Talk:Terminology of the British Isles/Archive 8

Geographical Distinctions

Where's Wales in this section?? Welshleprechaun (talk) 14:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Good point - I've just added it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget Berwick

Isn't the full title for the United Kingdom: the United Kingdom of Great Britain, Northern Ireland and Berwick-Upon-Tweed? A consequence of forgetting the latter bitty was that Berwick was still officially at war with Germany until fairly recently. -- ZScarpia (talk) 14:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

From a not very reliable source: "The full name of the U.K. is: 'The United Kingdom of Great Britain, Northern Ireland and Berwick-upon-Tweed'. Berwick-upon-Tweed is a border town between England and Scotland, and, because its nationality was in dispute, it was constitutionally enshrined as a separate entity. In 1939 war was declared by Britain on Germany, and the declaration included the full title. The declaration of peace was performed with only the partial title. So in theory, Berwick-upon-Tweed was officially at war with Germany until 1987 when an official peace treaty was signed." -- ZScarpia (talk) 15:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Full title of the UK is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It would require an Act of Parliament to change the title of the country and that has not been done. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Urban legend, and not true. The Wales and Berwick Act 1746 specified that when "England" is mentioned in an act of Parliament, then unless specified otherwise the term also includes Wales and Berwick (Wales has subsequently extricated itself, particularly via the Local Government Act 1972 which specified exactly what was in England). Berwick has never been included in the full name of the United Kingdom. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 01:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia, the Wales and Berwick Act 1746 says: The Wales and Berwick Act 1746 (20 Geo. II, c. 42) was an act of the Parliament of Great Britain explicitly expressing that all future laws applying to England would likewise also be applicable to Wales and Berwick-upon-Tweed (historically a royal burgh in Scotland) unless the body of the law explicitly stated otherwise. The Local Government Act 1972 reformed local government in England and Wales including Berwick-upon-Tweed. However, though laws applying in England apply in Berwick-upon-Tweed and, for administrative purposes, Berwick-upon-Tweed is treated as part of England, that does not mean that, formally, Berwick-upon-Tweed is actually part of England (which is supposed to explain the longer form of the United Kingdom title). I suppose that two things need to be done: to find out whether the longer title has ever been used (determining whether it is true that a peace treaty with Germany was signed in 1987 would establish this) and whether a legal form for the title of the United Kingdom has ever been laid down.

A few points which may be of interest:

1. In defining jurisdictions for EU law purposes, Berwick-upon-Tweed is mentioned separately: In the case of English courts this comprises England, Wales, Berwick-upon-Tweed, and those parts of the sea claimed as territorial waters.
2. Supposedly: "Under the terms of the Treaty of Perpetual Peace between Henry VII of England and James IV of Scotland in 1502 Berwick was given a special status as being 'of' the Kingdom of England but not 'in' it. As a result the town thereafter needed special mention in all royal proclamations and treaties."
3. Supposedly: "The Scottish king, James IV, who was anxious to marry the new English king Henry VII’s daughter, bowed to superior force and, in the 1502 Treaty of Perpetual Peace with England, agreed that Berwick would continue to be administered by England, while specifically remaining a part of Scotland. This curious mediaeval anachronism has never been corrected, not even long after Berwick ceased to have any military importance, and it remains the situation to this day. Berwick upon Tweed is still under English administration, but the purely administrative border at Lamberton, 4 kilometres to the north of the town, has no constitutional significance. The Scotland-England border at this point is still the mouth of the River Tweed, as it has remained legally for almost eight centuries, and is the starting point for Scotland’s marine border. At no time has Berwick ever been transferred to England."

-- ZScarpia (talk) 03:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The WP article also says that the Wales and Berwick Act was repealed in its entirety in 1978. As other users have made clear, the title of the UK is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, lets please not waste any more time on this matter as the title of the United Kingdom is not in dispute. So no matter what the history of this issue is or legal jurisdictions or changes, the fact remains the title of this country is given to it in the Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act 1927, no change to the United Kingdoms name has been made since that point and all international organisations and countries recognize our nation as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. They cant all be wrong :\ BritishWatcher (talk) 12:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, the Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act 1927 appears to make the legal situation clear. -- ZScarpia (talk) 12:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

