This is an archive of past discussions about Great Britain. 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.
Latest comment: 20 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
"Britain and Ireland" simply won't do in the first paragraph here. The context is "Great Britain is the largest island in this whole bunch of islands off the coast of Northwest Europe". Reducing that group to "Britain and Ireland" makes the sentence nonsensical: "Great Britain is the biggest island in the group consisting of Great Britain and Ireland." Whee. If that was what the author wanted to say, he would have said "Great Britain is bigger than Ireland", which is a true but rather pointless statement.
How to phrase this so it's understood that Great Britain is the biggest of several islands there? -- Paul Drye
Sorry if I was a bit simplistic in replacing "British Isles" by "Britain and Ireland". How about something like "which is the largest island in the archipelago off the west coast of Europe that includes Great Britain, Ireland, the Faroes, the Orkney Islands, and the Isle of Man". --Eob
Well, the problem there is that you are making the thing being defined part of the definition: "Great Britain is....that includes Great Britain, Ireland, etc." We need the name of the archipelago. We may need to go with "British Isles" simply because the trend towards precision that's given us Britain and Ireland has not yet come up with a name for the archipelago that suits our purpose here. -- Paul Drye
I'm having a hard time understanding why "British Isles" was replaced with "Great Britain and Ireland" all over the place in this encyclopedia. My understanding has always been that the term "British Isles" included Ireland. I just looked up "British Isles" in the online Mirriam-Webster dictionary, and it said: 'island group W Europe comprising Great Britain, Ireland, & adjacent islands ' . Not that this proves anything, but it is definitely a common understanding among a lot of people that Ireland is part of the British Isles.
The term dates from when GB and Ireland were part of the one state, the United Kingdom. Most Irish people take offence at the term, because some presume it means that the states are still linked politically. So it is a controversial term that it is best to avoid. An alternative used is Islands of the North Atlantic or IONA, which is increasingly being used. JTD 16:16 Feb 16, 2003 (UTC)
But please see note lower down about the usage. Thanks Nevilley 08:55 Feb 17, 2003 (UTC)
It's reaction to "British" meaning, to many people, "of the United Kingdom". It's a fair cop, and several of Eob's changes are more precise. But some aren't, as we are discussing. -- Paul Drye
If the "British Isles" is the official name of the archipelago, then that is the name that should be used. I am willing to concede that the Miriam-Webster dictionary might be wrong, but it is also possible that this is indeed the correct term for all those islands, including Ireland. The United Kingdom is just a political entity anyway, that doesn't have to necessarily correspond to the name of any island or islands. The term "British" can also refer to the island of Britain, after all, and if Scotland becomes independent are we going to stop using the word "Britain" to refer to the island?
You're arguing at cross purposes with me; I agree with you that the archipelago is best-called the British Isles -- "British" has two meanings to me, only one possessive -- but that's not the entirety of Eob's changes. Several of those he's made are clearer with the extra precision (though I'm mulling over Zundark's suggestion that "United Kingdom and Ireland" might be better still). -- Paul Drye
See also the discussion in talk:Britain and Ireland. My contention is that although the term "British Isles" has been used in the past it originated in the time when Britain did have political control over both main islands -- which is no longer the case. Many people in Ireland do not want to be considered part of the "British Isles" any more than people in Britain would like to be part of the "Irish Isles". Most uses of the "British Isles" can be replaced by "Britain and Ireland". However there are a few cases, such as the original usage on the Great Britain page, where "Britain and Ireland" is not quite accurate because the intended use also includes other smaller islands in the archipelago. I do not have a good answer for those cases. --Eob
See also talk:Britain, for more along these lines.
Every time I need to link to this page, I am again made aware that it appears to emphasize a view of the island from an English point of view. There are other nationalities on this island who are quite happy to not be called English, and who have a long historical record. To work around this problem, can wre have under the "see also" heading a list of other links, such as prehistoric Britain, Roman Britain, Wales, Scotland, Cornwall? I'm probably asking this with insufficient tact & will get flamed for this suggestion, but I hope cooler & more reasonable heads understand the problem I am pointing at. -- llywrch 19:25 Jan 2, 2003 (UTC)
The term IONA (Islands of the North Atlantic) is used in the Good Friday Peace Agreement as a replacement term for the 'British Isles', though it may or may not catch on. (It is also defined on Wiki.) A solution might be to use the 'British Isles' (saying that it is a long-standing term) but mention that IONA is considered as a possible alternative, to take into account Irish sensitivities. That would allow you to use the most common term 'british isles' while reducing its offensiveness to we Irish. JTD 04:42 Jan 9, 2003 (UTC)
My understanding is that Great Britain is not, in fact, a single island, as this article says, but one big island plus lots of little islands like Lundy, Angelsey, the Hebrides and so on, governed from the mainland. It doesn't include the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands, however. Am I correct in thinking this? I'll edit the page to say as much if so. --Camembert
It is a confusing point. Politically it may include them. Geographically it might not do (except Anglesea, which usually is included.) There are different theories. JTD 16:16 Feb 16, 2003 (UTC)
OK. Would it be fair to say, do you think, that baldly stating without qualification at the article's outset that GB is "an island" is misleading? --Camembert
My understanding is that "Britain" is an island, while the "British Isles" is Britain plus the surrounding islands. Otherwise the term "British Isles" would be redundant... (And as the article says, "Great Britain" is just another name for what we normally call "Britain".) -- Oliver P. 16:26 Feb 16, 2003 (UTC)
Don't forget that "British Isles" also includes Ireland, which "Britain" certainly does not. See the MacMillan Encyclopaedia on this, btw - not the greatest source, but the only one I can dig up right now. --Camembert
It seems like Great Britain is best stated as a political concept: England + Wales + Scotland including their small islands. [1] seems like a good explanation, although it contradicts itself by saying "Great Britain is the largest island in Europe". [2] is an official document referring to "islands of Great Britain." But what about the geographical concept of island? How can the largest island of Great Britain have no name? ( 17:25 Feb 16, 2003 (UTC)
There's the problem, you see - "Great Britain", as JTD suggests, is used to mean both the political grouping of England, Scotland and Wales, and also used to mean a single island. The article, I think, has to reflect this double usage, and, IMO, should open with something like "Great Britain is a political entity consisting of Scotland, England and Wales, including their small islands, such as Anglesey, the Hebrides, the Orkney Islands and the Shetland Islands. It is part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The term Great Britain is also sometimes used to mean the large island consisting of the bulk of these countries." The rest of the article could then be changed as needed. Thoughts? --Camembert
Oh, sorry, I changed it before seeing your proposal. You'd better change my version, as it didn't sound quite right anyway. I'm not sure we should favour the political entity over the geographical one, though, as the phrase "also sometimes used" suggests we are doing. -- Oliver P. 17:56 Feb 16, 2003 (UTC)
Don't worry, your version is probably better. I'm going to move that reference down to the bottom, but otherwise I'll leave this for today, and return tomorrow or some time to fiddle with it (if it's not already been fiddled with). --Camembert
The whole of this geographic thing can lead to endless hair-splitting because of past history. What about the Irish Sea which has Great Britain on its eastern side, or the English Channel, shared by France. jimfbleak 16:34 Feb 16, 2003 (UTC)
good suggestion, Cam. re-the Irish Sea and the English Channel - those names aren't disputed. Re-Anglesey: it may technically be an island, but because it is so close to Wales and is linked to Wales physically, it is generally seen as part of Great Britain both politically and geographically. The Hebrides, etc are more complicated because they are unambiguously islands off the island of Great Britain. JTD 18:13 Feb 16, 2003 (UTC)
Just as well the French will have their own fr.wikipedia page to describe "perfidious Albion". The English Channel is the English name the French name is La Manche "The Sleeve” which is a reference to its shape. So no surprises there then! Philip Baird Shearer12:18, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
I like the look of ('s version. As I say, I'll probably return to this later, but what we have now is an improvement on what we had before, I'm sure. --Camembert
I shifted the IONA bit to lower down the article. I think it had an unwarranted prominence at the top, and I am not sure that claim of increasing use can be substantiated. (Looking at it again I think I may have shifted it to the wrong place, and might try again, whoops sorry, but I stick by the principle! ) I've been looking around the web a bit and, quite apart from my feeling that it's a terrible temr and that the annexation of the placename Iona is regrettable, I honestly cannot find that much evidence that it's coming into use - most of the (little) stuff I found is from a few years ago. I am happy to debate this, and I am certainly not unaware of the sensitivities around these issues. I just didn't feel that the previous version reflected the facts. Sorry if I have trodden on your toes: let's discuss it. Nevilley 08:54 Feb 17, 2003 (UTC)
Because they refer to different things. Great Britain is a currently existing entity, namely the island of Great Britain, (England + Scotland + Wales) that is part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Kingdom of Great Britain was a kingdom that was created by an Act of Union in 1707 (which merged the previous Kingdom of England and Kingdom of Scotland - since October 1604 the royal titleGreat Britain had been used. But a kingdom with that name didn't legally come into existence until the Act of Union! Yeah it is confusing!!!) which ceased to exist when the Kingdom of Ireland and the Kingdom of Great Britain merged to form the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland in 1801.
