing phonology(and orthography) of both Greek and Latin, i.e. by they time of Ptolemy (or of one or many of his text's later copiers)
beta may have changed from b to v (the latter as in English v and perhaps passing first through w) which is also the later sound of consonantal Latin V.On top of this, there is the additional problem of the later copiers,and the of copiers of copiers, of the surviving editions of ancient texts (also think about double-single
tau and/or double-single
nu;whence also the interplay between Greek and Latin;is there a norm that we can or should follow?and how could follow a norm when we're citing-quoting how ancient scholars called these places and we have lots and lots of attested variants of the various words?) that did indeed or might have taken the initiave of "correcting" texts or simply making errors.So from a phonetical-phonological point of view, W in these two words is a possibly or probably higly misleading mess about which I have no idea what to do.I don't want to simply erase stuff.Lot's of hard work(by me and by others);lot's of shared knowledge.Simply transliterating e.g.ου as ou would also may be misleading, it wouldn't solve the problem;e.g. one would have still and inter alia to explain the ou in Alouion vs Albion.I don't also think simplyifying would be a real solution.And yet???Experts on linguistics,dates of phonetical-phonological changes and text editions would be very handy here;I'm not one of them,I'm simply an amateur.I've chosen the W "solution" partially because that's how I've first found Ἰουρνία transcribed here(or anyway in one of the articles) before I had done any relevant work.I hope that people who don't know about these things won't get troubled or misled.
Anyway, any suggestions???
Let anyway someone else, henceforth or at least for now, do the rest of the work ;I've now done the work that I had said(at the talk page) in the long past I would do on Great Britain's Toponymy section but which I had hesitated and eventually forgotten or got bored to actually do...
P.S.I had to choose one article's talk page(out of the many related and edited pages) in which to write this.I've chosen this.Can't do it in all pages...
Thanatos|
talk
12:49, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
We currently have a disambiguation page at Great Britain and Ireland and an article at UK & Ireland that have virtually identical content. Several similar terms redirect to either one of those targets or British Isles. At Talk:Great Britain and Ireland#Merge proposal I have proposed merging the article and dab page (with no preference to direction) and retargetting all the redirects to the merged page. Your comments on the proposal would be welcome. Thryduulf ( talk) 18:54, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
A better diagram than the one currently featured, can be found in the video "the difference between the united kingdom, great britain and england" by c.g.p. grey. If someone who has knowledge of these things, would care to upload it, that would be helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.102.82.23 ( talk) 15:30, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
From the lede: "It should be stated from the outset that the term has no legal or official political standing and merely a loose definition of convenience." (my bolding)
What "term" is this referring to? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 02:04, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
I think its necessary to correct the article with regards the name Britain and Great Britain. Britain refers to the main island that England, Scotland and Wales are on. Great Britain refers to the political union of England, Scotland and Wales including the other islands of the 3 countries 86.46.89.155 ( talk) 03:39, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
The term Great Britain was first used when the parliament of Scotland was merged with England & Wales in 1707 86.46.67.74 ( talk) 18:40, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
It is not entirely clear, but it seems that an inhabitant of Ireland could be called a "Briton" (and be "British") because he or she comes from one of the British Isles (albeit not from Great Britain). Would that be correct? Terry Thorgaard ( talk) 14:36, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Much of the article seems to be opinion rather than cited fact; this may have been all right a few years ago, but it feels distinctly flaky today. Perhaps a global {{refimprove}} tag would be appropriate. Questions like Terry Thorgaard's would be best answered by a cited statement in teh article, not by discussion here (this isn't a forum). Chiswick Chap ( talk) 19:47, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
This term not only refers to the United Kingdom. It also refers specifically to England in other contexts. Take, for example, the terms Anglo-Welsh, Anglo-Scottish, Anglo-Saxon, etc. Should this not be mentioned in some way? -- Mac Tíre Cowag 18:40, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Recent
edits have massively expanded the details on how medieval maps purportedly portray Cornwall, which seem to have more to do with making a political point and waving flags about purported Cornish independence. This page is simply about the terminology of the British Isles and really doesn't need to be a proxy battleground for this sort of thing. I've copyedited and qualified some of the claims, as there is some useful info there, but
this latest one is a definite step too far. The source advanced,
Cornwall's Strangest Tales: Extraordinary but True Stories, is clearly not an authoritative source for matters of geography or history. It also simply appears to rehash tropes and claims commonly found in other, even fringier, sources such as nationalist blogs and self-published books about ancient maps.
A brief look around the internet for examples of these maps will reveal that most such maps clearly include both Cornwall and Wales within England (as the latter was too then), marked no differently from any other subdivisions. Here, for example, are maps by Munster, none of which do what the material just added claims his maps do. Here are links to other maps, including those by Ortelius which, again, do not appear to make this alleged distinction. Even with those few that do give more prominence to Cornwall and Wales in terms of the way they are marked up, eg by putting the names in capitals, there is of course no way of proving what the mapmaker meant by this at all, let alone that they meant they were "separate nations". N-HH talk/ edits 17:19, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
In addition, I can't access or check the source being used to support the claim that the Hereford Mappa Mundi "shows Britain as being composed of Anglia, Cornubia, Scotia and Wallia", but a glance at the detail of the map itself shows that this is manifestly incorrect. The quote from the George Lily map talking about Welsh, Cornish and English "people", and suggesting that Wales, Cornwall, England and Scotland were the main national or political divisions, is also selective, out of context and possibly mistranslated. The map and its notes are quite explicit in dividing Britain into simply two kingdoms, England and Scotland. The full quote talks about five "idiomata" – which AFAICT refers to languages or dialects – and includes reference to Irish in the Hebrides and northern Scotland and "Gothicum" in Orkney. It cannot be taken to be a reference to political entities additional to England or Scotland or to imply that Cornwall was then considered a separate nation any more than Orkney was. N-HH talk/ edits 13:32, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Those "Home International" bridge tournaments include five national teams (and one extra host team) that represent E S W NI and Ireland, which implies five home nations.