International recognition isn't what counts in assigning a name on Wiki. The country internationally recognised as "Ireland" is called "Republic of Ireland" on Wiki because most British editors seem to feel that the actual name of the country implies a claim on Northern Ireland and further they seem to feel that this political pov justifies calling the article by a different name than the name of the country. So if Berwick-upon-Tweed is in the local (British) legal title that would be sufficient to have it included in the name of the article. Sarah777 (talk) 22:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Ireland v ROI

I changed a caption in the article to read that 'Republic of Ireland' is the official description of the state of 'Ireland'. I did so based upon this [1]. Have I interpreted this statement incorrectly? --Pretty Green (talk) 12:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The name of the state is Ireland, an historical description was ROI but there is a complex history since. The item is under discussion with Arbcom mediation and I suggest you go there, rather than raising a highly controversial issue on this page. --Snowded (talk) 12:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Umm it seems very clear to me, Pretty Green you are correct. It quite clearly states the description of the state of Ireland is "Republic of Ireland". BritishWatcher (talk) 12:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Your change was this:

The Republic of Ireland is the constitutional description of the state currently named Ireland)

That is a completely false statement. The term Republic of Ireland does not appear in its constitution and is not the constitutional description of the state. MusicInTheHouse (talk) 12:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Apologies, I would not had made the change if I was aware that there was an ongoing debate around the issue. It seems prudent to wait for other policy discussions to conclude before considering further changes. --Pretty Green (talk) 13:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposal

Hi, this is a very good article. I wanted to make one proposal and get consensus before going ahead with it. I like the Euler diagram and although abstract, gives a clear picture of the terms. It is also good in the colors used to differentiate political versus geographic units. If we can agree that the coloring is appropriate, can we use that color system on all the existing and any future diagram and graphic. This would be consistent and would raise the level of clarity several levels. Please let me know what you guys think.Gary Joseph (talk) 12:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Newcomer

Greetings, please forgive this intrusion by a newcomer at the top of this page. I found the article rather long but in almost all respects accurate, but am depressed by the volume of 2-3-year-old talk below here, most of which relates to older versions of the article. Would someone care to archive most of the discussion? I note that there already three archives!! As far as I can see, only the first 2-3 sections and the last 2-3 are recent and discussion on the current page would be easier if that were done.Sussexonian (talk) 08:34, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I saw this page in Wikipedia:Database reports/Long pages (warning: very long page) and archived all of the inactive discussions from 2006 through 2008. There is an {{tl|archiveme}} template which can be used to draw attention to such pages, but I don't know how many editors notice it. (I refactored this section to move it into chronological order on the page.) — Athaenara ✉ 05:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

GBNI

I see thatUser:Britisher has added the term GBNI as an acronym for Great Britain and Northern Ireland (which I have moved to a less in-your-face location). As a source, he cites the Free Dictionary. Is this notable? I see that at Wiktionary, a Mr Taz has also recently added GBNI, but has failed to provide any texts in which it is used. So is there any evidence of real usage anywhere in a notable document? --Red King (talk) 18:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Diagrams

A discussion regarding the Euler diagram is taking place at Talk:British Isles#Diagrams. Of interest also may be an RFC on (essentially) the same matter at Wikipedia:British Isles Terminology task force/Channel Islands. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 03:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Somebody should move the Isle of Man left in the Euler diagram to make it more schematically accurate. Doremo (talk) 06:04, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Maps

Surely the map captioned "British Islands" should read "British Isles" and the map captioned "British Isles" should read "Britain and Ireland"? Ireland (the sovereign state) is not part of the British Isles. Sarah777 (talk) 21:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't want to see the existing ones modified, as your point is a partisan one, but why not add additional ones for "Republic of Ireland" and something like "Britain and Ireland" as well, as these concepts are discussed? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 22:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The maps are correct:

• "British Isles" is a term in physical geography, so covers the land masses of Great Britain and the island of Ireland.
• "British Islands" is a UK legal term, defined as the UK and the Crown Dependencies (currently enacted in Schedule 1 to the Interpretation Act 1978).

This is explained in the article: #The British Isles, #British Islands.