Because of the use of so many nomenclatures and governmental structures on the islands of Great Britain and Ireland, separate articles exist explaining what each is, hence Kingdom of Ireland separate from Ireland, and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland separate from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Taken together each article should offer readers a stepping stone to follow each merger and separation as it followed. England and Scotland exist as governmental units still, but GB doesn't and the Kingdom of Ireland is long gone. Hence separate articles on the K of GB and K of Ireland. FearÉIREANN 01:03 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)
I'll go out on a limb here and remove the term "SUCKZORZ" from the article after the mention of King James I's usage of the term "King of Great Britain" (Nomenclature)
Winnebagan
8th or 9th largest Island
Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
"depending on whether Australia is counted as an island."
Australia is a continent, or is there really a dispute over this. If there isn't then lets fix Great Britian's rank among islands. --ShaunMacPherson 13:12, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I for one never thought Australia's status as a continent was disputed until the question arose on Talk:History of Greenland (the article mentions Greenland as the world's largest island). Maybe the teachings on this matter differs between different countries or different times? -- Jao 08:12, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
I removed the remark about Australia. Australia is considered a continent. Shanes 11:32, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
If Australia can be an island and a continent then the world's 3 biggest islands are Afro-Eurasia, the Americas and Antarctica.
Yes, to quote Wikipedia, it's "a self-governed Danish territory ... Though geographically and ethnically an Arctic island nation associated with the continent of North America, politically and historically Greenland is closely tied to Europe." garik11:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Population
What's the historical population of the island of Great Britain? - Jerryseinfeld 18:56, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Etymology
Latest comment: 19 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Can we get some sources--Are we source that "Britanny" is a DIMINUTIVE of Britain, as Jimmy is for Jim? Is it not likely to have developed from Latin Britannia, the -ia suffix becoming -ie (/i/) in French and -y in English?
The material in the Nomenclature section appears to be a mix of (1) (in its own words!) the "extremely dubious", (2) the poorly-stated (the distinction between Geoffrey of Monmouth's Britannia maior and Britannia minor is not explained), and (3) the downright mistaken (the arguments presented in Talk:United_Kingdom#Little_Britain on the supposed "diminutive" form Brittany seem well-founded). A simple link to the relevant sections of the Britain article would be far better. Vilcxjo16:33, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
I have added a section to the History section on the correct historical and etymological link between Brittany and Britain. Brittany was called Amorica in Roman times. It was settled in the 5th century by British refugees fleeing the Anglo-Saxon invasion and was renamed Bretagne. The French then came to call Britain Grande Bretagne to distinguish it from Bretagne, and this usage was transmitted to England by the Norman Conquest. Geoffrey of Monmouth (who spoke French and wrote in Latin, not English) was merely reflecting this habit. It is wrong by the way to refer to Brittany as "Gaulish". It was inhabited by Gauls before the Roman conquest, but it didn't become Brittany until it was resettled by Britons. Adam23:13, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
New Article - overview of terminology
Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I have just written an article that is meant to give an overview of terms like (Great) Britain, the Bitish Isles, the UK and England (and whether Ireland has anything to do with any of these) on my user page. The discussion seems to have died down, but when I tried to find a clarification of these terms I found the answer spread over various articles. I suppose more people will have problems with this, so I wrote an overview: User:DirkvdM/British Isles - Clarification of Terms
But some difference between the area of GB and the sum of the areas of E, W and S is to be expected. GB is mainland only: E, W, and S all include islands.--King Hildebrand17:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Ptolemy
Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The article now gives two quite contradictary origins for Great Britain in successive paragraphs: the first that it derives from Ptolemy and distinguishes the main island from the sourrounding small islands, and the second that it distinguishes Great Britain from Brittany. Both cannot be correct and one must be deleted. Can we get a source for this attribution to Ptolemy? Adam08:54, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
A citation is still not forthcoming for Ptoloemy, despite a fact tag. It seems unlikely. So I am deleting it, until someone can find a good reference. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 11:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Cornubia
Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Mercator produced CORNWALL & WALES ("Cornewallia & Wallia") in 1564:[3][4]
Humphrey Lhuyd and Abraham Ortelius produced Angliae Regni Florentissimi Nova Descripto in 1573, this showed Cornwall and Wales as distinct regions of England, however Cornwall was not portrayed as an English county. This map was re used in 1595 at about the same time that Norden produced the map of the Duchy (not county) of Cornwall.
From about 1600 things change the Mare Brittanica and the Celtic sea become the English Channel and Bristol/St Georges Channel respectively. At this time Cornwall also seems to become an English county. Why, there is no record of an act of union or annexation of Cornwall?
The flag however, has not been seen since 1807 (Act of Union between Ireland and Great Britain, it has no standing and is not found flying anywhere. It could be compared with saying that the pre 1959 USA flag is the flag of the contiguous United States (not including Alaska and Hawaii) Brixtonboy (talk) 03:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Status of Wales
Latest comment: 16 years ago8 comments7 people in discussion
I believe that it is correct to classify Wales as a principality and England and Scotland as (constituent) countries for the purpose of this article, and for Northern Ireland as a province. There has been a lot of to-ing and fro-ing for Wales from country to principality. Nobody is doubting that it is a country but its legal definition is principality, or am I mistaken? Enzedbrit23:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Its a close one; country is a bit of a subjective word for all of them to be honest... I'd much prefer 'its compose of four consitutent parts'. Wales was never a state, for which country used to be a synonym - its probably on that basis that some people would rather have principality. Country has been appropriated over the C20th - for ideological purposes at first - to mean 'nation' too, in which case Wales/England/Scotland could probably all be described as countries. --Robdurbar07:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Wasn't it the other way round? Hasn't it only been in the 20th century that there has been a tendency in some quarters to restrict the word "country" to something like "independent state"? In previous centuries, it was quite common for example for people to refer to their home county as their "country". TharkunColl07:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
I think that is is correct to refer to Wales as a principality, as traditionally it is headed by a Prince. Scotland has no equivalent title associated with it.--King Hildebrand17:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Wales is a country and a nation, looking at these two articles the word country can be used for a state and for the geographical area inhabited by a nation. A nation is a group of people, from the nation article: One of the most influential doctrines in history is that all humans are divided into groups called nations. It is an ethical and philosophical doctrine in itself, and is the starting point for the ideology of nationalism. The nationals are the members of the "nation" and are distinguished by a common identity, and almost always by a common origin, in the sense of ancestry, parentage or descent. I don't know any Welsh people that would describe Wales as a Principality (I am Welsh myself). By the way Wales has never been headed by a prince as far as I'm aware, various Welsh princes ruled over various parts of Wales, but none I think ruled over the entire country (though I'm no historian). The non indigenous Princes of Wales, as far as I'm aware, never really had controll of the area (again this is just my perception), it's more of a courtesy title and is offensive to many Welsh people. Why not four nations? Alun17:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
You are Welsh and have never heard the term "Principality" applied by its inhabitants? I lived four bried years in the cardiff area and the term was not not infrequently used, although more often a media thing. It was even used by nationalists I new (who I assume would not have been more concerned with ancient princes than the current one) Dainamo21:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Many Welsh citizens find the term Principality offensive, as they have to endure an English prince. On the other hand, Welsh subjects loyal to the crown have no problem with this. On a technical point, Wales was a state for four years under Owain Glyndwr's leadership, although I accept that this does not amount to much. User: malicachu 17.25, 8 March 2007.