The regatta is also active and implies four home nations, E S W and Ireland.
The football tournament is defunct and covered in this article.
-- P64 ( talk) 16:06, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
reland did not begin with the Lordship of Ireland. It is shown alongside the Kingdom of England, Kingdom of Scotland, etc., in the diagram. Can the diagram be changed to reflect High Kingship of Ireland prior to Norman Invasions? Thanks ( Stpaul ( talk) 15:15, 20 February 2015 (UTC))
I'm finding on other pages (eg Opinion polling in United Kingdom constituencies, 2010–15) there is a need to link to 'Great Britain' as a political unit. But at present I can't see any way to do it, leading to inaccurate links to geographical GB, or alternatively a need to specify: eg "Great Britain (England, Scotland and Wales)" at Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election.
Is there an appropriate way to make 'Great Britain' a sub-section in the section "Political terms in more detail"? DrArsenal ( talk) 13:45, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
The Euler diagram seems to include Northern Ireland as part of United Kingdom. Doesn't that make "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland " redundantly include Northern Ireland?
Also from http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/Great-Britain?q=Great+Britain "The United Kingdom is a political unit that includes these countries and Northern Ireland." DGerman ( talk) 22:03, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Terminology of the British Isles. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 06:27, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
An unregistered editor recently added the {{ who}} tag to the phrase "Many within the unionist community and much of the UK press refer to Northern Ireland as Ulster".
I am dubious of the pressing need to provide a citation for such a well-known fact. However, I added a citation ( "A Glossary of Terms Related to the Conflict". CAIN Web serivce. Ulster University.), albeit one that does not mention the UK press. I removed the {{ who}} tag.
An unregistered editor (most likely the same editor) has reinstated the {{ who}} tag and moved the citation to refer only to the unionist community. On the face of it, this is reasonable. However, I feel that the use of "Ulster" for "Northern Ireland" by the UK press is so widespread that it does not need tagging. If it is to be tagged then {{ who}} is the wrong tag to use, Template:Who says this tag is intended for unsupported attributions. If a tag is required then {{ Citation needed}} is the one to use.
I have not found a usable secondary source that says that the UK press use "Ulster" in this way. However, a quick web search gives numerous examples, including:
We could cite some or all of these so support the statement, although some Wikipedia zealots might tag the citations with {{ Original research inline}}. I feel that in this case no citation is needed, although if I had a good secondary source then I would cite it. I will remove the {{ who}} tag. Verbcatcher ( talk) 16:40, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Terminology of the British Isles. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.ngrs.demon.co.uk.guide.pdf/When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:55, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Terminology of the British Isles. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:37, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
This page deserves to be congratulated for clarifying that "Great Britain" only refers to Scotland, England and Wales. Could it clarify that the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands are not part of the United Kingdom? Vorbee ( talk) 16:24, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 04:07, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Some would strongly object to calling Cornish and Manx "living languages"... AnonMoos ( talk) 10:17, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
The problem with a compromise solution is that it often involves accepting an error as being correct. 'Being in current use' implies, on balance, that Cornish and Manx are L1 languages, which they are not. Rosbif73, you were a bit too quick off the mark there. I suggest you revert and wait for a proper discussion before assuming consensus. Incidently, it is highly questionable whether Cornish can be described as anything close to being a revived language. Roger 8 Roger ( talk) 12:01, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
There'll be some hobbyist somewhere speaking Cumbric. The solution is to spell it out even if that involves more words. Far better that than to fudge and mislead. Roger 8 Roger ( talk) 13:23, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
I didn't want to cause any unnecessary controversy, but many linguists would not consider a language to be "living" unless there are true native speakers who learned it as tiny kids from their parents speaking to them in that language (and not from textbooks or grammars). This can sometimes give anomalous results (there are actually some Esperanto native speakers, but probably not for Modern Standard Arabic), but it's often part of the definition. Being "in use" is a much less demanding criterion -- religious liturgical languages can be "in use" for religious worship (Latin among Roman Catholics, Coptic among Egyptian Christians etc.) without anybody thinking they're living languages... AnonMoos ( talk) 09:03, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
In the Linguistic Terms section of the article, it says that Wales is often called the Principality of Wales, but the link for Principality of Wales leads to this page, which is for a medieval feudal polity in Wales. Is this intentional, or should I change it? Ravenclawjedi42 ( talk) 21:45, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
[s]ince the Laws in Wales Acts 1535–1542 [...] there has been no geographical or constitutional basis for describing any of the territory of Wales as a principality, although the term has occasionally been used in an informal sense to describe the country, and in relation to the honorary title of Prince of Wales.This is reflected in the language used in the linguistic terms section. The only questionable aspect is the link to the medieval entity, but given the qualified language surrounding it I see no need to change anything. Rosbif73 ( talk) 08:17, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
These don’t look right! I think they’re the words for “Britain”, in the table near the end. 80.189.229.124 ( talk) 00:15, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
Please see the discussion at Talk:British_Isles_naming#Terminology_of_the_BI_/_BI_naming_-_tidy_up_proposal which includes a proposal to convert this article to a list and rename it. Waggers TALK 13:36, 10 October 2023 (UTC)