— Richardguk (talk) 01:37, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but there's no reason not to add ones for other discussed definitions, surely, as that is the whole purpose of the article. Clearly there isn't one cast-iron and universally accepted definition, hence the controversies. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 14:01, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Northern Ireland

In Terminology_of_the_British_Isles#The_United_Kingdom, these two sentences contradict each other - (1) "Due to historical precedent, England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales are countries and nations in their own right (although none of these is sovereign today)." (2) "Northern Ireland is sometimes described by United Kingdom citizens as a province of the United Kingdom, which derives from the Irish province of Ulster, which Northern Ireland is part of. This epithet is also applied because it originally was part of the UK as part of Ireland rather than as a constituent country or nation in its own right. "

There's been discussion at Talk:United_Kingdom#Re_National_Government about this as well.

The problem is clearly that Northern Ireland is not a nation or a country - the struggle is to find a way to talk about the status of the devolved government of NI in Wikipedia in the same sentence as Wales and Scotland, which clearly are historic nations.

I know this is controversial, so I'm not rushing to do a rewrite, but we need one, surely? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:02, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Its been extensively discussed and the evidence assembled at Countries of the United Kingdom, if you look at the pages of all four you will see that they are described as countries, but there is some variation in the NI lede. The UK government now uses country and the NI Assembly has substantial power. Yes its sensitive, yes its been extensively discussed and the current language represents an agreed compromise. I recommend looking through those prior debates. If there is some new evidence then by all means reopen it, but I for one am reluctant to go through all the same arguments all over again. --Snowded ^TALK 08:40, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Describing Northern Ireland as being a country and/or nation "in its own right" is simply unsupportable. The word "country" is commonly used to refer to the constituent parts of the UK and, in that context, Northern Ireland is frequently referred to as being a "country". "In its own right" though is unsupportable except through fringe perspectives, such as Ulster nationalism.

There are a preponderance of references that show that the constituents parts of the United Kingdom are often called "countries". There is also a series of citations on both the Northern Ireland and Countries of the United Kingdom talk pages that demonstrate that, "in its own right", Northern Ireland is not considered a country - and never has been - and indeed the idea that would be is flatly refuted by reliable sources.

The UK central government also (more frequently?) uses "region", "province", and "part of the United Kingdom" to refer to Northern Ireland. These are the terms used by the Northern Ireland Executive (I have yet to hear the NI Executive use "country"). The UK submission to the 2007 United Nations Conference on the Standardization of Geographic Names defines the United Kingdom thusly:

The United Kingdom is a constitutional monarchy consisting of four constituent parts:

• 2 countries: England + Scotland
• 1 principality: Wales
• 1 province: Northern Ireland

There are no defining terms given to the constituents parts of the UK in UK law. --RA (talk) 09:24, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

We had an extensive debate about this before and agreed a way round the issue for Northern Ireland on the article page itself, which means it is now slightly different from Wales, Scotland and England. Its clear that Northern Ireland has no status as a country in any sense before the partition. Language use has changed since, and the powers given to the Assembly are substantial and country is now used, but not as extensively or naturally as it is for the others.

We also know that direct editing on this and related issues before reaching agreement on the talk page is a recipe for edit warring, loss of temper etc. etc. So can we please resolve it here first please --Snowded ^TALK 09:48, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I know it's controversial Snowded, which is why I didn't change it and I am not trying to open up the whole debate about the actual status of Northern Ireland. I am just pointing out that the current sentences are self-contradictory. I think it neeeds describing more accurately - agreed that it is a case where it is not a historic country or nation, but now has some of the appearances of a constituent country (according to some sources and the UK government in some instances, but not others) whilst still having a somewhat disputed status. At the moment, the article completely contradicts itself within two sentences. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:21, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree it needs changing - was trying to think of something earlier but got distracted by conference calls. I am sure between us we can come up with something --Snowded ^TALK 10:24, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) We had an extensive discussion about this before. I recall it was like talking to a brick wall.