It is not inconsistent to call Wales a nation, a principality and a state all at the same time: it has a distinct civilised people/culture, it has a prince (of a conquering kingdom) and it is a separate part of a greater (larger) government and subject to both the laws of that government and it's own limited government (the Assembly). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jp adelaide (talk • contribs) 17:13, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Canaries
Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Curiously, Gran Canaria is only the third largest of the Canaries, after Tenerife and Fuerteventura. I have yet to see a convincing explanation for the designation. Nevertheless, the reference to the Canaries should be deleted if it is supposed to stand as an example of Great (or Gran) meaning the largest. It rather weakens the case!--King Hildebrand17:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Rewording of phrase about Team GB
Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The current statment at the end of the first paragraph reads "However, it should be noted that in the United Kingdom's own television coverage of the Olympic Games, the athletes from the United Kingdom team are referred to as the Great British team, in turn under the abbreviation "GB.""
This gives the impression that the olympic team from Great Britain had another name but the team's name was ""Team Great Britain"" and it's informal name was ""Team GB"" here is a link to the British Olympic Association's offical website [[7]], notice the Team GB link. It is also normal for teams that comprise of individuals from all around Great Britain to be called the Great British team and is in fact very rare for them to be called the UK team.
There is also question of why this comment is here in the first place, as it has nothing to do with the preceding comments. TheEnlightened12:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Population
Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Anyone know the average population for the whole of GB?
Latest comment: 18 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion
Do we ahve any evidence that Great Britain is acutally used as a political term? It has come up at Talk:British Isles, and I realised that I'd never seen this claim substantiated anywwhere on Wkipedia. --Robdurbar07:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't know of any political usage, as far as I know it's just the name of the one island, presumably excluding islands like Ynys Môn. It's odd that in some sporting events (like the Olympics) sports people from the UK seem to compete as GBR, which I've always taken to be Great Britain, and as far as I know this would equally apply to athetes from Northern Ireland, for example. Alun12:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
By coincidence the BBC series Trawlermen yesterday evening described Lerwick as the northernmost town in Great Britain, and I thought oops, but checked this article and it appears to be ok. So the term is actually used to include Shetland. ..dave souza, talk13:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm, and whilst I appreciate that the term is used as such, suggesting that it is a political term indidcates, I think, some sort of legality (in a similar manner to England and Wales), rather than just it being used in this way. For example, I'm aware that No Win No Fee adds always say 'not in Northern Ireland' because the legislation to allow them wasn't passed there. In that sort of situation, then, does the law refer to it being passed 'in Great Britain' or does it just say Eng/Scot/Wal? --Robdurbar17:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Whilst the name for the island, Great Britain, dates back to the middle ages or earlier, it acquired an additional political meaning in 1604 when James I declared himself King of Great Britain. This political meaning was consolidated by the Act of Union of 1707. But even if we are using the term just to refer to the island rather than a political state, does it automatically exclude all other islands, no matter how small or close to the mainland they happen to be? I shouldn't think so. TharkunColl18:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
The term Great Britain is used extensively in the United States to refer to the British Empire. If you haven't found any evidence that it is used as a political term you are really not looking very hard. e.g. CIA factbook, Library of Congress ([9]).
There's no dispute that it is sometimes used politically to refer to the British state - the problem is that the article suggests that it is used to refer politically to Great Britain the island. This statement is hard to justify because there is no such independent political unit and there has not been since 1800. Mucky Duck08:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Isles of Tin?
Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
I have heard from several reputable sources, including a BBC TV program, that the origin of the name "Britain" and the "British Isles" is from the area's abundance of Tin during the early bronze age. From this they apparently became known literally as the "Isles of Tin" and hence [Bri]-t[a]in.
Unfortunatly I cannot find any proper academic references to this etymological origin. Whether or not this is the true origin of the term, I find it surprising that their is no section on the etymology of the name. As I've said I cannot find any references, nor am I an expert on this matter so I must leave it up to someone else to correct it (the article on the Isles of Britain could also be updated correspondingly).
Btw, the section titled "Where is 'Little' Britain?" seriously needs a title alteration. If it hadn't been there so long I would persume it was someone's idea of a joke. Canderra01:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
I find it surprising that their is no section on the etymology of the name, wrote Canderra.
Regarding "Where is 'Little' Britain?"—propose a better title, please. I tend to like informal titles, but I don't think they should proliferate at Wikipedia if there is a direct way of saying the same thing in a formal tone. I can't think of a replacement ofthe top of my head, but I bet there are several goodoptions. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 11:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
c. 430 BC Herodotus expressed doubts about stories of the Cassiterides (tin islands) which some think were the British Isles, others think them more likely to have been north-west Spain and Cornwall and not islands. Then c. 320 BC Pytheas described his voyage, round the Pretanic (or Brittanic) islands, and thought that the inhabitants called themselves Pritani, though that might have been what the Gauls called them. Related terms still in use include the Welsh "Prydain". So that's the source, the similarity to "tin" is just coincidence. .. dave souza, talk01:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Request for expansion
Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
This article spends rather a long time talking about what Great Britain isn't and tells you actually very little about Great Britain itself. How about some more info? This is, after all, an encyclopedia. Cripipper10:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Political definition comes first
Latest comment: 16 years ago15 comments5 people in discussion
Great Britain is famous for being much more than a geological piece of the British Isles. People trying to use the encyclopedia to learn something need to be able to find the political definition front and center. Haber23:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Great Britain fought against the US in the war of 1812, according contemporary sources. Today, I can mail a letter to Great Britain, and it will go to Northern Ireland. Great Britain participated in World War II, according to Encarta Encyclopedia. People all over the world use Great Britain in the political sense. No one cares about the island geographic definition any more than they care where Little Britain is. Haber01:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid you argument just doesn't hold up, Haber. If someone mailed a letter to Edinburgh, England, it would probably get to the correct address in Scotland: the Royal mail are used to this kind of thing. Now, there was a political state known as Great Britain, but this was before Ireland joined it to make the United Kingdom. People all over the world may very well use the term Great Britain when they mean the UK: plenty of people used to call the Soviet Union Russia, and that wasn't correct either. If we start saying here that Northern Ireland is in Great Britain just because lots of people think it is, we might as well change the England article so that it includes Wales and Scotland. garik01:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your answer. I hope I can change some minds. I'm sorry about the Encarta ref I got my encyclopedias mixed up and meant Britannica. [10]. The Universal Postal Union still recognizes GB [11]. ISO 3166-2:GB is another ref. US State dept. re:war of 1812 [12]. US diplomatic correspondence with Great Britain[13]. Rugby team from GB[14]. Great Britain produces television shows [15], dictionary definition synonymous with UK [16]. Haber01:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
As I said, certainly a lot of different people don't distinguish between Great Britain and the UK: this is, as I said, very much like the terms Russia and Soviet Union during the Cold War: it was extremely common everywhere to get them mixed up, but it was still incorrect. Perhaps in this article we could add a note somewhere to the effect that the term Great Britain is often used to refer to the United Kingdom, even in reputable sources, but this is not correct according to official UK terminology. garik02:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." -WP:V. If you can soften "not correct" to something like "inconsistent with", and feature this fact prominently in the lead, then we might be getting somewhere. Haber02:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
In accordance with WP:NAME, this article's about the geographical unit. To clarify things, I've added a mention to the informal use causing confusion. The "Rugby team from GB" is refers to the Great Britain national rugby league team which is apparently so confusing that they're ending the name this year. The Cleveland site referring to "programming goodies from the British Isles" will no doubt cause much frothing in Ireland unless RTE programmes are included, but the programmes and actors referred to seem to be all English so technically GB is right. ISO and postal references to GB are already explained in the article, and the "dictionary definition synonymous with UK" actually gives that as a second meaning, the primary meaning being the geographical one. There's already a UK article, and no need for this one to duplicate it. ... dave souza, talk10:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
This is an encyclopedia, and is supposed to be as inclusive as possible. There is absolutely no reason to suppress the second definition, unless you consider present-day British politics a reason. Haber15:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the common use of Great Britain to refer to the UK as whole is probably worth a mention — though I think 'suppression' is a bit strong. I also think that that the legal definition trumps common usage, however. By 'correct', incidentally, I meant legally correct: I realise I was rather ambiguous. But yes, there's no reason not to mention common usage as well. garik16:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
We who live here rarely use the term Great Britain apart from the Olympics. We tend to use UK or Britain when refering to our political entity. It it stick out to the English, Scottish Welsh and even Australian and New Zealand ear when Americans use the term Great Britain. Brixtonboy (talk) 03:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Other islands of the archipelego
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I've added some more of the major islands to this list, I couldn't see any discussion of this so just went ahead but we could debate whether a link to British Isles should be used instead. There's also mention of most of these islands as well as some of the smaller ones near the top of the article, so perhaps we should remove the Other islands section altogether.
What we should probably not do is keep the section but with only two islands listed.
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
This article just published on the BBC website claims Great Britain seperated from the continent over 200,000 years ago [18]. Do we have a source for the claim in the article it's only 9000 years old? It does seem very young. Otherwise I will replace it. Cyta08:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Two meanings of Great Britain
Latest comment: 17 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion
"Great Britain is no longer a country, but simply an island in the United Kingdom. Politically, 'Great Britain' describes the combination of England, Scotland, and Wales, and therefore includes a number of outlying islands..."
So, is it an island or isn't it? It seems there are two distinct entities called Great Britain. In the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", Great Britain implicitly means "everything in the UK that isn't Northern Ireland", otherwise the name wouldn't make sense. In other contexts it refers to a single island. I think this dual meaning should be made clear right from the first sentence of the introduction, and every subsequent reference to "Great Britain" should specify which meaning is intended. I've started a similar discussion thread at Talk:British Isles (terminology)#Two meanings of Great Britain. Mtford21:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Okay, so is Shetland a part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland? And if the United Kingdom comprises Great Britain and Northern Ireland, as suggested by the name, which bit does Shetland belong to? NB the whole of the British Isles are surrounded by water too, but that doesn't make them an "island"! Mtford21:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Shetland belongs to Scotland which is a part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. GB and Ireland are both islands. GoodDay22:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I am not entirely convinced that there is a true geographical meaning of "Great Britain". Even the reference seems a little confused; follow it to the detailed page to see [19] which mentions that the nearest island is 20km away ... presumably this is Ireland. What about the IoW? or some even nearer islands? Also think about normal speech; would anyone on the IoW say "I am just nipping across to Great Britain"? I think not; they would say "I am going to the mainland". I was initially seduced by the thought that there must be a name for the big British island (everything must have a name) and therefore it must be "Great Britain" but now I am not so sure. The political definitoion clearly exists and is in use but where do we find the supposed geographical definition in actual use? Abtract11:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks ... but it doesn't allay my fears that such definitions are simply the result of people like us struggling to create a name for the island. If you look at this [21], which follows on from the ref you gave me, it seems to be saying that Great Britain the island contains England the country which is clearly not true - it contains most but not all of it, IoW for example. I'm not that bothered but I'm beginning to think that there is a danger of discussing the number of angels dancing on thr head of a pin. For my money I would stick to the simple definition that GB = E,S and W, with an aside mentioning that there are occasions when the term is used geographically for the island alone ... and for the rest of the article to ignore that minor definition. Either way I have devoted enough thinking time to it so I am off back to the real world. Abtract15:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
The page I you refer me to is labelled "record type: physical" — "Refers to physical features, defined by their physical characteristics on planet Earth, including mountains, rivers, and oceans." — and goes on to say "Note: Largest island of the British Isles, comprising England, Scotland & Wales.". Seems pretty clear to me. I guess the bit about England, Scotland and Wales is helpful context. Physical attributes are not an "aside", as you maintain — they are as important to readers as any political considerations. If it's not the name of the island, though what is? It's the eighth largest in the world, so I can't believe it hasn't got one. Bazza15:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Cornish people
Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
Hi everyone, I was just curious to note that the Cornish people are not listed as an indigenous people of Great Britain. Any reason for that (they're not just lumped into the interesting 'others' category are they?), or just an oversight?
Many thanks! Rob Lindsey23:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Looks like an oversight - the Cornish people qualify as an indigenous people of Great Britain as listed on this page - Ethnic groups of the United Kingdom and were indeed living in Great Britain prior to the Roman, Angle, Saxon, Frisian, and Jute invasions. It wasn't until 927 that King Athelstan of England evicted the Cornish from Exeter and the rest of Devon and in 936 he fixed Cornwall's eastern boundary at the Tamar. In 944Athelstan's successor, King Edmund I of England, styled himself "King of the English and ruler of this province of the Britons" (Cornwall). In 1509 King Henry VIII's coronation procession includes "nine children of honour" representing "England and France, Gascony, Guienne, Normandy, Anjou, Cornwall, Wales and Ireland." In 1531 from the court of King Henry VIII, the Italian diplomat Lodovico Falier writes in a letter that "The language of the English, Welsh and Cornish men is so different that they do not understand each other". He also claims it is possible to distinguish the members of each group by alleged "national characteristics". The Cornish were allocated the ethnic code of '06' for the 2001 Census - see Census 2001 Ethnic Codes and the Cornish language was officially recognised by the Government in 2002. They are recognised by the Celtic League (political organisation) and should be included in this article.195.92.67.74 (talk) 22:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Cornwall was known as West Wales for a time post Roman occupation and the language has more similarities to Welsh than any other, though, as said, significant differentiation exists today... as also exist with the language of Celtic Brittony in France. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jp adelaide (talk • contribs) 16:29, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
It's more correct to say that Breton and Cornish are more similar to one another than either is to Welsh, though all three are closely related. In fact it was Cornish migration to Brittany that took the language there in the first place. The pre-Latin language in the region would have been a form of Gaulish. There's more on this in the articles on Cornwall, Cornish, Brittany and Breton. --Chris Jefferies (talk) 18:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Is existing 'History' Useful?
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I put it that the section on History, without direct links to more detailed information, is compressed to the point of being misleading. The Scottish displacing/integrating with the Picts (they did not co-occupy as the text suggests) all the way to the post-Roman Anglosaxon period in a paragraph? Is this summary too summary?