I accept that "country" is a term frequently used to refer to the consistent pats of the UK (particularly in the UK itself) but please do not use words out of context to imply more to them than is meant or to forward a particular agenda. Please refer to the reliable sources that you have been provided with, including the one above, where the UK government define Northern Ireland as being a "province" (post devolution). --RA (talk) 10:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

That's slightly off-topic RA, because I am not attempting to get a discussion going on the current status of Northern Ireland, just on two apparently completely contradictory sentences. For what it's worth though, I don't find a submission on naming conventions by the OS to be a particularly compelling source. My general impression is that the current UK government websites studiously ignore and evade the question of the exact status of Northern Ireland - I just spent half an hour reading the NI Executive, Assembly and First Minister/Deputy websites and there is absolutely nothing there that categorically defines the status question. But, as I say, that's essentially irrelevant since it's not what I'm seeking to discuss - if you want to open a status debate, please open a new talk section. Thanks. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:38, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Brick walls? Lets have a bit a WP:AGF shall we, some us lived through a long term and finally mediated settlement that cost a lot to put in place and someone just coming in and making changes without looking back to that understandably got resistance. I agree with James here, lets resolve the inconsistency and then the overall issue of country can be raised again, if you really really want to. --Snowded ^TALK 10:44, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

@Jamesinderbyshire, you're quite right in all you say except that the substance of the contradiction is the question of what we call the constituent parts of the UK. In particular, the supposed "consensus" that the constituent parts of the UK are "countries" at all times and in all places.

The UN document is not "definitive", but in the context of the same old web pages that are wheeled out by the "countries with a country" brigade, it is noteworthy - not least since it addresses an international conference on what to call places, which is the question at hand.

@Snowded, do assume good faith. (And you know better of me, though I am exasperated from this same argument.) You know I read through the discussion and the "mediation". It focused a great deal on what was the case for England, Scotland and Wales (and in particular what would benefit the POV being pushed by editors from those places and how their seemingly-contradictory POVs could be reconciled). It focused little on what was the case for Northern Ireland, or what POV problems it would create with respect to Northern Ireland.

Enforcing that supposed "consensus" to described all the constituent parts of the UK as "countries" in all times and all places, and nothing else, even where it is unsuitable (which, of course, in the logic of the "consensus", it can never be), is not in the interest of the project. --RA (talk) 11:37, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

proposal

How about just deleting "Due to historical precedent, England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales are countries and nations in their own right (although none of these is sovereign today)" its not necessary and the relevant material is better covered elsewhere? --Snowded ^TALK 12:22, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

That would seem correct. It an unreferenced and very strong statement. With particular reference to Northern Ireland, it is easily contradicted by reliable sources. --RA (talk) 12:39, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree about deleting that sentence - it also doesn't read very well and is obviously some earlier attempt to meet the complexities that could be better put. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:41, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. The status of these places has not been defined by any authoritative body. (The submission to the UN describing Northern Ireland as a province is dubious, apparently conflating it with the larger area of Ulster.) Any statements should therefore be descriptive and attributed, rather than unqualified assertions. — Richardguk (talk) 15:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree. It is not for us to present a definitive answer to these questions. We can say who says what, when, and how. Only once in a while can we say "why". But we should not choose one over another and pass it of as definitive. Not least because in real life, there is no definitive answer to these questions. --RA (talk) 16:29, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

The description of the NI as being a province for the sole reason as it being associated with Ulster IMO is inaccurate and is not the whole truth. It is a province of the UK in the normal sense of the word province - i.e. a small UK administrative region. IrishBriton (talk) 17:31, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

True also. Can be referenced specifically an being meant in that sense by the Michael McGimpsey quote on Talk:Countries of the United Kingdom (the same quote simultaneously says it is also a province of Ireland). --RA (talk) 17:38, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I've noticed the same half-truth being made several places on Wikipedia, notably on Northern Ireland itself. I think the section called "Alternative Names for Northern Ireland" on Northern Ireland also is full of similar half-truths and clichés that attempt to often inaccurately divide terminology into "unionist" and "nationalist" when more common ground also exists. If get time will update this assuming no objections IrishBriton (talk) 02:10, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Problems with use of terms - England

I changed the following

"The word "England" is often used colloquially and incorrectly in countries outside of the UK to refer to Great Britain - or the United Kingdom as a whole..."

to

"The word "England" is often used colloquially and incorrectly in England and countries outside of the UK to refer to Great Britain - or the United Kingdom as a whole..."

the other day, and it was undone. I neglected to add a justification. One would be citation 40, "In practice, many people outside of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland incorrectly use 'England' to mean Britain...", do I need to supply another?