Latest comment: 16 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion
Since when is Ireland considered part of the archipelago of Great Britain?!?!?! The way it is written here, it would seem as if Ireland was the size of the Isle of Man. I'm going to remove it, and if anyone has any good reasons as to why it should remain on the page, I would be more than happy to hear them. Dennisc24 (talk) 01:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
As a purely geographical term Ireland is part of the British Isles. So it is definately a part of the archipelago. We should try not to confuse politics with geography. It is called the British Isles after the name of the largest island in the archipelago. And, don't forget, this article is about Great Britain and not the UK. I have met rakes of Irish people and I know they're not happy with the idea of Ireland being a part of the British Isles, even if it is only a geographical term. TINYMARK11:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
And to echo TinyMark 'the archipelago' can't be called British Isles, because that will start just that kind of edit war. 'The archipelago' ought to be neutral enough - although to be fair it could be seen as misleading in that 'the archipelago' might imply the archipelago is called Great Britain. It does say 'other islands'. 'The archipelago' is not referring to Great Britain, which is just one island. I've added Isles of Scilly. Lundy is here - maybe this should be Bristol Channel/Mor Hafren islands - although that will start another argument about nomenclature. Also I don't know whether it would be better to list Mull, Skye and Lewis under Hebrides - if Hebrides is going to be on the list, the individual islands should be listed under that. Stevebritgimp (talk) 18:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I've added a {{main}} to the section, as Great Britain is just a single island (so it doesn't include the Isle of Wight, etc.) and strictly speaking, the archipelago is the British Isles -- Ratarsed (talk) 18:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Ratarsed!! Though I'm Irish, I'm not anti-British. They certainly don't come hand in hand, it's just a handful of our undereducated and closed-minded that make it seem so. I will quite happily tolerate the fact that Ireland is part of an archipelago called the British Isles, but when it was being referred to as an offshore island of Great Britain things had gone too far. Thanks for clearing everything up!! :-) Dennisc24 (talk) 01:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Indiginous peoples
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Sigh... It really makes little sense to include 'Celts' as indigenous people in the list in the info box. If we do add 'Celts' then we should probably remove the more precise terms, 'Scots' (not 'Scottish'), 'Welsh' and 'Cornish'. The list should read 'Cornish, English, Scots, and Welsh' IMHO. --Chris Jefferies (talk) 19:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Anoter proposed guideline for "the British Isles"
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I have numerous concerns about the current proposal for a guideline for the use of the term British Isles 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).
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The article gives the population of Great Britain (the island) as 58,845,700. This is taken the census figure for the population of England, Wales, and Scotland, which includes the populations of islands such as Portsea Island, the Isle of Wight, Anglesea, the Isle of Sheppey, Canvey Island, Shetland, etc. The population of Great Britain (the island) is not the same as that of Great Britain (the political entity). List of islands in the British Isles gives the population of Great Britain (the island) as approximately 58,000,000, which seems about right.
The total population of all the smaller islands of the British Isles (ie, excluding the islands of Ireland and Great Britain) is just over 800,000 (807,629 according to List of islands in the British Isles); with this in mind, I've changed the population of Great Britain on this article to "approximately 58,000,000". Hopefully this won't be an issue ... Neıl龱10:23, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Info Box Map
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
After a quick search i have found that the population of England alone is 60,776,238. I cannot understand how you list 58,000,000 as the population for Great Britain when Scotland contains a further 5,000,000 and Wales a further 3,000,000. Surely this would make the population nearer to 69,000,000?
Check your data. National Statistics states "The resident population of the UK was 60,975,000 in mid-2007" I think you may have fallen victim to the confusion of "England" with "Great Britain" which is with regret all too common. --SnowdedTALK14:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Japan
Latest comment: 16 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion
Japan is an Island country, not an island. While the fact is interesting it must be incorrect by definition. If anyone knows the correct fact that would be great; otherwise this needs to be deleted. Lucian Sunday (talk) 14:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I'd get rid of it, looks like a "boastful" statement rather than a useful fact. Maybe delete "albion" as the nickname for Great Britain at the same time? --SnowdedTALK14:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Agree with the removal but I've rephrased it as it broke the sentence somewhat. Also removed the brackets in the preceding sentence. regards, ascidian |talk-to-me16:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Term describes a political union, not a geographic entity
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Great Britain is a political term, one that came into use in 1707. Geographically the name of the island remains that used since antiquity - "Britain". The celebrated battle in 1940, for example, is 'The Battle of Britain' rather than the 'Battle of Great Britain'. The first legal use of the term "Great Britain" was in the documentation defining the political union of the Kingdoms of England and Scotland by King James I, coming into effect on 1 May 1707: "the two kingdoms of Scotland and England shall...be united into one kingdom by the name of Great Britain" (extract from first article of Act of Union 1707). Pconlon04:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
GB is definitely a geographic as well as political term. Other points in the entry refer to Geoffrey of Monmouth using Britannia Major or Great Britain in the Middle Ages to distinguish it from Brittany (or little Britain). In old English the epithet y was often used to show the smaller. In this case the lands of the Britons. Brixtonboy (talk) 21:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Consolidation
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I've taken the liberty of tidying this article up. There was some great stuff but lots of it repeated what had already been mentioned eg the Act of Union, the size of the island etc. I'm sure you can improve on my efforts. Brixtonboy (talk) 21:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Great Britain v Britain
Latest comment: 15 years ago14 comments5 people in discussion
I amended Britain to Great Britain in para 1 as according to 1974 govt documents on titles and nomenclature (I will go and find the references) Britain can be used as shorthand for United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. However, Great Britain refers only to England, Scotland and Wales ie the larger island. I have doubts about Britain referring to Great Britain. I would welcome your thoughts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brixtonboy (talk • contribs) 15:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Brixtonboy, your tidying up of the article is very welcome, thanks for that. 'Britain' (geographically) and 'Great Britain' (politically) describe the same place; other than that you get into the whole murky area of offshore British Crown dependencies which individually have very complex relationships with the United Kingdom. I had thought that it was James I under whom the Act of Union was enacted, but someone has put in Queen Anne. Whoever changed that should put in a good reference to confirm its accuracy. I have to disagree on the point you made of 'Britain' being acceptable as shorthand for the 'United Kingdom' - Northern Ireland may be considered by some as being 'British' (its government is British), but it would be quite misleading to say it is actually in Britain! As Wikipedia is focussed on accuracy, even if some sources use another (very confusing!) term in place of the official description of the nation, here we should only use the correct, official and internationally recognised term. Official legal use of 'Great Britain' started in 1707, so that is what we should concentrate on.
Two housekeeping things, to show the flow of a conversation it is customary here to place one or more colons as appropriate before your submission (as I have done here) and to always properly sign your submissions. Kind regards, Pconlon17:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Pconlon. Thank you for your advice on how to reply. I had been trying to work out how to indent my comments. I trust I've got it right now. In the forward of "Britain 2001-The Official Yearbook of the United Kingdom", published by Her Majesty's Stationary Office the definition is given
"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". [1]
James I (of England)/ VI (of Scotland) used the term Great Britain to describe the two independent kingdoms (England and Scotland) that he was monarch of from 1603. He was describing a geographical landmass not a political unit as the Act of Union between England and Scotland did not occur until 1707 in the reign of Queen Anne. The landmass was not renamed by James. Around 1130 Geoffrey of Monmouth refers in Historia Regum Britanniae to the island of Great Britain as Britannia Major (Great Britain), to distinguish it from Britannia Minor (Little Britain) or Brittany. Britain refers to the lands of the Britons. Brixtonboy (talk) 04:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Great Britain is both a political and geographical term meaning the island on which lie most of England, Scotland and Wales. It therefore, makes sense to start with the physical as its been there longer. It seem superfluous to mention James I/VI and Queen Anne twice in the same article. With regards to the Kingdom of Great Britain 1707-1801 there is already another article. Great Britain and Britain are specifically not the same thing as defined by HM Govt. (see above) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brixtonboy (talk • contribs) 12:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Although the two are used interchangeably and there is much confusion (and multiple sources), Britain (as in Britain and Ireland) is primarily a geographical term while "Great Britain" originated as a political term and that should take precedence. The lede needs to explain the origins and some of the confusions. --SnowdedTALK12:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
What are your grounds for saying that Great Britain is a political term? My understanding is that the "Great" is relative to "Lesser Britain" (i.e. Britanny), and is therefore geographical. Mooretwin (talk) 01:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Mooretwin and Brixtonboy are correct - Great Britain was used as a geographical term for the island, before it was used as a political term for England + Wales + Scotland. Both Britain and Great Britain are used (colloquially at least) interchangeably for both the island and the former political unit. Sorry, Snowded. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Well I am prepared to be wrong on this and its not the most important issue. However I am not convinced by the evidence presented. a 12th Century reference to "minor" and "major" does not constitute proof of the use of "Great Britain". It may be a part of the etymological root but that is the most that can be claimed. I would like to see the source on James I/VI as my recollection is a reference to "greater" not "great". Even if he used "great" then it was the way James chose to style himself against popular opinion, and the name was not accepted by Parliament. It was formally adopted at the time of the Act of Union and is thus clearly here a political not a geographical statement. You can have a statement as to some of the roots of the word (G of Monmouth and James) but the word comes into play with the Act of Union. Oh, and I have always been happy to admit that Britain and Great Britain are now used interchangeably. But I would remind you that there was controversy over the name of the recent Olympic team. --SnowdedTALK09:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Without scouting round for sources (which I'm prepared to do in a few days time, but not right away), I think the point is that the introduction needs to state that the term is used both for the island and for the historic political unit, and not suggest or imply that one use is more correct or important than the other. The same applies to "Britain". My opinion is that more people will come to this page ("Great Britain") looking for the island than for the political unit, but without evidence that will just have to stay as an opinion. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
I think the geography search would be Britain (or England/Scotland) rather than Great Britain. However that aside the issue is the origin and first use of the term. As far as I can see it starts as a political term and becomes a geographical one but later. The evidence of the 12th Century and James assumption of a title does not convince. --SnowdedTALK13:09, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Britain and Great Britain are not the same thing. As there had been confusion (not least the USA referring to Great Britain instead of the UK) HM govt. made an offical decision in 1974 and have defined it each year since in their official yearbook (see citations below). This has been adopted by all major media in the UK including the BBC and the quality papers (see style sections). It might seem pedantic but my students have been losing points on external exams and assignments due to not being precise and using Britain when they mean Great Britain. Official statistics marked Britain include Northern Ireland, those marked Great Britain do not. They have quoted Wikipedia as their source which is why I have got involved in this discussion. The meaning of words changes eg gay, but surely Wikipedia must reflect the current situation. Wikipedia rules state that information in articles should be verifiable not opinion. Although I don't trust them on lots of things, Her Majesty's Government must be the ultimate source of what is Britain and what is Great Britain Brixtonboy (talk) 13:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
⬅ No real dispute about its current use and it is clearly the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The use of Britain to include Northern Ireland is more of an issue, but it is used as an abbreviation for the UK. However I point out that this remains a POLITICAL aspect in the main. --SnowdedTALK13:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
I doubt if it's going to resolve this discussion, but this source is the most interesting one I've found. It states: "the common assumption that the title originates in the Act of Union is thus mistaken, though the new title had a stormy and far from continuous life both in England and Scotland until 1707." [and] "though the phrase "Greater Britain" does not occur in Geoffrey of Monmouth himself, it occurs in the poets who vulgarised his work in the next generation: Walter of Arras explains that there are two Britains—"different peoples dwell in them, the English are in the greater but the Normans are lord of it, and in the lesser are the Bretons." - etc. Worth a read. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
To avoid edit war - definition of GB and Britain.
Latest comment: 15 years ago19 comments6 people in discussion
Snowded/This flag was once red.
I reverted back to my previous edit not from pique but as your reversion of my edit removed all my citations and referenced sources not only to para 1/2 but also to other items in the article. I acknowledge that GB was a Kingdom from 1707 to 1801. I also acknowledge that King James I/VI used the title King of Great Britain but this was his title, no Kingdom of Great Britain existed as England and Scotland remained independent of each other. They merely shared the same king. I believe there is another article titled Kingdom of Great Britain. Perhaps that would be a better place for that information.
I would refer you to the Wikipedia definitions/diambiguation on UK/GB/Britain.
Wikipedia has to be a source of upto date information which refers to today situation. HM government, the BBC, the Guardian all define Great Britain as both England, Scotland and Wales (but not Northern Ireland) and as the largest island in the group. HM Government and the BBC also define Britain as shorthand for UK of GB and NI.
"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 and cover the whole of the United Kingdom". (Quoted from the forward of "Britain 2001-The Handbook of the United Kingdom" 2001, Office of National Statistics/Her Majesty's Stationary Office, London, ISBN011 621278 0)
Britain never refers to GB and Ireland. That's a separate argument altogether and lets have one at a time. :) I
Brixtonboy, BRD is a standard way of dealing with things, much as I agree with your edit and can understand your reasons for reverting it wasn't necessary. Your edits weren't lost, they are still in the edit history. Continuing to revert will likely result in a block for edit warring. For future reference, it would be better once challenged about an edit to discuss with the editor the changes to achieve a consensus. Justintalk16:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Brixtonboy, you made the decision to reverse the order. I reverted and asked you to discuss it, You have reverted back twice while the discussion is underway. I am going to restore the prior position until there is a consensus to change here. I am happy to agree that Britain can be used as a short hand for GB and Ireland, but that does not make it the definition, it makes it a short hand. Equally Britain is used to describe England/Scotland and Wales. The article needs to reflect and explain that. That point aside, the term Great Britain originates as a political term not a geographical term. It is therefore correct for the politics to come first. --SnowdedTALK23:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Hmm. My view is that most readers of this article are likely to be looking for the island, rather than the historical political entity. The "Britain" disamb page directs to this page for the island. In my view, that should mean that the reference to the island should come before the reference to the political entity - even recognising that the term was originally used as a political one. The way that Brixtonboy made those changes was incorrect, but if it comes to a vote on paragraph order I'd favour putting the island - the geographical term - first. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Its not the most important issue around at the moment. However I think it is more of a political term than it is geographical. People talk about "Britain", GB comes in for GB&NI, or national plates etc. --SnowdedTALK23:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
When do we ever deal with "the most important issues"...?! But it just occurred to me, I thought it was originally (pre-UK) a geographical term anyway, for the island, to differentiate it from "Little Britain" or Brittany. I can search for references if we need to... Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry but the repeated assertion that Britain refers to England, Scotland and Wales ie Great Britain is incorrect. I've given my sources from HM Government, the BBC, and major newspapers style sections (Guardian, Telegraph) four times now yet. I would welcome sources supporting an alternative view. Wikipedia rules state that information in articles should be verifiable not opinion. Although I don't trust them on lots of things, Her Majesty's Government must be the ultimate source of what is Britain and what is Great Britain?Brixtonboy (talk) 11:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Just a note that I'm horrified by the changes to the lead of this article. What on earth is a "political term"? Not a "term" then? Awfullly weasley. And my understanding was (and is) that this was about an island - and that had primacy (otherwise, where does the island content go?). The political geography and unification of the UK seems to be repeated about a million times over in lead sections at the moment, all coming from the same users. And we have hundreds, if not thousands of articles talking about "island of Great Britain", only to find it means England et al. Not good, especially when we have an "Infobox island" too. I suggest a revert/change. --Jza84 | Talk 23:38, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I strongly suggest that we don't need editors reverting without looking through the debates above, considering the issues carefully, and coming to a decision by consensus. There are two strongly held views here. As I understand it, one is that "Great Britain" and "Britain" are essentially interchangeable terms for the island which contains England, Scotland, and Wales - the "geographers' view" if you like. The other, equally strongly held, is that "Great Britain" is specifically and primarily a "political" term which relates to the historical union between the kingdoms of England (which included Wales) and Scotland - the "historians' view". The current lead appears to give preference to the latter view, and in my opinion there does need to be a better balance. But it would be better to go through a discussion of different wording options here first. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