92.23.157.223 (talk) 22:12, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes. You need to provide a citation (preferably more than one) to show that people in England use the word to refer to Great Britain or the UK. The offline citation you give lacks context, and is open to more than one interpretation. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

(Original Poster) How about citation 29? 40 and 39 seem to be good enough for the text that they refer to, which is the section I modified. In fact, adding "England" surely makes more sense given that the citation states the same thing implicitly.195.166.81.205 (talk) 11:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Whilst some in England do say "England" when referring or thinking about Britain, that is certainly more rare today than with people from outside of the UK saying it. If use "within England" is going to be mentioned a clear distinction needs to be made. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:44, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Stating an opinion that "The majority of English people still behave as if 'English' and 'British' are synonymous" is quite different from saying that people actually think that the terms are synonymous. The Mikes quote is intended to be funny - he was a humorist - and the Freedman quote is out of context and ambiguous. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Try a Google search on "England is an island" and select a few suitable citations from the 1 million+ results. Porius1 (talk) 11:45, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

"British" may most definitely also mean of the entire British Isles archipelago

Sorry, Snowded, but I object to your reversion of the edit that I have made. The preceding version completely misunderstood and over-simplified the complex unionist and British identities. Here is a slightly modified version for how I think it should be:

However British can be an ambiguous term - in a specifically physical geographical sense, British can be used to refer to the island of Great Britain or to the British Isles archipelago. Members of the Unionist communities in Northern Ireland would describe themselves as British - even though they are not on the island of Great Britain, they are within the British Isles, and would usually associate with the political identity within the United Kingdom and and/or a cultural identity throughout the whole archipelago.

Unionist by definition means someone who supports the union with Great Britain - therefore "would" is definitely not too strong a word - *all* Unionists in NI by definition *would* consider themselves British.

Secondly, "British" may most definitely mean "of the British Isles" archipelago - it's in the name of the archipelago itself (the name which precedes all modern political entities in the isles)! Note that I have stressed that this is *not* a political definition, but one of a the common geography and culture which most certainly exists throughout the isles. This of most definitely what I and others Irish Unionists mean when we sometimes describe ourselves as British. I'm sure some people from the Isle of Man would most likely use "British" in this context as well, as they are not technically from the UK - it would be interesting to hear from some of our Manx friends.

Now, I also understand that there will be some Irish Republicans (and we've most certainly already seen them shouting in force all over Wikipedia) who have a "chip on their shoulder" about the word "British" and try and get this context censored - let me make it clear that being "British" as from the archipelago is not a political definition and in no way means ownership of the Republic of Ireland by the UK. Note that this is exactly the same as some Unionists in Northern Ireland objecting the to word "Irish" because the southern state decided to call themselves "Ireland" (for this latter reason I have modified the text above to include an "and/or a cultural identity throughout the whole archipeligo").

In conclusion, the words "British" and "Irish" have near-identical parallels - they are both ambiguous, and just because some highly politically driven editors wish to censor certain contexts of their use does not mean that Wikipedia should comply with such censorship. IrishBriton (talk) 17:31, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but you need to review your history. British historically applied to the island of (Great) Britain, but has in recent years extended to Northern Ireland (and not without controversy in the Olympics). It does not and has not applied to the archipelago. I suggest you address evidence rather than making general accusations as to the motives of other editors. If you check out other related debates you will find Unionists arguing for "Northern Irish" rather than British by the way --Snowded ^TALK 05:45, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, let's get motives out of the way - I will be clear about my motives instead of disingenuously trying to hide them - I am an N. Irish Unionist, and feel that this article inaccurately attempts to describe my identity (and that of many others that I know) - in some ways I feel it also has a bias which attempts to even undermine my identity. I can see from your talk page that you are a Welsh Nationalist/separatist who would most likely like to eventually disown some of your British links. Let's also not kid ourselves, one glance at the British Isles article reveals that non-objective and patently political warring has gone on there due to competing political ideologies - it's logical to predict the same here. I, however, respect all of these varying identities, and just feel that all identities should all be given their fair representation.