I made a minor change, but this does need discussion. Personally I think it is very sloppy to use "Great Britain" as a geographical term and evidence for its use pre Queen Anne is flaky (its generally not a noun). However in current use it is now used both geographically (which should be Britain) and politically. We may need something describing the history. --Snowded (talk) 09:19, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Britain is already a disambiguation page and to be honest I am not sure that is accurate (reference to Great Britain as the name of an Ireland island which is not the truth the whole truth etc. I think a "two meanings" article is not necessarily a bad thing and we don't want to get into a variation of of Ireland (state) and Ireland (island) if we can avoid it. --Snowded (talk) 09:36, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
But clearly there is still confusion, and a disamb page would provide clarification. Btw, presumably you mean "island" above ... !!!Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:39, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Well one solution might be to have a disam page and link to Kingdom of Great Britain and a new article "Britain (island). I really am not happy to conceed Great Britain as a geographical term when it is primarily a political term. --Snowded (talk) 09:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Just noticed - Great Britain (disambiguation). So my solution would be to expand that page slightly in order to clarify it (not provide substance). I understand your opinion, Snowded, but it boils down to whether WP should reflect that view (which some would see as pedantry and others as precision), or whether to reflect the term(s) as they are understood or misunderstood in the real world. (Which I must now join, for a while...) Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:47, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Actually I don't think its real world v precision. Most people in practice use Britain not Great Britain when they are making a geographical reference. --Snowded (talk) 10:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Lead paragraph, again
Latest comment: 15 years ago14 comments4 people in discussion
I've reversed the order of the lead, rewritten some of it, and tried to improve the disambuguation links. The state (Kingdom of Great Britain) has its own article, so can't dominate the lead of this article. As far as I can see, 'Great Britain' has no current substantial political meaning, but has a current geographical meaning. If there is a political dimension to the term 'Great Britain', beyond the 1707-1801 Kingdom, then there has to be a better way of explaining it and including sources. --hippo43 (talk) 20:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Rather than taking sides in the edit warring here, I propose that we should collectively try to come to an agreed resolution, through consensus or compromise, which encompasses :
the wording of the introduction to this article, including the paragraph order;
Can we agree that we should try to come to a consensus which takes all these into account? At the moment it is a mess. The essence of the dispute, it seems to me, is that there is a difference of view between those who think that "Britain" and "Great Britain" are essentially interchangeable terms for the island; and those who think that the more correct view is that "Great Britain" primarily and specifically refers to the political union of 1707 (that is, the "Kingdom of Great Britain"), and that the correct term for the island is "Britain". Before we go any further, is that a reasonable summary of the issues which need to be resolved? Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Its a reasonable summary of the two positions and my reversion pointed to the fact that we had not reached agreement before but it needed to be discussed here. To revert it back having been told that is edit warring. I have left several edits as they improve it. However the primacy of geography over politics is contentious and needs to be resolved here. I have therefore reverted the order pending discussion. One editor does not have the right to determine this when they have been advised of prior discussions --Snowded (talk) 21:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Ghmyrtle - seems a reasonable summary to me.
Leaving aside the naming and wording of these articles, surely the island needs an article, in common with other significant islands round the world, and the specific kingdom needs an article, in common with other historical states? --hippo43 (talk) 21:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
I have no issue with the 'politics first' paragraph order being restored pending discussion. However, please don't ignore other edits to the article in reverting to older versions.
That said, even if 'Great Britain' as a political entity is mentioned first, there has to be a better way of phrasing it than essentially including the lead of the Kingdom of Great Britain article. --hippo43 (talk) 21:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
I have restored the order but left the other edits (which with one exception seemed a significant improvement). --Snowded (talk) 21:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
A couple of thoughts. It seems to me that the issue of the island's current 'correct' name (Great Britain, Britain or both/either) should be fairly straight-forward and should be decided by referring to sources, not by blindly arguing about it here.
Also, the island has existed for a long, long time, though it may have been called various names. The island needs an article, and irrespective of its former names, surely that article has to be titled with its current name, or 'current name (island)' if it needs to be disambiguated. --hippo43 (talk) 22:20, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Snowded, looking at the discussion above, it seems part of your argument is that the term is originally a political one. You may well be right, but 'Great Britain' is now the name of the island, and not, as far as I can tell, any political entity. This article is essentially about the island, and IMO, the origin (political or not) of its name should not be the first point in the lead paragraph. If there is a political meaning of GB beyond the name of the 1707 Kingdom, then it should be included with appropriate references. I can't see any way of working out the intentions (geographic or political) of readers who are looking for info on GB - the DAB links seem to explain the various meanings fairly well.--hippo43 (talk) 00:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Although I've just added a point of historical clarification to the final sentence of the third para, I now wonder whether that sentence is needed at all. Would it not be sufficient here to say: "It existed until 1801 when Great Britain and Ireland united to form the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland". The final sentence relates to Ireland, not to GB, and perhaps is unnecessary here. Views? Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't mind some context remaining for clarification. Unfortunately, however, Hippo43 reverted my clarification, without any discussion here first, so returning to a confusing version which ends the story - for no logical reason - in 1922. Either the story set out in the introduction should end in 1801, or should give the full picture up to the present day. So, I've now removed all reference to what happened in Ireland after 1801, as in my view it is unnecessary to any article covering Great Britain. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Apologies for removing without reading this lastest discussion. However, I think info on the subsequent states which existed/exist in GB is useful for clarity, given the confusion over the meanings of GB. Ireland, on the other hand, is not the subject of the article, so IMO we don't need as much info on Ireland in the lead. --hippo43 (talk) 14:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
What I struggled to understand is why the cut-off point in this article for mentioning what happened in Ireland should be 1922. In my view it should be either 1801 - when "UK of GB and I" was formed - or the present day, so as to refer to the fact that Ireland is now a separate state (which would be more longwinded, but a clearer statement for the less knowledgeable reader). I'd be content with either of those two versions, but not with the version that referred to the "Irish Free State" but nothing later. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
TBH, I don't think it's a huge issue. However, the article is about Great Britain. IMO Ireland should be mentioned in that it united with GB in 1801, and seceded in 1922. What happened in Ireland after 1922 is not the subject of this article, but the UK after 1922 is relevant to an article about GB. Saying that the UK of GB & I became the UK of GB & NI in 1922 without explaining where Ireland went would be less clear. If a "less knowledgeable reader" wants to know more about Ireland, they can got to the relevant article. --hippo43 (talk) 14:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
'Great Britain IS A CONTINANT (sic)'
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Please can someone tidy up this trolling at the start of para 3? I don't know enough about reversion techniques to have a go myself. Cheers. Blitterbug (talk) 02:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Fixing the 'Citation Needed' for GB Population
Latest comment: 15 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion
Guys, how do I easily add a citation for the population quoted at the start of the article? This govt. site page gives GB population split by individual country and is thus a suitable candidate:
I was more than a little surprised that, though the figure quoted is accurate, there was no citation for it! Trouble with WP is it is not very easy these days to quickly search for help with a given editing technique. I seem to recall it used to be a lot easier to find help; nowadays I have to keep a butt-load of browser bookmarks (alliteration unintended) rather than the altogether more efficient (but non-existent) method of rapidly navigating editing-help links. Blitterbug (talk) 12:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
The reason I tagged this was that it looked like the figure was made up of Scotland+Wales+England, which is close but not the population of GB (the island) specifically. We need a figure that excludes people living on other islands - the Isle of Wight, Anglesey, Western Isles, Orkney, Shetland, Arran etc. I haven't been able to find a source for this yet. --hippo43 (talk) 12:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
There is a related side issue here, in that although the term "GB" is used in this article for the island (i.e. excluding Isle of Wight etc.), it is also used for England + Scotland + Wales, including those offshore islands. Do most residents of the Isle of Wight, Orkney etc. consider themselves to be part of "Great Britain" or not? At the very least, I think there is a need for some referenced clarification here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Agree, it's not straight-forward. However, if we say 'island X is the nth-most populous island, with a population of ...', we really need a good source for the population of the island itself.
'Do most residents of the Isle of Wight, Orkney etc. consider themselves to be part of "Great Britain" or not?' I honestly have no idea. Given the confusion, and the disagreements in the discussions above, I think we need to carefully reference any current usage of GB which does not mean the island. I think you're probably right that 'it is also used for England + Scotland + Wales' but if we include this in the article as current usage (i.e., not in the context of the 1707-1801 state) we need solid references. --hippo43 (talk) 16:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT UK. BUT I'M LEARNING UK. BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW ENGLISH WELL. BUT I WANT TO GO THERE. IT'S MY DREAM. DILOROM.UZ. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.206.40.243 (talk) 04:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Currency Section
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I've tidied up the settlements section. The capitals had been deleted - a broken heading had left the list of capitals in the 'Use of the term..' section. I have also kept/restored the previous reference to the UK as it seems fine to talk about the capital of the UK state as existing on the island of GB --TheSmuel (talk) 08:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
HighKing revert and rewrite (centralised discussion)
Latest comment: 15 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion
Which elements would you like to discuss? Seems pretty textbook really. Article in barebones stub state _ user comes along and expands it with vast academic sources. I don't really comprehent the whole "user wholesale reverts for no specific reason to request chat about weather on talk" part though. I don't really get see why certain people bother to come to Wikipedia to randomly revert. Please advise on both elements, thanks. - Yorkshirian (talk) 12:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
What makes you think the article was in a barebones stub state? What on earth are you referring to with "chat about weather" bit above? --HighKing (talk) 13:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I've reverted what amounted to a massive rewrite by Yorkshirian. The etymology rewrite was particularly unsatisfactory. Can I ask that Yorkshirian takes it a little more slowly, and if making very large changes, that giving people a chance to comment in a sandbox is a better and more collaborative approach. --HighKing (talk) 12:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
The sandbox is here. Could you be more specific in what your issue is with the etymology? And if the etymology is the section is the part you thought was wrong, then why wholesale revert everything else? Sure if others want to collaborate, thats good, but lets avoid grinding bureaucracy and actually get to the part where we make GAs. Thanks. - Yorkshirian (talk) 13:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
The problem is that what to you, Yorkshirian, may seem like "grinding bureaucracy" is often (not always, but often) regarded by others as necessary and helpful collaboration. There is no deadline. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I feel I must stick my nose in on principle to disagree with reverting simply on the basis that something has not been discussed. It is the content of an article, not the method of bringing it about, which should be examined here.--Breadandcheese (talk) 15:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Why thank you B & C--that's a great and refreshing corrolary to WP:IAR that they like to follow and prevent others from doing, by wikilawyering and wikistalking. Celtofascism ought not to make ambiguous threats about bureaucracy. It's tempting to be frightened of future high handed treatment, isn't it Yorkshirian? Don't let it get to you. A Merry Old Soul (talk)
Romanticizing
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
It's a trivial point, but the serial comma, frequently living under its regular alias of "harvard comma", is seldom used in British English, outwith academic publications, except to avoid ambiguity. The WP:MOS, perhaps tactfully, does not express a view, merely asking for stability (no changes for the sake of change) and internal consistency. Given the subject of the article, this edit might not have been the most appropriate. --Old Moonraker (talk) 16:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't think there is consistency over its use - I tend to use it, where necessary, appropriate, and ... umm.... "Outwith", on the other hand, is definitely not used. :-) Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
This will probably take a few months to fully complete, but I just wanted some input as others have said a need to collaborate on it. If anybody is interesting on collaborating to get this to GA, you could either comment here or on the talk of the subpage with any suggestions of what else we need to put in or any specific information, then that would be good. - Yorkshirian (talk) 14:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
That is true, and I believe Yorkshirian acted in good faith in making the request here. However, in my view the absence of response does not justify making unilateral changes of such substance. I've only had a quick look at the changes proposed. Many, in my view, are worthwhile, including the proposed section on biodiversity, which is relevant as GB is a natural entity (that is, an island). I'm much more hesitant about some of the proposed sections on history, education, religion, etc., because of the fact that the island contains three different countries (albeit ones which have shared a lot of history and political development), which have different features. Yorkshirian's proposed introduction, in particular, goes into too much detail on history and political development. In detail, I think that some of Yorkshirian's changes are welcome but others are not. Generally, Yorkshirian's text contains a fair few errors of grammar and vocabulary (there is no such word as "populance", for example). That's the extent of my comment for the next 10 days or so - I'll be on the island, but offline. No doubt there will have been more debate by the time I come back - hopefully it won't have escalated too much. :-) Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
On other island articles, for instance the island of Ireland, it discusses science, history, economy, transport, etc and in that case it forms two different sovereign states. This island on the other hand is even part of the same sovereign state since 1707 (Great Britain) and still is. Though there are different regional peculiarities on the island, this is covered entirely in my heavily referenced update (even going to the extent of mentioning that Anglicanism is called Episcopalism in Scotland). These fields are obviously extremely relevent to an article covering the entity and it directly pertains to it, I can't think of any legitimate reason not to include the institutions contained on the island.
I'm sure regionalist and separatist lobbies will probably howl and break out in tears over the prospect of making a real article out of this, but meh, I'm pretty much undanted by that. It would surprise me if anybody has replied within your 10 days of absense though. Since over the course of two-weeks, nobody was bothered enough to reply to my request for collaboration or even to suggest what they would like improving with the sandbox version. - Yorkshirian (talk) 22:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
That may be true. But you will also need to take on board criticism that, frankly, many of your changes - including the ones which are totally uncontentious politically - are simply not written in a tone, or using grammar or vocabulary, which is appropriate to an encyclopaedia. If your version were to become the article, it would immediately, and rightly, attract a Cleanup {{Article issues}} tag. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree with the point about covering island wide matters, far too many articles on wikipedia seek to divide the United Kingdom or Great Britain down national lines of England, Scotland and Wales. I see nothing wrong with doing it the same way other island articles do, Ireland being a good example. As there are some problems, should wait for Ghmyrtle's return and hopefully by then some others will of (or should that be have lol) given feedback, although it is pretty inactive this article by the looks of it. I can maybe give a few specific comments about problems i see over the coming days, but i cant give that much feedback on major changes. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Don't (just) wait for me - there is a community of editors here, many of whom are probably on holiday or have other priorities at the moment. I've added a comment here. Peace!Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:46, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Just one quick point that bothered me about the intro. I liked that it mentioned about the Tudors and Stuarts, i think this is part of the islands history often overlooked by people when they seek to blame everything on England. But this bit ":The Stuart monarchs of Scotland came to the throne of England in 1603 and called themselves "King of Great Britain", Id rather that was saying James called himself King of Great Britain (which is an important part which belongs in intro in my opinion), but the current proposed wording i think sounds a bit confusing. To me it sounds like thats saying a group of monarchs came to England in 1603 and took the throne and called themselves "King of Great Britain". Also the source for that doesnt work for me, the document just has "loading" on every page (not sure if thats just me). BritishWatcher (talk) 22:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Just a minor point on wholesale changes is you are supplying new references then the accessdate should be the date of application of the change, when the reference should have been accessed to check its validity, not some date in February. Keith D (talk) 22:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
OK, I added the biodiversity section, which Ghmyrtle said I should put in first. Next I want to change the terminology section into one coherent, references, cleanly set out etymology section. This can be found in the sandbox. Thoughts? Comments? - Yorkshirian (talk) 22:57, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
I have no problem with anything in that section, looks pretty good aslong as the sources are accurate and back up what it says. Only one thing i can think of that could be changed which could be useful is to go into a little more detail in the sentence "When the Romans invaded they only managed to control most of Great Britain", could it say something like controlling the southern part, or just saying they did not occupy the northern part of Britain that now forms Soctland. just so its more clearer than "most of GB" BritishWatcher (talk) 23:34, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
^ Britain 2001; The Official Yearbook of the United Kingdom, 2001, Office of National Statistics/Her Majesty's Stationary Office, London ISBN011 621278 0
![[4]](http://www.walkingtree.com/images/mapsFullCornwall.jpg){kind=link}
![[5]](https://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~genmaps/genfiles/COU_files/ENG/aaEng/munster_england-det_1550.jpg){kind=link}
![[6]](https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Image:Union_flag_1606_%28Kings_Colors%29.svg){kind=link}