Anyway, getting back to the point - I know my history very well thank you very much. The archipelago contains "British" in its very name, and has been named as such 1600 years ago by the Greeks, therefore ignoring politics and looking at pure geography, someone of the archipelago can also consider themselves to have a geographically British identity (NB: identity and sovereignty are not the same). British has undeniably referred to *all three* of Great Britain, The British Isles, and the United Kingdom depending on context. The political anomaly has occurred after Southern Irish independence when a separate sovereign state has been created within the archipelago - understandably when declaring independence (though perhaps showing their insecurity) Irish Republicans have tried to disown the word "British" and many other associations with the former Great Britain & Ireland political state in all forms - this in no way should mean that a 1600 year-old non-political usage should be binned for those Irish who are not insecure, nor for those like myself who do not care about political correctness and recognise the things that we have in common within the archipelago rather than those that separate us. "British" has not been "in recent years extended to Northern Ireland" - it has covered this area for centuries, but in the last century has been politically reduced to exclude part of Ireland.

As for the Olympics, I don't see what your point is here nor why that should matter - the Olympics is a patently political event, and I am discussing a geographical and cultural term. Though, if you must discuss sport, another example of a similar sporting event using the term is the Lions rugby team; here is a quote from the article on the British Lions rugby team: "After the Republic of Ireland became independent in 1922, the team continued to be termed the British Isles, one argument being that the term "British" referred to the British Isles, rather than British in the sense of being a citizen of the United Kingdom" The recent name change in 2001 to "British and Irish Lions" is merely a shift from a geographical (pre-partition also political) to a purely political description as a mark of goodwill and political correctness to placate any insecurity felt by Irish Republicans due to ambiguity. Geographically, however, "British" would have still been valid.

And I have no idea what point you are trying to make about "Northern Irish". Unionists from Northern Ireland are unequivocally *both* Northern Irish (geographical, cultural and political) and British (geographical, cultural and political), with many also identifying with "Irish" (geographical & cultural). As already acknowledged, the latter is also disowned my many unionists due to the political "hijack" of the words "Irish" and "Ireland"(political context) by the Republic of Ireland Government. I consider myself all three depending upon context... and that brings this long essay to a conclusion, the last word of the previous sentence is key - CONTEXT. People taking semantics out of context in this very complex issue is where any controversy originates - this is something you are ignoring in your purely political argument!! IrishBriton (talk) 01:58, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

It is a very long essay and irrelevant. Please find a reference from a reliable source that shows that "British" can be applied to the whole British Isles. --Snowded ^TALK 07:11, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Your points about the early names for the British Isles are already well covered in the Historical Aspects section IrishBriton, I can't see anything that changes them significantly. The precise etymology and historical extent of British and it's predecessor variants is pretty hazy and contested at best and the pre-modern sources on the subject scanty. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 11:56, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

So, yet again we conclude with the bleedin' obvious; no archipelago including sovereign Ireland can be termed the British Isles. Why the endless denial? Sarah777 (talk) 00:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. There's a difference between "most definately", "maybe" and "no archipelago including... etc ... "can be termed". Clearly lots and lots of people do term it "British Isles" and have done for a long time - this bit was about people terming the people who live in these islands British in early history, not the obvious point that they often are called the British Isles. No amount of disagreement with the term British Isles is going to remove it from sources. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 08:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

This article seems to completely ignore the fact that the term British Isles is controversal (as mentioned in that article) and to ignore the ROI's preferred term Britain and Ireland. I'm not feeling bold enough to wade in here, though. As an aside, if you read Small Island, you'd see that the Jamaicans considered themselves British so maybe they should be part of the historical British Isles too? --Chuunen Baka (talk • contribs) 08:51, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

You seem to have forgotten to read the Terminology of the British Isles#Problems with use of terms section, which includes a convenient link to British Isles naming dispute . . dave souza, talk 10:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

That's fairly deeply buried. The term British Isles is used about 20 times in the article before there's a mention of it being controversial. --Chuunen Baka (talk • contribs) 10:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Weak section

This section is very weak and needs improving. --Triton Rocker (talk) 16:48, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminology_of_the_British_Isles#Problems_with_use_of_terms

Please ensure that you discuss any significant proposals to change the article here, rather than edit warring or making accusations against other editors. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:17, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

British Isles template

A editor has raised the question of removing the ability to pipe link the title of the British Isles template. Currently, on this page, it pipe links as [[British Isles|The British Isles - or Great Britain, Ireland & the Isle of Man]]. The editor would like this ability to be removed.

Discussion is taking place here. --RA (talk) 08:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Ulster section is factually incorrect

The Province of Ulster as a nine-county entity does not exist in "official" law as the section claims. Not in Irish or British law. It is essentially an irridentist claim of Greater Dublin nationalists. The Province of Ulster as a nine-county entity existed in law from the 16th century creation of the Kingdom of Ireland (when the counties were originally shired) until the 1920s at partition.

While Ulster as a kingdom covering much of the north did exist earlier in history (though was much reduced itself in the 5th century after internal fighting, leaving Down/Antrim area as the Kingdom of Ulster for much the rest of the Middle Ages until the Normans showed up), some of the areas which the Tudors shired as counties for the Province of Ulster had never previously been part of an Ulster kingdom; for example County Cavan (which was part of a sub-kingdom belong to Connacht).

So to user the claim "official" and "is", in relation to a modern day nine-county Ulster is incorrect. To use terms such as "traditional" or "historic" is too ambigious, because it fails to mention the specific early modern (16th century) defining of such an entity. - 90.215.164.30 (talk) 20:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Sources? ~Asarlaí 20:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

To use the term "official" as you stated above is not accurate to say the least - in this I agree. However, Ulster is a nine county province and/or a six county province depending on point of view. The fact that many organizations are based on the 9-county province attests to the fact that Ulster is indeed still a 9-county province (albeit divided between two sovereign states) - eg. the GAA, Ulster Rugby, etc. are all based on the 9-county model. Even UTV, while based in Belfast and being a Northern Irish television station, often includes Donegal, Cavan and Monaghan on such items as the weather forecast as well as local news. Then again, many Unionists prefer to treat only the 6 counties of Northern Ireland as Ulster, and as such, reject the inclusion of the three southern counties typically included in the 9-county model (e.g. UUP). I would support the deletion of the word "official" but would maintain the word "is" should remain. --MacTire02 (talk) 20:34, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. ~Asarlaí 20:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Britain

The article as presently written is incorrect. While the term "Great Britain" should not be used when referring to the UK, "Britain" is acceptable - the Guardian guide, already referenced, says that "Britain" is the officially sanctioned shortening of "United Kingdom". I don't know if the book is still published but this was clearly stated in successive annual editions during the 1990s of the British Government publication Britain: an official handbook.Headhitter (talk) 15:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed - Britain = the short hand for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland so it is not incorrect. Whilst GB is meant to only be about the island, the fact GB is used by certain organisations and has some international recognition makes it questionable how "incorrect" that is too, id day its more inappropriate than incorrect. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:19, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The inappropriate use of GB seems to be limited to sporting organisations, Americans and philatelists. Headhitter (talk) 23:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Sports section

What I thought was a modest and uncontroversial change to a paragraph has been reverted by a quarrelsome user who habitually reverts edits that have anything to do with Northern Ireland, and demands that the editor "seek consensus". This is a very tiresome approach to developing Wikipedia content - reverts should only be made if there is something actually wrong with the edit, but the user concerned finds it easier to revert than to discuss. However, knowing that the user concerned will continue to revert unless I comply, can I ask here if anyone objects to changing:

The constituent countries of the United Kingdom often compete separately in international competition as nations (and can be described as "the home nations"). For example in association football, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England play as nations and are officially referred to as nations.

In most sports (e.g. rugby union and cricket), players from Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland play as one Ireland team in international competitions.

to read as follows:

England, Scotland and Wales often compete separately as nations in international competitions, as does Northern Ireland in association football; in these contexts the various parts of the United Kingdom are sometimes described as "the home nations". In other sports (e.g. rugby union and cricket), players from Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland play as one Ireland national team in international competitions.

Rationale for the change: (1) it avoids the controversial usage "constituent countries"; (2) it more accurately singles out soccer as the exception, not just an "example". Any objections? Brocach (talk) 13:55, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Bold, Revert, Discuss is in common use, as you should by now be aware. Please be civil and comment on content, not on the user. Daicaregos (talk) 15:10, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I generally support Brocach's proposed wording, and think it improves the text, with one caveat - that is, I question whether, in the second sentence, the word "national" after "Ireland" is necessary or helpful, particularly as it is implicit in the reference to "international" competitions. How about "...play together as an Ireland team in international competitions." Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:26, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Fine with that suggestion Ghmyrtle. Brocach (talk) 16:00, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm content with either versions. GoodDay (talk) 16:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I will now go ahead with the change. @Dai - God knows I do strive to be civil, and I always stay within WP rules, but in this particular instance an improving edit was more or less immediately reverted by someone who has since affirmed that he/she is actually content with it - it seems to me that reverts should only be deployed when there is actually some problem with the edit, and that it is not a good use of valuable electrons to have to justify every little tweak via the talk page. If an edit is OK, other editors should let it stand, and if they feel an RV is required, they should state a reason. Brocach (talk) 16:27, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Such complaints should be brought here, in future. GoodDay (talk) 16:42, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

@GoodDay - With respect - if you are saying that when you pointlessly revert something that not even you regard as wrong, the 'victim' must take it up with you privately, I can't quite agree. My preference would be that discussions about actual content of WP entries should be conducted in public on the relevant talk pages - if, and only if, there is something about an edit that requires discussion. Good edits should not be challenged. If you persist with time-wasting reverts of good edits, here or elsewhere, you should expect your behaviour to attract attention on the talk pages. Brocach (talk) 17:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I haven't been the only one reverting your changes (which aren't minor changes) on Wikipedia. But very well, I'll avoid 'reverting' you in the future. GoodDay (talk) 17:20, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks; but I'm not asking for immunity from reverts, only that good edits by anyone (minor or otherwise) be allowed to stand. Changing or reverting a poor or incorrect edit, with a reason given in the summary field or in talk, is fine. Brocach (talk) 17:50, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I realize 'now', that I shouldn't have reverted your change, unless I opposed it. Sorry, my big blunder. GoodDay (talk) 18:56, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Cricket blurring nationalities

Just wanted to mention of the 'England and Wales Cricket Board' having a team officially called 'England' and that the team would (as I understand it) still be called England even if all players happened to be from Wales. And that (according to the link above) Scotland was also subsumed into 'English' cricket until 1992. EdwardLane (talk) 11:45, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Channel Islands

The inclusion of the Channel islands renders the article implicitly political. They are geographically islands of the coast of France a la the Ile d'Oléron. The only thing "british" about them is the British Queen as the local Duchess. The Faroe Islands are more geographically British than the Channel Islands. The islands should be excluded or the article should be amalgamated with the British Isles naming dispute article so as to recognise the biased nature of the geographical term. (Stpaul (talk) 18:31, 9 March 2011 (UTC))

On the contrary. They speak English (along with a local language) and culturally they are clearly part of the group. ðarkuncoll 19:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Not to mention religious connections, history, currency etc. etc. The article is explicitly about geography and politics. It only becomes overtly "political" in nature if we allow unverified non-mainstream opinions to predominate. Ben MacDui 19:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

"Double nationality"

I was a bit surprised to read that "Athletes from Northern Ireland have by virtue of their double nationality the choice of participating in either the "Great Britain" team or the "Ireland" team." This sounds wrong to me. Surely natives of NI have just one nationality - British - don't they? They aren't also ROI nationals, are they? 86.184.110.34 (talk) 17:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

They can be, if they so choose. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 18:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, thanks, I never knew that. I suggest the text is change to read "... by virtue of their entitlement to dual nationality ..." (as well as adding "entitlement", the usual expression IME is "dual nationality", not "double nationality"). 86.184.110.34 (talk) 19:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The terms for the British Isles in the Irish language

The dictionary cited in this section does not give the translation claimed, so I'm removing it as a reference - I'll find another reference for the Irish translation. I'm adding the correct name and date of the book referred to and editing a couple of sentences (added four years ago) in relation to the translation that IMHO don't add up and don't seem to appear anywhere else in the article. Hohenloh ⁺ 12:01, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Footnote 32

Footnote 32 is cited as a source for the claim that the Romans never called the inhabitants of Britannia or Hibernia "Celts." I think if one follows the link, it will be shown not to meet the requirements of RS. To my knowledge, the Romans never called the inhabitants of Hibernia "Celts," that is, Galli or Celtae, but they do seem to have thought of some of the peoples of southern Britain as Celts, as indicated by Julius Caesar. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:33, 22 June 2011 (UTC)